AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Rule change/clarification for discussion  (Read 7208 times)

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2017, 01:38:39 PM »
An idea for some mechanics to curb excessive unrealistic trading practices:

 - Airline score take a hit for each sale/purchase below/above market prices. It should effect both trading airlines. The higher the difference to market value, the higher
   the penalty to the airlines' score. It can recover slowly again with time.

 - Score penalty to Alliances when an airline leaves alliance.

 - Airline score take hit for scrapping aircraft less than 25 years old. Again, the bigger the difference the bigger the penalty

Mike

I sure am glad you’re not a developer for this game.

That 25 year bit pretty much would stop someone from using ANY Russian aircraft.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4216
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2017, 01:44:21 PM »
(.../...)
That 25 year bit pretty much would stop someone from using ANY Russian aircraft.

Bar the SSJ, but with a fuselage designed by Boeing, half-french engines, and all western avionics, is it still a russian plane?

(I'm still waiting for the MC21, though, this baby seems kickass IRL, a near B757-100 replacement with far better turnaround times).

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4460

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2017, 01:51:30 PM »
An idea for some mechanics to curb excessive unrealistic trading practices:

 - Airline score take a hit for each sale/purchase below/above market prices. It should effect both trading airlines. The higher the difference to market value, the higher
   the penalty to the airlines' score. It can recover slowly again with time.

 - Score penalty to Alliances when an airline leaves alliance.

 - Airline score take hit for scrapping aircraft less than 25 years old. Again, the bigger the difference the bigger the penalty

Mike

Yet, each of those practices that you describe are realistic and will apply to nearly all players playing the game within the parameters of the rules. Also, item 2 already exists in the form of a CI penalty when leaving an alliance.

Online MikeS

  • Members
  • Posts: 853
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2017, 02:12:52 PM »
but if implemented on a sliding scale, they would only really hurt when abusing the system. Kind of like making shareholders angry for taking bad decisions.

(by the way: selling aircraft below their value is not realistic, neither is scrapping a young air frame)

It would be more effective than rules, because who will actually enforce the rules. As a player, we cannot really see the offender and I doubt the moderators have
the time to supervise at that level

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4460
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2017, 02:16:30 PM »
but if implemented on a sliding scale, they would only really hurt when abusing the system. Kind of like making shareholders angry for taking bad decisions.

(by the way: selling aircraft below their value is not realistic, neither is scrapping a young air frame)

It would be more effective than rules, because who will actually enforce the rules. As a player, we cannot really see the offender and I doubt the moderators have
the time to supervise at that level

Well, we don't have a clear rule right now, hence this thread existing to discuss the clarification of such a thing.

With respect to "young" plane scrapping, there's plenty of reasons to scrap early - 1. If its russian. 2. If it's over 20 years old and has a D check due. 3. When you're done using the plane and there's no likelihood of a market sale of it (i.e. a 10 year old 727-100 in the year 2000). The older the plane is, the less its scrap value, so why would you park it for 25 years to get a smaller payout when you can get a bigger one with no storage costs at year 10?

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4216
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2017, 02:24:05 PM »
(by the way: selling aircraft below their value is not realistic, neither is scrapping a young air frame)

The lifespan of an IL12 is 5-6 years, not 25 years. It was painful to park them in the desert before scrapping them at the 10yo mark.

Don't get we wrong : the IL12 served me well. But being penalized just because I found CV240s of F27s to replace them, and I need to scrap them? What the hell??? I had 80 of them, I think, covering all small routes around Poland with them. Half of my fleet at the time. but before even they'd reach the 1st D-Check, they were outdated and good for scrapping.

And for the other point, it's perfectly realistic to sell airplanes as min. for the simple reason that outdated planes are very hard to sell. I've got a few 8-years old starliners back from lease, their book value is 8M$, their min is 4.5M$, and I'm waiting for the price to go as low as 2.8M$ before having a hope of selling them. Outside alliance, of course. I just want to get rid of them, at a price that potential buyers/lessees find low enough to be profitable.

In previous GW3s, I've sold hundreds of CRJs within a few years when replacing them with A148s. At a price far below the normal. At normal price, noone would have bought them. I was very glad to get at least some small money from them.

So no, your solutions to punish low-price sale and early scrapping are not fair. They are punishing normal behaviours driven by market and financial mechanics. I've done both in massive numbers while playing perfectly alone, without coordination with anyone else.

Offline Jake S

  • Members
  • Posts: 313

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #86 on: December 14, 2017, 02:57:47 PM »
And for the other point, it's perfectly realistic to sell airplanes as min. for the simple reason that outdated planes are very hard to sell. I've got a few 8-years old starliners back from lease, their book value is 8M$, their min is 4.5M$, and I'm waiting for the price to go as low as 2.8M$ before having a hope of selling them.
How do you think i feel? Been trying to get rid of some BAC's for 1/3 of the purchase price and two years later no one is stepping it up :-\

"People who invest in aviation are the biggest suckers in the world."

Online MikeS

  • Members
  • Posts: 853
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #87 on: December 14, 2017, 03:26:44 PM »
The lifespan of an IL12 is 5-6 years, not 25 years. It was painful to park them in the desert before scrapping them at the 10yo mark.

Don't get we wrong : the IL12 served me well. But being penalized just because I found CV240s of F27s to replace them, and I need to scrap them? What the hell??? I had 80 of them, I think, covering all small routes around Poland with them. Half of my fleet at the time. but before even they'd reach the 1st D-Check, they were outdated and good for scrapping.

And for the other point, it's perfectly realistic to sell airplanes as min. for the simple reason that outdated planes are very hard to sell. I've got a few 8-years old starliners back from lease, their book value is 8M$, their min is 4.5M$, and I'm waiting for the price to go as low as 2.8M$ before having a hope of selling them. Outside alliance, of course. I just want to get rid of them, at a price that potential buyers/lessees find low enough to be profitable.

In previous GW3s, I've sold hundreds of CRJs within a few years when replacing them with A148s. At a price far below the normal. At normal price, noone would have bought them. I was very glad to get at least some small money from them.

So no, your solutions to punish low-price sale and early scrapping are not fair. They are punishing normal behaviours driven by market and financial mechanics. I've done both in massive numbers while playing perfectly alone, without coordination with anyone else.

I think we jumped too far into the details. The idea is to link somehow player actions on buying/selling/scrapping to the airline score. Players obviously care a lot
more about their score than about their bank account. So I think it would be an effective way to deter excessive money transfers.
The details of the exact mechanics would be a separate project that would need a lot of care and attention to detail.
 
Some random thoughts:
The acceptable age for scrapping could be variable. The older the era, the lower the life span. Plus players could adapt by e.g. leasing Soviet aircraft instead
of buying them. The book value of aircraft could also adapt to market conditions accordingly. So if your Starliner above had a book value of 8M$ while market
value is 2.8M$ Then proper accounting standards would dictate a downward adjustment in the books, then selling them cheap wouldn't affect score.
Same goes for your CRJs. Only that their price would adjust slowly downward as the market gets swamped with them. Selling (actually, dumping) "hundreds" of used CRJs at below market rate can also be tough on small airlines that were counting on selling their few frames at more normal rates.

Anyway, the details are another matter. There are so many situations that can be affected one way or another with any change. We'll just have to adapt our game
play accordingly

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #88 on: December 14, 2017, 04:00:37 PM »
Or we could keep playing as we do and police ourselves against “unfair” play... without the red tape of new restrictions and rules.

New rules only serve to make new ways to get around them and then we’re right back to square one.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #89 on: December 14, 2017, 06:04:00 PM »
Or we could keep playing as we do and police ourselves against “unfair” play... without the red tape of new restrictions and rules.

New rules only serve to make new ways to get around them and then we’re right back to square one.

You just put your finger where it hurts: how could we police ourselves if we don't consider the same things as fair or unfair?

I'll say "that's unfair, stop it" and you'll answer "nope, go to hell". Or the contrary. And where does that lead?

Sami edicts some rules, but beyond this, there is really few enforcement, and this is not his job.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 06:06:55 PM by Tha_Ape »

Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 987
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #90 on: December 14, 2017, 08:26:31 PM »
basically I like the idea of CI hurting while doing non-market things.

if you buy AC and scrap it right away - your CI will hurt, wait one year CI will hurt less till 4-6 years of span (as example)
the same like with personnel firing



Summarize what I have read - no rule will not work until it will be backed up by game scripts.
If no script - that control and punish for non-market deals - remove the rule.

Offline SP7

  • Members
  • Posts: 114

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #91 on: December 14, 2017, 09:31:14 PM »
This has wandered into some strange territory. Why are we designing weird and complicated rules when the most basic of rules (alliance members cannot reside in the same base) aren’t automatically disallowed?


The base issue is whether or not to make the practice of selling aircraft for an excessively high price for no other purpose than a cash transfer should be against the rules. If yes, change the language and make all aircraft transactions viewable/searchable by airline. Problem solved.


At this point if the language isn’t modified we should just all proceed as though this is a valid tactic like sale/leasebacks.

Offline bdnascar3

  • Members
  • Posts: 251
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #92 on: December 14, 2017, 11:52:13 PM »
This has wandered into some strange territory. Why are we designing weird and complicated rules when the most basic of rules (alliance members cannot reside in the same base) aren’t automatically disallowed?




+1    And then when you complain your told nothing can be done about because it's not automatic.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16941
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #93 on: December 17, 2017, 10:21:28 PM »
The base issue is whether or not to make the practice of selling aircraft for an excessively high price for no other purpose than a cash transfer should be against the rules. If yes, change the language and make all aircraft transactions viewable/searchable by airline.

The current rule text: "Members are also forbidden to effectively transfer money between their member airlines by for example repeatedly selling and buying aircraft between each others. Normal one-time sales of aircraft is naturally allowed but transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable."

In reference to my original post, the spirit of this rule has been about disallowing selling the same plane back and forth to transfer money. While now the common practise has been to use like 20 different planes and sell each of them once, in order to stay under the radar better (or it is just more convenient as it takes less time). But in my mind it is still the same thing, whether two or twenty planes are used.

This rule has been in force for a long time and there have been a couple of cases related to this. Penalty for the rule violation has been at least that the airline receiving the benefit has lost the money he has gained (this will remain the same).

Wording of the rule will be changed so that it will be made clear that mass sales of planes (or bouncing one plane back and forth) from airline to another (or with a group of airlines) with no intention of actually using them in any other means than transfer money is prohibited (one-sided deal where the other airline is clearly having a benefit). Reason: This is un-businesslike behaviour and does not happen in reality. Text will be also moved away from alliance chapter in order to make it clear it applies to everyone. This won't have any negative effect on actual legitimate intra-alliance aircraft sales (incl. sale/leaseback deals) where the planes are actually being used (= key point: buy/sell/lease aircraft as much as you like but just have a good use for them; like with airport slots).

What will be done is a) publish the selling price information of all aircraft transactions where player has bought the plane from another player (this information has been logged for quite some time already); will be shown on aircraft history page, b) include a new listing at airline information page that shows the latest aircraft transactions for that airline (let's say 20-30 latest deals he has made) giving a quick overview on what's happening. There won't be for now any (more) automated restrictions or changes since they are complicated.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 10:29:46 PM by Sami »

Offline dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #94 on: December 17, 2017, 10:34:51 PM »
Sami, thanks for the clear articulation of the new approach. I think the approach of increased transparency is a better way to try to identify/solve the problem rather than cumbersome and potentially ineffective additional rules. I'm onboard!

Let's see if it works!

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2017, 11:08:22 PM »
The current rule text: "Members are also forbidden to effectively transfer money between their member airlines by for example repeatedly selling and buying aircraft between each others. Normal one-time sales of aircraft is naturally allowed but transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable."

In reference to my original post, the spirit of this rule has been about disallowing selling the same plane back and forth to transfer money. While now the common practise has been to use like 20 different planes and sell each of them once, in order to stay under the radar better (or it is just more convenient as it takes less time). But in my mind it is still the same thing, whether two or twenty planes are used.

This rule has been in force for a long time and there have been a couple of cases related to this. Penalty for the rule violation has been at least that the airline receiving the benefit has lost the money he has gained (this will remain the same).

Wording of the rule will be changed so that it will be made clear that mass sales of planes (or bouncing one plane back and forth) from airline to another (or with a group of airlines) with no intention of actually using them in any other means than transfer money is prohibited (one-sided deal where the other airline is clearly having a benefit). Reason: This is un-businesslike behaviour and does not happen in reality. Text will be also moved away from alliance chapter in order to make it clear it applies to everyone. This won't have any negative effect on actual legitimate intra-alliance aircraft sales (incl. sale/leaseback deals) where the planes are actually being used (= key point: buy/sell/lease aircraft as much as you like but just have a good use for them; like with airport slots).

What will be done is a) publish the selling price information of all aircraft transactions where player has bought the plane from another player (this information has been logged for quite some time already); will be shown on aircraft history page, b) include a new listing at airline information page that shows the latest aircraft transactions for that airline (let's say 20-30 latest deals he has made) giving a quick overview on what's happening. There won't be for now any (more) automated restrictions or changes since they are complicated.

So others will publicly be able to see my profit/loss on AC sales? :|

What about buying old aircraft and parking to activate achievements? :)

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4216
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #96 on: December 18, 2017, 08:37:49 AM »
So others will publicly be able to see my profit/loss on AC sales? :|

in current GW2, 5points of margin I was doing in brokering last years(it's coming to a brutal end). And? Hiding this profit allows dark, unhealthy manoeuvers. I'm all for transparency. I'm not ashamed of making profit with planes sold at alliance minimum(or even below for customers outside the alliance).

What about buying old aircraft and parking to activate achievements? :)

Well, park your own old crap. Or buy ols metros from the UM, they count as much for the achievement as this alliance maximum IL86.....

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2729
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #97 on: December 18, 2017, 10:21:40 PM »
basically, what is prohibited, is to make profit on planes that one bought before, so why shouldnt there be a simple algortihm implemented:
> if you want to sell a plane, it is checked if the plane has been sold in the last 12 months, and if so, the maximum price is the book price.
> optionally, it can never be sold at a higher price than purchased from another real airline (brokers and manufacturer excluded), because in any case like that, there would be a money transfer on something that is really not worth so much (depreciation and so on)


and when it comes to transparency: would be great if ticket prices would be transparent (like in airline-empires, if anyone knows that, where you can also see how price changes really changes customer behaviour and isnt just decoration) since that is usually more easy to check for anyone irl.
[and that way also the kindergarden-rules on small airlines and new entrants (you have to hug them twice a day and are not allowed to compete with them) can be really enforced]

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #98 on: December 18, 2017, 10:46:19 PM »
Another overly complicated “answer” for a question no one asked.

If it takes more than once sentence to explain then it isn’t worth implementing.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 11:00:17 PM by Zobelle »

Johan87

  • Former member

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #99 on: December 19, 2017, 12:17:48 AM »
Not knowing the ticket price is good,you also not know what seats your competitor uses(HD,standard or premium)
If all is open then you just copy paste,what fun is that?

basically, what is prohibited, is to make profit on planes that one bought before, so why shouldnt there be a simple algortihm implemented:
> if you want to sell a plane, it is checked if the plane has been sold in the last 12 months, and if so, the maximum price is the book price.
> optionally, it can never be sold at a higher price than purchased from another real airline (brokers and manufacturer excluded), because in any case like that, there would be a money transfer on something that is really not worth so much (depreciation and so on)


and when it comes to transparency: would be great if ticket prices would be transparent (like in airline-empires, if anyone knows that, where you can also see how price changes really changes customer behaviour and isnt just decoration) since that is usually more easy to check for anyone irl.
[and that way also the kindergarden-rules on small airlines and new entrants (you have to hug them twice a day and are not allowed to compete with them) can be really enforced]

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.