Rule change/clarification for discussion

[schro]

Generally, I don't feel strongly that the existing system needs to be tweaked. I feel like we have a tendency to make rules for the sake of rules. If anything the game has been tilted to protect less successful airlines/less experienced players over time (some changes have improved the game, some I would question, but that's for a different thread). The problem with making such rules is that they frequently don't help them actually become better players because BKing (or almost BKing) is one of the strongest learning tools that exist. Without having gone through those scares in the early days, I wouldn't have learned as much as I did.

That being said, tying the sale price to book value is a terrible idea. Book value is purely an accounting amount, affected by purchase price, depreciation, etc. If one airline paid full price for a plane and another purchased in bulk and got the 20% (or more) discount - their book values would be different. Why should the amount they would be able to sell the plane for be different. If we want to add a rule that if you buy an aircraft from another airline, you can't sell or scrap it for x period. one year sounds reasonable to me.

If the issue is really that we are trying to avoid airlines helping each other, the mechanism we are doing this is horrible. We are creating convoluted game play rules to achieve an end that is not possible. We say the purpose of alliances is to help each other. So why not let them help each other. Allow alliances to fund loans to distressed airlines to use how they see fit. If I have the money and want to throw money into a sink hole - then why shouldn't I be allowed to do it. I have spent many games (not recently due to rule changes) of having competitors receiving this benefit and i can't say that it made the game less fun, or more fun. It just was a different challenge. I don't regret that in any way.

So if we want to prevent alliances from helping each other, or really any airline helping any other, then we should prevent airlines form selling planes to each other. I mean that's the logical conclusion of all of this. But does that make sense? Of course not.

So what is the answer? If we are really concerned about struggling airlines getting unfair help, make a simple rule, that an unprofitable airline (however defined) can no longer sell assets to other airlines. Does that make sense? Of course not.

So...i disagree that additional changes are necessary, but if we have to do something, what I propose is that if the airline is unprofitable, it can't sell assets above market price to alliance airlines. it's clear, simple, and loosely solves whatever problem we are trying to solve.

Interesting perspective. I agree that additional rules/constraints need to be put in place rather than get a clarification of an existing rule. When I read the current rule about repeated sales to other airlines that generates profits/money for only one airline, I interpret that as "buy junk to scrap" sorts of transactions are not permitted. However, we've not had that explicitly stated in the game rules, therefore, it's a point that needs clarification. If such transactions are allowed, then great, I'll join in the fray. If they're not, then that needs to be made clear that those types of transactions fall under the existing rule.

Of course, alliancemates should help each other out - and even the occasional plane here or there to be bought for scrap isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is when there's say, a billion bucks a quarter going down that sinkhole.

[Zobelle]

Generally, I don't feel strongly that the existing system needs to be tweaked. I feel like we have a tendency to make rules for the sake of rules. If anything the game has been tilted to protect less successful airlines/less experienced players over time (some changes have improved the game, some I would question, but that's for a different thread). The problem with making such rules is that they frequently don't help them actually become better players because BKing (or almost BKing) is one of the strongest learning tools that exist. Without having gone through those scares in the early days, I wouldn't have learned as much as I did.

That being said, tying the sale price to book value is a terrible idea. Book value is purely an accounting amount, affected by purchase price, depreciation, etc. If one airline paid full price for a plane and another purchased in bulk and got the 20% (or more) discount - their book values would be different. Why should the amount they would be able to sell the plane for be different. If we want to add a rule that if you buy an aircraft from another airline, you can't sell or scrap it for x period. one year sounds reasonable to me.

If the issue is really that we are trying to avoid airlines helping each other, the mechanism we are doing this is horrible. We are creating convoluted game play rules to achieve an end that is not possible. We say the purpose of alliances is to help each other. So why not let them help each other. Allow alliances to fund loans to distressed airlines to use how they see fit. If I have the money and want to throw money into a sink hole - then why shouldn't I be allowed to do it. I have spent many games (not recently due to rule changes) of having competitors receiving this benefit and i can't say that it made the game less fun, or more fun. It just was a different challenge. I don't regret that in any way.

So if we want to prevent alliances from helping each other, or really any airline helping any other, then we should prevent airlines form selling planes to each other. I mean that's the logical conclusion of all of this. But does that make sense? Of course not.

So what is the answer? If we are really concerned about struggling airlines getting unfair help, make a simple rule, that an unprofitable airline (however defined) can no longer sell assets to other airlines. Does that make sense? Of course not.

So...i disagree that additional changes are necessary, but if we have to do something, what I propose is that if the airline is unprofitable, it can't sell assets above market price to alliance airlines. it's clear, simple, and loosely solves whatever problem we are trying to solve.

Well said. Applause!

[Talentz]

Money laundering is against the rules, in whatever form you figure out how to get away with it. No matter how you try to explain it, its still wrong.

~ Whatever agenda you cling too, is perfectly fine. Still doesn't make that action correct. But its ok. It's your choice.

Rules/regulations exist to punish those who seek to undermine the "free market/free will" people howl about.

If you want the choice to be still possible, I'm ok with that as well. If you get caught doing nefarious actions, don't cry about the punishment when it happens.

If your arguing about there not being consequences to your nefarious actions, you are truly dreaming. Cause that's not happening folks ~


Talentz 

[dmoose42]

Money laundering is against the rules, in whatever form you figure out how to get away with it. No matter how you try to explain it, its still wrong.

~ Whatever agenda you cling too, is perfectly fine. Still doesn't make that action correct. But its ok. It's your choice.

Rules/regulations exist to punish those who seek to undermine the "free market/free will" people howl about.

If you want the choice to be still possible, I'm ok with that as well. If you get caught doing nefarious actions, don't cry about the punishment when it happens.

If your arguing about there not being consequences to your nefarious actions, you are truly dreaming. Cause that's not happening folks ~


Talentz

I disagree with this in its entirety. Rules/regulations exist to protect the losers from an entirely free market. They do not exist to punish those that are looking for a free market. Many regulations can be argued support 'fair competition' but then it's a question of what is deemed to be fair or not. Now my personal view is that a good number of rules/regulations are needed to protect market abuses, but I am not under the illusion that those protections protect a 100% free market, they are designed to facilitate certain outcomes, one of which (in AWS terms) is to minimize the competitive advantage achieved by size. There is no way that you can argue the current commonality penalty system is designed to support a free market. It is designed a gameplay mechanism to force difficult choices (airlines of all sizes) and has a growth inhibitor on the largest airlines.

In regards to money laundering, how is buying a plane money laundering...Per wikipedia (obviously the best source for everything)..."Money laundering is the process of transforming the profits of crime and corruption into ostensibly "legitimate" assets." If i buy an airframe from another airline at more or less market value, how is that money laundering? I think that it is a gross misuse of the term and implies a level of criminality that is not commensurate with the actions of either party. Most of the times i have been involved in assisting other airlines, it has been less about the gain/profit on selling the airframe, it's more about ensuring a rapid sale to provide liquid funds quickly. If it then takes me a year to sell he plan and recoup my funds, I don't care, but to the struggling airline, they couldn't wait a year. To me that's a liquidity issue, not a money laundering issue.

Separately, if you are arguing that i was implying that i personally was behind whatever nefarious actions you are referring to, I take offense to that. If you were making a general statement against those that break the AWS rules, then I agree that whatever the rules are, agree or disagree, if you break them, then you have to live by the consequences of your actions.

[dmoose42]

Interesting perspective. I agree that additional rules/constraints need to be put in place rather than get a clarification of an existing rule. When I read the current rule about repeated sales to other airlines that generates profits/money for only one airline, I interpret that as "buy junk to scrap" sorts of transactions are not permitted. However, we've not had that explicitly stated in the game rules, therefore, it's a point that needs clarification. If such transactions are allowed, then great, I'll join in the fray. If they're not, then that needs to be made clear that those types of transactions fall under the existing rule.

Of course, alliancemates should help each other out - and even the occasional plane here or there to be bought for scrap isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is when there's say, a billion bucks a quarter going down that sinkhole.

I agree that whatever rules there are, they should be transparent. My core question, is what are we really trying to solve for - because we can argue whether or not a rule is good or not, but if we don't know what behavior we are trying to promote/eliminate, it's hard to determine if the rule achieves said objective.

PS:If you are trading A380's a billion bucks happens pretty quickly, but is definitely a sinkhole!

[Talentz]

I disagree with this in its entirety. Rules/regulations exist to protect the losers from an entirely free market. They do not exist to punish those that are looking for a free market. Many regulations can be argued support 'fair competition' but then it's a question of what is deemed to be fair or not. Now my personal view is that a good number of rules/regulations are needed to protect market abuses, but I am not under the illusion that those protections protect a 100% free market, they are designed to facilitate certain outcomes, one of which (in AWS terms) is to minimize the competitive advantage achieved by size. There is no way that you can argue the current commonality penalty system is designed to support a free market. It is designed a gameplay mechanism to force difficult choices (airlines of all sizes) and has a growth inhibitor on the largest airlines.

Mmm.. then we have disagreeing points of view. Your loser* to me is a player with the same level playing field as any other player. What happens after that is the free market. I would like to point out propping up a losers* airline buy shuffling money to them isn't supportive of fair competition either. I feel you agree with that point. The philosophical debate on rules/regulations and there iffy support of fair competition is for another thread. Reason being:

In regards to money laundering, how is buying a plane money laundering...Per wikipedia (obviously the best source for everything)..."Money laundering is the process of transforming the profits of crime and corruption into ostensibly "legitimate" assets." If i buy an airframe from another airline at more or less market value, how is that money laundering? I think that it is a gross misuse of the term and implies a level of criminality that is not commensurate with the actions of either party. Most of the times i have been involved in assisting other airlines, it has been less about the gain/profit on selling the airframe, it's more about ensuring a rapid sale to provide liquid funds quickly. If it then takes me a year to sell he plan and recoup my funds, I don't care, but to the struggling airline, they couldn't wait a year. To me that's a liquidity issue, not a money laundering issue.

That is entirely correct. A terrible misuse of the word. Money transferring is a better fit. Money transferring is against AWS game rules in some forms, but not clearly in all clever forms possible. Money transferring is what the debate is about. I support the opinion that buying/scrapping in mass is money transferring, thus against the game rules.

Separately, if you are arguing that i was implying that i personally was behind whatever nefarious actions you are referring to, I take offense to that. If you were making a general statement against those that break the AWS rules, then I agree that whatever the rules are, agree or disagree, if you break them, then you have to live by the consequences of your actions.

Of course it was a general statement, if you read it as a personal attack on you, my apologies.

Talentz

[MuzhikRB]

just ban plane trade to any other human player if the plane age is 15+.

[MuzhikRB]

I disagree with this in its entirety. Rules/regulations exist to protect the losers from an entirely free market. They do not exist to punish those that are looking for a free market. Many regulations can be argued support 'fair competition' but then it's a question of what is deemed to be fair or not. Now my personal view is that a good number of rules/regulations are needed to protect market abuses, but I am not under the illusion that those protections protect a 100% free market, they are designed to facilitate certain outcomes, one of which (in AWS terms) is to minimize the competitive advantage achieved by size. There is no way that you can argue the current commonality penalty system is designed to support a free market. It is designed a gameplay mechanism to force difficult choices (airlines of all sizes) and has a growth inhibitor on the largest airlines.

Free market also means - "free to die".
in open market - losers will fall.
IRL there is no fleet commonality (3 fleet restriction) for sure, but in AWS there are no shareholders, that will suck up every possible penny from you. that the main limit in company growth. the bigger you are - the more taxes/dividents you are gonna to pay. so you will have very little portion of it to invest into yourself.

returning to game... imagine you are playing single player game - what would you do if you need cash now? sell the plane, but AI will not buy not needed plane with 200% above market value for sure. then why in AWS it is normal ?

[gazzz0x2z]

just ban plane trade to any other human player if the plane age is 15+.

Nah. I've sold and outleased countless old airframes on the UM(for players who obviously needed them), sometimes I did lease a few. This possibility is kickass for short term needs. don't cause more harm than good.

[MuzhikRB]

I say nothing about lease Gaz.

only about selling 15+

[Zombie Slayer]

I say nothing about lease Gaz.

only about selling 15+

A 15 year old plane still has 9 years of realistic life left.

[VitoNg]

I say nothing about lease Gaz.

only about selling 15+

In cargo gameworld those old birds maybe useful for cargo-only players. They want cheap aircraft to do the job.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

What a long thread.

Then we removed one more alliance benefit.
Lets remove selling planes to each others for flying aswell ? to level the playfield even more, as the rule only benifit the strong airlines, in big alliances that can give a player 3-4-500 727 320 what so ever inside a 5 years time.  A player can have won a base, the opponent is struggeling but suddenly he get 300 planes in from his alliance buddies in a few years span, while the leader in the base, only has his own lines to get from and will need 10 more year to get same number and planes, he also probally will bk on it.

How is this more fair/unfair then buying out old planes for scrap ?  if you get planes or cash is same same ? it change the playfield.
Sure the buyer is forced to pay overprice due to alliance minimum often is 40-70% higher then book value after those 3-5 years wait for the spots in line.
But still he gets a 10 year headstart compared to the one needing to get all the planes himself.
So even as money transfer is now allowed we can also have the one airline know he will struggle after jet introduction, he han then plan to buy 50 727 and sell them for max alliance price. Atm im selling some 727 to one of our members, at minimum alliance price, thats 18.769 million, my book value is 11.7. already there we have a 7 mill profit so on 50 of them that would be 350 mill. But alliance max is atm at 28.153 mill. so at max price a struggeling player could  earn just under 16.5 mill pr frame and in total for 50 822 million.
Thats some money moving to get the member able to pay bills and order his own new planes ?. So not only do the player that get his 300 planes 10 year ahead of his competitor a big advantage by having these planes, the pals selling him 50 each could if sold atm earn more then double of what he paid himself pr frame on the sale. Thats some money movement isn't it ?

Often the loosing player in a base that ends op needing others to buy the old planes, has been hold down and stamped on by this.

To me its both or nothing that is  either forbidden or allowed.

[Dasha]

So according to some people here, as an alliance member, you are not allowed to help out your fellow alliance member by buying a plane and scrapping it immediately.



And I thought Trump was an imbecile...

[schro]

So according to some people here, as an alliance member, you are not allowed to help out your fellow alliance member by buying a plane and scrapping it immediately.

Well, there's a rule on the books (that has been there for years) that prohibits cash transfers/one-sided transactions. It doesn't explicitly say that such transactions are not permitted, however, the substance of the transaction looks a lot like a cash transfer/one-sided transaction. Therefore, there's this discussion thread about clarifying and providing interpretation as to whether this practice violates the rule.

From the way you wrote your reply, you appear to believe that such transactions are not representative of a cash transfer/one-sided transaction.

[MikeS]

I'm still fairly new to the game and wasn't aware that so much tactical movement was going on between airlines.

Reading through the discussion it appears to me that it boils down to whether Team Play should be allowed. The alliances themselves don't
really have much technical effect on the game. They are more about team play and helping each other out.
Seeing that no one really complained about the rules as they stood before the discussion started, it's probably best to allow team play to continue as is.

This game has many passionate long term players and playing in teams with some tactical manuevering does give a lot more long term appeal I suppose.
New entrants undoubtedly suffer from stiffer competition at the major hubs, but there are always some easy bases to start out from.

Just my opinion

Cheers!
Mike

[schro]

Reading through the discussion it appears to me that it boils down to whether Team Play should be allowed. T

I'll strongly disagree with your assessment over what the discussion is about (or at least, should be about). There's nothing against team play in the rules. There's nothing against helping other players get aircraft from the market, route sharing agreements, sale/lease back transactions and other means on help. The game would not be nearly as fun or enjoyable without that level of "team play", nor does the original post reference banning any of those things.

[Dasha]

Well, there's a rule on the books (that has been there for years) that prohibits cash transfers/one-sided transactions. It doesn't explicitly say that such transactions are not permitted, however, the substance of the transaction looks a lot like a cash transfer/one-sided transaction. Therefore, there's this discussion thread about clarifying and providing interpretation as to whether this practice violates the rule.

From the way you wrote your reply, you appear to believe that such transactions are not representative of a cash transfer/one-sided transaction.

If it's not allowed to help an alliance member, for example by purchasing his/her old scrap metal, what is the point of being in an alliance in the first place? There's no passenger benefit, not connecting passengers, no financial benefit. Might as well remove the whole alliance option then no?

Besides, buying aircraft from an alliance member is already limited to alliance minimum or maximum. I honestly don't see the problems in financial aid to alliance members, or anybody for that matter.

[Tha_Ape]

I believe that we first need to put the right words on what's this or that.
Helping another airline is one thing, and I think (and hope) it's always gonna be allowed.
On the other hand funding another airline is quite different and not accepted by game rules.

The problem is that both helping and funding are based on the same thing: money (wether it's cash, cheap planes or else).
So the difference is not the nature of the exchange, but rather the amount exchanged.

There will always be a grey zone, as defining wether something is still "helping" or already "funding" is quite hard. That limit will always remain impossible to draw clearly, as values change over time, and proportions are different, based on the companies' sizes. But at least we can try to define things a bit more.

So we're trying to discuss wether this or that is considered as allowed or not, and possibly to try to reduce the grey zone. Based on what happened in GW#2 where an airline bought dozens (don't remember the exact amount but it's huge) of ready-to-scrap planes from a fellow alliance member that was in difficulty. Was this helping or funding?

I think no one will complain if I buy 2 or 3 or even 10 planes above market prices from someone in my alliance to help him. But when that number reaches 100 or 200 planes, the practice is a tad different, as we're not talking about 20 or even 100 millions (GW#2 value), but about hundreds of million $ if not billions.

That's also the topic: when do we enter the grey zone, and when do we clearly enter in what's prohibited. The enforcement is then another topic.

[Dasha]

Funding is helping. No problems with that. Happens all the time in real life as well.