[-] HQ Relocation Option

[George Bush]

I understand the rules for airplanes outside of HQ and the thought process behind this. Should prevent larger players from dominating the earth... I say should most of the smaller companies or late starters pick smaller airports and due to the restriction cannot ever expand to the level of the larger player.

What I propose is this if you meet the criteria at your current HQ (that being less than 100 planes), and have a base at an airport that you want to relocate to that for a large fee you can relocate your staff and HQ. This would allow late starters to be able to move into bases when larger players BK at those bases. It would also add a new strategic element to picking your starting location.

[Tha_Ape]

This could be very interesting option indeed, and somewhat similar to what could happen IRL.

However, it will need a lot of limitations not to abuse it:
 - being under 100 A/Cs as you propose seems fair (not too large, nor ridiculously small). 100 in total, including frames leased out.
 - someone can't artificially reduce his fleet to go under 100
 - having no other base than the current HQ
 - former HQ is closed as upon decision, only the new HQ remains
 - the need to reschedule all planes makes a strong bank account absolutely necessary (all ops in the former HQ cancelled - no cash until the new routes build up), and makes it a dangerous move
 - possible only once in an airline's life

I was thinking initially that the airline could keep its former HQ as secondary base, but I think it would make it too easy: you want it to be daring, starting a new airline with a fair amount of aircrafts but also no income for some time, while the money continues to go out.
Great opportunity, but at greater risks.

[MuzhikRB]

I would be add to this that after relocation company should pay double income tax for 3 years.

Also all back office staff from original hq should be fired. Leading to money and CI losses.

[Tha_Ape]

I would be add to this that after relocation company should pay double income tax for 3 years.

Also all back office staff from original hq should be fired. Leading to money and CI losses.

Wouldn't it be strange? Useless in some situations and absurd in some others?
I mean, in countries where income taxes are 0% they'd stay at 0%, and where taxes are at 40% it becomes 80%.
And 80% for 3 years... Way too much. That plus the rest... Would kill anyone.

As for the staff, not sure, I'd say no. But the CI hit could be a thing, yes.

[paddk989]

The basic concept as stated by the original forum poster, and the reasons he gave for his proposal, deserve serious consideration. It would be interesting to see the results of a vote on the proposal by the player base, if that could be arranged.

[George Bush]

Wouldn't it be strange? Useless in some situations and absurd in some others?
I mean, in countries where income taxes are 0% they'd stay at 0%, and where taxes are at 40% it becomes 80%.
And 80% for 3 years... Way too much. That plus the rest... Would kill anyone.

As for the staff, not sure, I'd say no. But the CI hit could be a thing, yes.

I think a base relocation would mean a significant hit as a good % of the workforce, and local economy of the former would be affected. Maybe a 25%-35% CI hit.

I think taxes doesn't make sense as most companies get a discount to move ie Amazon, but it would be expensive so make the fee very high to relocate.

[Zobelle]

Wouldn't it be strange? Useless in some situations and absurd in some others?
I mean, in countries where income taxes are 0% they'd stay at 0%, and where taxes are at 40% it becomes 80%.
And 80% for 3 years... Way too much. That plus the rest... Would kill anyone.

As for the staff, not sure, I'd say no. But the CI hit could be a thing, yes.

I had enough reserves to take that loss for three years no problem if I could have relocated my HQ to MIA I would have even at this cost.

[George Bush]

I had enough reserves to take that loss for three years no problem if I could have relocated my HQ to MIA I would have even at this cost.

HQ relocation would be a good cash burner for folks with a huge reserve all in all another good reason.

[Tha_Ape]

I had enough reserves to take that loss for three years no problem if I could have relocated my HQ to MIA I would have even at this cost.

In current GW#2? Yes, sure, but you also was waaaaaay above 100 planes.

This option would rather be made for players still relatively close to their start, as it implies no more than 100 planes and one sole base (the HQ). Players that didn't have 30 years to collect $ here and there (but who would still have a good financial situation, otherwise it would be too easy).

[wilian.souza2]

I propose something way more flexible: we could  simply move our HQ to a base where we have the most aircraft. I have this problem in GW2, where I established in a smaller airport because of fear of competition and restricted slots, but now the bulk of operations are in another airport, the one I always wished to operate. I know I'm far from the limit of 600 aircraft out of HQ, but what if I grow to such a size? So we could do this no matter our age - I'd do this once in tha airline's lifetime at a price of $500M and some CI drop.

[alexgv1]

Before base airports were a thing (if I recall correctly), there was an option under Office to Rebase Airline alongside Rebrand Airline. There were some certain restrictions, possibly a maximum airline age. Would you be interested in having this feature reinstated?

[Tha_Ape]

I propose something way more flexible: we could  simply move our HQ to a base where we have the most aircraft. I have this problem in GW2, where I established in a smaller airport because of fear of competition and restricted slots, but now the bulk of operations are in another airport, the one I always wished to operate. I know I'm far from the limit of 600 aircraft out of HQ, but what if I grow to such a size? So we could do this no matter our age - I'd do this once in tha airline's lifetime at a price of $500M and some CI drop.

Don't know how much you have in the bank, but 500M is peanuts. Wasted it already on cancelled orders etc. Not really a problem for large airlines, and the purpose of this feature would be to allow small and young airlines to relocate to some better HQ, not to make the powerful more powerful.

I wasted more than 500M in the 70s already. And 500M in 2010 is even a comparatively smaller amount of money.

Shouldn't be related directly to a specific sum of money (even if a fee is applied) but rather to % and progressive costs like CI, ops to re-build, low income for a while, etc.

Your proposal would just make it a gift for big boys.

[Zobelle]

In current GW#2? Yes, sure, but you also was waaaaaay above 100 planes.

This option would rather be made for players still relatively close to their start, as it implies no more than 100 planes and one sole base (the HQ). Players that didn't have 30 years to collect $ here and there (but who would still have a good financial situation, otherwise it would be too easy).

Actually once I scuttled the DC9 I was below 100 ships.

[Tha_Ape]

Actually once I scuttled the DC9 I was below 100 ships.

Yep, but my idea of that proposal was to reserve it for relatively young airlines that want to grow in the future.
You've been above 100 planes already even if now you're down to 90? Not possible.

Otherwise I'd run a large regional airline somewhere in the Midwest then bam, all of a sudden, I bomb-open some large hub. -> needs a little more continuity.

I agree that your change of strategy in GW#2 was hindered by your HQ, and that Miami would be much better, but your idea that tool, if put into powerful hands (both by experience and former size of the airline) would just make it an instant killing machine.

Should more be some kind of a promotion for small airlines.

[wilian.souza2]

Don't know how much you have in the bank, but 500M is peanuts. Wasted it already on cancelled orders etc. Not really a problem for large airlines, and the purpose of this feature would be to allow small and young airlines to relocate to some better HQ, not to make the powerful more powerful.

I wasted more than 500M in the 70s already. And 500M in 2010 is even a comparatively smaller amount of money.

Shouldn't be related directly to a specific sum of money (even if a fee is applied) but rather to % and progressive costs like CI, ops to re-build, low income for a while, etc.

Your proposal would just make it a gift for big boys.

I gave $500M as an example. I don't have $500M in the bank, and never had. And of course the costs should be proportional to the airline size, I agree with you when you say it should be related to progressive costs. These costs should be balanced on implementation so they couldn't be prohibitive for smaller airlines but not cheap for the largest.

Other rules for relocation I think reasonable are that: 1) the player could relocate only to one of the airline's existing bases, 2) the chosen base for relocation should be operating more aircraft than the current HQ and 3) it could be done only once.

Before base airports were a thing (if I recall correctly), there was an option under Office to Rebase Airline alongside Rebrand Airline. There were some certain restrictions, possibly a maximum airline age. Would you be interested in having this feature reinstated?

I'm a relatively new player and didn't know this possibility ever existed.

[Zobelle]

500m....

I consider myself broke any time my balance below 2bil, personally. Needless to say, When 762ER launch, I was “broke”.

[Sami]

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,72580.0.html