[ok] Staff attrition

[DanDan]

During the course of many years, staff levels need to be changed. In many cases, one needs to add staff, so there is no problem, one just hires people. In some cases, one is downsizing though, and in this case, one needs to fire people. Now this of course can be the case, but, one gets a CI penalty.

In real life, a lot of the downsizing in companies is done through staff attrition: people leaving the company for another employer or retiring. There is no such thing in AWS.

I think there should be something like this: about 5% of employees leave a company per year.

[wilian.souza2]

This will cause big problems to CEOs who set their game not to hire staff automatically. If he doesn't appear in a week, he may find his airline crumbling because of a huge strike. In current system, no matter how many staff an airline has, one employee missing in any area is enough to make some CI damage; I have lost 20 CI points in a span of just one night because of lack of staff.

[George Bush]

This will cause big problems to CEOs who set their game not to hire staff automatically. If he doesn't appear in a week, he may find his airline crumbling because of a huge strike. In current system, no matter how many staff an airline has, one employee missing in any area is enough to make some CI damage; I have lost 20 CI points in a span of just one night because of lack of staff.

Alternately the folks not doing it manually suffer a similar CI hit when they chose to cut the fat. So it would shift the big problem more than cause.

[Zobelle]

I hire manually, adding staffs as I add routes/ships.

[Talentz]

I have to say that I don't really care about staff or their costs. If it goes up, it goes up.

Bring in more revenue and that cost becomes minor. If staff costs are your biggest concern, then your airline strategy is at fault, not the system.


Talentz

[DanDan]

I have to say that I don't really care about staff or their costs. If it goes up, it goes up.

Bring in more revenue and that cost becomes minor. If staff costs are your biggest concern, then your airline strategy is at fault, not the system.


Talentz

its not the staff costs. its the CI impact of firing staff that is annoying.

[wilian.souza2]

If this is the problem, it's more reasonable to ask for less CI impact when firing staff. There was a time I fired 15% of my staff (during the GW2's fuel spike in 1981) and, besides the 45 points or so of CI hit, my airline almost entered a downward spiral of flight delays/cancellations due to unmotivated staff fueling more CI drop. It took more than a year to recover.

I personally defend that firing up to 2-3% of your staff shouldn't cause CI hits.

Manual staff balancing is another issue. If you manually try to move 1 person from one base to another, the system counts the 1 person you moved out from a base as a firing an boom, CI drops. That's ridiculous!

[JumboShrimp]

I think this is a good idea - for the system to automatically (say once per quarter) reduce the staff numbers down 1% if the current staffing is above  100% on Manual 101% on Auto.

[Sami]

This is basically a good idea. Also since generally "old" companies have "older" workforce and they tend to be more costly. You also might have certain extra pensions you have agreed to pay in the past and this drives the staff costs up. Compared to a new company where you might hire only relatively inexperienced staff and pay less. And when time goes by the company gets older and the staff gets seniority benefits etc. But modelling that is rather difficult and probably not worth it.

The idea by Jumbo is good and could be implemented. And for the sake of management done so that it never goes below 100% to avoid too much micromanagement.