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: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality  (Read 4253 times)

Offline sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 445
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #80 on: January 16, 2020, 11:59:40 AM »
Still need limits on privately listed aircraft. Unlimited opens up to many options that (I) someone would use nefariously. Just for the laughs.

3/10 is fine for open UM (AI broker); 6/10 for private sounds reasonable. That would yield 18 per month private, 9 per month UM. 100% more aircraft in total. Though this would favor the very largest airlines mostly...

I think the biggest thing that whatever limit there is on privately listed acquisitions, that the timeframe is longer. So not x per 4 real hours, instead 6x per real day. So anyone buying privately listed planes can do so by logging in once per day rather than once per 4 hours.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 2189
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #81 on: January 16, 2020, 04:05:35 PM »
Your aim seems to be preventing any one airline from getting new planes at a rate greater than the 2/month they might be able to get from the factory. That means that for any airline with a 500 plane fleet to do a transition, they'll need to spend 20 years on it. Is it simply that you don't like seeing 1000+ plane airlines, and so want to make it non-viable for them to modernise their fleet, go from 500 733 and 734 to 500 737-max?

Negative--the goal is to enable airlines to get new aircraft at an accelerated rate WITHOUT being at the detriment of other players.  Being able to take delivery of new aircraft and replace a fleet at 2-5x the rate of competitors is an unfair competitive advantage.  Under most countries' antitrust laws, what players are doing in the game would be illegal.  I used the CRJ vs. A320 example to show the problem is the same for new aircraft with tons of production slots available and zero production slots available--there is no liquidity and the price is infinity, which never happens in free markets IRL.

It should be viable for an airline to replace 500 aircraft a 5-10 year window without it requiring friends with deep pockets gaming the system.  This thread is ironic because there is talk about "bad fleet planning" being the reason people are getting screwed by the commonality penalties, but the definition of "good fleet planning" is market collusion, which again is an antitrust violation in most countries.  It's like saying Hillary lost to Trump because she didn't plan better--she could have colluded with the Russians or broke some sort of election laws to win, but assuming she didn't and lost it's "bad planning". (disclosure: I'm pretty sure they both broke tons of laws, but you get the point)

The only instrument to create parity seems to be the used market because the previous liquidity issues of pressing F5 repeatedly have been solved.  The 3 aircraft limit should probably be changed to something like 3 aircraft per week or 1% of your fleet size--whichever is larger.  That means an airline with 1000 aircraft could get 10 aircraft per week.  The problem still stands though that those 10 aircraft could come from wholesale deals where an airline could modernize their fleet at 2-5x the rate of a competitor due to exclusive dealings (again, an antitrust violation in most countries).  If there were no wholesale deals and the brokers made the market, they could still do it at a 2-5x rate of a competitor, but it would be because a "free market" with fair competition versus collusion.

Offline Andre090904

  • Members
  • Posts: 1896
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2020, 04:31:51 PM »
@LemonButt

Quote
I'm not going to dissect things word for word, but let's assume alliance members "donate" their production slot rights to another member.  What then?  There are 67 deliveries/month right now for A320 with 137 airlines in alliances at the moment.  Does that basically just mean if you're not in an alliance you will never ever be able to order a brand new A320?  Right now "donating" those slots by proxy requires a capital commitment and the production lines are backlogged for years--it would only get worse if there was no capital commitment required.

The delivery slots are fairly assignated by the system once the launch period of 45 days are over. It would not be any different from now. Any airline can order 50 A320 and get early delivery slots. As soon as the same airline decides to order another 50, delivery slots will be somewhat less attractive. The more orders by the same airline, the further back the delivery will be. This is a feature to avoid exactly what you have described: that big airlines can order tons of planes and "steal" all the early delivery slots.

So even if you are a small airline (or outside of an alliance), you would still be able to get your share of 50 A320 with early delivery slots. And you would also be able to find a supplier who will donate you slots. This feature would not be limited to alliances. And of course ordering these planes does indeed require an upfront payment (just as it does now).

Quote
For production lines with excess capacity, the 100% could be discounted--i.e. an MD90 with tons of open slots could be had for less than 100% down.  This is really the only solution unless new aircraft prices become more dynamic, which would probably just confuse players (i.e. new aircraft prices going up due to excess demand).

The price for new orders are dynamic already. Whenever you buy a new aircraft, there is this little note on the aircraft info page saying (for example): "The price for this aircraft is excessively expensive" or "The price for this aircraft is fair" etc. The prices do adapt according to demand.

Quote
How do alliances abuse the system?  Are you kidding? Airlines IRL don't intentionally order planes for each other to sell wholesale--it's completely unrealistic.  Nor do they jam up production lines with orders for aircraft they have zero intention of operating. Yes, airlines lease out aircraft to other airlines, but it's almost always a situation where they made an acquisition or similar such as Southwest buying AirTran and divesting the B717s to maintain an all 737 fleet. I'm also not complaining that unpopular planes are unavailable--I'm complaining that planes with tons of available production capacity have zero liquidity on the used market because they are so in-demand that every used aircraft is in service. If this happened in the real world brokers would be creating liquidity buying new aircraft. Alas, it's the same issue at hand with fleet commonality etc. in that the system fails to create liquidity, even when there is new aircraft capacity to do so, but more importantly when there isn't. The reason there isn't is because of alliances gaming the system.  It wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that it's a fixed pie and one airline taking delivery of a plane is at the detriment of another airline.  This is literally the exact reason the used aircraft market went from people running scripts to refresh the page every second to the "call" system to level the playing field.

So how are alliances abusing the system? I don't see any argument in there. All alliances is do is to order planes for fellow players. You don't need to be in an alliance to do that. Any player can order and then resell planes. And of course there is no financial benefit from it because the "alliance minimum price" is always higher than the "minimum price". So whenenver an alliance player buys from another alliance partner, it is always more expensive than on the public used market. How is this an abuse? Actually, alliance are in an disadvantage because of that.

Quote
AI Brokers are brokers--they don't operate aircraft.  It's like saying the grocery store and McDonald's both sell beef and it's all the same.  The grocery store isn't selling prepared hamburgers and McDonald's isn't selling raw ground beef.  IRL airlines and brokers are corporations with executives that answer to a board.  If the executives at any major airline said they wanted to risk the company's capital to speculate on aircraft they have zero intention of ever operating it would never happen--they are accountable to shareholders to execute their business plan.  Likewise if brokers said they wanted to start operating aircraft (wet lease being the exception).  This is why requiring 100% prepayment or 5+ year lease when ordering new solves the problem--it more closely reflects the real world where a board would never allow the things that currently happen in the game.

Agreed in a real world context, but not within the game. As I said previously, in the game only big airlines can afford 100% upfront. Meanwhile, leasing brandnew planes for 5 years is economical suicide and small airlines would continue to be small or even get smaller because of the financial burden of leasing new aircraft expensively. It would simply be unfair to the players (those who can afford 100% upfront will continue to grow/be big while those who can't are left behind with old planes or will have to pay expensive leases). So it does not solve the problem, and additionally adds another big problem.

@Muzhik:

Quote
3 years after start some of the companies has 300+ Acs on hand. and we are just started. yes big planes and jets will replace props with 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 rate. but anyway in mid of HAF GW we have 60 companies with 300+ AC fleets.
How quick and what effort it will take to replace aging ACs and adding new fleet for these players?
I run such big monsters several times - its real HELL. I need to open AWS every 4 hours just to buy out ACs from UM from Alliance.
That is the only reason that caused me to pause playing for almost a year.

Exactly. So it's either increasing the weekly aircraft purchase limit on the UM (from 3 per week to 6 per week) as we said previously. Or donating delivery slots between airlines. The latter option requires no logging in whatsoever. It's completely passive/automatic and has the same result. One airline orders planes for another airline. The only difference is that instead of using the used market, planes will automatically be delivered to the designated airline directly from the manufacturer.

Quote
Even now the only thing I ask is not to increase the rate of "receiving" planes. I ask the opportunity to buy all listed privately to me in one time if i have money.
20 listed to me? I want to buy all and let them be delivered at 3 per week - its ok. but at least I dont need to make clicks every 4 hour.

Hmm, fair enough. That would at least remove the necessity of logging in every 3h to keep the transition going. I could live with that, too. Transitions would still take ages, but at least much less waste of time in real life.

Quote
I think the simplest answer, that will upset the least people, and not mess with the underlying dynamics too much, is to increase the 3/week limit every 5 years or so, so that at ten year in the the game it stands at 5/week and at 20 years 10/week etc. Just like out of bases increases.. Perhaps say 50% of the limit is not available on the UM but only on private purchases..

I have to agree with Sanabas.

Quote
I agree with Sanabas : it's even better than andre's idea - it's privately listed, you don't need your staff to work on it. Simple, elegant & efficient. You have your 3 usual shots at the open markets, whether or not you purchase privately listed aircraft, that could be then unlimited.

I've got 4 suppliers for COMACs in current MT. It's a pain to connect every 4 hours to purchase from them. I had 10 listed this morning, still have 7, and it's gonna grow, despite me purchasing as much as I can. I've got 32B$ in cash.

And, more importantly, I'm not drying up the open market. Those planes are reserved to me(and noone else wants C919s, but this is not relevant here - would be the same deal for the guy who purchases me A330s & A321s in great numbers). I should be able to connect in the morning, purchase everything that is privately listed to me, and forget about it and live my real life. Until I can play again, in the evening, or whenever. And not having those planes stockpiling, even though it's just 3 clicks to replace those aging MD88s.

Love it! Buy all privately listed planes at once + maximum of 3 from public listings. Couldn't be easier really. Lets hope Sami reads this. And yes, even 10 planes at once etc. would already be a huge help. The current 3/week limitation is justified by "staff being busy". But if they are private listings with the same conditions for every single plane, there just isn't any extra work to do. The staff would do the paper work once for all 50 planes...
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 04:33:59 PM by Andre090904 »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 2189
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2020, 05:33:52 PM »
Quote
Agreed in a real world context, but not within the game. As I said previously, in the game only big airlines can afford 100% upfront. Meanwhile, leasing brandnew planes for 5 years is economical suicide and small airlines would continue to be small or even get smaller because of the financial burden of leasing new aircraft expensively. It would simply be unfair to the players (those who can afford 100% upfront will continue to grow/be big while those who can't are left behind with old planes or will have to pay expensive leases). So it does not solve the problem, and additionally adds another big problem.

It does solve the problem--if 100% up front is required you end up with far more free production slots that get scooped up by brokers creating liquidity in the used market.  Players will have the opportunity to buy and/or lease the aircraft.  Whether you put up 100% up front or not, you are paying 100% when you take delivery which is what happens on the used market and enables players to modernize their fleet faster.  The only difference is that it's using the broker's capital and there is no exclusive dealing--a win for everyone.  Instead of new players being shut out of the market by collusion, they'll be able to compete on a level playing field.  50%+ of the time the net result will be the same with large airlines getting aircraft an accelerated rates, but it won't be because competitors were shut out of the market and didn't have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  Buying new gives you GUARANTEED delivery--whether you lease or own--but if you opt not to put the 100% up front you aren't guaranteed delivery, but still have access to buy/lease new-ish aircraft on the used market through brokers.

I have never seen 5 year leases from the factory as economic suicide--I have 15 CRJ with 11 of them leased new from the factory with a 1 year old airline and low route images against an established competitor and I'm turning a 5+% operating profit margin already with 100% Y class configs.  If fuel doubled today I'd still be squeaking out a small profit.  I've had wildly profitable airlines with hundreds of aircraft leased from the factory when fuel was $1000+.  It's definitely possible to run a successful airline with relatively expensive leases even when fuel is high.  It goes back to there is more than one way to play the game...

Offline Andre090904

  • Members
  • Posts: 1896

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #84 on: January 16, 2020, 06:39:03 PM »
It does solve the problem--if 100% up front is required you end up with far more free production slots that get scooped up by brokers creating liquidity in the used market. Players will have the opportunity to buy and/or lease the aircraft. Whether you put up 100% up front or not, you are paying 100% when you take delivery which is what happens on the used market and enables players to modernize their fleet faster.  The only difference is that it's using the broker's capital and there is no exclusive dealing--a win for everyone.

Instead of new players being shut out of the market by collusion, they'll be able to compete on a level playing field. 50%+ of the time the net result will be the same with large airlines getting aircraft an accelerated rates, but it won't be because competitors were shut out of the market and didn't have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  Buying new gives you GUARANTEED delivery--whether you lease or own--but if you opt not to put the 100% up front you aren't guaranteed delivery, but still have access to buy/lease new-ish aircraft on the used market through brokers.

Let me explain why you are wrong. An airline paying 100% upfront during launch will get a 10% launch discount, a 6% direct purchase discount and a 20% large order discount. That means any airline with enough cash can get early production slots AND save 36% on the purchase price. Airlines that would get planes from brokers via the UM are in clear disadvantage:

1. No discounts whatsoever
2. Higher purchase prices due to AI brokers adapting their prices according to demand
3. Competition with everyone else trying to get popular aircraft -> slower transitions due to lower availability

So while the big airline can comfortably order planes, get good delivery slots and save 36% on the purchase price, everyone else would not only miss out on the discounts, but also pay higher prices than the actual "new purchase price" because AI brokers will increase prices when there is high demand. And given the popularity of the airplane, not only will prices increase on UM, but availability will drop. Not to mention that rich airlines could also scoop up popular planes on UM themselves (either to speed up their own transitions or to supply alliance members with those scarce airplanes).

It is certainly not a level playing field if smaller airlines miss out on 36% discount, good delivery slots due to heavy competition on the UM and paying high mark-ups by AI brokers due to high demand.

By the way, it is impossible to "shut out competitors from the market". During the 45 days launch period, any airline can place orders and the delivery slots are assignated fairly among all airlines. It's not "first come, first served".

Quote
I have never seen 5 year leases from the factory as economic suicide--I have 15 CRJ with 11 of them leased new from the factory with a 1 year old airline and low route images against an established competitor and I'm turning a 5+% operating profit margin already with 100% Y class configs.  If fuel doubled today I'd still be squeaking out a small profit.  I've had wildly profitable airlines with hundreds of aircraft leased from the factory when fuel was $1000+.  It's definitely possible to run a successful airline with relatively expensive leases even when fuel is high.  It goes back to there is more than one way to play the game...

I just checked the leasing price for a brandnew A321-200 with best engine and range. The monthly leasing price is 1.2 million for one single plane (not to mention 7m in order confirmation). The average monthly revenue of my existing A321-100 (same size) is 1.2m. So the leasing cost would often eat up the entire revenue generated by the aircraft. Not to mention staff, maintenance, fuel, and taxes. In comparison, you could get a used MD83 for 240k a month from UM (and without order confirmation cost).

Even when we take your CRJ200 into account, the leasing price offered by the manufacturer is currently close to 400k a month while equally good (or even better) options are much cheaper. For example you can get used F28-3000 with 5yrs until next d-check for as low as 38k a month. That is next to nothing and would allow any new airline to grow.

So for new airlines, it's pretty obvious that leasing readily available older planes from the UM is the way to go in order to have the lowest possible investment cost while allowing the fastest possible expansion speed. By using those MD80/F28 for a couple of years instead of brandnew A320 series or CRJ (both older fleet types are chapter 3, so no problem with noise chapters) a new airline could cheaply and quickly expand and then buy new planes from the manufacturer later.

Of course a new airline could lease new planes directly from the manufacturer. But not only would the airline have to wait for the delivery slots (wasted time in the crucial first year of an airline), but also would the cost be far higher compared to what's available on the UM. This directly translates into higher investment costs and lower expansion speed.

If there is a rule that usually everyone agrees on, then it is: "lease old, buy new" (and never "lease new, buy old")

Obviously there are different ways to play the game. But some ways are basically like shooting yourself in the the foot. You can do that, but it won't help you at all to move forward.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 06:57:02 PM by Andre090904 »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 2189

The person who likes this post:
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #85 on: January 16, 2020, 07:32:09 PM »
Those A320 numbers don't check out--my little CRJs are producing $1.2m/month in revenue so I assume you confused that with weekly revenue (i.e. would be $1.2m/month lease with $4.8m in revenue).

I think the point your missing is the opportunity cost.  Having aircraft available on the used market with very high prices is a liquid market versus what we have today with no availability where the price is infinity.  This is the same principle in running an airline--if you don't have empty seats on your flights your prices are too low.  Airlines aren't missing out on any discounts because if they were to join the game world today, they'd be at the back of line missing the launch window which is first come/first served and shutting players out of the market--not to mention they can't order tens of aircraft at a time until deep in the game even at the minimum lease.  It's like saying tax cuts for billionaires are also available to the average person once they become a billionaire, therefore it's a level playing field for all.

So this thread is about fleet commonality and the added expenses due to slow delivery--even when colluding with alliance members to increase delivery rates.  These same airlines are getting 20%+ discounts and upset that it's more expensive to have the extra fleet type?  They are still coming out way ahead because they are paying well below true market rates because the market isn't liquid.  If liquidity isn't the issue, what is the issue then?  Players mismanaging their airlines?

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2736
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #86 on: January 16, 2020, 07:48:05 PM »
Let me explain why you are wrong. An airline paying 100% upfront during launch will get a 10% launch discount, a 6% direct purchase discount and a 20% large order discount. That means any airline with enough cash can get early production slots AND save 36% on the purchase price. Airlines that would get planes from brokers via the UM are in clear disadvantage:

1. No discounts whatsoever
2. Higher purchase prices due to AI brokers adapting their prices according to demand

3. Competition with everyone else trying to get popular aircraft -> slower transitions due to lower availability


This isn't true.  If you place a large lease order you still get a large order discount.  If you are willing to lease for 8-15 years (I know some don't cause of the 8 year D checks)...but if you do this, you get both a further long-term lease discount and a lower monthly lease price.   Granted there is no, launch order discount, but you still can get significant discounts on lease terms depending on your game strategy.

I also concur with the above point.  If you want to do the super-large airline (500+ planes), you know the risk-reward structure well in advance.  if you don't want to deal with it, do a game where you can simply deal with a 100-200 plane airline and make the most of it.

If you go big, it should not be a surprise you will have to run past the 3 fleet types and many successfully do this without a problem and as independents or part of the minor alliances without a problem. There are certainly periods where fleet transitions will create a lot of stress for keeping the airline afloat and other periods where you can run up to 6-7 types to get back to 3 without missing a beat....ultimately a part of the fun and a good way to test if you are a skilled enough player to make it work. 

« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 07:58:36 PM by spiff23 »

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #87 on: January 16, 2020, 08:17:36 PM »
Can't read all that, boys :o You're going way beyond my capabilities, and this in only 24hrs.

What about a seminar where we can discuss all that over 2-3 days, and get a bit relaxed? Pizza and beers provided. Location to determine (barycentre of all our locations? :laugh:)

We might even find a solution / agreement ::)

Offline Andre090904

  • Members
  • Posts: 1896

The person who likes this post:
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #88 on: January 16, 2020, 08:41:40 PM »
@LemonButt

Quote
Those A320 numbers don't check out--my little CRJs are producing $1.2m/month in revenue so I assume you confused that with weekly revenue (i.e. would be $1.2m/month lease with $4.8m in revenue).

I was indeed looking at profit, not revenue. My A321 have an average of 250-300k profit (not revenue) per week, so about 1.2m profit a month on average (not revenue). Seeing your company stats in history and the future, you had 43 million in operating revenue the whole quarter with 15 CRJs. That means 2.8 million revenue per plane per quarter or about 1m per plane per month. Then again, your HQ is much smaller with very little competition. Your competitor Aladdin failed to make his base a fortress and made it easy for you to compete. Most of your routes are either complete monopolies or in direct competition with his F27/F50 which have not filled the whole demand of the route. This is why the CRJ200 works for you even though it is very expensive. You would have a lot better margin flying cheaper F28 (and could expand faster/modernize sooner with owned planes). Because your 300k profit per quarter is quite bad. Just imagine saving ~13.5m in quarterly lease costs (leasing 15x F28 for 40k each vs. leasing 15x CRJ200 for ~340k each). You'd now have some 14m in quarterly profits instead of 0.3m.

Quote
I think the point your missing is the opportunity cost.  Having aircraft available on the used market with very high prices is a liquid market versus what we have today with no availability where the price is infinity.  This is the same principle in running an airline--if you don't have empty seats on your flights your prices are too low.

In case AI brokers would order brandnew planes themselves during/after launch and occupy production slots, they would of course put those planes on the UM for the highest possible price to make a profit. This is especially true for highly popular planes that woud be bought immediately (high demand). Prices would be extremely high and smaller airlines would have no chance to get these new aircraft while big airlines wouldn't even look at the price tag and scoop up everything they can find.

Quote
Airlines aren't missing out on any discounts because if they were to join the game world today, they'd be at the back of line missing the launch window which is first come/first served and shutting players out of the market--not to mention they can't order tens of aircraft at a time until deep in the game even at the minimum lease.

Every airline that orders planes during the 45 days launch period gets these discounts. It's not first come, first serve. It used to be like that in the past, but not anymore. So even small airlines can get juicy discounts. However, if they are forced to rely on the used market, prices would be much steeper (since no discounts + high demand/competition). Obviously players joining now (after the launch period ended) missed their chance. That's life. But even then they could order popular models and still get decent delivery slots. The earliest possible delivery slots are always given to those airlines who are not in the waiting line yet.

Quote
So this thread is about fleet commonality and the added expenses due to slow delivery--even when colluding with alliance members to increase delivery rates.  These same airlines are getting 20%+ discounts and upset that it's more expensive to have the extra fleet type?  They are still coming out way ahead because they are paying well below true market rates because the market isn't liquid.  If liquidity isn't the issue, what is the issue then?  Players mismanaging their airlines?

The issue is that the 4th fleet penalty is not linear. The penalty gets worse the bigger your fleet becomes. It is manageable with a few hundred planes, but deadly with huge fleets. Even the discounts won't help then. There are only 2 options:

1) Constantly flying 2 main fleets and reserving the 3rd fleet for transitions (easy method, but limiting)
2) Flying 3 main fleets and storing the 4th fleet (transition fleet) until the complete order got delivered and swap the entire 3rd fleet over night (stressful method, but more versatile operations)

Working together with alliance members means you can get better delivery slots. If you order 300 A320 on your own, the delivery will be spread over a very long period of time. However, if you only order 100 A320 yourself and have 4 other suppliers order 50 A320 each, then the delivery will not be spread that much over various years, but be more dense. The core problem is that those 200 A320 need to be sold/bought via the used market and you are limited to just 3 planes per week. One of my alliance members is flying well over 600 MD80's and is trying to transition to 737-800. This transition alone will take him many game years to come. Not because the planes are not available for him, but because he is technically not allowed to buy them from the used market (can't keep up with planes being listed) and/or because he has no interest to be constantly logged in to buy planes. There is indeed an increased delivery rate in theory, but no way the delivered planes can be given to the actual player with that high rate.

Hence the idea (see previous page) that players should be allowed to either:
1) Tell the system to buy all privately listings automatically when able (3 planes per game week) even if the player is not online until there are no more privately listed planes on the used market
2) Buy all privately listed planes at once

Option 1 would not change the game mechanics one bit, but would allow the player to be offline while the planes are being bought automatically (and thus reducing the constant need to be online to do big fleet transitions).

Option 2 would also reduce the stress since all privately listed planes can be bought with one click. Until now, the "3 planes per week limit" has been justified with staff being busy. However, the conditions/prices of privately listed orders don't change. Staff would not need to process every plane individually, but the order as a whole. So I think it makes sense to let players buy all privately listed planes at once. If that is too much to ask for, at least let the players set up automatic purchases of privately listed planes (even when the player is offline).

As you can see the issue is not about increasing the production rate/delivery rate. That would not be touched at all. The issue is how to optimize the transfer from planes from one airline to another.

@Spiff:

Quote
This isn't true.  If you place a large lease order you still get a large order discount.  If you are willing to lease for 8-15 years (I know some don't cause of the 8 year D checks)...but if you do this, you get both a further long-term lease discount and a lower monthly lease price.   Granted there is no, launch order discount, but you still can get significant discounts on lease terms depending on your game strategy.

It is true. If you read my post again, I was talking about airlines buying from the used market, not ordering new. There is no discount whatsoever if you buy/lease planes from the used market. Please read again. LemonButt argues that players should only be able to order new planes directly from the manufacturer by either paying 100% upfront or by leasing them for 5 years. I argued that this favors large airlines who can afford to pay 100% upfront (because leasing new is never a good idea). LemonButt proceeds to say that all airlines who cannot afford to pay 100% upfront could buy planes from AI brokers on the used market. I then argued that this again favors big airlines because the used market offers no discounts and has usually higher prices even (depending on demand). Not to mention that rich airlines would buy everything they can grab off the used market. So small airlines are disadvantaged in three different ways: 1) no discounts when buying from used market vs big airlines making direct purchases from the manufacturer; 2) high prices on used market due to high demand; 3) rich airlines buying all planes off the used market AND receiving planes from the manufacturer at the same time.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 08:57:10 PM by Andre090904 »

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2729
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2020, 04:47:12 AM »
Can't read all that, boys :o You're going way beyond my capabilities, and this in only 24hrs.

What about a seminar where we can discuss all that over 2-3 days, and get a bit relaxed? Pizza and beers provided. Location to determine (barycentre of all our locations? :laugh:)

We might even find a solution / agreement ::)

somebody seems to practice for the literary nobel prize here  :-[ ;)

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #90 on: January 17, 2020, 09:30:50 AM »
somebody seems to practice for the literary nobel prize here  :-[ ;)

We might define the barycentre in Sweden if you want ;)

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4217

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: A Discussion of Fleet Commonality
« Reply #91 on: January 17, 2020, 12:13:44 PM »
(.../...)I have 15 CRJ with 11 of them leased new from the factory (.../...)

Been there, done that...and ended up purchasing brand new A148s 10 years later. CRJ prices are going to skyrocket, and the lease new strategy won't be working anymore. In the 2010s, you'll have choice between sticking with 50 seats CRJs(completely outdated then), leased 70 seats CRJs(horribly costly), or brand new A148s. You'll pay 10k$ more per week for fuel & maintenance with the A148...but 100k$ leases in lease costs. Fuel is at 184 right now. Wait until it reaches 1200$. You'll see if your brand new leased CRJ strategy still works...

Back on topics : the COMACs I ordered in MT did cost me 54M$ each. The onces offered by fellow alliance members cost me 81M$(alliance minimum). That's the price of brokering. It helps me getting rid of my 27yo mad dogs quicker. I'm glad to pay that 27M$ extra cost. Only annoying thing is that I shall connect every 4 hours to get them all - at the current arrival rate. That's useless & painful. Being able to take them all at once would not change any behaviour : I'd still have asked for a few brokers within the alliance(or outside, if I hadn't found enough partners). Only, it would have increased my quality of life.

 

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.