Possibility to shrink

[Tha_Ape]

There are various requests for more random events that would make the game a little less predictable (hard events), like wars, crises with more effect, etc.
However, some of the players are reluctant to this, and one of the reason they bring forward is the rigid structure of one's airline in the game: firing personnel is very costly in terms of morale and image, and thus in dollars, as you then need to invest massively in marketing and bonuses.

To prevent this, I would suggest a possibility to activate a "shrink" feature.

It would allow you to:
 - fire personnel at a reduced cost in terms of morale and CI
 - get rid of assets (owned planes) for a price lower than the UM but with a guaranteed sale (in case you alliance is not able to help, plus it could be considered cheating depending on the price, so possibly only to virtual brokers).

One would be able to activate this feature only if:
 - your base country or region/continent is tagged by a hard event
 - you had a operational losses during the last quarter (to avoid exploit through a negative margin that we can manipulate)

Optional sub-features could include:
 - the obligation to limit to two fleet types for like 1 or 2 years
 - reduction in personnel is at least 1/3 of the airline
 - etc.

This way, a company would be more resilient to events, one wouldn't have to close down and rage quit / start again. This would still be a costly move, but a doable move. And starting to climb back after such a thing would probably be way more rewarding than just going through.

------

This is obviously only a rough draft, open to all ideas, but I really think this could be a really nice complementary feature working very well with hard events.

Edit: here are 2 threads about harder events:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,74075.0.html
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,79086.0.html

[Zobelle]

I would like to add to this the ability to gain “concessions” from our beloved employees...let’s say you get a negative quarter due to factors out of your control. (Fuel, 9/11, market and economy anomalies)

Pergaps if we could “make a deal” with employees to take a pay cut until operations are profitable again, perhaps in exchange for a one time bonus down the line.

[Tha_Ape]

@Zobelle

The idea is more or less this one, yes. You're in dire straits, your country is tagged (9/11 tags everyone), and you have the possibility to shrink to then jump back. Employees / the system makes concessions (not that harsh on morale and CI), and the player makes concessions as well (reduced number of fleets, at least 1/3 reduction, or whatever).

However I'm personally against something like "reduced wages for some time" and other things that would postpone the cost to pay. I feel this would make things a little too easy.

[schro]

Sounds like something I proposed over 5 years ago: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,48887.msg272507.html#msg272507

[Tha_Ape]

Sounds like something I proposed over 5 years ago: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,48887.msg272507.html#msg272507

Uh! Didn't search that far back

Not completely the same thing, but yeah, some points in common, and some more ideas for a wider use.
Maybe we could separate these 2 things, have some specific aspects for both, while maintaining mostly common ground.
 - the badly managed airline, 1 joker per GW
 - the airline facing harsh circumstances (oil crisis + 9/11 + whatever) -> airline tagged, possibility to shrink and try to climb back, could happen multiple times (2-3 per GW, maybe)

[schro]

Uh! Didn't search that far back

Not completely the same thing, but yeah, some points in common, and some more ideas for a wider use.
Maybe we could separate these 2 things, have some specific aspects for both, while maintaining mostly common ground.
 - the badly managed airline, 1 joker per GW
 - the airline facing harsh circumstances (oil crisis + 9/11 + whatever) -> airline tagged, possibility to shrink and try to climb back, could happen multiple times (2-3 per GW, maybe)

Long game worlds didn't exist when the request was made ;-)

[DanDan]

i think thats a good idea, to make downsizing managable... generally the big problems that i can see:

1) surplus aircraft: so yes, scrapping planes less old than 10 years would be great. there should be a possibility to sell the aircraft at a fixed (very low) price [similar to scrapping value] to AI brokers, even if the plane is brandnew. the AI brokers can resell it if they feel like it

2) the CI that gets lower when you fire someone: in my opinion the whole CI-thing should be reconsidered (some airline stuffing the passengers into HD seats gets the same image as if you pamper them with everything you have got? there should me more things influencing CI than advertisement, delays and staff level.). but for the meantime, it would be good to make a limit as to the CI drop that can be cause by firing employees... like maybe 10 points max each time you fire people

[Karl]

I am not aware of any feature in AWS which provides government subsidies or government bailouts in times of national/global crisis.

Therefore, I would applaud any effort to provide airlines with some relief before bankruptcy when AWS introduces a major crisis which dramatically effects airlines.  Some players spend a lot of time and energy building an airline.  It is hard enough to build and maintain a successful AWS airline without circumstances beyond ones' control from ruining it.  Yes, bad things happen in the real world.  A realistic simulation should provide these challenges; however, even real world corporations - especially transportation companies - often get some type of government help - which (to my knowledge) is not yet available to AWS airlines.

[gazzz0x2z]

(.../...)1) surplus aircraft: so yes, scrapping planes less old than 10 years would be great. there should be a possibility to sell the aircraft at a fixed (very low) price [similar to scrapping value] to AI brokers, even if the plane is brandnew. the AI brokers can resell it if they feel like it
(.../...)

This, and for another reason : the IL12 is such a crap that you want to scrap it after 5 years of use, as soon as you managed to find a better plane(CV240 in my case). Leaving them in the desert for 5 yearsmakes no sense : they are worth nothing already.

[wilian.souza2]

i think thats a good idea, to make downsizing managable... generally the big problems that i can see:

1) surplus aircraft: so yes, scrapping planes less old than 10 years would be great. there should be a possibility to sell the aircraft at a fixed (very low) price [similar to scrapping value] to AI brokers, even if the plane is brandnew. the AI brokers can resell it if they feel like it

In this case, the system can just start simulating the deterioration of aircraft's condition while they're not in use, which could lead to them reaching such a condition that would allow them to be scrapped below 10 years old...

Or we can have the option to lease back the aircraft in just one click: an AI broker would immediately buy your aircraft at market value and lease it back to you. That would give you extra cash while giving you time to sell yourself other aircraft in surplus.

2) the CI that gets lower when you fire someone: in my opinion the whole CI-thing should be reconsidered (some airline stuffing the passengers into HD seats gets the same image as if you pamper them with everything you have got? there should me more things influencing CI than advertisement, delays and staff level.). but for the meantime, it would be good to make a limit as to the CI drop that can be cause by firing employees... like maybe 10 points max each time you fire people.

Heavy CI drops for firing some staff is pure nonsense and should be heavily revised. I haven't heard about any company getting a bad name for firing people, unless in case of massive sackings - for example of over 30% of personnel - which, then, would make people think the company would be bankrupt soon.