Fleet commonality changes - combined thread

[SP7]

I'm currently playing in SIN. The problem of such a proposal is that with such limits, city-states have none (or almost).
-> I'm currently operating A32x for SH and cargo, 767 for MH and cargo, 777 for LH and cargo.

But if you allow me, I'd gladly...
1°) get rid of the 767 pax, have 787 instead
2°) re-introduce the 757PF (to avoid A321-F double tech-stops to Europe)
3°) get some E-Jets or A220 to spam real short haul.

Being limited to 3 fleets forced me to make some both strategic and tactical choices, even with a single airport. I want to fly cargo? Sure, but thus I won't be the most efficient on long MH (767 vs 787). And so on.

I don't see the issue here. Fleet commonality is an overly putative artificial constraint. Serving demand is fun. Imagining a weird and varied fleet is fun. Turning a profitable airline unprofitable because you want to fly a few turboprops is not fun.

I think this opens up gameplay for places like SIN/HKG, places like New Zealand and Taiwan. It keeps existing rules limiting the size of USA/EU airlines. It's simple to implement and simple to understand. It addresses the major pain points of the current system. It's better for people who don't have ambitions to build a 1000+ frame multi base airline.

[DanDan]

base number doesnt really take into account the size of an airline. in some countries with high competition, newcomers cant really do anything else but to expand into new bases after the few profitable routes are served: penalizing this will make competition even more difficult for those small airlines. on the other hand: even in places like hkg, you can have airlines with 500, 600 AC currently - the thing is. meaning: the market is gigantic, compared to a small new airline flying in a few medium sized airports in the US.
thats why in my opinion, the idea of a fixed amount of aircraft not penalized by the current rule would help those that need help: small airlines on one side, and everyone else that is looking for a bit of diversity (fly that A380 or 747, or Concorde). it may not be the end of the discussion, but at least it will add a bit of colour and smooth the worst pains, i think.

[MuzhikRB]

to move forward it will be great to hear some response from Sami

[groundbum2]

[-]

I've saved him the effort ;-)

[Cornishman]

Oh come on guys... a topic doesn't get this much heat if the system was perfect as it stands.  The fact is it causes too many players a lot of discontent with what actually should be "fun" - this is after all a game.   This topic has been debated over and over and over in so many different threads... SOMETHING NEEDS CHANGING !

[Zombie Slayer]

In response to a discussion over on Discord...

A good start would be considering manufacturer, product lines, engine choices when coming up with a commonality number, and then displaying a commonality factor based on the 3 type rule now would work. For example, I fly 4 types (lets say 737 Classic, 737 NG, 757, and 767) that currently would have an exponential multiplier based on fleet size. Under the new rule, you have 2 737's with 80% commonality, a 757 and 767 with share 40% commonality, you use 2 engine manufacturers and one manufacturer. So maybe add things up, our target number is 3. We have 1 manufacturer, 4 types, 2 engines from 2 manufacturers. Thats a 9 from the 4 determining factors. Simple math calls that a 2.25 so there is no penalty. Add in the partial commonality and we can reduce that further. If the examples above are used, the 737's share 80% commonality, so they count as 1.2 frames. The 757 and 767 share 40% commonality, so they count as 1.8 frames. That reduces the number to an 8, so our commonality score is now a 2.

Now that is simplified greatly and there should be added weight to some numbers and reduced weight for others (number of types carries more weight than engine manufacturers, for example) but this would be a start to figure more accurate commonality numbers.

[DanDan]

In response to a discussion over on Discord...

A good start would be considering manufacturer, product lines, engine choices when coming up with a commonality number, and then displaying a commonality factor based on the 3 type rule now would work. For example, I fly 4 types (lets say 737 Classic, 737 NG, 757, and 767) that currently would have an exponential multiplier based on fleet size. Under the new rule, you have 2 737's with 80% commonality, a 757 and 767 with share 40% commonality, you use 2 engine manufacturers and one manufacturer. So maybe add things up, our target number is 3. We have 1 manufacturer, 4 types, 2 engines from 2 manufacturers. Thats a 9 from the 4 determining factors. Simple math calls that a 2.25 so there is no penalty. Add in the partial commonality and we can reduce that further. If the examples above are used, the 737's share 80% commonality, so they count as 1.2 frames. The 757 and 767 share 40% commonality, so they count as 1.8 frames. That reduces the number to an 8, so our commonality score is now a 2.

Now that is simplified greatly and there should be added weight to some numbers and reduced weight for others (number of types carries more weight than engine manufacturers, for example) but this would be a start to figure more accurate commonality numbers.

that whole proposal is something that tries to bring realism into a rule that is not meant to reflect reality but just "enhance" gameplay. dont get me wrong: i am sure that could be good for making things more realistic, but thats not the purpose of what the fleet penalty is designed for.

[gazzz0x2z]

Agree with Dandan : it would make exotic fleet groups even harder to play. My switch to C919s has already a lot of drawbacks("no cargo" in the 2020s, to begin with, is a huge drawback), but if it becomes painless to switch from MD80s to MD90s, where's the point at all?

It also would make the big players able to cover all niches. If you can field 737s of all kinds plus 757s plus 767s plus 787 just because they're all manufactured in Seattle, then there is no more place for a smaller player to breathe. The whole purpose of the fleet penalty is to prevent you from covering all niches with your company - to force you to choose a market. In current Modern times, I gave up J728s - because they took a much-needed fleet slot. It wwas painful. But that's the idea. Had I been able to go on with them, I'd have a tool to crush most of my smaller opponents(especially in STN & ARN, maybe also in BCN). I don't.

That's the very purpose. There must be a place for both small & big airlines. There is place for cargo specialists and for pax specialists. And companies chasing for both will have less interesting fleet groups to choose from(MD11, TU-204, etc...).

[Tha_Ape]

I agree with Dani and Gazzz.

But another point: that would also force the penalty to be dynamic over time. In the 90s, all Boeing is doable, in the 2010, all Airbus is doable (A220). And these models would be the ultimate thing.

However, how would you do in the 50s, 60s or even 70s? You'd be forced to much more manufacturer diversity, and the coef would need to be different. A mess, in my opinion.

[MuzhikRB]

offtopic: please add special fleet like a380 or concorde to be playable without the commonality penalty. and limit this special fleet allowance let say - 50 acs. if you use more, then commonality plays like usual.

ontopic: commonality expenses multiplier is not so critical for small players. I have a competitor in MT GW that has 8 fleets with 180ACs total. and he has 16% margin profit so far.

[LemonButt]

Attached is what happened when I added a fourth fleet type.  I had to add a fourth fleet type to have medium aircraft to serve smaller airports that can't take larger aircraft (all I had is large/very large).  By adding a single Il-114 my weekly staff training costs went from $7m to $33m.  Note that a brand new Il-114 (that I am buying brand new) only costs $7m.  So basically ~500 large/very large aircraft in 3 fleet types costs a combined $7m, but a single Il-114 costs $26m/week for staff training.  I have 39 medium pilots as I type this which comes out to almost $100k per pilot per day in staff training.  Aircraft maintenance also went from ~$40m to $70m/week, which basically means it would almost be cheaper to just scrap my aircraft and buy new every week so I'd never have to perform an A-check.  The net effect is a $50+ million hit to my bottom line every single week.  I know Russian aircraft are expensive, but damn...

Considering airport restrictions on aircraft size, it seems penalties should also include size classes so that airlines can serve the smaller airports.

[DanDan]

By adding a single ...

Thats why i am strongly favouring that a up to 20 planes are excluded from commonality penalties. For that special Cessna Caravan, prestige Concorde service, an A380 in VIP configuration... the spice of life.

[sanabas]

I had to add a fourth fleet type to have medium aircraft to serve smaller airports that can't take larger aircraft (all I had is large/very large).

Or you could just not fly to the size 1 airports. Or consolidate those 2 large fleets into 1, since they are quite similar.

Considering airport restrictions on aircraft size, it seems penalties should also include size classes so that airlines can serve the smaller airports.

While the 4th fleet penalty is extremely clunky and could be done much better, it does force you to make a choice. You don't have to be able to fill every single niche.

[LemonButt]

Or you could just not fly to the size 1 airports. Or consolidate those 2 large fleets into 1, since they are quite similar.

I'm actually doing the test that you suggested in the city based demand overlapping thread.  I opened a base at Gary/Chicago with 2 overlapping concentric circles to test the mechanics.  Unfortunately, it only allows small/medium aircraft and it's one step away from accepting large aircraft (runway is 2700m), so my plan is to fly medium aircraft until it expands and then ditch the fleet type and fly large cargo aircraft out of it (or if it works, rebase to another small airport and do it again).  Chicago O'Hare is the #2 cargo airport in the game with 94% slots used, so I there should be plenty of demand to fill large cargo aircraft (Tu204) once it gets going.  Until it upgrades to handle large aircraft, heavy cargo is impossible, but once it is I should be able to print money.

The other limitation which is another issue altogether is the only medium cargo aircraft in the game right now is the Il114 which means if you want transport standard cargo out of these airports, you have exactly one option.  I'm also flying the Il114 pax aircraft which have 64 seats even though the biggest route out is ~35 pax demand just in the name of expanding the airport.  I'm #11 in the game when it comes to profit with things on autopilot and money to burn, but assuming this works then we should be able to fundamentally change the hub airports in the game when CBD is implemented for pax--Gary probably won't overtake ORD simply because it can handle huge aircraft compared to ORD's longer runway, but it should be able to replace Chicago Midway as the #2 airport.  I'm also flying routes to secondary airports everywhere with lower fees, such as Mid-America instead of St Louis and Ft Worth instead of DFW...we'll see how it goes.

[groundbum2]

commonality is there to add some spice to life, by making players choose just a few fleet types, it also fosters competition since a huge airline cannot do LH, SH, freight plus local props, so needs to leave at least one category untouched for other people to play.

In your rather specific desire to test a scenario then yes commonality doesn't make sense but in the big picture it does.

Simon

[LemonButt]

commonality is there to add some spice to life, by making players choose just a few fleet types, it also fosters competition since a huge airline cannot do LH, SH, freight plus local props, so needs to leave at least one category untouched for other people to play.

In your rather specific desire to test a scenario then yes commonality doesn't make sense but in the big picture it does.

Simon

I agree, but whether I added a ridiculous fleet type or I was just transitioning an existing fleet type to another (i.e. MD-11 to B777) the same thing would happen with an inexplicably large increase.

[groundbum2]

commonality is there to shape game play, not to be a totally accurate representation of real life. The suggestions of a small vanity fleet would do what you wanted..

Simon

[LemonButt]

Thats why i am strongly favouring that a up to 20 planes are excluded from commonality penalties. For that special Cessna Caravan, prestige Concorde service, an A380 in VIP configuration... the spice of life.

The more I think about this, the more I think it makes sense but not in a sense where you just exclude the aircraft, but in that there should be a "wet lease" option where you can dodge the penalties by not actually owning/maintaining the aircraft.  Not sure what the best way to implement that would be, but it would require you either leasing the aircraft outright or selling an existing aircraft to a wet lease company and leasing it back (i.e. a leaseback agreement).  Wet leases are what most airlines do with those one off aircraft or special routes.  It could also potentially allow players to take advantage of world events with short term wet leases (i.e. Olympics, Hajj, etc which I don't think are in the game yet).

[Mort]

(i.e. Olympics, Hajj, etc which I don't think are in the game yet).

I've certainly seen Olympic type world events and associated demand increases

[LemonButt]

I've been thinking about this further as I obviously have a fourth "vanity" fleet type at the moment.  I'm thinking something with a "base" component needs to happen with fleet commonality.  Right now I have Il114 flying out of Gary and nowhere else.  It doesn't make any sense to have personnel, parts, etc. that knows the Il114 at any other base but Gary.  Same goes the other way around--there are no MD11 etc. flying out of Gary so it isn't realistic to have parts etc. there for it.

There obviously needs to be a macro level commonality system to prevent airlines from having a small airline in Gary and a big airline at ATL.  Furthermore, if you have 500 aircraft across 10 bases versus 500 aircraft at a single base, your commonality should be more expensive.

So maybe the fleet commonality needs to be calculated just as it is currently, but on a per base basis.  For my airline in particular, these numbers should be accurate (or maybe less of a penalty), but only if I had a single base and flew all 4 fleet types out of one airport.  Under the current setup with the fourth fleet type flown exclusively out of my 6th base, it should be treated the same as having a first fleet type with some sort of smaller macro penalty for having more than 3 fleet types across the entire airline.  Thus, having 4 fleet types at a single airport is expensive and having 3 fleet types at one airport and 1 unique fleet type at another is far more reasonable.

This was a stream of consciousness and might not make total sense...