Fleet commonality

[Maartenderidder92]

Hi everyone

I didnt play this game for a few years and I wonder whether something has changed in terms of fleet commonality. It used to be that there was a big penalty for moving from 3 to 4 fleets. Is that still the case? Does it matter at all whether planes are from different manufacturers (or are, e.g., the A330 and A320 more common than the B747 and A320?)

Thanks!
maarten

[gazzz0x2z]

it's still there, but it's highly dependent on your fleet size. It's just a few points of margin between 400 aircraft. It's punitive beyond 700 aircraft.

[tavyturean]

Does anyone have the exact (-ish) numbers on this? At how many planes does it kick in? And what about the penalty for going to the third fleet too soon?

[gazzz0x2z]

Does anyone have the exact (-ish) numbers on this? At how many planes does it kick in? And what about the penalty for going to the third fleet too soon?

The third fleet does provoke a penalty up to 80 planes (some observation are more around 72/75). Then no more. Just a simple fleet group. Around 3 points of margin, IIRC.

The fourth fleet group does always provoke a penalty. Simply, it's progressive, the bigger you are, the deadliest.

[groundbum2]

I think 350 is where the penalties kick in hard, until then it's like being gummied by a cow.

Commonality isn't really to do with manufacturers, or how common the planes are. It's do with how many FLEETS your airline has. So look at the aircraft page and see what fleet is listed. Some things you think would be in the same fleet, like the 8 or 9 737 models aren't, they're in 3 fleets.

Simon

[Cornishman]

As the others say, it starts off with under 100 planes being a bit of a pain but not too severe. Then the costs start to grow. At about 400+ it is really getting to a questionable point for most as to whether any benefit can be derived financially. Then as I think Gazzz said, at about 700+ it starts getting to really ridiculous costs.   

But here's the way to check-out for yourself exactly what happens to your airline at any time:

While you still have only 3 operational types, goto:  Aircraft -> Fleet Commonality
Then note down the 3 "Totals" of costs from your 3 fleets and add them to get an overall Total (Don't worry about the "Engines" figures - they remain unaffected mostly)

Then add 1 aircraft with routes of the 4th fleet type and go back to this page and add the now 4 "Totals" you have.

This way you can judge a fair idea on how severe things will get. Yes, adding more and more of the 4th fleet will still push up the additional cost - a bit, but by adding just 1 plane you get the vast majority of the damage added instantly to the other 3 fleets and that then stays about the same no matter how many more of the 4th fleet you add.

Only you can then decide if you want to go ahead and run with 4 types. But doing this as a "taster" makes it very easy to undo and go back to 3 types if you don't like the look of it.

(As a severe example though ->   In another GW where I had 1100 aircraft, I checked exactly what happened when I added just ONE aircraft of a 4th type to my fleet.  It showed my 3 fleet "Totals" came to $137 million.  Then I added one new plane and went back to check ..... mind-blowing the result:  That "Total" for 4 fleets shot up TEN-FOLD to $1.285 BILLION just adding that 1x 4th-fleet airplane!  It just shows how bad it gets when you have a huge airline !)

Hope this helps.
Jack

[Maartenderidder92]

Incredible, thanks for the responses everyone!

[JumboShrimp]

Hi everyone

I didnt play this game for a few years and I wonder whether something has changed in terms of fleet commonality. It used to be that there was a big penalty for moving from 3 to 4 fleets. Is that still the case? Does it matter at all whether planes are from different manufacturers (or are, e.g., the A330 and A320 more common than the B747 and A320?)

Thanks!
maarten

Some new commonalities have been added.  DC-10 and MD-11 are now part of the same fleet, MD-80 / MD-90 / Boeing 717 are also the same fleet.

[Karl]

For me, the most challenging part is when a fleet gets old and needs to be replaced by a more modern type.  Adding just one new type can ruin an airline while it tries to renew its fleet - which can sometimes take 7 - 8 game years.  Then it becomes impossible if an airline tries to renew an additional type.

Renewing fleets gets hard in long games when moving from props to jets and when moving from the first generation of jets to a newer generation. 

Is it better (more economical) to maintain very old aircraft or to replace them with a new type - even as it increases fleet commonality costs?

[groundbum2]

[/quote]
Is it better (more economical) to maintain very old aircraft or to replace them with a new type - even as it increases fleet commonality costs?
[/quote]

The best option is to choose a fleet that grows with you. So for example start with old tatty DC10s but then plan 10 years down the line to start get new shiny MD11s, same fleet, to replace them and these will carry you to game end. But old plane D checks at 18/24year old will kill you, Plus the fuel penalty. Another example is A320-100 which is a dog but carry on for 20 years and the A321neo comes in, same fleet, and life is good to game end. So pick a fleet wisely!

If you really are stuck changing over a huge, 500 plane, 3rd fleet there's only one way to do it. Join an alliance, get you and them rich, make a joint buy of hundreds of the new plane, horde them until you can swap 80% of the old plane and then do the swap in a year or less. You'll be so rich the pain won't matter too much. We're talking billions if its VL we're talking about. Joint buy also means they come in quicker from the production line because by yourself 1 VL delivery a month will take a looooong time to get to 500 frames for example.

Simon

[knobbygb]

The best option is to choose a fleet that grows with you. So for example start with old tatty DC10s but then plan 10 years down the line to start get new shiny MD11s, same fleet, to replace them and these will carry you to game end.

Sensible, but that makes the game even more limiting re: what fleets you can choose (i.e. more boring).

Just bite the bullet and have 5 or 6 fleets anyway.  If you do things right you will still do well. You'll make less money overall but can gain higher scores in the stats and more 'Achievements'. And the money isn't real - who cares if you finish with one billion in the bank or 200 Billion?  Remember, there is no further penalty after 4 fleets up until 8! So, ion reality, you're going from 3 types to a possible 7 - that makes the penalty a lot more bearable, and the game a LOT more interesting, right to the end.

OK, that's probably advice for more 'advanced' players - a way to make the game more difficult (it is otherwise VERY easy IMO).

[Zombie Slayer]

Sensible, but that makes the game even more limiting re: what fleets you can choose (i.e. more boring).

Just bite the bullet and have 5 or 6 fleets anyway.  If you do things right you will still do well. You'll make less money overall but can gain higher scores in the stats and more 'Achievements'. And the money isn't real - who cares if you finish with one billion in the bank or 200 Billion?  Remember, there is no further penalty after 4 fleets up until 8! So, ion reality, you're going from 3 types to a possible 7 - that makes the penalty a lot more bearable, and the game a LOT more interesting, right to the end.

OK, that's probably advice for more 'advanced' players - a way to make the game more difficult (it is otherwise VERY easy IMO).

Thats....not true. 4 is a big hit, 5 and 6 are smaller, then 7 and each subsequent is a larger hit....now to be fair the hit for 5 and 6 is rather insignificant compared to 3->4, but it is there.

[knobbygb]

Thats....not true. 4 is a big hit, 5 and 6 are smaller, then 7 and each subsequent is a larger hit....now to be fair the hit for 5 and 6 is rather insignificant compared to 3->4, but it is there.

Fair enough and sorry for the misinformation. I've never even noticed the hits for 4 to 6 so I consider them insignificant but I accept they're there if you have seen them.

[Cornishman]

Nobody has yet given enough convincing argument as far as I'm concerned, for the TOTAL ABSURDITIES in this game such as this ludicrous financial hyper-jump on moving from 3 to 4 fleets (10-fold cost increase once you have a larger airline). Just make it the same increase as 2 to 3 fleets, and again same % from 4 to 5, etc.

[Karl]

I struggle with fleet types too - especially when trying to replace an old type with a new one - sometimes from a completely different manufacturer.  I wish the penalties were not so steep.

However, as in other airline business simulations, I believe that this "rule" was designed to keep an airline that had a lot of cash from grabbing every available plane - leaving little or nothing for other airlines.

Until we can think of another way to fairly allocate aircraft, I am afraid that we will have to deal with this.

[Cornishman]

I believe that this "rule" was designed to keep an airline that had a lot of cash from grabbing every available plane - leaving little or nothing for other airlines.

I've heard this sort of argument over and over like a stuck record as the excuse.

I just think it's BS quite frankly. Un-proven and un-substantiated BS at that. Has there ever been a full-length GW that has proven this theory? (Not in the near 12 years on-and-off that I've played AWS) I think we'd see exactly the opposite: Instead of folk like me in my big airline GW's, needing to get 4 other alliance mates to all order 50 of the same popular model + my 100 of them, instead what I would like to do is have all sorts of other models also in my fleet - models that are generally deemed "inferior" and so avoided by most in the current restrictive set-up.  I'd love to run an airline the same size as I often get to (1000+ planes) where I had the freedom to have those 1000 planes spread out over all sorts of aircraft types without risking bankrupting my airline through this crazy 4th-fleet+ financial suicide we currently face. Therefore - there'd potentially be MORE of those "favourite" planes and probably they'd remain at more affordable prices  =  Everyone's a winner ?

[SP7]

I've heard this sort of argument over and over like a stuck record as the excuse.

I just think it's BS quite frankly. Un-proven and un-substantiated BS at that. Has there ever been a full-length GW that has proven this theory? (Not in the near 12 years on-and-off that I've played AWS) I think we'd see exactly the opposite: Instead of folk like me in my big airline GW's, needing to get 4 other alliance mates to all order 50 of the same popular model + my 100 of them, instead what I would like to do is have all sorts of other models also in my fleet - models that are generally deemed "inferior" and so avoided by most in the current restrictive set-up.  I'd love to run an airline the same size as I often get to (1000+ planes) where I had the freedom to have those 1000 planes spread out over all sorts of aircraft types without risking bankrupting my airline through this crazy 4th-fleet+ financial suicide we currently face. Therefore - there'd potentially be MORE of those "favourite" planes and probably they'd remain at more affordable prices  =  Everyone's a winner ?

No, it is to force people to choose to uncover some area of operations. Within the major base areas OOB+3 Fleet restrictions mean there is no way for a large airline to run the optimal aircraft for each route and effectively choke out opposition.


The restriction is there to stop people from running E-jet + CRJ + Q400 + A32/737 + 757PF + 767F + 332 + 787/350.


It's actually a pretty interesting game balance tool. It keeps the few huge fish from devouring the merely large fish.

[MikeS]

It should be transparent to the player as it makes no sense. The manual should state these jumps clearly, otherwise it is simply a player trap.
When you add another fleet you get all the costs for setting up that new fleet. It defies all logic that this increases the cost of the previous fleets, sometimes ludicrously.
I understand the reasoning behind it but it needs to be in the manual - with numbers!

Mike

Nobody has yet given enough convincing argument as far as I'm concerned, for the TOTAL ABSURDITIES in this game such as this ludicrous financial hyper-jump on moving from 3 to 4 fleets (10-fold cost increase once you have a larger airline). Just make it the same increase as 2 to 3 fleets, and again same % from 4 to 5, etc.

[Cornishman]

No, it is to force people to choose to uncover some area of operations. Within the major base areas OOB+3 Fleet restrictions mean there is no way for a large airline to run the optimal aircraft for each route and effectively choke out opposition.


The restriction is there to stop people from running E-jet + CRJ + Q400 + A32/737 + 757PF + 767F + 332 + 787/350.


It's actually a pretty interesting game balance tool. It keeps the few huge fish from devouring the merely large fish.

OK - an interesting theory - any hard proof that this would really happen? I really don't see that with a few much better, more logical controls, that this would be a problem. I'd rather see better and more realistic controls over slot-hogging at airports. In one GW years ago, a chap came along in the late 1990s at CDG as his HQ base and proceeded to place literally hundreds and hundreds of little Saab 2000 flights... as many as he could... 20 or 30 a day on routes like CDG - LHR.  It was perfectly acceptable in AWS with no rule against that. If anything is unrealistic and deliberately designed to drive out competitors - via 2 methods: lack of any slots left plus the system seemed to reward his masses of flights with greater route % - that is what needs addressing i.m.o.   If we had better restrictions on airports after they reach a certain tier - such as to either ban prop aircraft or have a cost structure that would make routes like CDG-LHR uneconomical with tiny little planes - well then we have something. That would work hand-in-hand with City-based demand for pax so that the smaller airports around the areas of those major airports would then become the only viable bases to run those hundreds of Saab 2000 - from my example above, instead of LHR-CDG you'd have offer say Luton to either Rouen or Reims or LeHavre if you wanted lots of prop flights.   But I honestly don't see that what you say would happen, would really happen much. Has there ever been any proof that this is what happens in AWS without this 4th fleet penalty system?

[Mr.HP]

I once suggested to implement a slot daily fee, which increase based on how many slots/ how many % you own/ how many %  taken at an airport. That means its good to run prop if you own like hundreds of slots, and its gonna be impossible to make enough money if you own thousands. Mega airlines have to use big AC, and then will be more vulnerable to smaller ones. But smaller ones cant spam as much as they want, either which seem to be pretty balance for both mega and small airlines. Players need to work and find the sweet spot between number of slots/AC own vs Profit

If this is implemented, the fleet penalty can be removed, OOB can be unlimited