Fleet commonality

[knobbygb]

Everyone is, AGAIN, making the assumption that 'small' airlines need protecting from 'big' airlines.  I've said it many times but I don't think that is the case and, as mentioned above, no such thing has ever been proven with an unrestricted gameworld.  Small airlines (and sometimes big ones) fail for ONE reason - because they make poor decisions (one of which is staying small when they could get bigger).

If a small airline decides to open a base at my large mega-hub (ORD, NRT, whatever) and drop 100 medium/large aircraft in, there is NOTHING I can do about it - they will prosper and I will hardly notice them. That will NOT change whether I have 3 or 30 types!  Yes, I could get a fleet of props and cover all the small routes, eating  up slots as I go but I do  that already - I usually operate with 4 to 6 fleet types - and it makes virtually no difference to my competition. The savvy ones find a way anyhow.  Most don't even try and just complain that their Saab 340s, flying 7 hours a day at Strasbourg, Southampton, Spokane and Sendai aren't making enough profit. REALLY? They're NOT?! Hmmm....

We have sandbox worlds where people can play, experiment and learn but surely the 'real' worlds are meant to be cut-throat bloodbaths where 'the best' wipe out everybody they can, just like the real world and those people learn from experience to become the next generation of 'the best'.  Or am I totally wrong?

[Cornishman]

Everyone is, AGAIN, making the assumption that 'small' airlines need protecting from 'big' airlines.  I've said it many times but I don't think that is the case and, as mentioned above, no such thing has ever been proven with an unrestricted gameworld.  Small airlines (and sometimes big ones) fail for ONE reason - because they make poor decisions (one of which is staying small when they could get bigger).

If a small airline decides to open a base at my large mega-hub (ORD, NRT, whatever) and drop 100 medium/large aircraft in, there is NOTHING I can do about it - they will prosper and I will hardly notice them. That will NOT change whether I have 3 or 30 types!  Yes, I could get a fleet of props and cover all the small routes, eating  up slots as I go but I do  that already - I usually operate with 4 to 6 fleet types - and it makes virtually no difference to my competition. The savvy ones find a way anyhow.  Most don't even try and just complain that their Saab 340s, flying 7 hours a day at Strasbourg, Southampton, Spokane and Sendai aren't making enough profit. REALLY? They're NOT?! Hmmm....

We have sandbox worlds where people can play, experiment and learn but surely the 'real' worlds are meant to be cut-throat bloodbaths where 'the best' wipe out everybody they can, just like the real world and those people learn from experience to become the next generation of 'the best'.  Or am I totally wrong?

EXACTLY !

[groundbum2]

about the Saab guy at CDG. I would have watched him to see if the Saab flights were replaced over time with proper aircraft, that's a clear violation of the rules. Also as the #1 slot person the slot costs are exorbitant, 11Mill/7 slots right now at LHR. So that's a mechanism that should slow somebody down buying all the slots.

I'd like a way to monetise slots, I have billions worth but I can't turn them into cashflow except as operating flights...

Simon

[gazzz0x2z]

current modern times. Look at what Tungstennedge did : ordering each possible plane to slot-lock LHR. He was killed by the excessive fleet penalty.

It works.

[Amelie090904]

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?

I used to fly over 500 NAMC out of places like ORD, SAN, PHX, LGA, DCA and SLC in last HatF. And let me tell you, there is a point where it becomes an issue. Think of staff costs and maintenance costs. These small planes require a TON of overhead staff (not only pilots and cabin crew) and are so small that they just don't generate great margins (en masse). Let alone maintenance costs and modernization efforts (try ordering hundreds of planes).

Let me give you an example. I flew about 15x daily from San Diego to San Jose where demand was about 600 (this was in the 70's). Each NAMC had exactly 50 seats, so I had a supply of 750. Then there was a competitor flying this route 3 times a day using a 727, having a supply of 450. Know what? He had a higher market share than me. And he only had to pay staff, maintenance and fuel for 3 planes, not for 15. Guess who was more economical. Also, there is some sort of "ideal frequency" in the game. Medium planes will get their fair share if flown a couple of times per day, but there seems to be some sort of "penalty" when exaggerating the frequencies (even if you stick to good intervals between your flights).

In short: Medium spamming works, but has its limits. I personally upgraded from NAMC to MD80 (replacing 3 Namc with 1 MD80) and my profits increased a lot, simply because of less staff and less maintenance I had to pay.

[Cornishman]

@ Gazzz / @Andre  -  Alright, I can see some sense in what your points are. I still think what is being done by this fleet commonality super-tax when going from 3 to 4 fleets, is punishing everyone for potential perpetrations of the few.

Therefore, what about in the future, when Sami has the time and plans in hand to take passenger demand from the current airport demand to the City Demand structure - how about a setting at... for example, Infrastructure Level 7 and above airports, no aircraft with fewer than... what, maybe 70 seats ?  This to my mind would relieve the need to have this super-tax that punishes everyone, yet still keep these checks you mention in place?  plus that would add reality to the game since it's practical suicide IRL for an operator to try to fly props from say LHR or JFK.  Also this would deter folk from building up huge fleets of props at airport that we know will sooner or later get up to a level 7 if they want to avoid suddenly being caught up with a massive fleet change in a relatively short period of time.

Just some thoughts, since I personally still feel this super-tax ruins a lot of potential freedom to explore life with a variety of fleet types. I stil think without this system, folk would depend less on massive fleets of "the popular models" and feel free to add in some more exotic models to the fleets. It would give Concorde some life and Tu.144 and goodness knows what other types we don't see used much ?

[groundbum2]

I don't mind a limit on small planes at big airports, but think some should be allowed for small regional airports, eg LHR-Sheffield.

Perhaps the rule could be people based at the airport with fleet over 200 can't have more than 20 smaller planes.

I hope this rule doesn't include the CRJs, ERJs etc, as they work well at large airports and are used in the real world. Look at KLM from AMS with E190s all over Europe for example.

Simon

[Viscount Bailey]

Therefore, what about in the future, when Sami has the time and plans in hand to take passenger demand from the current airport demand to the City Demand structure - how about a setting at... for example, Infrastructure Level 7 and above airports, no aircraft with fewer than... what, maybe 70 seats ?  This to my mind would relieve the need to have this super-tax that punishes everyone, yet still keep these checks you mention in place?  plus that would add reality to the game since it's practical suicide IRL for an operator to try to fly props from say LHR or JFK.  Also this would deter folk from building up huge fleets of props at airport that we know will sooner or later get up to a level 7 if they want to avoid suddenly being caught up with a massive fleet change in a relatively short period of time.

If this can work, I really like the sound of this

[Viscount Bailey]

I don't mind a limit on small planes at big airports, but think some should be allowed for small regional airports, eg LHR-Sheffield.

Perhaps the rule could be people based at the airport with fleet over 200 can't have more than 20 smaller planes.

I hope this rule doesn't include the CRJs, ERJs etc, as they work well at large airports and are used in the real world. Look at KLM from AMS with E190s all over Europe for example.

Simon

CRJs and E 170/190 are at 70 seats and over anyway, so they would work with Cornish's suggestion. But in RL you dont really see much smaller than those at the major city airports anyway.

[knobbygb]

Another "I've said it before" pertaining to the last few comments.  The "Aircraft Size Class" model is quite broken too. A fixed boundary between Medium, Large, XL etc. doesn't take real life into account, particularly with how technology is progressing now. What about A321neoXLR (or whatever they will be called) with are designed pretty much for transatlantic routes but will get all sorts of penalties if we actually use them like that. What about the top end of the E190 market which is Medium but quite a bit bigger than the smallest A220 which is Large (and a few similar comparisons).  All that probably needs addressing before you start placing artificial limits on numbers of each size class that can be used. Of course a big change there would be immensely complicated - those boundaries were coded for a reason, I know.

The bits of the game that work best, imho, are the ones that are just like real life and don't contain fictitious "fixes". The more of those that are introduced, the more that playing the game becomes about knowing the quirks, rules and workarounds rather than actually knowing about the airline industry.  If I had a vote (which none of us really do) I'd say "keep it real" - i.e. if it's allowed in real life it should be allowed here. After all, what are the two things people complain most about?  OOB limit and 4th fleet penalty - the two most arbitrary, fictitious, unrealistic parts of the game! We really want MORE of those?

I've said it before (and I've said THAT before!) but City Based Demand (if it ever arrives) will turn the game upside down and may make all these arguments moot anyway.

[Mr.HP]

After all, what are the two things people complain most about?  OOB limit and 4th fleet penalty - the two most arbitrary, fictitious, unrealistic parts of the game! We really want MORE of those?

I'm all in for those, but just throw in the slot daily fee I mentioned, or any other idea to prevent monopoly. Pretty sure no government wants any airline have monopoly over an airport, and they won't also allow spamming 10 50 seaters on a 500 pax demand route. Solution like can't use A/C with less than X seats on route with more than Y demand, or can't use A/C with 70 seats and below in airport with infra of 7+. Those just create more hard limit like the OOB and fleet penalty

[knobbygb]

Pretty sure no government wants any airline have monopoly over an airport, and they won't also allow spamming 10 50 seaters on a 500 pax demand route.

That's exactly what I mean though.  I don't believe any government would outright ban such a thing (other than one or two obvious examples where the government totally controls everything such as N.Korea).  It just shouldn't be financially viable to do this and arbitrary rules aren't the answer. Nor are slot costs. In that case I think changing the metric which decides the spread of pax. is the way to go. Something similar happens with cargo already and, again, CBD for pax might fix this.

[gazzz0x2z]

CBD is vicous that way : bigger planes are better - if and only you fly to another airport, dragging most of demand. If a player in CDG flies 4 daily 757PF and I add a 744F to the same destination from BVA, I'm gonna suck much demand. but on the same line? 757PF forever.

It's easy to use when you know the trick, but when you don't...