More delivery slots

[Cornishman]

In the AG game with the year now at mid 2017, we are facing an unprecidented demand / order-book for the A318/9/20/21 with current order backlog at 4,867 orders with absolutely NOTHING - not a single slot available until November 2024 ... may as well say until 2025.  That is over 7 years of zero availability.

To add to this, there is not a single A318/9/20/21 of any age, creed or colour available on the UM either.  Zero , nix , nada, zippo , rien du tout !

Hmmmmmm      I'm very lucky as I don't fly them anyway, but I can see my friends and colleagues everywhere suffering with this. Any chance of more slot deliveries than the current 47 / month ?

[Amelie090904]

People are likely to renew their fleet and list older models on the UM and/or they might resell brandnew models on UM. It is what it is. Always been like that. 

[Zombie Slayer]

47 is pretty low. In past games its gone to 80+. But, as in every game world, there is some limiting factor. Sometimes its a low slot multiplier, sometimes is a dry used market to start, low demand model, or low production rates. As always, there are alternatives.

[Jake]

or low production rates.

What are you, Protector of production slots too?

[Zombie Slayer]

What are you, Protector of production slots too?

Not sure what you mean. What am I protecting? Just a statement of fact. Every game has a limiting factor. This one is production slots.

[Amelie090904]

Not sure what you mean. What am I protecting? Just a statement of fact. Every game has a limiting factor. This one is production slots.

See your signature.

[Zombie Slayer]

See your signature.

Forgot about that!

[SirMS]

Yep, I have been waiting for years now, large gap in my order.. deliveries finally resuming in 2 years 

[Viscount Bailey]

I too think the A320 group is completely hopelessly out of order.  The A321XLR launched here in 2020 with announcement first deliveries start in 2024 - so I ordered 50.  Now I realise my plans are way out because nobody can get any until 2027 (and then only 4 or 5 of them that year) simply because the production line is so heavily over-booked. Wish I hadn't bothered.

Something needs fixing in this game.  I've long been a supporter of those calling for a relaxing of some of the rules that drives these "crazes" for the best planes. - for one thing:- scrap be rubbish rule on over 3 fleets being so heavily penalized. Let folk have a wider variety and maybe we don't all go for the obvious ones in such heavy over-demand. (and with that, just wait for the screams and wails from the "stuck-in-the-mud" brigade who don't like any changes ) 

[Continental Sky]

If aim of 4th penalty was to restrict expansion of ultra-big airlines, IMHO it fails to achieve it without restriction on aircraft that can be purchased from UM, which currently heavily penalizes small airlines and benefits big ones.

Even with 4th penalty, there are always used aircraft of desired type, either by brokers, AI brokers or others who freely sell surpluss planes. With 15, 20 or even more planes that big airlines can purchase at once, they can more or less easily get the desired aircraft, draining UM in process and leaving nothing to small airlines.

From  my own experience, with airlines with ~300, 360 and 450 planes, where 4th fleet penalty should start to be serious, I have no major problems with 5 and 8 fleet, and in time of expansion, I would have rather accepted 4th fleet penalty than limit in number of planes - orderding 7, 8 planes from UM at once had greater benefit than harm from 4th fleet. I'd say 4th fleet penalty is drawback only at times of fuel crisis, where each cent counts; once the crisis is over, its effect, at least for airlines of my size, is not really an obstacle.

So these two restrictions might be combined - 4th fleet penalty milder, thus making now-unpopular planes more attractive, and number of planes from UM stricter, say max 5 planes at once, regardless of fleet size, and maybe not every 8 days, but every 14 days, and delivery time not 2 weeks for each plane, but only for first 2 or 3 planes, and then one week longer for each subsequent plane.

Or something else, I don't know, but the current model indeed seems illogical - except for those that were lucky to be around at the exact time of launch and grabbed front seats.

[Viscount Bailey]

so I went to see if I can Cancel my order for them. System says I would lose 60% of the money I put down !!!!   Can that be realistic even?  We hear all the time of airlines IRL having to cancel orders - but 60%....Really ?!     A truly miserable situation with these aircraft!

[MikeS]

How much did you put down? If it's 60% from a 20% down-payment, then it isn't much.

[RALLX]

The reason for ridiculously huge order backlog : Isn't this the direct result of the economy simulation itself ?

In real life (2019), the top 10 largest airline by fleet size had between 400 and 900 aircrafts. In AirwaySim (1988), the top 10 largest airline by fleet size has between 600 and 1100 aircrafts.

In real life (2019), Delta had the largest annual revenue at US$44.9bil and profit at US$4.1bil. In AirwaySim (1988), the top airline for revenue has US$9.2bil per quarter and the top airline for profit has US$4bil per quarter.

[Viscount Bailey]

The reason for ridiculously huge order backlog : Isn't this the direct result of the economy simulation itself ?

In real life (2019), the top 10 largest airline by fleet size had between 400 and 900 aircrafts. In AirwaySim (1988), the top 10 largest airline by fleet size has between 600 and 1100 aircrafts.

In real life (2019), Delta had the largest annual revenue at US$44.9bil and profit at US$4.1bil. In AirwaySim (1988), the top airline for revenue has US$9.2bil per quarter and the top airline for profit has US$4bil per quarter.

An observant analogy there sir, all correct. I still ask the question... IRL: if an airline cancels their order 7 years in advance of delivery when such delivery is delayed by 3 years from the written offer - and then get 60% of the deposit withheld....BLIMEY !  really shockingly useless Contract negotiators on that deal is all I can say !  what a load of BOLX in my humble opinion. You see I look at life like this:  Do NOT advertise something with written statements that say "deliveries start from 2024"  then nothing else said.... and leave it to buyers to work out the hidden "behind the curtain issue" that order backlog totally confounds that written statement to the tune of a further 3 years. If we're going for realistic scenarios in this game which is great and I'm all in favour of - then fine. But it seems we have realistic where it fits and every time that falls apart, we're supposed to just accept that.  I'd rather have a game where we don't strive so hard for realistic on aspects where we all know things go very wrong - like these scenarios of an order backlog of over 5000+ aircraft. In reality if that were the case, Airbus directors would be doing drunken sumersaults on TV interviews with utter glee at their good fortune.  Of course I'm open to disagreement with my opinion.... with some good backup RL explanation I'd hope. 

[RALLX]

An observant analogy there sir, all correct. I still ask the question... IRL: if an airline cancels their order 7 years in advance of delivery when such delivery is delayed by 3 years from the written offer - and then get 60% of the deposit withheld....BLIMEY !  really shockingly useless Contract negotiators on that deal is all I can say !  what a load of BOLX in my humble opinion. You see I look at life like this:  Do NOT advertise something with written statements that say "deliveries start from 2024"  then nothing else said.... and leave it to buyers to work out the hidden "behind the curtain issue" that order backlog totally confounds that written statement to the tune of a further 3 years. If we're going for realistic scenarios in this game which is great and I'm all in favour of - then fine. But it seems we have realistic where it fits and every time that falls apart, we're supposed to just accept that.  I'd rather have a game where we don't strive so hard for realistic on aspects where we all know things go very wrong - like these scenarios of an order backlog of over 5000+ aircraft. In reality if that were the case, Airbus directors would be doing drunken sumersaults on TV interviews with utter glee at their good fortune.  Of course I'm open to disagreement with my opinion.... with some good backup RL explanation I'd hope. 

There is no reasonable explanation on this I guess. Well.... there is no real person behind the aircraft manufacturer in AirwaySim... 

[Cornishman]

I think the big issue is the completely unreasonable 60% that is the problem here.  I totally agree. I'd be sacked from my job if in RL we had a policy to engage in deals where an early order cancelation generates anything like a 60% penalty.  It should definitely be a time related sliding affect - any cancelation with more than 12 months would seem more reasonable to be maximum 20 %, and anything over 2 years a 10% admin fee seems more in line.  In our company (we sell heavy machinery / capital equipment worth millions) if a client cancels an order then your only recourse is to prove what costs you incurred and get them back plus a markup usually iro 10 to 15%.  This is a game so such clarity isn't possible but to keep it realistic 60% penalty should be with only maybe 6 / 8 months before delivery. With a "broken promise" that deliveries start as of 2024, which was the written offer and still 7 years ahead    , max 10% admin charge seems more than reasonable (guessing as it's a game - can't do anything about the broken promise bit.)

[Flying_ace65]

I agree the 60% cancellation fee is incredibly high and should be adjusted, one good option is a percentage based on how far the deliveries are from cancellation as it was mention, however I will say that even if deliveries can star in let's say 2024 as an example all one has to do to see if it's true or not is look at the delivery slots for that type before ordering, if they are fully book, obviously you won't get anything in 2024, a warning would be nice, but it is not impossible to see this without a warning.

[gazzz0x2z]

Had missed that thread. slowly back from stupid life events (manager got fired, to begin with, and kid is always overwhelemed with health problems)

There is a reason why I over-ordered 321s between 2011 & 2017 in HATF. I took more than 500, 320 more than I did really need. I did sell everything to alliance mates. Even like that, they were very short.

The production line is nearly empty between 2011 & 2017. because everyone waits for neos. Bottom line is : even when neos are available, 321s remain excellent birds. I was selling them at cost, but they'd have sold like hot cakes at double the cost. Because they're worth it. So in 2017, neos are getting available, everyone wants them, and is crying for more. The few dudes who made reserves of 321s are printing platinium brokering (or helping their alliance mates be less in trouble).

This happens every GW. So you can complain, or you can enjoy. There is also a reason why my large-heavy games are never played with 320 Family. 737s having 3 different families helps a lot always finding some on the UM. And in many cargo-poor crountries, MD80*90s are doing the job as well. Leaving place for 321 brokering.

[isuzu777]

I didn't realize until now that we are limited to 350 aircraft of a particular model line on order at any given time. Really unrealistic and damages airlines like mine who are not part of an "alliance" and have others to buy their aircraft for them (as if that is realistic.....). Some of us just want to order our aircraft and not be involved in the constant cheating/scams/accusations of alliance aircraft trading.

I recommend this restriction be cancelled, or at least raised to 500. I have an entire fleet to replace.

[knobbygb]

It used to be 350 orders of ALL/Any aircraft at one time!