Instead of the small and easy feasibility future requests I often make this one is a bigger one.
It is, basically, about not only looking on the pure aircraft tech data, but also who builds the aircraft.
Advantages of the system:
1) A binding to your manufacturer, a role-playing feature that will people make really think about what they order and feel like a real CEO
2) More easy to learn micromanagement on a level that doesn't need much time
3) Implementing aircraft in the day to day airline service that are being avoided often, like MD-11
The basic function:
MI (manufacturer image) works a bit like CI or RI. It ranges from -100 to +100 and each airline has an own rating to each manufacturer. If manufacturers merge, you keep the most positive MI.
What it does:
A neutral MI doesn't offer much. If you pre-purchase aircraft you get a small discount (smaller than now) and if you purchase large numbers, you get also a smaller discount. It's like if you are new to the town and visit a book store for the first time. They won't offer you good customer discount, but they also won't punish you.
A good MI gives you advantages.
- discounts on the level we know at the moment or even higher if you have very high MI
- a small advantage on the production line if you have high MI
- if you have very high MI, the manufacturer will send you a message, informing you about a new production and asking you, if you want to become a launch customer. Launch customer offers are sent to every airline with MI >85 (or so), offering special discount and faster delivery on an amount of aircraft (maximum 30 for narrowbody, maximum 20 for widebody etc.). The offer stays active for 3-6 ingame month
- lower costs for D-Checks, because the manufacturer will help you with sending personal and knowledge
- lower costs on D-Checks and C-Checks because you get a discount on replacement parts
A negative MI gives you disadvantages.
- no discounts or very small ones (depends on actually MI level)
- if you really messed up your MI the manufacturer only wants to work with you if you pre-purchase aircraft for 60% or more because they don't trust you (maybe MI is lower than -70)
- you not only don't get the bonus delivery spaces for positive MI, but your deliveries are also a bit slower than neutral because your aircraft have absolutely no priority (MI lower than -30)
How is MI calculated?
- it growth or decreases over time by simply ordering aircraft from a manufacturer or not, but it will never go below -30 and it will not go to MI 100 in short time!
- it increases a bit faster if you make very long leases or purchase the aircraft with 60% pre-paid or more
- they honor if you do D-Checks on their aircraft, showing they are important to you and you take care of them
- if you order the competition model of a competitor it will decrease (like 737 classic vs. MD-80s vs. A320)
- you can make MI image campaigns, similar to RI and CI ones - cheap and important for new airlines, very expensive for old airlines. Only one manufacturer can be wooed at one time!
- special promises: In an extra window, you can promise a manufactur you purchase aircraft of a special group (small aircraft, medium, large, very large etc.) for x years only from them. The other manufacturers are then greyed out (or not and if you purchase from the wrong on, breaking your promise, MI will fall hard)
- if you run aircraft fleets from only one manufacturer you get a special increase bonus (like an all Boeing or Tupolev fleet)
The conclusion:
Manufacturer Image (MI) gives the game another level of immersion. You can't just always run for the "best" aircraft of an era, jumping around. Your decisions really make a difference! If you start into a long gameworld (or Jet Age) and go for Douglas because you love the DC-6B you will be sad when you notice Boeing is upset when you later want to purchase 727. But on the other hand you get near the end of the game nice discounts on DC-9-50 becuase the manufacturer knows you. It's like in the bookstore example at the beginning: If you get used to the town, live there and people know you are trustworthy, you will start to get a discount on each book you buy.
Those lists are, of course, not final. They just should give an idea what each point can be influenced by and what it can cause.
The system could also be extended:
1) How Tupolev and Ilyushin announce an alliance? So even a mixed Il/Tu-fleet would count as an all-Tu-fleet, giving you bonuses.
-> Manufacturers are part of two groups: smaller ones (Fokker, Martin, BAC, Saab etc.) and bigger ones (Airbus, Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed) and they can only alliance with another group. Russian manufacturers can only mate with other Russian ones.
2) How about Boeing and Airbus start an economy war? If you purchase competition aircraft during such a war your MI with the other manufacturer really gets hit.
-> wars can only last one year, but maybe the war will go for several years? Nobody knows, like fuel prices.
3) How about Lockheed announces they'll pull out of the civil market and another manufacturer announces he will overtake all the positive MI people have earned at Lockheed to hope they become their customers then?
-> Nobody knows if another company will take over the MI and if yes, which manufacturer this will be (out of the lasting big three)... or even a Russian one?
Each gameworld would be different due to different manufacturer alliances different economy wars and differente announcements of customer care.
(the whole same system could also work for engine manufacturers, too, maybe in a smaller version...)
Of course there can be much addition to this, too. Like new statistics (most loved and most hated customers for each manufacturer) or achievements (get MI 100 at Tupolev. Get MI 100 at Saab. Get MI -100 on Boeing. Make it from MI -70 to +90 on a manufacturer of your choice in a single gameworld).
I'd said this is quite complicated, hard to be implemented
However, I think if you're driving a BMW to a Mercedes dealer, they'd treat you nicely, as it's a chance for them to steal customer from competitor
I do like the idea : certainly the manufacturers do not like to see 'their' customers going elsewhere so a 'loyalty' bonus seems a reasonable option to me. I've also posted elsewhere, regarding commonality, that staying with one manufacturer over several fleet groups should carry a lesser penalty than having many types : reflecting, as you point out, the existing relationship, supply chain, training and familiarity with both products and manufacturers processes.
Quote from: brique on November 22, 2012, 05:30:03 PM
I do like the idea : certainly the manufacturers do not like to see 'their' customers going elsewhere so a 'loyalty' bonus seems a reasonable option to me. I've also posted elsewhere, regarding commonality, that staying with one manufacturer over several fleet groups should carry a lesser penalty than having many types : reflecting, as you point out, the existing relationship, supply chain, training and familiarity with both products and manufacturers processes.
I don't think this actually happens in practice. There are very few airlines in the world with all-airbus or all-boeing fleets.
I like this idea... parallels the fleet commonality points idea. Gives tons of benefits for sticking with one company's models.
Quote from: Dan380 on November 22, 2012, 11:55:18 PM
I don't think this actually happens in practice. There are very few airlines in the world with all-airbus or all-boeing fleets.
Well, Boeing and Airbus seem to spend a lot of lawyer and PR time accusing each other of unfair practice in poaching (or trying to poach) customers from each other : I'm sure if you are Mr Boss of Boss Airlines looking for 30 LH aircraft, if you want Boeing to shift on price, spec or delivery, you let them see your airline ticket to Toulouse.... and in Toulouse, you mention your trip to Seattle next week.
But there are definite financial benefits in operating single manufacturer fleets, same with engine types : but offer a big enough carrot and you may see airlines go to both ; and provoke more accusations about 'subsidies', 'cross-subsidies', etc, etc. And, of course, there are such subsidies, for both manufacturers ; call it 'support' or call it 'research funding' or just sweetheart tax deals...
Quote from: Dan380 on November 22, 2012, 11:55:18 PM
I don't think this actually happens in practice. There are very few airlines in the world with all-airbus or all-boeing fleets.
This is a statement I can not agree with. While you will see that most major airline's fleets occupy many types, it is not because of their purchasing. It is a product of the various mergers and acquisitions that have taken place.
For example, Continental was an all Boeing fleet dominated by the 737/757 and 767/777 for long haul. Now you add in United who brings with them A320s. TWA collapsed and AA got a huge fleet of MD80s they are still flying today with their 737s... Many of these merged airlines assumed orders, others didn't. Those with poor commonality/older fleets truly are feeling an impact from it these days. AA is the best example.
Quote from: Dan380 on November 22, 2012, 11:55:18 PM
I don't think this actually happens in practice. There are very few airlines in the world with all-airbus or all-boeing fleets.
Do some research on the so-called gentleman's agreement that Boeing had with Delta, Continental and American. There was essentially an exclusivity agreement that each airline had made with Boeing in exchange for more favorable pricing. That particular clause was voided by the EU when they merged with McDonnell Douglas, however, it shows that it is a VERY real thing in practice.
I think progressively, this is what AWS's economics should start to look like. Streamlining Fleet Common based off manufacturer types and fleets is the next logical step that were missing.
This also makes fleet common much more important (harsh?) that perhaps we will see less of: new airline lease-everything-to-get-big-then-use-profits-to-streamline-costs-for-survival growth strategy.
Talentz
This feature request isn't, honestly, based on reality or real life.
AirwaySim is a game with good parts that are realism, but it's not an absolute correct life-situation. This even starts with the fact days only have 25-35 minutes. :)
The purpose of this feature request is to increase fun of playing AirwaySim due to adding a more immersive level for the player, random actions (I really'd love the manufacturer alliances/wars) and longterm-feature.
One of the big points sami brought against longterm gameworlds is keeping up the fun. This can be done if there are features that develop over time. In my head it's not like every airline has it's 1-2 manufacturers with MI 100. High MI should be a rare standard that can be achieved by every kind of (good leaded) airline, but not just by playing the game on a day to day base.
One really has to make a strategy (but not with too much time consumption) in choosing aircraft manufacturer and staying them.
I had some nice Skype-Discussions about this yesterday. We thought about which way we'd go. It's not easy. Starting with DC-6B, clearly best aircraft early, basically makes it hard for you to get 727/737 later and you have to go for the DC-9 or change the manufacturer and start over. So the not very loved Boeing 377 might be an idea to start with - you might suck at first, but if you play well and reach high MI, Boeing even might give you some extra delivery spaces for their 727.
A really hard decision. One that really has influence for the whole game, but never destroys gameplay.
And if you go for the Lockheed Constellation? What if the dices decide no other major manufacturer will overtake their MI? It's end of the 70s, you are a good 20 years into the gameworld and - poof - your MI is gone. While you don't have problems to aquire small or medium aircraft, how will you go back to be good friends with Boeing? You need to order aircraft. Maybe not exactly because you need those exact aircraft, but to start a new big friendship.
Honestly - I'd go for the Lockheed way. Exclusive long-range aircraft and the possibility to run into a very big random event? Sounds great!
You want to aquire a big bunch of aircraft but then there starts a manufacturer war? Mhm. What to do? Maybe wait some more month and hope the war ends? Or ordering now and taking the big MI hit, making it nearly impossible to lease aircraft from them some day in the future.
Those are CEO decisions. And not just if the new route to Barcelona should start at 6am or 7am. :P
Quote from: schro on November 23, 2012, 02:04:11 AM
Do some research on the so-called gentleman's agreement that Boeing had with Delta, Continental and American. There was essentially an exclusivity agreement that each airline had made with Boeing in exchange for more favorable pricing. That particular clause was voided by the EU when they merged with McDonnell Douglas, however, it shows that it is a VERY real thing in practice.
No offence, but I don't think Sami is planning on simulating anti-competitive activity any time soon... :laugh:
Swiftus, look at the European legacy carriers. I.e. BA, Air France/KLM (as seperate), Lufthansa, Alitalia. These airlines have not been in any mergers in the past 15-20 years that have greatly affected their fleet types... and yet they mix A320s with 747s, 737s with A340s, and everything in between.
Quote from: Dan380 on November 23, 2012, 10:33:23 AM
No offence, but I don't think Sami is planning on simulating anti-competitive activity any time soon... :laugh:
Swiftus, look at the European legacy carriers. I.e. BA, Air France/KLM (as seperate), Lufthansa, Alitalia. These airlines have not been in any mergers in the past 15-20 years that have greatly affected their fleet types... and yet they mix A320s with 747s, 737s with A340s, and everything in between.
Take DLH as an example... they aim for an all Airbus fleet (excl. 747-830i), which certainly gives them some "manufacturer's bonus" with Airbus, while Boeing might not like it at all :P....
Air France... LOL ;D A330/340, A380, 772/3, 747
BA: Always been loyal with Boeing, e.g. biggest operator of 744, big 777 orders, but now switching to Airbus (which sucks :P ) (737 --> A320, adding A380s, A350 on order [?] ).
I guess many of these decisions are also economically influenced... Airbus has facilities in most western European states, which might be a reason for these airlines to use the plane, since it saves jobs in their own countries (--> more people to be able to afford flying).
And what is anti-competitive about it? It is just a bonus, if you take a hit, so should equal out.
Anyways, I'd love this one added, but might take quite some hours of coding :P
cheers,
Jona L.
Please don't make real life references. This is a game and decisions from (former) goverment controlled airlines don't count.
I thought about modelling these into my feature request here, but it would make people to choose their homebase on what aircraft they want to use and that can't be the idea of a game.
I'm also fully aware of the fact there might be exceptions when manufacturers try to win competitors' customers. But AWS is a game and I thought and still think such a feature would enhance game fun a lot. Halo, Call of Duty and World of Warcraft are maybe unrealistic sometimes, too, but they all make lots of fun. ;)
Thought did occur : as manufacturers merge ; and in Europe they all did via some tortuous routes to end up as Airbus : that would give an interesting selection path from DH114 to A380...