#1:
One thought came to my mind ... From time to time players abandon a game world while they have a fully functioning and profitable airline - reasons vary of course why they do this. But I came to think that it's not very realistic that if CEO quits, the airline is closed (I mean for large airlines, not small firms with <10 planes as in such firms the CEO can really be the sole owner too).
So what if ... The airline would still be kept alive automatically (= just all stuff to automatic, staff+maintenances etc) for a period of time and new players could apply for the job of the airline CEO. Meaning that a new player joining the world could either start an airline from scratch or then seek "to be employed" by some of the airlines looking for a new CEO. If new ceo is not found the company would be closed..
This would also potentially be a saviour in those (only few) rare cases where player has run out of Cr's, forgot to buy more, and lost his airline because of that. (that's "his fault" still of course .. but seen it 2-3 times already, and we cannot recover a closed airline)
But this change, if it would work, could bring more "duration" to the game worlds as large airlines won't then just disappear (financial bankruptcies aside of course). New players could also get easier starts with a precreated airline. Downsides what I can think of are also for new players - they may have very hard time understanding what the previous guy has done as there cannot be any kind of briefing made to him (unless the two players have agreed of such CEO transfer scheme). And also that clear rule / info must be posted to the players that they can allow this - in some cases airline rebranding will be necessary as some players have airline names reserved to them.
#2:
Or even more drastic would be a deal where each player is only an employer of the company, not the owner, and can be fired from his task if the "board of directors" (=computer) is not satisfied with his performance as manager. This would of course need some given tasks for the player/manager. ...though is option is not very fun if someone really would like to keep playing with the airline.
Option 1
Reasons:
It's Much more realistic and is best for current games.
Option 2
Best for Scenario's.
The best way to handle it, in my opinion, would be to just let things go. When a CEO bails on an airline, it should be "bailed out" by the federal government and whatever profits are made from flights out of an airport should goto the airport and distributed to the airlines flying out of said airport based on market share since they are losing the potential to fly those routes and make the money themselves. For example, if you have a route from ATL to LAX and back and make $20k profit on the route from ATL to LAX and $10k profit on the route from LAX to ATL, $20k profit goes to ATL and is given to the airlines based at ATL based on market share and $10k given to the airlines based at LAX. If/when the airline starts going into the red, it will eventually be liquidated by the bank.
It doesn't seem fair that someone can come in and take over for someone else, but maintaining the airline through a "bail out" would keep the airline alive for the owner to take control back if they choose to do so without hurting existing players and taking away passengers. You want to make the game as realistic as possible, right? Bailouts are the wave of the future :)
Why would competitor airlines receive money when their competitor decides to cease operating .. ? We're still trying to simulate reality here to some extent. ;) :P
(the cases where the ORIGINAL player wants to come back are only very very rare cases, but just pointed out that too since it has happened)
I think both of these scenarios are a bit farfetched and would make the game a bit more complicated and difficult to understand.
With regards to #1, I don't think airlines should be operated as zombies awaiting new CEO's when the player is no longer in the game. Even if its a viable enterprise with a strong route structure, a sizeable airline going bankrupt gives other players in the game an opportunity for expansion (i.e. if that airline had a chokehold on a particular city's traffic). This recently happened in Modern Times #1, where a 130+ plane airline went BK at ORD. This has given me countless expansion opportunities where there havn't been as many opportunities out of my home city.
When you think back to historical bankruptcies/airlines being snuffed out, it happened in a few different ways - 1. A vacuum is created from the sudden stoppage of the airline - Eastern, for example, cleared the way for ValuJet (now Airtran) to start operations in Atlanta out of Concourse C. American expanded by purchasing Eastern's MIA assets, etc. Since the game does not allow multi-hub operation, its a bit more difficult to simulate this aside from what it already does - unserviced travel demand and a glut of used aircraft on the market. 2. The other way airlines are snuffed out are from mergers/acquistions. Most recently DL/NW or many of the others in the past.
With regards to #2, I think for the games as they stand now this idea would not work very well. However, if scenarios were developed with specific objectives/tasks as the game objective (rather than the basic bury your competition and make money scenario), having the threat of the plug being pulled would be a good way to keep the game in check. For example, in a "green" scenario where the objective is to build the most fuel efficient airline, it could be grounds to be fired if you're making a truckload of money with gas guzzlers.... but I'd say this should be handled as if someone is BK'ed as they are now.
The other interesting concept would be the ability to transfer "ownership" of the airline to a different player - perhaps I start a basic airline but then want to transfer it to a friend of mine and start another one fresh. However, this might create a secondary market with the pros out there playing to make money and sell their airlines to less experienced players wanting to know what running a successful airline is like....
Competitors would get a share of profits because the airline is still flying and taking up passenger demand whereas if the airline was bankrupted, it would free up a lot of demand and thus airlines could fly the routes themselves and profit, however that opportunity isn't given to them when the airline is still operating.
In the AirwaySim world, all airlines pay 30% tax. In the real world, taxpayers are the shareholders of bailed out companies, even though its bogus. Since all airlines are taxpayers, perhaps everyone should get a cut?
In a situation where a CEO quits, why don't we assume that he/she quit under "shady" circumstances (just for the fun of it). Then have the "recievers" come in and take over the company for a period of time to sell of the assets and recoup the money for the investors. However, because the airline is operating profitably put the routes along with the a/c on the market as operating units. For example, Company CEO quits (because he was found to be stealing lunches from the company refrigerator) and the recievers sell off his 20 route pairs with the a/c on those routes as 20 (or so) units. I would prefer to see an auction situation but you could set it up like the existing used a/c sales lot. With the new multi base ability coming out it shouldn't be a problem for other airlines to buy routes that don't originate at their home base.
If this interests you, I would also propose that a similar system be used to liquidate the operating assets of bankrupt companies. I assume there is more value in an operating a/c rather than one parked in the desert. The money raised would obviously go to the "creditors" and jobs and otherwise healthy routes (or even shady routes that need better management) would be saved.
This system would also allow new players to buy their way into established markets but not unfairly.
GM
In the AirwaySim world, all airlines pay 30% tax. In the real world, taxpayers are the shareholders of bailed out companies, even though its bogus. Since all airlines are taxpayers, perhaps everyone should get a cut?
---
That's incorrect. It's based on what country you are in.. UAE has 0% tax. Let's all hurry there ;D.
Actually I really like the first or the second idea. The only thing I wonder about is how to do it that somebody would come and get a really profitable airline?
Maybe it would be better if the airline stayed and lost a plane in a game week (month)? so that ways slowly getting smaller and smaller which would for example simulate the bankrupcy and selling the airline = no fast expansions for those who can afford it and more chance for the small ones to continue.
Otherwise it would be nice if you would be able to buy the airline as a whole in some sort of an auction system for the time being (which could be connected with the idea stated up - as the airline would be loosing the planes, the price would decrease).
If wanted this could be connected with somebody who could work for AirwaySim as a bankrupcy liquidator - there could be a proposal for the airline merger or an overtake and he could reject it if he would think that the possition of that airline would be too strong later on (anti-monopoly office). I would gladly do such job. It would be fun :)
Quote from: schro on January 02, 2010, 03:19:01 AM
With regards to #1, I don't think airlines should be operated as zombies awaiting new CEO's when the player is no longer in the game.
Yes but in #1 scenario the airline is
not bankrupt, it's financially still OK but just without a CEO. For max some 6-12 game months, during which time the existing routes would be operated with the preset prices and all staff/marketing/maintenance is on auto so the company won't stall right away. Not sure how that would work on practise though.
If the airline is in bad financial condition then of course this wouldn't happen.
(why I am thinking this is just this; it's not that "accurate" to have a wellgoing airline to go bust because CEO quits)
How about a modification of #1 where the airline board will seek applications, and the CEO with the highest personal net worth who applies gets the job? The (presumably smaller) airline then goes to the next CEO who wants to apply. That gives a reason not to zero out the CEO salary line item.
To make things more interesting, give the CEO a bonus for successful operation of the new airline. At the end of a set amount of time, have the formerly BK airline give a bonus equal to, say, 10% of it's profit for the first profitable year to the airline CEO, giving him a jump in reputation for the next airline to go bust. This would open a new field of play for gamers who want to be "turn around agents." I intentionally screw up my airlines to see how big of a hole I can dig myself out off, this would be a much more interesting and fun way of doing that.
I think option #1 is a superb idea.
2009 was somewhat of an exception, but large airlines are generally taken over by new management in times of crisis and do not usually go bust. Often the game can become mundane and boring once an airline is running well and competition dies down. The introduction of a new CEO would help the airline regain impetous. In MT#1, for example, I would willingly hand over my airline (Manchestair) if there was an option - I've acheived all I wanted and I tweak a route here and there every day or so, but thats it. The airline runs itself and the idea that someone else might want to take over would reignite some competition, which the games lack in the second half.
As alluded to by Sami, it would also allow new players or frequently bankrupting players to see how things work when an airline does well.
In the longer term, this could also lead to the continuous world that has been mentioned quietly in the past. I doubt any player would wish to remain in charge of an airline for years and this would open up the opportunity of a world where the market is much more realistic when starting. The biggest airlines would eventually go pop, if a CEO took charge that was unfamiliar with a larger airline. Sabotage would also be a possibility here and add new twists to the game. If a huge airline became available for new management, someone may take charge to destroy them and free up slots/routes etc. An exciting turn I think :)
Anyway, option 1 gets my vote - superb progressive thinking Sami.
Cheers,
Dave :)
oh, and to add.. This CEO idea what I posted is also part of the 'package' where I tend to shift the focus a bit into a "be a CEO" type of game. Which means that when game world starts you get X amount of $$$'s as your personal wealth. You could then try to apply for jobs at existing airlines, or start a new airline (by investing all or some of your money, and getting the rest from outside investors). Then when you got an airline, you manage it normally and get paid the salary and possible stock dividends. And CEO could also trade with airline stocks by using his personal money..
If the company goes down you still have your personal money that can be used to start another airline (or if you're out of it, the outside investors will then just pitch in with 100% ownership share).
That's also an easy way to determine a game world winner, player with highest personal wealth.
Quote from: sami on January 04, 2010, 08:06:18 PM
oh, and to add.. This CEO idea what I posted is also part of the 'package' where I tend to shift the focus a bit into a "be a CEO" type of game. Which means that when game world starts you get X amount of $$$'s as your personal wealth. You could then try to apply for jobs at existing airlines, or start a new airline (by investing all or some of your money, and getting the rest from outside investors). Then when you got an airline, you manage it normally and get paid the salary and possible stock dividends. And CEO could also trade with airline stocks by using his personal money..
If the company goes down you still have your personal money that can be used to start another airline (or if you're out of it, the outside investors will then just pitch in with 100% ownership share).
That's also an easy way to determine a game world winner, player with highest personal wealth.
I really support what you just said here. And it you plan this I really also support fully your proposed ideas. If we were to make it like this, it would be nice - then "zombie airlines" are a good idea too.
I'm all for option 1. There seems to be a huge void created in the longer games and some of the enjoyment is taken away
This might be a little far fetched but what about another option or even this option incorporated into any of the other two options suggested already...
It has been suggested before that when a new game world opens, there could be already established airlines (run by the simulation) operating on routes before said world has even started. This idea was supposedly an option to limit how quickly/aggressively player controlled airlines could expand so that they didn't dominate everything and everyone in just a matter of a few game years.
Now my suggestion would be that at the very beginning of when you go through the process of picking your airline name and operating base, why not have an option where the player can choose whether or not he wants to take over one of these (simulation) airlines or start his own from scratch?
I think for the more experienced players, they would rather start their own as this would add an extra dimension to the game because it provides them with yet another 'challenge' to overcome by trying to compete with already established airlines. This would add more excitement to these players and might give them reason to keep going in the game rather than bankrupting because it got mudane or boring for them.
As for the less experienced players or even beginners, they would be more inclined to choose an already established airline 'to see how it can be done'. They can look around these airlines and get an idea of how things run in the game, giving them useful hints and tips on what they should actually be doing. This could in some way be linked in with the tutorial idea.
Or if they really want a lesson then they would choose to start from scatch also. :P
This could also be incorporated into option 1 whereby when the CEO decides he's had enough and quits, the airline is then run by the simulation again (whether it be from a player who started from scratch or if it was a previously run simulation airline). Even if a less experienced (in the beginning) thinks he/she has now got the hang of things after a while, they might think of leaving but instead of just leaving the game altoghter they might decide to start their own airline from scratch, now knowing how to run an airline without bankrupting several times over like they do at the moment. So in a sense, this could be a sort of tutorial for them.
This could also tie in with the 'CEO wealth' structure that has already been suggested in this thread so you could actually create quite a few possiblities in progessing forward in the development of this great game.
I think with these ideas, it would give players in the longer game worlds more longevity with their airlines rather than bankrupting because they're bored.
Anyway, i did say it might be a little too far fetched but it just popped into my head while i was reading through this thread and i thought i might aswell share this with you and see what people may think. :)
Andrew
Loving your idea's sami! ;D
Sounds interesting. I would like to move around the world managing different airlines and styles.
Though I would also prefer the merger/buy-out option for other airlines as well. Sadly though, I doubt any proposed anti-monopoly broad would dream of allowing me to do that...
Talentz
The idea of an airline-buy out or merger sounds interesting. to keep it realistic - perhaps only airlines in the country of airline sale could be included - i.e. US carriers cant buy EU ones, or Vice Versa. Also, the buying player should be a profitable carrier.
Player A wants to sell his airline for many reasons - bankruptcy, bored, not a challenge. Player b can buy the airline, and assumes all liabilities, aircraft, leases, staff etc with the challenge (if buying a bankrupt carrier) of turning the carrier around before it assumes the host carrier.
Programming wise, you then have the issue of a dual hub carrier, with aircraft maintenance happening in two cities.
Perhaps there is a benefit to the selling carrier too - the owner could walk away with some cash to start a new carrier elsewhere.
I like both ideas. BTW, i´m one of the guys who allways close down well running airlines.
it´s just because I mostly enjoy the experience to build up an airline from the start. When it is grown and i get a cashflow what i even can´t invest any longer, I "bancrupt" the airline and start a new one.
Every player has his own type of gaming, so it might be interesting (e.g.learning other ones strategies) to be CEO of an airline that somebody else builded up. But it might be hard for a new player to manage running airline with about 100 planes.
Considering the buy of another airline there has to be some kind of a control mechanism in case it goes into operation. For example if you try to do it there has to be a real two day pool for every player included in the game with a yes-no option so in case two biggest airlines are trying to merge it would prevent it.
This way it would prevent one incredibly huge airline consuming all world.
Or there could be a board of lets say ten players which would work in the same way = as a anti-monopoly board.
Sami - this could be a nice money earner - buy a second airline - pay two times the number of credits!
Quote from: Minto Typhoon on January 06, 2010, 10:25:46 PM
Sami - this could be a nice money earner - buy a second airline - pay two times the number of credits!
???
Quote from: Minto Typhoon on January 06, 2010, 10:25:46 PM
Sami - this could be a nice money earner - buy a second airline - pay two times the number of credits!
that isn't even what he's suggesting...... :-\ what he's suggesting is that if the CEO of an airline wants to leave for any reason in particular, another player can take over to run that airline, the story of Real-world airlines.. ;)
Also, just a thought (if it hasn't been made clear already); the first player that had left should stop payments and the second player should take over. that would help. ;)
Cheers,
ICEcold
I like idea #1.
But also selling airlines could be good (you could transfer your airline to someone and get money to start another airline in game)...
I like this idea except that my only concern is it will only make big airlines much bigger, making it more difficult for the younger, less established players to gain a footing in the territories where the target carrier flies.
Maybe it can be something like this:
a) the carrier must be profitable for at least 1 full year until the time the target is intended to be sold-off. For instance, if the CEO wants to sell it off in October 2011, he should have a net profit since October 2010.
b) there should be a 30-day notice to give interested buyers a chance to think about the transaction
c) only the airlines based in the airport where the target is located as well as new entrants are eligible to bid unless the prospective bidder intends to sell his other airline; to address the issue of fairness to new entrants, there should be further rules or incentives to entice them to bid
Quote from: hybridace101 on March 04, 2010, 04:13:08 AM
I like this idea except that my only concern is it will only make big airlines much bigger, making it more difficult for the younger, less established players to gain a footing in the territories where the target carrier flies.
Maybe it can be something like this:
a) the carrier must be profitable for at least 1 full year until the time the target is intended to be sold-off. For instance, if the CEO wants to sell it off in October 2011, he should have a net profit since October 2010.
b) there should be a 30-day notice to give interested buyers a chance to think about the transaction
c) only the airlines based in the airport where the target is located as well as new entrants are eligible to bid unless the prospective bidder intends to sell his other airline; to address the issue of fairness to new entrants, there should be further rules or incentives to entice them to bid
you guys aren't getting what sami is saying. What he's saying is that if you wanted to leave the game and have another player that is on STAND-BY, the other member could choose to take the airline up for resale and head it into future years as the CEO. It has nothing to do with other member playing as another airline, buying up the airline only adding to the growth of the airline, but it has everything to do with ANOTHER player that currently is not playing in the game to take over the airline that has no CEO. ;)
Quote from: ali5541 on January 01, 2010, 11:39:25 PM
Option 1
Reasons:
It's Much more realistic and is best for current games.
Option 2
Best for Scenario's.
Agree 100%. It would make the game much more interesting.
But Sami, wouldnt that require a good amount of coding work to make any of the options happen?
What about having distressed airlines able to raise new investment by selling shares? I know of several airlines (I was almost one of them) that were operationally sound but got in a jamb because of a/c deliveries. In this case the CEO would either be fired or if he/she was quick enough they put out a call for investors to save the company.
GM
absolutely agree GM. I think that capitalization of shares to save airlines by other investing in the airline is a good way to save them in case of bankruptcy. Of course, it would only be needed to have stock exchanges for each continent, like NASDAQ (North American Stock Exchange). It would get too complicated to have Stock Exchanges from each city, like the TSX (Toronto Stock Exchange). ;)
So, um, where is this feature now exactly? I mean, planned? Dropped? Possibly what version? I really like it and looking forward to it!!
v1.2 ;)
Sorry to bump an old topic, but I was about to post something like the #1 idea in the topic starter and then found this.
Sami, has this idea been buried, shelved or forgotten? What do you (and others) think, should and/or will it ever be implemented?
No, it is coming at some point. Funny actually, I just thought of it myself too yesterday.
Why not....
put the airline of which the CEO quit, up for sale? In bits or as a whole? I think this option has been discussed before in some form or another. If somebody wants to buy my airline, he makes me an offer. I accept it, my entire airline is transferred to merge with his. Let's say he offered me 100 million for it, I take my 100 million and start again somewhere else or at the same place. Or sell pizza's.
At first I agreed with the ideas but then I thought... hang on a minute... lets say a new player joins the game at january 1 2012 game time. Modern Times, almost no available airports, few aircraft on the market. Out of sheer desperation he starts an airline in some God forsaken place. Then, at january 2 2012, a major airline CEO gets bored and decides he wants to sell pizza's. The next player to join then gets to 'own' that major airline.
What you could do, is have EVERYBODY apply for that airline. Also the players currently playing. Whoever decides who gets the job, I leave up to you sami but lets say I get the job, my airline becomes available. Players can apply for mine as well. Etc etc. That seems fairer to me.
Another Reborned Topic! 2 y
Well, in practice, CEOs don't buy and sell airlines; owners (shareholders) do. That is, of course, unless the CEO also owns the airline. Normally, though, the CEO is an employee, hired by the board of directors to run the company. That's also why you get salary and not dividends in AWS. I've noticed most players regard the airline's cash as their own - in real life, one would end up behind bars for that.
It will basically be in a way that if an airline is closed due player inactivity, it enters to AI management and goes under "looking for new manager" status. Then it will be first come, first served basis where the fastest player can grab the airline and become the operating CEO there. If no interested players in certain time the airline will be closed.
And if the airline is in bad shape to begin with, or too small, it never goes to this stage at all but is immediately closed.
And also when player manually bankrupts, he has also the option to leave the airline open for new CEO or close it down.
The ownership / shares / dividends etc is a completely different item.
Quote from: sami on March 14, 2012, 08:53:34 PM
It will basically be in a way that if an airline is closed due player inactivity, it enters to AI management and goes under "looking for new manager" status. Then it will be first come, first served basis where the fastest player can grab the airline and become the operating CEO there. If no interested players in certain time the airline will be closed.
And if the airline is in bad shape to begin with, or too small, it never goes to this stage at all but is immediately closed.
And also when player manually bankrupts, he has also the option to leave the airline open for new CEO or close it down.
The ownership / shares / dividends etc is a completely different item.
How about a friendly transfer? If a player is unable to continue playing, and he has a friend who would be willing to take over, would that be possible?
Quote from: sami on March 14, 2012, 08:53:34 PM
And if the airline is in bad shape to begin with, or too small, it never goes to this stage at all but is immediately closed.
Sami, would you be so kind and give some more insight into the ways of determining whether the airline is in too bad shape or too small for a new CEO to take over?
Obviously the two-plane-airlines that go belly-up on a daily basis are probably too small. Similarly, if the player quits only weeks before an otherwise inevitable financial bankruptcy, the CEO position shouldn't be on offer either.
But I'd like to think that if there is an airline with, let's say, 5 aircraft and a poor but improvable financial state, a new CEO should be able to pick it up and try to turn it around.
But the argument may be that the airline is so small that you are just as well to start off yourself without the disadvantage.
I guess the idea of turning around small airlines will be appealing to some players though, so it's a matter of opinion.
Quote from: citywalker on March 15, 2012, 08:56:03 PM
Sami, would you be so kind and give some more insight into the ways of determining whether the airline is in too bad shape or too small for a new CEO to take over?
Let's say less than 10 planes, or cash balance below (-$5million * local inflation rate .. = $5mil 2005 year money) .. or that way. Keeping it simple.
I 100% agree with pretty much everything that has been said - but to keep it simple let's just use option 1, maybe if we do scenarios like EU-NA or (even better) Asia-NA-Oceania? That would be a cool way of making scenarios and gameworlds... ;)
Cheers,
ICEcold
Quote from: sami on March 15, 2012, 09:26:16 PM
Let's say less than 10 planes, or cash balance below (-$5million * local inflation rate .. = $5mil 2005 year money) .. or that way. Keeping it simple.
What about no restrictions?
What I mean is if user starts an airline and exits the game, regardless of circumstances (with obvious prevision to allow them to return relatively quickly), the airline is then turned over to AI management. You, sami, would setup the default logic for said AI airlines and so it would be adjustable by you at any time. Any new players joining that game world would get the previously mentioned prompt to start a new airline or accept an existing one. It would be up to
the player to decide if it was a good bet or not. Meanwhile the game worlds would remain populated instead of the existing model where you can literally poach another player's setup if you know enough ahead of time.
Sorry I did not read every reply as yet, maybe this was already covered. :-[
There is no sense in keeping "complele failure" airlines there. What I meant that it will just remove the worst of worst....
e.g. when Dutch Airlines went under and had a value of $-1 billion USD and finally was chopped by the game's bankruptcy thing. ;)
I would think that while airlines closed by the bank should not be eligible, any airline closed voluntarily by a player should qualify, regardless of the financial standing.
I'm someone who would very much like to see a full stock market, M&A type system implemented in to the game but I agree this would be a good step in the meantime. The one thing I would disagree with is this...
Quote from: sami on March 14, 2012, 08:53:34 PM
It will basically be in a way that if an airline is closed due player inactivity, it enters to AI management and goes under "looking for new manager" status. Then it will be first come, first served basis where the fastest player can grab the airline and become the operating CEO there If no interested players in certain time the airline will be closed.
I think one of the opportunities that airlines continuing could provide is the chance for people to "move up" as CEOs from a small airline to a medium sized one to a large one. So I think it would be better if who becomes manager of an airline is in some way based on skill / past performance, rather than just on who happens to be online at the right moment. At the same time though I recognise part of the idea is that new players joining the game take over an airline and they would no doubt want to do this immediately, so how about the following compromise?
If an airline has less than 20 aircraft when it's manager leaves the airline CEO position is made available on a first come first served basis for 72hrs real time. If no one takes it on the airline closes.
If an airline has more than 20 aircraft when its manager leaves "applications" are invited and after 48hrs real time the person with the highest CEO wealth or CV on their previous airline is awarded the position, and their previous airline is in turn listed as looking for a new manager.
having played a number of emerging markets and top notch airports (bases ORD, LHR), I have to say I don't really like this idea at all. If someone chooses to walk away, so be it. Let the airline run its course and shut down. Part of the fun it starting in a scramble of 6 airlines at some of these hubs. It a "#$#@#%" lot of work to build a competitive airline at some of these places. The idea that someone gets to walk away and then someone else just takes over seems to be rigging the system if you ask me. The walking away by some players is what ultimately make it fun for those who plan to sign up for the whole scenario.
Playing LHR last year with the strict slot controls...part of the fun was someone leaving and then having a window of time to get new planes and use up the open slots. If two months into the scenario you have something like. BritAir 1000 slots; BritishInternational 800 slots; BritishWorld 800slots; BritishFareastern 600 slots; BritishDomestic 500 slots; BritishAtlantic 500 slots...what's really the point to play if this is how it's going to be for the next 4 months?
If you don't want to play for the length of the scenario, then let someone new into the hub and let the survivors keep fighting it our for market share or let someone new open a hub.
People walk away all the time; maybe too busy running other airlines in other scenarios. Really we don't know; but I know I've gotten into 2 scenarios and neglected one airline at certain times. Sometimes the neglected one fails and sometime it takes a hiatus and then I can get it back on track. All and all, If someone abandons the airline, then let it fail or let the competition exapand around it. While the the idea is interesting, I think you are proposping to open a pandorra's box of issues.
I would be for a the ability to buy an airline that a CEOwants to put up for sale. or have the game engine divide the hubs and sell them with the planes and staff. That would be a lot fairer with the same 100 plane restriction (i.e., if the HQ hub goes on the market then you are limited to buying 100 planes and there routes...or something like that)
If you insist on something like this; then I think you should seriously consider some exclusions, like this can't happen at the world's top 25 airports or something like that. Otherwise I see a significant disincentive to play these large hubs as alliances will just move things around rather than really competing. I also see the opportunity for a relay race of malfeseance (unfortunately there are just way too many examples of past players woring together to make the game less fun for others) this seems like a perfect way to perptuate some of these bad habits without a lot of controls in place --that's in my humble opinion.
While option 1 would work, could there also be an option to say, buy airplanes that the bankrupted airline owned or the whole airline that declared bankruptcy to try and expand and than take the other airlines hub and make it another base airport but than have to create new route(s) to try and create new competition between airlines?
Quote from: libertyairlines on May 28, 2012, 02:24:22 AM
While option 1 would work, could there also be an option to say, buy airplanes that the bankrupted airline owned or the whole airline that declared bankruptcy to try and expand and than take the other airlines hub and make it another base airport but than have to create new route(s) to try and create new competition between airlines?
The planes of bankrupted airlines already go to the AI brokers to be sold on the used market. Is that what you meant? Or a scheme to get these planes directly to newbies? I kind of like having an equal shot at these planes, plus it takes pressure of the new aircraft market.
My thought was that if they owned a plane than that could be sold off with the rest of the airline. The leased planes would still go back to the market was my thought.
Bumping this thread back up as I have been giving some thought recently to how a simple-ish but at least somewhat (only somewhat!) realistic system for buying and selling airlines might work. Here's my suggested model:
Basic Principles:
(1) Every player acts as an investor. At the same time they can be CEO of one airline at a time.
(2) Ownership of any airline is split in to 25 "blocks" of 4% equity. One person could own all 25 blocks, 25 people could own a block each, or somewhere in between. The CEO salary line of staff costs would be removed - players make their money through investments.
(3) Each year, every airline has an AGM. In advance of this date, all investors in an airline select two things on a special screen: whether they want to retain the current CEO or advertise for a new one; and what percentage of revenues (within a fixed range, say 1% to 20%) they want to be distributed to investors. These two decisions are then taken based on ownership percentages - the dividend calculated proportionally.
- Example: London Airlines is 60% owned by Player A, 24% owned by Player B and 16% owned by Player C. Player A votes to retain the CEO and for a 5% dividend, Player B votes to retain the CEO but for a 12% dividend, Player C is not happy and votes to sack the CEO and have a 20% dividend. As 84% of the shareholdings voted to retain the CEO he stays in place, and the dividend will work out as 9% (average of 60x5%, 24x12%, 16x20%, rounded to nearest 1%) so 9% of revenues will be distributed amongst the investors based on their shareholdings.
(4) At any time, an airline's CEO can choose to make a special dividend payout to shareholders, which will be divided up according to shareholding. The CEO can also choose to inject cash in to the airline from their own funds at any time. Other investors cannot do this (to stop an essentially bankrupt airline being propped up indefinitely by benevolent investors).
At Game Start:
Each player is given a certain amount of money. They can use this money to found an airline of which they own 100% or they can accept investments from a number of AI "investors" - each of whom will have certain demands in order for the CEO to retain their vote at the AGM, but based on different things (Investor A might demand a fleet size of at least 10, Investor B that the average age of the fleet is less than 10 years, Investor C a CI of at least 40 etc). This gives the players a strategic choice at the start - accept (comparatively small amounts of) funding and dilute your influence or retain 100% control of the company yourself.
After Three Years:
Three years after the GW starts (I suggest one year for those airlines established after the GW is at least 3 years old) these investors will put their investments on to the open market. The player can also choose to put some of their equity up for sale (in blocks of 4%) or use their own funds to buy equity in other airlines. This would probably be on something very much like the current used market (although I'd love it if ebay style auctions could be put in). A player can put more than half their equity up for sale (e.g. 13% chunks of 4% would be 52%) but they will get big flashing warnings if they do that they could end up losing control of the CEO position if the other investors disapprove of them! One slightly difficult situation here is that if somebody wants to buy a stake in the company they should be allowed to see the balance sheet first - but this means players having to give away their data. I'd suggest there is a "deposit" charge of about 10% of the cost of the equity to view the balance sheet, discouraging those who are not serious about investing from nosing in to their competitors' business.
When an airline bankrupts:
When an airline BKs for whatever reason, their airline is put up for sale with 60 days to submit bids. Anyone taking on the airline assumes its assets - aircraft owned, slots etc - but also its liabilities - debts, loans and aircraft leases. If an airline was actually quite healthy (just BKing because the owner got bored for example) its loans are repaid and then bidding starts from the amount of cash on hand the airline had, to stop people from getting free money by buying defunct airlines.
There would be two ways to submit bids for a defunct airline: one to bid for the whole airline; two to bid for a bit part of it. An airline would be split in to parts based on two things: its bases; and the division of domestic, international short-haul and international long-haul that the game already makes. So a big airline with 2 bases that flew all three of these categories could potentially be divided in to 6 parts: each part coming with a certain number of slots and appropriate aircraft, as well as a share of the company debts (perhaps proportional to the total seat capacity of the aircraft being acquired). This approach is necessary to stop a situation where a huge airline going BK can't be bought by anyone because no-one has enough cash!
After 60 days the system looks at whether more money can be made from selling the airline as a whole, or from selling it off in different parts. It will then accept the offer (or combination of offers) that earns the most money and pass this to the investors of the BKed airline. If any parts of the airline are not sold they will be liquidated with the slots returned to the pool, the leased a/c returned to the owner/broker and any owned aircraft sold to a broker at a discount and the money distributed to investors.
Upon taking control of an airline:
When a player takes control of more than 50% of an airline - either through buying part or all of a BKed one, or through buying equity in an ongoing airline, they have up to four choices of what to do with it:
(1) Merge it in to another airline of which they own more than 50%. However, this is subject to the usual basing rules so if you are based in Canada you can't buy an airline based in Singapore and merge. Also if a merger would mean the new airline owned more than 60% of the 0500-2300 slots in a class 5 airport, 70% in a class 4, 80% in a class 3 or 90% in a class 2 they will have to surrender some slots to the public pool as a result of anti-monopoly provisions.
(2) Found a new airline and establish themselves as the CEO. In this case, the airline of which they were previously CEO (if any) will advertise for a new CEO.
(3) Found a new airline and advertise for someone else to take over as CEO. In this case, an advertisement runs for 60 days after which the owner can select the person they would like to take over.
(4) Liquidate the airline, paying off any debts themselves and transferring any owned a/c to any other airline they own more than 50% of. Slots are returned to the public pool and leased a/c to their owners.
(Incidentally I know that IRL there are lots of rules in every country about foreign investors but I think these should be set aside - other than the basing rules - to make the simulation more interesting. Otherwise everyone who may want to buy an airline in future will all base in EU or US, making the whole thing less interesting).
Advantages of this system
(1) Reduce mid-game boredom for big airlines.
(2) Clear measure of "winning" a GW = person (not airline) with highest value at game end.
(3) BKed airlines don't just disappear, more realistic.
(4) More options for people joining a game midway through - start your own airline or apply to be CEO of another one.
(5) I think it's about as simple as a genuine system for buying and selling equity can be.
Disadvantages
Probably loads. There are bound to be loopholes through which this system could be abused, but if something like this were to go ahead I'm sure the community would help sami figure out what these might be and how to close them. It's also still pretty complicated, despite being as straightforward as I could make it - a hindrance to new players? Perhaps it would be best only applied to super-long gameworlds (e.g. 1960 - 2030) of the type that have been talked about.
I like the sound of that, but I think you should be able to be CEO of more than one airline at a time, a subsidiary. You could operate one main airline, and then maybe 3 subsidiaries. You would have to pay more credits if you wanted to own a subsidiary of course, because that is like another airline.
Thanks for the feedback! I'm a bit concerned about allowing people to manage subsidies because it could open up a lot of opportunities for abuse (same as you're not allowed to have two airlines in the same gameworld currently). It might also take away part of the point because a successful player might have several huge airlines, squeezing out the potential for new players to either find good CEO jobs or to build up an airline from scratch.
There might however be a good case for allowing someone who takes over an airline to run it for say 90 days whilst they are advertising for a new CEO. Leaving on auto-pilot an airline that was going bankrupt for 2/3 months might be a bit of a potential disaster!
One problem I've realised with my suggestion is that if someone bought 52% of an airline and then merged it in to their own, what would happen to the investors who owned the other 48%? Perhaps we'd have to stop people being able to merge an airline unless it was one they had bought out of bankruptcy. Or give the other investors a share in the newly merged airline, but that might get complicated!
Are we doing RPG here? We should add CEO "specialty" and level up to increase the specialty effect.....
All right, I suggest 2 options
Option 1: Simple solution
- The airlines would still operate normally in "auto-pilot" mode
- Then, each routes will be closed, one by one to open up opportunities for other players
- We can start with routes with lowest LF, or lowest revenue rate, or we can start with returning the closest expiry date leased A/C. Routes associates with the A/C will, of course, be closed. All the closing/withdrawing is done one after another at a constant rate/speed (10% each week/month?)
- After all the leased A/C are returned, owned A/C can be sold by auction. Players can put their bid on specific A/C as soon as the CEO quit, and receive the A/C after the last leased A/C returned. Starting bid is at 50% of the A/C value, for example.
- We can add in many small stuffs, like after the CEO quit, even the airlines are operating normally, but staff start leaving, make flight delay/cancel, CI goes down. Together with the routes closing, the airlines are weakened so much that competitors can start attacking its still-operating-routes, and hasten its end date
Option 2: to support Sami's idea of giving the airlines to players.
We should have AI airlines at every major airports at the beginning of any world. It's not right when the whole world is un-served until 600+ airlines start operating on 1 day, right?
Players can choose to be an employed CEO or start his/her own airlines
The AI airlines should have the following "characteristics"
- Small to mid sized (how about less than 50 A/C?)
- High fleet commonality cost due to operating 10+ fleets types
- Poor CI, lots of delay/cancel flight, due to lack of maintaining, lack of staff
- Poor A/C utilization rate, says 5-6 hour/day/plane or each plane only flies one route
- Other stuffs, you guys name it
If no one choose an AI airlines, it will eventually go BKed due to competition, and we can have Option 1 here, to give an end to the airline
Cheers
I think what the game needs to take it to the next level, and increase reality would be a system of how the airlines in the game are owned. So maybe for example, new airlines would start with only a loan's worth of cash, and would be owned 100% by the player who is that airline's CEO. Over the course of time, as airlines get bigger and have cash to play with, they could start buying stakes in each other. This would make the game a lot more realistic, and mirror the real world (ie like Luthansa owning Swiss, Brussels, Austrian and UIA), or minority stakes of investment (ie the 13% of Luxair Lufthansa owns), or how airlines can use buying shares to rescue companies (ie the 25% of Alitalia that Airfrance-KLM owns). To add further realism you could have real world ownership laws (ie like how both USA and India only allow up to a 49% ownership of airlines by foreign companies). When airlines do start to lose money, other airlines could potentially inject money into them by buying shares. This could also tie into the loans system, so that each airline has the ability to loan money to other airlines.
Quote from: Mr.HP on September 23, 2012, 02:17:44 PM
Are we doing RPG here? We should add CEO "specialty" and level up to increase the specialty effect.....
All right, I suggest 2 options
Option 1: Simple solution
- The airlines would still operate normally in "auto-pilot" mode
- Then, each routes will be closed, one by one to open up opportunities for other players
- We can start with routes with lowest LF, or lowest revenue rate, or we can start with returning the closest expiry date leased A/C. Routes associates with the A/C will, of course, be closed. All the closing/withdrawing is done one after another at a constant rate/speed (10% each week/month?)
- After all the leased A/C are returned, owned A/C can be sold by auction. Players can put their bid on specific A/C as soon as the CEO quit, and receive the A/C after the last leased A/C returned. Starting bid is at 50% of the A/C value, for example.
- We can add in many small stuffs, like after the CEO quit, even the airlines are operating normally, but staff start leaving, make flight delay/cancel, CI goes down. Together with the routes closing, the airlines are weakened so much that competitors can start attacking its still-operating-routes, and hasten its end date
Option 2: to support Sami's idea of giving the airlines to players.
We should have AI airlines at every major airports at the beginning of any world. It's not right when the whole world is un-served until 600+ airlines start operating on 1 day, right?
Players can choose to be an employed CEO or start his/her own airlines
The AI airlines should have the following "characteristics"
- Small to mid sized (how about less than 50 A/C?)
- High fleet commonality cost due to operating 10+ fleets types
- Poor CI, lots of delay/cancel flight, due to lack of maintaining, lack of staff
- Poor A/C utilization rate, says 5-6 hour/day/plane or each plane only flies one route
- Other stuffs, you guys name it
If no one choose an AI airlines, it will eventually go BKed due to competition, and we can have Option 1 here, to give an end to the airline
Cheers
I came across this in my research on another topic, but since it is still on the table, IMHO...
If the goal is for more realism regarding abandoned airlines, I like HP's option 1, for a gradual wind-down of profitable airlines. Keeping them going on "autopilot" indefinitely, in a way, penalizes the other players at those bases, or players who may be thinking of basing there. Having slots become available over a set period gives "smaller" airlines or new entrants a better chance to grow against a better financed foe. Likewise for aircraft slowly re-introduced to the used market.
I do differ on the auction part. Once leased aircraft are returned, the process continues with offering owned aircraft to the used market at the same pace. Use whatever algorithm exists today with the brokers for randomizing the timing of their release to the market.
Unprofitable airlines should just be closed, as they are today. As HP says, eventually the slow dissolution of the abandoned airline will encourage competition and likely turn it into an unprofitable one, whereby it gets closed. Otherwise, it gets closed after a minimum size is reached (say, 10 aircraft, per sami's original post).
On option #2 (and variations discussed in earlier posts) - I see more downside in the CEO as employee idea in improving today's realism (we already are pretending to be CEOs, IMHO). The AI airlines at start of (throughout?) the game has its own merits for other problems. But on any employment/airline transfer scheme or auction/buy/sell process for changing airlines, I could foresee potential for abuse or other unintended consequences which could take significant more time to digest and fix. This would be a huge change, and, as sami says in the op, it is a bit drastic approach to solve a problem of lack of realism with abandoned airlines - the original problem this thread is to address.
Sami - posted here in the hope you'll see it.
This issue with aircraft being put to lease without, or limited time to, the C and D checks
Perhaps the solution lies with making cost of C and D checks automatically chargeable to the Owner. If the Owner is bankrupt then ownership passes to the leaser IF they accept the C/D costs.
And on the above topic 'failed' airline assets should also pass to the authorities, run for a while while a CEO is sought as suggested, but then assets 'Siezed' and sent to the storage where their value is - say five time - the C+D costs. With C and D checks of less than 1 or 3 years respectively they can be passed to the 'Pound' and put on the market for new airlines to consider.
There is no option to SCRAP an aircraft. Effectively any unwanted a/c should be passed/sold to the 'Pound' at some fraction of the value.
Thanks for all your efforts, I'm happy to pay your fees for an excellent game. I cannot imagine the depths of programming you have had to get involved in with this.