I know the idea of a stock market has already been discussed and was quickly overturned as a bad idea, but I think buying other players airlines could be a good idea. A player would make a bid to another player for their airline. They could make as many as they wanted. To make sure no cheating happens, the minimum bid would be the value of the company. The player who currently owns the airline could accept, decline or set a minimum price. If the price was high, it could be a win-win situation as the buyer would gain benefits such as slots and the seller would gain loads of capital to start another airline somewhere else in the world, potentially in an un-served market. This idea could be extended to some form of 'stock market' idea for part ownership as well. I think this would add in an exciting twist to the game.
I like it! :)
Good! I'm glad there is SOME support for my idea! :)
I also like this idea.
i also like this, because it is a choice for the airline being purchased. this idea has been tossed around a bit though.
I like it too but I think that it must have a limited amount of time that the airline can be bought until all the aircraft are going to the used market and then the airline cannot be bought.
If you buy the airline you can operate from it base? for example if I am based in Atlanta and I am buying an airline in Rome do rome count as my second base? can I open new routes from there? and can I open bases in italy/european union?
Thank you
Guy
Quote from: dhtdkcug on January 07, 2012, 10:02:54 AM
I like it too but I think that it must have a limited amount of time that the airline can be bought until all the aircraft are going to the used market and then the airline cannot be bought.
If you buy the airline you can operate from it base? for example if I am based in Atlanta and I am buying an airline in Rome do rome count as my second base? can I open new routes from there? and can I open bases in italy/european union?
Thank you
Guy
Yes, but also don't forget I envisage people buying other people's smaller, successful airlines and then those players who accept the buying of their airline then have capital to set up another airline elsewhere. As for the different locations, Sami would have to decide the rules on this. An airline could become very powerful if over the years it acquired multiple airlines on different continents. Therefore I would say there would have to be a limit on the number of airlines bought (maybe 2) but those airlines could be based in any country globally. You would then become the CEO of a new holding company which owned all 3 airlines. You could then sell loss-making areas of the business.
I'd say that, if we ever get to this point, it will be necessary to have an anti-trust authority as in real life... :)
It's my understanding that in real-life airlines can't purchase foreign airlines for exactly this reason. If this works, an airline should not be able to purchase foreign airlines- thus avoiding basing complications.
There should be negatives to the merger though as well. Perhaps adding a retirement pension fee, increased commonality fees, higher wages, etc. PLUS of course adding the expenses of the purchased airline.
Realistically, the purchased airline would probably be on the verge of failing, thus having higher than normal expenses and a failing company image. This CI should also be "merged" together with the purchasing airline's score (perhaps averaging it?)
If say Holding company A owns 100% of the shares in Airline A, which is based in the US. They could only sell the Airline to a company that has US based airline(s).
If HC A no longer owns any airlines, they should be able to start up new operations where they want. But if they want to sell or buy again, they are restricted to the market where the Airline is based.
This means that players can start up in smaller regions, sell of the airline, move to a bigger market with their cash, build a new airline and sell it off and move over to even bigger markets.
I think the idea of being able to buy and sell airlines is a brilliant idea and would fit well with the longer running Airwaysim gameworlds. :)
It would even help the exodus of players mid-game. More competition and it adds a third dimension.
Quote from: tm07x on January 08, 2012, 05:39:32 AM
If say Holding company A owns 100% of the shares in Airline A, which is based in the US. They could only sell the Airline to a company that has US based airline(s).
If HC A no longer owns any airlines, they should be able to start up new operations where they want. But if they want to sell or buy again, they are restricted to the market where the Airline is based.
This means that players can start up in smaller regions, sell of the airline, move to a bigger market with their cash, build a new airline and sell it off and move over to even bigger markets.
I think the idea of being able to buy and sell airlines is a brilliant idea and would fit well with the longer running Airwaysim gameworlds. :)
It would even help the exodus of players mid-game. More competition and it adds a third dimension.
Interesting concept of rules which are more limiting than mine, possibly for the best reasons (mine could be too open and cause competition problems). Towards the end you summed up perfectly how I see this new feature. :)
Quote from: Riddle Me This on January 08, 2012, 04:52:40 AM
It's my understanding that in real-life airlines can't purchase foreign airlines for exactly this reason. If this works, an airline should not be able to purchase foreign airlines- thus avoiding basing complications.
There should be negatives to the merger though as well. Perhaps adding a retirement pension fee, increased commonality fees, higher wages, etc. PLUS of course adding the expenses of the purchased airline.
Realistically, the purchased airline would probably be on the verge of failing, thus having higher than normal expenses and a failing company image. This CI should also be "merged" together with the purchasing airline's score (perhaps averaging it?)
The guyhas a point here... In the USA it is forbidden for any individual/s who is/are not an american citizen/entity (or entity controlled for more than 25% by a non US citizen) to own more than the 25% of an airline's shares. In a nutshell: at any time no more than the 25% of the shares cannot be owned by foreign persons/entities. Do not know why, but I reckon this has something to do with protectionist laws...
Btw, it is not unusual here in Europe to have airlines buying out airlines not chartered in their own countries. Examples? Lufthansa owns SWISS and Austrian Airlines, plus British Midland (even though it looks like they're going to sell that company), Brussels Airlines and Luxair (somewhere around 50%), LOT airlines (controlling stake), Adria Airways, plus a stake in SAS (rumors say that if SAS can stop its losses, LH would buy them very quickly).
Quote from: Riddle Me This on January 08, 2012, 04:52:40 AM
Realistically, the purchased airline would probably be on the verge of failing, thus having higher than normal expenses and a failing company image. This CI should also be "merged" together with the purchasing airline's score (perhaps averaging it?)
Not quite sure about the "merged" CI. Why would ones CI decrease if it purchases a failing company and bring it under its own brand? The company could actually increase its CI because it is able to offer more options to its passengers (more flights, more destinations, new base airports, etc). At least that is how I'm thinking ;)
Quote from: EYguy on January 08, 2012, 01:21:02 PM
The guyhas a point here... In the USA it is forbidden for any individual/s who is/are not an american citizen/entity (or entity controlled for more than 25% by a non US citizen) to own more than the 25% of an airline's shares. In a nutshell: at any time no more than the 25% of the shares cannot be owned by foreign persons/entities. Do not know why, but I reckon this has something to do with protectionist laws...
Btw, it is not unusual here in Europe to have airlines buying out airlines not chartered in their own countries. Examples? Lufthansa owns SWISS and Austrian Airlines, plus British Midland (even though it looks like they're going to sell that company), Brussels Airlines and Luxair (somewhere around 50%), LOT airlines (controlling stake), Adria Airways, plus a stake in SAS (rumors say that if SAS can stop its losses, LH would buy them very quickly).
Quote from: TK1244 on January 08, 2012, 06:58:23 PM
Not quite sure about the "merged" CI. Why would ones CI decrease if it purchases a failing company and bring it under its own brand? The company could actually increase its CI because it is able to offer more options to its passengers (more flights, more destinations, new base airports, etc). At least that is how I'm thinking ;)
I would agree with both of you here. I'm not completely sure why in America the case is that a foreign person can't own more than 25% of an airline, when here in Europe airlines such as LH, IAG and Air France-KLM are multi-national companies. Furthermore, there are examples such as Singapore Airlines owning 49% of Virgin Atlantic Airways. I know this isn't a controlling stake but it is a truly international partnership... and talking of Virgin they own not just Virgin Atlantic, but V Australia and Virgin America and previously Virgin Blue, Pacific Blue and Virgin Nigeria!
Talking about Virgin America, I'm pretty sure when I say that Richard Branson owns no more than 25% of the company, either through Virgin Atlantic or personally. If I remember correctly, there is a group of american manager/enterpreneurs behind Virgin America, and they basically worked with Richard Branson. Btw, this feat of the american market exists because the Department of Defense allows airlines to buy a/c using federal funds (the so called Civil Reserve Air Fleet). If we had foreign companies doing this kind of tricks, you could have LH using american funds to buy Airbus a/c. The CRAF system says that airlines should be ready to move the a/c bought using federal funds, and put them under the control of the USAF in case any emergency arises. This would be quite unconvenient for european carriers, even though they could benefit of a few a/c paid using money of the american taxpayer! :)
Quote from: EYguy on January 08, 2012, 08:03:29 PM
Talking about Virgin America, I'm pretty sure when I say that Richard Branson owns no more than 25% of the company, either through Virgin Atlantic or personally. If I remember correctly, there is a group of american manager/enterpreneurs behind Virgin America, and they basically worked with Richard Branson. Btw, this feat of the american market exists because the Department of Defense allows airlines to buy a/c using federal funds (the so called Civil Reserve Air Fleet). If we had foreign companies doing this kind of tricks, you could have LH using american funds to buy Airbus a/c. The CRAF system says that airlines should be ready to move the a/c bought using federal funds, and put them under the control of the USAF in case any emergency arises. This would be quite unconvenient for european carriers, even though they could benefit of a few a/c paid using money of the american taxpayer! :)
Oh yeah, I forgot about Virgin America... very true about what you said. I didn't realise that was the reason either, like you say, the <25% rule is there for a good reason then! Would this have to apply in AWS though?
Quote from: EYguy on January 08, 2012, 08:03:29 PM
Talking about Virgin America, I'm pretty sure when I say that Richard Branson owns no more than 25% of the company,
He owns 25% of the voting stock and 49% of the total equity in the airline.
Yeah, right, I do not know how the agreement actually works, but the share above that 25% are kind of "dead" when talking about voting at shareholders meeting, or something similar... I really should have a look at this issue, it's quite interesting.
Going back to the topic: I reckon that this is one of those problem that could actually make pretty hard to implement this kind of agreement here on AWS. There are esier and more appealing features that had been requested in the past and could not be implemented for various reason. Some of them will be included in the 1.4 version of the game, but I do not which of them! :)
Quote from: EYguy on January 09, 2012, 07:43:27 PM
Yeah, right, I do not know how the agreement actually works, but the share above that 25% are kind of "dead" when talking about voting at shareholders meeting, or something similar... I really should have a look at this issue, it's quite interesting.
Going back to the topic: I reckon that this is one of those problem that could actually make pretty hard to implement this kind of agreement here on AWS. There are esier and more appealing features that had been requested in the past and could not be implemented for various reason. Some of them will be included in the 1.4 version of the game, but I do not which of them! :)
Yes, I understand this would be a major change to the game, but it would bring benefits like you say, it's whether the time/cost of implementing them would be the final decider...
With the federal funds bit for US Airlines its like what happened with OP Desert Shield when the USAF used lots of 747s from american carriers to transport enough troops to kuwait to stop the iraqi invasion.
On the subject of the idea of buying other airlines
+1 i like it!
Quote from: jamier on January 10, 2012, 01:19:44 PM
With the federal funds bit for US Airlines its like what happened with OP Desert Shield when the USAF used lots of 747s from american carriers to transport enough troops to kuwait to stop the iraqi invasion.
On the subject of the idea of buying other airlines
+1 i like it!
Ah right, now I understand fully! And thanks, glad you do too :)
I like the idea.
People could set a price to their airline (presumably using the same system as the used market - 70% to 160% of CV, and the price can be lowered if it sits on the market for a certain period of time).
Then the airline could get, say, 50% of the income - the other 50% going for merger costs and taxes. That 50% can be used to start a new airline..
Putting your airline up for sale would mean that prospective buyers could get a read-only view of your airline, so they can appraise your cashflow, scheduling, fleet condition, etc, and decide whether it is a good purchase or not...
I say that it is a good idea as if there Is a small airline that is in trouble and almost bankrupt, a mid sized airline can acquire the airline therefore getting the aircraft and the small airline's CEO might get $ 10 000 000 which is more than they started with, therefore help everyone. It is a win-win situation.
If we can't have a stock marktet what about just allowing us to buy equity in airlines? Ie if it is a foreign airline, cap it at 25%.
however if it is a domestic/euro or free aviation area (aus/nz) then allow a higher percentage?
i like the idea but i think that if say an airline owner that owns a small airline in bogota and that wants to move on if he sells to another airline in bogota than the competition will potentialy crushed so a competition commission would be needed. an idea fro the buying of an airline not from you country or E.U could be that airlines can buy other airlines from their continent but if they want to buy them from an other continent or maybe country then they share the bill with an airline from an other country which would need to own fro example 20%
rafa
Right, allow all big boys/alliances in the game grow even bigger, ruling the game even more. How interesting for the humble rest just starting over and over again to help spreading their networks ! How does that correspond to all the complaints over difficulties of small airlines getting into business mid-game?
I like the option to buy airlines. I would suggest adding 3 restrictions to preserve game balance, though:
1. No buying foreign airlines. Only your home country's airlines.
2. No exceeding 4 bases. If you already have 4 bases, you will have to close the bases of the airline you buy and just get their planes; or, buy airlines that share bases with you if you want to keep their bases and routes.
3. Required waiting period between buying two airlines (similar to between opening two bases), to allow airlines to grow primarily organically, rather than primarily by buying other airlines.
I like the idea of buying airlines quite a bit, and think it would add an extra bit of strategy to the game.
-For Game reasons I think it should be limited to BKing airlines.
-You should assume all their debt, all their bad A/C and current leases good AND Bad.
-CI's Should be added together and divided in 1/2.
-you would only be able to purchase Airlines in your current country.
I see being able to buy others Airlines as a cheat that 2 people would help each other totally own 1 city.
taking over an airline that has BK'd would be much more challenging, not only righting the ship, but pairing down all the
bad A/C choices and removing the bad A/C and citys paying off debt..
you would win in good A/C and Slots, that you wouldn't have to pay for, and drop the junk into the used market for some cash.
Additionally, once an airline BK'd it could goto a holding company or bank for 1 game Month for bids...
think used market for airlines.... that kind of style page.
my 2 cents...
Yes, but how would that turn out at slot-constrained airports like LHR ? The only hope for every airline based there or planning to fly there is that someone with slots BKs. Now many airlines are able to get hold of some free slots, if buying that BKer is allowed, all slots go to just one player, it will definitely be one of the big guys there, not you.
I fear this would open loopholes for some strategies we all don´t want to see.
there are so many airlines that it would be practically impossible to buy them all to get 100% slots in any airport
Without a stock market this won't fly...
More power to the few
Quote from: bestway on August 31, 2012, 07:26:15 PM
there are so many airlines that it would be practically impossible to buy them all to get 100% slots in any airport
I wasn´t talking abut 100% slots of the airport, but 100% slots of the bk´ed airline.
Anyway, implementing this would need a lot of coding, stating rules, controlling them and so on. There are much more important tasks in the making, so I fear it won´t be considered during the next years.
Selling your airline is one thing, but I think bigger companies, with lots of cash in hand should be able to buy maybe, bankrupting airlines...
Say if an airline in my market/region is bankrupting, I could buy it and overtake the operation to see if I can improve it or not. If not, it may take my airline down the drain with it.. if I am a super-ceo I may be able to run both airlines as one...