AirwaySim

I'm opening up this topic for debate on rule changes about aircraft sales.

Current ruling:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Alliances

QuoteMembers are also forbidden to effectively transfer money between their member airlines by for example repeatedly selling and buying aircraft between each others. Normal one-time sales of aircraft is naturally allowed but transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable.

So the rule is 1) about alliances, 2) same aircraft back and forth.

However the as the current practise goes the weaker airlines are rather often helped by other alliance members, and sometimes also non-alliance members (friends otherwise?), in buying out their old scrap aircraft in their dozens at the max allowable price and then scrapping them. This is effectively monetary help but a tad outside of the scope of current rules since the "mass sales" of many aircraft haven't been really considered here.

What's the opinion on changing this rule and making/writing it clearly.

The last thing we need is more rules.  8)
I vote to let sleeping dogs lie.

QuoteThis is effectively monetary help

Agreed. But what could be done to prevent it? As far as I know, bought scrap airplanes cannot be scrapped immediately, but the buying airline needs to wait a minimum of 1 game year. This is not very effective because it simply postpones the scrapping by 1 game year and the parking costs don't hurt either.

What else could be done? I don't see any way to limit this method...

Quote from: Andre090904 on December 09, 2017, 06:25:04 PM
Agreed. But what could be done to prevent it? As far as I know, bought scrap airplanes cannot be scrapped immediately, but the buying airline needs to wait a minimum of 1 game year. This is not very effective because it simply postpones the scrapping by 1 game year and the parking costs don't hurt either.

What else could be done? I don't see any way to limit this method...

Nothing. And the 1yr hold should be removed as well. If an airline wishes to detriment themselves to prop up another's airline that should be their own business.

Quote from: Zobelle on December 09, 2017, 06:34:39 PM
Nothing. And the 1yr hold should be removed as well. If an airline wishes to detriment themselves to prop up another's airline that should be their own business.

I agree

This whole thing stems from the fact that some people don't like alliance's and the fact that the airlines inside an alliance help each other. In that case get rid of alliances all together, they provide no other game benefit other than helping players.

lol... silly ppl.

Just fine the airline who buys and scraps in mass. Code an algorithm that triggers after a set of events happens. Then get rid of the current scrap rules as they will be obsolete.

If said airline scraps more then 2 aircraft bought from the same airline within a certain time frame, levy a fine and drop there CI by a huge amount. Should do the trick.

Trigger: More then 2 aircraft bought from same player and scrapped within 4 years.

*Aircraft that fly scheduled routes for longer then 6 months, exempt completely.
*This would effect only aircraft that sit on the ground/storage for years.
*Code a warning telling said player their actions would result in a serious fine/CI reduction penalty.
*Code a confirmation check box player must check to understand their actions.
*If player is confused/or feels there's a bug; They can post a bug report where Sami can look into it personally.

Sounds fair to me. If your willing to jump through all those steps just to help prop someone up, you have way too much time on your hands  :laugh:


Talentz

Quote from: Talentz on December 10, 2017, 04:01:40 AM
lol... silly ppl.

Just fine the airline who buys and scraps in mass. Code an algorithm that triggers after a set of events happens. Then get rid of the current scrap rules as they will be obsolete.

If said airline scraps more then 2 aircraft bought from the same airline within a certain time frame, levy a fine and drop there CI by a huge amount. Should do the trick.

Trigger: More then 2 aircraft bought from same player and scrapped within 4 years.

*Aircraft that fly scheduled routes for longer then 6 months, exempt completely.
*This would effect only aircraft that sit on the ground/storage for years.
*Code a warning telling said player their actions would result in a serious fine/CI reduction penalty.
*Code a confirmation check box player must check to understand their actions.
*If player is confused/or feels there's a bug; They can post a bug report where Sami can look into it personally.

Sounds fair to me. If your willing to jump through all those steps just to help prop someone up, you have way too much time on your hands  :laugh:


Talentz

Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

At what point does the game become not worth playing due to onerous regulation?

Quote from: Zobelle on December 10, 2017, 04:51:19 AM
Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

At what point does the game become not worth playing due to onerous regulation?

When your point of playing becomes centered upon not actually playing the game  ;D


Talentz

Quote from: Zobelle on December 10, 2017, 04:51:19 AM
Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

At what point does the game become not worth playing due to onerous regulation?

we're very far from it.

And, to be honest, my fear is that such measures would backfire. Weaker players in alliances would simply die, and big boys would end up even bigger. Right now, when alliance cheat with this kind of money transfer, it's usually targetted against a big player of another alliance. So, in fact, this cheat is a regulation mean in itself.

I'd go even further : I've been part of 3 different alliances, I've seen this tactic applied several times, and only one player has been saved. It's because he really had a profitable airline, and had just miscalculated his cash expenses for a fleet renewal. IRL, he would have survived with a big loan, bigger than the system allows. We just helped him survive for 2 months, and he went back quickly to full profitability. All other players that I've seen helped like that ended up dying anyways, because unsustainable is unsustainable. I, and other alliance members, did sink money in unsalvagable airlines. When a company has not made any profit the last 3 years, and opposition is stronger than ever, you can't expect save it by external flow of money.

Said otherwise, this cheat is useless most of the time, slightly reduces the insane wealth of the big boys(be they in alliance or opponents), and is only useful when a very healthy company has a temporary cash problem that IRL would be solved by a decent loan. I'm not sure, therefore, that a nerf is needed. Let players make mistakes and waste their cash. For sure I wasted mine in doomed companies.

I agree with Zobelle above - is this really such a problem?  There are probably more important areas to be looking at. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

So, it seems that the discussion so far is more focused on a technical enforcement of the rule rather than the general concept of what should be considered acceptable vs unacceptable game play. Once that has been determined, the technicalities of enforcement become a bit more relevant.

So, conceptually, we have a general rule about money transferring between airlines being against the rules (specifically, the spirit of fair competition within the game). When airlines are slinging cash around through pumping money into a friend's startup airline through sham plane buy/sell schemes or doing the buy junk to scrap maneuver, this creates a less fair (perhaps unfair) playing environment within a game world. The trouble with it is that there's a fine line to walk between what is considered appropriate versus not without creating a huge checklist. I would think that a decent (probably not perfect) fine line would be examining the benefit to each airline in the transaction or series of transactions.  If it's a one sided transaction (like buy junk to scrap) where one airline receives an above-market benefit and the other takes an irrational loss, this would fit the criteria. This is also something where scale should be considered. 1-2 planes done as a buy junk to scrap isn't going to unfairly tilt the fairness of the game, but that fleet of 100 DC4's you're flying in the 1980's is a whole different scale.

So, let's apply that to the various types of transactions:

- Things that would be fine:
-- General plane selling within alliance/system limitations
-- General plane leasing within alliance/system limitations
-- Buy/leaseback transactions

- Things that are not fine
-- Buy junk to scrap
-- Plane laundering schemes to transfer cash (selling planes in a circular/semicircular transaction path that pumps money in to evade the you can't sell back to the same player right after buying limit)

Quote from: knobbygb on December 10, 2017, 07:51:15 AM
I agree with Zobelle above - is this really such a problem?  There are probably more important areas to be looking at. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

Quite frankly, yes, it is a problem. If the dying airline is kept alive long enough through this unfair transfer of funds, then the prevailing airline competing with them may enter a death spiral and fortunes could be reversed. It's not exactly fair to have had say, a 20 year long battle in your HQ and be winning, but then lose because you don't have rich airline friends willing to pump in billions to save you while your weaker competitor has a lifeline.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 10, 2017, 06:59:38 AM
Said otherwise, this cheat is useless most of the time, slightly reduces the insane wealth of the big boys(be they in alliance or opponents), and is only useful when a very healthy company has a temporary cash problem that IRL would be solved by a decent loan. I'm not sure, therefore, that a nerf is needed. Let players make mistakes and waste their cash. For sure I wasted mine in doomed companies.

Consider it from the player being targeted by this action. It's beyond frustrating and maddening to have to deal with it - I've been on the competitor to the airline receiving this help a number of times (Hi Fred!) and have ultimately prevailed. Drawing out the death of the competitor limits what I can do (i.e. slot availability) until they are gone, so if you "give" the competition an extra few game years to live from this, they're effectively stealing my credits until I can resume expanding in that particular base. Not to mention such behavior can preclude the ability to earn particular achievements that would be otherwise attainable.

So where to go with this? Right now, these tactics are in the "grey" area of the rules and I'd like to know whether they are either allowed or disallowed rather than leaving them in the grey area. If these tactics are explicitly allowed, I believe we'll see a significant increase of this sort of behavior (as folks like myself who do not do "buy junk to scrap" because they believe its against the rules may start doing it), but if they are disallowed, there needs to be further discussion on the appropriate enforcement mechanism. Gut feel for enforcement is that once it's known it's not allowed, this would be a PM sami to report thing as there's likely not a way to enforce it systemically (as there has to be some discretion applied).

How about reducing max alliance price to between book-min ally. Most Intra-Alliance trade purposes is to provide aircraft quickly for requesting airline, and it is usually done in min to book price. Rarely it is done in max ally except for same reason (transfer money to poor airline that helped in ordering aircraft as sign of gratitude).

Having penalty of 2 um stafflock (max 5) is enough. Helping airlines won't be able to support much money due to low price and stafflock. This might be exploited by having 2 or more helping airlines. Therefore comes 2nd rules which is,

Limiting same aircraft listing in um for 3 per month. Currently most new production line only supply 2-3 slot per month per airline. Therefore ordering airlines only able to list 2-3 aircraft per month normally. For this case of selling many old fleet for scrap, they will only able to list maximum 3 aircraft of same type per month in um.
This might force fleet transitioning airlines (not intention on transfer money) to actually scrap plane instead of trying to make some fortune on their old planes due to hard to sell.

Just my 2cents.

Quote from: arefixz on December 10, 2017, 02:11:59 PM
How about reducing max alliance price to between book-min ally. Most Intra-Alliance trade purposes is to provide aircraft quickly for requesting airline, and it is usually done in min to book price. Rarely it is done in max ally except for same reason (transfer money to poor airline that helped in ordering aircraft as sign of gratitude).

Having penalty of 2 um stafflock (max 5) is enough. Helping airlines won't be able to support much money due to low price and stafflock. This might be exploited by having 2 or more helping airlines. Therefore comes 2nd rules which is,

Limiting same aircraft listing in um for 3 per month. Currently most new production line only supply 2-3 slot per month per airline. Therefore ordering airlines only able to list 2-3 aircraft per month normally. For this case of selling many old fleet for scrap, they will only able to list maximum 3 aircraft of same type per month in um.
This might force fleet transitioning airlines (not intention on transfer money) to actually scrap plane instead of trying to make some fortune on their old planes due to hard to sell.

Just my 2cents.

I'm not sure I understand how these various limitations would determine whether cash transfers between airlines is either in accordance with or against the game rules.

Answer this directly - Should airlines be allowed to transfer cash through processes similar to "buy junk to scrap" or not?

I completely agree with arefixz's 1st proposal: reducing max alliance price will limit the desirability of such trick practice without limiting its feasibility (for when it's necessary for this or that reason).
Thus, while not making it against the rule, there wouldn't be such a strong interest for it (even if a UM sale will always be well above scrap value).

(presupposition: I do agree with Schro's analysis)

Though, on arefixz's 2nd proposal I do not agree at all, as sometimes we use fleets for a rather limited amount of time, to fill in the gap between two other types. Thus, we might have to get rid of a large number of relatively young planes without it being illegitimate (in GW#2, I kept my LH Britannias 8-10 years before moving to Super Sixties, and such a rule would have meant the impossibility to quickly get rid of my Brits, and all were not ready for scrap - indeed, they sold very well on the UM).

Read my lips. No new rules.
:D

Quote from: Zobelle on December 10, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
Read my lips. No new rules.
:D

Read my lips: the last proposal is not a change of rules, it's a change of parameters that make some contested practices less desirable.
(and as arefixz said, that change would be implemented by touching to a parameter that no one usually uses except for that contested purpose).
:)

So now we're proposing changes to how many plane can be listed? You'll kill the brokering business with that one for both general and inter alliance trading.

I say leave the metrics alone and dev can investigate egregious circumvention of cash transfer rules as they stand: if they wish to.

Quote from: Zobelle on December 10, 2017, 02:39:43 PM
So now we're proposing changes to how many plane can be listed? You'll kill the brokering business with that one for both general and inter alliance trading.

I say leave the metrics alone and dev can investigate egregious circumvention of cash transfer rules as they stand: if they wish to.

Tsst-tsst... Read my lips, but also read my post :P (where I disagree with the 2nd part of arefixz's proposal - the part about limiting number of sales)

Quote from: schro on December 10, 2017, 02:27:15 PM
I'm not sure I understand how these various limitations would determine whether cash transfers between airlines is either in accordance with or against the game rules.

Answer this directly - Should airlines be allowed to transfer cash through processes similar to "buy junk to scrap" or not?

Well its just opinion on limiting amount transferred to just enough depending on value of aircraft. The conditions to disallow such buy to scrap is quite complicated to thought, even to code. If you have more idea on how to prevent it do state here and we can discuss.

The 2nd solution is just rough idea, like stated, its not favourable for airlines listing lots of aircraft in um. If you have more improvement idea regarding the limitation do also state it here.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 10, 2017, 02:32:31 PM
I completely agree with arefixz's 1st proposal: reducing max alliance price will limit the desirability of such trick practice without limiting its feasibility (for when it's necessary for this or that reason).
Thus, while not making it against the rule, there wouldn't be such a strong interest for it (even if a UM sale will always be well above scrap value).

(presupposition: I do agree with Schro's analysis)

Though, on arefixz's 2nd proposal I do not agree at all, as sometimes we use fleets for a rather limited amount of time, to fill in the gap between two other types. Thus, we might have to get rid of a large number of relatively young planes without it being illegitimate (in GW#2, I kept my LH Britannias 8-10 years before moving to Super Sixties, and such a rule would have meant the impossibility to quickly get rid of my Brits, and all were not ready for scrap - indeed, they sold very well on the UM).

The first proposal about shrinking the window between book and minimum alliance pricing will not not solve the "buy junk to scrap". Let's think it through in each scenario - suppose scrap value = 200k, minimum alliance = 2m and max alliance = 4m

1. Suppose book value = 1m, sale would be for 1m.
2. Suppose book value is 5m, sale would be for 5m.

As it stands today, you can sell for 4m. In every case, the selling airline will receive 5x or more than it would have by scrapping. There are already other issues with min/max alliance pricing when you take into account the dynamic new/used market pricing that happens based upon demand - I don't think making those worse/more restrictive would be very helpful at this point, nor does it address the "whether it should be allowed or not" question. Just because something is disallowed doesn't mean there has to be a technical solution made to enforce it. The max alliance parameter is also used earlier in the game by some of the more... greedy.. airlines in an alliance. I wouldn't say it is only used for the contested purpose.

Rate limiting for the used market doesn't make sense at all. Current new/used market acquisition rates make it very difficult to maintain a 1000 plane fleet that is also under 24 years old.

Quote from: Zobelle on December 10, 2017, 02:39:43 PM
I say leave the metrics alone and dev can investigate egregious circumvention of cash transfer rules as they stand: if they wish to.

That's the entire reason of this post. Cash transfer is disallowed. However, cash transfer via a "buy junk to scrap" transfer is not explicitly allowed, and is happening in many cases. Should this practice be allowed?

Quote from: arefixz on December 10, 2017, 02:45:58 PM
Well its just opinion on limiting amount transferred to just enough depending on value of aircraft. The conditions to disallow such buy to scrap is quite complicated to thought, even to code. If you have more idea on how to prevent it do state here and we can discuss.

The 2nd solution is just rough idea, like stated, its not favourable for airlines listing lots of aircraft in um. If you have more improvement idea regarding the limitation do also state it here.

The topic that Sami started is about a rule change and not how to enforce a rule that doesn't currently exist... So I'll ask you a second time - should the "buy junk to scrap" cash transfer be a permitted or unpermitted practice in the game?

Permitted.

If it's a yes or no, I'd say no.
There are other ways to help an airline in this game (allowed or condoned ways) and thus that practice that is far from what an airline is actually supposed to do IRL (and also for that very reason) is not quite legit.

Quote from: schro on December 10, 2017, 02:50:40 PM
The topic that Sami started is about a rule change and not how to enforce a rule that doesn't currently exist... So I'll ask you a second time - should the "buy junk to scrap" cash transfer be a permitted or unpermitted practice in the game?

Well of course you knew the answers already. Not permitted. So I guess we don't want system restriction to enforce this things instead enforcement by admins is what better? Then simple, just add one more option on "report rule violation" that existed on airline profile. This will be checked by admins (if there is more than sami) and they can dig log file of that airline to see if airline is doing such thing.

Quote from: arefixz on December 10, 2017, 03:08:52 PM
Well of course you knew the answers already. Not permitted. So I guess we don't want system restriction to enforce this things instead enforcement by admins is what better? Then simple, just add one more option on "report rule violation" that existed on airline profile. This will be checked by admins (if there is more than sami) and they can dig log file of that airline to see if airline is doing such thing.

I have seen a lot of rule enforcement changes made here over the years in haste in which the people who wanted the rules enforced often regreted how the enforcement ended up working - as there are often many unintended consequences of automated enforcement on highly subjective rules. That's why I'm trying to focus the conversation on the rule itself, what should be allowed versus not, rather than additional game mechanics that are intended to be enforcement of a rule that currently doesn't exist in an explicit form.

An enforcement discussion should happen, but I feel it's premature to do that before there's an actual rule....

Quote from: arefixz on December 10, 2017, 02:11:59 PM
Limiting same aircraft listing in um for 3 per month.

This is the worst idea of the thread.  A player who only logs in occasionally (to do some housekeeping) would be penalized greatly compared to player who is online all the time.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 10, 2017, 03:52:35 PM
This is the worst idea of the thread.  A player who only logs in occasionally (to do some housekeeping) would be penalized greatly compared to player who is online all the time.

More than 4 people including myself disagree with that. Let's just agree to stop at that. It was just spur out idea that is drafted without possible thought.

So we're talking mainly about inter alliance help it seems.

When someone outside your alliance can help even more if we're talking price. I still maintain the position of letting sleeping dogs lie. The last major example of this still went under in a fantastic blaze of shame, leaving only detriment to the aiding party. Loss of profit is punishment enough.

Quote from: schro on December 10, 2017, 02:48:25 PM
The first proposal about shrinking the window between book and minimum alliance pricing will not not solve the "buy junk to scrap". Let's think it through in each scenario - suppose scrap value = 200k, minimum alliance = 2m and max alliance = 4m

1. Suppose book value = 1m, sale would be for 1m.
2. Suppose book value is 5m, sale would be for 5m.

why not adding age parameter to formula ?
Max alliance price:
age 1-2 = book price +30%
Age 2-6 = book price +10%
Age 6-11 = book pirce
Age 11-14 = book price -10%
Age 14-16 = book price -30%
age 16+ = scrap price +5%

Rule 2 - restrict the same plane trading to 1 per year between players. for age 1-12. and to 1 per 5 years for age 12+
to limit the laundry via 3rd party (non-alliance) players.
restriction is resetted if plane bought by computer broker company (via um or after player bking)

something like this will eliminate buy-and-scrap help in 90% cases

Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 10, 2017, 08:22:09 PM
why not adding age parameter to formula ?
Max alliance price:
age 1-2 = book price +30%
Age 2-6 = book price +10%
Age 6-11 = book pirce
Age 11-14 = book price -10%
Age 14-16 = book price -30%
age 16+ = scrap price +5%

Rule 2 - restrict the same plane trading to 1 per year between players. for age 1-12. and to 1 per 5 years for age 12+
to limit the laundry via 3rd party (non-alliance) players.
restriction is resetted if plane bought by computer broker company (via um or after player bking)

something like this will eliminate buy-and-scrap help in 90% cases

I can agree to #1 but not #2. You'll kill leasebacks.

Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 10, 2017, 08:22:09 PM
Rule 2 - restrict the same plane trading to 1 per year between players. for age 1-12. and to 1 per 5 years for age 12+
to limit the laundry via 3rd party (non-alliance) players.
restriction is resetted if plane bought by computer broker company (via um or after player bking)

With that its no longer possible to help a alliancemate that is short on cash, with buying a aircraft and lease it to back to that same player!

MuzhikRB and schlaf,

Regardless of the technical formula and/or enforcement, do you beleive that "buy junk to scrap" should be permitted or disallowed in the game rules?  What about the sale/lease back?

Looking into the planes' history I've noticed a more elegant way of money transfers that would survive any of the proposed amendments:

Airline A leases a plane from airline B for a long period of time. Airline A keeps it (or even flies it) for the minimum required time then cancels the lease. 50% of the entire remaining lease contract (which may exceed the cost of the plane many times) goes back to airline B together with the plane.

These tricks are unfair, but I agree that they only delay the inevitable.

Cheers

Quote from: schro on December 10, 2017, 08:40:50 PM
MuzhikRB and schlaf,

Regardless of the technical formula and/or enforcement, do you beleive that "buy junk to scrap" should be permitted or disallowed in the game rules?  What about the sale/lease back?

I personaly think its just fine as it is today.
If you want to help a friend (within or outside an alliance) by buying scrap-planes I dont see the problem. And before this thread I didnt even knew there was a problem at all..=)

Changing anything will only help the stronger airline and make the weaker one even weaker...

Here's my take on this. I see two reasons why this practise exists:

1/ People like to help their buddies. You can't do nothing against that.

2/ Rich airlines can afford to do it.

So instead of having new possibly complicated rules, I suggest a new feature: pay a dividend to shareholders each year, as airlines do in real life. The more profitable you are, the more you give to your shareholders, with perhaps a random factor that changes each year. This way airlines would not (or less) be able to build huge cash reserves (in real life, I don' believe even the best established airlines have tens of billions dollars of cash) and would therefore be less willing to help other airlines at a loss.

Airlines with no or low profits wouldn't pay dividend for the year considered.

What do you think? If i works, we don't even have to  decide if it should be permitted or not.

Quote from: schro on December 10, 2017, 08:40:50 PM
MuzhikRB and schlaf,

Regardless of the technical formula and/or enforcement, do you beleive that "buy junk to scrap" should be permitted or disallowed in the game rules?  What about the sale/lease back?

it should be limited.

want to help friend ? buy from him, but at average or below market price.

its should not be allowed to sell crap planes at max price.

Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 10, 2017, 09:17:01 PM

it should be limited.

want to help friend ? buy from him, but at average or below market price.

its should not be allowed to sell crap planes at max price.

It's a "free" market.

I think it's funny in past conversations people have complained either that this game is too much of a game or too much of our not enough real life. Alliances exist in game and in real life . However in real life Airlines do help each other that's what alliances are for,also Airlines do fly unprofitable routes on purpose. For example American Airlines fly to Honolulu because frequent flyer likes flying there, however the route itself loses money.

They sure make avaibility on AA miles a pain to redeem.

But TBH DFW-HNL is actually more expensive than a comparable TATL fare on average.

Back to the point though. It's such an infrequent happening to have a mass bailout that it honestly doesn't need regulating past a case by case basis.

Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 10, 2017, 08:22:09 PM
why not adding age parameter to formula ?
Max alliance price:
age 1-2 = book price +30%
Age 2-6 = book price +10%
Age 6-11 = book pirce
Age 11-14 = book price -10%
Age 14-16 = book price -30%
age 16+ = scrap price +5%

Generally, I don't feel strongly that the existing system needs to be tweaked. I feel like we have a tendency to make rules for the sake of rules. If anything the game has been tilted to protect less successful airlines/less experienced players over time (some changes have improved the game, some I would question, but that's for a different thread). The problem with making such rules is that they frequently don't help them actually become better players because BKing (or almost BKing) is one of the strongest learning tools that exist. Without having gone through those scares in the early days, I wouldn't have learned as much as I did.

That being said, tying the sale price to book value is a terrible idea. Book value is purely an accounting amount, affected by purchase price, depreciation, etc. If one airline paid full price for a plane and another purchased in bulk and got the 20% (or more) discount - their book values would be different. Why should the amount they would be able to sell the plane for be different. If we want to add a rule that if you buy an aircraft from another airline, you can't sell or scrap it for x period. one year sounds reasonable to me.

If the issue is really that we are trying to avoid airlines helping each other, the mechanism we are doing this is horrible. We are creating convoluted game play rules to achieve an end that is not possible. We say the purpose of alliances is to help each other. So why not let them help each other. Allow alliances to fund loans to distressed airlines to use how they see fit. If I have the money and want to throw money into a sink hole - then why shouldn't I be allowed to do it. I have spent many games (not recently due to rule changes) of having competitors receiving this benefit and i can't say that it made the game less fun, or more fun. It just was a different challenge. I don't regret that in any way.

So if we want to prevent alliances from helping each other, or really any airline helping any other, then we should prevent airlines form selling planes to each other. I mean that's the logical conclusion of all of this. But does that make sense? Of course not.

So what is the answer? If we are really concerned about struggling airlines getting unfair help, make a simple rule, that an unprofitable airline (however defined) can no longer sell assets to other airlines. Does that make sense? Of course not.

So...i disagree that additional changes are necessary, but if we have to do something, what I propose is that if the airline is unprofitable, it can't sell assets above market price to alliance airlines. it's clear, simple, and loosely solves whatever problem we are trying to solve.

Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 01:04:21 AM
Generally, I don't feel strongly that the existing system needs to be tweaked. I feel like we have a tendency to make rules for the sake of rules. If anything the game has been tilted to protect less successful airlines/less experienced players over time (some changes have improved the game, some I would question, but that's for a different thread). The problem with making such rules is that they frequently don't help them actually become better players because BKing (or almost BKing) is one of the strongest learning tools that exist. Without having gone through those scares in the early days, I wouldn't have learned as much as I did.

That being said, tying the sale price to book value is a terrible idea. Book value is purely an accounting amount, affected by purchase price, depreciation, etc. If one airline paid full price for a plane and another purchased in bulk and got the 20% (or more) discount - their book values would be different. Why should the amount they would be able to sell the plane for be different. If we want to add a rule that if you buy an aircraft from another airline, you can't sell or scrap it for x period. one year sounds reasonable to me.

If the issue is really that we are trying to avoid airlines helping each other, the mechanism we are doing this is horrible. We are creating convoluted game play rules to achieve an end that is not possible. We say the purpose of alliances is to help each other. So why not let them help each other. Allow alliances to fund loans to distressed airlines to use how they see fit. If I have the money and want to throw money into a sink hole - then why shouldn't I be allowed to do it. I have spent many games (not recently due to rule changes) of having competitors receiving this benefit and i can't say that it made the game less fun, or more fun. It just was a different challenge. I don't regret that in any way.

So if we want to prevent alliances from helping each other, or really any airline helping any other, then we should prevent airlines form selling planes to each other. I mean that's the logical conclusion of all of this. But does that make sense? Of course not.

So what is the answer? If we are really concerned about struggling airlines getting unfair help, make a simple rule, that an unprofitable airline (however defined) can no longer sell assets to other airlines. Does that make sense? Of course not.

So...i disagree that additional changes are necessary, but if we have to do something, what I propose is that if the airline is unprofitable, it can't sell assets above market price to alliance airlines. it's clear, simple, and loosely solves whatever problem we are trying to solve.

Interesting perspective. I agree that additional rules/constraints need to be put in place rather than get a clarification of an existing rule. When I read the current rule about repeated sales to other airlines that generates profits/money for only one airline, I interpret that as "buy junk to scrap" sorts of transactions are not permitted. However, we've not had that explicitly stated in the game rules, therefore, it's a point that needs clarification. If such transactions are allowed, then great, I'll join in the fray. If they're not, then that needs to be made clear that those types of transactions fall under the existing rule.

Of course, alliancemates should help each other out - and even the occasional plane here or there to be bought for scrap isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is when there's say, a billion bucks a quarter going down that sinkhole.

Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 01:04:21 AM
Generally, I don't feel strongly that the existing system needs to be tweaked. I feel like we have a tendency to make rules for the sake of rules. If anything the game has been tilted to protect less successful airlines/less experienced players over time (some changes have improved the game, some I would question, but that's for a different thread). The problem with making such rules is that they frequently don't help them actually become better players because BKing (or almost BKing) is one of the strongest learning tools that exist. Without having gone through those scares in the early days, I wouldn't have learned as much as I did.

That being said, tying the sale price to book value is a terrible idea. Book value is purely an accounting amount, affected by purchase price, depreciation, etc. If one airline paid full price for a plane and another purchased in bulk and got the 20% (or more) discount - their book values would be different. Why should the amount they would be able to sell the plane for be different. If we want to add a rule that if you buy an aircraft from another airline, you can't sell or scrap it for x period. one year sounds reasonable to me.

If the issue is really that we are trying to avoid airlines helping each other, the mechanism we are doing this is horrible. We are creating convoluted game play rules to achieve an end that is not possible. We say the purpose of alliances is to help each other. So why not let them help each other. Allow alliances to fund loans to distressed airlines to use how they see fit. If I have the money and want to throw money into a sink hole - then why shouldn't I be allowed to do it. I have spent many games (not recently due to rule changes) of having competitors receiving this benefit and i can't say that it made the game less fun, or more fun. It just was a different challenge. I don't regret that in any way.

So if we want to prevent alliances from helping each other, or really any airline helping any other, then we should prevent airlines form selling planes to each other. I mean that's the logical conclusion of all of this. But does that make sense? Of course not.

So what is the answer? If we are really concerned about struggling airlines getting unfair help, make a simple rule, that an unprofitable airline (however defined) can no longer sell assets to other airlines. Does that make sense? Of course not.

So...i disagree that additional changes are necessary, but if we have to do something, what I propose is that if the airline is unprofitable, it can't sell assets above market price to alliance airlines. it's clear, simple, and loosely solves whatever problem we are trying to solve.

Well said. Applause!

Money laundering is against the rules, in whatever form you figure out how to get away with it. No matter how you try to explain it, its still wrong.

~ Whatever agenda you cling too, is perfectly fine. Still doesn't make that action correct. But its ok. It's your choice.

Rules/regulations exist to punish those who seek to undermine the "free market/free will" people howl about.

If you want the choice to be still possible, I'm ok with that as well. If you get caught doing nefarious actions, don't cry about the punishment when it happens.

If your arguing about there not being consequences to your nefarious actions, you are truly dreaming. Cause that's not happening folks ~


Talentz 

Quote from: Talentz on December 11, 2017, 02:49:31 AM
Money laundering is against the rules, in whatever form you figure out how to get away with it. No matter how you try to explain it, its still wrong.

~ Whatever agenda you cling too, is perfectly fine. Still doesn't make that action correct. But its ok. It's your choice.

Rules/regulations exist to punish those who seek to undermine the "free market/free will" people howl about.

If you want the choice to be still possible, I'm ok with that as well. If you get caught doing nefarious actions, don't cry about the punishment when it happens.

If your arguing about there not being consequences to your nefarious actions, you are truly dreaming. Cause that's not happening folks ~


Talentz

I disagree with this in its entirety. Rules/regulations exist to protect the losers from an entirely free market. They do not exist to punish those that are looking for a free market. Many regulations can be argued support 'fair competition' but then it's a question of what is deemed to be fair or not. Now my personal view is that a good number of rules/regulations are needed to protect market abuses, but I am not under the illusion that those protections protect a 100% free market, they are designed to facilitate certain outcomes, one of which (in AWS terms) is to minimize the competitive advantage achieved by size. There is no way that you can argue the current commonality penalty system is designed to support a free market. It is designed a gameplay mechanism to force difficult choices (airlines of all sizes) and has a growth inhibitor on the largest airlines.

In regards to money laundering, how is buying a plane money laundering...Per wikipedia (obviously the best source for everything)..."Money laundering is the process of transforming the profits of crime and corruption into ostensibly "legitimate" assets." If i buy an airframe from another airline at more or less market value, how is that money laundering? I think that it is a gross misuse of the term and implies a level of criminality that is not commensurate with the actions of either party. Most of the times i have been involved in assisting other airlines, it has been less about the gain/profit on selling the airframe, it's more about ensuring a rapid sale to provide liquid funds quickly. If it then takes me a year to sell he plan and recoup my funds, I don't care, but to the struggling airline, they couldn't wait a year. To me that's a liquidity issue, not a money laundering issue.

Separately, if you are arguing that i was implying that i personally was behind whatever nefarious actions you are referring to, I take offense to that. If you were making a general statement against those that break the AWS rules, then I agree that whatever the rules are, agree or disagree, if you break them, then you have to live by the consequences of your actions.

Quote from: schro on December 11, 2017, 01:19:30 AM
Interesting perspective. I agree that additional rules/constraints need to be put in place rather than get a clarification of an existing rule. When I read the current rule about repeated sales to other airlines that generates profits/money for only one airline, I interpret that as "buy junk to scrap" sorts of transactions are not permitted. However, we've not had that explicitly stated in the game rules, therefore, it's a point that needs clarification. If such transactions are allowed, then great, I'll join in the fray. If they're not, then that needs to be made clear that those types of transactions fall under the existing rule.

Of course, alliancemates should help each other out - and even the occasional plane here or there to be bought for scrap isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is when there's say, a billion bucks a quarter going down that sinkhole.

I agree that whatever rules there are, they should be transparent. My core question, is what are we really trying to solve for - because we can argue whether or not a rule is good or not, but if we don't know what behavior we are trying to promote/eliminate, it's hard to determine if the rule achieves said objective.

PS:If you are trading A380's a billion bucks happens pretty quickly, but is definitely a sinkhole!

Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 04:15:23 AM
I disagree with this in its entirety. Rules/regulations exist to protect the losers from an entirely free market. They do not exist to punish those that are looking for a free market. Many regulations can be argued support 'fair competition' but then it's a question of what is deemed to be fair or not. Now my personal view is that a good number of rules/regulations are needed to protect market abuses, but I am not under the illusion that those protections protect a 100% free market, they are designed to facilitate certain outcomes, one of which (in AWS terms) is to minimize the competitive advantage achieved by size. There is no way that you can argue the current commonality penalty system is designed to support a free market. It is designed a gameplay mechanism to force difficult choices (airlines of all sizes) and has a growth inhibitor on the largest airlines.

Mmm.. then we have disagreeing points of view. Your loser* to me is a player with the same level playing field as any other player. What happens after that is the free market. I would like to point out propping up a losers* airline buy shuffling money to them isn't supportive of fair competition either. I feel you agree with that point. The philosophical debate on rules/regulations and there iffy support of fair competition is for another thread. Reason being:

Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 04:15:23 AM
In regards to money laundering, how is buying a plane money laundering...Per wikipedia (obviously the best source for everything)..."Money laundering is the process of transforming the profits of crime and corruption into ostensibly "legitimate" assets." If i buy an airframe from another airline at more or less market value, how is that money laundering? I think that it is a gross misuse of the term and implies a level of criminality that is not commensurate with the actions of either party. Most of the times i have been involved in assisting other airlines, it has been less about the gain/profit on selling the airframe, it's more about ensuring a rapid sale to provide liquid funds quickly. If it then takes me a year to sell he plan and recoup my funds, I don't care, but to the struggling airline, they couldn't wait a year. To me that's a liquidity issue, not a money laundering issue.

That is entirely correct. A terrible misuse of the word. Money transferring is a better fit. Money transferring is against AWS game rules in some forms, but not clearly in all clever forms possible. Money transferring is what the debate is about. I support the opinion that buying/scrapping in mass is money transferring, thus against the game rules.

Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 04:15:23 AM
Separately, if you are arguing that i was implying that i personally was behind whatever nefarious actions you are referring to, I take offense to that. If you were making a general statement against those that break the AWS rules, then I agree that whatever the rules are, agree or disagree, if you break them, then you have to live by the consequences of your actions.

Of course it was a general statement, if you read it as a personal attack on you, my apologies.

Talentz

just ban plane trade to any other human player if the plane age is 15+.

Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 04:15:23 AM
I disagree with this in its entirety. Rules/regulations exist to protect the losers from an entirely free market. They do not exist to punish those that are looking for a free market. Many regulations can be argued support 'fair competition' but then it's a question of what is deemed to be fair or not. Now my personal view is that a good number of rules/regulations are needed to protect market abuses, but I am not under the illusion that those protections protect a 100% free market, they are designed to facilitate certain outcomes, one of which (in AWS terms) is to minimize the competitive advantage achieved by size. There is no way that you can argue the current commonality penalty system is designed to support a free market. It is designed a gameplay mechanism to force difficult choices (airlines of all sizes) and has a growth inhibitor on the largest airlines.

Free market also means - "free to die".
in open market - losers will fall.
IRL there is no fleet commonality (3 fleet restriction) for sure, but in AWS there are no shareholders, that will suck up every possible penny from you. that the main limit in company growth. the bigger you are - the more taxes/dividents you are gonna to pay. so you will have very little portion of it to invest into yourself.

returning to game... imagine you are playing single player game - what would you do if you need cash now? sell the plane, but AI will not buy not needed plane with 200% above market value for sure. then why in AWS it is normal ?

Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 11, 2017, 11:23:51 AM
just ban plane trade to any other human player if the plane age is 15+.

Nah. I've sold and outleased countless old airframes on the UM(for players who obviously needed them), sometimes I did lease a few. This possibility is kickass for short term needs. don't cause more harm than good.

I say nothing about lease Gaz.

only about selling 15+

Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 11, 2017, 01:11:49 PM
I say nothing about lease Gaz.

only about selling 15+

A 15 year old plane still has 9 years of realistic life left.

Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 11, 2017, 01:11:49 PM
I say nothing about lease Gaz.

only about selling 15+

In cargo gameworld those old birds maybe useful for cargo-only players. They want cheap aircraft to do the job.

What a long thread.

Then we removed one more alliance benefit.
Lets remove selling planes to each others for flying aswell ? to level the playfield even more, as the rule only benifit the strong airlines, in big alliances that can give a player 3-4-500 727 320 what so ever inside a 5 years time.  A player can have won a base, the opponent is struggeling but suddenly he get 300 planes in from his alliance buddies in a few years span, while the leader in the base, only has his own lines to get from and will need 10 more year to get same number and planes, he also probally will bk on it.

How is this more fair/unfair then buying out old planes for scrap ?  if you get planes or cash is same same ? it change the playfield.
Sure the buyer is forced to pay overprice due to alliance minimum often is 40-70% higher then book value after those 3-5 years wait for the spots in line.
But still he gets a 10 year headstart compared to the one needing to get all the planes himself.
So even as money transfer is now allowed we can also have the one airline know he will struggle after jet introduction, he han then plan to buy 50 727 and sell them for max alliance price. Atm im selling some 727 to one of our members, at minimum alliance price, thats 18.769 million, my book value is 11.7. already there we have a 7 mill profit so on 50 of them that would be 350 mill. But alliance max is atm at 28.153 mill. so at max price a struggeling player could  earn just under 16.5 mill pr frame and in total for 50 822 million.
Thats some money moving to get the member able to pay bills and order his own new planes ?. So not only do the player that get his 300 planes 10 year ahead of his competitor a big advantage by having these planes, the pals selling him 50 each could if sold atm earn more then double of what he paid himself pr frame on the sale. Thats some money movement isn't it ?

Often the loosing player in a base that ends op needing others to buy the old planes, has been hold down and stamped on by this.

To me its both or nothing that is  either forbidden or allowed.

So according to some people here, as an alliance member, you are not allowed to help out your fellow alliance member by buying a plane and scrapping it immediately.



And I thought Trump was an imbecile...

Quote from: Dasha on December 11, 2017, 03:27:29 PM
So according to some people here, as an alliance member, you are not allowed to help out your fellow alliance member by buying a plane and scrapping it immediately.

Well, there's a rule on the books (that has been there for years) that prohibits cash transfers/one-sided transactions. It doesn't explicitly say that such transactions are not permitted, however, the substance of the transaction looks a lot like a cash transfer/one-sided transaction. Therefore, there's this discussion thread about clarifying and providing interpretation as to whether this practice violates the rule.

From the way you wrote your reply, you appear to believe that such transactions are not representative of a cash transfer/one-sided transaction.

I'm still fairly new to the game and wasn't aware that so much tactical movement was going on between airlines.

Reading through the discussion it appears to me that it boils down to whether Team Play should be allowed. The alliances themselves don't
really have much technical effect on the game. They are more about team play and helping each other out.
Seeing that no one really complained about the rules as they stood before the discussion started, it's probably best to allow team play to continue as is.

This game has many passionate long term players and playing in teams with some tactical manuevering does give a lot more long term appeal I suppose.
New entrants undoubtedly suffer from stiffer competition at the major hubs, but there are always some easy bases to start out from.

Just my opinion

Cheers!
Mike

Quote from: MikeS on December 11, 2017, 04:27:44 PM
Reading through the discussion it appears to me that it boils down to whether Team Play should be allowed. T

I'll strongly disagree with your assessment over what the discussion is about (or at least, should be about). There's nothing against team play in the rules. There's nothing against helping other players get aircraft from the market, route sharing agreements, sale/lease back transactions and other means on help. The game would not be nearly as fun or enjoyable without that level of "team play", nor does the original post reference banning any of those things.

Quote from: schro on December 11, 2017, 04:09:47 PM
Well, there's a rule on the books (that has been there for years) that prohibits cash transfers/one-sided transactions. It doesn't explicitly say that such transactions are not permitted, however, the substance of the transaction looks a lot like a cash transfer/one-sided transaction. Therefore, there's this discussion thread about clarifying and providing interpretation as to whether this practice violates the rule.

From the way you wrote your reply, you appear to believe that such transactions are not representative of a cash transfer/one-sided transaction.

If it's not allowed to help an alliance member, for example by purchasing his/her old scrap metal, what is the point of being in an alliance in the first place? There's no passenger benefit, not connecting passengers, no financial benefit. Might as well remove the whole alliance option then no?

Besides, buying aircraft from an alliance member is already limited to alliance minimum or maximum. I honestly don't see the problems in financial aid to alliance members, or anybody for that matter.

I believe that we first need to put the right words on what's this or that.
Helping another airline is one thing, and I think (and hope) it's always gonna be allowed.
On the other hand funding another airline is quite different and not accepted by game rules.

The problem is that both helping and funding are based on the same thing: money (wether it's cash, cheap planes or else).
So the difference is not the nature of the exchange, but rather the amount exchanged.

There will always be a grey zone, as defining wether something is still "helping" or already "funding" is quite hard. That limit will always remain impossible to draw clearly, as values change over time, and proportions are different, based on the companies' sizes. But at least we can try to define things a bit more.

So we're trying to discuss wether this or that is considered as allowed or not, and possibly to try to reduce the grey zone. Based on what happened in GW#2 where an airline bought dozens (don't remember the exact amount but it's huge) of ready-to-scrap planes from a fellow alliance member that was in difficulty. Was this helping or funding?

I think no one will complain if I buy 2 or 3 or even 10 planes above market prices from someone in my alliance to help him. But when that number reaches 100 or 200 planes, the practice is a tad different, as we're not talking about 20 or even 100 millions (GW#2 value), but about hundreds of million $ if not billions.

That's also the topic: when do we enter the grey zone, and when do we clearly enter in what's prohibited. The enforcement is then another topic.

Funding is helping. No problems with that. Happens all the time in real life as well.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 11, 2017, 05:51:01 PM
I believe that we first need to put the right words on what's this or that.
Helping another airline is one thing, and I think (and hope) it's always gonna be allowed.
On the other hand funding another airline is quite different and not accepted by game rules.

The problem is that both helping and funding are based on the same thing: money (wether it's cash, cheap planes or else).
So the difference is not the nature of the exchange, but rather the amount exchanged.

There will always be a grey zone, as defining wether something is still "helping" or already "funding" is quite hard. That limit will always remain impossible to draw clearly, as values change over time, and proportions are different, based on the companies' sizes. But at least we can try to define things a bit more.

So we're trying to discuss wether this or that is considered as allowed or not, and possibly to try to reduce the grey zone. Based on what happened in GW#2 where an airline bought dozens (don't remember the exact amount but it's huge) of ready-to-scrap planes from a fellow alliance member that was in difficulty. Was this helping or funding?

I think no one will complain if I buy 2 or 3 or even 10 planes above market prices from someone in my alliance to help him. But when that number reaches 100 or 200 planes, the practice is a tad different, as we're not talking about 20 or even 100 millions (GW#2 value), but about hundreds of million $ if not billions.

That's also the topic: when do we enter the grey zone, and when do we clearly enter in what's prohibited. The enforcement is then another topic.

And same goes when an airline supply 100 brand new planes for a team mate, with the possibilty of transfer millions pr frame from the rich one to the weaker member in the process. for a 727 today it be up to 16.7 mill profit pr plane sold to the rich member that way.
Thats would sure also be funding not only helping will it ?.
They key point is there is tons of options for transfering money, between alliance players, so why should one be forbidden but other ones not  ?

Quote from: Dasha on December 11, 2017, 09:31:01 PM
Funding is helping. No problems with that. Happens all the time in real life as well.

Between friends, I can agree. Between companies, nope.
Capitalism means profit. When a company puts money elsewhere than in itself, it's not for that sake of the other company, it is because there is some interest somewhere (acquiring shares, access to technologies, for marketing purpose, to preserve the competitors of our its own competitor, etc.).
Otherwise it's called a foundation, not for profit (and even a foundation usually exists for marketing purposes).
Sure, you could probably find some example somewhere, but you cannot call it the usual way, as otherwise shareholders would hang the board high.
And nowhere can you find an example of an airline funding another one as high as hundreds of millions of $ (Sixties or Seventies $).

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on December 11, 2017, 09:39:09 PM
And same goes when an airline supply 100 brand new planes for a team mate, with the possibilty of transfer millions pr frame from the rich one to the weaker member in the process. for a 727 today it be up to 16.7 mill profit pr plane sold to the rich member that way.
Thats would sure also be funding not only helping will it ?.

Sure. But (as far as I see things inside my alliance), we don't proceed that way. Rule is book or min AP, like it probably is in every alliance. And if it happens that a "poor" airline provides some expensive planes to a rich one, we're not talking about the same numbers but only on a 10-20 frames max, and usually less.
Why?
Only because the poor airline is not able to order 100 brand new planes in the first place.
And as I stated in an earlier post, it's the quantity that makes the difference between helping and funding.

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on December 11, 2017, 09:39:09 PM
They key point is there is tons of options for transfering money, between alliance players, so why should one be forbidden but other ones not  ?

For what I mean here, I'm talking about every option, not only the one that led to this thread.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 11, 2017, 09:59:21 PM
Sure. But (as far as I see things inside my alliance), we don't proceed that way. Rule is book or min AP, like it probably is in every alliance. And if it happens that a "poor" airline provides some expensive planes to a rich one, we're not talking about the same numbers but only on a 10-20 frames max, and usually less.
Why?
Only because the poor airline is not able to order 100 brand new planes in the first place.
And as I stated in an earlier post, it's the quantity that makes the difference between helping and funding.

And when are we defining a poor operation ? in start of the game most airlines make big profit now we soon get fuel spikes etc.
In mid 60 i brought 50 727 for you, you then now buy those at max price from me i will earn 825 mill on that. money i can use to survieve the storm.  on min price i will earn around 320 mill, still a huge profit on loaning my spare cash out to you until the plane is delivered. Even if needed to take loans etc to do so it will be a golden deal.

Sure people as standard don't use max, they at least at A-Team use book or minimum what ever is most fair.
But for members not doing so good max will be option. as its allowed. And now the moving of big bucks to struggeling companies can begin.
Even at your 10-20 planes we at max price are talking hundreds of millions, that can be transfered that way.

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on December 12, 2017, 01:00:49 AM
And when are we defining a poor operation ? in start of the game most airlines make big profit now we soon get fuel spikes etc.
In mid 60 i brought 50 727 for you, you then now buy those at max price from me i will earn 825 mill on that. money i can use to survieve the storm.  on min price i will earn around 320 mill, still a huge profit on loaning my spare cash out to you until the plane is delivered. Even if needed to take loans etc to do so it will be a golden deal.

Sure people as standard don't use max, they at least at A-Team use book or minimum what ever is most fair.
But for members not doing so good max will be option. as its allowed. And now the moving of big bucks to struggeling companies can begin.
Even at your 10-20 planes we at max price are talking hundreds of millions, that can be transfered that way.

That's a completely different type of transaction than the one in question though. Both players benefit in that situation as one player gets money and the other player gets the aircraft that they need for operations. Therefore, that's not a transaction where one side is the sole beneficiary - it shouldn't matter, in that case, whether the selling airline is doing poorly or not so poorly, so long as the sales take place within the alliance limit parameters...

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on December 12, 2017, 01:00:49 AM
Even at your 10-20 planes we at max price are talking hundreds of millions, that can be transfered that way.

When I was talking of a 10-20 plane limit, it was not a proposal, it was just a to give an idea of the amount of money processed in the 60s in GW#2 for a basic MH plane at the end of its life.
And besides this, we entered a new era, numbers have risen quite a lot, the amounts are not the same.
What was the launch price of a 1049G? What will be the launch price of a 737-800?

Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 11, 2017, 05:51:01 PM
That limit will always remain impossible to draw clearly, as values change over time

Even buying for scrap is not allowed, one can still say he/she is buying for re-sale. I did several times buying off 15yr+ aircraft then throw them again to UM. Even Sami set the limit of no scrapping within 1 year, one can list them to UM, wait for a year then scrap.
On the other hand, buying the scrap metal can be part of a bracket deal. I did once buying away someone's scrap metal then he is willing to take up my new aircraft. If aircraft deal are all within alliance max or min allowed price I don't see any problem there.

Quote from: knobbygb on December 10, 2017, 07:51:15 AM
I agree with Zobelle above - is this really such a problem?  There are probably more important areas to be looking at. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

yes, I totally agree, if it is not broke, do not fix it

Quote from: VitoNg on December 12, 2017, 10:41:29 AM
Even buying for scrap is not allowed, one can still say he/she is buying for re-sale. I did several times buying off 15yr+ aircraft then throw them again to UM. Even Sami set the limit of no scrapping within 1 year, one can list them to UM, wait for a year then scrap.
On the other hand, buying the scrap metal can be part of a bracket deal. I did once buying away someone's scrap metal then he is willing to take up my new aircraft. If aircraft deal are all within alliance max or min allowed price I don't see any problem there.

Very good point.
Another pro for the Alliance mate with a supportive alliance.

It seems like the idea of "helping" has morphed over the years into just about anything goes as long as we are winning mentality. The means one justifies to meet their ends is an empty shot on their morality I suppose. For some of you at least.

How massive money transferring is acceptable in one form or another, is beyond me. I apologize for my higher standards. I want to see AWS grow and be better then it was the day before.... and I don't see how this behavior's acceptance leads to that goal.


Talentz

Quote from: Talentz on December 12, 2017, 10:46:02 PM
It seems like the idea of "helping" has morphed over the years into just about anything goes as long as we are winning mentality. The means one justifies to meet their ends is an empty shot on their morality I suppose. For some of you at least.

The mentality behind some of these posts are starting to remind me a bit of a press conference with Michael O'Leary (Ryanair)...

Either allow money transfer or don't.

People want to transfer money but they can't, so they use the loopholes they can find.

If money transfer is to be forbidden I highly recommend renaming Alliances to "Friendship Union for Chatting and Knitting and nothing else", since you cannot operate as allies and shouldn't have the mindset of "you versus them" - just be aware people WANT to band together and operate as "they versus them" and they will continue to do so off-site, testing the limits of your every rule.

"Money transfers" can occur even outside of alliance and often can be much more egregious in nature due to more of a max/min extremes.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 11, 2017, 09:59:21 PM
Sure. But (as far as I see things inside my alliance), we don't proceed that way. Rule is book or min AP, like it probably is in every alliance. And if it happens that a "poor" airline provides some expensive planes to a rich one, we're not talking about the same numbers but only on a 10-20 frames max, and usually less.
Why?
Only because the poor airline is not able to order 100 brand new planes in the first place.

And if the alliance is able to buy 100 new planes and then sell them to their alliance member who needs them, probably because they got screwed by the game makers and have to start with a HUGE disadvantage, that is considered the advantages of being in an alliance.

If that poor airline needs some money to buy or lease all the new planes listed to them, they can sell their old junk to the richer airlines in the alliance to generate some cashflow.




Why are we even discussing this non-issue in the first place?

Quote from: Zobelle on December 14, 2017, 04:00:59 AM
"Money transfers" can occur even outside of alliance and often can be much more egregious in nature due to more of a max/min extremes.

Sure. And does it happen often, compared to what happen inside alliances?

Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 14, 2017, 10:45:58 AM
Sure. And does it happen often, compared to what happen inside alliances?

If a person leaves an existing alliance, sure. I've had to do this to fix my profits.

Quote from: Dasha on December 14, 2017, 09:56:06 AM

And if the alliance is able to buy 100 new planes and then sell them to their alliance member who needs them, probably because they got screwed by the game makers and have to start with a HUGE disadvantage, that is considered the advantages of being in an alliance.

If that poor airline needs some money to buy or lease all the new planes listed to them, they can sell their old junk to the richer airlines in the alliance to generate some cashflow.

Why are we even discussing this non-issue in the first place?

We clearly know what you refer to. And I have some remarks:
- point 1: absolutely, and you've been beneath rules' limits.
- point 2: you didn't have old junk as you were a brand new airline by then. And officially, no, you couldn't have. You've been screwed, I agree, but that doesn't give you access to special rules as that would have been unfair to all the others (not only me). This is common sense: you got one screwed and unhappy person, but that's no reason to make everybody screwed and unhappy by giving the initial screwed one a bonus that would be considered unfair by numerous players: tell me, how do you quantify the "fair" bonus? Either the screwed one would complain it's not enough, or the others complain it's too much.

That being said, your strategy of occupying the terrain before to prevent the others to grow (you said it, not me) and then restart with everything well prepared within your alliance might be considered not that fair, as it would have given you a really large advantage over others. How realistic could this be? The problem is that I've been moved, and from the advantaged one you became the screwed one. But only to me, not to the others. To the others, you were still advantaged. But what you've done was all within game rules.

So, to be true, your 1st point seems to me a little dishonest:

Quote from: Dasha on December 14, 2017, 09:56:06 AM
And if the alliance is able to buy 100 new planes and then sell them to their alliance member who needs them, probably because they got screwed by the game makers and have to start with a HUGE disadvantage, that is considered the advantages of being in an alliance.

"HUGE disadvantage" or not, you would have played the same way, with the same preparation. "Because" ? I don't believe so. But that's only my feeling.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm unfair in what I say, I'm only trying to be the most honest I can, no matter the circumstances. I had this advantage not because I cheated or else, only because you've been wrongly said you couldn't move.

Quote from: tyteen4a03 on December 14, 2017, 11:16:01 AM
If a person leaves an existing alliance, sure. I've had to do this to fix my profits.

And do you feel this is normal?
Moreover, do you really consider this is not within alliance? Being officially out of the alliance and trading exclusively with your ex-and-soon-to-be-again alliance?

Quote from: Tha_Ape on December 14, 2017, 11:18:25 AM
And do you feel this is normal?
Moreover, do you really consider this is not within alliance? Being officially out of the alliance and trading exclusively with your ex-and-soon-to-be-again alliance?

That's actually a violation of game rules - dropping out of the alliance to circumvent the sales price limits is unfair play.

An idea for some mechanics to curb excessive unrealistic trading practices:

- Airline score take a hit for each sale/purchase below/above market prices. It should effect both trading airlines. The higher the difference to market value, the higher
   the penalty to the airlines' score. It can recover slowly again with time.

- Score penalty to Alliances when an airline leaves alliance.

- Airline score take hit for scrapping aircraft less than 25 years old. Again, the bigger the difference the bigger the penalty

Mike

Quote from: MikeS on December 14, 2017, 01:29:28 PM
An idea for some mechanics to curb excessive unrealistic trading practices:

- Airline score take a hit for each sale/purchase below/above market prices. It should effect both trading airlines. The higher the difference to market value, the higher
   the penalty to the airlines' score. It can recover slowly again with time.

- Score penalty to Alliances when an airline leaves alliance.

- Airline score take hit for scrapping aircraft less than 25 years old. Again, the bigger the difference the bigger the penalty

Mike

I sure am glad you're not a developer for this game.

That 25 year bit pretty much would stop someone from using ANY Russian aircraft.

Quote from: Zobelle on December 14, 2017, 01:38:39 PM
(.../...)
That 25 year bit pretty much would stop someone from using ANY Russian aircraft.

Bar the SSJ, but with a fuselage designed by Boeing, half-french engines, and all western avionics, is it still a russian plane?

(I'm still waiting for the MC21, though, this baby seems kickass IRL, a near B757-100 replacement with far better turnaround times).

Quote from: MikeS on December 14, 2017, 01:29:28 PM
An idea for some mechanics to curb excessive unrealistic trading practices:

- Airline score take a hit for each sale/purchase below/above market prices. It should effect both trading airlines. The higher the difference to market value, the higher
   the penalty to the airlines' score. It can recover slowly again with time.

- Score penalty to Alliances when an airline leaves alliance.

- Airline score take hit for scrapping aircraft less than 25 years old. Again, the bigger the difference the bigger the penalty

Mike

Yet, each of those practices that you describe are realistic and will apply to nearly all players playing the game within the parameters of the rules. Also, item 2 already exists in the form of a CI penalty when leaving an alliance.

but if implemented on a sliding scale, they would only really hurt when abusing the system. Kind of like making shareholders angry for taking bad decisions.

(by the way: selling aircraft below their value is not realistic, neither is scrapping a young air frame)

It would be more effective than rules, because who will actually enforce the rules. As a player, we cannot really see the offender and I doubt the moderators have
the time to supervise at that level

Quote from: MikeS on December 14, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
but if implemented on a sliding scale, they would only really hurt when abusing the system. Kind of like making shareholders angry for taking bad decisions.

(by the way: selling aircraft below their value is not realistic, neither is scrapping a young air frame)

It would be more effective than rules, because who will actually enforce the rules. As a player, we cannot really see the offender and I doubt the moderators have
the time to supervise at that level

Well, we don't have a clear rule right now, hence this thread existing to discuss the clarification of such a thing.

With respect to "young" plane scrapping, there's plenty of reasons to scrap early - 1. If its russian. 2. If it's over 20 years old and has a D check due. 3. When you're done using the plane and there's no likelihood of a market sale of it (i.e. a 10 year old 727-100 in the year 2000). The older the plane is, the less its scrap value, so why would you park it for 25 years to get a smaller payout when you can get a bigger one with no storage costs at year 10?

Quote from: MikeS on December 14, 2017, 02:12:52 PM(by the way: selling aircraft below their value is not realistic, neither is scrapping a young air frame)

The lifespan of an IL12 is 5-6 years, not 25 years. It was painful to park them in the desert before scrapping them at the 10yo mark.

Don't get we wrong : the IL12 served me well. But being penalized just because I found CV240s of F27s to replace them, and I need to scrap them? What the hell??? I had 80 of them, I think, covering all small routes around Poland with them. Half of my fleet at the time. but before even they'd reach the 1st D-Check, they were outdated and good for scrapping.

And for the other point, it's perfectly realistic to sell airplanes as min. for the simple reason that outdated planes are very hard to sell. I've got a few 8-years old starliners back from lease, their book value is 8M$, their min is 4.5M$, and I'm waiting for the price to go as low as 2.8M$ before having a hope of selling them. Outside alliance, of course. I just want to get rid of them, at a price that potential buyers/lessees find low enough to be profitable.

In previous GW3s, I've sold hundreds of CRJs within a few years when replacing them with A148s. At a price far below the normal. At normal price, noone would have bought them. I was very glad to get at least some small money from them.

So no, your solutions to punish low-price sale and early scrapping are not fair. They are punishing normal behaviours driven by market and financial mechanics. I've done both in massive numbers while playing perfectly alone, without coordination with anyone else.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 14, 2017, 02:24:05 PM
And for the other point, it's perfectly realistic to sell airplanes as min. for the simple reason that outdated planes are very hard to sell. I've got a few 8-years old starliners back from lease, their book value is 8M$, their min is 4.5M$, and I'm waiting for the price to go as low as 2.8M$ before having a hope of selling them.

How do you think i feel? Been trying to get rid of some BAC's for 1/3 of the purchase price and two years later no one is stepping it up :-\

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 14, 2017, 02:24:05 PM
The lifespan of an IL12 is 5-6 years, not 25 years. It was painful to park them in the desert before scrapping them at the 10yo mark.

Don't get we wrong : the IL12 served me well. But being penalized just because I found CV240s of F27s to replace them, and I need to scrap them? What the hell??? I had 80 of them, I think, covering all small routes around Poland with them. Half of my fleet at the time. but before even they'd reach the 1st D-Check, they were outdated and good for scrapping.

And for the other point, it's perfectly realistic to sell airplanes as min. for the simple reason that outdated planes are very hard to sell. I've got a few 8-years old starliners back from lease, their book value is 8M$, their min is 4.5M$, and I'm waiting for the price to go as low as 2.8M$ before having a hope of selling them. Outside alliance, of course. I just want to get rid of them, at a price that potential buyers/lessees find low enough to be profitable.

In previous GW3s, I've sold hundreds of CRJs within a few years when replacing them with A148s. At a price far below the normal. At normal price, noone would have bought them. I was very glad to get at least some small money from them.

So no, your solutions to punish low-price sale and early scrapping are not fair. They are punishing normal behaviours driven by market and financial mechanics. I've done both in massive numbers while playing perfectly alone, without coordination with anyone else.

I think we jumped too far into the details. The idea is to link somehow player actions on buying/selling/scrapping to the airline score. Players obviously care a lot
more about their score than about their bank account. So I think it would be an effective way to deter excessive money transfers.
The details of the exact mechanics would be a separate project that would need a lot of care and attention to detail.

Some random thoughts:
The acceptable age for scrapping could be variable. The older the era, the lower the life span. Plus players could adapt by e.g. leasing Soviet aircraft instead
of buying them. The book value of aircraft could also adapt to market conditions accordingly. So if your Starliner above had a book value of 8M$ while market
value is 2.8M$ Then proper accounting standards would dictate a downward adjustment in the books, then selling them cheap wouldn't affect score.
Same goes for your CRJs. Only that their price would adjust slowly downward as the market gets swamped with them. Selling (actually, dumping) "hundreds" of used CRJs at below market rate can also be tough on small airlines that were counting on selling their few frames at more normal rates.

Anyway, the details are another matter. There are so many situations that can be affected one way or another with any change. We'll just have to adapt our game
play accordingly

Or we could keep playing as we do and police ourselves against "unfair" play... without the red tape of new restrictions and rules.

New rules only serve to make new ways to get around them and then we're right back to square one.

Quote from: Zobelle on December 14, 2017, 04:00:37 PM
Or we could keep playing as we do and police ourselves against "unfair" play... without the red tape of new restrictions and rules.

New rules only serve to make new ways to get around them and then we're right back to square one.

You just put your finger where it hurts: how could we police ourselves if we don't consider the same things as fair or unfair?

I'll say "that's unfair, stop it" and you'll answer "nope, go to hell". Or the contrary. And where does that lead?

Sami edicts some rules, but beyond this, there is really few enforcement, and this is not his job.

basically I like the idea of CI hurting while doing non-market things.

if you buy AC and scrap it right away - your CI will hurt, wait one year CI will hurt less till 4-6 years of span (as example)
the same like with personnel firing



Summarize what I have read - no rule will not work until it will be backed up by game scripts.
If no script - that control and punish for non-market deals - remove the rule.

This has wandered into some strange territory. Why are we designing weird and complicated rules when the most basic of rules (alliance members cannot reside in the same base) aren't automatically disallowed?


The base issue is whether or not to make the practice of selling aircraft for an excessively high price for no other purpose than a cash transfer should be against the rules. If yes, change the language and make all aircraft transactions viewable/searchable by airline. Problem solved.


At this point if the language isn't modified we should just all proceed as though this is a valid tactic like sale/leasebacks.

Quote from: dx87 on December 14, 2017, 09:31:14 PM
This has wandered into some strange territory. Why are we designing weird and complicated rules when the most basic of rules (alliance members cannot reside in the same base) aren't automatically disallowed?

+1    And then when you complain your told nothing can be done about because it's not automatic.

Quote from: dx87 on December 14, 2017, 09:31:14 PM
The base issue is whether or not to make the practice of selling aircraft for an excessively high price for no other purpose than a cash transfer should be against the rules. If yes, change the language and make all aircraft transactions viewable/searchable by airline.

The current rule text: "Members are also forbidden to effectively transfer money between their member airlines by for example repeatedly selling and buying aircraft between each others. Normal one-time sales of aircraft is naturally allowed but transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable."

In reference to my original post, the spirit of this rule has been about disallowing selling the same plane back and forth to transfer money. While now the common practise has been to use like 20 different planes and sell each of them once, in order to stay under the radar better (or it is just more convenient as it takes less time). But in my mind it is still the same thing, whether two or twenty planes are used.

This rule has been in force for a long time and there have been a couple of cases related to this. Penalty for the rule violation has been at least that the airline receiving the benefit has lost the money he has gained (this will remain the same).

Wording of the rule will be changed so that it will be made clear that mass sales of planes (or bouncing one plane back and forth) from airline to another (or with a group of airlines) with no intention of actually using them in any other means than transfer money is prohibited (one-sided deal where the other airline is clearly having a benefit). Reason: This is un-businesslike behaviour and does not happen in reality. Text will be also moved away from alliance chapter in order to make it clear it applies to everyone. This won't have any negative effect on actual legitimate intra-alliance aircraft sales (incl. sale/leaseback deals) where the planes are actually being used (= key point: buy/sell/lease aircraft as much as you like but just have a good use for them; like with airport slots).

What will be done is a) publish the selling price information of all aircraft transactions where player has bought the plane from another player (this information has been logged for quite some time already); will be shown on aircraft history page, b) include a new listing at airline information page that shows the latest aircraft transactions for that airline (let's say 20-30 latest deals he has made) giving a quick overview on what's happening. There won't be for now any (more) automated restrictions or changes since they are complicated.

Sami, thanks for the clear articulation of the new approach. I think the approach of increased transparency is a better way to try to identify/solve the problem rather than cumbersome and potentially ineffective additional rules. I'm onboard!

Let's see if it works!

Quote from: Sami on December 17, 2017, 10:21:28 PM
The current rule text: "Members are also forbidden to effectively transfer money between their member airlines by for example repeatedly selling and buying aircraft between each others. Normal one-time sales of aircraft is naturally allowed but transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable."

In reference to my original post, the spirit of this rule has been about disallowing selling the same plane back and forth to transfer money. While now the common practise has been to use like 20 different planes and sell each of them once, in order to stay under the radar better (or it is just more convenient as it takes less time). But in my mind it is still the same thing, whether two or twenty planes are used.

This rule has been in force for a long time and there have been a couple of cases related to this. Penalty for the rule violation has been at least that the airline receiving the benefit has lost the money he has gained (this will remain the same).

Wording of the rule will be changed so that it will be made clear that mass sales of planes (or bouncing one plane back and forth) from airline to another (or with a group of airlines) with no intention of actually using them in any other means than transfer money is prohibited (one-sided deal where the other airline is clearly having a benefit). Reason: This is un-businesslike behaviour and does not happen in reality. Text will be also moved away from alliance chapter in order to make it clear it applies to everyone. This won't have any negative effect on actual legitimate intra-alliance aircraft sales (incl. sale/leaseback deals) where the planes are actually being used (= key point: buy/sell/lease aircraft as much as you like but just have a good use for them; like with airport slots).

What will be done is a) publish the selling price information of all aircraft transactions where player has bought the plane from another player (this information has been logged for quite some time already); will be shown on aircraft history page, b) include a new listing at airline information page that shows the latest aircraft transactions for that airline (let's say 20-30 latest deals he has made) giving a quick overview on what's happening. There won't be for now any (more) automated restrictions or changes since they are complicated.

So others will publicly be able to see my profit/loss on AC sales? :|

What about buying old aircraft and parking to activate achievements? :)

Quote from: Zobelle on December 17, 2017, 11:08:22 PM
So others will publicly be able to see my profit/loss on AC sales? :|

in current GW2, 5points of margin I was doing in brokering last years(it's coming to a brutal end). And? Hiding this profit allows dark, unhealthy manoeuvers. I'm all for transparency. I'm not ashamed of making profit with planes sold at alliance minimum(or even below for customers outside the alliance).

Quote from: Zobelle on December 17, 2017, 11:08:22 PMWhat about buying old aircraft and parking to activate achievements? :)

Well, park your own old crap. Or buy ols metros from the UM, they count as much for the achievement as this alliance maximum IL86.....

basically, what is prohibited, is to make profit on planes that one bought before, so why shouldnt there be a simple algortihm implemented:
> if you want to sell a plane, it is checked if the plane has been sold in the last 12 months, and if so, the maximum price is the book price.
> optionally, it can never be sold at a higher price than purchased from another real airline (brokers and manufacturer excluded), because in any case like that, there would be a money transfer on something that is really not worth so much (depreciation and so on)


and when it comes to transparency: would be great if ticket prices would be transparent (like in airline-empires, if anyone knows that, where you can also see how price changes really changes customer behaviour and isnt just decoration) since that is usually more easy to check for anyone irl.
[and that way also the kindergarden-rules on small airlines and new entrants (you have to hug them twice a day and are not allowed to compete with them) can be really enforced]

Another overly complicated "answer" for a question no one asked.

If it takes more than once sentence to explain then it isn't worth implementing.

Not knowing the ticket price is good,you also not know what seats your competitor uses(HD,standard or premium)
If all is open then you just copy paste,what fun is that?

Quote from: dandan on December 18, 2017, 10:21:40 PM
basically, what is prohibited, is to make profit on planes that one bought before, so why shouldnt there be a simple algortihm implemented:
> if you want to sell a plane, it is checked if the plane has been sold in the last 12 months, and if so, the maximum price is the book price.
> optionally, it can never be sold at a higher price than purchased from another real airline (brokers and manufacturer excluded), because in any case like that, there would be a money transfer on something that is really not worth so much (depreciation and so on)


and when it comes to transparency: would be great if ticket prices would be transparent (like in airline-empires, if anyone knows that, where you can also see how price changes really changes customer behaviour and isnt just decoration) since that is usually more easy to check for anyone irl.
[and that way also the kindergarden-rules on small airlines and new entrants (you have to hug them twice a day and are not allowed to compete with them) can be really enforced]

Quote from: dandan on December 18, 2017, 10:21:40 PM
basically, what is prohibited, is to make profit on planes that one bought before, so why shouldnt there be a simple algortihm implemented:

Yet.... that practice is not prohibited, at all.

Quote from: [ATA] Seven on December 19, 2017, 12:17:48 AM
Not knowing the ticket price is good,you also not know what seats your competitor uses(HD,standard or premium)
If all is open then you just copy paste,what fun is that?

well, thats called competition i guess. but this game seems to be more about who is online at the right time to get the perfect plane, instead of competing for the passengers. thats kind of the basis of any business, that one knows what product at what price the competition offers.

Quote from: schro on December 19, 2017, 02:54:25 AM
Yet.... that practice is not prohibited, at all.

well, de jure, it maybe isnt. de facto, it is. because if you buy a plane cheaply from one airline and resell it expensively to another airline, you basically incriminate yourself. in a case i was involved in (mea culpa!), someone got punished for just offering planes for sale that were later resold by another airline and for buying planes that one needs and actually uses. a clear set of rules would help.

Quote from: Zobelle on December 18, 2017, 10:46:19 PM
Another overly complicated "answer" for a question no one asked.

If it takes more than once sentence to explain then it isn't worth implementing.

please dont take it personally, but i think that philosophy you have, that its no good if it doesnt fit in one sentence, that sounds like out of "donald trumps rules for life for people with attention deficite disorder" ;) or to quote einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Quote from: dandan on December 19, 2017, 08:53:52 AM
well, thats called competition i guess. but this game seems to be more about who is online at the right time to get the perfect plane, instead of competing for the passengers. thats kind of the basis of any business, that one knows what product at what price the competition offers.

I think the latest game just started (GW3) got the balance of UM, production lines, slot costs just right (after 2 less then ideal starts, IMO).

Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 19, 2017, 08:58:45 AM
I think the latest game just started (GW3) got the balance of UM, production lines, slot costs just right (after 2 less then ideal starts, IMO).

Still a lot of BK, the right balance is hard to find. But it's interesting. I'm on the edge of survival right now.

I think majority of BKs are players overextending themselves (getting too many aircraft or getting aircraft that is too expensive) with very little cash left.

Quote from: dandan on December 19, 2017, 08:53:52 AM
well, de jure, it maybe isnt. de facto, it is. because if you buy a plane cheaply from one airline and resell it expensively to another airline, you basically incriminate yourself. in a case i was involved in (mea culpa!), someone got punished for just offering planes for sale that were later resold by another airline and for buying planes that one needs and actually uses. a clear set of rules would help.

All the airlines punished this time were involved from where I have to look at it (= how the aircraft were moved). If you buy a plane and ten years later sell it to an alliance partner and gain a nice profit, it is just fine.

Since I assume we talk about Garuda airline, I see that he was involved just as well in these three sales:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/104920/
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/108861/
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/115443/
I do not know what the original plan was but the fact is that they were rotated very quickly with money benefit through this one airline and the end user (owner) is the one that transferred money help there.


To sum up some scenarios, for the future:

- Buy used aircraft for $10mil, use it for some years, then sell it to an alliance partner (or whomever) for $20mil - Just fine!

- Buy new aircraft from factory, and sell it immediately when delivered to you (at whatever the price is) - Fine!

- Buy one used aircraft from alliance partner and decide not to use it, and scrap it. - Fine, if it's only a single aircraft.

- Do the same for 20 aircraft in a row - Not fine.

- Buy an used aircraft from another airline at $10mil, sell it within a year back to the same airline for $20mil - Not fine, if done for many aircraft.

...any other scenarios?

The idea is that you are not penalized or restricted for doing normal transactions, profit or no profit for you, but if you repeat it with the same airlines / same group and create a pattern of transferring money to one airline it will be against the rules. Simple.

hi sami,
thank you for your posting. just to clarify, since its easier for everyone to adhere to rules if they are clear, so i came up with some other scenarios:

1) buying 19 aircraft from an alliance partner and scrapping them is ok? (20 seems to be a random number... so just checking since there are 18 numbers between 1 and 20)
2) buying 21 aircraft from a non-alliance partner and scrapping them is ok? (since you specifically stated the alliance-membership)
3) leasing 1 to 100 planes for ages at max price and cancelling the lease after min lease period is ok? (sounds like a nice way to loose money to me... just trying to evade taxes  :laugh: )
4) regarding "Buy an used aircraft from another airline at $10mil, sell it within a year back to the same airline for $20mil - Not fine, if done for many aircraft."
   a) how many is "many aircraft"?
   b) it says in the manual that "money transfers" are prohibited between alliance partners, it doesnt say anything about airline outside the alliance. this rule seems now in contrast
       to that rule.
5) buying planes from an airline and leasing them back to that airline at ridiculously low prices is ok?

will try thinking of more ways still ;) thanks in advance for your reply and  the time you invest!
kind regards,
dani

got one more:

6) selling a plane that is in high demand at min price to an airline that is able to resell it at max price on the open market? (either within or outside an alliance? or maybe not 1 but 50 planes?)

Quote from: dandan on December 19, 2017, 12:43:59 PM
hi sami,
thank you for your posting. just to clarify, since its easier for everyone to adhere to rules if they are clear, so i came up with some other scenarios:

So.... the point of the examples is to demonstrate the spirit of the rules and what they are intended to address. There's significant human judgement that would go into a determination of violation of the current/future rules, which can look different in every situation. The point is not to set a hard limit, but to give a general feel for what is appropriate versus not. I would NOT take 20 as a hard limit either way - 5 or 10 planes could be considered inappropriate depending on the context of it. He had also stated with the rule change that it will be removed from the alliance section and put into the main section of rules as it's intended to apply to all players. Given that, I'll take a stab at responding - sami can correct me if I'm wrong :-).

1. Spirit of rules applies here, see above.
2. Spirit of rules applies and all players affected, see above.
3. While not specifically called out, it's a cash transfer. Though, typically those sorts of arrangements do not save a dying airline thus you won't see them frequently.
4. Spirit of rules and human judgement applies here, see above.
5. Buy/leaseback transactions are permitted, within bounds of minimum/maximum aircraft sale values.
6. Spirit of rules applies here as well, it's a transaction to move cash to another airline....

Quote from: schro on December 19, 2017, 03:04:07 PM
So.... the point of the examples is to demonstrate the spirit of the rules and what they are intended to address. There's significant human judgement that would go into a determination of violation of the current/future rules, which can look different in every situation. The point is not to set a hard limit, but to give a general feel for what is appropriate versus not. I would NOT take 20 as a hard limit either way - 5 or 10 planes could be considered inappropriate depending on the context of it. He had also stated with the rule change that it will be removed from the alliance section and put into the main section of rules as it's intended to apply to all players. Given that, I'll take a stab at responding - sami can correct me if I'm wrong :-).

1. Spirit of rules applies here, see above.
2. Spirit of rules applies and all players affected, see above.
3. While not specifically called out, it's a cash transfer. Though, typically those sorts of arrangements do not save a dying airline thus you won't see them frequently.
4. Spirit of rules and human judgement applies here, see above.
5. Buy/leaseback transactions are permitted, within bounds of minimum/maximum aircraft sale values.
6. Spirit of rules applies here as well, it's a transaction to move cash to another airline....

If rule, and punishment for breaking it as well, cannot be precise, than this shouldn't be rule at all. It depends way too much on human judgment, mood, spirit and is very unclear.

But, well, I'm not arguing, just thinking out loud.

Quote from: Fidiasz on December 19, 2017, 03:33:34 PM
If rule, and punishment for breaking it as well, cannot be precise, than this shouldn't be rule at all. It depends way too much on human judgment, mood, spirit and is very unclear.

But, well, I'm not arguing, just thinking out loud.

But isn't that the point? If you run your airline like a rational business person, then this unprecise rule will never impact you. It's only when you begin to do irrational things (transferring money to other airlines instead of keeping it for yourself) that it becomes a problem....

Quote from: schro on December 19, 2017, 03:04:07 PM
So.... the point of the examples is to demonstrate the spirit of the rules and what they are intended to address. There's significant human judgement that would go into a determination of violation of the current/future rules, which can look different in every situation. The point is not to set a hard limit, but to give a general feel for what is appropriate versus not. I would NOT take 20 as a hard limit either way - 5 or 10 planes could be considered inappropriate depending on the context of it. He had also stated with the rule change that it will be removed from the alliance section and put into the main section of rules as it's intended to apply to all players. Given that, I'll take a stab at responding - sami can correct me if I'm wrong :-).

1. Spirit of rules applies here, see above.
2. Spirit of rules applies and all players affected, see above.
3. While not specifically called out, it's a cash transfer. Though, typically those sorts of arrangements do not save a dying airline thus you won't see them frequently.
4. Spirit of rules and human judgement applies here, see above.
5. Buy/leaseback transactions are permitted, within bounds of minimum/maximum aircraft sale values.
6. Spirit of rules applies here as well, it's a transaction to move cash to another airline....

first of all: your are joking, right? i do understand a spirit of christmas (ho-ho-ho), but a "spirit of the rules" is rather ha-ha-ha. ;)
human judgement is a nice thing, certainly, but in the end its about rules that are not creating more doubts than giving answers, and since law should at least in theory bring the same justice to everyone (except you live in sudan or somewhere), there should be a certain precision about them. thats whats called "legal certainty". else i could interpret a "spirit" differently than someone else.

second of all: is there any authority you have regarding the application of rules? i am not a long-time player, so no clue if you are a game admin or just somebody who assumes to interpret the rules at will - because i can do that on my own within the rules set at the manual and we can find very different judgements. would be nice if any known admin could answer these questions; since sami is in the discussion, i would like this clarified by him.

point three: having an answer that contains a "well" and ends with "...." as the last line in your attempt to answer questions really makes the impression that 1) rules are made up on the go and 2) interpreted at will.
basically all you listed is what is called an "elastic-clause" or "ambiguous clause" in jurisprudence - if a jurisdiction is not able to define specific rules within the general set of rules, justice accepts people to interpret them their own way within the interpretability of the existing laws (which would be exactly what you did before if you do not have the authority to set rules - see the second point, or leaving a lot of legal uncertainty - see the first point).

Quote from: schro on December 19, 2017, 03:41:42 PM
But isn't that the point? If you run your airline like a rational business person, then this unprecise rule will never impact you. It's only when you begin to do irrational things (transferring money to other airlines instead of keeping it for yourself) that it becomes a problem....

a rational business person could say: i invest in an airline in a different country so that i can use profits from that airline later on. for example by reducing competition on the routes between that country and my country. or by getting favourable deals with that company later on. in the end, i would rather interpret it as an investment, not as a gift.

Quote from: schro on December 19, 2017, 03:41:42 PM
But isn't that the point? If you run your airline like a rational business person, then this unprecise rule will never impact you. It's only when you begin to do irrational things (transferring money to other airlines instead of keeping it for yourself) that it becomes a problem....

It depends on point of view. Actually transferring funds between airlines within same alliance make sense from business point of view. Helping an allied airline is good for alliance. Ussually, I assume there is nothing wrong in caring about matters of alliance (as it is co-venture of all allied airlines) as well as your own matters.

But, still, this is just my way of seeing business relationships.

Quote from: dandan on December 19, 2017, 03:48:07 PM
is there any authority you have regarding the application of rules?

Not at all, I just happen to have opinions that I type out from time to time.

Do you people see the cans of worms that was opened here? Better to move on and live and let live.

I think it's a rather brilliant move to be honest. Maybe not entirely legal but brilliant nonetheless :D

Credit where it's due. :)

Quote from: Dasha on December 19, 2017, 08:06:36 PM
I think it's a rather brilliant move to be honest. Maybe not entirely legal but brilliant nonetheless :D

Credit where it's due. :)

All the credit must go to Sami for doing something about it...

I didn't mean that. Obviously.

If anybody can think of a loophole like that, they deserve some credit for that.

But alas, the world is full of bitter people :)

Actually there's a whole heap of loopholes, mass leasing to a single airline for example, that are deemed legal but can effectively be used for "legal" money transfer.

Quote from: Wreck on December 20, 2017, 11:05:06 AM
Actually there's a whole heap of loopholes, mass leasing to a single airline for example, that are deemed legal but can effectively be used for "legal" money transfer.

But also for legit play. In previous GW3, we had a latecomer in alliance, I leased him more than 80(IIRC) E195 at alliance minimum for 15 years. He needed the planes, I ensured him he'd get the planes, but pricing was within normal limits, and he flew them until the end of the game. Of course it's intra-alliance support, as he got easy access to an excellent plane, far easier than an allianceless player that would open his company in 2020. That's help. But that's not money transfer. And even at alliance minimum, it was some welcome additional income to my small regional company.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 20, 2017, 11:20:08 AM
But also for legit play. In previous GW3, we had a latecomer in alliance, I leased him more than 80(IIRC) E195 at alliance minimum for 15 years. He needed the planes, I ensured him he'd get the planes, but pricing was within normal limits, and he flew them until the end of the game. Of course it's intra-alliance support, as he got easy access to an excellent plane, far easier than an allianceless player that would open his company in 2020. That's help. But that's not money transfer. And even at alliance minimum, it was some welcome additional income to my small regional company.

It may not be, but it can be. I'm not saying that all mass leases are designed to do this, just that it can be done. Effective money transfer does not need movement of physical cash. By playing with the lease prices you can transfer cash through the income/expenses of the two airlines, and that is considered legal.

Indeed, i know a lot of airlines in GW2 would have been bankrupt ages ago if the didn't sell/lease so many planes (we are talking about 300m+ just on aircraft sales/leases every Q)

Quote from: JCL on December 20, 2017, 04:37:33 PM
Indeed, i know a lot of airlines in GW2 would have been bankrupt ages ago if the didn't sell/lease so many planes (we are talking about 300m+ just on aircraft sales/leases every Q)

My opponent in Poland survived 2 more years thanks to honest 707 trading. Honest, because he used those planes before replacing them, and he made an insane profit on each airframe. When he had none remaining, though, he began to experience problems...

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 20, 2017, 08:17:13 PM
My opponent in Poland survived 2 more years thanks to honest 707 trading. Honest, because he used those planes before replacing them, and he made an insane profit on each airframe. When he had none remaining, though, he began to experience problems...

This is just as far back i can go, but this airline has survived on trading alone for the last 6-10 years...

That's not really the point. Plenty of us make money on genuine aircraft sales if market conditions are right (and long may it continue).

There are at least 4 ways (and there must be more) to orchestrate the movement of funds from one airline to another, mostly masquerading as legal. It seems a little silly to put a padlock on a gate when no fences have been put up.

Hmmm i wonder what happen if i wanna help my fellow alliance member in dire financial situation by trading aircrafts....oh i know.... i'm gonna get 20 CI penalty ! awesome !
at least i can share my pax demand (which is already low enough) to my competitors and they can enjoy extra income ! :)
such easy way to earn money .... ;D






jk.

Quote from: JCL on December 20, 2017, 08:21:17 PM
This is just as far back i can go, but this airline has survived on trading alone for the last 6-10 years...

I see nothing wrong with this either.. many airlines do this, especially the smaller, regional ones when they have fulfilled all their demand and have nowhere to go next.

Buying potentially attractive aircraft with early deliveries and selling it to the market for a profit takes some vision (and some funds) and if it someone enjoys playing the game this way, then more power to them.

Quote from: deovrat on December 21, 2017, 03:48:51 PM
I see nothing wrong with this either.. many airlines do this, especially the smaller, regional ones when they have fulfilled all their demand and have nowhere to go next.

Buying potentially attractive aircraft with early deliveries and selling it to the market for a profit takes some vision (and some funds) and if it someone enjoys playing the game this way, then more power to them.

The point with my post was that once that screws up on when it comes to ordering planes he is just going to bk, because there is nothing else keeping your airline afloat...

FYI; been quite busy for the last weeks so no update on this yet.

Good. Frankly this shouldn't even be up for discussion as the only winner here is the game's black hole full of money.

So... since the questions regarding possible scenarios havent been answered in more than a year... I would like to ask for clarification again - as it seems the rules are being changed on the go again and black letter law is being ignored.

Suggested wording :

*PRIVATE* aircraft sales must only be conducted where buying/selling the aircraft is not the principle reason the aircraft was originally acquired by the seller and where the buyer intends to operate the aircraft for a meaningful period of time. The exception is when a seller has agreed to buy aircraft new from the production line to help another player, and the sale is made at or above the price paid for it.

Public sales have no rules, except there can be no tipping off by the seller or his/her agents of when an attractively priced airframe is placed on the market.

Aircraft sales under no circumstance may be used to as a way to shift assets/money from one airline to another.

I did in fact operate the type for a short time but removed from service after seeing diminishing returns. After the fact, sales in public domain were equally as dismal so the decision to liquidate assets and close the airline was made. I would have made the same deal to any airline that contacted me with an interest in acquisition prior to all assets being divested.

The only "party" that saw detrimental effect from my chosen way of liquidation were the AI brokers. Perhaps this is gray area but insofar at the time was not intended in malicious terms.

I have no horse in this race, but Europe in GW2 is a bloodbath (seriously, anyone else want to add yet another a convair/vickers into a 200 seat route that now has 2,000 daily seats...and yes someone does  ::) ).  GW2 itself is a challenge as tried and true strategies are useless in this game.  The Dutch guy had a fleet of comet 3s and 707s.  At the end of the day, buying these planes with a major international airline in AWS prior to 2/2019 was a decent strategy. Now we will all think differently for the next games.

If the sales were done in the parameters of the market and game limits, then so be it.  If the player opts to exit and liquidate planes vs taking loans to restructure, then so be it.  I might be off base, but it would be nuts to restart and lease 707s unless you like restarting repeatedly...Dubai, jfk, lhr or otherwise. 

It's one thing to challenge everyone to new challenges, but micro managing the game to this degree is ridiculous. 

The best player ever IMHO was a guy in one of my old, off-the-majors-grid, alliances who based in Lagos Nigeria and ran a small fleet of commuter planes.  He plowed all his money into buying and selling planes starting in the mid 1950s...alliance or free market.  High demand planes, and your alliance discount was the max price if he was in a good mood...often it was a "no" because he could max out the price to the highest bidder.  By the end of game he was buying and selling fleets of 777s and A340s from Nigeria for pete's sake  ( ;) to you mr. PKKO).  If that's your strategy and you can pull it off, then more power to you!

All that to say, if the actions are within the parameters of the game, then get over it! 

Hopefully you got a nice revenue boost when the Dutch guy went bankrupt. And frankly, the Dutch guy that was your competitor f'ed up and went bankrupt so now you should capitalize on it.  If there were shenanigans and he rebased in AMS...then there's probably something there, but If he opens in a new base, then consider it your opportunity to get ahead.

At the end of the day, it's a game with fairly decent rules.  i think (well fairly certain  :-[) I was the guy that triggered the overcapacity rule in the early 2010s after the howls from someone.  Fair enough, Sami is pretty good at arbitrating...in this case the overcapacity rule, with ability to limit seats on planes after I threw my own hissy fit about not being able to fly routes with large planes that could still be profitable...and then the zen balance and life/AWS moves on for the better.

My reaction when the Dutch guy went out was damn, another Comet strategy victim. This seems way overblown...and if he did offload 707s, to get them back for a quick start somewhere else, then I still don't see the issue other then waiting for his next death spiral...seriously, restarting in GW2 with 707 would be punishment enough.

Sorry for the long post / rant but to recap,with no horse in this one,I don't see what the issue is here.

If the anti trust fellow was targeted by the alliance, then Sami should determine appropriate actions to keep the game play fair and prevent bullying.

If the sales in question are in the Alliances limits to buy /sell, or non alliance then that's capitalism folks.  If you go out and exit and liquidate the fleet then so be it.  If the planes are bought low and used against you with a massive 707 invasion into AMS then raise a fuss to SAMI...but if said 707 move on to fly JFK-LHR...well good luck to whoever thinks they can make them work.

About the only thing positive I can say about gw2 so far, is thankfully I didn't get in the 707/D.C.-8 queue as fuel prices, winds, lack of demand and who knows what else there is to complain about are way out of alignment in this GW...but it's still fun enough for now

Ps ...I might add that there is a point to making AWS realistic...but that would then include time specific, fully regulated markets up till 1979 in the US and later in EUrope.  This would come with a pre-set limit of seats on routes and government mandated fare structures to ensure everyone shares and makes an awesome profit to advance the jet age.

So far, My verdict for GW2 is not great as it reinforces the RW thanks to the regulation that allowed the actual aviation/airline industry to advance as free-for-all capitalism and we'd all now be flying on convair-2000s  ;)

For the record, you're definitely not kidding about the 707. The low range variants are almost as hard to make viable as the Concorde and winds aloft/endurance ranging (ESAD) just makes things harder.

There has been no changes to the rule text as the current text is after all good enough, and covering each and every  case there is impossible. The administration has the final say and the cases where something has to be done are always rather obvious....

Quote from: groundbum2 on April 13, 2019, 09:52:33 PM
Suggested wording :

*PRIVATE* aircraft sales must only be conducted where buying/selling the aircraft is not the principle reason the aircraft was originally acquired by the seller and where the buyer intends to operate the aircraft for a meaningful period of time. The exception is when a seller has agreed to buy aircraft new from the production line to help another player, and the sale is made at or above the price paid for it.

Public sales have no rules, except there can be no tipping off by the seller or his/her agents of when an attractively priced airframe is placed on the market.

Aircraft sales under no circumstance may be used to as a way to shift assets/money from one airline to another.

well, in that case, i would propose that there should be no private listings and a fixed price per aircraft and the market can take it or leave it. because seriously: an airline selling 50 or 100 planes to another at low prices, privately listed, is nothing else but a transfer of assets. imagine a CEO selling significant assets below market prices to some friends company: 1$-sallery or not, they wouldnt survive a day in their job!

the wording certainly has to be changed, since also in his explanations of a few scenarios he didnt consider most such situations and stayed very vague. but i guess didnt really feel like going the distance to do it and rather preferred to invest time in determining if an A321 at mtow +14.5t and a slight summer breeze headwind takes 3.72 or 3.74 minutes.

Quote from: Sami on April 14, 2019, 07:07:50 AM
There has been no changes to the rule text as the current text is after all good enough, and covering each and every  case there is impossible. The administration has the final say and the cases where something has to be done are always rather obvious....

well, of course the master of the world applies law as it feels right to him, but the second rate citizens of the world would be glad to have a clarified legal system that they can adhere to instead of your gutt-feeling in hindsight.

exactly therefore i asked for the clarification of possible cases in december 2017, and which i reminded you at various occasions since - which hasnt been done. please consider clarifying them in the future.

oh, and it is really funny that you say that the text is good enough, while it was actually you that opened the discussion (see first entry in this topic) - your recent post sounds more like stubborness than wisdom ;)

remind me, this is only a game is it not?

:D Simon

Quote from: groundbum2 on April 14, 2019, 08:34:57 AM
remind me, this is only a game is it not?

:D Simon

is it?  :laugh: usually games have a clear set of rules...

Quote from: Sami on April 14, 2019, 07:07:50 AM
There has been no changes to the rule text as the current text is after all good enough, and covering each and every  case there is impossible. The administration has the final say and the cases where something has to be done are always rather obvious....

The game has a clear set of rules and the administration will encorfe them. Thread is now closed for further comments.