AirwaySim

So, as a regular operator of small regional airlines, I wanted to surface the things that happen with fleet commonality and see what other people think as to what is fair. This is not a feature request or bug report (yet), but something feels a bit off in how the math works for the larger airlines of the world. In GW2, I'm currently paying fleet commonality costs of 193m per month, which appears to be close enough for hand grenades to fair.  I'm currently accumulating a fleet type to do a quick swap over and wanted to see how my fleet commonality was impacted if I tossed one plane into service.  As you can see, it jumps to 3.5 billion in commonality costs in a month. I don't know about you, but it seems a bit extreme - I would burn through my cash in about 4 game years and go bankrupt.

So, the question to the audience is... is this too much to punish a large airline for a 4th type or is it completely fair? Please explain your answer as well.

Hey probably the best place for ideas is the "fleet commonality points" thread in feature rq forum. As while I have not yet given a though on the implementation the basis for that idea is probably the best. Have aircraft models and manufacturers to have relations and points. For example A320 is 50% common with A330 while A320 is 0% common with B737 and so forth. And add the layer of giving easily understandable points or levels to the system to show the costs to the users.

(But by all means this is not something that is on the nearby to-do list)

How about 757/767? Or DC9/MD80?

While we're here we can talk turkey concerning 737 classic to 737 NG...

Well, it forces the best(biggest) players to do choices. I actually like the idea. One has to choose niches. In the same GW2, I did systematically bypass very larges on purpose,and that's not random. Were the penalty not so big, I wouldn't have had to make hard choices. There are a few very juicy LH routes possible from my bases.

Quote from: Sami on October 30, 2018, 08:22:59 PM
Hey probably the best place for ideas is the "fleet commonality points" thread in feature rq forum. As while I have not yet given a though on the implementation the basis for that idea is probably the best. Have aircraft models and manufacturers to have relations and points. For example A320 is 50% common with A330 while A320 is 0% common with B737 and so forth. And add the layer of giving easily understandable points or levels to the system to show the costs to the users.

(But by all means this is not something that is on the nearby to-do list)

Not necessarily looking for ideas - in a way, it's raising some awareness of the challenges faced by "small regional airlines" and seeing how fair folks think it is. Perhaps if everyone thinks its fair, we have nothing to suggest. Or if it's not fair, then finding a venue to suggest a better change would be nice... therefore...

For those that want to add ideas after reading this thread, here's the 7+ year old feature request on it - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,27714.0.html

Though, I'm curious of your response to the actual on-topic question posed in this thread :-P.

Quote from: Zobelle on October 30, 2018, 08:32:06 PM
How about 757/767? Or DC9/MD80?

While we're here we can talk turkey concerning 737 classic to 737 NG...

I'd rather stick to the question/topic at hand - should a large airline operator face a 3.5 billion monthly bill for running 4 types instead of 3 and why? If you want to grind the stubble of an ax left about the classic vs NG, I'd suggest a different thread to do so.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on October 30, 2018, 08:37:33 PM
Well, it forces the best(biggest) players to do choices. I actually like the idea. One has to choose niches. In the same GW2, I did systematically bypass very larges on purpose,and that's not random. Were the penalty not so big, I wouldn't have had to make hard choices. There are a few very juicy LH routes possible from my bases.

It is an interesting concept that forces a choice and discipline on a larger airline, but the choices are now exponentially harder with freight in the mix. I also would guesstimate (but can't test) that an airline with 6x 350 fleets would face a much lower commonality cost (estimated 2.2b instead of 3.5b per month).

I suggested a while back that airlines have 1 or 2 "golden tickets" that can be cashed and will allow a 6 month grace period for a 4th fleet. If not a 100% reduction in the penalty, then at least  a, say, 50% reduction.

Simon

Fair, if you want my honest opinion. Being at the top should come with it's own host of problems.

Not everyone can play at that level. Most casual players never approach the amount of time and effort required to compete at this level... and why should they be expected too?

If you want to dominate and run a huge airline at expense of others, that's fine. Totally doable in our sandbox GW as is. But don't assume it should be easier to do so because your (were) at the top. AWS needs to keep the new players that join. We can't have them quit 6wks in because their being dominated so hard by the older playerbase. Which in the end, is what we'll be doing by allowing already very large airlines get even larger.

I don't see how this benefits more then... 30 players?  ;D



Talentz

Quote from: groundbum2 on October 30, 2018, 09:53:06 PM
I suggested a while back that airlines have 1 or 2 "golden tickets" that can be cashed and will allow a 6 month grace period for a 4th fleet. If not a 100% reduction in the penalty, then at least  a, say, 50% reduction.

Simon

50% of 3.5 billion per month is still a lot of cash.... Certainly more than profits are...

Quote from: Talentz on October 30, 2018, 10:08:08 PM
Fair, if you want my honest opinion. Being at the top should come with it's own host of problems.

Not everyone can play at that level. Most casual players never approach the amount of time and effort required to compete at this level... and why should they be expected too?

If you want to dominate and run a huge airline at expense of others, that's fine. Totally doable in our sandbox GW as is. But don't assume it should be easier to do so because your (were) at the top. AWS needs to keep the new players that join. We can't have them quit 6wks in because their being dominated so hard by the older playerbase. Which in the end, is what we'll be doing by allowing already very large airlines get even larger.

I don't see how this benefits more then... 30 players?  ;D



Talentz

The penalty doesn't have to be $3 billion to ha e a negative effect. I have helped more than a few new(er) players save their airlines from too many fleet types at 200...300...400 frames. The 4th type penalty can be crippling as low as 150-200 planes with an inexperienced player or in a high competition environment. The exponential penalty gets out of control at about 500 planes and becomes insurmountable at about 800.

I might not be in favor of removing the penalty all together but for long term playability some wiggle room would be nice. The points system is interesting, partial commonality (similar to what Sami mentioned above) has potential, even being able to replace a single type over x amount of time penalty free would be a plus. I understand not wanting to lose new players but old players should be considered important customers too.

I can see doubling commonality cost but to go from 200mn to 3.5bn is nothing short of stupid.

200-400? Okay

200-800, were getting a little wacky.

But a near 20 fold increase for one fleet type? Not only unrealistic but excessively punitive. Like the death penalty for swiping a grape at the grocery store.

I think the 4th fleet penalty has completely outlived its usefulness. Instead of simply punishing airlines who were flying a dozen fleet types, it has forced airlines to focus on the aircraft families - 737 and A320, and for the early jet years, DC-9 - to the detriment of all the other types. And especially for the long game worlds, which came about after the 4th fleet penalty, it effectively limits you to two fleet types for the entire game until you've finished your last fleet renewal, and THEN you can add a 3rd type. Creating the rule made sense at the time, and it might still make sense for the shorter "challenge" scenarios. But for the long game worlds, it needs to go.

I think the entire way fleet types are done is unreasonable. I feel like commonality cost should scale on a curve looking like x^(0.5), with some considerations with the type of aircraft in mind when adding types, just as size, engine, airbus/boeing, ect, and airlines should be highly incentivized to stay to one fleet type because it should be just so much better than two or three. This would make the game may be less favourable for new players as large airlines would have less incentive to stay to a few types, and adding 3,4,5... however many types would only incrementally lower margins, however I think it would be cool to have the playstyle having planes to fit your market perfectly could be fun too. Right now it seems pretty dull
with fleet types, stick to three, save cash before transitioning and never get the chance to BK, pretty boring. I would be far more awesome if for example if you ran a diverse fleet, say one player came along with only a single fleet type, therefore having far greater margins than you, and simply overlapped flights in that market so that you would lose money while they made a slim profit- That would be competitive and cool.

Basically what Im saying is I completely disagree with the way commonality is done, that 3.5 billion is complete bogus and makes no sense, even from a game balance perspective becuase it only hurts inexperienced players- not it intention IMO. If we want large airline to be punished, they should be punished for trying to cover multiple niches rather than a single in the best possible way, so for example a airline running both domestic and longhaul shouldn't beable to get the same margin as an airline doing just one of the two, therefore allowing playes trying to occupy niches to excell aswell, just like Ryanair did IRL in europe.  RN for example I am a pretty new player, and I may have tried to do a fleet chance without stored cash, I would have no way of ever knowing my commonality cost was gonna multiply by ten, If i BK'd from that I doubt i would ever come back to the game- it makes no sense compared to real life. I wish the actual way commonality would be would be scale up cost with fleet types signficaly between one and two, and sigificantly between two and three, but less and less after that.

Quote from: Cardinal on October 31, 2018, 03:55:13 AMAnd especially for the long game worlds, which came about after the 4th fleet penalty, it effectively limits you to two fleet types for the entire game until you've finished your last fleet renewal, and THEN you can add a 3rd type.

Which is the exact purpose : you can"t hope to dominate all the markets from your airports, which leaves some place for others. You have to make interesting choices. Sid Meier told that a good gameplay was when the player was offered interesting choices. When I played in CDG, I bypassed mediums, focusing only on larges & very larges. This made me vulnerable on SH routes. But that was the price to pay for being the local bully. Big boys don't cry.

As ludicrous as these costs are they do serve a purpose. Having said that I do think they need to be modified in a way that fleet transitions can be done without hoarding a fleet type for 4-5 years and then swapping over. This benefits no one:
- It clogs a production line, while no aircraft are added to the free market (i.e. the type being replaced);
- The big airline is stopped from REPLACING, instead of EXPANDING (which is what the penalty is for);
- Top tier players usually spend more time on the game and thus will likely take as many aircraft of the used market as they can, preventing newcomers from getting good aircraft. (At least with the current mechanism I'd be a LOT more aggressive in finding used ac...).

Personally I think it would be better to get a penalty that is an actual business choice: will I marginalize my current profit for an extra type or do I use less than optimal aircraft and keep up the profits. In some niches the added expansion is a more fun and interesting way to continue the game, while in other scenarios profits reign. (e.g. at a certain point my Colombian airline will have finished expanding with a long, medium and short haul type and I might want to add a twin otter or so. My airline in Chicago is in too much of a competitive environment that I will not overstep the three fleets...)

Basically, the current limitation forces player to choose between:
- medium-size polyvalent airline (relatively easy renewals)
- large size "static" airlines (hard renewals).

This is done through the 4th fleet penalty, or it could also be through something else, sure. But in the end, while the means are not necessarily the bests, the aim is more than meaningful / useful. Yes, I tend to think like Gazzz.
Be big has a cost: renewals and polyvalence (you can't crush everyone)
Be polyvalent has a cost: be medium (you won't crush anyone nor seriously threaten big boys)

Yes, the costs are absurd and completely unrealistic, but this is not the point. The point is, do they do what they are intended to? The answer is yes.

Now, I agree that the system could be changed, and I would love to see another way of implementing it, but I think the aim should remain.
Could it be through a choice rather than a rule, maybe. Something that makes the player chose (airline traits?), so later on he assumes his choices: you want a bonus on this, then you'll get a malus on that, and vice-versa. I feel it would psychologically work better with the human beings that we are, but the result would probably be really close to what it is today.

Quote from: NovemberCharlie on October 31, 2018, 09:03:19 AM
As ludicrous as these costs are they do serve a purpose. Having said that I do think they need to be modified in a way that fleet transitions can be done without hoarding a fleet type for 4-5 years and then swapping over. This benefits no one:
- It clogs a production line, while no aircraft are added to the free market (i.e. the type being replaced);
- The big airline is stopped from REPLACING, instead of EXPANDING (which is what the penalty is for);
- Top tier players usually spend more time on the game and thus will likely take as many aircraft of the used market as they can, preventing newcomers from getting good aircraft. (At least with the current mechanism I'd be a LOT more aggressive in finding used ac...).

Personally I think it would be better to get a penalty that is an actual business choice: will I marginalize my current profit for an extra type or do I use less than optimal aircraft and keep up the profits. In some niches the added expansion is a more fun and interesting way to continue the game, while in other scenarios profits reign.

I'm AGAINST the fleet penaltiy as it is exactly because of the reasions mentioned above, plus it makes gameplay boring over time as you realize you must do pretty much the same choice of strategy and aircraft to get the best result in the game worlds, and also prevents you from adapting to demand changes - which, in some cases, can make opportunity to fleet changes. It should be substituted with increased training and maintenance costs (maybe exponential) and hiring of extra personnel maintenance, which will also ask for higher salaries than usual.

When CBD and supply by hub connections become a reality, this penalty should be completely abolished as it wouldn't make sense anymore because airlines would be able to transport as many passengers as today with a lot less aircraft and route pairs.

was reading this topic just before boarding for TPE-ICN leg. had 2 hours to think about it.
what comes from the sky...

Penalty for multiple fleets must be. it is not only serves anti-monopoly god, but also penalize ineffectiveness.
Second - system should be easy to understand and transparent.
Therefore I come down to idea of FI. Fleet Commonality Image.
What it is.
Company has to pay for its fleet service. More fleets, more different people should be invited. More ACs in fleet - more you pay.
How it can work:
FI - works the same like company image. You need to pay to raise it.
Why you need this ? Because the lower is FI for your fleet  - the more you pay for commonality. 
FI=100, then commonality cost for your fleet is equal to what we have now if you have 1-3 fleets.
FI=0 - then commonality for this fleet will be like you have 4 fleets.

Every company has 3 slots for FI to pay.
Every company  will get bonus:
1st fleet that player will open - will receive 100FI.
2nd fleet that player will open - will receive 75FI
3rd fleet that player will open - will receive 50FI.

Futhermore:
To keep FI at 100 or raise it to 100 you need to organize training. the more ACs this fleet has - more you need to pay to keep FI at 100. So if you are small company you will pay less then big guys. it can be done the same way like Company Image (Base city->country->worldwide marketing campaign) or another - doesnt matter,
But as in CI - every next fleet (2nd or 3rd) will require to pay more for the same amount of ACs. so 100 ACs in 2nd fleet will require more money to keep FI=100 then 100Acs at 1st fleet.

Stop to pay:
If you stop to pay for your fleet - FI will drop gradually by time. in my view it should be like 1 point per week. and therefore - commonality will increase gradually.

Fleet transitions:
You need to stop paying for fleet you are removing and start to pay for new one.
it means you will start flying fleet with 0 FI (you will pay the hell of money for that fleet) from one side and will see the decrease of FI of current fleet from other.
Gradually decrease will allow you to avoid massive penalty at start, but will penalize you if not well planned. at this rate of decrease you will have around 2 years before you see significant increase of this fleet expenses. at the same time your new fleet should already get some relief because you pay for it,
Fleets from the same producer should get guaranteed bonus. If you have Boeing 747 fleet with FI=100. so any other new fleet from Boeing for the same type (Very large) should get, let imagine, guaranteed FI=60. and it cannot go less then 50 until 747 FI will decrease below that. if you open Boeing 737 - the guaranteed Bonus is FI=40 or 50(because other fleet size). it will force to stick with producer and help during fleet transitions like 733->737 or 777->at one hand, but still will limit player choices as well.
Conclusion:
Numbers are to be simulated.
New system is transparent and easy to understand (I hope).
New system is scalable and easy to manage=adapt to different GWs environment. May be for BW we can set up only 2 slots for fleet and for long GWs 4. Or may be decrease rate of FI will be faster in short GWs and slower in long...But it will be clear what to be done in each case.

Sorry for long post.

I have not seen the 4th fleet penalty keep big time airlines from going bigger. The premise is to keep a balance in the game and while it may give some pause we dont need to help the rich get richer. Real world most airlines try to keep there fleet diversity at a minimum, except for Delta of  course..lol

I remembered as diagram I saw a while back about architectural projects. Adapted it to AWS ::)

Quote from: tdf42 on October 31, 2018, 10:13:59 PM
I have not seen the 4th fleet penalty keep big time airlines from going bigger. The premise is to keep a balance in the game and while it may give some pause we dont need to help the rich get richer. Real world most airlines try to keep there fleet diversity at a minimum, except for Delta of  course..lol

How would a 3 billion dollar monthly loss as a result of a 4th fleet type not prevent my airline from getting bigger?

Quote from: schro on October 31, 2018, 10:44:31 PM
How would a 3 billion dollar monthly loss as a result of a 4th fleet type not prevent my airline from getting bigger?

Wrong question. The right one is:
"How could you possibly get bigger?"

For those not used to Schro, his conception of a "small regional airline" is 2000+ a/c ::)

Quote from: schro on October 31, 2018, 10:44:31 PM
How would a 3 billion dollar monthly loss as a result of a 4th fleet type not prevent my airline from getting bigger?

One could argue that 1981 aircraft is already reasonably big for a "small regional airline" .....


... oops, didn't see Ape's post  ::)

Quote from: Tha_Ape on October 31, 2018, 11:06:27 PM
Wrong question. The right one is:
"How could you possibly get bigger?"

For those not used to Schro, his conception of a "small regional airline" is 2000+ a/c ::)

Ok. I'll bite.  A HQ like LHR in most game worlds can easily take more than 1000 planes scheduled. Add that to the new out of base limit of 1000 planes, you're looking at the ability to have 2000+ planes scheduled in a game world. However, that is currently limited by the commonality rule and uptake rate from the used market. Right now, I have 200+ A32x sitting around until I reach 350 of them and can move the 737 classic schedules over to them. I'm also burdened by the fleet renewal side for 777s, where my fleet count is shrinking as I retire old planes in favor of newer ones and move some to 757s (I may have a few hundred unscheduled there). The ability to maintain a large fleet that's no more than 24 years old and do the occasional fleet type transition realistically limits total fleets to about 1500ish planes. If you're not doing a transition, the upper limit is closer to 2000 (but who doesn't do transitions in a long game world?).

So, given the above scenario, I could certainly use a 4th fleet type right now at a reasonable upcharge so I would not have to pause any sort of narrowbody scheduling to do a fleet replacement. Of course, a faster used market uptake rate would also solve this particular issue. (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77691.0.html)

Quote from: MikeS on November 01, 2018, 12:06:42 AM
One could argue that 1981 aircraft is already reasonably big for a "small regional airline" .....


... oops, didn't see Ape's post  ::)

I try to do the humblebrag...

Too be fair to Schro, yes, the charges ($) are stupid high and it shouldn't be that way. I am for making it more reasonable. Just not a cakewalk that leads to 50+ 1500 aircraft fleet airlines at the end of every GW.


Talentz

Wow, I never even though that in a 40-year+ gameworld the limit for fleet size is the rate of plane acquisition, which is why three fleet types are limiting. Never even occurred to me, though I have started to notice in the beginner world.

Also I saw this in GW3
https://imgur.com/a/jtcJ6AK

That person's margin is 22% close to the highest in the GW with 130ac, and only 75lf, with 7 active fleet types.

Why is it possible to have such a high margin with 7 fleets while schro takes a 10x penalty for one more fleet?

I'm pretty sure the guy is not actually flying all thsoe groups. His 4 "active" F50s, for example, are probably just on the tarmac waiting to be put on sale. Same for DO328 & S2000s.

oh i see. So when planes are not flying but are owned they still show up in active, makes sence

Until they are listed for sale, when the number will move across to the for sale column.

Quote from: tungstennedge on November 06, 2018, 06:12:40 AM
Wow, I never even though that in a 40-year+ gameworld the limit for fleet size is the rate of plane acquisition, which is why three fleet types are limiting. Never even occurred to me, though I have started to notice in the beginner world.

Also I saw this in GW3
https://imgur.com/a/jtcJ6AK

That person's margin is 22% close to the highest in the GW with 130ac, and only 75lf, with 7 active fleet types.

Why is it possible to have such a high margin with 7 fleets while schro takes a 10x penalty for one more fleet?

Another point on fleet penalty. We often mention the 3 fleet limit, but it's a little more complicated than that:
1°) under ~80 planes, you got a penalty for your 3rd fleet. So under 80, better stick to 2 fleets. Then it will depend on context, obviously. In certain configurations you can offset the penalty because you stick better to a very diverse market.
2°) the 4th fleet penalty is negligible around 100 planes. Becomes to be quite annoying at 300 planes, and very dangerous at 500+ planes. You can roughly count 2 points of margin lost for each 100 planes you have.
3°) from 4 to 6 fleets, you got another space with just small increases for each fleet you add, then for the 7th fleet you got another big step.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on November 06, 2018, 11:27:23 AM
3°) from 4 to 6 fleets, you got another space with just small increases for each fleet you add, then for the 7th fleet you got another big step.

That's good to know - I thought it was exponentially larger for each fleet you added

Yep. That means that if you're playing a niche market in a country where you won't have real opposition, you can fly almost each route from a Beech to 747 with the perfect fitting plane and still be quite profitable.

Quote from: schro on November 01, 2018, 03:50:07 PM
I could certainly use a 4th fleet type right now at a reasonable upcharge so I would not have to pause any sort of narrowbody scheduling to do a fleet replacement. Of course, a faster used market uptake rate would also solve this particular issue. (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77691.0.html)

I try to do the humblebrag...

I don't want to start a fight here,but about 2 reals ago you personally shot me down that a good player should be able to fly 2 fleets and use a 3rd to do fleet exchange.
If i needed  4th fleet ment i was a bad player or you forgot about this?

Now that the new rule gives us 1K of planes at additional bases and with no real resistance can make a homebase 1K+easy if based in a top location give the need for this.
Maybe a little late but would be nice to have a 4th fleet at a reasonal price and not because need for rescheduling,but for the fun of the game can add a type of like or make a flexible fleet at a diverse base

Quote from: Tulip Air CEO on November 07, 2018, 09:20:21 PM
I don't want to start a fight here,but about 2 reals ago you personally shot me down that a good player should be able to fly 2 fleets and use a 3rd to do fleet exchange.
If i needed  4th fleet ment i was a bad player or you forgot about this?

Now that the new rule gives us 1K of planes at additional bases and with no real resistance can make a homebase 1K+easy if based in a top location give the need for this.
Maybe a little late but would be nice to have a 4th fleet at a reasonal price and not because need for rescheduling,but for the fun of the game can add a type of like or make a flexible fleet at a diverse base

That advice still applies, but was also given prior to cargo being released. Cargo forces more interesting decisions to be made, such as flying the 757 as I am in Gw2 as a third type. It's also ends up requiring the accumulation of a fleet to swap at the same time. The crux of the issue is more so whether a "small regional airline" (defined as 1500+ planes) that has 100+ billion in the bank be able to be bankrupted in a small number of game years because they added a fourth type. That's the part that's illogical, as smaller airlines can run a fourth type at a much lower level of profit or a small loss, but not one that one shoots them down with a nuclear missile.

That is true,the cargo has changed the dynamics of the game indeed.
Also the available cargo types are limited so we are forced to stay with a type longer or have to choose a certain type just of the cargo availability.
So a 4th fleet make sense here.
And with the growing of airliner sizes up to 1K in additional bases can make 2K airliners normal and gives them the extra flexability in fleet transition.

Quote from: Tulip Air CEO on November 08, 2018, 05:06:42 AM
That is true,the cargo has changed the dynamics of the game indeed.
Also the available cargo types are limited so we are forced to stay with a type longer or have to choose a certain type just of the cargo availability.
So a 4th fleet make sense here.
And with the growing of airliner sizes up to 1K in additional bases can make 2K airliners normal and gives them the extra flexability in fleet transition.

If 4th fleet is given to everybody, it will have a big effect on the game, not necessarily good effect.

But if it is limited to airlines that already have 1000 aircraft, it might be something to consider.  This way, most airlines would still be limited to 3 types for first ~20 years of the game, and the 4th type would only be available to those players for whom it is impossible to transition fleets with the current, highly constrained rate of delivery of aircraft.

Or, another solution, without adding 4th fleet type could be increased delivery rate of aircraft, from UM and also possibly new.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on November 08, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
If 4th fleet is given to everybody, it will have a big effect on the game, not necessarily good effect.

But if it is limited to airlines that already have 1000 aircraft, it might be something to consider.  This way, most airlines would still be limited to 3 types for first ~20 years of the game, and the 4th type would only be available to those players for whom it is impossible to transition fleets with the current, highly constrained rate of delivery of aircraft.

Or, another solution, without adding 4th fleet type could be increased delivery rate of aircraft, from UM and also possibly new.

How about not charging exhorbitant penalty for 4th fleet. 2x, even 4x but not 15x+

Quote from: JumboShrimp on November 08, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
If 4th fleet is given to everybody, it will have a big effect on the game, not necessarily good effect.

Or, another solution, without adding 4th fleet type could be increased delivery rate of aircraft, from UM and also possibly new.

If this happens then maybe a good thing would be a quota for every game month instead of a weekly,so that the people who can enter 1x a day have the same resource as te people who can check 3 or 4x a day.
Lowering the 4th fleet penalty or a mix of these 2 can be a possative move.

Quote from: Zobelle on November 08, 2018, 10:34:05 PM
How about not charging exhorbitant penalty for 4th fleet. 2x, even 4x but not 15x+

Nope, it forces the biggest players to make interesting choices. I agree with those who think that in the late stages of the game, one should be able to have more staff to order used stuff, to limit the hassle of managing very large fleets, while keeping the strategic challenge of fleet choices.

It seems that there are players on each side of the fence regarding fleet commonality.  How about simply creating a game world where fleet commonality either: doesn't apply, or is not as harsh as it currently is.  That way its a win/win.  If you want the challenge of fleet commonality, play a game world where it is included.  If you want to be able to run various fleets, choose the option where it isn't included.

After playing for 5+ years on this account and my previous account, I would love the chance to operate multiple fleet types without, or with less of, a penalty.

Just my 7cents...

Quote from: Tulip Air CEO on November 08, 2018, 11:59:03 PM
If this happens then maybe a good thing would be a quota for every game month instead of a weekly,so that the people who can enter 1x a day have the same resource as te people who can check 3 or 4x a day.
Lowering the 4th fleet penalty or a mix of these 2 can be a possative move.

Yes, instead of dispensing 7 calls and 3 aircraft that can be bought per week, the system should do 4x as may in a 4 week period, to put players who log in only once per day more on the level playing field with people who can log in multiple times.

Also, larger airline should be able to buy more than a startup airline, so that fleet replacement of large fleets are more feasible.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on November 09, 2018, 09:24:59 AM
Nope, it forces the biggest players to make interesting choices. I agree with those who think that in the late stages of the game, one should be able to have more staff to order used stuff, to limit the hassle of managing very large fleets, while keeping the strategic challenge of fleet choices.

I'm all for forcing interesting choices, but I'd prefer something much more transparent to be forcing them. The exponential increase on the penalty is neither intuitive nor transparent.

And for me, it limits a lot of interesting gameplay. If I want to build something huge, then I'm limited to only 3 fleets, and only fleets that can realistically be 500+ planes, and I'll need to work together with a couple of friends to get new planes coming in fast enough, which makes for cookie-cutter gameplay. If I want to do something interesting and make a fleet of 50 TU-144s actually work, I can't do it. If I'm a mid-sized airline with 5-600 turboprops and no connections to order stuff for me, then I get hamstrung by the delivery rate, and I can't have say 75 x ATR, 75 x BaE-ATP, 75 x F27, 75 x 5 other turboprop fleets.

Or in the 50s, there are maybe 6 DC-3 replacements going unused, while everyone flies CV-340, Martin 4-0-4, Viscounts and F27s. Wouldn't it be interesting to be ordering 50 each from airspeed, aviation traders, nord & saab instead? But can't do it, because replacing them down the track means prohibitive costs. Harder to aim for 200 Nords, because you can only get 20/year brand new, and other airlines don't really have ability to order them as well to sell/lease to you. If it was feasible to work from 4 of those lines, it's now 6-7/month new leased planes, which is a more workable growth rate.

So while the goal of interesting gameplay, interesting choices, and preventing an airline trying to dominate everything is a good one, I think the execution is flawed, and makes it less interesting overall.

Quote from: jumboshrimp
Yes, instead of dispensing 7 calls and 3 aircraft that can be bought per week, the system should do 4x as may in a 4 week period, to put players who log in only once per day more on the level playing field with people who can log in multiple times.

Also, larger airline should be able to buy more than a startup airline, so that fleet replacement of large fleets are more feasible.

Or just make private sales not count against the 3 planes/week restriction. Which helps the fleet replacement, but not the cookie cutter boeing/airbus issue.

Also, it's the main reason behind the HUGE backlogs in the A320/B737NG lines.

They are great, sure. But mainly they cover a very wide scope within the 100-220 seat range and, in a world ruled by the 4th fleet penalty, flexibility is king.

A perfectly capable MD90 is no match.

I think the fleet commonality penalty is OK as it is now. But to ameliorate the pain of running large airlines in game then we should

a) speed up the clock from 30mins/day after the first decade
b) after the first decade allow us to buy new and used aircraft quicker since our fleets have grown and no new players are entering the game
c) we should be allowed a 4th "vanity" fleet of concordes/A380s etc that are limited to 14 aircraft and don't attract a penalty

It doesn't make sense to me that the same rules apply to day 1 of the game as apply to day 999. Gameplay is drastically different after the first decade, the rules should adapt to reflect that ...

Simon

I would really like to see official information on how the fleet commonality or rather penalty is calculated. As many have noted this feature is unintuitive and appears to be non linear as well. The way the feature was implemented was more for game play purposes rather than for replicating real life so I believe it needs to be properly documented in the manual.

Pleeeeeeaaaassseeee !
Thanks!!!!
Mike

The fleet commonality penalty is a killer when an old type needs to be replaced by newer models - sometimes from a different manufacturer and with different engines - especially props to jets.  Having just one plane of a new type in an airline can cause great losses.  Doing this over time with a fleet of any size could bankrupt all but the wealthiest and biggest airlines.

I agree that there needs to be a limit/penalty for multiple types, but something must be done to help "smaller", less wealthy airlines from bankrupting while trying to update fleets.

Or just a specific game world with less or no fleet commonality penalty could work.

Quote from: Karl on January 12, 2020, 09:05:31 PM
The fleet commonality penalty is a killer when an old type needs to be replaced by newer models - sometimes from a different manufacturer and with different engines - especially props to jets.  Having just one plane of a new type in an airline can cause great losses.  Doing this over time with a fleet of any size could bankrupt all but the wealthiest and biggest airlines.

I agree that there needs to be a limit/penalty for multiple types, but something must be done to help "smaller", less wealthy airlines from bankrupting while trying to update fleets.

Sorry, but isn't bankruptcy part of the game? In other words: If a fleet transition causes an airline to go bankrupt, then this transition (or the fleet choice as such) was not very well planned to begin with and the bankrupcty is just the logical consequence. Players have "big airlines" because they understood how to manage them. And even players with "small airlines" have all the options to expand/modernize. It's just a matter of planning well.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in a general overhaul. I agree to faster buying from UM after some time or maybe a "prestige fleet type" (max of 21 airplanes allowed without commonality penalty) etc...but anything fundamental...no.

As MikeS said, we just need better documentation on how it works.

When I replaced my CRJs by A148s, I noticed that comm costs were around double - for a similar number of planes - and tiose planes are very similar in everything, bar the fact that A148s are double the cost in maintenance. So one of the multipliers is maintenance costs.

I also know that between 72 & 80 planes, there is a threshold below which the penalty begins at 3 fleet grous, not 4.

It's everything I know - because I did measure it. all the rest I just feel or know by hearsay.

Quote from: sanabas on January 12, 2020, 03:19:09 PM
If I'm a mid-sized airline with 5-600 turboprops and no connections to order stuff for me, then I get hamstrung by the delivery rate, and I can't have say 75 x ATR, 75 x BaE-ATP, 75 x F27, 75 x 5 other turboprop fleets.

Where would be the challenge if you could have everything and not only that, if you could have everything in span of 2-3 years?

Where's the challenge in changing 500 732s to 734s? The challenge is in building the thing in the first place, the fleet transition isn't so much challenging as it is boring, even tedious if you need to check in every 4 hours to grab planes at a fast enough rate from other players who've ordered them for you. And at the extremes, it could mean stockpiling 3-400 planes on the tarmac, and then changing en masse. It's currently significantly cheaper to park 100+ planes for a year+ so you can change them all at once than it is to change them 1 by 1 as the new fleet arrives. It's counter-intuitive & unrealistic, and again lacks transparency.

Not about having everything, but about having more viable options. Particularly more viable options for growing to a decent size.

I think there are two issues here. One is trying to encourage more choice & more ways to play, ways to use fleets that typically go almost untouched. While not making it easy to dominate everything. Being able to run 4 fleets of 75 somewhat similar planes for about the same price of 1 x 300 would help, because then it's feasible to get stuff that's less available on the UM, stuff that has slower delivery rates.

The other is doing fleet transitions without an arbitrary penalty that can run to billions over a couple of years. Making planes from other players, or just privately listed planes, be outside the 3/week limit would help. Making the limit 18 per 24 hours instead of 3 per 4 hours would help. Being able to flag a fleet transition, and have say 5 years where the two fleets you've flagged only count as 1 for determining number of fleets, would also help.

I agree with Sanabas that the drive behind this fleet penalty thing is good, its just that there are unintended consequences for some, if not most, players, including those mentioned above by other fellow players. Thus I think it would be great if Sami can put in some measures to alleviate this penalty to those very specific circumstances.

Regarding the fleet transition issue, I remember some time ago, there was a suggestion on giving players a brief period of time where a 4th fleet will not impose the current penalty, so that players dont have to stockpile planes en masse before changing them in one go. I think it was a great suggestion.

I wouldnt mind if 4th fleet penalty goes cubic or even quartic instead of quadratic if we have these measures in place  ;)

QuoteThe other is doing fleet transitions without an arbitrary penalty that can run to billions over a couple of years. Making planes from other players, or just privately listed planes, be outside the 3/week limit would help. Making the limit 18 per 24 hours instead of 3 per 4 hours would help. Being able to flag a fleet transition, and have say 5 years where the two fleets you've flagged only count as 1 for determining number of fleets, would also help.

What if we keep the current limit of 3 per game week, but increase the limit to 6 per game week IF the plane is bought from an alliance member? Maybe this would give the alliances some more importance (and make transitions easier/faster). People would no longer need to be online every game week to keep buying, but could still get the transition going by logging in regularly...

This would mean that various smaller alliance orders would be preferred over a large own order or a large order by just 1 alliance supplier. I honestly think it would give the alliance some more meaning. Also, airlines would prefer to be brokers mainly for alliance members (due to faster sales) and more demand from other alliance members asking for planes. So we would no longer have spammed used markets (or at least not that much).

Quote from: Andre090904 on January 15, 2020, 07:02:30 PM
What if we keep the current limit of 3 per game week, but increase the limit to 6 per game week IF the plane is bought from an alliance member?

nooooo. There's already complaints that Alliances hog production lines with group buys, this would turbocharge this behaviour and popular lines such as A320 and B737 would be jammed with alliance inter-buying.

Simon

Quotenooooo. There's already complaints that Alliances hog production lines with group buys, this would turbocharge this behaviour and popular lines such as A320 and B737 would be jammed with alliance inter-buying.

So what? It does not make any difference if 2000 A320 are ordered by individual players or by alliance players. 2000 A320 are 2000 A320. What is the problem?

I rather see it as a solution to this thread's subject. In fact, we don't have a "fleet commonality problem", but a "fleet transitioning problem" (it's not about allowing us to fly 4 fleets, but to shorten the transitioning time requiring a 4th fleet). By allowing the player to buy 6 instead of the current 3 planes ONLY from alliance members, the fleet transitioning problem would be reduced by basically 50% with a tiny fix that can be implemented in minutes. The production lines are not affected (the orders will be made anyways), but the public used market may be less spammed since alliances are given an actual importance and alliance players will prefer to buy from other alliance partners.

It's like a win-win-win feature:
1. Faster fleet transitions
2. Less spammed public used markets
3. Alliances actually have a meaningful task to fulfill and individual players would be more tempted to join one (fostering the community as a whole)

Not a bad idea. It would help big players with their transition, while smaller players could get a little boost selling/leasing at alliance minimum (alliance minimum pricing is often quite high = lucrative).

Mike

I like the idea of Andre, but I'd broaden it to any human player. No need to limit it within alliances. Players outside alliances should be allowed to have brokers as well.

would be something like that : After the 3 per 8 game days, you can buy 3 more...only to human players. during those days.

And not early in the game(would give early brokers as myself too much importance). I'd say you could add 1 purchase to human players after 10 years of gameplay, 2 after 20 years...

Quote from: Andre090904 on January 15, 2020, 09:17:01 PM
I rather see it as a solution to this thread's subject. In fact, we don't have a "fleet commonality problem", but a "fleet transitioning problem" (it's not about allowing us to fly 4 fleets, but to shorten the transitioning time requiring a 4th fleet).

I think we have both, and that they are two separate issues caused by the one rule.

One issue is fleet transitions.

One issue is the lack of flexibility and options in normal operations. Inability to run a smallish fleet because it seems like a fun or interesting challenge. Inability to react to what other airlines do. If you've got 50 f27-100s flying and 25 more on order as your 3rd fleet, and then realise the entire world is ordering f27-200s, your only real option is to join them. It's extremely impractical to look and see that the herald has just 4 orders, the HS 748 has just 20, or the Nord has literally no planes in existence, the ATL-90 has almost none, and both are dirt cheap and available right now. Because once you start flying that fleet, you're locked in. And you're locked in almost entirely because of the 4th fleet penalty.

From a personal standpoint, in the newest long GW, I won't fly a medium fleet longterm because of the 4th fleet penalty. But I could certainly use one for the next 10 years or so until larger planes start to be available. I'm locked into Viscounts because I chose them very early, got 38 of them currently. Production line is full, price of one is now 5 million. I could switch over to one of the cheaper options I've mentioned already, and I'm contemplating doing so. But it'd mean I'd need to save the cash to buy out the leases of the 16 viscounts I don't own and to order the ATLs, and then I'd need to wait the 2 years it takes for 38 ATL-90s to be delivered, leaving them idle on the tarmac the whole time, before changing over all at once. And because other airlines are locked in, I know that when I can no longer use a medium fleet, the 80 ATLs or however many I end up with will just be so much stored scrap, because nobody else will be flying them. Or I can just order more viscounts, fill the line for longer, increase the price a bit more.

It indirectly leads to a lot of very viable planes going entirely unflown, less variety, less interesting options. Admittedly that'd still happen to some extent even if it changed, and it's clear that many airlines don't think hard enough about their options, or don't take price & availability into account, which is why there are 50+ airlines into the f27 line, just 1 or 2 into the HS748 and Martin lines, and none into some of the other 40 seat props.

Which then leads to clogged production lines and the frustrations that entails, as we've seen some posts about.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 15, 2020, 09:44:49 PM
I like the idea of Andre, but I'd broaden it to any human player. No need to limit it within alliances. Players outside alliances should be allowed to have brokers as well.

Agreed.

Quotewould be something like that : After the 3 per 8 game days, you can buy 3 more...only to human players. during those days.

Any change that places privately listed orders outside the 3 per 8 day limit should also lessen the time constraint. One of the issues isn't just the overall rate of delivery, but the fact you need to log in every 4 hours to maintain that rate. 18 per 48 game days, 24 per 2 game months, that'd mean the same overall rate, but means only logging in once per 24-30 hours to buy all the planes ordered for you in one hit.

QuoteAnd not early in the game(would give early brokers as myself too much importance). I'd say you could add 1 purchase to human players after 10 years of gameplay, 2 after 20 years...

Could be partly alleviated by making it apply to private listings only, not to planes that are available to everyone. And early in the game, after the initial rush, the 3 plane/week limit is generally somewhat irrelevant, as plane scarcity is the limiting factor.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 15, 2020, 09:44:49 PM
I like the idea of Andre, but I'd broaden it to any human player. No need to limit it within alliances. Players outside alliances should be allowed to have brokers as well.

would be something like that : After the 3 per 8 game days, you can buy 3 more...only to human players. during those days.

And not early in the game(would give early brokers as myself too much importance). I'd say you could add 1 purchase to human players after 10 years of gameplay, 2 after 20 years...

I didn't understand your post, but upon asking you on Discord I finally got it. Let me clarify your idea just in case the others didn't understand it either.

Your idea is that any player can buy 3 planes per week (like now), and additional 3 planes per week ONLY IF they are offered by players and not by AI brokers. So in the end any player can get a maximum of 6 planes a week (3 from AI brokers, another 3 from players). I would extend this idea to say that any player can by a maximum of 6 planes a week if all of them are offered by players (0 from AI brokers, 6 from players).

I like the idea. Especially because it would only work in later stages during a game world (there are no players selling airplanes in the first few years). Transitions would still be easier to handle and the used market gets more active.

It's basically my idea, but without the alliance limitation. I included this limitation because the alliances (right now at least) have very little actual importance in the game. It's more of a roleplay/image only. This feature would have been ideal to give them some more "reason to exist". And before someone says it's "pay to win": It isn't. I never paid money to join an alliance. Anyone can join one and benefit from this advantage (given it would be implemented). It would be quite similiar to the small "Company Image boost" that airlines get when joining an alliance. Just some more advantages of being in an alliance.

But yes, if that is too much to ask for, I can also live with your proposal and have 6 planes a week (3 from AI brokers, 3 from players OR 0 from AI brokers, 6 from players). Fair enough.

as others have said having 3 fleets is a bit arbritary. Given the game dynamics, and in the real world, most airlines have small, medium and longhaul aircraft. So having a 4th fleet ONLY for transitions and without penalty seems a good idea.

I would suggest the dynamics are that a player designates a transition from fleet X to fleet Y, and from that time for 2 years there is no penalty for the 4th fleet, and X can only go down in numbers.

Also just up the buying frequency numbers later in the game, when fleets are larger than in the beginning.


S

Quote from: groundbum2 on January 15, 2020, 10:12:58 PM
as others have said having 3 fleets is a bit arbritary. Given the game dynamics, and in the real world, most airlines have small, medium and longhaul aircraft. So having a 4th fleet ONLY for transitions and without penalty seems a good idea.

I would suggest the dynamics are that a player designates a transition from fleet X to fleet Y, and from that time for 2 years there is no penalty for the 4th fleet, and X can only go down in numbers.

Also just up the buying frequency numbers later in the game, when fleets are larger than in the beginning.

I have heard that idea many times now and while at first it seems like a good idea, I think in the end it would make things too easy. It would require much less planning when it comes to fleet choice and players would not be forced anymore to make a decision which niche to serve. Do I fly mediums? Do I go long-haul? Will I fly cargo? As of now, players usually cannot fill all the demand as they have to specialize into something. This allows for more fun since different niches/strategies have to be used and one can compete with other players using these strategies/approaches. If we were to add a 4th fleet type (even temporarily with this idea) it would allow airlines to "carelessly" fly 3 fleets and to avoid any specialization/planning. Players would easily fly medium planes, longhaul planes and cargo planes at the same time which would make the game much more boring. There has to be a limitation of some sort making the game more interesting and competition more lively. The 4th fleet penalty is great for this.

Obviously it comes with side effects (transitions). So instead of touching the 4th fleet penalty we should rather see how to make transitions faster. Especially with bigger fleets, transitions are only possible with the help of other players. Hence the idea to increase the weekly aircraft limit.

Another idea that just popped up in my head is that players could determine the "final user" of an ordered plane. Lets say I ordered 50 A320 for an alliance partner. Instead of listing every single plane to this alliance partner via the used market, maybe it would be much easier/faster to declare this alliance partner as "delivery address" at the moment I am ordering the planes. So once the first aircraft gets delivered, it's not me who receives the plane, but the other airline. This avoids the used market completely (and its limits). The money for the plane would be paid by the alliance partner upon delivery to the airline who initially ordered the plane (alliance minimum price obviously or whatever the 2 airlines agreed upon). It does not need to be limited to alliances either. Just 2 airlines partnering up.

The advantages:
1. No more waste of time by listing every single plane to the other airline on the used market (many clicks)
2. Faster transitions of big fleets since the airline doing a transition receives planes directly from the manufacturer and does not need to use the used market. (so basically one airline "donates" the delivery slots to another airline)

I think in this debate of the 4th fleet penalty we should be aware that the penalty is also a safeguard for smaller and new players. The current system limits the airline to have only two types of the fleet and having a third one available for transitions. If they're relaxed bigger players will have more fleet types and by consequence, they will be able to dominate more airports. I think is still important to keep that balance. I like Andre's and Gazz's idea to increase the number of aircraft you can buy in the used market, that would speed up transitions.

You guys are talking about a symptom of the problem instead of the actual problem: liquidity.  Show me one real life alliance where airlines are placing orders for another alliance member--it doesn't exist, at least nowhere near the extent it does in AWS.  This is a simulation and IRL supply and demand determine prices and vice versa.

Liquidity is the issue, period.  See the attached for the CRJ production line in History and the Future.  There are basically zero aircraft available to the used market, less than 40 orders for new aircraft in production (100/200) and 800+ orders for aircraft that are still in the design phase (700).  The only way to get a CRJ100/200 is to order it new as there is zero liquidity on the used market in spite of the fact the production rate is 76 aircraft per month.  There are ~1000 CRJs in service and growing, but brokers are doing nothing to fill production slots and create liquidity.

This isn't even a popular aircraft model--the popular ones are jammed up for years with zero hopes of new entrants to take delivery.  The popular models are jammed up as airlines create their own liquidity by having alliance members place orders and wholesaling the aircraft to artificially increase a single airlines delivery rate--a role that should be fulfilled by brokers, not other airlines.

You can attack this from the demand side or the supply side, but my recommendation would be both.  Step 1 is that you only allow airlines to lease aircraft for 5+ years OR purchase aircraft with an immediate 100% payment up front.  This forces airlines to make real decisions about allocating capital to help their alliance mates (expensive) or be forced to operate the aircraft themselves for 5+ years on lease.  Likewise for the CRJ700 which is 2+ years off still--there is one airline with 150 CRJ700 on order that I'm sure put down the absolute minimum.  If they were required to pay 100% up front I can guarantee that order would be much smaller and/or placed much later in the game.  Step 2 is get the brokers to buy up ALL empty production slots until the number of sale & storage aircraft reaches 5% of the in service number or 100 aircraft--whichever is less (variants determined by in service ratios).  IRL airlines are financing new aircraft and liquidity is effectively being created by the financiers--the brokers in AWS would be fulfilling this purpose.

The net effect would be more CRJs in the used market that can be acquired without unnecessary lead times (if you started an airline today, CRJs aren't even an option because there are zero available on the used market in spite of plenty new production slots being available).  For popular aircraft, the production lines wouldn't be as clogged and aircraft would be available on the used market through brokers where "in-demand" models could command a premium above the manufacturer's asking prices.  Years ago before "call the used market" was implemented with a finite number of calls each week, you pressed F5 repeatedly until your aircraft showed up because it was first come/first serve (likewise for airport slots).  The end result was creating liquidity where everyone had a fair shot at aircraft and slots.  Implementing these tweaks would do the same thing--making sure the guy who just started his airline yesterday and the legacy airline with 1000 aircraft and mountains of cash have a level playing field to acquire "new-ish" aircraft without waiting years to do it.  This would speed up the fleet replacement/transitions for most and instead of an alliance member having a monopoly on production slots, those aircraft become available for the whole market and assuming the market is working, would price those scarce/in-demand aircraft with premiums and the low volume stuff with discounts.  Want to lock in manufacturer pricing with guaranteed delivery? That requires a 5+ year lease and/or 100% payment up front.

This doesn't solve the fleet commonality penalties, but it does enable players to more rapidly turn over their fleet without being at the mercy of arbitrary factors such as who else in your alliance has the capital to bankroll new orders to help with fleet replacement.

All this talk of alliances!

In an average scenario, what is the percentage of individual players in an alliance vs those who are going it alone?

I have said this before, and I repeat:  I don't not think that alliances should even be a part of AWS until the mid 1990s or so.  Having the equivalent of today's alliances in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is a benefit that is not historical.

KLM/AF place joint orders, as do Iberia and BA so it does happen in real life. I'm sure Ryanair has it's subsidiaries LaudaMotion etc getting their planes from it's allocation. So yes it does happen in the real world.

Alliances are also intended to be sociable and for mentoring as well as being business relationships..

S

KLM and AF merged together and are the same company--as are Iberia and BA...

@LemonButt

I really like your thoughts there and agree in theory, but I am afraid that implementing your ideas would make the game even more complicated for the standard player than it already is. Let me explain why.

But first:

QuoteThis is a simulation and IRL supply and demand determine prices and vice versa.

In AWS too. Planes get more expensive the more orders are being placed. This also determines the sale price on the used market.

QuoteThere are basically zero aircraft available to the used market, less than 40 orders for new aircraft in production (100/200) and 800+ orders for aircraft that are still in the design phase (700). The only way to get a CRJ100/200 is to order it new as there is zero liquidity on the used market in spite of the fact the production rate is 76 aircraft per month.  There are ~1000 CRJs in service and growing, but brokers are doing nothing to fill production slots and create liquidity.

Nobody ordered the 100/200 because those versions are rather bad. The production rate of 76 is due to the much more popular 700 version. Brokers might fill the gap, but then again, why would a broker order a plane that apparently nobody wants? In DotM there are tons of A300 (combis/freighters) and nobody really uses them either and I am not sure if the AI brokers actually ordered them new OR if they were generated at game start (like a fixed number determined by Sami). I agree AI brokers should become more active. The problem with that: AI brokers would "steal" valuable production slots and the planes would appear on the used market. It is always more stressful/expensive to buy from the used market than getting planes delivered directly from the manufacturer (not to mention the requirement to be logged in constantly and clicking around to buy planes from UM). So in the end I would not want the AI brokers to be more active as they would spoil the transition process even more (not only players clogging the production lines, but AI brokers too AND worse yet, AI brokers ordering the wrong models with wrong engines).

QuoteThis isn't even a popular aircraft model--the popular ones are jammed up for years with zero hopes of new entrants to take delivery.

To be fair, new entrants should not place orders for brandnew models (they don't have the money for that anyways). Instead, they should go after the planes "left behind" in the transition of other airlines. MD80s, 737 classics, A320-100 etc...much cheaper, much better availability. Once the new airline has grown (say at least 2 game years), there will be less crowded production lines since everyone got their planes delivered by then and/or because the UM is literally spammed with offers. In history and the future, there are lots and lots of A320 on the UM and the price has dropped quite a bit in the last few game months. New players could easily start leasing some old planes, build up a network and then modernize once they have cash (and good production slots).

QuoteThe popular models are jammed up as airlines create their own liquidity by having alliance members place orders and wholesaling the aircraft to artificially increase a single airlines delivery rate--a role that should be fulfilled by brokers, not other airlines.

Right, but the AI brokers can only offer those planes via the used market and the player is limited to 3 aircraft purchases a week. So in the end it's the same problem as before. Transitions would still take forever. Not to mention that alliances would have even less "reason to exist". Actually, transitions would even be slower because the AI brokers tend to order very unpopular models with the worst engines and ranges.

QuoteStep 1 is that you only allow airlines to lease aircraft for 5+ years OR purchase aircraft with an immediate 100% payment up front.

This would benefit only the well established airlines which can afford to pay 100% upfront. Because leasing new planes is just a big nope (excessive costs). The big airlines will modernize with all the discount prices and perfect production slots while everyone else is left behind paying the expensive lease fees. Not fair.

QuoteStep 2 is get the brokers to buy up ALL empty production slots

Again, having AI brokers "stealing" slots doesn't help much as we would again be limited to buying 3 aircraft per week on the used market. This is no improvement when doing a fleet transition. Planes would be put on UM by AI brokers instead of by alliance partners. The only thing that is different now is the seller, but the core problem remains: not getting aircrafts quickly enough to do a transition. In fact the transition might even be slower because the AI brokers might order unpopular models (CRJ200) while everyone wants the CRJ700. So production slots are wasted, transitions take longer.

QuoteIf you started an airline today, CRJs aren't even an option because there are zero available on the used market in spite of plenty new production slots being available

Why would a new airline want brandnew aircraft, though? There are plenty of good alternatives. For example, the F100 is readily available on UM at a cheaper price (and honestly that's even a better plane if you ask me).

QuoteImplementing these tweaks would do the same thing--making sure the guy who just started his airline yesterday and the legacy airline with 1000 aircraft and mountains of cash have a level playing field to acquire "new-ish" aircraft without waiting years to do it.  This would speed up the fleet replacement/transitions for most and instead of an alliance member having a monopoly on production slots, those aircraft become available for the whole market and assuming the market is working, would price those scarce/in-demand aircraft with premiums and the low volume stuff with discounts.  Want to lock in manufacturer pricing with guaranteed delivery? That requires a 5+ year lease and/or 100% payment up front.

As I said it might make sense in theory, but not from a game mechanics perspective. Big airlines can afford 100% upfront and get good production slots, while everyone else would be required to lease them expensively for 5 years. Big airlines are in a much better position while smaller airlines are basically screwed. They can't afford 100% upfront and are now asked to pay the expensive lease price for brandnew aircraft. This is not what I call a level playing field. And I doubt transitions would be any faster because the planes end up on the used market again (just like now). The only difference is that we would not buy planes from alliance partners, but from AI brokers. But we would still be limited to only 3 planes per game week. There is no improvement regarding transition speed.

I think my proposal is better. That means ordering planes, but having them delivered to another airline. That is a much easier method to implement and completely avoids the used market with its limits. People would not need to be online constantly to buy planes on the used market. It is like donating production slots from one airline to another. Call it unrealistic if you want, but in the end it's a game and we have to think within the game mechanics.

Quote
All this talk of alliances!

In an average scenario, what is the percentage of individual players in an alliance vs those who are going it alone?

I have said this before, and I repeat:  I don't not think that alliances should even be a part of AWS until the mid 1990s or so.  Having the equivalent of today's alliances in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is a benefit that is not historical.

Maybe there are so many solo players because alliances offer no real benefit. I am sure that if there were actual benefits, people would be tempted more to join one.

Also, this is a simulation. It does not necessarily reflect reality completely (see fuel prices, aircraft launches, pax/cargo demand, etc). Alliances in AWS are crucial as a community factor. There is quite some competition between the different alliances and obviously alliance members help each other out with tips, recommendations, analysis etc. Instead of getting rid of alliances we should think how to give them an actual importance in the game. Right now we only have the small Company Image boost (a rounding error I would say). Having the option to donate production slots from one alliance airline to another would be a huge deal and would not only give the alliances a reason to exist, but players the incentive to join one.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.  Yes, large airlines can afford to pay 100% up front--but they cannot afford ALL the orders they have today by paying 100% up front.  That is the point--it reduces the massive backlog to something more reasonable, making room for other airlines to place orders.  Furthermore, locking up $100m for a delivery 2 years from now instead of playing the used market is going to be the opportunity cost.  The limit of 3 aircraft per week means you can get 150 aircraft per year off the used market--are you telling me there is a production line that would deliver 3 aircraft per week?  Additionally, is there a real life example of an airline that actually takes 3 aircraft per week (consistently) from a single manufacturer (4 per week if you are getting +1 direct from manufacturer)?  Yes, there is some uncertainty, but if you have a big airline you're putting in the hours anyways.  Additionally, the AI brokers would order variants/configs based on the in service population--70% are CJR100LR in service, so 70% of the AI orders would be CRJ100LR.  The production slots wouldn't be "stolen" but when an empty production slot reaches it's delivery date, the calculation is made if there are enough avail to the used market and if not, purchases it and makes it available (i.e. creates liquidity).  This doesn't hurt airline's ability to order whatever variant/config they want direct from the manufacturer--they just can't lock up slots for 5 years at a time like they can now.

You are correct that new entrants shouldn't be placing new orders--but that is my exact point.  There are no used CRJs available for new entrants and the only way to get them is new in spite of the fact there is tons of production capacity because there is zero liquidity.  I actually didn't even realize how scarce they were because when I started my airline ~1 game year ago there were 5 CRJ on the used market--it wasn't until later I realized there was zero liquidity.  Even the 30 seat EMB120 has ~1200 in service with only 35 in storage.  Sure you can pick up MD80 or A320, but those are 150 seat aircraft versus 50 seats which make zero sense on a route with less than 100 pax demand.  F50 are slow prop planes that get penalized when competing against jets and significantly reduced cargo capabilities on longer routes, especially east/west routes where wind kills the capacity.

Additionally, you're assuming everyone plays the game to run the most efficient or largest airline in the world.  Frankly, AWS is boring as hell if all you're doing is using Boeing and Airbus metal (or Douglas etc.) because any monkey with half a brain can run a successful airline doing that (that's why the popular models are popular).  I've got an all CRJ airline and am ordering new--the result being I have the newest fleet in the game with an average fleet age of ~1 year.  So to answer the question why would a new airline want new aircraft--the answer is the exact same as the popular models: the price on the used market is infinity because there is zero liquidity.

This also goes back to your concerns about the big guys crushing the little guys--since many new airlines are the mercy of the used market, they get crushed by fleet commonality as well.  If I weren't a patient man, I'd add extra fleet types out of necessity--especially if the production line is shut down.  Also if a new airline is using the used market to get everyone else's leftovers, they are also forced into extra fleet types to transition the old metal to new in the coming years.  If an airline had 2 fleet types with 10 year old metal, they would have to likely transition both those fleets in less than 10 years and have 4 fleet types for an extended period, especially if they are ordering new aircraft instead of the next generation's worth of leftovers.

So the solution to reducing lead times for airlines is creating liquidity and making aircraft available and the only way to do that is to prevent alliances from abusing the current system.  Right now there are orders for A320 and B737 that are 7 years out.  Additionally, there are orders 5 years out for MD90 with TONS of open production slots.  That means an airline is going to have an extra fleet type for up to 5 years unless they are gaming the system with an alliance partner.  Right now there are 38 MD90 on the used market, but they are exclusively from 3 other airlines and no brokers--that means 3 players completely control the used market and if a new airline enters the game, is at the mercy of those 3 airlines that may or may not collude with each other and/or buying new.  It may sound ridiculous, but it happens all of the time.

The attached screenshots shows exact reasons why 100% payment up front needs to happen--these airlines had zero intention of flying these aircraft and jammed up the production line, blocking actual operators from being able to order aircraft and manipulating the market.

OK, so let me answer again

Quote
Yes, large airlines can afford to pay 100% up front--but they cannot afford ALL the orders they have today by paying 100% up front. That is the point--it reduces the massive backlog to something more reasonable, making room for other airlines to place orders.

This is exactly what we have now. Other airlines (say alliance partners) place orders and then supply these planes to their alliance mates. I don't see how the limit (only allow 100% upfront) would reduce the backlog. If anything, it would only allow big airlines to place orders at all while everyone else will simply skip the launch and hope to survive what they have got so far (old generation models). Nobody in his right mind would lease brandnew planes.

QuoteFurthermore, locking up $100m for a delivery 2 years from now instead of playing the used market is going to be the opportunity cost.  The limit of 3 aircraft per week means you can get 150 aircraft per year off the used market--are you telling me there is a production line that would deliver 3 aircraft per week?

Again, you are talking theoretically. You can get 3 planes per game week, but did you consider real life? I know very few people who would set their alarm clocks at night to login into AWS and buy a few planes every 3 hours. Let's say half of those 150 is realistic and even then you better work from home or have your phone with you at all times.

With my approach (donating production slots from one airline to another) you would not need to do anything at all. The "ordering airline" would declare (while ordering) that the planes be delivered to the other airline. That's literally 3-4 extra clicks in total while buying one single plane off the used market involes dozens of clicks (every single time). The receiving airline would have the planes delivered exactly like own orders (directly from the manufacturer). Given that you can receive about 3 planes a month normally with your own order, you could (with 2 suppliers declaring your airline as "receiving airline") get a whole 9 aircraft per month (about 100 a year). That is more than you could realistically get from the UM - and more importantly, without any effort / time investment at all. Of course those numbers increase the more airlines donate their production slots to you.

QuoteAdditionally, is there a real life example of an airline that actually takes 3 aircraft per week (consistently) from a single manufacturer (4 per week if you are getting +1 direct from manufacturer)?

You can't compare real life with a simulation. Even now it takes real life weeks/months to finally get to the point where a production line even becomes active (not to mention you get all your dozens of planes delivered). For the sake of gameplay, I think the current delivery speed is quite good.

QuoteAdditionally, the AI brokers would order variants/configs based on the in service population--70% are CJR100LR in service, so 70% of the AI orders would be CRJ100LR.  The production slots wouldn't be "stolen" but when an empty production slot reaches it's delivery date, the calculation is made if there are enough avail to the used market and if not, purchases it and makes it available (i.e. creates liquidity).

This would have to be reprogrammed like this. Certainly possible and not a bad idea. Right now, AI brokers seem to always order the cheapest model with the worst range/engine.

QuoteThis doesn't hurt airline's ability to order whatever variant/config they want direct from the manufacturer--they just can't lock up slots for 5 years at a time like they can now.

A single airline can't, but an alliance can. So I don't really see the point. There were 2600 A321-200 orders in history and the future. Most of them from big airlines. Imagine an alliance of ~20 members out of which 5 airlines need this aircraft type. We are not talking about 50 planes per airline, but about 200-600 per airline. This alliance alone would need a minimum of 1500 A321-200 approximately. Of course the slots will be gone (as they always are). Then you have to add the speculators/brokers on top. Popular aircrafts will always be popular.

And again, since only rich airlines could pay 100% upfront, we're losing out on the smaller airlines who will just be left behind. Even if some of those A321-200 pop up on the used market, the price will always be higher than the launch price (large order discount, 100% upfront discount, launch discount). So not only are the small airlines in an disadvantage during the launch phase, but they also are in an disadvantage when it comes to buying from the used market.

QuoteYou are correct that new entrants shouldn't be placing new orders--but that is my exact point.  There are no used CRJs available for new entrants and the only way to get them is new in spite of the fact there is tons of production capacity because there is zero liquidity.  I actually didn't even realize how scarce they were because when I started my airline ~1 game year ago there were 5 CRJ on the used market--it wasn't until later I realized there was zero liquidity.  Even the 30 seat EMB120 has ~1200 in service with only 35 in storage.  Sure you can pick up MD80 or A320, but those are 150 seat aircraft versus 50 seats which make zero sense on a route with less than 100 pax demand.  F50 are slow prop planes that get penalized when competing against jets and significantly reduced cargo capabilities on longer routes, especially east/west routes where wind kills the capacity.

Generally speaking I would not recommend any new airline to lease planes that are newer than 5 yrs. In this particular example (need for a plane of about 50-70 seats), I would totally go for the F28, BAe-146's, DHC-8, F70/F100 etc. Especially the F70 is really abundant right now on the UM with very decent prices and the F100 is very versatile and can easily compete with pretty much everything. Even propeller airplanes are decent enough (F50, DHC-8, ATR, ATP, Saab) and it's not true that they get penalities. The only problem is that they are slower and you cannot fill the same number of daily flights. In other words: One would need more planes and more stuff to offer the same number of daily flights / passenger capacity. When it comes to cargo, those medium planes aren't really meant to be cargo planes at all given that they cannot carry heavy cargo. And you compete with all the belly loads from all your competitors in light/standard cargo. So cargo really can be neglected for medium planes.

QuoteAdditionally, you're assuming everyone plays the game to run the most efficient or largest airline in the world. Frankly, AWS is boring as hell if all you're doing is using Boeing and Airbus metal (or Douglas etc.) because any monkey with half a brain can run a successful airline doing that (that's why the popular models are popular).  I've got an all CRJ airline and am ordering new--the result being I have the newest fleet in the game with an average fleet age of ~1 year.  So to answer the question why would a new airline want new aircraft--the answer is the exact same as the popular models: the price on the used market is infinity because there is zero liquidity.

I have used quite weird models in the past too (100x IL-96-400T, Superjets, Comacs, even tech-stopped NAMC and double tech-stopped DC6B). By the way, those NAMC were clearly better than the 727 in ORD, believe it or not. It's definitely fun to try out new things, new niches, new approaches. But you shouldnt complain about unpopular planes not being available. When I flew 100 IL-96-400T in last GW2, I was the only airline in the whole game who ordered them (there were not even orders for the pax version). The production line closed as soon as I got my last plane delivered. Since the first deliveries were in 2010 and the game end in 2035, that was no big deal. What I try to say is: New ideas are always good, but require careful planning. Just because I want something, it does not mean it will (or should) work. There is no success guarantee in this game. And even with boring fleets like Boeing, Airbus and MD80, people still manage to fail. So not sure if calling those players monkeys with half a brain is very nice.

QuoteThis also goes back to your concerns about the big guys crushing the little guys--since many new airlines are the mercy of the used market, they get crushed by fleet commonality as well.  If I weren't a patient man, I'd add extra fleet types out of necessity--especially if the production line is shut down.

But see, this is exactly the point. Why would I, as a new airline, get a fleet type which is not readily available? I have to check what's on the used market and adapt accordingly. And once I am ready to modernize, of course it's time to choose a fleet type that is still being produced. It makes no sense to go from one old fleet type to another outdated fleet type.

QuoteAlso if a new airline is using the used market to get everyone else's leftovers, they are also forced into extra fleet types to transition the old metal to new in the coming years.  If an airline had 2 fleet types with 10 year old metal, they would have to likely transition both those fleets in less than 10 years and have 4 fleet types for an extended period, especially if they are ordering new aircraft instead of the next generation's worth of leftovers.

Again, bad planning. As a new airline I should focus on one single fleet type and expand with that as much as possible (say 737 classics OR F50 OR F70, not all together). Once money is there, it's time to update this outdated fleet type to something more modern. This is the 2nd fleet type. And just in case you want to expand more, you still have a 3rd type available. The point here is to avoid too many fleet types to begin with. How do you avoid many different fleet types? By choosing a fleet type that makes sense for your market and that is readily available.

QuoteSo the solution to reducing lead times for airlines is creating liquidity and making aircraft available and the only way to do that is to prevent alliances from abusing the current system.

How do alliance abuse the system? Please elaborate.

QuoteRight now there are orders for A320 and B737 that are 7 years out.  Additionally, there are orders 5 years out for MD90 with TONS of open production slots.

This probably means there are MANY orders for this type from VERY FEW different airlines. This is a feature, not a bug. It is in place so that other players can still get good production slots if they decide to order that plane. And I think it should stay this way.

QuoteThat means an airline is going to have an extra fleet type for up to 5 years unless they are gaming the system with an alliance partner.

Either an alliance partner or any other player who will function as a broker on the public used market. Again, the alliances don't abuse anything. The system works in the same fashion for every single player, within an alliance or not.

QuoteRight now there are 38 MD90 on the used market, but they are exclusively from 3 other airlines and no brokers--that means 3 players completely control the used market and if a new airline enters the game, is at the mercy of those 3 airlines that may or may not collude with each other and/or buying new.  It may sound ridiculous, but it happens all of the time.

Right. Bus as you said yourself, there are tons of production slots available. Either use those and order the planes yourself (and avoid expensive brokers) or ask an alliance partner to do that for you. This is what alliances are for - mutual help. Then again, if I am a new player and see that the MD90 is not readily available while there are tons of MD80's, then maybe the MD80's are the better choice.

Quote
The attached screenshots shows exact reasons why 100% payment up front needs to happen--these airlines had zero intention of flying these aircraft and jammed up the production line, blocking actual operators from being able to order aircraft and manipulating the market.

Uhm, how is this any different from an AI broker ordering planes? The AI brokers certainly don't fly planes either and just put them on the used market. I don't see any difference. In the end, these particular airlines made an investment by ordering the planes and are interested in leasing them out and/or selling them. If those airline fail to do so, the investment is lost. Instead of trying to order new, I would simply contact those airlines and make a deal. Win-win-situation for both. That airline sells the planes, the new airline receives new planes and favorable prices. As you said, demand and supply. Sometimes it's cheaper to buy from those "airline brokers" than to order new. And like you said, you can avoid to sleep and get 150 per game year off the used market.

Quote from: tdf42 on October 31, 2018, 10:13:59 PM
I have not seen the 4th fleet penalty keep big time airlines from going bigger. The premise is to keep a balance in the game and while it may give some pause we dont need to help the rich get richer. Real world most airlines try to keep there fleet diversity at a minimum, except for Delta of  course..lol

not at all. If we look at the US3 and EU3 in the way the game is played (ie no United Express, simply as one company)

United has ERJs(RR), EMBs(GE), CRJs(GE), 737s(CFM), 32S (V2500), 32S(CFM56), 757(PW), 757(RR), 767(PW), 767(GE), 777(PW), 777(GE), 787(GE),and A350(RR)/321NEO(PW I believe)/737MAX(CFM LEAP) on order.
American has ERJs(RR), EMBs(GE), CRJs(GE), E90(GE), 737s(CFM), 737MAX(CFM LEAP), 32S (V2500), 32S(CFM56),321NEO(LEAP), 757(RR), 767(GE), 777(RR), 777(GE), 787(GE), 330(PW), 330(RR)

and you can do the same for IAG, AF/KLM group, Lufthansa group.

I think its a little crazy an airline operating say CRJ or ERJ/EMB, 737 or 320, 757/767 or 330, 777s or 340s with 787 or 350s on order is certainly fair. I would love to see airlines being able to operate MROs (the main reason Delta, Lufthansa etc. operate so many different types) to offset the high cost of a complex fleet.

Of course I also think an airline operating 1000 777s is completely unrealistic so what do I know.  ;D

Airlines are absolutely not putting 100% payment up front when they place the order (when they take delivery they obviously pay the balance).  Those A320 orders 7 years out have the minimum down payment for sure.  I'm not going to dissect things word for word, but let's assume alliance members "donate" their production slot rights to another member.  What then?  There are 67 deliveries/month right now for A320 with 137 airlines in alliances at the moment.  Does that basically just mean if you're not in an alliance you will never ever be able to order a brand new A320?  Right now "donating" those slots by proxy requires a capital commitment and the production lines are backlogged for years--it would only get worse if there was no capital commitment required.

For production lines with excess capacity, the 100% could be discounted--i.e. an MD90 with tons of open slots could be had for less than 100% down.  This is really the only solution unless new aircraft prices become more dynamic, which would probably just confuse players (i.e. new aircraft prices going up due to excess demand).

How do alliances abuse the system?  Are you kidding?  Airlines IRL don't intentionally order planes for each other to sell wholesale--it's completely unrealistic.  Nor do they jam up production lines with orders for aircraft they have zero intention of operating.  Yes, airlines lease out aircraft to other airlines, but it's almost always a situation where they made an acquisition or similar such as Southwest buying AirTran and divesting the B717s to maintain an all 737 fleet.  I'm also not complaining that unpopular planes are unavailable--I'm complaining that planes with tons of available production capacity have zero liquidity on the used market because they are so in-demand that every used aircraft is in service.  If this happened in the real world brokers would be creating liquidity buying new aircraft.  Alas, it's the same issue at hand with fleet commonality etc. in that the system fails to create liquidity, even when there is new aircraft capacity to do so, but more importantly when there isn't.  The reason there isn't is because of alliances gaming the system.  It wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that it's a fixed pie and one airline taking delivery of a plane is at the detriment of another airline.  This is literally the exact reason the used aircraft market went from people running scripts to refresh the page every second to the "call" system to level the playing field.

AI Brokers are brokers--they don't operate aircraft.  It's like saying the grocery store and McDonald's both sell beef and it's all the same.  The grocery store isn't selling prepared hamburgers and McDonald's isn't selling raw ground beef.  IRL airlines and brokers are corporations with executives that answer to a board.  If the executives at any major airline said they wanted to risk the company's capital to speculate on aircraft they have zero intention of ever operating it would never happen--they are accountable to shareholders to execute their business plan.  Likewise if brokers said they wanted to start operating aircraft (wet lease being the exception).  This is why requiring 100% prepayment or 5+ year lease when ordering new solves the problem--it more closely reflects the real world where a board would never allow the things that currently happen in the game.  If you're ordering a new aircraft, you are either doing so with the intention of operating it and being an airline or you're paying through the nose (both capital and time) to speculate as a broker.  AI Brokers are agnostic and loyal to the market--not any specific alliance or airline, which ensures a secondary market with more perfect competition.  This is especially important later in game worlds when the long haul aircraft market is a duopoly with Airbus and Boeing--the next best thing being an aging out of production MD11 that is a trijet and not economically viable.  Long haul routes are the most profitable in the game and when prices are infinity due to zero liquidity, established airlines are given a de facto monopoly.

production rates were updated - now its ok.
launch window was updated - now its ok
cargo has been added - means more profit - means more planes.
long GW were added - more time to collect money
the only procedure that still not touched is UM limit.

3 years after start some of the companies has 300+ Acs on hand. and we are just started. yes big planes and jets will replace props with 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 rate. but anyway in mid of HAF GW we have 60 companies with 300+ AC fleets.
How quick and what effort it will take to replace aging ACs and adding new fleet for these players?
I run such big monsters several times - its real HELL. I need to open AWS every 4 hours just to buy out ACs from UM from Alliance.
That is the only reason that caused me to pause playing for almost a year.

Even now the only thing I ask is not to increase the rate of "receiving" planes. I ask the opportunity to buy all listed privately to me in one time if i have money.
20 listed to me? I want to buy all and let them be delivered at 3 per week - its ok. but at least I dont need to make clicks every 4 hour.

Quote from: LemonButt on January 16, 2020, 06:28:04 AM
Airlines are absolutely not putting 100% payment up front when they place the order (when they take delivery they obviously pay the balance).

Some are. And requiring 100% down would tilt things more in favour of the very large airlines, as they then become the only ones capable of buying planes for other people, or even buying for themselves.

QuoteDoes that basically just mean if you're not in an alliance you will never ever be able to order a brand new A320?

Of course not. If 67 airlines are all ordering 50 x a320, then everybody gets 1 plane/month. If 134 airlines are placing those big orders, then everyone gets 1 per 2 months. Regardless of whether they're in an alliance or not.

QuoteThis is really the only solution unless new aircraft prices become more dynamic, which would probably just confuse players (i.e. new aircraft prices going up due to excess demand).

Which is happening already, and doesn't seem that confusing. In HaF, the gameworld you're playing, the price of a 732 freighter was down to ~18 million or so. Some orders got placed, it went up to ~21.5. That price slowly crept down to 20 million, 2 airlines ordered 90 planes between them, the price jumped to 22 million. The price of a basic a332 has jumped from ~140 million on launch to 156 million 5 months later.

QuoteHow do alliances abuse the system?  Are you kidding?  Airlines IRL don't intentionally order planes for each other to sell wholesale--it's completely unrealistic.

And if my RL 1997 airline phoned Ilyushin and said I want 50 of those new IL96s nobody is buying, your factory can make 12/month, so I can have all 50 in a 5 month window, they'd say yes. But here in AWS, the timeframe to get 50 of them is 3.5 years.

If in AWS, you have 30 airlines placing orders for 50 each, everyone gets 2/month, but those 1500 planes are only going to 5 airlines, then IRL you'd see 5 airlines ordering 300 each, and all 5 get 12/month. So functionally the same.

QuoteThis is especially important later in game worlds when the long haul aircraft market is a duopoly with Airbus and Boeing--the next best thing being an aging out of production MD11 that is a trijet and not economically viable.  Long haul routes are the most profitable in the game and when prices are infinity due to zero liquidity, established airlines are given a de facto monopoly.

Also in HaF, I've grabbed 21 a330/340s from the used market over the past few game months, because I'm relatively new and can't afford a big order for new planes. There are still 30+ currently listed, and ~500 with the brokers.

One of the issues with UM availablility again comes back to commonality. There are airlines locked in to flying MD11s, because they have an existing large fleet. The line is emptier now, but as the price is still above default, I assume the line was clogged for some time. An MD11 vs an IL96 both have about the same size (410 v 420 max pax), about the same range (378 v 327 pax at 6000NM), about the same MTOW (58t v 53t), about the same speed (476 v 470 kts), about the same default cargo capacity (30t/103.5m^3 vs 21t/102.9m^3 at 288/290 pax). In every single one of those, the Ilyushin is slightly better.

The IL96 costs 300k/month in maintenance, 2.4 mill in fuel at $500/tonne, and 1.1 million/month to lease. Total cost 3.8 mill/month.
The MD11 costs 240k/month in maintenance, 2.1 mill in fuel at $500/tonne, and 2.6 million/month to lease. Total cost 4.9 mill/month.

And yet it's only the MD that gets ordered, and it had lots of orders while the only IL orders were made by me to fly from Sydney before I restarted in a different location to try an all-cargo airline. Why? Because it's way too hard to switch from MD to IL once you're locked in, because the 4th fleet penalty stops you doing it.

In AG, there is a huge supply of F27s on the used market, over 1500 with the brokers, and there are just 4 dash-7s in existence. For a new airline trying to fly medium turboprops, there is really just a single choice to use if they want to be able to access the UM for their planes. Why? Because airlines that might order the dash 7 when it launched or was approaching certification, especially when they see it readily available new, see it significantly cheaper than an f27 which has a clogged production line, they can't make that switch, can't say 'we'll keep our existing 100 f27s for now, but our new planes will be dash-7s', because if doing so adds a 4th fleet, their airline is no longer viable. They can only choose to stockpile 100 dash-7s to switch en masse, and doing that will take at least 2 years even if every plane leaving the factory goes direct to them. So they all stay flying f27, the f27 line stays clogged, and 15 years later, new airlines wanting 5-15 year old used planes to get started have a single good option.

Your aim seems to be preventing any one airline from getting new planes at a rate greater than the 2/month they might be able to get from the factory. That means that for any airline with a 500 plane fleet to do a transition, they'll need to spend 20 years on it. Is it simply that you don't like seeing 1000+ plane airlines, and so want to make it non-viable for them to modernise their fleet, go from 500 733 and 734 to 500 737-max?

I think the simplest answer, that will upset the least people, and not mess with the underlying dynamics too much, is to increase the 3/week limit every 5 years or so, so that at ten year in the the game it stands at 5/week and at 20 years 10/week etc. Just like out of bases increases.. Perhaps say 50% of the limit is not available on the UM but only on private purchases..

perhaps, like just implemented with Soviet steel, airlines < 100 frames, could get a 20% discount on leases on the used market?

Simon

Quote from: groundbum2 on January 16, 2020, 08:51:49 AM
I think the simplest answer, that will upset the least people, and not mess with the underlying dynamics too much, is to increase the 3/week limit every 5 years or so, so that at ten year in the the game it stands at 5/week and at 20 years 10/week etc. Just like out of bases increases..

I don't think that works for two reasons.

First one, it makes it far more likely for newer players with new airlines to simply lease too much stuff at once and have to BK before they become profitable, whereas steadier expansion makes it more likely they succeed, makes it much harder to spend all of their initial money at once.

Secondly, part of the reason for the 3/week limit is to make it far harder to scoop up all the planes of a single group that hit the UM. Even later in the game, there is competition for certain planes, e.g. right now in HaF, 734s and 735s are being snapped up pretty quickly, because the brokers don't have too many, and they are still quite popular. So if a UM refresh puts 6 of those on the market, one airline could grab them all, instead of no airline getting more than two.

As the majority of planes acquired from the UM by airlines frustrated by the limit/the need to log in every 4 hours are being taken from other airlines & privately listed, I think the solution is simply to make those planes separate to the ordinary 3/week from the brokers. I don't think there's any reason to change the 3/week from brokers, and many reasons not to. Just allow 12/game month, 18 per 24 hours, or simply make private listings except from the quantity restrictions, and transferring of planes can be done far less painfully, by logging in once/day or whenever and collecting all that are there for you.

I agree with Sanabas : it's even better than andre's idea - it's privately listed, you don't need your staff to work on it. Simple, elegant & efficient. You have your 3 usual shots at the open markets, whether or not you purchase privately listed aircraft, that could be then unlimited.

I've got 4 suppliers for COMACs in current MT. It's a pain to connect every 4 hours to purchase from them. I had 10 listed this morning, still have 7, and it's gonna grow, despite me purchasing as much as I can. I've got 32B$ in cash.

And, more importantly, I'm not drying up the open market. Those planes are reserved to me(and noone else wants C919s, but this is not relevant here - would be the same deal for the guy who purchases me A330s & A321s in great numbers). I should be able to connect in the morning, purchase everything that is privately listed to me, and forget about it and live my real life. Until I can play again, in the evening, or whenever. And not having those planes stockpiling, even though it's just 3 clicks to replace those aging MD88s.

Still need limits on privately listed aircraft. Unlimited opens up to many options that (I) someone would use nefariously. Just for the laughs.

3/10 is fine for open UM (AI broker); 6/10 for private sounds reasonable. That would yield 18 per month private, 9 per month UM. 100% more aircraft in total. Though this would favor the very largest airlines mostly...

AWS will become even more unbalanced between the top and the rest. But sure, you can fleet change just a bit faster, lol.


Talentz

Quote from: Talentz on January 16, 2020, 09:53:31 AM
(.../...)AWS will become even more unbalanced between the top and the rest. But sure, you can fleet change just a bit faster, lol.
(.../...)

Well, at 32B$ of cash reserves, I'm not in danger anyways. Noone can kill me. Fuel at 2000$ might, but it would need years and years(and would kill smaller players first) The additional unbalance seems extremely small to me, while the quality of life improvement seems huge to me.

it will benefit for everybody.

big companies will make fleet changes faster - yes. it means more variables in strategy.  If i can switch 100 acs from 320 fleet to some comacs that will benefit for me in last 14 years - why not ? in current system I will need several years a lot of time to do that.
in mid-time. I was on holiday and missed some 737 launch and all slots are gone for next 5 years ? np - I will switch to md80 or md90 even it means additional fleet change in the future

new players - 1 benefit: a lot of used ACs on um from big brothers, cause they will tend to switch fleets more often.
2 benefit: you can lease much more planes to start if you get agreed with other players to list them privately for you (no need to be in alliance for that). so you can grow faster if you doing it correctly

medium companies: you can go away from big lines (Airbus/boeing) and make more fleet changes cause it will not be pain in hell now.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 16, 2020, 10:34:47 AM
...

Quote from: MuzhikRB on January 16, 2020, 10:42:54 AM
...

Then sounds like a feature request to me. I personally don't care either way, I was just cautioning you on the door(s) that would open up. Anywho...



More importantly, how you only have 32B? You been buying alot of aircraft for the brotherhood or something?



Talentz

Quote from: Talentz on January 16, 2020, 09:53:31 AM
Still need limits on privately listed aircraft. Unlimited opens up to many options that (I) someone would use nefariously. Just for the laughs.

3/10 is fine for open UM (AI broker); 6/10 for private sounds reasonable. That would yield 18 per month private, 9 per month UM. 100% more aircraft in total. Though this would favor the very largest airlines mostly...

I think the biggest thing that whatever limit there is on privately listed acquisitions, that the timeframe is longer. So not x per 4 real hours, instead 6x per real day. So anyone buying privately listed planes can do so by logging in once per day rather than once per 4 hours.

Quote from: sanabas on January 16, 2020, 07:20:28 AM
Your aim seems to be preventing any one airline from getting new planes at a rate greater than the 2/month they might be able to get from the factory. That means that for any airline with a 500 plane fleet to do a transition, they'll need to spend 20 years on it. Is it simply that you don't like seeing 1000+ plane airlines, and so want to make it non-viable for them to modernise their fleet, go from 500 733 and 734 to 500 737-max?

Negative--the goal is to enable airlines to get new aircraft at an accelerated rate WITHOUT being at the detriment of other players.  Being able to take delivery of new aircraft and replace a fleet at 2-5x the rate of competitors is an unfair competitive advantage.  Under most countries' antitrust laws, what players are doing in the game would be illegal.  I used the CRJ vs. A320 example to show the problem is the same for new aircraft with tons of production slots available and zero production slots available--there is no liquidity and the price is infinity, which never happens in free markets IRL.

It should be viable for an airline to replace 500 aircraft a 5-10 year window without it requiring friends with deep pockets gaming the system.  This thread is ironic because there is talk about "bad fleet planning" being the reason people are getting screwed by the commonality penalties, but the definition of "good fleet planning" is market collusion, which again is an antitrust violation in most countries.  It's like saying Hillary lost to Trump because she didn't plan better--she could have colluded with the Russians or broke some sort of election laws to win, but assuming she didn't and lost it's "bad planning". (disclosure: I'm pretty sure they both broke tons of laws, but you get the point)

The only instrument to create parity seems to be the used market because the previous liquidity issues of pressing F5 repeatedly have been solved.  The 3 aircraft limit should probably be changed to something like 3 aircraft per week or 1% of your fleet size--whichever is larger.  That means an airline with 1000 aircraft could get 10 aircraft per week.  The problem still stands though that those 10 aircraft could come from wholesale deals where an airline could modernize their fleet at 2-5x the rate of a competitor due to exclusive dealings (again, an antitrust violation in most countries).  If there were no wholesale deals and the brokers made the market, they could still do it at a 2-5x rate of a competitor, but it would be because a "free market" with fair competition versus collusion.

@LemonButt

Quote
I'm not going to dissect things word for word, but let's assume alliance members "donate" their production slot rights to another member.  What then?  There are 67 deliveries/month right now for A320 with 137 airlines in alliances at the moment.  Does that basically just mean if you're not in an alliance you will never ever be able to order a brand new A320?  Right now "donating" those slots by proxy requires a capital commitment and the production lines are backlogged for years--it would only get worse if there was no capital commitment required.

The delivery slots are fairly assignated by the system once the launch period of 45 days are over. It would not be any different from now. Any airline can order 50 A320 and get early delivery slots. As soon as the same airline decides to order another 50, delivery slots will be somewhat less attractive. The more orders by the same airline, the further back the delivery will be. This is a feature to avoid exactly what you have described: that big airlines can order tons of planes and "steal" all the early delivery slots.

So even if you are a small airline (or outside of an alliance), you would still be able to get your share of 50 A320 with early delivery slots. And you would also be able to find a supplier who will donate you slots. This feature would not be limited to alliances. And of course ordering these planes does indeed require an upfront payment (just as it does now).

Quote
For production lines with excess capacity, the 100% could be discounted--i.e. an MD90 with tons of open slots could be had for less than 100% down.  This is really the only solution unless new aircraft prices become more dynamic, which would probably just confuse players (i.e. new aircraft prices going up due to excess demand).

The price for new orders are dynamic already. Whenever you buy a new aircraft, there is this little note on the aircraft info page saying (for example): "The price for this aircraft is excessively expensive" or "The price for this aircraft is fair" etc. The prices do adapt according to demand.

QuoteHow do alliances abuse the system?  Are you kidding? Airlines IRL don't intentionally order planes for each other to sell wholesale--it's completely unrealistic.  Nor do they jam up production lines with orders for aircraft they have zero intention of operating. Yes, airlines lease out aircraft to other airlines, but it's almost always a situation where they made an acquisition or similar such as Southwest buying AirTran and divesting the B717s to maintain an all 737 fleet. I'm also not complaining that unpopular planes are unavailable--I'm complaining that planes with tons of available production capacity have zero liquidity on the used market because they are so in-demand that every used aircraft is in service. If this happened in the real world brokers would be creating liquidity buying new aircraft. Alas, it's the same issue at hand with fleet commonality etc. in that the system fails to create liquidity, even when there is new aircraft capacity to do so, but more importantly when there isn't. The reason there isn't is because of alliances gaming the system.  It wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that it's a fixed pie and one airline taking delivery of a plane is at the detriment of another airline.  This is literally the exact reason the used aircraft market went from people running scripts to refresh the page every second to the "call" system to level the playing field.

So how are alliances abusing the system? I don't see any argument in there. All alliances is do is to order planes for fellow players. You don't need to be in an alliance to do that. Any player can order and then resell planes. And of course there is no financial benefit from it because the "alliance minimum price" is always higher than the "minimum price". So whenenver an alliance player buys from another alliance partner, it is always more expensive than on the public used market. How is this an abuse? Actually, alliance are in an disadvantage because of that.

QuoteAI Brokers are brokers--they don't operate aircraft.  It's like saying the grocery store and McDonald's both sell beef and it's all the same.  The grocery store isn't selling prepared hamburgers and McDonald's isn't selling raw ground beef.  IRL airlines and brokers are corporations with executives that answer to a board.  If the executives at any major airline said they wanted to risk the company's capital to speculate on aircraft they have zero intention of ever operating it would never happen--they are accountable to shareholders to execute their business plan.  Likewise if brokers said they wanted to start operating aircraft (wet lease being the exception).  This is why requiring 100% prepayment or 5+ year lease when ordering new solves the problem--it more closely reflects the real world where a board would never allow the things that currently happen in the game.

Agreed in a real world context, but not within the game. As I said previously, in the game only big airlines can afford 100% upfront. Meanwhile, leasing brandnew planes for 5 years is economical suicide and small airlines would continue to be small or even get smaller because of the financial burden of leasing new aircraft expensively. It would simply be unfair to the players (those who can afford 100% upfront will continue to grow/be big while those who can't are left behind with old planes or will have to pay expensive leases). So it does not solve the problem, and additionally adds another big problem.

@Muzhik:

Quote3 years after start some of the companies has 300+ Acs on hand. and we are just started. yes big planes and jets will replace props with 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 rate. but anyway in mid of HAF GW we have 60 companies with 300+ AC fleets.
How quick and what effort it will take to replace aging ACs and adding new fleet for these players?
I run such big monsters several times - its real HELL. I need to open AWS every 4 hours just to buy out ACs from UM from Alliance.
That is the only reason that caused me to pause playing for almost a year.

Exactly. So it's either increasing the weekly aircraft purchase limit on the UM (from 3 per week to 6 per week) as we said previously. Or donating delivery slots between airlines. The latter option requires no logging in whatsoever. It's completely passive/automatic and has the same result. One airline orders planes for another airline. The only difference is that instead of using the used market, planes will automatically be delivered to the designated airline directly from the manufacturer.

QuoteEven now the only thing I ask is not to increase the rate of "receiving" planes. I ask the opportunity to buy all listed privately to me in one time if i have money.
20 listed to me? I want to buy all and let them be delivered at 3 per week - its ok. but at least I dont need to make clicks every 4 hour.

Hmm, fair enough. That would at least remove the necessity of logging in every 3h to keep the transition going. I could live with that, too. Transitions would still take ages, but at least much less waste of time in real life.

QuoteI think the simplest answer, that will upset the least people, and not mess with the underlying dynamics too much, is to increase the 3/week limit every 5 years or so, so that at ten year in the the game it stands at 5/week and at 20 years 10/week etc. Just like out of bases increases.. Perhaps say 50% of the limit is not available on the UM but only on private purchases..

I have to agree with Sanabas.

QuoteI agree with Sanabas : it's even better than andre's idea - it's privately listed, you don't need your staff to work on it. Simple, elegant & efficient. You have your 3 usual shots at the open markets, whether or not you purchase privately listed aircraft, that could be then unlimited.

I've got 4 suppliers for COMACs in current MT. It's a pain to connect every 4 hours to purchase from them. I had 10 listed this morning, still have 7, and it's gonna grow, despite me purchasing as much as I can. I've got 32B$ in cash.

And, more importantly, I'm not drying up the open market. Those planes are reserved to me(and noone else wants C919s, but this is not relevant here - would be the same deal for the guy who purchases me A330s & A321s in great numbers). I should be able to connect in the morning, purchase everything that is privately listed to me, and forget about it and live my real life. Until I can play again, in the evening, or whenever. And not having those planes stockpiling, even though it's just 3 clicks to replace those aging MD88s.

Love it! Buy all privately listed planes at once + maximum of 3 from public listings. Couldn't be easier really. Lets hope Sami reads this. And yes, even 10 planes at once etc. would already be a huge help. The current 3/week limitation is justified by "staff being busy". But if they are private listings with the same conditions for every single plane, there just isn't any extra work to do. The staff would do the paper work once for all 50 planes...

Quote
Agreed in a real world context, but not within the game. As I said previously, in the game only big airlines can afford 100% upfront. Meanwhile, leasing brandnew planes for 5 years is economical suicide and small airlines would continue to be small or even get smaller because of the financial burden of leasing new aircraft expensively. It would simply be unfair to the players (those who can afford 100% upfront will continue to grow/be big while those who can't are left behind with old planes or will have to pay expensive leases). So it does not solve the problem, and additionally adds another big problem.

It does solve the problem--if 100% up front is required you end up with far more free production slots that get scooped up by brokers creating liquidity in the used market.  Players will have the opportunity to buy and/or lease the aircraft.  Whether you put up 100% up front or not, you are paying 100% when you take delivery which is what happens on the used market and enables players to modernize their fleet faster.  The only difference is that it's using the broker's capital and there is no exclusive dealing--a win for everyone.  Instead of new players being shut out of the market by collusion, they'll be able to compete on a level playing field.  50%+ of the time the net result will be the same with large airlines getting aircraft an accelerated rates, but it won't be because competitors were shut out of the market and didn't have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  Buying new gives you GUARANTEED delivery--whether you lease or own--but if you opt not to put the 100% up front you aren't guaranteed delivery, but still have access to buy/lease new-ish aircraft on the used market through brokers.

I have never seen 5 year leases from the factory as economic suicide--I have 15 CRJ with 11 of them leased new from the factory with a 1 year old airline and low route images against an established competitor and I'm turning a 5+% operating profit margin already with 100% Y class configs.  If fuel doubled today I'd still be squeaking out a small profit.  I've had wildly profitable airlines with hundreds of aircraft leased from the factory when fuel was $1000+.  It's definitely possible to run a successful airline with relatively expensive leases even when fuel is high.  It goes back to there is more than one way to play the game...

Quote from: LemonButt on January 16, 2020, 05:33:52 PM
It does solve the problem--if 100% up front is required you end up with far more free production slots that get scooped up by brokers creating liquidity in the used market. Players will have the opportunity to buy and/or lease the aircraft. Whether you put up 100% up front or not, you are paying 100% when you take delivery which is what happens on the used market and enables players to modernize their fleet faster.  The only difference is that it's using the broker's capital and there is no exclusive dealing--a win for everyone.

Instead of new players being shut out of the market by collusion, they'll be able to compete on a level playing field. 50%+ of the time the net result will be the same with large airlines getting aircraft an accelerated rates, but it won't be because competitors were shut out of the market and didn't have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  Buying new gives you GUARANTEED delivery--whether you lease or own--but if you opt not to put the 100% up front you aren't guaranteed delivery, but still have access to buy/lease new-ish aircraft on the used market through brokers.

Let me explain why you are wrong. An airline paying 100% upfront during launch will get a 10% launch discount, a 6% direct purchase discount and a 20% large order discount. That means any airline with enough cash can get early production slots AND save 36% on the purchase price. Airlines that would get planes from brokers via the UM are in clear disadvantage:

1. No discounts whatsoever
2. Higher purchase prices due to AI brokers adapting their prices according to demand
3. Competition with everyone else trying to get popular aircraft -> slower transitions due to lower availability

So while the big airline can comfortably order planes, get good delivery slots and save 36% on the purchase price, everyone else would not only miss out on the discounts, but also pay higher prices than the actual "new purchase price" because AI brokers will increase prices when there is high demand. And given the popularity of the airplane, not only will prices increase on UM, but availability will drop. Not to mention that rich airlines could also scoop up popular planes on UM themselves (either to speed up their own transitions or to supply alliance members with those scarce airplanes).

It is certainly not a level playing field if smaller airlines miss out on 36% discount, good delivery slots due to heavy competition on the UM and paying high mark-ups by AI brokers due to high demand.

By the way, it is impossible to "shut out competitors from the market". During the 45 days launch period, any airline can place orders and the delivery slots are assignated fairly among all airlines. It's not "first come, first served".

QuoteI have never seen 5 year leases from the factory as economic suicide--I have 15 CRJ with 11 of them leased new from the factory with a 1 year old airline and low route images against an established competitor and I'm turning a 5+% operating profit margin already with 100% Y class configs.  If fuel doubled today I'd still be squeaking out a small profit.  I've had wildly profitable airlines with hundreds of aircraft leased from the factory when fuel was $1000+.  It's definitely possible to run a successful airline with relatively expensive leases even when fuel is high.  It goes back to there is more than one way to play the game...

I just checked the leasing price for a brandnew A321-200 with best engine and range. The monthly leasing price is 1.2 million for one single plane (not to mention 7m in order confirmation). The average monthly revenue of my existing A321-100 (same size) is 1.2m. So the leasing cost would often eat up the entire revenue generated by the aircraft. Not to mention staff, maintenance, fuel, and taxes. In comparison, you could get a used MD83 for 240k a month from UM (and without order confirmation cost).

Even when we take your CRJ200 into account, the leasing price offered by the manufacturer is currently close to 400k a month while equally good (or even better) options are much cheaper. For example you can get used F28-3000 with 5yrs until next d-check for as low as 38k a month. That is next to nothing and would allow any new airline to grow.

So for new airlines, it's pretty obvious that leasing readily available older planes from the UM is the way to go in order to have the lowest possible investment cost while allowing the fastest possible expansion speed. By using those MD80/F28 for a couple of years instead of brandnew A320 series or CRJ (both older fleet types are chapter 3, so no problem with noise chapters) a new airline could cheaply and quickly expand and then buy new planes from the manufacturer later.

Of course a new airline could lease new planes directly from the manufacturer. But not only would the airline have to wait for the delivery slots (wasted time in the crucial first year of an airline), but also would the cost be far higher compared to what's available on the UM. This directly translates into higher investment costs and lower expansion speed.

If there is a rule that usually everyone agrees on, then it is: "lease old, buy new" (and never "lease new, buy old")

Obviously there are different ways to play the game. But some ways are basically like shooting yourself in the the foot. You can do that, but it won't help you at all to move forward.

Those A320 numbers don't check out--my little CRJs are producing $1.2m/month in revenue so I assume you confused that with weekly revenue (i.e. would be $1.2m/month lease with $4.8m in revenue).

I think the point your missing is the opportunity cost.  Having aircraft available on the used market with very high prices is a liquid market versus what we have today with no availability where the price is infinity.  This is the same principle in running an airline--if you don't have empty seats on your flights your prices are too low.  Airlines aren't missing out on any discounts because if they were to join the game world today, they'd be at the back of line missing the launch window which is first come/first served and shutting players out of the market--not to mention they can't order tens of aircraft at a time until deep in the game even at the minimum lease.  It's like saying tax cuts for billionaires are also available to the average person once they become a billionaire, therefore it's a level playing field for all.

So this thread is about fleet commonality and the added expenses due to slow delivery--even when colluding with alliance members to increase delivery rates.  These same airlines are getting 20%+ discounts and upset that it's more expensive to have the extra fleet type?  They are still coming out way ahead because they are paying well below true market rates because the market isn't liquid.  If liquidity isn't the issue, what is the issue then?  Players mismanaging their airlines?

Quote from: Andre090904 on January 16, 2020, 06:39:03 PM
Let me explain why you are wrong. An airline paying 100% upfront during launch will get a 10% launch discount, a 6% direct purchase discount and a 20% large order discount. That means any airline with enough cash can get early production slots AND save 36% on the purchase price. Airlines that would get planes from brokers via the UM are in clear disadvantage:

1. No discounts whatsoever
2. Higher purchase prices due to AI brokers adapting their prices according to demand
3. Competition with everyone else trying to get popular aircraft -> slower transitions due to lower availability

This isn't true.  If you place a large lease order you still get a large order discount.  If you are willing to lease for 8-15 years (I know some don't cause of the 8 year D checks)...but if you do this, you get both a further long-term lease discount and a lower monthly lease price.   Granted there is no, launch order discount, but you still can get significant discounts on lease terms depending on your game strategy.

I also concur with the above point.  If you want to do the super-large airline (500+ planes), you know the risk-reward structure well in advance.  if you don't want to deal with it, do a game where you can simply deal with a 100-200 plane airline and make the most of it.

If you go big, it should not be a surprise you will have to run past the 3 fleet types and many successfully do this without a problem and as independents or part of the minor alliances without a problem. There are certainly periods where fleet transitions will create a lot of stress for keeping the airline afloat and other periods where you can run up to 6-7 types to get back to 3 without missing a beat....ultimately a part of the fun and a good way to test if you are a skilled enough player to make it work. 

Can't read all that, boys :o You're going way beyond my capabilities, and this in only 24hrs.

What about a seminar where we can discuss all that over 2-3 days, and get a bit relaxed? Pizza and beers provided. Location to determine (barycentre of all our locations? :laugh:)

We might even find a solution / agreement ::)

@LemonButt

Quote
Those A320 numbers don't check out--my little CRJs are producing $1.2m/month in revenue so I assume you confused that with weekly revenue (i.e. would be $1.2m/month lease with $4.8m in revenue).

I was indeed looking at profit, not revenue. My A321 have an average of 250-300k profit (not revenue) per week, so about 1.2m profit a month on average (not revenue). Seeing your company stats in history and the future, you had 43 million in operating revenue the whole quarter with 15 CRJs. That means 2.8 million revenue per plane per quarter or about 1m per plane per month. Then again, your HQ is much smaller with very little competition. Your competitor Aladdin failed to make his base a fortress and made it easy for you to compete. Most of your routes are either complete monopolies or in direct competition with his F27/F50 which have not filled the whole demand of the route. This is why the CRJ200 works for you even though it is very expensive. You would have a lot better margin flying cheaper F28 (and could expand faster/modernize sooner with owned planes). Because your 300k profit per quarter is quite bad. Just imagine saving ~13.5m in quarterly lease costs (leasing 15x F28 for 40k each vs. leasing 15x CRJ200 for ~340k each). You'd now have some 14m in quarterly profits instead of 0.3m.

QuoteI think the point your missing is the opportunity cost.  Having aircraft available on the used market with very high prices is a liquid market versus what we have today with no availability where the price is infinity.  This is the same principle in running an airline--if you don't have empty seats on your flights your prices are too low.

In case AI brokers would order brandnew planes themselves during/after launch and occupy production slots, they would of course put those planes on the UM for the highest possible price to make a profit. This is especially true for highly popular planes that woud be bought immediately (high demand). Prices would be extremely high and smaller airlines would have no chance to get these new aircraft while big airlines wouldn't even look at the price tag and scoop up everything they can find.

QuoteAirlines aren't missing out on any discounts because if they were to join the game world today, they'd be at the back of line missing the launch window which is first come/first served and shutting players out of the market--not to mention they can't order tens of aircraft at a time until deep in the game even at the minimum lease.

Every airline that orders planes during the 45 days launch period gets these discounts. It's not first come, first serve. It used to be like that in the past, but not anymore. So even small airlines can get juicy discounts. However, if they are forced to rely on the used market, prices would be much steeper (since no discounts + high demand/competition). Obviously players joining now (after the launch period ended) missed their chance. That's life. But even then they could order popular models and still get decent delivery slots. The earliest possible delivery slots are always given to those airlines who are not in the waiting line yet.

QuoteSo this thread is about fleet commonality and the added expenses due to slow delivery--even when colluding with alliance members to increase delivery rates.  These same airlines are getting 20%+ discounts and upset that it's more expensive to have the extra fleet type?  They are still coming out way ahead because they are paying well below true market rates because the market isn't liquid.  If liquidity isn't the issue, what is the issue then?  Players mismanaging their airlines?

The issue is that the 4th fleet penalty is not linear. The penalty gets worse the bigger your fleet becomes. It is manageable with a few hundred planes, but deadly with huge fleets. Even the discounts won't help then. There are only 2 options:

1) Constantly flying 2 main fleets and reserving the 3rd fleet for transitions (easy method, but limiting)
2) Flying 3 main fleets and storing the 4th fleet (transition fleet) until the complete order got delivered and swap the entire 3rd fleet over night (stressful method, but more versatile operations)

Working together with alliance members means you can get better delivery slots. If you order 300 A320 on your own, the delivery will be spread over a very long period of time. However, if you only order 100 A320 yourself and have 4 other suppliers order 50 A320 each, then the delivery will not be spread that much over various years, but be more dense. The core problem is that those 200 A320 need to be sold/bought via the used market and you are limited to just 3 planes per week. One of my alliance members is flying well over 600 MD80's and is trying to transition to 737-800. This transition alone will take him many game years to come. Not because the planes are not available for him, but because he is technically not allowed to buy them from the used market (can't keep up with planes being listed) and/or because he has no interest to be constantly logged in to buy planes. There is indeed an increased delivery rate in theory, but no way the delivered planes can be given to the actual player with that high rate.

Hence the idea (see previous page) that players should be allowed to either:
1) Tell the system to buy all privately listings automatically when able (3 planes per game week) even if the player is not online until there are no more privately listed planes on the used market
2) Buy all privately listed planes at once

Option 1 would not change the game mechanics one bit, but would allow the player to be offline while the planes are being bought automatically (and thus reducing the constant need to be online to do big fleet transitions).

Option 2 would also reduce the stress since all privately listed planes can be bought with one click. Until now, the "3 planes per week limit" has been justified with staff being busy. However, the conditions/prices of privately listed orders don't change. Staff would not need to process every plane individually, but the order as a whole. So I think it makes sense to let players buy all privately listed planes at once. If that is too much to ask for, at least let the players set up automatic purchases of privately listed planes (even when the player is offline).

As you can see the issue is not about increasing the production rate/delivery rate. That would not be touched at all. The issue is how to optimize the transfer from planes from one airline to another.

@Spiff:

QuoteThis isn't true.  If you place a large lease order you still get a large order discount.  If you are willing to lease for 8-15 years (I know some don't cause of the 8 year D checks)...but if you do this, you get both a further long-term lease discount and a lower monthly lease price.   Granted there is no, launch order discount, but you still can get significant discounts on lease terms depending on your game strategy.

It is true. If you read my post again, I was talking about airlines buying from the used market, not ordering new. There is no discount whatsoever if you buy/lease planes from the used market. Please read again. LemonButt argues that players should only be able to order new planes directly from the manufacturer by either paying 100% upfront or by leasing them for 5 years. I argued that this favors large airlines who can afford to pay 100% upfront (because leasing new is never a good idea). LemonButt proceeds to say that all airlines who cannot afford to pay 100% upfront could buy planes from AI brokers on the used market. I then argued that this again favors big airlines because the used market offers no discounts and has usually higher prices even (depending on demand). Not to mention that rich airlines would buy everything they can grab off the used market. So small airlines are disadvantaged in three different ways: 1) no discounts when buying from used market vs big airlines making direct purchases from the manufacturer; 2) high prices on used market due to high demand; 3) rich airlines buying all planes off the used market AND receiving planes from the manufacturer at the same time.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on January 16, 2020, 08:17:36 PM
Can't read all that, boys :o You're going way beyond my capabilities, and this in only 24hrs.

What about a seminar where we can discuss all that over 2-3 days, and get a bit relaxed? Pizza and beers provided. Location to determine (barycentre of all our locations? :laugh:)

We might even find a solution / agreement ::)

somebody seems to practice for the literary nobel prize here  :-[ ;)

Quote from: DanDan on January 17, 2020, 04:47:12 AM
somebody seems to practice for the literary nobel prize here  :-[ ;)

We might define the barycentre in Sweden if you want ;)

Quote from: LemonButt on January 16, 2020, 05:33:52 PM
(.../...)I have 15 CRJ with 11 of them leased new from the factory (.../...)

Been there, done that...and ended up purchasing brand new A148s 10 years later. CRJ prices are going to skyrocket, and the lease new strategy won't be working anymore. In the 2010s, you'll have choice between sticking with 50 seats CRJs(completely outdated then), leased 70 seats CRJs(horribly costly), or brand new A148s. You'll pay 10k$ more per week for fuel & maintenance with the A148...but 100k$ leases in lease costs. Fuel is at 184 right now. Wait until it reaches 1200$. You'll see if your brand new leased CRJ strategy still works...

Back on topics : the COMACs I ordered in MT did cost me 54M$ each. The onces offered by fellow alliance members cost me 81M$(alliance minimum). That's the price of brokering. It helps me getting rid of my 27yo mad dogs quicker. I'm glad to pay that 27M$ extra cost. Only annoying thing is that I shall connect every 4 hours to get them all - at the current arrival rate. That's useless & painful. Being able to take them all at once would not change any behaviour : I'd still have asked for a few brokers within the alliance(or outside, if I hadn't found enough partners). Only, it would have increased my quality of life.