Hi everyone
I didnt play this game for a few years and I wonder whether something has changed in terms of fleet commonality. It used to be that there was a big penalty for moving from 3 to 4 fleets. Is that still the case? Does it matter at all whether planes are from different manufacturers (or are, e.g., the A330 and A320 more common than the B747 and A320?)
Thanks!
maarten
it's still there, but it's highly dependent on your fleet size. It's just a few points of margin between 400 aircraft. It's punitive beyond 700 aircraft.
Does anyone have the exact (-ish) numbers on this? At how many planes does it kick in? And what about the penalty for going to the third fleet too soon?
Quote from: tavyturean on January 26, 2022, 02:30:32 PM
Does anyone have the exact (-ish) numbers on this? At how many planes does it kick in? And what about the penalty for going to the third fleet too soon?
The third fleet does provoke a penalty up to 80 planes (some observation are more around 72/75). Then no more. Just a simple fleet group. Around 3 points of margin, IIRC.
The fourth fleet group does
always provoke a penalty. Simply, it's progressive, the bigger you are, the deadliest.
I think 350 is where the penalties kick in hard, until then it's like being gummied by a cow.
Commonality isn't really to do with manufacturers, or how common the planes are. It's do with how many FLEETS your airline has. So look at the aircraft page and see what fleet is listed. Some things you think would be in the same fleet, like the 8 or 9 737 models aren't, they're in 3 fleets.
Simon
As the others say, it starts off with under 100 planes being a bit of a pain but not too severe. Then the costs start to grow. At about 400+ it is really getting to a questionable point for most as to whether any benefit can be derived financially. Then as I think Gazzz said, at about 700+ it starts getting to really ridiculous costs.
But here's the way to check-out for yourself exactly what happens to your airline at any time:
While you still have only 3 operational types, goto: Aircraft -> Fleet Commonality
Then note down the 3 "Totals" of costs from your 3 fleets and add them to get an overall Total (Don't worry about the "Engines" figures - they remain unaffected mostly)
Then add 1 aircraft with routes of the 4th fleet type and go back to this page and add the now 4 "Totals" you have.
This way you can judge a fair idea on how severe things will get. Yes, adding more and more of the 4th fleet will still push up the additional cost - a bit, but by adding just 1 plane you get the vast majority of the damage added instantly to the other 3 fleets and that then stays about the same no matter how many more of the 4th fleet you add.
Only you can then decide if you want to go ahead and run with 4 types. But doing this as a "taster" makes it very easy to undo and go back to 3 types if you don't like the look of it.
(As a severe example though -> In another GW where I had 1100 aircraft, I checked exactly what happened when I added just ONE aircraft of a 4th type to my fleet. It showed my 3 fleet "Totals" came to $137 million. Then I added one new plane and went back to check ..... mind-blowing the result: That "Total" for 4 fleets shot up TEN-FOLD to $1.285 BILLION just adding that 1x 4th-fleet airplane! :o It just shows how bad it gets when you have a huge airline !)
Hope this helps.
Jack
Incredible, thanks for the responses everyone!
Quote from: Maartenderidder92 on January 26, 2022, 01:25:23 PM
Hi everyone
I didnt play this game for a few years and I wonder whether something has changed in terms of fleet commonality. It used to be that there was a big penalty for moving from 3 to 4 fleets. Is that still the case? Does it matter at all whether planes are from different manufacturers (or are, e.g., the A330 and A320 more common than the B747 and A320?)
Thanks!
maarten
Some new commonalities have been added. DC-10 and MD-11 are now part of the same fleet, MD-80 / MD-90 / Boeing 717 are also the same fleet.
For me, the most challenging part is when a fleet gets old and needs to be replaced by a more modern type. Adding just one new type can ruin an airline while it tries to renew its fleet - which can sometimes take 7 - 8 game years. Then it becomes impossible if an airline tries to renew an additional type.
Renewing fleets gets hard in long games when moving from props to jets and when moving from the first generation of jets to a newer generation.
Is it better (more economical) to maintain very old aircraft or to replace them with a new type - even as it increases fleet commonality costs?
[/quote]
Is it better (more economical) to maintain very old aircraft or to replace them with a new type - even as it increases fleet commonality costs?
[/quote]
The best option is to choose a fleet that grows with you. So for example start with old tatty DC10s but then plan 10 years down the line to start get new shiny MD11s, same fleet, to replace them and these will carry you to game end. But old plane D checks at 18/24year old will kill you, Plus the fuel penalty. Another example is A320-100 which is a dog but carry on for 20 years and the A321neo comes in, same fleet, and life is good to game end. So pick a fleet wisely!
If you really are stuck changing over a huge, 500 plane, 3rd fleet there's only one way to do it. Join an alliance, get you and them rich, make a joint buy of hundreds of the new plane, horde them until you can swap 80% of the old plane and then do the swap in a year or less. You'll be so rich the pain won't matter too much. We're talking billions if its VL we're talking about. Joint buy also means they come in quicker from the production line because by yourself 1 VL delivery a month will take a looooong time to get to 500 frames for example.
Simon
Quote from: groundbum2 on January 30, 2022, 10:27:23 AM
The best option is to choose a fleet that grows with you. So for example start with old tatty DC10s but then plan 10 years down the line to start get new shiny MD11s, same fleet, to replace them and these will carry you to game end.
Sensible, but that makes the game even more limiting re: what fleets you can choose (i.e. more boring).
Just bite the bullet and have 5 or 6 fleets anyway. If you do things right you will still do well. You'll make less money overall but can gain higher scores in the stats and more 'Achievements'. And the money isn't real - who cares if you finish with one billion in the bank or 200 Billion? Remember, there is no further penalty after 4 fleets up until 8! So, ion reality, you're going from 3 types to a possible 7 - that makes the penalty a lot more bearable, and the game a LOT more interesting, right to the end.
OK, that's probably advice for more 'advanced' players - a way to make the game more difficult (it is otherwise VERY easy IMO).
Quote from: knobbygb on January 31, 2022, 08:06:55 AM
Sensible, but that makes the game even more limiting re: what fleets you can choose (i.e. more boring).
Just bite the bullet and have 5 or 6 fleets anyway. If you do things right you will still do well. You'll make less money overall but can gain higher scores in the stats and more 'Achievements'. And the money isn't real - who cares if you finish with one billion in the bank or 200 Billion? Remember, there is no further penalty after 4 fleets up until 8! So, ion reality, you're going from 3 types to a possible 7 - that makes the penalty a lot more bearable, and the game a LOT more interesting, right to the end.
OK, that's probably advice for more 'advanced' players - a way to make the game more difficult (it is otherwise VERY easy IMO).
Thats....not true. 4 is a big hit, 5 and 6 are smaller, then 7 and each subsequent is a larger hit....now to be fair the hit for 5 and 6 is rather insignificant compared to 3->4, but it is there.
Quote from: Zombie Slayer on February 01, 2022, 12:03:23 AM
Thats....not true. 4 is a big hit, 5 and 6 are smaller, then 7 and each subsequent is a larger hit....now to be fair the hit for 5 and 6 is rather insignificant compared to 3->4, but it is there.
Fair enough and sorry for the misinformation. I've never even noticed the hits for 4 to 6 so I consider them insignificant but I accept they're there if you have seen them.
Nobody has yet given enough convincing argument as far as I'm concerned, for the TOTAL ABSURDITIES in this game such as this ludicrous financial hyper-jump on moving from 3 to 4 fleets (10-fold cost increase once you have a larger airline). Just make it the same increase as 2 to 3 fleets, and again same % from 4 to 5, etc.
I struggle with fleet types too - especially when trying to replace an old type with a new one - sometimes from a completely different manufacturer. I wish the penalties were not so steep.
However, as in other airline business simulations, I believe that this "rule" was designed to keep an airline that had a lot of cash from grabbing every available plane - leaving little or nothing for other airlines.
Until we can think of another way to fairly allocate aircraft, I am afraid that we will have to deal with this.
Quote from: Karl on February 01, 2022, 06:21:55 PM
I believe that this "rule" was designed to keep an airline that had a lot of cash from grabbing every available plane - leaving little or nothing for other airlines.
I've heard this sort of argument over and over like a stuck record as the excuse.
I just think it's BS quite frankly. Un-proven and un-substantiated BS at that. Has there ever been a full-length GW that has proven this theory? (Not in the near 12 years on-and-off that I've played AWS) I think we'd see exactly the opposite: Instead of folk like me in my big airline GW's, needing to get 4 other alliance mates to all order 50 of the same popular model + my 100 of them, instead what I would like to do is have all sorts of other models also in my fleet - models that are generally deemed "inferior" and so avoided by most in the current restrictive set-up. I'd love to run an airline the same size as I often get to (1000+ planes) where I had the freedom to have those 1000 planes spread out over all sorts of aircraft types without risking bankrupting my airline through this crazy 4th-fleet+ financial suicide we currently face. Therefore - there'd potentially be MORE of those "favourite" planes and probably they'd remain at more affordable prices = Everyone's a winner ?
Quote from: Cornishman on February 01, 2022, 08:56:33 PM
I've heard this sort of argument over and over like a stuck record as the excuse.
I just think it's BS quite frankly. Un-proven and un-substantiated BS at that. Has there ever been a full-length GW that has proven this theory? (Not in the near 12 years on-and-off that I've played AWS) I think we'd see exactly the opposite: Instead of folk like me in my big airline GW's, needing to get 4 other alliance mates to all order 50 of the same popular model + my 100 of them, instead what I would like to do is have all sorts of other models also in my fleet - models that are generally deemed "inferior" and so avoided by most in the current restrictive set-up. I'd love to run an airline the same size as I often get to (1000+ planes) where I had the freedom to have those 1000 planes spread out over all sorts of aircraft types without risking bankrupting my airline through this crazy 4th-fleet+ financial suicide we currently face. Therefore - there'd potentially be MORE of those "favourite" planes and probably they'd remain at more affordable prices = Everyone's a winner ?
No, it is to force people to choose to uncover some area of operations. Within the major base areas OOB+3 Fleet restrictions mean there is no way for a large airline to run the optimal aircraft for each route and effectively choke out opposition.
The restriction is there to stop people from running E-jet + CRJ + Q400 + A32/737 + 757PF + 767F + 332 + 787/350.
It's actually a pretty interesting game balance tool. It keeps the few huge fish from devouring the merely large fish.
It should be transparent to the player as it makes no sense. The manual should state these jumps clearly, otherwise it is simply a player trap.
When you add another fleet you get all the costs for setting up that new fleet. It defies all logic that this increases the cost of the previous fleets, sometimes ludicrously.
I understand the reasoning behind it
but it needs to be in the manual - with numbers!Mike
Quote from: Cornishman on February 01, 2022, 06:06:18 PM
Nobody has yet given enough convincing argument as far as I'm concerned, for the TOTAL ABSURDITIES in this game such as this ludicrous financial hyper-jump on moving from 3 to 4 fleets (10-fold cost increase once you have a larger airline). Just make it the same increase as 2 to 3 fleets, and again same % from 4 to 5, etc.
Quote from: SP7 on February 01, 2022, 10:02:43 PM
No, it is to force people to choose to uncover some area of operations. Within the major base areas OOB+3 Fleet restrictions mean there is no way for a large airline to run the optimal aircraft for each route and effectively choke out opposition.
The restriction is there to stop people from running E-jet + CRJ + Q400 + A32/737 + 757PF + 767F + 332 + 787/350.
It's actually a pretty interesting game balance tool. It keeps the few huge fish from devouring the merely large fish.
OK - an interesting theory - any hard proof that this would really happen? I really don't see that with a few much better, more logical controls, that this would be a problem. I'd rather see better and more realistic controls over slot-hogging at airports. In one GW years ago, a chap came along in the late 1990s at CDG as his HQ base and proceeded to place literally hundreds and hundreds of little Saab 2000 flights... as many as he could... 20 or 30 a day on routes like CDG - LHR. It was perfectly acceptable in AWS with no rule against that. If anything is unrealistic and deliberately designed to drive out competitors - via 2 methods: lack of any slots left plus the system seemed to reward his masses of flights with greater route % - that is what needs addressing i.m.o. If we had better restrictions on airports after they reach a certain tier - such as to either ban prop aircraft or have a cost structure that would make routes like CDG-LHR uneconomical with tiny little planes - well then we have something. That would work hand-in-hand with City-based demand for pax so that the smaller airports around the areas of those major airports would then become the only viable bases to run those hundreds of Saab 2000 - from my example above, instead of LHR-CDG you'd have offer say Luton to either Rouen or Reims or LeHavre if you wanted lots of prop flights. But I honestly don't see that what you say would happen, would really happen much. Has there ever been any proof that this is what happens in AWS without this 4th fleet penalty system?
I once suggested to implement a slot daily fee, which increase based on how many slots/ how many % you own/ how many % taken at an airport. That means its good to run prop if you own like hundreds of slots, and its gonna be impossible to make enough money if you own thousands. Mega airlines have to use big AC, and then will be more vulnerable to smaller ones. But smaller ones cant spam as much as they want, either which seem to be pretty balance for both mega and small airlines. Players need to work and find the sweet spot between number of slots/AC own vs Profit
If this is implemented, the fleet penalty can be removed, OOB can be unlimited
Everyone is, AGAIN, making the assumption that 'small' airlines need protecting from 'big' airlines. I've said it many times but I don't think that is the case and, as mentioned above, no such thing has ever been proven with an unrestricted gameworld. Small airlines (and sometimes big ones) fail for ONE reason - because they make poor decisions (one of which is staying small when they could get bigger).
If a small airline decides to open a base at my large mega-hub (ORD, NRT, whatever) and drop 100 medium/large aircraft in, there is NOTHING I can do about it - they will prosper and I will hardly notice them. That will NOT change whether I have 3 or 30 types! Yes, I could get a fleet of props and cover all the small routes, eating up slots as I go but I do that already - I usually operate with 4 to 6 fleet types - and it makes virtually no difference to my competition. The savvy ones find a way anyhow. Most don't even try and just complain that their Saab 340s, flying 7 hours a day at Strasbourg, Southampton, Spokane and Sendai aren't making enough profit. REALLY? They're NOT?! Hmmm....
We have sandbox worlds where people can play, experiment and learn but surely the 'real' worlds are meant to be cut-throat bloodbaths where 'the best' wipe out everybody they can, just like the real world and those people learn from experience to become the next generation of 'the best'. Or am I totally wrong?
Quote from: knobbygb on February 02, 2022, 07:14:03 AM
Everyone is, AGAIN, making the assumption that 'small' airlines need protecting from 'big' airlines. I've said it many times but I don't think that is the case and, as mentioned above, no such thing has ever been proven with an unrestricted gameworld. Small airlines (and sometimes big ones) fail for ONE reason - because they make poor decisions (one of which is staying small when they could get bigger).
If a small airline decides to open a base at my large mega-hub (ORD, NRT, whatever) and drop 100 medium/large aircraft in, there is NOTHING I can do about it - they will prosper and I will hardly notice them. That will NOT change whether I have 3 or 30 types! Yes, I could get a fleet of props and cover all the small routes, eating up slots as I go but I do that already - I usually operate with 4 to 6 fleet types - and it makes virtually no difference to my competition. The savvy ones find a way anyhow. Most don't even try and just complain that their Saab 340s, flying 7 hours a day at Strasbourg, Southampton, Spokane and Sendai aren't making enough profit. REALLY? They're NOT?! Hmmm....
We have sandbox worlds where people can play, experiment and learn but surely the 'real' worlds are meant to be cut-throat bloodbaths where 'the best' wipe out everybody they can, just like the real world and those people learn from experience to become the next generation of 'the best'. Or am I totally wrong?
EXACTLY !
about the Saab guy at CDG. I would have watched him to see if the Saab flights were replaced over time with proper aircraft, that's a clear violation of the rules. Also as the #1 slot person the slot costs are exorbitant, 11Mill/7 slots right now at LHR. So that's a mechanism that should slow somebody down buying all the slots.
I'd like a way to monetise slots, I have billions worth but I can't turn them into cashflow except as operating flights...
Simon
current modern times. Look at what Tungstennedge did : ordering each possible plane to slot-lock LHR. He was killed by the excessive fleet penalty.
It works.
Quote from: Cornishman on February 02, 2022, 01:56:50 AM
OK - an interesting theory - any hard proof that this would really happen? I really don't see that with a few much better, more logical controls, that this would be a problem. I'd rather see better and more realistic controls over slot-hogging at airports. In one GW years ago, a chap came along in the late 1990s at CDG as his HQ base and proceeded to place literally hundreds and hundreds of little Saab 2000 flights... as many as he could... 20 or 30 a day on routes like CDG - LHR. It was perfectly acceptable in AWS with no rule against that. If anything is unrealistic and deliberately designed to drive out competitors - via 2 methods: lack of any slots left plus the system seemed to reward his masses of flights with greater route % - that is what needs addressing i.m.o. If we had better restrictions on airports after they reach a certain tier - such as to either ban prop aircraft or have a cost structure that would make routes like CDG-LHR uneconomical with tiny little planes - well then we have something. That would work hand-in-hand with City-based demand for pax so that the smaller airports around the areas of those major airports would then become the only viable bases to run those hundreds of Saab 2000 - from my example above, instead of LHR-CDG you'd have offer say Luton to either Rouen or Reims or LeHavre if you wanted lots of prop flights. But I honestly don't see that what you say would happen, would really happen much. Has there ever been any proof that this is what happens in AWS without this 4th fleet penalty system?
I used to fly over 500 NAMC out of places like ORD, SAN, PHX, LGA, DCA and SLC in last HatF. And let me tell you, there is a point where it becomes an issue. Think of staff costs and maintenance costs. These small planes require a TON of overhead staff (not only pilots and cabin crew) and are so small that they just don't generate great margins (en masse). Let alone maintenance costs and modernization efforts (try ordering hundreds of planes).
Let me give you an example. I flew about 15x daily from San Diego to San Jose where demand was about 600 (this was in the 70's). Each NAMC had exactly 50 seats, so I had a supply of 750. Then there was a competitor flying this route 3 times a day using a 727, having a supply of 450. Know what? He had a higher market share than me. And he only had to pay staff, maintenance and fuel for 3 planes, not for 15. Guess who was more economical. Also, there is some sort of "ideal frequency" in the game. Medium planes will get their fair share if flown a couple of times per day, but there seems to be some sort of "penalty" when exaggerating the frequencies (even if you stick to good intervals between your flights).
In short: Medium spamming works, but has its limits. I personally upgraded from NAMC to MD80 (replacing 3 Namc with 1 MD80) and my profits increased a lot, simply because of less staff and less maintenance I had to pay.
@ Gazzz / @Andre - Alright, I can see some sense in what your points are. I still think what is being done by this fleet commonality super-tax when going from 3 to 4 fleets, is punishing everyone for potential perpetrations of the few.
Therefore, what about in the future, when Sami has the time and plans in hand to take passenger demand from the current airport demand to the City Demand structure - how about a setting at... for example, Infrastructure Level 7 and above airports, no aircraft with fewer than... what, maybe 70 seats ? This to my mind would relieve the need to have this super-tax that punishes everyone, yet still keep these checks you mention in place? plus that would add reality to the game since it's practical suicide IRL for an operator to try to fly props from say LHR or JFK. Also this would deter folk from building up huge fleets of props at airport that we know will sooner or later get up to a level 7 if they want to avoid suddenly being caught up with a massive fleet change in a relatively short period of time.
Just some thoughts, since I personally still feel this super-tax ruins a lot of potential freedom to explore life with a variety of fleet types. I stil think without this system, folk would depend less on massive fleets of "the popular models" and feel free to add in some more exotic models to the fleets. It would give Concorde some life and Tu.144 and goodness knows what other types we don't see used much ?
I don't mind a limit on small planes at big airports, but think some should be allowed for small regional airports, eg LHR-Sheffield.
Perhaps the rule could be people based at the airport with fleet over 200 can't have more than 20 smaller planes.
I hope this rule doesn't include the CRJs, ERJs etc, as they work well at large airports and are used in the real world. Look at KLM from AMS with E190s all over Europe for example.
Simon
Quote from: Cornishman on February 02, 2022, 09:55:16 PM
Therefore, what about in the future, when Sami has the time and plans in hand to take passenger demand from the current airport demand to the City Demand structure - how about a setting at... for example, Infrastructure Level 7 and above airports, no aircraft with fewer than... what, maybe 70 seats ? This to my mind would relieve the need to have this super-tax that punishes everyone, yet still keep these checks you mention in place? plus that would add reality to the game since it's practical suicide IRL for an operator to try to fly props from say LHR or JFK. Also this would deter folk from building up huge fleets of props at airport that we know will sooner or later get up to a level 7 if they want to avoid suddenly being caught up with a massive fleet change in a relatively short period of time.
If this can work, I really like the sound of this
Quote from: groundbum2 on February 03, 2022, 12:23:41 AM
I don't mind a limit on small planes at big airports, but think some should be allowed for small regional airports, eg LHR-Sheffield.
Perhaps the rule could be people based at the airport with fleet over 200 can't have more than 20 smaller planes.
I hope this rule doesn't include the CRJs, ERJs etc, as they work well at large airports and are used in the real world. Look at KLM from AMS with E190s all over Europe for example.
Simon
CRJs and E 170/190 are at 70 seats and over anyway, so they would work with Cornish's suggestion. But in RL you dont really see much smaller than those at the major city airports anyway.
Another "I've said it before" pertaining to the last few comments. The "Aircraft Size Class" model is quite broken too. A fixed boundary between Medium, Large, XL etc. doesn't take real life into account, particularly with how technology is progressing now. What about A321neoXLR (or whatever they will be called) with are designed pretty much for transatlantic routes but will get all sorts of penalties if we actually use them like that. What about the top end of the E190 market which is Medium but quite a bit bigger than the smallest A220 which is Large (and a few similar comparisons). All that probably needs addressing before you start placing artificial limits on numbers of each size class that can be used. Of course a big change there would be immensely complicated - those boundaries were coded for a reason, I know.
The bits of the game that work best, imho, are the ones that are just like real life and don't contain fictitious "fixes". The more of those that are introduced, the more that playing the game becomes about knowing the quirks, rules and workarounds rather than actually knowing about the airline industry. If I had a vote (which none of us really do) I'd say "keep it real" - i.e. if it's allowed in real life it should be allowed here. After all, what are the two things people complain most about? OOB limit and 4th fleet penalty - the two most arbitrary, fictitious, unrealistic parts of the game! We really want MORE of those?
I've said it before (and I've said THAT before!) but City Based Demand (if it ever arrives) will turn the game upside down and may make all these arguments moot anyway.
Quote from: knobbygb on February 03, 2022, 06:13:05 AM
After all, what are the two things people complain most about? OOB limit and 4th fleet penalty - the two most arbitrary, fictitious, unrealistic parts of the game! We really want MORE of those?
I'm all in for those, but just throw in the slot daily fee I mentioned, or any other idea to prevent monopoly. Pretty sure no government wants any airline have monopoly over an airport, and they won't also allow spamming 10 50 seaters on a 500 pax demand route. Solution like can't use A/C with less than X seats on route with more than Y demand, or can't use A/C with 70 seats and below in airport with infra of 7+. Those just create more hard limit like the OOB and fleet penalty
Quote from: Mr.HP on February 03, 2022, 08:49:58 AM
Pretty sure no government wants any airline have monopoly over an airport, and they won't also allow spamming 10 50 seaters on a 500 pax demand route.
That's exactly what I mean though. I don't believe any government would outright ban such a thing (other than one or two obvious examples where the government totally controls everything such as N.Korea). It just shouldn't be financially viable to do this and arbitrary rules aren't the answer. Nor are slot costs. In that case I think changing the metric which decides the spread of pax. is the way to go. Something similar happens with cargo already and, again, CBD for pax might fix this.
CBD is vicous that way : bigger planes are better - if and only you fly to another airport, dragging most of demand. If a player in CDG flies 4 daily 757PF and I add a 744F to the same destination from BVA, I'm gonna suck much demand. but on the same line? 757PF forever.
It's easy to use when you know the trick, but when you don't...