A good reason for ETOPS; Misuse of frequency feature;

[JumboShrimp]

Sure, it's a slight improvement over the current system. But it doesn't do a thing about the underlying problems, it still has plenty of problems of its own, it also seems too complicated for minimal benefit, as the pax assigning algorithm now needs multiple extra steps, to check route length & route demand first to determine optimal plane size, then count the number of planes, then assign pax. It's a bandaid solution, a very slight improvement. I don't see the point of making that sort of effort to program in an incremental bandaid solution, when it'd be much better to spend the effort on a solution that doesn't just dim he sun a little, but gives you a highly-effective set of adjustable sunglasses. It is very possible to design a more flexible system that can apply to all routes, and will still work when we get connecting pax, city based demand, etc.

I agree with that.  With connecting pax (v2.0?), connecting on the same airline should probably be the strongest influence, when we have the time of day (v3.0), arriving at 1200, you would not be able to transfer to 1100 flight (obviously), and what comes closest should have a very strong influence (even if it is a different airlne).  But we are still far from there...

In DOTM, I'm up to 500+ planes in 6 years, despite starting late, in a less than huge airport, (SVO), with 70, 70, 47 planes at my bases, using basically 5 fleets. I reckon 2000 planes is very doable in 10 years with 4 big airports to base in and 10 production lines to use. I also checked fleet commonality when dropping from 7 fleets to 6. The drop in monthly costs for the 6 remaining fleets was negligible, the big saving was the ~5 million/month commonality would cost for my sole remaining DC10. That's something I've checked repeatedly, and it seems that if you can have 20+ aircraft in each fleet, it doesn't matter much how many fleets you have.

First, aircraft, you are in 12th year, with about half of the max players, so the used market must be decently supplied.

DOTM is still under 1.2.  In 1.3, incremental cost from 3 to 4 fleets is huge, much bigger than before.  If you add 6 smaller incremental increases to 1 huge one, you are looking at serious drain in cash.

Another thing is competition.  You can't assume the same no-competition environment present in most airports.  A lot of big airlines currently settle for 1 or 2 basis.  Because the people running big airlines know there is not much money in extra basis.  Now, if these players knew thay can make a serious dent in an extra base, more big airlines would be doing it, and more would fail due to competition.  And competition is one thing that is lacking currently, IMO.  Just out of curiousity, what percentage of your routes have a serious competition?

Anyway, with competition, the profit margins would shrink.  With lower profit margins, cash will be limiting your growth.

And if more airlines see extra basis worthwhile, more players will be competing for the same number of production lines, so the aircraft delivery rate will be even more of a limit.  14 years into the game, there would still be things for big airlines to achieve, they would not be quitting out of boredom.

And there may be another reason to compete:  If there is a vigorous competition between alliances, a player in one alliance may be opening a base at a base of opposing alliance with chance of a reward of a better score for an alliance, even if the move may not be the most profitable for that player...

Some small airlines are small because they want to be, or because they're new. Your line of argument seems to have a similar feel to Jona's, that if you're not trying to be a multi-billion dollar airline, you're not being serious about the game.

Not really.  I played MT4 in extremely low maintenance mode.  I picked an airport with high international demand, low domestic (US) demand, so that I would not have to go crazy scheduling to 300 somestic destinations.  I never opened 2nd base...

As does this. There's more ways to count '#1 airline' than how huge you can get. Removing restrictions on number of bases, number of planes is one that basically tells anyone starting in a size 4 or 5 airport that the only way to play is to aim to be as huge as possible. Fine for an occasional scenario, really bad idea for general gameplay.

Under the current rules, starting at less than 4 or 5 basically means you are giving up on being in top 10, or even top 20 in total pax, ASK, RPK, sales etc.  Because you are not going to get there with 400 aircraft, and you may die well before you get to 400 because of the overhead cost of 3 extra bases.  So if you want to build a mega airline, you have to start at size 5 airport.  Then you have 7 airlines starting out at many of the largest airports, with only 1 or 2 surviving first 3 years...  A lot of these airlines would be better off starting at smaller airports, with still having a chance to grow big.

The current rule actually pushes people into size 5 airports.

[Jona L.]

Okay, haven't been here for well 24hrs and thanks to JumboShrimp (meant positively ) there has some more activity in here. NICE!!


JS, I loved your examples because that is exactly what I was being after! You just found the ideal words for it
Also, a 10,000/day demand route of >1000NM is pretty rare (except for Asia, SA and some few AU routes, where you will usually be slot restricted by the time you'd have filled one route with ATRs (despite filling a 10,000 PAX route with 50 seaters on -say- 5 daily rotations would still mean you'd need... CALCULATOR!! ...40 ATR42s --> about 20 months to get delivered. + for 200 rotations you'd get beaten by the 15 minute gap requirement (96 is mathematically the limit) thus it would be pretty dumb to do this (not talking of the slot cost being in the millions for each week (--> bankruptcy before you reach half of that)).

And also as I said about my numbers: They were just taken VERY roughly and thus subject to refinement, so with some strikings and addements one might figure out a good plan.
{As for all of you guys interested: gimme a shout on Skype (meaning write to me) [name: jona.lauterjung] so we can discuss our points faster and maybe formulate a collective Feature Request in that regard }

As you said , JS (sorry for using the short term but it is mid of the night...), it is tough to start so late through (--> as I suggested: wait for a big BK and then move in)

Another thing towards JS: you already pointed out the versions these novelties will come in, what is missing though: time when the new versions come and the delays we saw on 1.3 will mean we can't expect 2.0 or even 3.0 any sooner than 2020

I don't think there is much more to add, as JS shares most of my points and said many good things yet. If I come across more in the past posts I will write a new post


cheers and a good evening/night/morning (wherever you are on this wide planet )
Jona L.

[alexgv1]

Just staying on subject, and probable been spoken before but if not...

Isn't ETOPS also company based IRL, meaning you have to prove reliable company organisation (maintenance, operations, flight department/procedures and so on) and is not given just because you have an a/c that can fly the distance.

....

Like the idea though but might be to much realism for some.

Yes the aircraft must be certified to a particular ETOPS, but for the company to operate them under ETOPS it must also be approved by having the right SOPs and crew training in place.

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Yes the aircraft must be certified to a particular ETOPS, but for the company to operate them under ETOPS it must also be approved by having the right SOPs and crew training in place.

well, you took what I was going to say... I thought it was finally time for me to come in, but alas, you beat me to it

[Dave4468]

Yes the aircraft must be certified to a particular ETOPS, but for the company to operate them under ETOPS it must also be approved by having the right SOPs and crew training in place.

Does that mean that if I woke up tomorrow and bought a B777 and started Dave Airways I couldn't actually operate it over the pond despite it being easily in range?

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Does that mean that if I woke up tomorrow and bought a B777 and started Dave Airways I couldn't actually operate it over the pond despite it being easily in range?

No you wouldn't be able to, well not at least for a while until you had everything in place, SOPs and pilots with the correct training.  So you wouldnt be able to in one day, but eventually yes.

[Sanabas]

I agree with that.  With connecting pax (v2.0?), connecting on the same airline should probably be the strongest influence, when we have the time of day (v3.0), arriving at 1200, you would not be able to transfer to 1100 flight (obviously), and what comes closest should have a very strong influence (even if it is a different airlne).  But we are still far from there...

Sure, but being far from that is no reason to make a suboptimal change to mechanics now, requiring another change later. I sketched out a model earlier in this thread, I've thought about it a bit more the last couple of days, I could cheerfully sit down and work out a detailed model. I think it's more flexible that what Jona suggested, improves everything his does plus some more stuff, and doesn't cause as many issues. It'll also transfer over to city based demand/connecting pax relatively easily, I think. It'll still have anomalies, but I don't think anywhere near as many. I also don't think it would be that intensive from a programming standpoint. But I'm a maths geek, not a programmer, so I could be wrong on that last one.

First, aircraft, you are in 12th year, with about half of the max players, so the used market must be decently supplied.

I was in the 8th year when I started. The a320 production line was solidly booked for a couple of years, and even now, I haven't seen a 2750 range a320 stay in the used market longer than a week. (Partly because I keep taking them, as I still need 50+ more of the things  ) Other planes were more available, and the primary reason I have over 100 F100s now isn't that I decided they were the best plane for what I wanted, but purely down to them being the only viable option from a used & new availability standpoint.

DOTM is still under 1.2.  In 1.3, incremental cost from 3 to 4 fleets is huge, much bigger than before.  If you add 6 smaller incremental increases to 1 huge one, you are looking at serious drain in cash.

Actually, in MT5, I was up to 4 fleets (a300, 757, q400, CRJ) before I quit, and I tested it then, too. The commonality jump for existing fleets wasn't that big, it was the new one plane fleet that wasn't economical until more planes arrived. Next gameworld, I will be getting in on day 1 for the 2nd time ever, and staying until game end for the first time ever (not counting my current DotM). I will make sure I closely document fleet commonality costs, staffing costs for new bases, etc, as I grow. I treat this game at least partially as an RPG, so may as well make a proper thread for my airline, and explicitly record what happens with some of these gameplay mechanics.

Another thing is competition.  You can't assume the same no-competition environment present in most airports.  A lot of big airlines currently settle for 1 or 2 basis.  Because the people running big airlines know there is not much money in extra basis.  Now, if these players knew thay can make a serious dent in an extra base, more big airlines would be doing it, and more would fail due to competition.  And competition is one thing that is lacking currently, IMO.  Just out of curiousity, what percentage of your routes have a serious competition?

Anyway, with competition, the profit margins would shrink.  With lower profit margins, cash will be limiting your growth.

And if more airlines see extra basis worthwhile, more players will be competing for the same number of production lines, so the aircraft delivery rate will be even more of a limit.  14 years into the game, there would still be things for big airlines to achieve, they would not be quitting out of boredom.

Yeah, there'd be more competition. I don't think lower cash will be a big issue, I think there'd be more competition in the medium term, but long term, there'd be even fewer airlines still around as those who want big airlines but lose out quit the gameworld. I think a test scenario that allows unlimited bases/unlimited planes is a good idea, see how it shakes out and what happens. I'd certainly participate. I just don't think it will work for normal worlds.

I don't think aircraft delivery will be much more of an issue from those in on day 1, I think it will be a bigger issue for anybody joining later.

As for my airline, I have very little competition, and on at least a couple of routes, the competition has given up and picked an easier route. However, I have the equivalent of competition (sort of), as there are a lot of routes which only have 50% LF, because I'm flying to (almost) every destination within 6000 NM that offers at least 80 pax per day, and everything beyond 6000 NM with 100 pax per day, primarily with 767s and 757s. I also have higher marketing and staff costs because of the sheer number of destinations. I only have 8? (St Pete, LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG, Dublin, Rome, Milan) routes that support more than 2 daily flights, and most only have 1. I could be much more streamlined and get better profit margins. I also think I've expanded far enough to actually hurt my overall profit, hard to tell until I get around to fixing up my semi-dismantled f100 schedule. But I've decided not to worry so much about company value or overall profit, I instead want to be as big as possible while still being profitable. There aren't many jobs in post-breakup Russia, but we employ nearly 100,000 people. 

And there may be another reason to compete:  If there is a vigorous competition between alliances, a player in one alliance may be opening a base at a base of opposing alliance with chance of a reward of a better score for an alliance, even if the move may not be the most profitable for that player...

Yeah, I'd like more ingame competition between alliances. Might reduce the amount of outside game sniping that's been going on. Not a fan of that at all. Might have to start my own alliance next game.

Not really.  I played MT4 in extremely low maintenance mode.  I picked an airport with high international demand, low domestic (US) demand, so that I would not have to go crazy scheduling to 300 somestic destinations.  I never opened 2nd base...

Not sure what you mean. I assume this was somewhere like JFK or Honolulu, and ended up a very large airline. It's still possible to build a low-maintenance, very large airline if you get the right base. Though what would happen to your low maintenance airline if someone else arrives with 200+ a320s/737s/757s?

But what your posts seem to imply, and Jona's posts make explicit, is that those airlines who start in say a purely domestic US airport, or who only want to be a highly profitable, 100 plane operation out of LHR, or who want to be an ATR-only airline, or anything else that isn't after max company value/max revenue/max RPK/max pax, isn't a serious airline, doesn't deserve the same respect as those huge airlines, and shouldn't be taken into consideration when looking at how to improve gameplay mechanics.

Under the current rules, starting at less than 4 or 5 basically means you are giving up on being in top 10, or even top 20 in total pax, ASK, RPK, sales etc.  Because you are not going to get there with 400 aircraft, and you may die well before you get to 400 because of the overhead cost of 3 extra bases.  So if you want to build a mega airline, you have to start at size 5 airport.  Then you have 7 airlines starting out at many of the largest airports, with only 1 or 2 surviving first 3 years...  A lot of these airlines would be better off starting at smaller airports, with still having a chance to grow big.

The current rule actually pushes people into size 5 airports.

The current rule only pushes people who want a mega airline into big size 5 airports. Do you really think that if plane limits are removed, anyone is going to start in a size 3 or 4 airport and generate enough of a profit base to then move into a size 5 airport and try and take it over? Especially when the airline in that size 5 airport can respond by opening a base in the size 3/4 hub of their challenger, and flood it?

I'd be interested to see which airports you thought were viable places to start that, too. Off the top of my head, the best size 3 & 4s from a profit per plane perspective would be the ones that are the biggest airport in a small country with lots of LH demand, like Mauritius, Reunion, Male, Baku, various Carribean Islands. But none of them offer the chance to base somewhere bigger. I'd guess the only viable options would be size 3 or 4 US airports, or maybe small European countries once the EU is up & running. I think it'd be a big challenge though.

[Sanabas]

Hmm...  Interesting.    Maybe the the cost overhead was changed after all in v1.3.  I hope somebody opening a new base can give us the exact figures...

I just closed down my Kiev base in DotM, so it's 1.2, not 1.3. Still interesting data though. The base had 47 medium planes, and the Kiev staff were costing me ~9.5 million/month according to the bases tab.

Bases tab had monthly staff costs of: 142 mill SVO, 21.8 Baku, 20.9 Tashkent, 9.5 Kiev. Personnel required overall was 89,762

Closed the base, and the 9.5 Kiev staff costs were added to SVO, Baku & Tashkent remained unchanged. Personnel required now 71,659

Fired the staff, which has killed morale. >< Not sure what it's done to company image, dashboard still says 89, guess it'll drop when the day changes.

However, staff costs are now 118.3 SVO, 19.7 Baku, 18.7 Tashkent. Office rent & commonality penalties unchanged.

By closing a base that had 9.5 million in staff costs, my required payroll has actually dropped by nearly 38 million.

[Sanabas]

Not sure what it's done to company image, dashboard still says 89, guess it'll drop when the day changes.

Indeed it did. All the way down to 46.

[Jona L.]

Indeed it did. All the way down to 46.

Luckshot you did, that it didn't fall deeper, though you should monitor it further on.
Also a staff morale of -100 (or around that) will lead to many delays/cancellations due to "unmotivated staff" --> even worse for your CI!!

[Sami]

Jona, clean up your language and tone, or this thread will be locked.

[Sanabas]

The point is that small aircraft preference and frequency f*cking (term used within different alliance and general AWS chats on skype, due to good players hating this stuff) already support those little companies withe their <200 seat-micro-planes too well. Those goddamn A321 are just completely overrated on the transatlantic routes and thereby support that guy (who has about the same amount of a/c in LHR as I do) too well, though he has a decent amount of B772/3 he COULD use on the route. (So he wouldn't even add fleet types by using them!!)

Again with the sweeping (and incorrect) generalisations, again with the insults towards other airlines. Can you please try and stick to being constructive, and stop using 'good players hate this/only bad players use this tactic/they're playing this game the WRONG WAY' as though it supports your argument?

Gameplay mechanics should be more leveled instead of so much tending to one side (the n00b/small airline side in this case*). I request a radical change because in the end only few of what is requested (meaning a weaker change) is performed, so I try to achieve a leveling and not actually as much as I demand. (same as when people call on strike, they demand a lot more than they actually want, so that in the end they get as much as they wanted, while looking like compromising.

Your request isn't very radical. My objection certainly isn't based on it being too radical, my objection is based on it not being very effective, and on there being a much better way to do it.

b) This just shows what ridiculous cost it is to run bases in this game, and I bet (and in this point you can't prove me wrong) that the A320s there (even if it would've been 100) would NEVER make in all the cash they cost you by running the base.

Actually, I can prove you wrong. But doing it conclusively would require me closing down one of my other bases to do so, which won't happen unless I decide to quit the gameworld.

Can certainly give a convincing estimate.

Tashkent has 14 a320s, 28 757s, 14 767s, 14 F100s. Previous week's profit was ~4 million for the f100, 5.6 for the 767, 6 for the a320, 17 for the 757. All of them are at ~80% LF. All 70 planes are leased, eating into each plane's profits. All up, that's ~130 million per month profit. Rent + Staff + Office space are about 23 million per month. Even if the company-wide markup on staff is 30%, more than double what it was for my 4th base, the overall cost for the base is still in the range of 60 million per month, leaving 70 million pure profit. Even if it was just a320s making 3 million per group of 7 per week, that's over 80 million a month, well ahead of 25 million in explicit costs and 35 million for the staff % increase.

Baku has 35 each of a320 & 767, the numbers come out similarly. 400k-600k per plane per week x 70 x 4 = ~140 million per month profit. If I owned the planes, it'd climb to 200 million per month. My entire staff + office space + commonality penalties only total 170 million a month. My 2 bases ARE increasing my overall profit.

*edit*Sorry, I made a small mistake with the above calculations. I didn't count the commonality costs for the aircraft at a base. I need to, because if I didn't have the base, I wouldn't have the planes, and so wouldn't be paying commonality costs for them. 98 a320s cost me ~28 million a month, so Baku's 35 = 10 million. 94 767s cost 38 million, Baku's 35 = 14 million. Call it 25 million overall, on top of a maximum of 60 million in explicit staff costs & penalty costs to staff/commonality. That's 85 million a month in cost, still far less than the 140 million a month profit I make with 70 leased planes. To reiterate, My 2 bases ARE increasing my overall profit.

I want a new gameworld to start, I want to document my expansion, and the costs involved, properly.  */edit*


If you want to give an overview of your base's cost in MT5 to support an argument that they won't be profitable, probably should give an overview of the base's profit as well. Please tell me what the approximate total weekly profit is for your 105 Frankfurt based planes.

Luckshot you did, that it didn't fall deeper, though you should monitor it further on.

Why? It's a one-off drop for firing staff. Marketing will now bring it back up. A good player should know that.

[Jona L.]

Jona, clean up your language and tone, or this thread will be locked.

Post deleted, sorry!

[Jona L.]

Again with the sweeping (and incorrect) generalisations, again with the insults towards other airlines. Can you please try and stick to being constructive, and stop using 'good players hate this/only bad players use this tactic/they're playing this game the WRONG WAY' as though it supports your argument?

My constructiveness is yet to point a problem and offer a solution, and if you try to say the problem is no problem, that it is not my fault.

You say it is not a problem and hide behind "I don't always want to run a multi-billion-dollar"-lie because you are PART of the problem I point out. You do exactly what I try to get rid of. Even though you say something else, yet the ultimate "win" is to be biggest, worthiest, and most awesome airline -accept it or not.
And if you want to play a small airline, let big airlines be big. As I said previously, small airlines are well enough and in my eyes a lot over-protected.

What you say: "though it supports your argument" is in my eyes just your try to make my argumentation fall because yours is not working.

Your request isn't very radical. My objection certainly isn't based on it being too radical, my objection is based on it not being very effective, and on there being a much better way to do it.

Then why you make such a big blow out of it?!

Actually, I can prove you wrong. But doing it conclusively would require me closing down one of my other bases to do so, which won't happen unless I decide to quit the gameworld.

Can certainly give a convincing estimate.

Tashkent has 14 a320s, 28 757s, 14 767s, 14 F100s. Previous week's profit was ~4 million for the f100, 5.6 for the 767, 6 for the a320, 17 for the 757. All of them are at ~80% LF. All 70 planes are leased, eating into each plane's profits. All up, that's ~130 million per month profit. Rent + Staff + Office space are about 23 million per month. Even if the company-wide markup on staff is 30%, more than double what it was for my 4th base, the overall cost for the base is still in the range of 60 million per month, leaving 70 million pure profit. Even if it was just a320s making 3 million per group of 7 per week, that's over 80 million a month, well ahead of 25 million in explicit costs and 35 million for the staff % increase.

Baku has 35 each of a320 & 767, the numbers come out similarly. 400k-600k per plane per week x 70 x 4 = ~140 million per month profit. If I owned the planes, it'd climb to 200 million per month. My entire staff + office space + commonality penalties only total 170 million a month. My 2 bases ARE increasing my overall profit.

Which values did you take?! You should know that the different views (aircraft financial overview/general financial overview/dashboard view/etc.) always give back different values, and I was referring to the base you closed (if your values were for real), and 47 a/c should barely make the staffing cost back in and don't pay for the initial base opening cost, or the commonality cost or the running cost. You just don't see it in the different views. You can only see that if comparing the pre- and post-base opening results, etc. (takes a lot of time).

If you want to give an overview of your base's cost in MT5 to support an argument that they won't be profitable, probably should give an overview of the base's profit as well. Please tell me what the approximate total weekly profit is for your 105 Frankfurt based planes.

So, mr. cleverass: where do you find such an income page? right: THERE IS NONE!! (feature requested multiple times yet and still not built in, though very important)
And I can't be bothered to add up 105 planes...

Why? It's a one-off drop for firing staff. Marketing will now bring it back up. A good player should know that.

Well, give it a try... yet I did it once and it failed, and I learned from that, that one should never close a base without opening a new one to put the staff to. And you should never fire staff, especially not in these vast amounts because it takes the most important instrument off you: CI. But why am I telling you, you want a small airline, so you don't need to use techniques that big airlines use....

And the tone is a bit more rough this time, because I begin to get p*ssed off by having to explain the same stuff over and over again, just because someone wants a small airline and is actually producing the problem I point out (though in another game world, but doesn't matter as long as too many people do it).

And for the record this is the softest variant of saying it I can choose. If I'd say what I really think and feel in this regard, I'd have been banned 4 pages ago.

Jona L.

[Dave4468]

You say it is not a problem and hide behind "I don't always want to run a multi-billion-dollar"-lie because you are PART of the problem I point out. You do exactly what I try to get rid of. Even though you say something else, yet the ultimate "win" is to be biggest, worthiest, and most awesome airline -accept it or not.

I'll be not accepting that. Running the world's biggest multi-billion airline is not the ultimate win. In a sandbox game such AWS the ultimate win is what the player makes it. For you it might be the super airline, for me I just want a decent sized stable airline. I know of one player who, while totally capable of running the super airline wants to just run a small aircraft operation from a provincial UK airport. The win is what the player wants it to be.

Which values did you take?! You should know that the different views (aircraft financial overview/general financial overview/dashboard view/etc.) always give back different values, and I was referring to the base you closed (if your values were for real), and 47 a/c should barely make the staffing cost back in and don't pay for the initial base opening cost, or the commonality cost or the running cost. You just don't see it in the different views. You can only see that if comparing the pre- and post-base opening results, etc. (takes a lot of time).

Well frankly it seems a legitimate analysis that works. If Sanabas has done that maths and used the same section each time then it works.

So, mr. cleverass: where do you find such an income page? right: THERE IS NONE!! (feature requested multiple times yet and still not built in, though very important)
And I can't be bothered to add up 105 planes...

Well then we will never know. At the risk of sounding dense surely it would be some fairly simple maths to get just a vague value. Or does everything need to be presented on a plate?

And the tone is a bit more rough this time, because I begin to get p*ssed off by having to explain the same stuff over and over again, just because someone wants a small airline and is actually producing the problem I point out (though in another game world, but doesn't matter as long as too many people do it).

No, I'm sorry but this needs to be called up, you've brought up a contentious issue and people disagree with you, without you yourself coming up with the same numbers that others are coming up with this will just carry on. And lets be frank, an airline with multiple bases with as many aircraft as being counted above can barely be counted as small.

And for the record this is the softest variant of saying it I can choose. If I'd say what I really think and feel in this regard, I'd have been banned 4 pages ago.

Calm down dear, just because not everyone wants to or is running a 300 aircraft airline from the big airports of Europe there is no need to get your knickers in a twist.

[swiftus27]

I'm not here to take sides at all, but why do we have so many people who have a goal to be confrontational?

This really shouldn't be that big of a deal to be going back and forth all the way to page 5 now.   Pretty much people have spoken their mind on this.  Come to a conclusion, consensus, or just agree to disagree.

In the end it is all up to Sami's coding prowess. 

[Sanabas]

My constructiveness is yet to point a problem and offer a solution, and if you try to say the problem is no problem, that it is not my fault.

You say it is not a problem and hide behind "I don't always want to run a multi-billion-dollar"-lie because you are PART of the problem I point out. You do exactly what I try to get rid of.

I assume German's your first language, not English. But do you even take the time to read other posts? Nowhere have I said that frequency is not an issue that needs fixing. I have explicitly said that it IS an issue. I have explicitly said that some of the stuff I do shouldn't be viable. The problem IS a problem. I have proposed a way to fix it.

What I am saying is that your solution is no solution. It doesn't fix the problem, it merely makes it a little bit less of a problem in some cases. I say it is better to actually fix the problem.

What I am saying is that your diatribes are not reasons to change anything, and betray the fact you're not interested in game balance, all you're interested in is having things set up optimally for your preferred type of airline. I think your attitude and your posts are counter-productive, and can only make it harder to get a good solution for frequency issues implemented.

Even though you say something else, yet the ultimate "win" is to be biggest, worthiest, and most awesome airline -accept it or not.

Again, that's your subjective value judgement. Again, it shows a contempt for anyone who doesn't agree.

What you say: "though it supports your argument" is in my eyes just your try to make my argumentation fall because yours is not working.

You give very little evidence, make very few coherent points. You give a lot of abuse. You post as though the abuse constitutes a reason for the system to change. It's not. It's counter-productive. If you stop doing it, if you stick to being constructive and as objective as possible, we can have a much more interesting conversation.

Then why you make such a big blow out of it?!

For the reasons I've already stated. Because it's a bad solution. Your idea addresses something that I agree is a problem. It just doesn't address it very well. There's a much better way to fix those problems. The way you present it is extremely poor, and will cause readers (certainly me) to lose respect for you, to simply ignore what you say. So when there are good points made, they won't get noticed.

Which values did you take?! You should know that the different views (aircraft financial overview/general financial overview/dashboard view/etc.) always give back different values, and I was referring to the base you closed (if your values were for real), and 47 a/c should barely make the staffing cost back in and don't pay for the initial base opening cost, or the commonality cost or the running cost. You just don't see it in the different views. You can only see that if comparing the pre- and post-base opening results, etc. (takes a lot of time).

So, this time you imply I'm a liar, too?

The 47 planes at Kiev were not paying for the increased overhead, you're correct. I didn't say they were.

But you said 70 a320s also wouldn't be able to pay for the increased overhead. This is incorrect. As I showed you. As I said, I am a maths geek, I know how to pull actual info out of the displays without waiting months to get an approximation from my overall profit numbers. What I took was the weekly profit for each plane, that is revenue minus (maintenance+insurance+route fees+fuel+leasing cost), to get a monthly figure. That figure is approximately $2 million per month per a320. 70 a320s, approximately $140 million. The only major costs not included in there are staffing, office rent & fleet commonality. (I did ignore minor expenses like engine commonality, alliance fees, C & D checks, any change to marketing. They're all negligible.) When I add in staffing & commonality costs, the base is clearly paying for itself, something you say can't be done with just 70 a320s. Those numbers are proof it can be done, that 70 decent sized planes are enough to make a 2nd & 3rd base increase overall profit.

So, mr. cleverass: where do you find such an income page? right: THERE IS NONE!! (feature requested multiple times yet and still not built in, though very important)
And I can't be bothered to add up 105 planes...

Just because you're incapable of analysing the data doesn't mean the information isn't there.

I can be bothered to add up 105 planes. Or 70, in my case. The information is readily available, even if it's not on the income statement as an easily digestible single figure. If you can be bothered to post a screenie of the 'my aircraft' page in financial view for Frankfurt, and repost the numbers or a screenie of your bases page, and post a screenie of your fleet commonality page, I'll tell you approximately how much profit/loss you're making by operating your Frankfurt base, compared to closing it and getting rid of the 105 planes.

Well, give it a try... yet I did it once and it failed, and I learned from that, that one should never close a base without opening a new one to put the staff to. And you should never fire staff, especially not in these vast amounts because it takes the most important instrument off you: CI. But why am I telling you, you want a small airline, so you don't need to use techniques that big airlines use....

Where did I say I want a small airline? I'd get very bored, very quickly. I don't see the point of doing it. BUT, I don't assume my preferred airline is everyone's. I don't preach that anybody doing things differently to me is wrong, or not serious. I don't make contemptuous posts about how they operate.

I'd rather my knowledge of gameplay mechanics came from actually testing things myself, or from someone whose view I can trust, rather than dogmatic statements from someone like you. You did it once and failed? Big deal. I see no reason I shouldn't try to do it and succeed.

I took a one-off hit to morale for all the categories I fired, from 100 down to 20ish in most cases, route strategies dropped to 6, cabin crew only dropped to ~90. That is causing increased delays thanks to unmotivated staff, but it's not an unacceptable number. Morale has improved a few points in all those staff categories in the ~10 days since the base was closed. My CI took a one-off hit, from 89 to 46, thanks to the firings. It will now increase thanks to the marketing budget. The delays aren't significant enough to offset that increase. It's up to 49 already. The negative consequences from firing staff are outweighed by the $10 million a week I save by not paying them.

And the tone is a bit more rough this time, because I begin to get p*ssed off by having to explain the same stuff over and over again, just because someone wants a small airline and is actually producing the problem I point out (though in another game world, but doesn't matter as long as too many people do it).

And for the record this is the softest variant of saying it I can choose. If I'd say what I really think and feel in this regard, I'd have been banned 4 pages ago.

I am not producing the problem, I am simply using the existing gameplay mechanics to my advantage. The problem is in the mechanics, the solution is to adjust the mechanics. The problem is not the players who are using the gameplay mechanic to their advantage, the solution is definitely not to abuse those players. I want the gameplay mechanics changed. I'll continue to use all gameplay mechanics available to help me as much as possible, even the ones I don't like, even the ones that are completely unrealistic.

Speaking of unrealistic, the post you deleted suggests you have ~400 planes, mostly widebodies, in a gameworld that's ~8 years old. What airline has ever grown from a startup of a few million dollars at a rate of 1 plane per week for 8 years? It's an abuse of the gameplay mechanic for buying aircraft. It shouldn't be allowed. It should be banned. People like you are ruining things for serious airlines that want to grow at a realistic pace.
Change buying aircraft to frequency/aircraft size, and that's the core of your 'argument'. If you think it's valid in one case, why wouldn't it be valid in both cases? I say it's not valid in either case, and the thread would be a much better place if you stopped using it.

If someone wants a small airline (I don't), that's their perogative. Good luck to them. They should be able to do it. If someone wants to run a profitable, 100 plane airline out of LHR and is good enough to do it, again, good luck to them. The game mechanics should be as flexible as possible, allow many different business models to be feasible.

[Sanabas]

I'm not here to take sides at all, but why do we have so many people who have a goal to be confrontational?

This really shouldn't be that big of a deal to be going back and forth all the way to page 5 now.   Pretty much people have spoken their mind on this.  Come to a conclusion, consensus, or just agree to disagree.

In the end it is all up to Sami's coding prowess. 

It's not my goal to be confrontational, it's just a side effect of being stubborn, and not being willing to let things slide. http://xkcd.com/386/

I'll post my idea again, if needed I'll take it to a new thread. I have no coding prowess, I think I've got some game design prowess though, and I don't think the coding required is too horrible.

I think most people agree that frequency bonuses are currently a problem. 3 ATRs with a tech stop should get far less than 50% when competing with a single a320 flying direct. They currently get 75% of the market. There are plenty of other examples.

However, frequency does matter IRL. A morning and evening flight with 150 seats each should do better than a single, daily 300 seat flight, even on LH routes. 8 well spaced flights should do better than 2 flights with 4 times the capacity on shorthaul routes.

Low demand routes, particularly LH, also have issues. RL routes that have say 2 767 flights a week have ~50 pax demand daily in AWS, and so they're not viable. In DotM, Kiev has 5% LH demand. But I couldn't find a single viable LH route to fly. Other threads have complained about this problem.

My idea would address all these things.

Split the week into blocks. For LH, maybe 3 daily blocks, 0500-1100, 1100-1700, 1700-2300. For domestic and SH, smaller time periods. If it's viable from a calculation time/processing power standpoint, vary the block size for SH according to demand, 3 daily for a low demand route, right up to 36 blocks of 30 minutes each for very busy corridors. I'd probably say something like <200 pax = 3 blocks, 200-600 = 4 blocks of 4.5 hours, 600-1000 = 6 blocks of 3 hours, 1000-2000 = 12 of 1.5, 2000-4000 = 18 of 1, 4000+ = 36 of 30 min. For LH, 3 blocks for <1500 pax, 6 blocks for >1500 pax. If that's too hard, then just a blanket 6 blocks of 3 hours for SH/domestic, 3 blocks of 6 hours for LH. 2300-0500 will also be a single block for all flights.

No frequency bonuses. Keep the penalty for flights being too close together, but make the threshholds available in the manual. Pax will prefer to fly in their block, and will take a flight if it's available. If there are no flights/all the flights are too full, a large % of pax will take flights in a nearby block. For LH, pax will fly in blocks up to a week after they wanted to go. Flights that take off or land between 2300-0500 will get a LF penalty, scaled by how close they are to 0200. So a 430 flight won't be hit as hard as a 0145 flight. Flights that have a tech stop will get a small LF penalty, too. First penalty will be smaller for LH, tech stop penalty won't be applied for LH. HD seats will still be heavily penalised for 3 hour+ flight time.

When pax have more than one flight to choose from, along with the preference for CI, RI, plane image, seat type, they will also have a strong preference for no tech stop, and a preference for flight time. 20 minutes difference, very small preference. 3 hour difference like on my Moscow-Madrid route, very large preference. I'm undecided about a stronger preference for price, it's more realistic but I think it causes gameplay issues. If price is more strongly preferred, then there needs to be a cap on how far below default prices can go, same as there is for plane sales. I'd put it at maybe 20%. Otherwise big airlines with enough cash on hand can fly a route free to hurt competitors.

With no competition, a slow flight with a tech stop will still get 90+% of available pax willing to fly it.

So, how will this affect things? No more benefit to flying a320/737s LH, except on <300 pax routes that can be reached without a tech stop. On anything bigger than 600 daily LH pax, 200 seat planes will be just as good as anything smaller. More than 900 daily, and 300 seaters are as good as anything else, provided you spread out the schedule. For SH, anything above 400 daily pax will have 100 seats be as good as anything smaller, really busy routes will have 150 seat 727/737/a320/etc be as good as anything else, again assuming you spread out the schedule properly.

For low demand routes of 50 pax daily, 2 weekly 767 flights will now get ~80% LF, making smaller airports, whether it's Kiev or Khartoum, more viable, and it will mean more viable routes to fly from every airport.

Once we get connecting pax, city based demand, things would work exactly the same way, with the smaller blocks of time that can bleed into each other.

This would fix the current issues with much smaller planes flooding a route, it would still give a benefit to those who make the effort to schedule things very well, 3 well spaced a320s will get most of the pax against a daily, 2500 nm a340 flight. I can't see any major problems with it from a gameplay standpint. If anyone else can, please point them out, I'll try and fix them. Biggest issue I can see people might object to is 757s will still be great for transatlantic flights up to 4000 nm, and LH flights in the 7000-8000 nm range where a 767 needs to tech stop too, but when they have 201 seats and 3890 range vs a 210 seat 767, I don't think there's any way to change that other than to hardcode a strong dislike for LH 757 flights. Which would be a bad idea.

Thoughts?

[Dave4468]

Biggest issue I can see people might object to is 757s will still be great for transatlantic flights up to 4000 nm, and LH flights in the 7000-8000 nm range where a 767 needs to tech stop too, but when they have 201 seats and 3890 range vs a 210 seat 767, I don't think there's any way to change that other than to hardcode a strong dislike for LH 757 flights. Which would be a bad idea.

Thoughts?

I agree with pretty much everything you just said, very sensible and could really work very well. Espcially the ability for routes with small daily demands but demand enough to add up to a few flights a week.

The above is something I've thought about before and once again I'll put forward my "solution". 757s do fly trans-Atlantic, Continental flew from Newark to Bristol with one for example but they should be stopped from getting the frequency bonus over more realistic aircraft. My solution is that IRL a widebody is simply larger thus more can be put in them, I'm thinking amenities, everything from proper IFE and big galleys to the showers and bars that some airlines put on A380s, these are things that just cannot be done to a narrowbody. In the short term this could be done by just some arbitary coding that makes 767/330s and bigger preferable over say 2000NM when compared to a 757 or other narrowbodies. In the future we could actually have the amenities be something we could control.

[swiftus27]

Seat Quality, pricing, RI, Jet/Prop preference, flight duration are all currently a joke imho.  

The win is through frequency.

I have said my fair share elsewhere.  757s win, 777s suck.  In games there are 10x as many 57s as 77s while in real life the opposite is true for LH flights.