A good reason for ETOPS; Misuse of frequency feature;

[Gleipner]

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.

Might this be a new feature? Say you add another thing like CI, CQ (Company Quality) or something like that, and if you don't have above a certain score you can't fly ETOPS. Say at least 25-30 to start and as your CQ goes higher the better ETOPS rating you would earn. CQ would be based on e.g. a/c condition, maint. preformed, staff moral and such. Might be a little bit of a limiting factor at the start of each GW but would be a nice challenge.

As for frequency misuse whining, spotted ATR's flying a 11000 pax/day route. Sure this is just a schedule emergency solution but still... WTF?!

[Dave4468]

Might this be a new feature? Say you add another thing like CI, CQ (Company Quality) or something like that, and if you don't have above a certain score you can't fly ETOPS. Say at least 25-30 to start and as your CQ goes higher the better ETOPS rating you would earn. CQ would be based on e.g. a/c condition, maint. preformed, staff moral and such. Might be a little bit of a limiting factor at the start of each GW but would be a nice challenge.

As for frequency misuse whining, spotted ATR's flying a 11000 pax/day route. Sure this is just a schedule emergency solution but still... WTF?!

That could help limit the explosive growth at the start of games. Not a bad idea.

[vitongwangki]

Might this be a new feature? Say you add another thing like CI, CQ (Company Quality) or something like that, and if you don't have above a certain score you can't fly ETOPS. Say at least 25-30 to start and as your CQ goes higher the better ETOPS rating you would earn. CQ would be based on e.g. a/c condition, maint. preformed, staff moral and such. Might be a little bit of a limiting factor at the start of each GW but would be a nice challenge.

As for frequency misuse whining, spotted ATR's flying a 11000 pax/day route. Sure this is just a schedule emergency solution but still... WTF?!

Then if the CQ present, should it be related to staff training cost. Such as the relationship of CI and marketing cost? 

[alexgv1]

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?

Technically you could if you had your AOC etc, but until you were approved to operate under ETOPS, you would have to fly a non ETOPS route: staying within the 60 minute circles of alternate airports flying through Scotland, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland and down the Eastern Seaboard to fly Westbound across the pond.

[JumboShrimp]

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.

My savings when going from 4 to 3 was 73%.

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.

And there should be a new game world starting for those airlines half way through the existing game world.  I think AWS should provide the most fun for most players.  If things down't work out up to 1/2 way point, there should be a new game world starting.

Just for comparison, in MT5 here are some stats on number of aircraft in service
Top 1 airline = Bottom 198 airlines combined
Top 2 airines = Bottom 254 airlines combined
Top 3 airines = Bottom 280 airlines combined

of total of 429 airlines.

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.

Which is my point.  Later in the game, the only one who can offer competition is strong airline that can fight it out with you on several routes.  Right now, a strong airline can compete with you from its HQ, but there is not much point in competing from 2nd, 3rd, 4th base if you are limited by number of aircraft there.  Why not pick only routes with no competition from new bases for highest profit.  Hence, no compeition on vast majority of routes, and a lot of cash from profits.  More competition, less profits, slower growth rate...

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.

Well, right now, with 100 aircraft limit, you can't touch an establish airline at its HQ, flying some 300+ aircraft.  So right now, big airlines go to smaller market, bash some smaller players...  I don't see much fun in that.  It would be much for fun if 2 of the top 10 airlines from different alliances decided to fight it out.   With 100 aircraft, you can't do that.

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?

Well, it was IAD, and the point is that nobody could touch me there with 70 aircraft (MT4 limit) or 100 aircraft (MT5 limit).  With 200+ aircraft?  Well, that would be competition.

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.

No, I did not mean that.  What I meant is that with 100 aircraft limit, an airline starting at airport below top 20 is precluded from ever becoming one of the top 3 airlines in number of different categories.  I have no problem with people playing different types of airlines.  I just have a problem with the fact that if an airline starts in Wichita Kansas, it can never be #1 revenue airline.  And that is purely due to game mechanics (100 per base limit).

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?

Why not?  There are a lot of airlines in top 20 airports that are fragile.

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.

There are lot of Size 3, Size 4 airports (and Size 5 airports below Top 20) in major markets of US, Europe, Japan, China, Brazil, Australia, Russia, where you would want to move to the top airport at some point.

[Sanabas]

My savings when going from 4 to 3 was 73%.

I'm not sure if things changed from 1.2 to 1.3, or if it's different with huge fleets. In DotM, my savings going from 6 fleets to 5 was ~1%. I'll keep recording changes as my fleet group numbers change. In JA, going from 1 to 2 was a 100% increase, 2 to 6 resulted in a 178% increase. I'm at 4 fleets now, but haven't run the numbers yet.

And there should be a new game world starting for those airlines half way through the existing game world.  I think AWS should provide the most fun for most players.  If things down't work out up to 1/2 way point, there should be a new game world starting.

Yeah, I don't think that's a bad idea. Though might be hard to do with very long gameworlds.

Well, it was IAD, and the point is that nobody could touch me there with 70 aircraft (MT4 limit) or 100 aircraft (MT5 limit).  With 200+ aircraft?  Well, that would be competition.

Still not sure what you meant originally. You said it was possible to build a low maintenance, big airline if you found the right base. Fair enough. But with the ability of someone else to put 200+ planes there, you'd lose that ability, if you wanted to survive, it would no longer be low maintenance. It still seems like the original implication was that anyone not trying to be right at the top of things like revenue or CV isn't being serious.

No, I did not mean that.  What I meant is that with 100 aircraft limit, an airline starting at airport below top 20 is precluded from ever becoming one of the top 3 airlines in number of different categories.  I have no problem with people playing different types of airlines.  I just have a problem with the fact that if an airline starts in Wichita Kansas, it can never be #1 revenue airline.  And that is purely due to game mechanics (100 per base limit).

How will that change if the 100 per base limit is removed? An airline that has one base in Wichita & 3 big bases elsewhere won't be able to be ahead in those categories against an airline that has 300 planes each in JFK, ATL, ORD & LAX. Or the same in LHR, AMS, FRA & CDG.

Any airline that doesn't start in a country that allows you 4 big bases will never have a chance to be top 3 in those categories. Anyone whose primary goal is to be top 3 for those things will be forced to start in Japan, USA, UK (or Europe for MT). Anyone who bases in HK, Singapore, Australia, UAE, USSR, Canada, France, all of South America & Africa, etc will be precluded from being right at the top of those stats, purely because they don't have access to the same volume of demand as those in the big 3 areas do.

The problem I see is again the implied view that the 'winner' is the airline with the most revenue, the biggest CV. That the only really serious airlines are those trying to 'win'. Even if you subscribe to that view, removing the 100 plane limit won't increase the number of viable starting locations that have a chance of 'winning'. It will actually decrease them, as areas with only 1 or 2 huge airports no longer have that option. They can still grow huge, but they can't challenge the top 3, top 5 or top 10. In DotM, I'm based in Moscow. I'm comfortably top 10 for revenue, about 70% of #1's, I think I'd be top 10 for CV if I didn't start 8 years late. But that's about as big as I can get, I've practically filled SVO, and have 70 planes each at Tashkent & Baku. I could try and stick 70 planes in Domodedovo and compete with the airline based there, but it's not worth the hassle for me, and I couldn't do much to dent the profits of the airline there already.

Remove the plane limit, and I could get somewhat bigger, I could expand a bit at my two subsidiary bases, and I could keep dumping planes at Domodedovo and try and bully the successful, slightly smaller airline based there into bankruptcy. The others in the top 15 airlines, going down to about 50% revenue of number 1, are 4 in the US, 2 in the UK, 2 in France, 1 each in Singapore, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Germany. Remove the limit, and the UK, US & Japanese carriers suddenly have huge growth potential from where they are currently, Canada, France, Spain, Germany & myself have some extra growth potential, but will likely slide down the list, and the other 2 airlines that are currently top 15 for revenue, currently above 50% of #1 revenue, have no extra expansion potential. For players who only want to 'win', all those airports are no longer viable. If you have a problem with an airline that starts in Wichita never able to be #1 for revenue, do you also have a problem with an airline starting in AMS, SIN, HKG, never being able to do it either?

Why not?  There are a lot of airlines in top 20 airports that are fragile.

Yeah, but are those fragile airlines going to get destroyed by someone coming in from a size 3 airport, or a less fragile airline arriving from a top 20 airport?

There are lot of Size 3, Size 4 airports (and Size 5 airports below Top 20) in major markets of US, Europe, Japan, China, Brazil, Australia, Russia, where you would want to move to the top airport at some point.

I'm still curious as to which ones. I'll be interested to see if there are any airlines in the top 50 or so of CV & revenue after a couple of years of JA that started in a smaller airport, that would give you the chance to move into a major airport later.

I'm not opposed to the idea of trying a much more cutthroat gameworld, with far less restrictions on number of bases, and number of planes in bases. I'd play it, I think it'd be fun. I'd also be interested in one that had fictional openskies agreements, in order to level the playing field a bit, so that along with a US or Europe based player having access to 4 really big airports, we could also see a SE Asian monster based in HK, Singapore, KL & Taipei, and a Middle Eastern player in Dubai, Bahrain, Doha & Saudi Arabia. I just think it's a bad idea for regular gameworlds, as it makes other, non monster, airline types less viable, and leaves anyone who has successfully built up their airline to control their size 4 or non major size 5 homebase vulnerable to being invaded by a bigger airline with a bigger warchest and more resources. I don't think that increases the fun, I don't think that will increase player retention. Particularly if it's someone who has struggled to learn the game, has finally got a successful airline running somewhere like Cleveland, only to see it disappear because a major airline brings 300 planes.

[JumboShrimp]

I'm not sure if things changed from 1.2 to 1.3, or if it's different with huge fleets. In DotM, my savings going from 6 fleets to 5 was ~1%. I'll keep recording changes as my fleet group numbers change. In JA, going from 1 to 2 was a 100% increase, 2 to 6 resulted in a 178% increase. I'm at 4 fleets now, but haven't run the numbers yet.

There is only one huge leap, from 3 to 4.  When I went from 5 to 4, the savings were small, similar to what you saw from 6 to 5.  It is interesting to look at it the other way.  If the savings from 3 to 4 is 73%, than increase from 3 to 4 is 100/27 = 3.7.  In another words, adding a single aircraft of fleet 4 will increase your cost by factor of 3.7.

You can survive in the current gameworlds when you have almost no competition, but I don't think you can make it while facing serious competition.  It would not be a bad idea to repeat where I was going with this: The limit for airlines growth will be competition and delivery rate of aircraft. (if the basing limits were removed).

Competition will force you to be within 3 fleet types (or you may go under), and when limited to 3 fleet types, there is only so many aircraft that you can get within a game world.

How will that change if the 100 per base limit is removed? An airline that has one base in Wichita & 3 big bases elsewhere won't be able to be ahead in those categories against an airline that has 300 planes each in JFK, ATL, ORD & LAX. Or the same in LHR, AMS, FRA & CDG.

The airline based in Wichita does not need 3 big bases in order to become #1 in revenue or CV.  All it needs (in most game worlds) is one other big base, say ORD.  Until yesterday, I was #1 in sales in MT5 with a single base at ORD.  So the Wichita based airline would have maybe 150 in Wichita, and 650 at ORD.  You can't really expect a lot more aircraft than that in a competitive world.

You can get 12 aircraft per year x 18 years x 3 production lines, which is 648 aircraft.  Maybe you can get some on used market for total of ~800.

Any airline that doesn't start in a country that allows you 4 big bases will never have a chance to be top 3 in those categories. Anyone whose primary goal is to be top 3 for those things will be forced to start in Japan, USA, UK (or Europe for MT).

Of course, the country you are in will be a limiting factor.  But you can do really well from what would seem are very unlikely countries.  In MT5, airline #3 in company value is from Iran.  Turkey, Brasil, Australia, China, Russia, even UAE, Saudi Arabia, India have more potential.

Anyone who bases in HK, Singapore, Australia, UAE, USSR, Canada, France, all of South America & Africa, etc will be precluded from being right at the top of those stats, purely because they don't have access to the same volume of demand as those in the big 3 areas do.

You think that because you are assuming that there will be 5 an airlines with 2000 aircraft each.  Well, that is a wrong assumption, and as long as you keep maintaining it, this will go in circles.  Because you are assuming the same level (lack) of competition, and unlimited aircraft.

Suppose you do have a base at JFK.  How long do you suppose you will be the only one there, with no competition, when you may have 20 strong airlines in the US, with combined ability to open 80 basis?  Once you have a serious competitor at JFK, and your LFs are in 50s, you can't go growing elsewhere.

The problem I see is again the implied view that the 'winner' is the airline with the most revenue, the biggest CV. That the only really serious airlines are those trying to 'win'.

I keep saying that no, I don't mean that, and you keep saying that I do mean that.

Even if you subscribe to that view, removing the 100 plane limit won't increase the number of viable starting locations that have a chance of 'winning'. It will actually decrease them, as areas with only 1 or 2 huge airports no longer have that option. They can still grow huge, but they can't challenge the top 3, top 5 or top 10. In DotM, I'm based in Moscow. I'm comfortably top 10 for revenue, about 70% of #1's, I think I'd be top 10 for CV if I didn't start 8 years late. But that's about as big as I can get, I've practically filled SVO, and have 70 planes each at Tashkent & Baku. I could try and stick 70 planes in Domodedovo and compete with the airline based there, but it's not worth the hassle for me, and I couldn't do much to dent the profits of the airline there already.

Suppose the airlines are distributed in the same way the airline revenue is distributed.  Now take the big countries, from which you can achieve #1 pax, revenue or CV: US, EU, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, India, Turkey, South Africa, Australia, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Thailand - you probably have 90% of airline revenue, hence 90% of airlines.

You keep looking for Turkmenistans, Albanias, HKG, SIN that would be unaffected by the removal of the limit...  Well, if you base in one of the countries, you would be unaffected by that limit.  So there, the strawmen is dead now.

Remove the plane limit, and I could get somewhat bigger, I could expand a bit at my two subsidiary bases, and I could keep dumping planes at Domodedovo and try and bully the successful, slightly smaller airline based there into bankruptcy. The others in the top 15 airlines, going down to about 50% revenue of number 1, are 4 in the US, 2 in the UK, 2 in France, 1 each in Singapore, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Germany. Remove the limit, and the UK, US & Japanese carriers suddenly have huge growth potential from where they are currently,

Yes, but they would have new competition that could kill them.  Why does not in real life the US have 1 airline with 5000 aircraft?  Growth potential is certainly there.  Instead, there are 5 to 10 majors, all one fuel spike away from bankruptcy.  That is what I would like to re-create in AWS.

Here is another example:  I have an airline based at ORD.  #2 airline in ASK, RPK is in LAX.  I just opened a base there at LAX.  You would think a huge growth potential.  But all of that potential is already served by my competitor.  The potential is only for reduced LFs, reduced profitability, thinner profit margins as more capacity is deployed.  With the current limit, the best I can do is slow my competitor down somewhat with 100 aircraft.  Without the limit, we could both self destruct, and suddenly both LAX and ORD are wide open...

Yeah, but are those fragile airlines going to get destroyed by someone coming in from a size 3 airport, or a less fragile airline arriving from a top 20 airport?

With competition, all airlines, especially those in top 20 would become fragile.

I'm still curious as to which ones. I'll be interested to see if there are any airlines in the top 50 or so of CV & revenue after a couple of years of JA that started in a smaller airport, that would give you the chance to move into a major airport later.

There is a trade-off between growth (revenue, pax) and CV.  There are 2 airlines in MT5 that have an excellent chance of being #1 in CV, one is based in Iran, the other is based in South Africa.  Since their growth is limited by the size of those market, they invest resources not in pax growth, but in CV growth.  Being at ORD, I am in a way pushed to grow, which means lower profit margins, and slower CV growth.  I don't think I have a chance to make it to top 3 of CV because of the constant growth.

I'm not opposed to the idea of trying a much more cutthroat gameworld, with far less restrictions on number of bases, and number of planes in bases. I'd play it, I think it'd be fun. I'd also be interested in one that had fictional openskies agreements, in order to level the playing field a bit, so that along with a US or Europe based player having access to 4 really big airports, we could also see a SE Asian monster based in HK, Singapore, KL & Taipei, and a Middle Eastern player in Dubai, Bahrain, Doha & Saudi Arabia. I just think it's a bad idea for regular gameworlds, as it makes other, non monster, airline types less viable, and leaves anyone who has successfully built up their airline to control their size 4 or non major size 5 homebase vulnerable to being invaded by a bigger airline with a bigger warchest and more resources. I don't think that increases the fun, I don't think that will increase player retention. Particularly if it's someone who has struggled to learn the game, has finally got a successful airline running somewhere like Cleveland, only to see it disappear because a major airline brings 300 planes.

Well, in another thread, actually a feature request, I asked for easier scenarios for those who are not quite ready for a cuttroat competition.  What I see as a problem is that a lot of inexperienced players are thrown into the current, somewhat cutthroat worlds.  Sami spends inordinate time trying to make it easier for inexperienced players to survive in these worlds.  Still they don't (see my stats below of how many players are struggling with less than 10 aircraft).

The same rules and limits that (unsuccessfully) prop up inexperienced players - these rules frustrate experienced players....  Which is why I think there should be 2 different levels of game worlds, or new gameworlds starting halfway through the game of existing gameworld.  For example, MT5 just passed halfway point.  There should be a new, MT6 world that would give some players in MT5 to move to and start fresh.  There are potential players for this game era who are on the sidelines, and they have to wait 2-3 months for another MT world.

In real world, businesses try to cater to customers offering instant gratification.  In AWS, you need to wait 3 moths for your gratification if you want to play in a fresh MT world...  That's a lot of potential revenue that is lost...

[Sanabas]

There is only one huge leap, from 3 to 4.  When I went from 5 to 4, the savings were small, similar to what you saw from 6 to 5.  It is interesting to look at it the other way.  If the savings from 3 to 4 is 73%, than increase from 3 to 4 is 100/27 = 3.7.  In another words, adding a single aircraft of fleet 4 will increase your cost by factor of 3.7.

Jumping from 2 to 6 was a smaller increase than that, though. You're saying that the jump from 3 to 4 nearly quadrupled your costs, but I had the jump from 2 to 6 not quite triple them.

When I had 17 planes across 2 fleets, my 9 c46s cost me 84k per month in commonality costs. With 21 planes in 6 fleets, it was 234k. I now have 62 planes across 4 fleets, and my 9 c46s are costing me 175k per month. My jump from 2 to 4 is a little over 100%, maybe a little less since I think every new plane brings a slight jump to all fleets (again, haven't double-checked that in JA yet, did notice it in DotM). So the jump from 3 to 4 was certainly far less than the 270% increase from 27 to 100.

You can survive in the current gameworlds when you have almost no competition, but I don't think you can make it while facing serious competition.  It would not be a bad idea to repeat where I was going with this: The limit for airlines growth will be competition and delivery rate of aircraft. (if the basing limits were removed).

Competition will force you to be within 3 fleet types (or you may go under), and when limited to 3 fleet types, there is only so many aircraft that you can get within a game world.

I think that's wrong, but it's only instinct. I think the additional profits from using say 6 production lines will more than offset the increased expenses from the extra fleets.

The airline based in Wichita does not need 3 big bases in order to become #1 in revenue or CV.  All it needs (in most game worlds) is one other big base, say ORD.  Until yesterday, I was #1 in sales in MT5 with a single base at ORD.  So the Wichita based airline would have maybe 150 in Wichita, and 650 at ORD.  You can't really expect a lot more aircraft than that in a competitive world.

But all game worlds now have the aircraft limit for bases. It's simply not possible to have two big base airports. But again, it's just instinct, hard to tell exactly how it would shake out without actually having a gameworld without limits.

You can get 12 aircraft per year x 18 years x 3 production lines, which is 648 aircraft.  Maybe you can get some on used market for total of ~800.

Of course, the country you are in will be a limiting factor.  But you can do really well from what would seem are very unlikely countries.  In MT5, airline #3 in company value is from Iran.  Turkey, Brasil, Australia, China, Russia, even UAE, Saudi Arabia, India have more potential.

You think that because you are assuming that there will be 5 an airlines with 2000 aircraft each.  Well, that is a wrong assumption, and as long as you keep maintaining it, this will go in circles.  Because you are assuming the same level (lack) of competition, and unlimited aircraft.

Suppose you do have a base at JFK.  How long do you suppose you will be the only one there, with no competition, when you may have 20 strong airlines in the US, with combined ability to open 80 basis?  Once you have a serious competitor at JFK, and your LFs are in 50s, you can't go growing elsewhere.

Yep. Not so much assuming lack of competition, but assuming that once the competition shakes out, there will be airlines with 1200+ aircraft. I think all those places do have lots of potential for being a very successful airline. I just don't think they have the potential to outdo whoever comes out in front in those big 3 areas.

I keep saying that no, I don't mean that, and you keep saying that I do mean that.

I think we're talking past each other on that one. It's all good, I'll drop it.

Suppose the airlines are distributed in the same way the airline revenue is distributed.  Now take the big countries, from which you can achieve #1 pax, revenue or CV: US, EU, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, India, Turkey, South Africa, Australia, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Thailand - you probably have 90% of airline revenue, hence 90% of airlines.

You keep looking for Turkmenistans, Albanias, HKG, SIN that would be unaffected by the removal of the limit...  Well, if you base in one of the countries, you would be unaffected by that limit.  So there, the strawmen is dead now.

If I base in HKG or SIN or AMS now, I have a chance to be #1 for revenue, CV, etc. Remove the base limit, and I don't. If you think it's unfair that an airline based in Wichita can't be #1 for revenue, why wouldn't it be unfair that an airline based in HKG can't be #1 in revenue?

You said that the current gameplay mechanics almost force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in a top 20 airport. I say that if you removed the base limits, the gameplay mechanics will force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in the US, Japan, or UK. I think the strawman is the idea that removing the base limits gives those who want to be #1 in revenue more options.

Removing the base limits is a good idea if you want more cutthroat competition, more big airlines failing spectacularly, more scope for serious competition between huge airlines, or between alliances as a whole. I think all those are good reasons to have a gameworld without base limits. I just don't think giving players more starting options to try and reach #1 revenue is a valid reason.

Actually, thinking about it some more, I think you're sort of right. I think that anyone who starts in Wichita, or HKG, or Australia, or all sorts of other places will be giving up on the idea of being #1 in revenue. But starting in Wichita, or any other size 3 or 4 airport, won't preclude you from becoming a relatively large, successful airline. If your goal is to be the really, really huge airline that I think a couple will turn into, you'll have less options than now. If you want to be the highly profitable, 5-600 plane airlines that end up near the top of revenue lists now, you'll have about the same options. If you just want to be large & successful, without being too worried exactly where you end up ranking, you'll have a lot more options. Regardless of size, and outside of essentially 1 airport countries, you'll likely have to deal with more continuous competition, rather than the current model of a huge fight to start (as I'm having in JA), but if you emerge from that successful, you've got no more real worries.

Yes, but they would have new competition that could kill them.  Why does not in real life the US have 1 airline with 5000 aircraft?  Growth potential is certainly there.  Instead, there are 5 to 10 majors, all one fuel spike away from bankruptcy.  That is what I would like to re-create in AWS.

Here is another example:  I have an airline based at ORD.  #2 airline in ASK, RPK is in LAX.  I just opened a base there at LAX.  You would think a huge growth potential.  But all of that potential is already served by my competitor.  The potential is only for reduced LFs, reduced profitability, thinner profit margins as more capacity is deployed.  With the current limit, the best I can do is slow my competitor down somewhat with 100 aircraft.  Without the limit, we could both self destruct, and suddenly both LAX and ORD are wide open...

With competition, all airlines, especially those in top 20 would become fragile.

There is a trade-off between growth (revenue, pax) and CV.  There are 2 airlines in MT5 that has an excellent chance of being #1 in CV, one is based in Iran, the other is based in South Africa.  Since their growth is limited by the size of those market, they invest resources not in pax growth, but in CV growth.  Being at ORD, I am in a way pushed to grow, which means lower profit margins, and slower CV growth.  I don't think I have a chance to make it to top 3 because of constant growth.

Again, I think it would be good to have gameworlds with that increased competition. I think it would be bad to have that for all gameworlds, I think it would make it far harder to run a smaller airline, I think it would be far harder to start partway through, I think there would be more cases of a small-medium airline being bullied into bankruptcy by a major airline.

Well, in another thread, actually a feature request, I asked for easier scenarios for those who are not quite ready for a cuttroat competition.  What I see as a problem is that a lot of inexperienced players are thrown into the current, somewhat cutthroat worlds.  Sami spends inordinate time trying to make it easier for inexperienced players to survive in these worlds.  Still they don't (see my stats below of how many players are struggling with less than 10 aircraft).

The same rules and limits that (unsuccessfully) prop up inexperienced players - these rules frustrate experienced players....  Which is why I think there should be 2 different levels of game worlds, or new gameworlds starting halfway through the game of existing gameworld.  For example, MT5 just passed halfway point.  There should be a new, MT6 world that would give some players in MT5 to move to and start fresh.  There are potential players for this game era who are on the sidelines, and they have to wait 2-3 months for another MT world.

In real world, businesses try to cater to customers offering instant gratification.  In AWS, you need to wait 3 moths for your gratification if you want to play in a fresh MT world...  That's a lot of potential revenue that is lost...

I don't substantially disagree with any of that. I'd probably do it a bit differently though. Like having a gameworld where airlines are limited to maybe 250 planes. Having another plane limits at bases removed. I'd still like one like that with some fictional openskies agreements. Or with some fictional, uniform, smaller slot totals.  A beginnerish world that can be seen by those who aren't in it, also with more detail visible, would be good, it's much easier to answer questions from people if you can actually see what they're doing. I'd certainly like to see more gameworlds running at once, so that the wait for a new world is shorter.

I'd really like to see the frequency issue fixed, using something like what I outlined earlier.

I don't think our positions are all that different.

[JumboShrimp]

Jumping from 2 to 6 was a smaller increase than that, though. You're saying that the jump from 3 to 4 nearly quadrupled your costs, but I had the jump from 2 to 6 not quite triple them.

When I had 17 planes across 2 fleets, my 9 c46s cost me 84k per month in commonality costs. With 21 planes in 6 fleets, it was 234k. I now have 62 planes across 4 fleets, and my 9 c46s are costing me 175k per month. My jump from 2 to 4 is a little over 100%, maybe a little less since I think every new plane brings a slight jump to all fleets (again, haven't double-checked that in JA yet, did notice it in DotM). So the jump from 3 to 4 was certainly far less than the 270% increase from 27 to 100.

It didn't seem much when number of aircraft is small.  But I have the figures for the time my airline had 371 aircraft.  Reduction was from 111M to 30M when going from 4 to 3.  That's 20M profit at that stage of the game.  I still had competition, and 20M per week, 1 billion per year was real money.  There aer airlines doing well with > 3 fleet types, but those airlines have no competition.  The bottom line is competition and > 3 fleet tpes don't mix very well.

I think that's wrong, but it's only instinct. I think the additional profits from using say 6 production lines will more than offset the increased expenses from the extra fleets.

While you are starting, and all the routes are unserved, you may very well be right.  But once the routes are filled, and your LFs start to decrease, you have to make a decision.  Going with > 3 becomes riskier...  Just take my example.  $20M profit lost of about of about $70M potential at that time.  My actual profit was $50M.  So if I was wasting 29% of profits with the 4th type, one way to look at it is that 106 of 371 aircraft was flying profit-less...

At the same time, those profit-less a/c was keeping the competition down, but with evenly matched competitors, the one who is more profitable will always outlast the less profitable one.

Yep. Not so much assuming lack of competition, but assuming that once the competition shakes out, there will be airlines with 1200+ aircraft. I think all those places do have lots of potential for being a very successful airline. I just don't think they have the potential to outdo whoever comes out in front in those big 3 areas.

It is possible that you may end up with 1200+ airline.  Well, you can already have it today with ATL + 3 bases, or LHR + 3 bases.  But don't forget the alliances.  A big, fat inefficient airline with 1200+ aircraft with some 8 fleet types suddenly has a big bullseye on him.  A couple of efficient players from competing alliance can bring that airline down...

If I base in HKG or SIN or AMS now, I have a chance to be #1 for revenue, CV, etc. Remove the base limit, and I don't. If you think it's unfair that an airline based in Wichita can't be #1 for revenue, why wouldn't it be unfair that an airline based in HKG can't be #1 in revenue?

First of all, I disagree.  HKG and SIN are today, and would remain excellent aiports for #1 in CV.  Remember growth vs. CV.  Although in last few games I played, the players did not quite make it to #1, they were in top 5 IIRC.  I think I could do it (reach #1 in CV at those airports), and you just gave me an idea for a low maintenance airline if I chose to run another one in the future.

Now of course, the pax and revenue potential at HKG and SIN is fixed in AWS (without connecting traffic) so you pretty much are passing on those categories when chosing a base there....  But I don't think the game should lock you out of this competition when you are starting in a major market, and you happened to start from aircraft below top 10.

You said that the current gameplay mechanics almost force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in a top 20 airport. I say that if you removed the base limits, the gameplay mechanics will force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in the US, Japan, or UK. I think the strawman is the idea that removing the base limits gives those who want to be #1 in revenue more options.

Removing the base limits is a good idea if you want more cutthroat competition, more big airlines failing spectacularly, more scope for serious competition between huge airlines, or between alliances as a whole. I think all those are good reasons to have a gameworld without base limits. I just don't think giving players more starting options to try and reach #1 revenue is a valid reason.

So we have a disagreement then.  I look from year 2000+, where EU is in effect, plus a few major countries.  Those major market have some 90% (my estimate) of 3, 4, 5 airports none would be locked out of competition.  I just counted ~250 large (size 5) airports.  Probably 90% of them are in the major markets.  I am not even counting size 4 and 3, of which there could be another 500.  So you may have 90% of 750 airports or some 675 airports that may be in position to grow to be #1 in revenue, pax, CV.  Right now, you have 10 or 20 airports with this potential.

Actually, thinking about it some more, I think you're sort of right. I think that anyone who starts in Wichita, or HKG, or Australia, or all sorts of other places will be giving up on the idea of being #1 in revenue. But starting in Wichita, or any other size 3 or 4 airport, won't preclude you from becoming a relatively large, successful airline. If your goal is to be the really, really huge airline that I think a couple will turn into, you'll have less options than now. If you want to be the highly profitable, 5-600 plane airlines that end up near the top of revenue lists now, you'll have about the same options. If you just want to be large & successful, without being too worried exactly where you end up ranking, you'll have a lot more options. Regardless of size, and outside of essentially 1 airport countries, you'll likely have to deal with more continuous competition, rather than the current model of a huge fight to start (as I'm having in JA), but if you emerge from that successful, you've got no more real worries.

Again, I think it would be good to have gameworlds with that increased competition. I think it would be bad to have that for all gameworlds, I think it would make it far harder to run a smaller airline, I think it would be far harder to start partway through, I think there would be more cases of a small-medium airline being bullied into bankruptcy by a major airline.

I don't substantially disagree with any of that. I'd probably do it a bit differently though. Like having a gameworld where airlines are limited to maybe 250 planes. Having another plane limits at bases removed. I'd still like one like that with some fictional openskies agreements. Or with some fictional, uniform, smaller slot totals.  A beginnerish world that can be seen by those who aren't in it, also with more detail visible, would be good, it's much easier to answer questions from people if you can actually see what they're doing. I'd certainly like to see more gameworlds running at once, so that the wait for a new world is shorter.

I'd really like to see the frequency issue fixed, using something like what I outlined earlier.

I don't think our positions are all that different.

Another idea for an easy scenario would be to turn it into a solitaire, where only 1 airline can be at 1 airport.  I think a lot of airlines would benefit from going through a full cycle, from tiny, medium and large ailine.  Some parameters such as starting money and fuel prices, availability of used aircraft could be set to easy level.  I think players can learn a lot by experimenting.  When their airlines crash before they reach 10 aircraft, that may not necesserily be the best learning scenario for many...

[Sanabas]

It didn't seem much when number of aircraft is small.  But I have the figures for the time my airline had 371 aircraft.  Reduction was from 111M to 30M when going from 4 to 3.  That's 20M profit at that stage of the game.  I still had competition, and 20M per week, 1 billion per year was real money.  There aer airlines doing well with > 3 fleet types, but those airlines have no competition.  The bottom line is competition and > 3 fleet tpes don't mix very well.

I'd really, really like a stack more data about the changes in commonality costs. You had 3 to 4 more than triple costs, I had 2 to 4 barely double them. I'm going to buy some random planes in DotM, see what happens. I've currently got 5 fleets: 152 a320s = 40.8 million, 116 ATR = 16 million, 98 757 = 35 million, 100 767 = 39.7 million, 72 f100 = 15.8 million. I just ordered 1 EMB110, will see what happens when it arrives, then work my way up to 12 or so fleets. I might work down to 1 fleet after that, and BK. I want the data more than I want the final 8 RL weeks of the airline running itself.

Another idea for an easy scenario would be to turn it into a solitaire, where only 1 airline can be at 1 airport.  I think a lot of airlines would benefit from going through a full cycle, from tiny, medium and large ailine.  Some parameters such as starting money and fuel prices, availability of used aircraft could be set to easy level.  I think players can learn a lot by experimenting.  When their airlines crash before they reach 10 aircraft, that may not necesserily be the best learning scenario for many...

Yeah, that'd be a good experiment, too. I don't know without seeing the way they're built in detail, but seems like a lot of people are really, really conservative when starting up, which leaves them with just a couple of planes 12 months in, which means minimal revenue & too much overhead. We're 13 months into JA, and more than 100 airlines have 7 or less planes. 50+ have 4 or less. I'm sure some of them started late, but I just opened the stats of 10 airlines with 1 or 2 planes, and 6 of them joined the world on day 1. Maybe the next beginner guide/FAQ thread should be a step by step guide to going from 0-20 planes?

Maybe I could work down to 1 fleet for the data, then BK and spend the last 6 gameyears writing a startup guide.

[JumboShrimp]

I'd really, really like a stack more data about the changes in commonality costs. You had 3 to 4 more than triple costs, I had 2 to 4 barely double them. I'm going to buy some random planes in DotM, see what happens. I've currently got 5 fleets: 152 a320s = 40.8 million, 116 ATR = 16 million, 98 757 = 35 million, 100 767 = 39.7 million, 72 f100 = 15.8 million. I just ordered 1 EMB110, will see what happens when it arrives, then work my way up to 12 or so fleets. I might work down to 1 fleet after that, and BK. I want the data more than I want the final 8 RL weeks of the airline running itself.

Yeah, that'd be a good experiment, too. I don't know without seeing the way they're built in detail, but seems like a lot of people are really, really conservative when starting up, which leaves them with just a couple of planes 12 months in, which means minimal revenue & too much overhead. We're 13 months into JA, and more than 100 airlines have 7 or less planes. 50+ have 4 or less. I'm sure some of them started late, but I just opened the stats of 10 airlines with 1 or 2 planes, and 6 of them joined the world on day 1. Maybe the next beginner guide/FAQ thread should be a step by step guide to going from 0-20 planes?

Maybe I could work down to 1 fleet for the data, then BK and spend the last 6 gameyears writing a startup guide.

It may not work the same way when you have a really small number of aircraft.  Something like staffing is an example of that.  There is a break for small airlines on staffing when starting up.  There may be a similar break for fleet commonality when airline is small.  There is a player in MT5 how has more aircraft than my airline (he is #1 in this category, I am #2) and he is seeing similar figures as I do.  Actually, I see it over and over.  I have a bunch of orders in fleet group #4, and I sell those.  When they arrive on Wednesday, the same second as crew training charge hits, my cost goes from up from $8M to $50M for that week:

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34322.0.html

Another thing is that this is new to v1.3.  There was a jump to 4th fleet in 1.2, but it was much smaller than in 1.3

[Sanabas]

I don't think 60 planes is small enough to get any sort of discount, if one exists. If I did have a discount when I only had 17 planes, that'd make the increase to my current 4 fleets even bigger.

I think I'll be able to get rid of my c46 fleet before my first DC-8 turns up, so I'll see what the change from 4 to 3 is then, probably with a fleet around 80 planes when I do it.

Any chance of a before & after screenie of your commonality page? I'm curious if the different fleets have the same percentage jump, and just how much the single plane fleet costs.

[JumboShrimp]

Ok, here:

[Sanabas]

Ouch. And yeah, 255% increase for all 3 fleets, they're almost identical, within $12,000 of each other.

I'm guessing it's even worse now? (your sig says 674 planes, the screenie says 376)

I agree a jump like that is a bit over the top, and I'm certainly curious as to why I saw a much smaller increase. I want an offline version so I can run tests on the game mechanics to try and pull out some underlying formulae.   

[Sanabas]

I wonder if aircraft size is a factor? I have 1 small, 1 medium, 2 large fleets. In MT5, I didn't record numbers, but I'm sure things didn't triple, and I had 2 medium, 1 large, 1 v.large fleet. You have 2 large, 2 v.large there, yeah? Maybe the big jump is triggered by having a 2nd v.large, or a 4th large or bigger.

[JumboShrimp]

Yeah, the cost increase is huge now...

As far as fleet types and aircraft sizes, I don't think that's it.  Another player in our alliance has 2 large 1 medium and he is seeing the same increases...

[Sanabas]

Sorry to be a pain, but can you please record before & after numbers for the next delivery, now that you're at nearly 700 planes? I want to know if the cost increase is significantly higher or lower than 255%, or if it's near-identical.

[JumboShrimp]

No problem, will do.

[JumboShrimp]

Here it is.  Saying that it is excessive is putting it very mildly.  Yet another newb protection mechanism gone bunkers.  It is no longe a fleet commonality, where having more aircraft in common saves money, it is now just a penalty for large airlines.

The concept is that if Southwest bought and parked a Cesna and Beechcraft, overnight, their costs for all the 737s would skyrocket....

The real way to implement fleet commonality would kill some inexperienced newbs, so instead we go on this tangent...

[Monk Xion]

Im gunna be honest and blunt here. I think that this add on will make the game more complicated and cause more problems than are already there. Im very sure that members will come out and whine about the added difficulty.

What you guys are proposing seems extremly complicated... I cant eaven read through this thread because its so long and confusing 

idk my 2 cents