what happens?

[omaster]

What happens if you drop you HQ plane numbers below the required amount when you open up a new base. Does your HQ get closed? Say I have 11 planes and I need 12. But I have 50 at another base. (Just a hypothetical out of curiosity)

Or is it my other base that would get closed?

[NorgeFly]

If I remember correctly, the system will not allow you to reduce the number of aircraft below 12 at your home base, so it would not be closed.

[Sami]

HQ cannot be closed, and other bases cannot be closed due to lack of planes in HQ, but I would suppose the system is intended to work like Norge said. (but not entirely sure if you could combine for example lease expirations and such, and leading to situation where you have less than minimum amount of planes in HQ. But if that would happen, system does nothing.. But it should prevent you being able to move manually planes out to drop below minimum)

[Tujue]

I wanted to try this when I was based in Italy. My HQ was at a very small airport, while my base airports were Malpensa, Fiumicino and another quite large airport, so I wanted to get rid of my HQ. Didn't try it after Sami said I couldn't close my HQ, would love to know if it is possible if leases expires. Just dump 12 aircraft which you want to get rid of and re-base all other aircraft. Sami can you experiment this in a test game world or something?

[Sami]

Well, prefer not, as that would be a sort of bug. But not sure if that exists, and no need to test as I don't feel that it is anything major, since people usually start at HQ being their main airport for the remainder of the game

[Dave4468]

Well, prefer not, as that would be a sort of bug. But not sure if that exists, and no need to test as I don't feel that it is anything major, since people usually start at HQ being their main airport for the remainder of the game

Sometimes I have thought the ability to shift HQ would be helpful. I've had it happen to me in a JA world where I started with my HQ at Bristol but ended up opening Stansted as a base which ended up far bigger than Bristol and the obvious HQ. So it could be useful.

[knutm1980]

Sometimes I have thought the ability to shift HQ would be helpful. I've had it happen to me in a JA world where I started with my HQ at Bristol but ended up opening Stansted as a base which ended up far bigger than Bristol and the obvious HQ. So it could be useful.

I like your thinking and agree.

[Zombie Slayer]

I like your thinking and agree.

Might be easier to make it a feature where you can pay a fee to move the HQ similar to a re branding minus the huge CI hit?

[Tujue]

Sometimes I have thought the ability to shift HQ would be helpful. I've had it happen to me in a JA world where I started with my HQ at Bristol but ended up opening Stansted as a base which ended up far bigger than Bristol and the obvious HQ. So it could be useful.

That was the same with me, having base airports at the three largest Italian airports, which were maxed out with all aircraft I could fit at the airports (IIRC the limit was at 70), while my HQ had just a few aircraft operational, something like 30-40 Fokker F27's.

[knutm1980]

Might be easier to make it a feature where you can pay a fee to move the HQ similar to a re branding minus the huge CI hit?

Naturally, setting up a new HQ shouldn't be cheap either. It might perhaps favour larger airlines to move to bigger airports.

[alexgv1]

Yes of course I think it would be nice to change HQ if you make a decision you later regret. But choosing a decent HQ and researching the demands and routes is part of this long term decision planning which I think makes a good CEO (rather than shove hundreds of DC9s into ORD then BK in five years becaus you can't reschedule them). It just emphasises making the right choices. In this game, a decision you made 20 years ago could come back round to bite you in the ass.

[knobbygb]

I think what's more important is the fact that maintenance is more expensive at bases as opposed to HQ.  So, if you keep, say 12 at HQ and 50 at another base, maint. will be much more than if it were the other way round.  

Now, surely, in the real world, if most of your aircraft were at the 2nd base then it wouldn't really be more expensive as you'd simply move your maintenance base there.  Perhaps the ones based at your original HQ would be more expensive if they had to travel across from time to time.  Anyway, in the real world a lot of maintenance is contracted out anyway, so where the aircraft is based makes no difference really.

Take Ryanair for example.  HQ'd at Dublin but with probably 90% of their aircraft based elsewhere.  Do the planes not at Dublin really cost 20% more to maintain?  If anything this scenario adds flexibility and so maintenance should actually be CHEAPER when you have multiple bases.  You can utilize your resources more efficiently.

How about a change in the way this is done - say planes at your "biggest" base get regular price maintenance and the ones at your smaller base(s) pay the (I think) 20% premium?  Just a thought.  Does that make sense?

[lilius]

Knobby

To me its contradictive that flexibility makes it cheaper. Imagine keeping bases all over europe for Ryanair as your example, all the languages, staff, all logistics with just simple information becomes a hassle when you spread things out. I think just losing control of something the way you do when you decentralize must cost alot in effectiveness.