Cheating through rule violating cash transfers - a new epidemic?

[jkotinis]

since it happened to be in the same alliance with   4 of the people involved , the players in 2 first examples, fred and tony, the poster Jona and also seb, i have been into a situation that have bought new planes and leased them to all 4 of them in order to support their airlines. This continued and after the break of skyconnect. I don't want to take position into the personal thing between them and try to be more neutral.

So I have bought and leased big number of planes to the participants, in good faith, in order to support them , and most importantly to not make  profit (but also to not loose ). In many cases, i got aircrafts back just a bit before the D-check . And in many many cases i leased back or relisted the planes after I did the D-check. For me , this is within the rules. If otherwise, we all broke them.

I also remember that I helped alliance members when they had financial difficulties by buying some planes at high price, just to help my alliance and my friends.  I don't consider this to be a cheating anyway, the same happens in RL.

What I would say regarding the rules is that wherever there is an unclear spot, instead of having sami doing the serlock homs and trying to analyze the logs each time to see what has happened, to let sami give actually the solution.

one example. heathrow was blamed many times in the past regarding the slot thing. Sami finally programmed that no one can acquire more than 2*7 set of slots . First you have to schedule these 2 sets  and then you can continue. This alone made things more easy at EGLL , where in the past someone could aquire lots of slots and not schedule them immediately (me including in one case).
Sami again, programmed after lot's of discussion in the forums what happens when someone in slot restricted airports BK. Slot quota system. Again, this works at a fair level.

In our subject, Jona writes regarding the exploit in selling planes. It would be musch more constructive if we leave it to sami to find the best way to do it. Since the system as it is , seems to have a back door so to game the system, then only sami could fix this. His role is not investigator. He is professional in RL and as part time he has AWS. Some good ideas were thrown that sound ok from my side.
either make the system more transparent , by making public the transaction price, or/and
limit the low price someone can set as the selling price. (ex 1% more discount every 1-2 months) with a cap at max 25% after many months. This way you can't game the system.
or any other proposal towards a programming based solution

Every discussion on rules  and you did this and i did that, is not constructive and it spoils the game
of course a clear set of rules as asked by Jona is quite important and also helps in the right direction.
But when an exploit exists, i would blame the system and I would concentrate on making the system more transparent and close the back doors , instead of starting  the accusation game, which usually is targeting other alliance members, outside our alliance

just  my 2 cents

[Curse]

Just because @dw1985 posted it (and then deleted the post...) I just want to clarify a thing:

I never gave back aircraft without D-Checks and then organized the same aircraft or sort of aircraft, neither from the same supplier (as Galaxy Express did) nor from somebody else. Neither in GW#4, nor at any time else in the past.

Everyone is free to control the Comet 3, Comet 4, Comet 4B, Comet 4C, 727-100 and DC-8-43 I utilized from third player parties in GW#4 and then post evidence about that with aircraft link as Jona did in his initial post.


Jona's Dubai airline went BK 1963. He therefor had no chance to aquire aircraft from a 3rd party and give it back for D-Check as the GameWorld was 11 years old then and, of course, nobody was able to broker aircraft in the first 3 years.

After the restart there was no chance for such a behaviour on Jona's side, too, as he either gave aircraft back when he phased them out (mostly with D-Check as with JM's SVC-10) or he still flies them. Again: If one can provide a link that shows the opposite, feel free to do so.
To give a start here is one of the early BAC 400 I leased to Jona and he gave back to me as soon as he had enough BAC 500 on hand:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/40823/

In his aircraft histoy list you can easily see he even D-Checks the ugly BAC 475:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/View/1258/141/#AirlineFleet



However, all this distracts from the real purpose of this thread: Gather ideas and discuss how and if new rules and a strict enforcement of such routes could make AirwaySim a better place.

[jackpot]

Just because @dw1985 posted it (and then deleted the post...)

The reason the post was deleted is that on reflection if felt it best to leave the experts of this world to continue with the discussion. I should never have had the audacity to post on your forum in the first place, infact probably a lesson to every new member on here would be to steer clear of the forum if all that's going to happen is that you are shot down in flames. I gave my interpretation of the original post as I believe it looks personal and I won't be alone in thinking that way. Anyway carry on with your crusade.

[Curse]

So, you had no valid points and you still have none. That was expected.

The primary problem is not the fact you are a community member since less than two weeks. Or the fact you have no airline (and therefor you were not able to confirm the GW#4 links). The primary problem is therefor not the fact you are new, the problem is you don't support your statement with facts, evidence or whatever could be useful and constructive.

Neither did you do so in refutation of facts and arguments brought in by "the other side" nor did you add something to the rule overhaul that is the main point of this thread at all.



In contrary, you posted:

This thread has been used to point out 'cheating' even though in the first 2 cases, no rules have been broken.

That is simply a lie. Case #2 is a clear rule violation while I see why people want to discuss Case #1. If you follow the words and the intention of the anti-cash-transfer rule it is a clear violation, too, but I see it can be easily done without intention.

To clarify this: Personally I think all the current AWS-rules are not useful. In the first month of law University things like "clear laws", "easy to find at one specific place", "enforcement of laws" and "no backdated punishment" are basic concepts and, unfortunately, the AWS-rules don't fullfill those basics in a way it would actually help the player.

I'm also no fan of the no-airline-cash-transfer rule. That of course doesn't mean I break it, intentionally or not.



Edit:
So, what do some of us expect?

1) Clear rules. Either something is allowed or it is forbidden, but no "maybe if...". A new airline is not "small or a new player" etc., it "is an airline that is less than 12 month old."
2) Easy to find rules. Things that are written in announcement threads, general forums or - even worse - the bug forum/GameWorld specific forums should be no rule.
3) Enforcement of rules. Each investigation should be finished within 48 hours of report, including an "start investigation now" and "investigation ended: RESULT XY" or, if it might take longer than 48 hours, a status update.
4) No backdated punishment. That's usually fine here. Good.

[jackpot]

The reason the post was deleted is that on reflection if felt it best to leave the experts of this world to continue with the discussion.

Your defensive approach may well tell its own story but at the end of the day it's your game. I'm not going to give opinions on new rules to be set up as I don't have the experience to justify any opinions I may have (as I have already said). The only opinion I stated was regarding the context of the original post, which has been addressed and I have attempted to step away from the discussion but you have referenced me again.

And for the record I am not a lair. I may be incorrect but you have to remember that no-one else in this world is perfect and people can make mistakes and have differing opinions. I would also not be happy if I was @jmaildom, after all it's not just me you are calling a liar.

As I said feel free to carry on your crusade.

[Jona L.]

Your defensive approach may well tell its own story

Well, which story do you think it tells? The fact of the matter is: He is so sure of not having breached the rules, that he invites you (and everyone else) to feel free to check his old aircraft for exactly this kind of cheating. And from what I have seen, it hasn't happened. Unless you (or anyone else) can find proof for cheating in his airline, go ahead, post it here.

I'm not going to give opinions on new rules to be set up as I don't have the experience to justify any opinions I may have (as I have already said). The only opinion I stated was regarding the context of the original post, which has been addressed and I have attempted to step away from the discussion but you have referenced me again.

Well... Yes, you don't have the experience, and that is not an offense, just a statement. In a new job the first thing you do won't be telling the boss how things are wrong. Especially without bringing forward any arguments.

I am not saying you should leave this forum, or this discussion, I/we are simply asking for you to bring arguments supporting the points you make, or arguments that dismantle the ones already brought forward.

And for the record I am not a lair. I may be incorrect but you have to remember that no-one else in this world is perfect and people can make mistakes and have differing opinions. I would also not be happy if I was @jmaildom, after all it's not just me you are calling a liar.

As I said feel free to carry on your crusade.

No one has called JM a liar. He just interpreted the rules a bit stricter than others. Yes, he helped alliance members, me included. For example he ordered me Vickers Super VC10, and leased them to me at min alliance price, which is of course far more than Galaxy Express has been asked by Connect America to pay for these B732A (at least for the owned ones, there is no possibility to prove/disprove this for the leased a/c). And when I gave them back after roundabout 8 years, I actually D-checked them myself before giving them back. And that was in a time, when we weren't in the same alliance, so I wouldn't have been obliged to pay that high prices.

This is exactly the reason why we are asking for rules to be made clearer. If it were made clear what of this is still okay, and what is not, we wouldn't have to have this discussion at all.


cheers,
Jona L.

[LotusAirways]

The solution is easy: don't allow players to lease to other players. If player-to-player leasing is eliminated and brokers were programmed to do their jobs more efficiently (providing liquidity, purchasing aircraft from players based on supply/demand/fair value) then there is absolutely no need for players to lease to other players.

And I am with you on this. The business of carrier leasing to another carrier is less than 0.001% in real life, short-term, and on a wet lease basis.
Hopefully Sami is reading.

LA

[Jona L.]

And I am with you on this. The business of carrier leasing to another carrier is less than 0.001% in real life, short-term, and on a wet lease basis.
Hopefully Sami is reading.

LA

Well, IRL production lines are also flexible to orders, while in AWS they are fixed to real world values, which we by far exceed, so a player-to-player market is essential in AWS to accomplish the targets we set ourselves.

So if you were to forbid the P2P sales/leasing market, you would also have to adjust production rates to become more flexible over time.
If there were 50 airlines IRL now ordering 100 B777 each, Boeing would sure as hell build a new production hall, and in 2-3years the production rate would massively increase. With small delays (i.e. 1-3 years depending on a/c size for example) production rates should be able to increase.

In fact, if things became more dynamic in AWS a lot would change, and the city based demand is a small step in the right direction. But that is a different topic.


The a/c trade is just a fraction of the overall thing we are trying to achieve: Clearer rules.

cheers,
Jona L.

[LotusAirways]

... also have to adjust production rates to become more flexible over time

And I am with you on this.

Orders and production should be linked, perhaps with a 12-24 months lag to simulate real life (finding suppliers, setting up new factories, hiring-training new people). But we also need to think on player-alliance abuse. For instance, perhaps the penalty for order cancellation as to increase to avoid a player-alliance ordering 500 --and by doing so accelerate the production rate-- and then cancelling the last 300.

With (1) no player to player sell-lease, (2) brokers doing what they are supposed to do as Lemon suggests, and (3) new airplanes production lines being linked to demand; I think we have a very good solution to the funky business that this topic is trying to address.

LA
Further reading: http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/airbus-and-boeing-plan-increased-output and http://awin.aviationweek.com/portals/awin/Interactives/AWST/aircraftmarket/aircraftmarket.html

[LemonButt]

a player-to-player market is essential in AWS to accomplish the targets we set ourselves.

So if you were to forbid the P2P sales/leasing market, you would also have to adjust production rates to become more flexible over time.
If there were 50 airlines IRL now ordering 100 B777 each, Boeing would sure as hell build a new production hall, and in 2-3years the production rate would massively increase. With small delays (i.e. 1-3 years depending on a/c size for example) production rates should be able to increase.

So instead of adjusting your strategy to fit the circumstances, the circumstances should be adjusted to fit your strategy?  Someone call Boeing and tell them I want a pony.  The net effect of "teaming up" with your buddies to order 100 B777 is that instead of 50 airlines ordering 100 B777, you have 25 airlines ordering 200 B777 and 0 airlines ordering 0.  It is anticompetitive and the exact reason why P2P leasing should be prohibited.  No one should be allowed to work the system to circumvent the limits put in place.  If you should be able to get aircraft at the double the rate, it would be programmed that way.

I'm not saying I haven't done the same in the past, but circumstances were different.  As a rule of thumb I try to avoid Airbus and Boeing like the plague, which means flying the less popular models.  Brokers fail miserably to buy aircraft (whitetails) and put them on the used market, leading to availability being zero.  There was another thread from GW2 before it was called GW2 where I had hundreds of BAe ATP.  I literally had every single example ever produced because I was the only one who ever ordered the aircraft, so if I didn't keep the production line moving I was facing huge costs for expansion since I'd have to add a fleet type.  The "we need rich players to provide liquidity" argument went out the door because players simply chose not to provide said liquidity and the brokers are broken.

So if P2P transactions were stopped and brokers did their jobs, you could still have players buying aircraft they won't fly, but only brokers can buy the aircraft.  The broker would then turn around and lease it out at a price they deem fit (instead of a price a player deems fit).  Even better is that instead of an alliance creating a monopoly on a production line, prohibiting other players from having a reasonable chance at ordering aircraft, it would be first come first serve on the used market as it is now.  I guarantee you this will significantly reduce the collusion that happens now and level the playing field where the marketplace is controlled by supply/demand versus what alliance you belong to.

[Curse]

So, LemonButt, 1) which less popular longrange aircraft do you suggest after 1990 out of Los Angeles or Johannesburg or Singapore, for example?
2) And what would be your narrowbody aircraft of choice out of Los Angeles after 2000 if you avoid A320 and 737classic/ng production lines?


And why do you suggest others should fit their strategy to circumstances when those circumstances don't exist right now - but you want them to be changed so they exist? Aren't you actually requesting others to fit into an environment while you don't fit into that environment right now yourself?


There is also no "alliance controlled production line". That simly does not work, even with 25 extreme rich airlines (and no alliance ever had 25 of those yet). Your argument therefor is invalid.

[Jona L.]

So instead of adjusting your strategy to fit the circumstances, the circumstances should be adjusted to fit your strategy?  Someone call Boeing and tell them I want a pony.  The net effect of "teaming up" with your buddies to order 100 B777 is that instead of 50 airlines ordering 100 B777, you have 25 airlines ordering 200 B777 and 0 airlines ordering 0.  It is anticompetitive and the exact reason why P2P leasing should be prohibited.  No one should be allowed to work the system to circumvent the limits put in place.  If you should be able to get aircraft at the double the rate, it would be programmed that way.

So what you are suggesting is this:

Create new circumstances which so far don't exist. And then asking ALL players* to adapt to these newly created circumstances? Very simple solution indeed. It would just need as little programming as city based demand needed, almost no work at all.


*except you, because you already adapted your own niche strategy, to which you would like sami to create the circumstances.


Asides, if you read the OP carefully, you would've stumbled across this line:

[...] and getting carried away by people who didn't understand what this is about [...]

[Jona L.]

With (1) no player to player sell-lease, (2) brokers doing what they are supposed to do as Lemon suggests, and (3) new airplanes production lines being linked to demand; I think we have a very good solution to the funky business that this topic is trying to address.

Same here as I said to LemonButt in the post above:

[...] and getting carried away by people who didn't understand what this is about [...]

The point of this topic has NEVER been to discuss P2P aircraft sales!
The point of this topic IS however, to get the rules set up/written more clearly as to what exactly is allowed and what is considered illegal or a rule violation. Also in terms of the aircraft trade between players, but that was on the matter of rules, not on the matter of finding a system to change AWS.


Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate such ideas, and I like your suggesting very much, but this is not the place for it. Probably the feature request forum, once Sami re-opens it.

cheers,
Jona L.

[LemonButt]

Ugh...I had a long reply, but it clearly doesn't matter what I have to say at this point.  What is the solution then?  Prohibiting P2P sales eliminates the ability to transfer money AND solves a variety of other issues.  You don't like my solution, yet no one has any better ideas.  No one has even attempted to come with a solution in this thread as it is all muckraking.

There is zero reason to allow P2P sales (assuming brokers do their job) other than circumventing the limits put in place and doubling/tripling down on new deliveries.  Allowing P2P sales is no different than P2P slot transfers as you are talking about finite resources being consumed to the detriment of other players.

I am not asking sami to create the circumstances that fit me--I'll admit I have a niche strategy, but I adapt my strategy to fit the existing system in place, not vice versa.

This is a business simulation--can you provide an example IRL of an airline placing a large order with a manufacturer to take deliveries of aircraft they have zero intention of flying and instead turn around and sell/lease immediately?  I can, however the business is not an airline, but a broker/leasing company because that IS their business model.  Yes, airlines lease out/sell aircraft to other airlines, but this only happens when they either have extenuating circumstances or are doing a fleet upgrade and are divesting assets.

So what new circumstances that don't exist am I proposing exactly?  If sami wanted airlines to double/triple down on deliveries, why can't they order that quantity of aircraft directly from the factory WITHOUT colluding with other airlines?  Clearly the intention, by design, was never to have airlines taking delivery of new aircraft at the rate that actually occurs in the game, otherwise the hard coded limits wouldn't be what they are.

So the ultimate solution which solves the issue of P2P sales being used to transfer money, airlines working together to clog production lines to the benefit of one airline doubling/tripling down on deliveries, and the availability/viability of less popular models (per my explanation with the BAe ATP) is prohibiting P2P transactions and tweaking the brokers to do their jobs better.  The reason we have game rules is so they aren't broken and the best way to ensure they aren't broken is by eliminating the opportunity to break the rules, which is why there are so many limits in place currently (how fast you can buy slots released from other players, tighter selling price ranges on aircraft, etc.).

From the game rules (Alliances section):
Normal airline management and route competition is allowed but unfair methods with coordinated, targeted and combined actions are considered unfair competition.

Would coordinated, targeted, and combined efforts to double/triple down on production slots not be considered unfair competition?

Perhaps the rules should be changed so that aircraft <10 years old can only be purchased by brokers (with brokers tweaked to rapidly acquire these late model aircraft) so that production lines are abused the way they are today.  However, that only solves the issue of players doubling/tripling down on deliveries and doesn't eliminate the cash transfer issue.  If you take it one step further and tweak the brokers to purchase ALL aircraft, it does.  If you further tweak brokers to buy whitetails and provide liquidity in the market (a function that several players say rich airlines do by buying aircraft they don't ever intend to fly) then you solve another problem that occurs on the low volume/less popular production lines.  Thus with these changes, there is zero reason to allow P2P aircraft transactions because every benefit that is lost is created by brokers, with the exception of being able to abuse production line delivery rates and transfer money, which are two problems (or at least one we can agree on) with the current model.

So if you want clarity on the rules, it's the same as slots.  The rules have always been no coordinated slot transfers, but the system (up until recently) has allowed coordinated slot transfers to take place, which means someone has to babysit and hand out penalties.  The current rules state transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable.  How does one determine intention?  It's all subjective, but as I've stated every benefit of P2P transactions can be maintained by brokers while eliminating all the bad stuff with the above changes.

Is there *any* reason why P2P transactions should be allowed, assuming the brokers are tweaked, other than to abuse the system?

[Jona L.]

Ugh...I had a long reply, but it clearly doesn't matter what I have to say at this point.  What is the solution then?  Prohibiting P2P sales eliminates the ability to transfer money AND solves a variety of other issues.  You don't like my solution, yet no one has any better ideas.  No one has even attempted to come with a solution in this thread as it is all muckraking.

If you would care to read what others say instead of just embracing your own suggestions, you may have seen that Lotus and I had a different suggestion about the P2P sales problem: Variable production lines, fitting the demand for aircraft, instead of having endless ques, as we have all seen, with 5000+ orders for A320 planes while the production line won't go beyond 40ish/mth, clogging the line for years to come. Even the frenchmen at Airbus wouldn't be dumb enough not to build another factory, and increase the production rate.

This however is NOT modelled into AWS. So what is the P2P market doing? Simulating exactly that. By having your alliance mate order you A320 on the side, you increase the delivery rate to you, as it would happen IRL, where Airbus would increase production and thus delivery rates.

There is zero reason to allow P2P sales (assuming brokers do their job) other than circumventing the limits put in place and doubling/tripling down on new deliveries.  Allowing P2P sales is no different than P2P slot transfers as you are talking about finite resources being consumed to the detriment of other players.

Well, in AWS aircraft are NOT finite resources, as they are produced until no one wants any more of them, rather than stop being made while everyone still wants/needs more, making them incomparable to slots. If brokers did their job, you would revert to the old problem, that all major airlines would be hunting the UM for planes they want, leaving none for the newer airlines. The way it is now, the UM is better off with P2P than without. Even if you increased broker activity, it would have to fully replace P2P and at the same time work as broker, so brokers would need to have "shadow" production lines, being the same size as current ones on top.

P2P within an alliance ONLY exists because of the fixed production rates, not allowing for increased deliveries, thus slowing down fleet transitions and expansion unnecesarily.

I am not asking sami to create the circumstances that fit me--I'll admit I have a niche strategy, but I adapt my strategy to fit the existing system in place, not vice versa.

You are asking for exactly that by removing P2P aircraft sales, which would support strategies other than yours. A major airline in AWS cannot do fleet replacements without these additional supplies, or incurring losses for decades, by which another fleet will have to be renewed. (Major being 500+ a/c, not the tiny 100 a/c airlines)

This is a business simulation--can you provide an example IRL of an airline placing a large order with a manufacturer to take deliveries of aircraft they have zero intention of flying and instead turn around and sell/lease immediately?  I can, however the business is not an airline, but a broker/leasing company because that IS their business model.  Yes, airlines lease out/sell aircraft to other airlines, but this only happens when they either have extenuating circumstances or are doing a fleet upgrade and are divesting assets.

I don't need to provide any RL examples, since RL is not based on AWS, yet AWS is based on RL. If IRL airlines had ordered double as many A320 series a/c, Airbus would make ~double as many planes each month, thus AWS would reflect it.
With the profit margins in AWS being a lot higher than real life, we of course see larger airlines emerge faster, and having larger needs for more aircraft at faster rates, thus in AWS it is not possible to reflect real world in that regard. The current P2P system works around that problem.

So what new circumstances that don't exist am I proposing exactly?  If sami wanted airlines to double/triple down on deliveries, why can't they order that quantity of aircraft directly from the factory WITHOUT colluding with other airlines?  Clearly the intention, by design, was never to have airlines taking delivery of new aircraft at the rate that actually occurs in the game, otherwise the hard coded limits wouldn't be what they are.

You are proposing to add yet more pointless hardcoded glass walls into AWS, while it is already filled with those. In this specific case adding more rules as to how fast airlines can/are allowed to grow. As it seems you are unhappy with the fact that many players are able to grow faster/better/larger than yourself, and want to impose these -again unrealistic- limits to force players to grow at a pace that suits you. AWS already has loads of these unrealistic limits, reducing airline growth to a minimum (e.g. the 400 new a/c limit), and we don't need more of that. In fact less of these would solve part of the problem. If the 400 new orders rule would be removed, and production lines were made more dynamic, a large part of the P2P market would not be needed.

So the ultimate solution which solves the issue of P2P sales being used to transfer money, airlines working together to clog production lines to the benefit of one airline doubling/tripling down on deliveries, and the availability/viability of less popular models (per my explanation with the BAe ATP) is prohibiting P2P transactions and tweaking the brokers to do their jobs better.  The reason we have game rules is so they aren't broken and the best way to ensure they aren't broken is by eliminating the opportunity to break the rules, which is why there are so many limits in place currently (how fast you can buy slots released from other players, tighter selling price ranges on aircraft, etc.).

Why do you (again) suggest that your (and only your) suggestion is the "ultimate solution" to the issue, while it makes it worse/makes AWS itself worse? Tell me how the BAe ATP would help an airline based in, for example, LAX? - That is right, it wouldn't.

You also have not answered Curse's question as to what "niche aircraft" you would suggest in case sami would include you additional un-realsim.

So, LemonButt, 1) which less popular longrange aircraft do you suggest after 1990 out of Los Angeles or Johannesburg or Singapore, for example?
2) And what would be your narrowbody aircraft of choice out of Los Angeles after 2000 if you avoid A320 and 737classic/ng production lines?

From the game rules (Alliances section):
Normal airline management and route competition is allowed but unfair methods with coordinated, targeted and combined actions are considered unfair competition.

Would coordinated, targeted, and combined efforts to double/triple down on production slots not be considered unfair competition?

Perhaps the rules should be changed so that aircraft <10 years old can only be purchased by brokers (with brokers tweaked to rapidly acquire these late model aircraft) so that production lines are abused the way they are today.  However, that only solves the issue of players doubling/tripling down on deliveries and doesn't eliminate the cash transfer issue.  If you take it one step further and tweak the brokers to purchase ALL aircraft, it does.  If you further tweak brokers to buy whitetails and provide liquidity in the market (a function that several players say rich airlines do by buying aircraft they don't ever intend to fly) then you solve another problem that occurs on the low volume/less popular production lines.  Thus with these changes, there is zero reason to allow P2P aircraft transactions because every benefit that is lost is created by brokers, with the exception of being able to abuse production line delivery rates and transfer money, which are two problems (or at least one we can agree on) with the current model.

With the current sales limits imposed, the only cash generation happening for a/c sold within the alliance is the inflation adjustment of aircraft value/price over the order price. There is a difference however, if a/c are sold by an airline using it to one that is not using it (as in case #3 from my OP involving Kelrick/United Pacific Fleet).

The main thing happening is the exchange of production slots, mostly with A330 <-> B777 and A320 <-> B737.
Airline A orders 50 A320 and 50 B738, airline B orders the same. Airline A sells all its A320s to Airline B, and airline B sells all its B738 to airline A. That way both airlines have 100 a/c of the same type, none make a profit (as both planes will be subject to roughly the same inflation rates), and no additional slots were used, as both airlines would have ordered 100 planes anyways.

The problem here is that AWS follows real world, and in real world other manufacturers (like BAC) went out of business years earlier, so there are no alternatives to A320/B738 in the 2000s. Same as there are no alternatives to A330/B777 in the 2000s. And I don't see how that can be fixed, except for inventing fictional aircraft, or allowing P2P. The only other solution would be variable production slots, as suggested by me (and adopted by LA) above a few times.

So if you want clarity on the rules, it's the same as slots.  The rules have always been no coordinated slot transfers, but the system (up until recently) has allowed coordinated slot transfers to take place, which means someone has to babysit and hand out penalties.  The current rules state transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable.  How does one determine intention?  It's all subjective, but as I've stated every benefit of P2P transactions can be maintained by brokers while eliminating all the bad stuff with the above changes.

As explained in my paragraph above, there is no possibility to gain money on the inner alliance sales, except for inflation, which is money that has already been lost. Case #3 (Kelrick/United Pacific Fleet) however is a different story, in which the intention is very clear, so the question of how to determine it is irrelevant.

Is there *any* reason why P2P transactions should be allowed, assuming the brokers are tweaked, other than to abuse the system?

I think I named quite a few reasons above as to why.


Again, I quote myself from the OP:

[...] and getting carried away by people who didn't understand what this is about [...]

We have veered way of course with this discussion about P2P sales.

The point of this topic has NEVER been to discuss P2P aircraft sales!
The point of this topic IS however, to get the rules set up/written more clearly as to what exactly is allowed and what is considered illegal or a rule violation. Also in terms of the aircraft trade between players, but that was on the matter of rules, not on the matter of finding a system to change AWS.

Feel free to make a feature request or a general discussion thread about P2P sales, but stop discussing this in this topic, please, since it has nothing to do with creating clearer rules out of the elastic rubber rules that are in place right now.

cheers,
Jona L.


P.S.

Ugh...I had a long reply

You consider your current post short?!

[LemonButt]

Granted it turned into a long reply.  To answer Curse--if you started an airline today IRL you would be stuck waiting 3 years for a new 737 from the manufacturer or you go to the secondary (used) market and fly something older.  If you base at an airport where the only viable option(s) is a backlogged production line then you have to adjust your strategy to fit your circumstances.  You don't base at LHR with zero slots available and then expect other players to divest slots so you can execute a predetermined strategy.  You don't base in Tahiti in the 1950's and expect to fly anywhere.  If you have a strategy, find an airport that fits your strategy.  If you have circumstances, find a strategy that fits the circumstances.

The title of this thread is "cheating through rule violating cash transfers" and the subject of P2P aircraft sales is how it is happening.  I agree production lines could be more responsive/elastic in response to actual orders, but even IRL this is a big capital expenditure and wouldn't necessarily double/triple deliveries.  I also agree with (most) others that the fourth fleet penalty should be adjusted so that those large fleet replacements don't end up BK'ing players.

I say my suggestion is the ultimate solution because it solves multiple problems and there is no one else offering any solution other than sami babysitting.  As you mentioned, transfers happen where players just sit on aircraft and not use it which means babysitting.  Making sure aircraft aren't sold repeatedly requires babysitting.  AWS is a simulation and is also sold as an educational tool and I am stating that P2P transfers (most of the time) are unrealistic and never/rarely happen IRL the way they do in AWS.  The ATP doesn't have to benefit the LAX airline because the point is that one of the main arguments FOR P2P is creating UM liquidity, which only happens selectively because brokers aren't providing the liquidity based on market conditions.

I honestly don't care how fast/big airlines grow (and am not unhappy with the fact they do) as my goal in the game is never to run the biggest airline (been there, done that, was bored out of my mind).  Jealousy has nothing to do with any of this.  I'm a proponent of completely opening the system up where the only constraint is money (in spite of being called a communist among other things)--not slots, aircraft production slots, or who you know/alliance you belong to.  If you are willing to pay enough money, airport authorities will expand (i.e terminals) and aircraft producers will find a way to increase production.  But until that happens, we are sharing a finite pool of resources where prices are allowed to rise to infinity, which is why the existing limits exist and players routinely circumvent them.  While growth is throttled in AWS by many of those hardcoded limits/glass ceilings, it is still completely unrealistic as many airlines go from zero to 100+ aircraft in less than a year because many other market forces aren't modeled in the game.

So again, if my solution is a bad one then what is the solution?  Variable production lines partially solve the double/triple delivery problem, but still don't prevent cash transfers (the title of this thread).  The rules used to be no constant refreshing of the used market and now we have to call the used market to refresh because of abuse.  The rules said no slot transfers between players but it has happened so many times that hard coded slot acquisition limits are now in place.  The rules say no cash transfers, yet it happens with relative frequency.  Do you see where this is going?  As long as the mechanism exists to cheat and violate the rules, players are going to do it which has been proven in time.  Sami could clarify the rules that buying an aircraft from an alliance member and not flying it is against the rules, but unless he is babysitting players it is going to happen again and again and again (and again).

I'm more than willing to be wrong on any/all of this and whether the rules stay the same or change drastically it really doesn't impact me because as you stated I have a niche strategy and if two big airlines decide to transfer cash, double/triple up on deliveries, etc. the impact on me is little to none because I am not flying the popular models with jammed up production lines.  Likewise with you and the reason you started this thread--it's about fair play and ensuring we're all operating under the same system.  If sami is going to clarify the rules on this, he should also clarify the rules for doubling/tripling up on deliveries through P2P aircraft sales and have both explicitly stated in the rules/manual.  That is, if doubling/tripling up on deliveries is determined to be within the rules and deemed an acceptable strategy, it should be explicitly stated in the rules as such to remove any ambiguity because currently it can be interpreted as being in violation of the rules and an unfair practice (it's gray area/highly subjective).

Also as a side note just clarify--you said tweaking the brokers would have to fully replace P2P sales, which is exactly what I'm proposing happens.  If a player ordered 50 aircraft they never intended to fly, they could list it, it would be purchased rather quickly by a broker, broker would turn around and sell it on the UM and every player would get a fair shot at it.  The net effect would be instead of an alliance member having a monopoly on those 50 production slots, everyone would have a fair shot.  Likewise if the player never ordered the 50 aircraft to begin with, every player would have had a fair shot at securing those production slots.  This would nullify the benefit of an airline ordering aircraft they never intend on flying.  You say aircraft are not a finite resource because they are produced forever, but perhaps a better way to explain it would be aircraft production slots are finite, because while they may go on forever, there are only a finite amount each month and once they are gone they are gone.


Sorry for another long post

[Curse]

That's no answer to my question. You said people should go for alternative aircraft when players can't trade aircraft anymore. I asked what alternative aircraft an airline, for example out of Los Angeles, those are, when smart people - according to you - should avoid Boeing and Airbus.

Again, here are my questions:

So, LemonButt, 1) which less popular longrange aircraft do you suggest after 1990 out of Los Angeles or Johannesburg or Singapore, for example?
2) And what would be your narrowbody aircraft of choice out of Los Angeles after 2000 if you avoid A320 and 737classic/ng production lines?

Also, your idea is not basically bad. It's just way too complex and doesn't prevent lots of other cheating methods - that's why Jona's intention, according to him, was to talk about the introduction of strict written rules that are enforced as opposite to rules that can be interpreted on a large scale and are often not enforced as it is right now.

[LemonButt]

Now your just putting words in my mouth.  I stated MY general strategy is to avoid Airbus/Boeing like the plague and rely on the less popular aircraft and it has nothing to do with avoiding them being "smart", although there are a lot of advantages most people overlook.  Obviously if you are basing at places where you're pigeon holed into long range aircraft you are stuck with Boeing/Airbus and that's just the way it is.  You don't base in Tahiti and expect to fly CRJs.  I'm flying B777 in GW2 simply because Airbus/Boeing are the only options available in 2016.  There are a couple MD11 on the market, but there are only 19 aircraft available in the entire game world (production line shutdown), which tweaking the brokers to provide liquidity would help remedy (I'm flying 42 B777 instead).

In GW3 (year 2002) the used market is flush with 737 classic and for longer range, A300/310 which means you do not *have* to fly 737NG or A330/340 to fly routes.  There is also a huge selection of 757 and 747 on the used market--not the most efficient/popular aircraft in the game, but easy to get your hands on and start an airline until the more efficient aircraft become viable.  The market is also flush with DC-10, MD11, and MD80 plus the F100, B717, MD90, and Tu204 lines are wide open with the CRJ1000 on the horizon.  Less than ideal aircraft, sure, but running a business is about doing what you can with what you have.

And the issue isn't players should go for alternative aircraft when they can't trade anymore--being able to do P2P transactions have nothing to do with it.  The only difference between what we currently have and what I proposed is that instead of selling player-to-player transactions would occur player-to-broker-to-player, which would provide the same result as it does currently while removing the element of gaining an unfair advantage through cooperation, whether it is cash transfers or doubling/tripling down on deliveries.  To make this happen, broker behavior would need to be tweaked to provide liquidity so instead of listing an aircraft and waiting months for a broker to act, they would purchase and relist on the used market in short order.  Instead of players creating huge leasing arms, they could give interest bearing loans to brokers which would create the liquidity in the used market based on market conditions and provide a return on assets to airlines.  That means instead of players creating liquidity by purchasing popular aircraft they'll never fly, brokers will create liquidity by purchasing aircraft across all models based on market conditions to provide liquidity for all models.  It's essentially the same thing that happens today except the cash comes from private investors and not airlines (publicly traded companies like Air Lease, Aircastle, etc.).  See the MD11 example above.  I'm sure there are airlines in the game who would fly the MD11 if they could, but if there are only 19 aircraft available in the entire gameworld then it simply isn't a viable fleet type under current conditions (4th fleet type penalty, etc.).

[LemonButt]

In looking at the special rules world thread, making brokers more active and prohibiting P2P sales were actually mentioned by Sanabas: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,51630.msg293819.html#msg293819

[Curse]

Ahm, yeah, maybe you want to discuss these things there.

This thread here is about the written rules ( https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/ ) that need a major overhaul.