I know that AE does not cater for this but with over 1000 active airlines with most having no where to go after 5 1/2 AE years and with 4 1/2 years to go in the normal AE lifetime of 10years, the competitive spirit can be enchanced with smaller airlines being acquired by larger ones but continue to be managed by the original CEO. This is how I propose that the system should work:
Lets say PTE wants to enter the Asia/Aus. region. PTE would fine an airline that is reasonably successful in the area but will never go truely international because of a lack of strong profit. If the value of that airline is $500 million, PTE would transfer $500 million to that airline which would give it 50% ownership. In return the airline would give recognition to the purchasing company by inserting the name or logo of that company on its own logo. You could therefore see little Limbos, Australites or Ajaxes flying all over the place.
The benefit to the financing company would be the bragging rights while the company that gets the injected cash can have more fun running a more substantial airline.
What do you think? And by the way is there anyone in the South Asia/Australia and the Asia region who would like to be 'acquired'. In-game me at 8712.
Acquisitions & Mergers
Started by kenpalm, Oct 09 2006 04:07 AM
#1
Posted 09 October 2006 - 04:07 AM
#2
Posted 09 October 2006 - 04:14 AM
Interesting idea, but I would have to vote "no" on this one.
It just opens the door for the big airlines like Limbo, Ajax, etc to increase their fleet and monopolies in this game.
It just opens the door for the big airlines like Limbo, Ajax, etc to increase their fleet and monopolies in this game.
#3
Posted 09 October 2006 - 05:14 AM
#4
Posted 09 October 2006 - 06:18 AM
I don't know, I'd have to go with AirCanada with this one for now. It just opens the door for the Biggest airlines to just swallow smaller airlines up, even those who hold a ton of potential at becomming part of the top 100 airlines in the game (I read that some were able to do it with 2-3 game years.) But maybe something, such as a codeshare agreement might be good though. It would pump cash into both airlines without causing the big to get even bigger and harder to compete with, and put some good cash to the smaller companies. The only issue I see here is how would this work in the game.
#5
Posted 09 October 2006 - 02:10 PM
Thanks AirCanada and Lot for your responses. I do not think that it would necessary be the current leaders who would benefit from this feature. A successful airline would have to have an eye for complementarity of a potential investment. Its like brokeraging - This is controlled by a sets of guys who are good at what they do. I could see new stars rising. Note that the decision to take investment capital is that of the airline itself and control remains totally with that airline. It is ony a capital injection. However how does the investor benefit from all this? This is how I think it should work:
Using my initial example of an investment of $500 million for 50% of the business, after the end of the first year the investor would be paid out 10% of the value of the company each year for the next 5 years. Assuming that the value fo the company goes to 1,200 million after year one then he is paid $120 million and so forth, and so forth in subsequent years until his full investment plus capital gain is returned in 5 years.
Subject to this not running fool of an anti-cheat claim, I ready to go.
Using my initial example of an investment of $500 million for 50% of the business, after the end of the first year the investor would be paid out 10% of the value of the company each year for the next 5 years. Assuming that the value fo the company goes to 1,200 million after year one then he is paid $120 million and so forth, and so forth in subsequent years until his full investment plus capital gain is returned in 5 years.
Subject to this not running fool of an anti-cheat claim, I ready to go.
#6
Posted 09 October 2006 - 11:29 PM
i am on ken's side. if we want a more realistic sim, we ought to be in favor of more realistic scenarios, one of which is being bought out by a larger company. If one player agrees to sell their airline name (not management) for the value of that company, I'd say that's a pretty even deal, especially considering that it is currently already possible to take both name and routes just by buying all of someone's planes at an agreed amount.
Something I'd add to Ken's idea would be the ability to sell one's "child" companies.
Something I'd add to Ken's idea would be the ability to sell one's "child" companies.
-Dave, CEO of:
AID: 7106
Numero Uno en San Francisco, Las Vegas, y ahora Los Angeles!
AID: 7106
Numero Uno en San Francisco, Las Vegas, y ahora Los Angeles!
#7
Posted 10 October 2006 - 12:00 AM
I really like this idea.
But I would like to see it implemented slightly different. An open stock market would allow lines that are interested in being aquired, the chance. It would also allow lines that don't want to be aquired the opportunity to buy all their own stock up and prevent it.
But I would like to see it implemented slightly different. An open stock market would allow lines that are interested in being aquired, the chance. It would also allow lines that don't want to be aquired the opportunity to buy all their own stock up and prevent it.
Member of the ID: 11893
Owned: A bunch of aircraft
Owned: A bunch of aircraft
#8
Posted 10 October 2006 - 06:13 AM
I like this idea too. I don't know how it would make the larger airlines have anymore control over anything? It would do the opposite in fact because it would be a place where the larger airlines used their money so they would be spending money on these small airlines that would continue to be run by the original owner and they would have less to spend on more aircraft..... This is such a great idea!!!!
#9
Posted 10 October 2006 - 09:34 PM
Well my friend has something along these lines and wants to pass it by you guys first:
He wants to make his own AE airline and is wondering if he could call it a sibsidiary of Metroline. There would be no gain from using the airline name but he wants to and I told him its best I let everyone on here know first. Just so they know im not cheating.
He wants to make his own AE airline and is wondering if he could call it a sibsidiary of Metroline. There would be no gain from using the airline name but he wants to and I told him its best I let everyone on here know first. Just so they know im not cheating.
#10
Posted 12 October 2006 - 02:54 PM
its alright metroline, i have some random airline with my exact airline name on AE.. it contains 2x Beechs and i think 0 gates
I have to say no to this suggestion too, Yea the big airline will eat up these airlines, i would prefer the airline to grow under its own strength and finances.
Those top 10 done it? anyone can if they know what there doing, Let them make themselves into what they want.
If they can't compete, thats there problem, thats what i think. I had to work out a strategy, took me about 3 AE turns to find out whats good.
I have to say no to this suggestion too, Yea the big airline will eat up these airlines, i would prefer the airline to grow under its own strength and finances.
Those top 10 done it? anyone can if they know what there doing, Let them make themselves into what they want.
If they can't compete, thats there problem, thats what i think. I had to work out a strategy, took me about 3 AE turns to find out whats good.
~ Air Germany, Connecting Berlin to to the world ~
"you'll Love it"
Fleet:
2 x Airbus A330-300
3 x Airbus A320-200
5 x Airbus A319-100
2 x Bombardier Q400
4 x Saab 2000
2 x ERJ-135ER
9 x ATR-42-500
(Upcoming Orders)
Airbus A319-100
Airbus A330-300
"3rd Rock Alliance"
No more slums. No more violence. No more poverty...Gawad Kalinga
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users