56 replies to this topic

[LLC]

Having two types of delivery systems for O* (Open) Worlds and R* (Realistic) Worlds would help

with a realistic (to real world conditions) delivery system for the R* (Realistic) Worlds

and the current delivery system (but with separate aircraft delivery queues inside aircraft families)
for the O* (Open) Worlds

with variable production rates [in O* (Open) Worlds] based on the number of aircraft in an aircraft's backlog
starting with the current delivery rates, and having decreasing (closer together) delivery rates
on a sliding scale based on the size of the aircraft's backlog
 
for example:
Family 737's Boeing 737-500 has a delivery rate of 2 weeks, this would decease to 1 Week or .5 Week based on the size of the aircraft's backlog

[Filipino Airline Tycoon]

I think the solution to this problem is adding the feature of Airline Subsidiaries. For example, a player can open one parent airline in one world. Afterwards, he may be also be allowed to open one subsidiary (which is usually a low-cost airline). This allows both parent company and subsidiary to share flights and thereby allowing both airlines to travel along the same route.

 

Back to the airplane backlogs, the advantage of having subsidiaries is that the parent company can use its finances to buy airplanes for its subsidiary. Usually, starting a subsidiary is a slow process to success. By using the parent company's finances, the subsidiary airline can grow successfully together with its parent company.

[Med.]

Here's my vote:

 

I agree with the realistic manufacturer production line backlog system that produces a system-wide X-number of aircraft per month. Aircraft manufacturers can add production lines as time goes by. To be fair, I suggest that airlines cannot take slots that are next to each other, every 5-10 slots at maximum perhaps depending on production rates. And if current AE demand figures are to be kept, production lines should produce faster than real-world.

[LLC]

Only if this  (#1 in quote below) is LIMITED to just "REALISTIC WORLDS" otherwise I do not want this

(I like the current aircraft purchase system - please do not fix what is NOT BROKEN !!!)

 

(#2 in quote below) Yes for "Open Worlds" (keep the delivery system as is in the open worlds)

 

What I am getting at here is the Open worlds are the reverse of "Realistic Worlds", 'Unrealistic' if you will - thus they should be easier to play.

 

"In either case, if we have subsidiaries (each player having 1 "holding company" in each world), should delivery slots be shared among all carriers in that one holding company?"
Split Answer: For Realistic Worlds Yes, For Open/Unrealistic Worlds HELL NO

 

Right now, there is no real aircraft manufacturer backlog - every airline gets a new delivery ever X weeks. Some people have requested a more realistic backlog system, but a simple backlog would deny delivery slots to smaller airlines, as big airlines are able to order hundreds of aircraft at a time.

So if we were to implement a more realistic backlog, it would have to be somewhere in between. Also, the aircraft demand in AE is a lot higher than in real life, so using realistic production line speeds may not work either.

1) Should leased new aircraft come out of a limited pool of aircraft provided by leasing companies (who then order the aircraft using their own slots), or should we continue new aircraft leasing directly from manufacturers?

2) Assuming leased aircraft come out of a separate pool and the delivery system applies only to buying aircraft directly from manufacturers, should we keep the delivery system as is, or do you have other proposals on how to manage delivery schedules and the backlog?

In either case, if we have subsidiaries (each player having 1 "holding company" in each world), should delivery slots be shared among all carriers in that one holding company?

[ar157]

Only if this  (#1 in quote below) is LIMITED to just "REALISTIC WORLDS" otherwise I do not want this

(I like the current aircraft purchase system - please do not fix what is NOT BROKEN !!!)

 

(#2 in quote below) Yes for "Open Worlds" (keep the delivery system as is in the open worlds)

 

What I am getting at here is the Open worlds are the reverse of "Realistic Worlds", 'Unrealistic' if you will - thus they should be easier to play.

 

"In either case, if we have subsidiaries (each player having 1 "holding company" in each world), should delivery slots be shared among all carriers in that one holding company?"
Split Answer: For Realistic Worlds Yes, For Open/Unrealistic Worlds HELL NO

 

I'm not sure why you campaign so tirelessly for changes to take place in future O Worlds/Unrealistic worlds when they are 2 completely different things. Open worlds shouldn't be seen as unrealistic worlds, rather they are realistic worlds which lack political boundaries. Removing the economics as well would in my opinion be silly and should not be implemented. Unrealistic worlds are a completely different matter as they would essentially be a sandbox world in which many of the restrictions both political, economic and from a management perspective would be nonexistent. The new aircraft delivery system should be implemented for future O Worlds, however sandbox worlds should have the ability to change to a system that benefits players rather than realism if desired.

 

P.S. If anything O worlds were never intended to be easier to play, rather to accommodate a different style of play. 

[MilanM]

Little OT...

I see that the word subsidiary is repeated very often and I would like to ask you "subsidiaries" guys one question... What's the point of having subsidiary if you can't rely on transfer pax as it is now??? I mean, you have your parent airline with your hub/hubs, then you establish your subsidiary which will supply your long haul flights with transfer pax from short ones... That's how I think subsidiary should work... The problem is, for now, you can't do that in AE...

[Hake.]

Little OT...

I see that the word subsidiary is repeated very often and I would like to ask you "subsidiaries" guys one question... What's the point of having subsidiary if you can't rely on transfer pax as it is now??? I mean, you have your parent airline with your hub/hubs, then you establish your subsidiary which will supply your long haul flights with transfer pax from short ones... That's how I think subsidiary should work... The problem is, for now, you can't do that in AE...

It cleans things up a bit. For example in AE 4 with smart connecting pax, Holding Company A has Airline A, which will fly BLK - LHR daily($100). Airline B then picks up on these passengers, sending them LHR - JFK ($400). But Holding Company B will fly BLK - EWR once a week on a cramped A320 ($650). These smart pax will see the saving to be made via LHR and frequency, flying there.

[MilanM]

Yes, that's exactly how I see subsidiaries... It's all about connecting or transfer passengers or whatever you call them... On the other hand, you don't need subsidiary to have those connecting flights... But it would be a great option...

[KawaiiBert]

why cant we give players an option at the beginning of a world, a lease company or airline, a lease company starts with a higher budget (40M or something) and cant open any routes the first 5 years of there existance, They can buy aircraft an lease them to airlines, they choose the price but have to pay for maintenaince. Airlines can choose airplanes in a new tab (leasing or something). due to competition the prices wouldnt be skyhigh, and the prices wont be too low because the lease companys have to make profit. Airlines have an advantage too because they have the aircraft inmediately.

[GBWings]

The current order system is cumbersome for timely replacements of large fleets, especially of aircraft that are used in large numbers such as the A320 family.  I've suggested it before, but am gonna suggest it again that larger orders be allowed to be delivered at an accelerated rate for a premium, but can't exceed 100 deliveries a year.  I'm having to replace one type with three to be able to replace them in a timely manner.

 

 I'd also like to see an easy way to "stack" deliveries easier so that instead of getting one delivery every two weeks, you can get (for example) five every ten weeks.  I like to be able to swap out multiple planes at once in the morning when I log on, and both of these would make that much easier.

 

I'd also like to see a way to deliver multiple variants of the same type simultaneously.  For example:  In R-alpha, I have orders in for Boeing 767-200, 300, and 300ERs.  I used the 200s primarily to replace 707s and am using the 300s as both domestic high-density and medium-range international flights to replace DC-8s, but I can't replace the longer-routes without the 300ERs unless I use DC-10s, which I'd slated for other routes.  All of my 200s were delivered before I took my first 300, and have several more before I start getting the 300ERs.

 

Perhaps a solution to this could be found when leasing companies are introduced, for each 100 planes ordered by airlines, 50 are ordered by a leasing company.  Leasing-company planes cannot be bought by airlines and are limited to ten-year non-renewable, non-extendable leases, and if you have that type on order, or order it, your lease payment is higher.

 

because sometimes i feel it is unrealistic to see manufacture deliver 10 aircraft of the same type to 10 different airlines in the same day, and in the next day it still delivers another 10 aircraft to another 10 different airlines...

 

I've looked at the Boeing plant near Seattle on satellite maps, they have multiple planes at their delivery area at the same time (easily seen on Wikimapia).  Not as many as ten of one type from what I remember, but several.  Also Airbus has four plants churning out A320 family jets, the main plant in France, one in China for that market, and one that opened late last year in Alabama.

[greenegg111]

I lean towards un1 on this. Surely in any game, the "Gameplay" should be paramount especially over trivial matters like "realism". If you want realism then you can do that without a game! 

The effective gameplay balances are why people play games more than once. There is no need for a backlog. I see no need for restrictions at Airport gates either. Opening up these two parameters together with some kind of "hostile" Airline takeover system would intensify the competition and possibly a great boost to AE. Big fish eat little fish. 

As always the devil is in the detail.

[Preston]

No support. This would ruin the game

[zortan]

My suggestion is that smaller airlines get priority on their order. Judge the airline based on total A/C in fleet. For the leasing, I would recommend that people can found leasing companies as well as airlines, which tne makes it so that the people can deal with this. just a suggestion.

[paulojorge]

This is my first post on this forum.

 

The issue is classical and i think it is also related to the offer/demand problem and the fact that people can sell everything they want and receive the money automatically.

Additionally, excess offer and almost unlimited production capacity by manufacturers takes some realism out of the game.

 

Any alternatives inevitably imply additional weight to any database and the inclusion of additional data to the planes characteristics

 

it would be nice to see a manufacturer receiving orders from a client, based on a formula, that would consider:

 

- Maximum number of orders per month based on the number of active airlines

(300 airlines in business x 0.05 = 15)

 

- Fidelity of the airline per segment.

A company already using 50% Boeings in the short/medium range aircraft fleet, would get a 50% boost (15 x 1.5 = 22.5)

 

This could be complemented by a «company blacklist log».

A company that cancelled a lot of orders would get negative points and this would influence the final number of planes that could be ordered.

 

By breaking the number of orders into monthtly segments, this would allow small companies to place their orders.

 

And of course: For those used to place an order for 150 B734, it would be rather difficult, because only if you were a very good Voeing client, could Boeing accept an order for the maximum possible figure per month.

 

I dont know how the database engine works or how it is configured, but my rather limited web coding capabilities in asp.net tell me that sometimes even a small change is a pain in the neck.

 

regards

[xwb_777]

Another issue i find and I wish it could be sorted out. When I was want to order the A358 (EIS 2016), I have to wait for 2021 for the delivery of the aircraft. When I go to the aircraft page, it shows that it have only 5 orders. Why the long wait then? 

[RJM]

Another issue i find and I wish it could be sorted out. When I was want to order the A358 (EIS 2016), I have to wait for 2021 for the delivery of the aircraft. When I go to the aircraft page, it shows that it have only 5 orders. Why the long wait then? 

 

It has to do with when the 1st frame is delivered in the real market.

[Isenderen]

Really the only thing i would definitely like to see implemented would be a manufacturer based order cart. It doesn't seem very realistic to me to have to order my B727-200s separately from my B737-400s when im ordering both on the same day. It would be a nice quality of life improvement too.