32 replies to this topic

[Keelung]

I'm very close to running across an airport now to "merge" with a plane. (I live 2 kilometers away from one)

[Mobeer]

Using your rules:

> New world, players A, B, C setup in France. A,B merge into C
Players A,B, form new airlines in Germany. These merge into B.
This is ok, to have starting airlines with 2/3 times more planes than anyone else?

> Two worlds, players A, B have airlines in France in world 1, airlines in Germany in world 2
These airlines are in destructive competition
In world 1 A merges into B, and in world 2 B merges into A. Both players get a big airline to run that now has many more planes and much less competition. Is it ok that the other airlines in those worlds find a competitor that has doubled in size?

> Players A, B both setup in new world in USA
Player A gives player B joint control
Player B grows both airlines as fast as possible, taking as many deliveries as possible
After a few game years, airlines A and B merge, to form the largest airline around, having taken more deliveries than anyone else

Is this all ok to you?

What if player X doesn't like these mergers? Can he appeal? Do mergers have to wait on appeals, or can they be undone?

[FlyAirwest]

This was what I said. Regulation is the key. On the side note, I did think about something that would naturally stop some players from trading airlines - humanity. "Why didn't you work on that airline more?" " Why would I trade with you now when that airline sucks?"

 

You must be new to the Internet.

 

There is very little "humanity" to a multiplayer Internet game, because there aren't any real stakes that might inspire people to consider being human. Some of us pretend like our passengers actually matter, and we always get crushed by players whose sole purpose is to find any loophole, any exploit, any advantage they can to win the game.

 

Do you think a real airline can build a war chest of billions of dollars by flying a single flight on a high-demand route and charging 10,000 bucks for tickets? Of course not. But it can happen here. And no amount of regulation is going to curb the instinct of gamers to work out ways of exploiting the system that way.

 

To sum up, your theory is admirable, but impractical given the reality of the system.

[Keelung]

Finally revving up some constructive comments. I guess I haven't been really thorough in explaining my proposed rules.

 

> New world, players A, B, C setup in France. A,B merge into C

Players A,B, form new airlines in Germany. These merge into B.
This is ok, to have starting airlines with 2/3 times more planes than anyone else?

In this circumstance, we would have to apply rules that airlines just starting in any world would not be allowed to merge with others under the age of say, 2 game years, unless they are in the negative.

 

 

> Two worlds, players A, B have airlines in France in world 1, airlines in Germany in world 2
These airlines are in destructive competition
In world 1 A merges into B, and in world 2 B merges into A. Both players get a big airline to run that now has many more planes and much less competition. Is it ok that the other airlines in those worlds find a competitor that has doubled in size?

> Players A, B both setup in new world in USA
Player A gives player B joint control
Player B grows both airlines as fast as possible, taking as many deliveries as possible
After a few game years, airlines A and B merge, to form the largest airline around, having taken more deliveries than anyone else

Rules and limitations must be in place such as: the combined market share in any airport of two airlines must not be more than 50%, so airlines would have to give up some routes and slots, any mergers conducted would automatically require the players to make a press release on every single detail (aircraft,finance etc.) so all this information would be placed on public scrutiny and/or an automatic red flag system must be in place if any airline tries to violate the rules.

 

 

You must be new to the Internet.

No I'm not.

 

 

There is very little "humanity" to a multiplayer Internet game, because there aren't any real stakes that might inspire people to consider being human. Some of us pretend like our passengers actually matter, and we always get crushed by players whose sole purpose is to find any loophole, any exploit, any advantage they can to win the game.

I'm just trying to make a light note.

 

Do you think a real airline can build a war chest of billions of dollars by flying a single flight on a high-demand route and charging 10,000 bucks for tickets? 

Don't understand what you're on about.

 

But it can happen here. And no amount of regulation is going to curb the instinct of gamers to work out ways of exploiting the system that way.

 

To sum up, your theory is admirable, but impractical given the reality of the system.

 

True, I agree on that. My idea is not flawless, the purpose for all these discussion is to point out flaws in our proposal so that one day we will come out with a conclusion that is mature enough to be put in use which would limit exploitation to the very least. There is no point of you being hostile which is not helping anyone. I believe we are all here to make the game better, so do just that.

[Keelung]

The way I see it is that for mergers to be implemented, there must be a balance amount of up-sides and down-sides to it. However, I don't like the idea of wiping out of finances of one airline for the merger, because in real life, finances are combined, cash as well as debt.

[FlyAirwest]

True, I agree on that. My idea is not flawless, the purpose for all these discussion is to point out flaws in our proposal so that one day we will come out with a conclusion that is mature enough to be put in use which would limit exploitation to the very least. There is no point of you being hostile which is not helping anyone. I believe we are all here to make the game better, so do just that.

 

Any hostility you might have felt is your own assumption. I'm simply saying that any feature you might propose is going to be subject to exploitation. If people respond to your suggestion by saying an element is impractical, then you need to adapt and come up with a practical solution rather than rely on the maturity and bonhomie of other players. It's the nature of the beast.

[Keelung]

Would you type something more conducive? We are here to exchange ideas to craft out the best proposal, not just pointing out loopholes of others. 

[Keelung]

Double post.

[FlyAirwest]

Would you type something more conducive? We are here to exchange ideas to craft out the best proposal, not just pointing out loopholes of others. 

How is it not conducive to point out flaws and loopholes in suggestions? That gives everyone a chance to note loopholes and find ways to close them before the idea gets implemented. It's otherwise known as constructive criticism.

The merger process is a fair idea but the complexity of it - not just implementation but abuse avoidance - is thorny. The more people point out potential flaws, the better the developers will be able to unknot the tangle of eventually putting the feature in the game.

[Keelung]

I don't want to go on and on on this thread, my point is, please give ideas to make ours better. The end.

[LLC]

AE Topic - airline bankruptcy sales and multi ownership of airline subsidiaries
 

I would like:
 
1) When Airlines go bankrupt (when the "Cease Operations" button is used and/or when bond holders force auto bankruptcy)
     where there would be a bankruptcy sale like happens in real life Airline bankruptcy
 
2) multi ownership of Airline subsidiaries (see quote below)
 
3)  In the following example, both airlines would have to agree to using the bankruptcy button for (on) Airline Z
     person 1 - Airline A 50% ownership -----|
     person 2 - Airline B 50% ownership -----|       
                                                                             |
                                                                             |----- Airline Z ( no person because it is owned and controlled by Airlines A & B )
 
     but one of the owners (person 2 for example) could sell all or part of their ownership of Airline Z resulting in:
 
     person 1 - Airline A 50% ownership -----|
     person 2 - Airline B 25% ownership -----|
     person 3 - Airline C 25% ownership -----|
                                                                             |
                                                                             |----- Airline Z ( no person because it is owned and controlled by Airlines A , B & C )
 
     or if (person 2 for example) sold all of their ownership stake in Airline Z:
 
 
     person 1 - Airline A 50% ownership -----|
     person 2 - Airline B 0% no ownership    |
     person 3 - Airline C 50% ownership -----|
                                                                             |
                                                                             |----- Airline Z ( no person because it is owned and controlled by Airlines A & C )
 
    also there could be wholly owned subsidiaries owned by one person
 
     person 1 - US Airways Group 100% ownership -----|
                                                                                                 |-----  US Airways LLC  dba  US Airways
                                                                                                 |-----  US Airways Shuttle LLC (formerly Trump Shuttle)  dba  US Airways Shuttle
                                                                                                 |-----  Piedmont Airlines, Inc.  dba  US Airways Express
                                                                                                 |-----  PSA Airlines, Inc.  dba  US Airways Express
 

Like US Airways owning (100%) subsidiaries US Airways Shuttle, Piedmont Airlines, Inc. and PSA Airlines, Inc
 
So would it be possible to have this option wholly in-house (100% owned subsidiaries)
 
US Airways Group -----|
                                         |
                                         |-----  US Airways Shuttle (formerly Trump Shuttle)
                                         |-----  Piedmont Airlines, Inc.  dba US Airways Express
                                         |-----  PSA Airlines, Inc.  dba US Airways Express
  
Also having a multi ownership function within Airline Empires
 
      for example two airlines (2 people) each owning half of a third airline, with the third airline (no person) operating as a fully controlled subsidiary of both airline owners (codeshare)
 
person 1 - Airline A 50% ownership -----|
person 2 - Airline B 50% ownership -----|       
                                                                        |
                                                                        |----- Airline Z ( no person because it is owned and controlled by Airlines A & B )
 
      with the ability to buy / sell ownership of airlines within Airline Empires
      (with bankrupt airlines in Airline Empires being sold to other airlines in a bankruptcy sale by the Airline Empires auto bankruptcy trustee - operating as in real life)  
 
For example - I own US Airways, and Trump Shuttle is put up for sale in a bankruptcy sale, and I am the winning bidder
 
 then Trump Shuttle would be renamed US Airways Shuttle as a wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways

[Nick94094]

Also to discourage mergers,there should be a huge processing fee and the merged airline C should have less reputation than airline A and airline B.The value should also be reduced to 60% - 70% of the original airlines.Employee layoffs should further reduce reputation .

[LLC]

Also to discourage mergers,there should be a huge processing fee and the merged airline C should have less reputation than airline A and airline B.The value should also be reduced to 60% - 70% of the original airlines.Employee layoffs should further reduce reputation .

 

person 1 - Airline A in Japan 50% ownership ---------------|
person 2 - Airline B in South Korea 50% ownership -------|       
                                                                                         |
                                                                                         |----- Airline Z in China ( no person because it is owned and controlled by Airlines A & B )

 

No Merger as this would be two airlines (people) each co-owning a third airline in China ( no person but showing up as subsidiaries of Airlines A & B )