398 replies to this topic

[Hake.]

Isn't space? like gate restrictions?

Passenger restrictions.

[TNT88]

Passenger restrictions.

That's new.....

[Max Devo]

Aeroflot may have had even more then 10,000 aircraft when it was the state monopoly of the USSR.

Where the hell did you hear this? Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, and Antonov didn't even make that many passenger aircraft combined! And even if they did, other Eastern Bloc countries used them as well, not just Aeroflot. Just because the USSR was a big and scary behemoth doesn't mean that they had ridiculous amounts of everything. On that note, how could a nation that could barely hold its own citizens up to a decent standard of living--who probably couldn't afford a plane ticket--even afford to build 10,000 aircraft?

[LockheedTristar]

Where the hell did you hear this? Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, and Antonov didn't even make that many passenger aircraft combined! And even if they did, other Eastern Bloc countries used them as well, not just Aeroflot. Just because the USSR was a big and scary behemoth doesn't mean that they had ridiculous amounts of everything. On that note, how could a nation that could barely hold its own citizens up to a decent standard of living--who probably couldn't afford a plane ticket--even afford to build 10,000 aircraft?

On the internet, in many places. The soviet union were always playing tricks, what if the aircraft companies made way more planes then stated?

[Max Devo]

On the internet, in many places.

 

The soviet union were always playing tricks

To hide just how bad it was there.

 

what if the aircraft companies made way more planes then stated?

Illegal for sure and impossible to get away with, especially in a totalitarian state like the USSR.

[LockheedTristar]

 

 

To hide just how bad it was there.

 

Illegal for sure and impossible to get away with, especially in a totalitarian state like the USSR.

It's on wikipedia.. and maybe it didn't exactly have 10,000 planes but it did have a HELL of a lot of planes because after the soviet union collapsed it was split into 15 different airlines.

[Stevphfeniey]

Where the hell did you hear this? Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, and Antonov didn't even make that many passenger aircraft combined! And even if they did, other Eastern Bloc countries used them as well, not just Aeroflot. Just because the USSR was a big and scary behemoth doesn't mean that they had ridiculous amounts of everything. On that note, how could a nation that could barely hold its own citizens up to a decent standard of living--who probably couldn't afford a plane ticket--even afford to build 10,000 aircraft?

 

Aeroflot wasn't an airline, technically. Aeroflot was the aviation directive of the USSR, so it handled pretty much every single job related to the operation of aircraft, anything from carrying people and cargo across the world, to simpler things like crop dusting and survey work. Also, bear in mind that Aeroflot operated all transport for the Soviet Air Force, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch that the number of planes and helicopters carrying the name Aeroflot was over 10,000.

 

And on this point, USSR era Aeroflot is definitely an awful justification for gigantic airlines in AE. It was a public service providing aeronautical services to every necessary facet of Soviet government and society. AE airlines would go bankrupt in a week if they had to do all of the things Aeroflot had to do.

 

And another point on the USSR, it had a longer life expectancy, employment rate, more doctors per capita, and lower homelessness rate than the United States for some time...

[konj1]

Where the hell did you hear this? Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, and Antonov didn't even make that many passenger aircraft combined! And even if they did, other Eastern Bloc countries used them as well, not just Aeroflot. Just because the USSR was a big and scary behemoth doesn't mean that they had ridiculous amounts of everything. On that note, how could a nation that could barely hold its own citizens up to a decent standard of living--who probably couldn't afford a plane ticket--even afford to build 10,000 aircraft?

Of course, all those aircraft weren't mainline airliners, there were a lot of cargo planes, helicopters etc. counted as "fleet".. But if you count only Tu-134 and Tu-154 that's almost 2000 planes produced, most of them went to Aeroflot, and only a half of that is already much bigger then any American airline of the time.

 

Inefficient as the system was, it didn't offer much choice but it's arguable if it was "barely decent" all the time, conditions for an average guy in USSR in the 70's and 80's weren't dirt poor as one might think, e.g. average life expectancy was about the same as in US, average GDP per capita was about half of US (but 1/3 of that went to defense), much higher then "third world" levels... And talking about plane trips, there was enough money for workers' collectives to organize airplane trips to seaside resorts once in every 3 years or so, in that way even average people could "afford" plane trips it in some way once in a while, I'm not sure how exactly that worked but it happened.

[konj1]

Not lower demand necessarily, I never mentioned it'd be lowered. Just harder to get a massive hub to funnel pax through. Of course stopovers are a two sided coin.

 

Hmmm, I beg to differ. restricting hubs is not realistic, actually, and we see how this works with some of very recently grown airlines that build a huge percentage of their traffic exclusively on transit pax.

I don't think getting a "massive hub to funnel pax" should be limited at all, but hubs should be in some kind of correlation, i.e. competing with both point-to-point pax and other hubs' pax instead of going by absolute numbers per route, instead of infinitely kicking numbers up depending on how big the hub and the destination is regardless of competing p-t-p routes and hub routes.

 

IRL there are huge hubs, but there are fewer of them then in AE3 because they compete with each other's demand numbers from certain airports.

I don't think hubs are the problem, but the way to create passengers out of nothing is.

Maybe there should even be an option to build an enormous hub out of nothing in some unimportant place if you have money to invest in extra planes, just like the "Gulf Three" did in real life (and if you call Ryanair's behavior "spamming", I'd say Emirates is also "spamming" in another way), but it must come with competition on other routes that connect the same cities, and not only cities but also regions, because sometimes passengers will take a car, bus or train trip to a 200 mi / 300 km distant airport to save money even if they have a big airport nearby, but if it lacks good and/or affordable connections people will think of something else.

 

Price limits? Absolutely not, neither too low nor too high, it's up to demand and supply to set prices in any case. Making and losing money should go through competition, not by set rules. How would you regulate three airlines who all want the same route if not by competing prices and services?

 

 

 

Yes, regulations in REAL LIFE, not made up regulations by players on AE. There is no regulations on how many plane an airlines could have in Real Life. So adding that regulations would make the world unrealistic. By that meaning, You cannot make realistic airlines in unrealistic situation/regulations.

 

This is the major flaw in your argument. You can't create realistic airlines when you created a world with unrealistic regulations.

W R O N G

A little lesson in economics and economic history, IRL if an airline (or any other company) that is not a state monopoly gets too big and too important, and if it's not happening in a very corrupt country, it would confront monopoly legislation, it's nothing new and you can't be a new "robber baron" today, that's how modern capitalism works since Standard Oil was forced to break apart, it's what Microsoft and Google face in modern times.

And here you can have an airline that's three times the size of entire global economy... By any "real life regulation" or whatever that would be just wtf.

[TNT88]

Hmmm, I beg to differ. restricting hubs is not realistic, actually, and we see how this works with some of very recently grown airlines that build a huge percentage of their traffic exclusively on transit pax.

I don't think getting a "massive hub to funnel pax" should be limited at all, but hubs should be in some kind of correlation, i.e. competing with both point-to-point pax and other hubs' pax instead of going by absolute numbers per route, instead of infinitely kicking numbers up depending on how big the hub and the destination is regardless of competing p-t-p routes and hub routes.

 

IRL there are huge hubs, but there are fewer of them then in AE3 because they compete with each other's demand numbers from certain airports.

I don't think hubs are the problem, but the way to create passengers out of nothing is.

Maybe there should even be an option to build an enormous hub out of nothing in some unimportant place if you have money to invest in extra planes, just like the "Gulf Three" did in real life (and if you call Ryanair's behavior "spamming", I'd say Emirates is also "spamming" in another way), but it must come with competition on other routes that connect the same cities, and not only cities but also regions, because sometimes passengers will take a car, bus or train trip to a 200 mi / 300 km distant airport to save money even if they have a big airport nearby, but if it lacks good and/or affordable connections people will think of something else.

 

Price limits? Absolutely not, neither too low nor too high, it's up to demand and supply to set prices in any case. Making and losing money should go through competition, not by set rules. How would you regulate three airlines who all want the same route if not by competing prices and services?

 

 

 

W R O N G

A little lesson in economics and economic history, IRL if an airline (or any other company) that is not a state monopoly gets too big and too important, and if it's not happening in a very corrupt country, it would confront monopoly legislation, it's nothing new and you can't be a new "robber baron" today, that's how modern capitalism works since Standard Oil was forced to break apart, it's what Microsoft and Google face in modern times.

And here you can have an airline that's three times the size of entire global economy... By any "real life regulation" or whatever that would be just wtf.

W R O N G

 

" IRL if an airline (or any other company) that is not a state monopoly gets too big and too important, and if it's not happening in a very corrupt country, it would confront monopoly legislation, it's nothing new and you can't be a new "robber baron" today, that's how modern capitalism works since Standard Oil was forced to break apart, it's what Microsoft and Google face in modern times."

 

That Only applied to countries such as the US. China, India, Indonesia, or Brazil wouldn't have that problem. Also, that's not how it works. The Government can't limit a company's growth, and we're not talking about merger or acquisition here, we're talking about natural growth of an airlines. In the other hand, as long as they could generate enough tax money to satisfied the need for the Government funding, they would be able to bend the rules. And that's what we called "Modern Capitalism". How? Ever heard about Lobbying before? It's a synonym for Corruption. Happen in the US 24/7. So if you think you could limit a powerful company, you really need to have a reality check.

 

 

Money is more important than human life. Get that in mind. You can preach all you want but your government wouldn't care as long as they got the money.

 

Money > Human life.

[konj1]

That Only applied to countries such as the US. China, India, Indonesia, or Brazil wouldn't have that problem. Also, that's not how it works. The Government can't limit a company's growth, and we're not talking about merger or acquisition here, we're talking about natural growth of an airlines. In the other hand, as long as they could generate enough tax money to satisfied the need for the Government funding, they would be able to bend the rules. And that's what we called "Modern Capitalism". How? Ever heard about Lobbying before? It's a synonym for Corruption. Happen in the US 24/7. So if you think you could limit a powerful company, you really need to have a reality check.

 

 

Money is more important than human life. Get that in mind. You can preach all you want but your government wouldn't care as long as they got the money.

 

Money > Human life.

 

I don't get it, what, why those countries? Market and competition rules apply on both domestic and international markets in smaller countries as well.

 

Lobbying, corruption and bending the rules is not the same thing as complete monopoly on a market, you're mixing a lot of things together. And that bleeding heart "human life" argument has nothing to do with how monopolies and trusts were actually dealt with when they actually got in the way of normal functioning of the rest of economy, and actually got in the way of some other influence groups as well. Sometimes monopolies ended when competition got stronger, but sometimes lawsuits caught up with them and government or some other interest groups really did successfully intervene despite all the influence that a big fat monopolistic company could gather.

 

And anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation is not about "limiting strong companies", it's about enabling competition and free flow of prices. Sometimes big companies despite their influence lose lawsuits and get large fines and are forced to change their practice, and actually a trust of smaller companies can have a monopoly and their influence can be declared against the law and damaging for consumers or other companies, not small ones but also if they get in a way of a more competitive bigger company that couldn't get fair treatment. The real economy is a lot more nuanced then your "So if you think you could limit a powerful company, you really need to have a reality check."

[TNT88]

I don't get it, what, why those countries? Market and competition rules apply on both domestic and international markets in smaller countries as well.

 

Lobbying, corruption and bending the rules is not the same thing as complete monopoly on a market, you're mixing a lot of things together. And that bleeding heart "human life" argument has nothing to do with how monopolies and trusts were actually dealt with when they actually got in the way of normal functioning of the rest of economy, and actually got in the way of some other influence groups as well. Sometimes monopolies ended when competition got stronger, but sometimes lawsuits caught up with them and government or some other interest groups really did successfully intervene despite all the influence that a big fat monopolistic company could gather.

 

And anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation is not about "limiting strong companies", it's about enabling competition and free flow of prices. Sometimes big companies despite their influence lose lawsuits and get large fines and are forced to change their practice, and actually a trust of smaller companies can have a monopoly and their influence can be declared against the law and damaging for consumers or other companies, not small ones but also if they get in a way of a more competitive bigger company that couldn't get fair treatment. The real economy is a lot more nuanced then your "So if you think you could limit a powerful company, you really need to have a reality check."

Ah, the Sue-Happy country appears again. There are tons of things behind back doors that we don't know. Monsanto for instance, get the hold of lots of government to pass on their rulings on how or which product could be sold or categorized as illegal in hundreds of countries. They are the example of how far a company could control the politics. "anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation" Yada yada yada, come on, these rules only applied to small medium sized business who doesn't have connection with the Government. These obsessions about suing or following laws doesn't work in Most. This is not about the US alone, this is about the World. Look at Airlines in my country, Lion Air is now the biggest airlines in my country. They have a connection with the government officials hence why they're able to grow so big without restrictions. And they are a private company.

 

The economy is more Complex than what you thought it is. Dirty money circulated every minutes to keep things in place. Corruption is the only answers to make AE realistic.

[konj1]

Ah, the Sue-Happy country appears again. There are tons of things behind back doors that we don't know. Monsanto for instance, get the hold of lots of government to pass on their rulings on how or which product could be sold or categorized as illegal in hundreds of countries. They are the example of how far a company could control the politics. "anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation" Yada yada yada, come on, these rules only applied to small medium sized business who doesn't have connection with the Government. These obsessions about suing or following laws doesn't work in Most. This is not about the US alone, this is about the World. Look at Airlines in my country, Lion Air is now the biggest airlines in my country. They have a connection with the government officials hence why they're able to grow so big without restrictions. And they are a private company.

 

The economy is more Complex than what you thought it is. Dirty money circulated every minutes to keep things in place. Corruption is the only answers to make AE realistic.

Companies from Standard Oil to Google were/are small and medium sized businesses? Yeah, right.

 

I didn't say every monopoly gets broken but it can happen, and they surely at least spend millions and billions on lawsuits.

 

Well, OK, maybe AE should also introduce corruption index (different in different countries)? It can make companies both get bigger and restricting, depending on how well you play, bribes are expensive, but if you bribe too much you get busted, if you grow slowly you can get away with a big monopoly at least for a while and you accumulate enough money to invest in other countries (offshore accounts, stocks of other airlines etc)... 

And maybe there should be an option to get involved in money laundering and smuggling? It might be both a shady company policy to make extra money (which might get you in bigger problems), and a tool for your employees to get even behind your back if you're not paying them enough, which might ruin your reputation for a while.

 

At least lawyers and lobbyists (if not also some other shady managers, "businessmen" and "fixers") should also be on an airline company payroll, not only some boring pilots and flight attendants ...

 

 

But I would also make just plain legal expense and insurance a part of the money losing side, there's always that but getting higher especially if your planes are overused... Random crashes are not a good idea, but overusing your workforce and aircraft can be calculated.

[canmau333]

This proposal might be perfect for maybe a different type of gameworld? Anyone agree, because I like some of the aspects that AE has but I would also not say no to a new type of gameworld.

[JimBob1]

I think the best way to slow expansion is to dramatically reduce leasing or even eliminate it.

 

Perhaps have a small limit of planes you can lease for the first several months of game time.

 

Regardless of how it's done.........having big limitations on leasing would slow down expansion.

[TNT88]

Companies from Standard Oil to Google were/are small and medium sized businesses? Yeah, right.

 

I didn't say every monopoly gets broken but it can happen, and they surely at least spend millions and billions on lawsuits.

 

Well, OK, maybe AE should also introduce corruption index (different in different countries)? It can make companies both get bigger and restricting, depending on how well you play, bribes are expensive, but if you bribe too much you get busted, if you grow slowly you can get away with a big monopoly at least for a while and you accumulate enough money to invest in other countries (offshore accounts, stocks of other airlines etc)... 

And maybe there should be an option to get involved in money laundering and smuggling? It might be both a shady company policy to make extra money (which might get you in bigger problems), and a tool for your employees to get even behind your back if you're not paying them enough, which might ruin your reputation for a while.

 

At least lawyers and lobbyists (if not also some other shady managers, "businessmen" and "fixers") should also be on an airline company payroll, not only some boring pilots and flight attendants ...

 

 

But I would also make just plain legal expense and insurance a part of the money losing side, there's always that but getting higher especially if your planes are overused... Random crashes are not a good idea, but overusing your workforce and aircraft can be calculated.

And corruption. It's one of the most Vital parts for Airlines to start.

[agonnaldia]

I’ve only been playing AE for a couple of weeks so I’m not sure if this might have been suggested already or if it is even possible.

 

Could you maybe increase the Marketing aspects so as to directly influence load factors?

 

The more routes an airline has the greater the marketing cost to keep the Pax choosing your flights over another. This will even out competition between larger and smaller airlines. Marketing should be optional, but necessary to reap the full benefits of every route.

 

I suggest the following:

 

Competitive Routes:

 

Airlines with marketing plans will be able to get a minimum of 50% of available passengers on competitive routes regardless of ticket price (unless competing airlines also increase their marketing.). With sufficient marketing you will be able to push this percentage up to 90% (Note: there is a 10% gap to further decrease monopolies and give 3de parties a means to enter the route.)

Airlines that choose not to market their flight will still be able to operate, all be it in the 10% bracket.

 

Routes with no competition:

 

When there is no other airline flying the particular route, you could imagine potential passengers taking alternative means of travel (Bus, Train, Ship etc.) unless you’re airline is better marketed than any other modes of transport.

So routes with no competition from other airlines will still suffer from lack of marketing due to other factors. Thus:

Routes without competition and NO Marketing  will only get a maximum of 70% Pax. Airline wide Marketing will increase the max to 100% until a competitor introduces flights on the route.

 

Two forms of marketing can be introduced:

 

 

1.Airline wide Marketing

 

At a high cost it increases your max Pax by 20% for all routs. The cost increases with number of routs meaning the larger your airline, the more you will have to fork out to get the same advantage.

 

2.Route Specific Marketing

 

 

At a lower cost you can market a specific route for (3, 6, or 12 months) increasing your max Pax by a further 20% on that route. The cost can be related to daily number of available passengers on the route giving each route a relative Marketing Cost.

 

3.No Marketing (how it is now)

 

 

Airlines without competition or ambition don’t have to Market their airline, small local airlines might not even need it.

 

Marketing costs could be something along the lines of:

 

1.       Airline wide Marketing –

 

$50 000 p/m per route for airlines with under 5 routes

$100 000 p/m per route for airlines with 6-20 routes

$500 000 p/m per route for airlines with 20+ routes

 

(Possibly add a 25% increase to be levied for every 10 leased aircraft to incentivise airline to rather buy aircrafts)

(Possibly decrease by 50% for airlines that only fly nationally, giving Airlines that only operate locally with smaller aircraft a marketing advantage as they don’t have to market internationally.)

 

2.       Route Specific Marketing –

 

(Note that this is PER ROUTE and can only be applied if you already have an Airline wide Marketing plan in place)

 

National Routes (500 daily passengers used for example)

 

3 months:

$100 x available daily passengers on route x 3 months = $150 000

6 months:

$85 x available daily passengers on route x 6 months = $255 000

12 months:

$70 x available daily passengers on route x 12 months = $420 000

 

International Routes (500 daily passengers used for example)

 

3 months:

                $500 x available daily passengers on route x 3 months = $750 000

 

6 months:

$400 x available daily passengers on route x 6 months = $1 200 000

 

12 months:

$350 x available daily passengers on route x 12 months = $2 100 000

 

 

 

PS. Sorry its a book....

[konj1]

Good ideas, I hope at least parts of this will be in AE4.

[dazwalsh]

I would like to see the following.

Harder to establish routes, requiring a crap load of marketing initially and a slow build up of load factor, say 6 months or so at least. An overnight attack on a route decimating load factors just doesn't sit right with me.

Realistic aircraft deliveries as per the real world.

ABCD checks built in to utilisation, maybe reducing 140 hours to 120.

Lower costs for smaller aircraft and regional setups.

Higher costs for international airlines.

Terminals should cost a stonking amount of money, and cost a stonking amount to run, used only as a last resort when airport full.

If airport approaching limit the cost of acquiring gates should rocket so that you end up having to pay something daft like 100 million for a gate at LHR.

I'm sure those things have been suggested before, but didn't read the whole thread. Those measures should help curb the expansion of the mega airlines.

[konj1]

Terminals should cost a stonking amount of money, and cost a stonking amount to run, used only as a last resort when airport full.

 Agreed. There should also be a delay from ordering works to terminal being actually finished instead of just typing a number and right away you can park 200 more planes, not to stretch it through several decades like the screwed-up BER (even Germans can be disorganized once in a while  ) but depending on size of works a couple of years delay at least would be rational.

And since it's a big and serious investment, I think cooperation between airlines should be a common way to do it or an airline who built it must be able to rent gates and make money, building a bunch of small new terminals each by another mid-sized airline doesn't make sense IRW.

For some airports there should also be a limit for expansion, or after that limit expansion should be severely more expensive, since some airports can't expand unless you raze parts of cities, flatten mountains and build artificial islands.

 

But I think it must be possible for foreign airlines to invest in new terminals (in countries that welcome foreign capital at least), just look at what Star Alliance invested for LHR T2.