50 replies to this topic

[travelhouse]

Originally posted by mikemather
I didn't suggest that you said half price - I asked if half price is okay. By your response you state that 33% is okay, I suggest that that too is high.

OK I understand, so you say the 33% is too high, but what happens if you agree to the the current system in place within AE now?

It , when you offer an Aircraft for sale that is MUST be no more than nor higher than 50% of its value (Correct)

Now we have seen some players accused of cheating / being punished / and lots of other CRAP for selling at such a price.

The AE program is much more to blame than is the player in this case.

All I am suggesting is some clarification to this + - % law thats in AE hence why the stated 10 / 33% laws.

Hope you can understand what I mean?

[drv4truk]

Just eliminate private sales and change the percentage of value at which aircraft can be sold for on the used market. Even 80%-120% of value would have an impact on feeder airlines, but it would not eliminate them. If you are trying to sell to an alliance member then you would just have to be quick about getting an aircraft from the used market.

Having users register with a credit card is an easy way to curb the feeder airline issue. If the name and address from the credit card doesn't match the information on the AE account then no account. Charging $1 to cover the admin costs for this would be an easy way to curb all of the feeder airlines and would curtail some of the other airlines that are set up purely to ruin routes for others: EuroTrash, FlyHogs, etc., etc.

[mikemather]

Originally posted by travelhouse

Originally posted by mikemather
I didn't suggest that you said half price - I asked if half price is okay. By your response you state that 33% is okay, I suggest that that too is high.

OK I understand, so you say the 33% is too high, but what happens if you agree to the the current system in place within AE now?

It , when you offer an Aircraft for sale that is MUST be no more than nor higher than 50% of its value (Correct)

Now we have seen some players accused of cheating / being punished / and lots of other CRAP for selling at such a price.

The AE program is much more to blame than is the player in this case.

All I am suggesting is some clarification to this + - % law thats in AE hence why the stated 10 / 33% laws.

Hope you can understand what I mean?

You are correct - well put

To drv4truk,

I agree with your first statement however for the credit card issue - this would make the game unavailable for a lot of minors - not fair to them.

[drv4truk]

That is where the multiple worlds comes into play. As Miller has already said he is "considering" that issue. I would pay to play without having cheaters with feeder airlines all over the place. I would feel sorry for any of the "minors" that aren't able to pay or come up with a credit card, but there should be a free world available.

[travelhouse]

Originally posted by drv4truk
That is where the multiple worlds comes into play. As Miller has already said he is "considering" that issue. I would pay to play without having cheaters with feeder airlines all over the place. I would feel sorry for any of the "minors" that aren't able to pay or come up with a credit card, but there should be a free world available.

Yes, two worlds, payment one and FREE one.

Then again, my son is too young for a credit card, has a bank account which many other younger ones also have, and he opened his own Paypal Account without any problems, so thats one avenue if the AE was to go down this track, payment with CC or Paypal.

[jackthestrip]

Feeder Airlines will always be an issue, this is where people who run the game need feedback from honest players to investigate and reprimand the culprits.

Im sure that the idea of this thread was to stamp out new airlines being created at an airport that was currently out of gates. This issue is much harder for players to notice. Therefor miller will most likely be aware of who is offending.

Its a drawback of the current system, not a bug. We are mearly stating that it should be changed as gates are rapidly selling out.

Lets not get off track here boys eh???!!!!!!!!!

[Skycap]

Here's the way I see this. In the real world, there is a limited number of people who wish to travel on any particular route - for that matter, a limited number of people. When this limit is reached, there's no where else to go. However, AE allows growth beyond that point without growing demand.

That sounded like nonsense, but here's my point. If a certain airport has reached it's cap of enplanements, so to speak, it's not going to over saturate the market by bringing in more and more airlines. Lets'say you have 10 airlines serving 100% of the demand for a particular market. Now along comes airline #11, then 12, the 13, etc. First, the airport is only going to grow so big, with demand remaining the same. If demand levels off, there's no reason to build more gates to lure more airlines because you're just going to increase supply while demand is level and you will end up losing airlines through competition.

Now, there's nothing wrong with this - to a point. I can see an airport developing gates to the point where there is healthy competition between airlines, however, not so much so that the airlines are running with 10% loads, just to stay in the market.

So, I still say that a new airline should not get gates automatically built for them on startup - not realistic at all. An airport should only add gates if, after a period, the demand exceeds the supply of seats, with all current gates utilized. Also, the number of airlines should be limited or, at the very least, be very difficult to break into the market once the field fills up. At this point, I'd suggest multiple servers for multiple games which is another headache altogether. It's just that there are more people who want to play this than it can logically support.

I don't know if this all came out right.

[MinnakhtKan]

SkyCap I was waiting to hear some of that stuff you just said, its so true, if you have been following this thread the1st page converted into a fight because of gate lack....

[flyhegs]

i didn't read the above nut i can tell that used aircrft in AE are a bad idea (very bad one ) . if you look at the Ae frontpage you will see how the old aircrft would look like (operating cost and so ) . they clearley are not up to standard . A very large advantage of old aircrft in reality is that they are cheap and though esy to buy . IN AE operating costs are much more important the price . In reality airlines haven't got much cash , there profit margins are low . (BA , very succesful has about 6 % ) . AE's average is about 40 or 30% . that is minimum 5 times more . so the price for a newer aircrft doesn't really matter . so the used ones should be either dirt cheap ot they are useless .

[Skycap]

Well said flyhegs, about the used market. People forget that the reason we see such a variety of aircraft today is because, at one time, these older ones were state of the art. At one time, the 727-100 and DC-9-10 were IT, when it came to short haul jets. However, if given the choice TODAY between a brand new DC-9-10 and, say a brand new A318, what would you choose? Aha! If it's performance, you would easily pick the A318 - price, the DC9 because the performance, though it was excellant when it first appeared on the market, simply cannot compete with today's technology.

Imagine if the DC9 debuted at the same time as the A318 or the ERJ190. It would have bombed. The only reason such an aircraft should be in AE should be for the used aircraft market, in my opinion. And the 727, yikes! I read somewhere recently, while collecting aircraft technical data that, the 727, on average consumes 1400 gph! This is compared to the 737NG around 800gph or so.

Anyway, that's my take on that.

[Edited on 11/12/2005 by Skycap]