Maybe we can set up a specific AE world for this, the "f$%king" hard world where fuel fluctuates according to historical figures and maybe even future projections and passengers would rather opt to take another airline if your planes are too crammed.

I think the problem that developers face is that they would have to research on theoretical fuel burn data and sometimes even make assumptions. I think it would be best if the developers are willing to ask people in our community what the actual operating data is and certainly many of you who work in airlines would be able to disclose some data.

If there's going to be bidding, charters should we very lucrative $$$$$ so that airlines would have spare frames to do the job and there would have to be a reasonable time limit.

I like to post things in General Discussion because it will get more publicity  . Anyway, will do what you say.

In the "Configure Aircraft Cabin Layout", it only says "F seats", "C seats" and "Y seats". Is it possible if we could name our own seats just for the nostalgia? Also, is it possible to include premium economy in the game too? Or maybe in AE 4?

Good to hear that.

You're right about that, but you never know who's going to change their mind out of a sudden.

After the horror (or brilliant surprise) I've experienced through the sudden closure of my airline, Rapid Air in R5, while I was adding flights, I would like to suggest an alteration to the system of Shared Control where before the control is assigned to another player, the player who owns the airline would have simple choices where he can select restrictions to the another player like the removal of right to cease airline operations, removal of right to issue bonds, removal of right to leave airline alliance (or join one) and so on. Once the restrictions have been made and control has been given, nothing can be changed unless the co-manager is removed and the terms should then be chosen again. This would prevent the co-manager from doing anything that the owner does not want to to the airline and stop any unhappiness from growing within the community.

I did think of that. However they way I look at it is that we have to give recognition to those who have contributed to an airline's success and I believe that this would be a great motivator for co-managers. The way round exploitation I would suggest we impose a restriction that co-managers must at least be in the position for say 5 game years or have increased the D.O.P. of an airline by so much to be qualified to receive the award. I am certain that this would be important to the individuals who help as they would not be doing a simple favor without credit which would also be important to the community.

I think we should give credit to co-managers of an airline when the airlines wins an award so they their help and hard work on the airline would be acknowledged.

Never mind, thank you to that f-ing guy who is rude enough not to notify me before bankrupting my rank 14 airline (which is what I believe so that happened) where I spent my month miserably starring at the computer. Thank you for bringing me such relief on such sudden notice.

 

P.S.

You will never have control of any of my airline again.

 

This thread is just an overreaction by the way, no judgments.

I run Rapid Air in world R5 and it has just disappeared!!!! HELP!!!!

Maybe?

Keelung, did you mean:   "...this doesn't matter...", or "...these don't matter..."? 

Second one I meant....just got reverse jacked...

*name

There's an edit function. 

 

If there's ever going to be charters, I think there should be a charter page in the game where the requirements are specified for each job ( Time, Place, Seating, Range and Price ) and charters can only be accepted while the player is online but the actual flight can be conducted when the player is offline. Say the player comes online, goes to the charter page, considers each requirement and calculates profitability, accepts jobs and assign them to specific aircraft and goes offline.

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

Global 5000/7000/8000, Gulfstream 550/650. The most absurd one I can think of is the AIRBUS CJ380 "Flying Palace", fly 56 Royalties at astronomical prices. 

I know that, but there is nothing on the Market Research page about political restrictions whatsoever. Something got missed out when new changes were added?

I'm operating Rapid Air in R5 and trying to start AUH/DXB-DAL with A340-200s equipped with CFM International (GE Snecma) CFM56-5C2. The runway at Dallas Love Field is 8800ft, which is within the runway requirement of the A340-200. On the Market Research page, it doesn't say anything about political restrictions, and on Add Flights page, no matter how I refresh or click on "show all" aircraft, nothing seems to appear. I've checked and I have one A340-200 idle. Help?

Double post.

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. 

All true, other than, no offence, your grammar and vocabulary needs some improvement. Anyway, the indicator between both types if money isn't an issue, to me, is the range and runway length required. I would very much prefer the A320 over the 738 just because of that because it makes it easier for me to open up routes and assign aircraft. For example, one airline I'm running, Air Formosa, has a single aisle fleet of A320 series and Bombardier CS300ERs, where I phased out my Boeing 737-800s in favor of A320s. However these doesn't really matter at all for airlines undergoing growth, they would just buy both to overcome slot restrictions. Good job by the way on your analysis on both aircraft!

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.

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.

In honor of the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, father of the United Arab Emirates, Rapid Air has decided to rename itself as Sheikh Zayed Airlines in remembrance of this great leader. We would like the livery and logo to be in U.A.E. colors with a royal touch, and let your imagination run wild! Thank You.