I did numerous long-haul flights in FSX, TPE-LAX,TPE-SFO,TPE-EWR, TPE-YVR, TPE-KIX-JFK, TPE-NRT-HNL, TPE-LHR, TPE-FRA, TPE-CDG, TPE-AMS and a lot more that I can't remember on EVA Air and China Airliens. I always do it before sleep, so I could just set it on autopilot and land the next day. Sometimes sh%t happens, things fail and the plane crashes. I don't do it anymore, it's a waste of time and electricity.

I think due to AE's unusually high demand for aircraft, we should have a totally different system of delivery from the current one that is similar to those of real life. 

 

For example, for the Airbus A320 series production line, we can have 20 slots per AE day which amounts to 140 slots per week. Each airline would only be limited to 2 slot per AE day for receiving aircraft, a maximum of 4 per AE week, 12 per AE month and 100 per AE year. This means that when airlines are ordering their aircraft, they can either opt for the system to evenly spread their orders or they can choose the available slots they want. Airlines can factor in when they are able to play the game and the number of aircraft they can possibly handle. This system would ensure that big airlines would not be hogging slots and deter them to receive more aircraft than they can cope as they would be piling up aging unused aircraft. This would also allow players who have the time to be able to grow their airline as fast as possible with their limited time. If airlines choose to defer their aircraft, they would still have to pick slots and their original slots would be opened to others.

 

would prefer to see unrealistic orders voided. For example in R5, which ends in 2025, one airline has ordered so many A380s that the last delivery is scheduled for 2051. If you make significant changes to the current set up you need to think of the implications.

We should not allow any airlines to pick delivery slots which are after the fixed game-ending year.

 

Therefore, this system would still be based on the "first come first served" basis, but with a lot more flexibility for airlines to plan ahead which would really bring out the airline "manager" part of the game.

1)504 Gateway Time-out

2) 1655, GMT+8

3) http://ae31.airline-...om/aircraft.php

4) I was trying to access the aircraft page to adjust some aircraft routing.

5) The problem has been reoccurring for 10 minutes after constant refreshing and reaccessing of the page.

6) O1 World, Air Formosa, Keelung

Go to your nearest store now!

Yay~

Was reading this post for 1 second and pressed on the Used Aircraft market and a bunch of planes popped up    

<p>I think we should separate the concept of slots from gates, they are two different matters. Slots are the rights to land and takeoff at the airport which can be owned by the airport, bought by airlines, or leased by airlines from the airport or other airlines. The cost of utilizing the slots either owned or leased should be determined by the Category of the aircraft being flown into the airport. There should be a limited number of slots per week, but considering the number of airlines and airplanes they operate in AE, unless there is a system where airlines can finance airport expansion which costs astronomically and takes years to construct in the game, we should include a unrealistic number of slots. In case an airport runs out of slots like London Heathrow, if there are slots owned by airlines which are unused for a given period of time, the slots would be placed on sale or lease on market. If the slots are leased from other airlines, they will be returned and the airline which owns the slot would be alerted through mail and if the slots belong to the airport authority they be just be returned and placed back on market.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Gates can either be owned by the airport or airlines through terminals. Operating costs should be lower if airlines own the gates or terminals. The number of aircraft that can use a single gate in a week will be determined by the aircraft's turnaround time. So theoretically, it will be the number of minutes a gate has, which will be 11080 minutes a week. Airports would lease gates out in minutes. Airlines can choose to lease their gates out in minutes to other airlines. If the airport runs out of gates, airlines can choose to construct a new terminal or expand from their own.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I guess this would make the game more realistic but I hope it doesn't complicate things</p>

Maybe?

There are many airlines out there. I'm not sure how the monitoring would be implemented, but I guess these regulators would only be given the right to send official warnings to players violating the rules and the rest is up to the developers. Anyway, the onus is on these regulators, and also credit should be given if this is implemented.

I think we need a board of regulators however the rules might be to monitor the airlines. Say 30~50 of us so the developers can concentrate on making AE better.

Not so, the plane still does profit even at 30 or 40 and maybe even 50 years, but it's just less. Also, never, ever run just one plane of a type, you will not be able to make an overall profit even if it's brand new, let alone 10. In the end, it's economics. One tip I would give to you when you're leasing aircraft, always go for a full 10-year lease, and when you get the aircraft, extend the lease by one year, this decreases the price of lease per month. I know it isn't much but numbers do add up. Never terminate leases, never. Just buy and sell the plane.

Gates and slots are two different issues. We can use the turn around time to calculate how much should be charged to a single flight.

Like I said on different threads for a countless number of times since this has been brought up repeatedly that the only solution to this is to replace the gate system that we have now that gives you 50 slots when you only need a couple to the system in the real world where international airports or airports with high traffic would have a regulated slots system which you can buy/sell/lease individual slots where one slot can only be used for one flight either arriving or departing. That means you need two slots for a return flight and this might be a tedious task but we can have an automatic slot leasing/procurement system while we are adding flights and it will perform in the same way as the system we have now and this would only apply to the airports with IATA Level 3( Coordinated Airport ) standing http://en.wikipedia....ki/Landing_slot . Applying this in AE4 would free up lots of unused slots and save some insignificant money for the airlines, providing others with the opportunity to expand their operations to these high-traffic airports and allow more competition, with the fundamental aim to make AE more realistic.

This idea of charging airlines by the turn around time for using the gates has been suggested (by me actually) quite some time ago. It's under consideration and I think it's one of the solution to the imbalance. Also I have to reiterate again, landing rights/slots have to be separated from gate usage. Please search the forums for my previous posts 'cause I don't feel like typing my idea for the billionth time.

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

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.

Risky in another sense, but not dumping your precious aircraft in the market for others to take. I'm for mergers that unite two airlines into one, not scrapping one and have another pick up whats left.

That would be slow, painful and risky. Why would anyone want to waste all their effort and cease operations?

I'm now running Rapid Air in World R5 which flies from the United Arab Emirates. Since the start of this game world, I have come to an understanding with alin2s1 who is running Emirates that we will avoid competition and fly different routes. Not long after I decided to share control of my airline with alin2s1 because I was to tired of running the airline with all the new aircraft pouring in. Now I'm thinking, since effectively alin2s1 controls two airlines that are flying out from the same bases, we should try merging our airlines and I believe he would like that to happen. Is it possible if we try this out now in AE 3.1 with our airlines as experiment and see what problems we'll face if this is ever incorporated into AE. I know that many have talked about mergers. I agree that mergers should be limited to airlines of the same country of origin (or union), otherwise mergers should be regulated somehow, both players would have to agree on the merger, no mergers are allowed between airlines controlled by the same player and number of mergers should be limited to one or two. I believe that this system would not be abused if its planned out this way, no airlines would be buying up each other for the sake of creating a huge airlines that dominates the world, over-riding restricted worlds. If airlines do merge, the airline should be owned by both players, with both being allowed to manage the airline. Although we should allow airlines to pool their resources together, I do not see the up-side to this, with only one airline rather than two, airlines would have to wait longer for aircraft deliveries of the same amount, so this system of merger would not be abused. The up-side to mergers is that there will be two or more people running a single airline, making the airline more efficient and better managed. Other than all this, I'm tired, and I don't want to see my hard work go to waste. Can we try this out now and we'll see how it works?

Please read what I've typed......................please...

I understand that and I believe every player knows that programming things are a pain in the a*s. We are all offering suggestions to make the game better. However it would be kind of you to read my first post thoroughly before posting your comments. Some of us do actually put in effort in writing these suggestions.

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. 

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.

You didn't read did you?

 

I like the idea of mergers...but I can see where it could easily be used to abuse the system. Say you are wanting to grow your airline faster, but obviously restrictions on aircraft buying/leasing limits how fast you can get aircraft to grow your airline. So you create a second airline/account and start ordering and building a route structure that would complement, and not compete, with your first one..then you merge, effectively creating one large airline in less time than it would have taken you to grow each normally. Where there is a will to abuse a game/loophole, people will find a way. Sure they could add restrictions, etc, but then it gets more and more complicated for the developers to implement and a simple feature/idea just gets messy.

In my very first post, I mentioned that mergers between your own airlines MUST NOT BE ALLOWED! READ FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Which is what everyone agrees on. What I'm saying is, which is what I've been REPEATING FOR NUMEROUS TIMES BECAUSE PEOPLE NEVER BOTHERED TO READ, is that if two airlines owned by different players determines that a merger would be more beneficial, they would merge (and please refer back to my first post and read through THOROUGHLY).

 

DA*M, Why do people always jump to conclusions?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?  

Double post.