46
[=] Suggestions / Re: List of Online Players?
« on: January 03, 2011, 07:05:34 am »
Yeah, that could definitely be useful. Another use would be to avoid editing routes in competition with someone who's online.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
47
Game Strategy / Re: How to make a profit
« on: January 01, 2011, 09:45:15 pm »
To clarify, with frequencies the optimal number is in fact 0.5, not 1. You make the most money with the lowest possible frequency. The reason most people will say to use a frequency of 1 is that you are limited in the number of 0.5 frequencies you can do, unless you do a very good job of schedulng your aircraft between your different bases
48
[-] Suggestions / Re: Earnings bar
« on: December 29, 2010, 08:40:03 pm »
I was more talking about the initial suggestion, to show each individual aircraft's earnings. As far as I know, maintenance costs are calculated (not just displayed) based on your fleet as a whole, not by each aircraft, and your can't simply divide the cost by the number of aircraft (older aircraft will contribute disproportionately large amounts to costs) - that's the reason why individual aircraft maintenance fees can't be displayed.
Concerning a graph to show profitability, it could be a useful addition. However, the information can be fairly easily accessed through the finances page, accessed by clicking on your Bank Balance, which displays your total monthly revenue, costs and profits.
Concerning a graph to show profitability, it could be a useful addition. However, the information can be fairly easily accessed through the finances page, accessed by clicking on your Bank Balance, which displays your total monthly revenue, costs and profits.
49
[-] Suggestions / Re: Earnings bar
« on: December 25, 2010, 05:45:30 pm »
The current maintenance calculations are done fleet-wide, not by aircraft. This would make it difficult to calculate the maintenance costs for a specific aircraft - removing the biggest cost for most airlines from the profitability bars. This may be changed with revisions to the maintenance formulas though.
50
[-] Suggestions / Re: Alliances
« on: December 06, 2010, 11:55:24 pm »
To clarify, I was trying to explain that the inactive airline would be of minimal use to the alliance (even a net loss), as after a few weeks of not being run, they tend to have old planes and bad loadfactors - negating most of the purpose in doing it at all. There is also the problem above of feeding money into the alliance, allowing cheating.
I suppose more of a problem is that this is by no means what would really happen. A defunct airline (as with any other business) would typically be sold (as a whole or in parts) and the money recovered used to pay back creditors. Even if there were no debts, there isn't really a situation in which the alliance (which has no role in owning the airline) should take over their aircraft for free - they simply don't own them. It is kind of like a person dying and the golf club they are a member of taking all their property.
Alliance routes/planes is difficult, in that I suspect most airlines would be unwilling to run (create and edit) routes for their alliance (neglecting their own), there is also the difficulty of cheating (people effectively getting out more than they put in). I think, though, there is a way to overcome this (albeit with considerable required coding I should think).
Firstly, I think the share of the profits returned should be proportional to the amount each airline has put in (i.e. lifetime fees).
Secondly, the LF calculations could be modified to make each airline's share of the seats on an alliance route be calculated separately (or at least more favourably) - effectively allowing them to charge higher prices. This would be most beneficial on long haul, making larger planes economical, and going some way to replicate code shares - something desired by most players
Of course, the whole idea of alliance routes (and even bases) is unrealistic - in reality the alliances don't really exist as (powerful) separate entities, but are really just made up of their member airlines. "Alliance aircraft" belong to one member airline, and just have that livery on. However, an expansion of the role of alliances in AM would be a good thing, encouraging more interaction between airlines in the game.
I suppose more of a problem is that this is by no means what would really happen. A defunct airline (as with any other business) would typically be sold (as a whole or in parts) and the money recovered used to pay back creditors. Even if there were no debts, there isn't really a situation in which the alliance (which has no role in owning the airline) should take over their aircraft for free - they simply don't own them. It is kind of like a person dying and the golf club they are a member of taking all their property.
Alliance routes/planes is difficult, in that I suspect most airlines would be unwilling to run (create and edit) routes for their alliance (neglecting their own), there is also the difficulty of cheating (people effectively getting out more than they put in). I think, though, there is a way to overcome this (albeit with considerable required coding I should think).
Firstly, I think the share of the profits returned should be proportional to the amount each airline has put in (i.e. lifetime fees).
Secondly, the LF calculations could be modified to make each airline's share of the seats on an alliance route be calculated separately (or at least more favourably) - effectively allowing them to charge higher prices. This would be most beneficial on long haul, making larger planes economical, and going some way to replicate code shares - something desired by most players
Of course, the whole idea of alliance routes (and even bases) is unrealistic - in reality the alliances don't really exist as (powerful) separate entities, but are really just made up of their member airlines. "Alliance aircraft" belong to one member airline, and just have that livery on. However, an expansion of the role of alliances in AM would be a good thing, encouraging more interaction between airlines in the game.
51
[-] Suggestions / Re: Alliances
« on: December 06, 2010, 12:01:36 am »
A lot of the ideas here are quite good, and some have come up before in various places, but I suspect that some of them could be used for cheating by some airlines.
Donations and alliance bases could be used to overcome current limits on base numbers - for example, I could create an alliance for just myself and funnel all the fees into opening up more bases than I am allowed, as alliance bases. This could potentially be overcome by tying the number of alliance bases to the number of airlines in the alliance (say one extra alliance base per airline in the alliance).
Resale of airlines is a dodgy one. It has been suggested before that inactive airlines be offered to sale to the other airlines. This has been turned down on the basis that, firstly the purchaser may not be able to take on all the inactive airline's bases (as they would end up with too many bases) and secondly, they likely wouldn't want much of the airline anyway (there would be lots of old planes, on routes which need to be edited for a decent LF anyway...).
The idea of having alliance planes also has quite a bit of potential for cheating in the fact that one person could set up a series of extra airlines for themselves, then deactivate them, or make large donations from them - and effectively give all their assets to an alliance, for the benefit of their main airline. The current alliance system is limited so as to prevent the potential for multiple account cheating.
Something along the lines of an alliance market has been suggested before, and sounds like a great idea. Rather than being a separate market (though that might well work), previous suggestions have asked for a "sell to alliance members" option - selling through the regular market, but like private sales, which are only available to/seen by one person, they can only be seen by your alliance members.
In terms of trades, I tend to think it isn't worth it. People will prefer to have cash, especially in the context of AM, where 2nd hand aircraft are generally sold from large airlines (who want to buy shiny, new, big planes) to small airlines (who want to buy something bigger than they could normally afford - and take the trade off with higher maintenance). There would be few circumstances in which a small airline would have a plane a larger airline would want (as the planes the small one are retiring would be far too small for the big one). There could also be difficulties with the AM accounting system (which is based on cash transactions), though you may be able to work this out based on aircraft values or something of the sort. There would also need to be checks to ensure the aircraft are not too far apart in value (with the potential for money transfers between cheating airlines), as currently takes place based on aircraft value.
Donations and alliance bases could be used to overcome current limits on base numbers - for example, I could create an alliance for just myself and funnel all the fees into opening up more bases than I am allowed, as alliance bases. This could potentially be overcome by tying the number of alliance bases to the number of airlines in the alliance (say one extra alliance base per airline in the alliance).
Resale of airlines is a dodgy one. It has been suggested before that inactive airlines be offered to sale to the other airlines. This has been turned down on the basis that, firstly the purchaser may not be able to take on all the inactive airline's bases (as they would end up with too many bases) and secondly, they likely wouldn't want much of the airline anyway (there would be lots of old planes, on routes which need to be edited for a decent LF anyway...).
The idea of having alliance planes also has quite a bit of potential for cheating in the fact that one person could set up a series of extra airlines for themselves, then deactivate them, or make large donations from them - and effectively give all their assets to an alliance, for the benefit of their main airline. The current alliance system is limited so as to prevent the potential for multiple account cheating.
Something along the lines of an alliance market has been suggested before, and sounds like a great idea. Rather than being a separate market (though that might well work), previous suggestions have asked for a "sell to alliance members" option - selling through the regular market, but like private sales, which are only available to/seen by one person, they can only be seen by your alliance members.
In terms of trades, I tend to think it isn't worth it. People will prefer to have cash, especially in the context of AM, where 2nd hand aircraft are generally sold from large airlines (who want to buy shiny, new, big planes) to small airlines (who want to buy something bigger than they could normally afford - and take the trade off with higher maintenance). There would be few circumstances in which a small airline would have a plane a larger airline would want (as the planes the small one are retiring would be far too small for the big one). There could also be difficulties with the AM accounting system (which is based on cash transactions), though you may be able to work this out based on aircraft values or something of the sort. There would also need to be checks to ensure the aircraft are not too far apart in value (with the potential for money transfers between cheating airlines), as currently takes place based on aircraft value.
52
The A-Z of the Broker Market / Re: Aviation Finance International - AFI - World 1609, 1766
« on: November 26, 2010, 01:28:25 pm »
AFI Update
Aviation Finance International has opened a branch in World 1766. The premier aircraft financing company brings (virtual) decades of experience and a long history of value to the Indian market to help fuel growth of the airline industry in this emerging market.
53
[+] Suggestions / Re: Taxes and staff salary
« on: November 24, 2010, 12:26:35 pm »
I tend to think protectionist policies, like tariffs on plane imports, wouldn't be implemented. The game tends to take a "what if you could do anything" approach - such as allowing you to have base in any airport on your continent (and even other continents) - and a logical extension of that is "what if my Russian airline could use Western planes".
With regards to taxation, the primary motivation for taxing airlines is to slow the economic growth rate. If you only charge high taxes on the large airlines (the ones with excess money - for whom money is not an issue in expansion), then you do little to slow expansion. To really slow expansion, you need the high taxes in place on smaller (in terms of profit) airlines.
Pseudoswede was suggesting tax be tied to airport base size, rather than simple profit. This kind of approach would work to make the growth more comparable between large and small airports. Consider that even an airline based in the biggest airports will start out earning a few 100k DOC (and enjoying that low tax rate...), but they would be the ones you want to hit with a larger tax - because they are the ones who will expand quickly.
I tend to think that taxes, if implemented at all, for realism should be kept equal for all companies. I think other methods should be employed to make larger airports less favourable. Higher gate rental fees (which are fixed for any sized aircraft) would work well in this regard. Also making landing/processing fees higher (or indeed, less dependent on the aircraft size, if smaller aircraft size considerably decreases the costs of landing etc) could work to make larger airports less attractive. The reason you don't/shouldn't see many small aircraft at large airports is that there isn't enough capacity to have everyone flying on tiny little planes - the runways and gates would get choked with them - it is more sensible to have a smaller number of larger planes. I think this dynamic could be fairly simply represented by proportionally increasing fees for smaller aircraft in larger airports. This would in turn make large airports less favourable to start off at, as start-up airlines have to use small aircraft, 'cause that's all they can afford.
The other thing is, 12.5 % off an airline with a DOC of 1 million is only 125k - hardly the value of a small plane, indeed it would only slow your growth rate by... well... 12.5%... or 1 plane less in every 8 (i.e. instead of buying 8 ATRs, I can only buy 7). When you think about it that way, it isn't such a large imposition on any airline (one should note, though, that Ireland's corporate tax rate quite is low compared to most of the world).
With regards to taxation, the primary motivation for taxing airlines is to slow the economic growth rate. If you only charge high taxes on the large airlines (the ones with excess money - for whom money is not an issue in expansion), then you do little to slow expansion. To really slow expansion, you need the high taxes in place on smaller (in terms of profit) airlines.
Pseudoswede was suggesting tax be tied to airport base size, rather than simple profit. This kind of approach would work to make the growth more comparable between large and small airports. Consider that even an airline based in the biggest airports will start out earning a few 100k DOC (and enjoying that low tax rate...), but they would be the ones you want to hit with a larger tax - because they are the ones who will expand quickly.
I tend to think that taxes, if implemented at all, for realism should be kept equal for all companies. I think other methods should be employed to make larger airports less favourable. Higher gate rental fees (which are fixed for any sized aircraft) would work well in this regard. Also making landing/processing fees higher (or indeed, less dependent on the aircraft size, if smaller aircraft size considerably decreases the costs of landing etc) could work to make larger airports less attractive. The reason you don't/shouldn't see many small aircraft at large airports is that there isn't enough capacity to have everyone flying on tiny little planes - the runways and gates would get choked with them - it is more sensible to have a smaller number of larger planes. I think this dynamic could be fairly simply represented by proportionally increasing fees for smaller aircraft in larger airports. This would in turn make large airports less favourable to start off at, as start-up airlines have to use small aircraft, 'cause that's all they can afford.
The other thing is, 12.5 % off an airline with a DOC of 1 million is only 125k - hardly the value of a small plane, indeed it would only slow your growth rate by... well... 12.5%... or 1 plane less in every 8 (i.e. instead of buying 8 ATRs, I can only buy 7). When you think about it that way, it isn't such a large imposition on any airline (one should note, though, that Ireland's corporate tax rate quite is low compared to most of the world).
54
[+] Suggestions / Re: Taxes and staff salary
« on: November 24, 2010, 04:54:35 am »
A tax would be on profits, not revenue - by its definition it cannot make an airline un-profitable, just reduce profitability. Businesses in real life cope with equal tax rates.
I would suggest that a scaled system would favour small airlines, rather than equally take from all airlines. Favouring smaller airlines is not necessarily a bad thing, though.
I would suggest that a scaled system would favour small airlines, rather than equally take from all airlines. Favouring smaller airlines is not necessarily a bad thing, though.
55
[+] Suggestions / Re: Taxes and staff salary
« on: November 23, 2010, 11:56:21 pm »
Not so much me as the internet. I almost think a simple 12.5% (or more!) on profits as measured now would do the trick... even if it is a bit of a simplification.
56
[+] Suggestions / Re: Taxes and staff salary
« on: November 23, 2010, 01:03:30 am »
I think both staff salaries and taxes would be great ideas to slow down the game economy.
Regarding taxes, I think think the following would need to be considered (if based on Ireland).
VAT
VAT, as far as I can see, doesn't apply to airline tickets.
Corporation Tax
The corporation tax, charged on profits, is slightly more complex. It is 12.5% on the "trading income" and 25% on "non-trading income". From what I can see, the latter is concerned with income through means not related to the company's primary purpose, such as interest, foreign income or rental income (in properties one owns). There is more info here, but I tend to think that all the profit sources in AM (tickets, in-flight food and aircraft rentals) would be classified as trading income - as these are the purposes of the company - i.e. that is what they have primarily set out to make money on.
So, the conclusion is that all the current profits should have 12.5% taken away.
Capital Gains/Losses
Capital gains are charged at 25%. It would be fairly simple to have an additional field for each aircraft (as these are the only transferable assets) which is "Last Sale Price", if a subsequent sale is greater than that amount, capital gains tax is charged on the difference (this would be relevant to people who buy planes and sell them new on the aircraft market).
Capital gains can be offset by capital losses - i.e. selling/scraping aircraft for less than they were purchased.
As far as I can see (for example), capital losses can offset capital gains, but are not otherwise tax deductible, and further more can be used as tax deductions forever into the future.
I think the formula would be constructed thus:
Calculate net capital gain/loss on each sale
Add the losses/gains together (or... subtract losses from gains)
If there is a net capital loss, add it to the capital loss field (which would need to be added for each airline)
If there is a net capital gain, subtract it from the capital loss, until there are no capital loss credits left, and then charge 25% tax on the remainder.
I would note two things about capital gains/losses - firstly, almost every airline (except brokers, and perhaps some very successful unofficial brokers) would be operating at a net capital loss, and so, none of this would be relevant to them. Furthermore, I suspect capital gains would not be applied to brokers (or arguably unofficial ones), as that is their primary source of income (just like a shop buying goods cheaply and selling at a higher price), and as such profits through these means would be charged as corporation tax.
Perhaps this could be built into the role of broker - in that official brokers are unable to operate routes, but only pay a 12.5% corporation tax on capital gains, whereas other airlines (including unofficial brokers) would have to pay 25% capital gains (as they are supposed to be flying planes, and not dealing them).
Implementation in AM
Tax should be charged monthly (rather than yearly, as everything operates monthly in AM)
Lifetime capital losses field included with the airline's data
For regular airlines:
Corporation tax (12.5%) on all "profits" that are currently listed in the bank balance (tickets + misc income + rentals - rentals - maintenance - misc costs etc.)
Capital gains/losses tax on at 25%
For official brokers:
Net capital gains added to corporation tax
Corporation tax (12.5%) on profits (rentals - maintenance +/- capital gains)
I am not sure if aircraft purchases would count as tax deductions - as they are necessary expenditure to run the business... including them thus would ruin most of the use of the tax system, as AM airlines spend all their profits on planes while expanding - not resulting in any overall slowing of the economy.
That's all I can think of... you may want someone who knows more about tax to be sure, but I think that would be a workable (albeit fairly complex to implement) solution.
Regarding taxes, I think think the following would need to be considered (if based on Ireland).
VAT
VAT, as far as I can see, doesn't apply to airline tickets.
Corporation Tax
The corporation tax, charged on profits, is slightly more complex. It is 12.5% on the "trading income" and 25% on "non-trading income". From what I can see, the latter is concerned with income through means not related to the company's primary purpose, such as interest, foreign income or rental income (in properties one owns). There is more info here, but I tend to think that all the profit sources in AM (tickets, in-flight food and aircraft rentals) would be classified as trading income - as these are the purposes of the company - i.e. that is what they have primarily set out to make money on.
So, the conclusion is that all the current profits should have 12.5% taken away.
Capital Gains/Losses
Capital gains are charged at 25%. It would be fairly simple to have an additional field for each aircraft (as these are the only transferable assets) which is "Last Sale Price", if a subsequent sale is greater than that amount, capital gains tax is charged on the difference (this would be relevant to people who buy planes and sell them new on the aircraft market).
Capital gains can be offset by capital losses - i.e. selling/scraping aircraft for less than they were purchased.
As far as I can see (for example), capital losses can offset capital gains, but are not otherwise tax deductible, and further more can be used as tax deductions forever into the future.
I think the formula would be constructed thus:
Calculate net capital gain/loss on each sale
Add the losses/gains together (or... subtract losses from gains)
If there is a net capital loss, add it to the capital loss field (which would need to be added for each airline)
If there is a net capital gain, subtract it from the capital loss, until there are no capital loss credits left, and then charge 25% tax on the remainder.
I would note two things about capital gains/losses - firstly, almost every airline (except brokers, and perhaps some very successful unofficial brokers) would be operating at a net capital loss, and so, none of this would be relevant to them. Furthermore, I suspect capital gains would not be applied to brokers (or arguably unofficial ones), as that is their primary source of income (just like a shop buying goods cheaply and selling at a higher price), and as such profits through these means would be charged as corporation tax.
Perhaps this could be built into the role of broker - in that official brokers are unable to operate routes, but only pay a 12.5% corporation tax on capital gains, whereas other airlines (including unofficial brokers) would have to pay 25% capital gains (as they are supposed to be flying planes, and not dealing them).
Implementation in AM
Tax should be charged monthly (rather than yearly, as everything operates monthly in AM)
Lifetime capital losses field included with the airline's data
For regular airlines:
Corporation tax (12.5%) on all "profits" that are currently listed in the bank balance (tickets + misc income + rentals - rentals - maintenance - misc costs etc.)
Capital gains/losses tax on at 25%
For official brokers:
Net capital gains added to corporation tax
Corporation tax (12.5%) on profits (rentals - maintenance +/- capital gains)
I am not sure if aircraft purchases would count as tax deductions - as they are necessary expenditure to run the business... including them thus would ruin most of the use of the tax system, as AM airlines spend all their profits on planes while expanding - not resulting in any overall slowing of the economy.
That's all I can think of... you may want someone who knows more about tax to be sure, but I think that would be a workable (albeit fairly complex to implement) solution.
57
General Chat / Re: Buying leased aircraft
« on: November 20, 2010, 12:28:01 pm »
You can't buy/sell aircraft that are currently on a lease. However, if the aircraft is returned, the owner of the aircraft could then sell it on in a private sale to the former leaser.
One of the fairly common suggestions for the game is a lease to own system, whereby you lease an aircraft for a certain period of time and then can automatically purchase/receive it at the conclusion of the lease. This isn't currently implemented, so if you want a lease-to-own scheme, you will need to trust the person you are leasing from/to to actually sell/purchase the aircraft.
One of the fairly common suggestions for the game is a lease to own system, whereby you lease an aircraft for a certain period of time and then can automatically purchase/receive it at the conclusion of the lease. This isn't currently implemented, so if you want a lease-to-own scheme, you will need to trust the person you are leasing from/to to actually sell/purchase the aircraft.
58
Game Data / Re: Airbus A32X capacity and list price
« on: November 09, 2010, 12:48:39 am »
The A319 doing the transatlantic routes is a specific longhaul version, which is used IRL for such flights (such as this). BA was also doing it with A318s from London City, I think. Either way, even if it wasn't done, that doesn't mean airlines shouldn't be able to do it if the aircraft can make the distance. I would also point out that the longer range A319 costs considerably more (59 million rather than 47 million).
Comparing the shorter range A319 and the 737-700, the stats are fairly similar, the 737 has a bit of an edge on seats, speed is about the same, and the A319 has the edge on range. I think this is more to do with problems in the cost formula - as seats seem to be overrepresented in terms of price setting. Compare the A319 with 2000 range versus 4000 range - the latter is only 12 million extra - a 300 nm difference between the A319 and 737 wouldn't be so great I should think. The difference may also have something to do with the fact the 737 series is older (the construction date of the aircraft type certainly affects price, I'm not sure if the system "knows" that the 737 is an older aircraft, i.e. with roots as old as the 737-100).
Comparing the shorter range A319 and the 737-700, the stats are fairly similar, the 737 has a bit of an edge on seats, speed is about the same, and the A319 has the edge on range. I think this is more to do with problems in the cost formula - as seats seem to be overrepresented in terms of price setting. Compare the A319 with 2000 range versus 4000 range - the latter is only 12 million extra - a 300 nm difference between the A319 and 737 wouldn't be so great I should think. The difference may also have something to do with the fact the 737 series is older (the construction date of the aircraft type certainly affects price, I'm not sure if the system "knows" that the 737 is an older aircraft, i.e. with roots as old as the 737-100).
59
Game Data / Re: Airbus A32X capacity and list price
« on: November 08, 2010, 04:40:49 am »
Regarding the prices, they are generated by a script - allowing the prices to be comparable across different regions and time periods, so they will almost certainly be wrong. Certainly any older aircraft will have had their prices changed by inflation.
I don't know about the ranges, but they may be affected by different engine types.
I don't know about the ranges, but they may be affected by different engine types.
60
Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: New PW Coming Soon: Now Accepting Reservations
« on: November 03, 2010, 06:07:56 am »
If you want information on plane templates, the Liveries Topic would be more suitable. It is fairly long, but has some useful stuff if you go back.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk