Airline Mogul Forum

Alliances

oddward

  • Airline Operative
  • *
    • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
on: December 05, 2010, 06:32:37 pm
I think it should be possible for alliances to have privileges but not ones that dominate the game but ones that make it more realistic maybe. Here they are, Sorry it is so long.

1) Members of the alliance (including the founder) pay a percentage of their monthly income (unless it would put them in the red) towards a central "pot" as a kind of membership fee. The percentage could be between 1% and 10%, this means that if you earn 50mil a month(about 2 mil a day) you pay between 500,000 and 5,000,000 a month. this money can then be spent by the ALLIANCE. ERRATUM NOTICE: THE FEE WOULD BE BETTER PAID IN BANDS OF DOC I.E 0-5MIL 5-10MIL 10-15MIL 15-20MIL ETC INCREASING BY DIVIDING THE UPPER GROUP LIMIT BY 5 STARTING WITH THE 0-5MILLION DOC EARNERS PAYING NOTHING (AS THEY MIGHT BE PUT IN THE RED) THEN THE 5-10MILLION EARNERS PAYING 2 MILLION THEN 10-15MILLION EARNERS PAYING 3 MILLION THE 15-20 MILLION EARNERS PAYING 4 MILLION ETC

2) Members can donate to the alliance to add to the "pot". This would mean that although small amounts are gained from membership larger sums of money can be given

The money can be spent on things such as Alliance aircraft which can be used by members of the alliance when they are needed for a smaller than the usual rental fee or they could be purchased off the alliance. The money could be spent on constructing an alliance base/bases somewhere in the world which can only be used by alliance members. The money could be used to "bail out" airlines that are in the alliance if they go into the red and if the majority of members agree to non member airlines who will then become a member of the alliance and can't leave until they have paid off the loan( this means that interest will be charged, the amount is requested by the airline and then the alliance decide on the actual interest and it then up to the airline to accept or decline). Another use of the alliance fund could be that it funds extra workers for each of the airlines this could either mean that the airlines don't have a salary cost or mean that aircraft are cleaned quicker (and other benefits) it would be either up to the alliance leader or the individual airlines.

3) It is my understanding that after ,I think, 3 weeks inactive airlines are deleted this could mean that the alliances in a world get to bid in the fourth week after the airline has been "deleted" for ownership of the airline this could manifest it's self in many ways but i think that the most obvious would be the aircraft and terminals as everything else is rented. The aircraft would go to the alliances personal hanger and the terminals could become alliance bases. The alternative is that the alliance takes ownership of the airline and continues to run it but is unable to buy aircraft or expand routes but they can close routes and take the aircraft for their own to do with as they wish.

4) There could be an alliance market which is where the alliance members trade their own aircraft with each other. The advantages of this are that normally you can trust fellow members and know their intentions but in the marketplace it is more risky it could go to you major competitor, you don't have to only trade in cash you can trade aircraft as well. For people that play runescape you may know how this works and for those that don't this will help. So here goes. Company 1 offers an Airbus A320 for sale at brand new price. Company 2 sees this but realises they do not have enough cash to buy it but the also have an A319 that they don't need so they can offer Company 1 the A319 and the remainder of the money to buy the plane. It is then up to Company 1 to accept it or not in this case they probably won't. Company 2 could offer an Airbus A340-500 as payment for the A320 (yes they would be mad) at which point a warning would tell them that it is X times the value of the A320 if they are happy with this they can proceed and again Company 1 can decide. If there are multiple companies involved in the bidding process and they can all see what the others have offered they will try to compete to win the plane they may not be as mad as company 2 in offering an A340 as payment for an A320.

Pleas give me your opinions and I am once again sorry for how long this is.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 07:01:50 pm by oddward »


CHR

  • Brokers
  • Airline Supervisor
  • **
    • Posts: 744
    • View Profile
Reply #1 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.


oddward

  • Airline Operative
  • *
    • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Reply #2 on: December 06, 2010, 05:16:06 pm
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).


I have to agree with you that they could cheat the system by doing this therefore valid point.

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 point of the resale to the alliance is that the defunct airline is a source of income for the alliance and the current amount that the airline makes can not be exceeded as the alliance can only close routes. The load factor of the airline would not effect the alliance in anyway except for the income it makes

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.

I believe that this would breach the terms and conditions of the AM, but I can see where you are coming from as this would be annoying for other players therefore I suggest that a limit is put on the number of planes a company can own from the alliance.



CHR

  • Brokers
  • Airline Supervisor
  • **
    • Posts: 744
    • View Profile
Reply #3 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.


jayceon

  • Airline Operative
  • *
    • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Reply #4 on: January 04, 2011, 07:05:43 pm
What about earning a certain percentage of the alliance routes other airlines fly from your hub? So if another alliance member flies 25 routes from my hub I get a like 10% of his income of these routes. That would be quite nice and reasonable.


Virgin Serbia

  • Airline Manager
  • ***
    • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Reply #5 on: January 04, 2011, 08:43:26 pm
What about earning a certain percentage of the alliance routes other airlines fly from your hub? So if another alliance member flies 25 routes from my hub I get a like 10% of his income of these routes. That would be quite nice and reasonable.

What if the alliance hub is already a hub of 2 or more airlines?
O0 Lotus Airlines of India (PW#2650) •


1993matias

  • Airline Mogul Staff
  • Airline Senior Manager
  • *****
    • Posts: 2098
  • Play to have fun!
    • View Profile
    • Train pins and tie clips
Reply #6 on: January 04, 2011, 09:08:04 pm
They could split that percentage? That would seem fair.


Virgin Serbia

  • Airline Manager
  • ***
    • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Reply #7 on: January 05, 2011, 09:14:07 am
I dont like that idea. It would only make the top-ten airports even more popular. If anything, we should find ways to spread airlines out among smaller airports.
O0 Lotus Airlines of India (PW#2650) •


jayceon

  • Airline Operative
  • *
    • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Reply #8 on: January 05, 2011, 10:52:07 am
I dont like that idea. It would only make the top-ten airports even more popular. If anything, we should find ways to spread airlines out among smaller airports.

Why? Earning 10% of 25 routes isn't going to make you #1 instantly. It's just a little bonus for being a member of an alliance. And if there are 2 or more airlines in an alliance with the same hub you could split the 10% like 1993matias said. But why would you even have several airlines with the same hub in the same alliance? If that's the case you're doing something wrong. I always keep my rivals out of the alliance. I don't need them on the same team while they're eating my load :P
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:05:17 pm by jayceon »


Virgin Serbia

  • Airline Manager
  • ***
    • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Reply #9 on: January 05, 2011, 03:29:45 pm
I dont like that idea. It would only make the top-ten airports even more popular. If anything, we should find ways to spread airlines out among smaller airports.

Why? Earning 10% of 25 routes isn't going to make you #1 instantly. It's just a little bonus for being a member of an alliance. And if there are 2 or more airlines in an alliance with the same hub you could split the 10% like 1993matias said. But why would you even have several airlines with the same hub in the same alliance? If that's the case you're doing something wrong. I always keep my rivals out of the alliance. I don't need them on the same team while they're eating my load :P

It happens quite often, especially in big public worlds. All the big Heathrow, CDG, ATL and Beijing based airlines flock into the top 3 alliances that are open.
Besides, we don't need more advantages for the mega airlines based in the above mentioned airports. They already flood the world with routes before airlines based at smaller airports can get their second aircraft. And nobody is going to create an alliance route from the small hubs.   
O0 Lotus Airlines of India (PW#2650) •


jayceon

  • Airline Operative
  • *
    • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Reply #10 on: January 05, 2011, 04:39:04 pm
Quote

It happens quite often, especially in big public worlds. All the big Heathrow, CDG, ATL and Beijing based airlines flock into the top 3 alliances that are open.
Besides, we don't need more advantages for the mega airlines based in the above mentioned airports. They already flood the world with routes before airlines based at smaller airports can get their second aircraft. And nobody is going to create an alliance route from the small hubs.   


Ah yes. That explains why I didn't see the problem because I never play in public worlds :P But airlines based at the premium hubs aren't necessary mega airlines. Some of them are, yes. But there are tons of small carriers based there too. And hold on with the generalization there. I happen to be #1 in a world, part of an alliance and I've got 25 alliance from Zagreb. Now, that's not what I would call a large hub. It's not even a medium sized hub, it's a tiny tiny hub. I agree with you that 9 out of 10 airlines isn't going to fly from small hubs but that 1 out of 10 is. So I still see potential in this idea but maybe with an option when creating an alliance to decide whether you want this or not and if you do what percentage somewhere between 1%-20% or so.

But I smell a little envy here. Why are you hating on large airlines so much? They became #1 by spending quite some time on it, not by cheating or anything...


 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk