Flight profit adjustment

[LESairways]

Im not as knowledgable as Wardair, Ionathan, or the others here, but I do agree with one thing. The ability to use the sim rate is the main reason I fly here, and the same with LESairways' other current pilot. Its fun. I have a full time job, along with numerous other "real-life" commitments. As does my roomate/other pilot, who is attending a flight academy, which gives very little free time, yet he always seems to make time for a flight here just to get away from his own reality (which by the way, is one helluva curriculum). LESairways has had a pretty decent startup, even with all the recent "no income/no pax" flights that can really hit you hard in a large aircraft. So at this point, the new system just kinda of freezes everyone where they are in terms of finances and current fleet.
For those of you who want FlyNet to be as close to the real thing as possible, this last adjustment to the system was a welcome addition. For those of us who have little time, but do enjoy spending that little bit of time here, its kind of like a kick where the sun dont shine, and its really disheartening.
Before I came here, I had never flown with a VA, always just picking a flight and going there, no structure or "reality" basis to it. So far Ive enjoyed my time here, but like others have said, there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of VA's out there. It would be a damn shame to see this thing fall apart.

[cmdrnmartin]

Im not as knowledgable as Wardair, Ionathan, or the others here, but I do agree with one thing. The ability to use the sim rate is the main reason I fly here, and the same with LESairways' other current pilot. Its fun. I have a full time job, along with numerous other "real-life" commitments. As does my roomate/other pilot, who is attending a flight academy, which gives very little free time, yet he always seems to make time for a flight here just to get away from his own reality (which by the way, is one helluva curriculum). LESairways has had a pretty decent startup, even with all the recent "no income/no pax" flights that can really hit you hard in a large aircraft. So at this point, the new system just kinda of freezes everyone where they are in terms of finances and current fleet.
For those of you who want FlyNet to be as close to the real thing as possible, this last adjustment to the system was a welcome addition. For those of us who have little time, but do enjoy spending that little bit of time here, its kind of like a kick where the sun dont shine, and its really disheartening.
Before I came here, I had never flown with a VA, always just picking a flight and going there, no structure or "reality" basis to it. So far Ive enjoyed my time here, but like others have said, there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of VA's out there. It would be a damn shame to see this thing fall apart.

I'd say your more knowledgeable since you managed to get to the point of what im saying faster and much clearer than the jumble of words I posted. Well Done sir, well done indeed!

[Ionathan]

The ability to use the sim rate is the main reason I fly here, and the same with LESairways' other current pilot. Its fun. I have a full time job, along with numerous other "real-life" commitments.

...and to prove what is said here, I would like ot add: Have you noticed how much the traffic in FlyNet is reduced after the new finance system activation? I haven't flown any flights as I cannot fly at 1x and I have also noticed the same holds true for many airlines. Wardair has flown one or two flights and as Justin says they seems to be more reconnessance flights. I don't remember if LES Airways has flown any flights, the same as Albatross (I think 1 flight), ScotJet and many more. I just listed a couple of the most active airlines used to be. I am confident that FlyNet has not a great future without the time compression.

[CAPFlyer]

The 500,000 is from the potential profit had I flown more than 3 people in a plane that holds 10. Remember, my reputation went down to 26 for a single accident that at the same time only dropped the aircraft's maintenance status to 95% (low speed accident). Because of that, my numbers are not representative, but doing some simple math (divide the profit made by 3 and then multiply the per-passenger profit by 10) gets the numbers I used.

But then again, you're still not addressing the primary point - You can't start with big planes. JetBlue did NOT start with brand new airplanes that they owned. They initially LEASED aircraft from ILFC (some of those aircraft are still on their roster actually). Jezeera I have no clue as to who that is, but WestJet is still leasing aircraft to have most of its new fleet and is buying out the leases on the airplanes as it gets the funds to do so.

Also, to say that a second hand aircraft is automatically a clunker (your words) is as rediculous as your statement that airlines startup with absolutely brand new equipment is just as absurd because it fails to recognize the reality of how airlines work.

A second hand aircraft could only by 5 years old but is an excess aircraft that a major airline or leasing company has available for lease, but since you're not the first operator, it's a second hand aircraft.

[Ionathan]

Also, to say that a second hand aircraft is automatically a clunker (your words) is as rediculous as your statement that airlines startup with absolutely brand new equipment is just as absurd because it fails to recognize the reality of how airlines work.[/b].

I suggest not to use words like "ridiculous" when reffering to someone's statements. It really doesn't help at all.

[Konny]

Well, First of all thanks for your feedback and the good discussion here.
What I didn't consider when I changed the system were the maintanance costs. But genereally I think it's ok, the problem is the time compression. You fly with 16x, get only 6,25% of the "normal" money but still have to pay the full repair costs. Personally, I wouldn't mind preventing anything but 1x, but it seems like here are many people who wouldn't fly without time compression. Guess I shouldn't scare away the few users who are still with me
So we have to find good compromise. Considering the competition which surely exists between some airlines I don't think we should return to the old system and make the profit independent of the used simulation rate again. It's not fair if someone who flies cross the atlantic ocean in 30 minutes can make as much profit as someone else who "invests" 6 hours. But currently it surely is too hard for the pilots who use time compression. I personally like the idea from Justin with the 20% bonus if you fly realtime. Additionally I would suggest that 2x or 4x don't get any penalty but 8x will get you only 75% of the income and 16x only 50%.
The more mathematical solution would be to say you get (1 - simrate/32) percent of the profit, which would lead to the following factors:

1x : Profit = 1 - 1/32 = 96,9% + bonus = 100%
2x : Profit = 1 - 2/32 = 93,8%
4x : Profit = 1 - 4/32 = 87,5%
8x : Profit = 1 - 8/32 = 75%
16x: Profit = 1- 16/32 = 50%


Ok, another idea I liked is the dynamic multiplier in dependence of your current va's net worth.
1000x below $500 million is ok ( together with training flights, as you can ruin yourself very quickly with your first flight ), but I would still lower the final multiplier to 100x.
500x below $2 billion.
200x below $5 billion.
100x above $5 billion.

And what we still have to keep in mind ist that there soon will be the cargo system which will give you more profit on every flight.

[cmdrnmartin]

The 500,000 is from the potential profit had I flown more than 3 people in a plane that holds 10. Remember, my reputation went down to 26 for a single accident that at the same time only dropped the aircraft's maintenance status to 95% (low speed accident). Because of that, my numbers are not representative, but doing some simple math (divide the profit made by 3 and then multiply the per-passenger profit by 10) gets the numbers I used.

But then again, you're still not addressing the primary point - You can't start with big planes. JetBlue did NOT start with brand new airplanes that they owned. They initially LEASED aircraft from ILFC (some of those aircraft are still on their roster actually). Jezeera I have no clue as to who that is, but WestJet is still leasing aircraft to have most of its new fleet and is buying out the leases on the airplanes as it gets the funds to do so.

Also, to say that a second hand aircraft is automatically a clunker (your words) is as rediculous as your statement that airlines startup with absolutely brand new equipment is just as absurd because it fails to recognize the reality of how airlines work.

A second hand aircraft could only by 5 years old but is an excess aircraft that a major airline or leasing company has available for lease, but since you're not the first operator, it's a second hand aircraft.

http://www.plane-spotters.net/Airline/Jetblue_Airways <-- There are a few leased, but they own the majority of them. Please notice they started with Brand New Equipment. They did start by buying planes as well, and they made history in doing so.

http://www.plane-spotters.net/Airline/Westjet <-- Again, Some leases, but they own most of them. And for an airline his young, it proves it is entirely possible to have a fast powerful fleet instead of lavbouring around in a beat up Fokker.

http://www.plane-spotters.net/Airline/Jazeera_Airways <-- Two Brand New A320s. Not leased.

http://www.plane-spotters.net/Airline/Starflyer <-- Brand New Startup. Are they leasing? Nope, their buying their own, modern fleet.

My examples for startups is relevant. And my statement that clunkers (737-200 etc) are not the way startups go these days is valid. It makes more sense to intial investors to want a modern efficient fleet, and they will outlay the money to achieve that, instead of scrimping in the short term and loosing in the long term.

Your quote that you "can't start with Big plane" is even odder, seeing as how Jet Blue and Westjet, and Jazeera all started with planes larger than what you can get on FLYnet at startup anyway... What are you against? People actually being able to fly the planes they want? If that is so, then FlyNET will not succeed, it will be full of Embraer 170s and Fokker 100s, airlines going nowhere and people leaving in droves.

Now, about your calculations, suppose we leave them as is. SO 2~3 months for an aircraft of equivalent value. With 5 people flying. Daily. PLus Maintenance. Assuming 4~5 months for a larger aircraft, of roughly double the value. And thats if we had full passenger loads, which as a startup, you do not. So, we get a Fokker 70, and start flights. Wow, this is boring, 2 months in, of consistent 1x flying, and Im almost back up to being able to afford another one. But I want, oh, a 737-800. Thats, oh my, 3 times the cost of the Fokker 70. I guess it means more flying. 3 months later, You've spent half a year of daily flying (which I highly doubt you'll get from all your other pilots) and you have barely enough to fund that new Boeing. Whew, at least you have two planes now. So 1 year after starting FlyNet, with the hope and dreams of having a fun large airline in which to immerse your fantasies, you are left disheartened, as you stare at your empty bank account, and glorious 4 airplanes! Wow. Do you honestly think people will stick around? No, they won't.

FLYnet was a damn fun place, and I was having a blast, but if you look at my posts, Ionathans, LesAirways you'll see a trend. We don't like it. We want to change it to make it more balanced than from what it was, but not with the way it is now, as its a step backwards. More poignant is the fact that the /division rate for accelerated time is not good for people like MMouse air, or LES, who are spending the little time they have on here, and contributing in the forum etc. The new system is punishing them for their love of longer flights and bigger airlplanes, and it shouldnt. I can personnally speak for Safari, jetNOW, and Kiwaroo, who also have voiced their displeasure at the new finance system. We're not asking for the unbalanced High income rate back, but we dont want this draconian "you want a plane, well tough bananas for you" either. I put forward my proposal for a workable solution that maintains growth. Other online games/systems use the same idea, rapid advancement at early stages to draw people in, then taper off the gorwth rate. My proposal does this, and I believe fully, that it will maintain balance, and enough of a resemblance to reality that FLYnet is believable and fun.

See, thats the key, FUN. No offense CAPFlyer, but if you want perfect realism, their are business simulations you can buy, and you can run your airline that way. Some people like it, some people don't. FLYne was what I would call "Business Lite" and it was fine that way. You still had to plan ahead, poor flying and keroplanning would put you in the hole rather fast. But my point is, it was fun, it was, as LES said, able to give our FS9 flights some structure, a sense of purpose. You cared desperatley about good fuel management and soft landings. Now you sort of resigned to the fact that your airlines not going anywhere. Well, maybe in a year, but their are better uses of my time than that...

To be honest, and only state the facts: You are rebutting my (correct) analysis of modern startups. You have not flown under the new system. No one has yet dared to fly at 16x, becase it guarantees you will lose money. The majority of our top users, are all discouraged by this new direction that you are pushing. You have offered no alternative situation, nor mentioned if the proposed new system i am floating would be a good idea. In short, your just backing something that is losing support from the members who thus far have supported the system. If you look through back posts, you will find threads where the multiplier has been discussed, and was increased to 1000, because 100 was too small. Here a dirct quote from Konny:

Well, you can see it on the flight reports. Without the mulitplier for example your airline with primarily C208 flights would get about $300 per flight. With 100 flights you would have earned $300.000. That's not even enough for a C182 , and that's why we added the multiplier.

You also complained about the multiplier because you were losing money with it, that was your whole reason you started complaining about it. We tried to help you, and it was when we figured out that you had a reputation of 26 (easily fixed by Konny) that we knew why you wern't able to make any profit. We suggested this to you, but you continued to complain, and now we all can't make any money. I suggest you step back and realize that there is more than just your airline on FLYnet. It is supposed to be a fun, interesting addition to our FS worlds, and unfortunately in its current form, it is not, and it is affecting the interest of our new and long time members alike.

Another example, i just repaired a fokker 100, it cost me 200 000 $. It had flown two flights, full of paxs, with a good pilot at the wheel (Imboden, who despite his name, does not put my planes "into the ground") and made, get this, 122 000 each flight. So with maintenance, we made a grand total of (drum roll): 40 000. Woot! We could buy a... umm, maybe a C-172? In two more flights... Keep in mind M. Imboden is a weekend flyer, who always flies at 1x, and is using an aircraft too expensive to buy for a FLYnet startup.

So again, I put forward:
Scaleable rate depending upon airline net worth.
50 Million cash to top 5 most active memebers each month, or an increase in profit by 20% for flying all in real time.

EDIT: I just noticed Konny's post, and I am very glad you think the changes are worthwhile.
Perhaps:
500 000 million: 1000x
500 000 million to 3 billion: 500x
3 billion to 5 billion: 400x
5 billion plus: 300x (I just think that the 100x is too small, I mean, even double that, its still going to be almost stagnant growth. I'm looking at a plane every two weeks, and its not like we keep all of our old ones, their our many F100s and F70s from Wardair floating around, as well as 753s that were sold off. I guess it really depends upon whos running the airline, so far our user base has been pretty good, and our top airlines very generous in leases and sales to other airlines. I think it would be a poor idea to motivat cuthroat business, even if that is the reality, because, as I said, the main draw of this is fun. As well, even 50% is a huge cut for 16x people, and lets face it, most 4+ hour flights are spent at 16x. My own computer cant stay online longer than 1 hour, 20 mins before it is severed from the internet (driver issue) and therefor, my long hauls cant be overnight affairs. I prefer a reward for less compression used, but not punishment for using it.
1x = 20% Bonus
2x = 10%
4x= 5%
8x 16x= No increase Thats something I could live with, and it lets people who do have the time be rewarded for spending it on flynet. Its important to note that despite using 16x, we are in front of our monitors the whole time, making sure are jet doesnt have, say an engine fire. Or checking our fuel flow, and selecing optimum altitudes, it is a very involved process, compared to going to sleep and waking up to find the plane cirlcling the last waypoint on thr route.

It's a compromise, it maintains the appeal of FLYnet, it should be (I hope) easy to imlpement, and it maintains game balance.

[Ionathan]

I personally like the idea from Justin with the 20% bonus if you fly realtime. Additionally I would suggest that 2x or 4x don't get any penalty but 8x will get you only 75% of the income and 16x only 50%

It is a good compromise I guess.

[cmdrnmartin]

Justin...

You still don't get it.

None of those airlines OWN their airplanes. If you walk onto the flightdeck of those airplanes, the aircraft's dataplate will say "Owned by" on it. That name will most certainly NOT be the name of the airline. I walked onto a UAL airplane about 6 months ago (the last flight I made). This was a 737-300 that is at least 15 years old. That dataplate shows that the plane is owned by not UAL, but Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. That's right, the bank owns that plane, just as Chase Bank owns my car. I only make payments on it because I took out a loan to get it.

If you really want to solve your issue Justin, you'll get off your stupid rant about how you need to own all of your airplanes and instead start pushing the idea of loans in addition to leases.

I won't comment on your labeling my rant as "stupid" other than to say, keep the discourse civil and respectful.
I OWN my car, because i made the right decisions in life and had MONEY to BUY my car, therefor bypassing the banks and interest rates etc. There is no reason for an airline not to own its planes, and it is possible, however much you wish it wasn't. If you look, i was replying to your post about leases in startups, and showing you that you were wrong, and the airlines wernt leasing the majority of their fleets. Of course, once proved wrong, you changed the subject, and have yet to actually comment on the system I proposed, Konny likes, and that others want.
IN failing to post about the discussion, but attacking my own, thoughtful, posts, you continue to validate my opinion that you are selfish, and not considering that other people than you use FLYnet. Is there one post in this current thread that supports your position? Does that not tell you something about the way this change has affected FLYnet? As someone previously posted, just look at the total flight numbers since the change. Dramatic decrease. That means people arnt happy. I like to think that Im working on this BETA to help make it better, and I would highly reccomend that you do the same as well.

Edit: I see that your post was deleted, I didnt do it, and if you took it down yourself, thank you, but Im leaving my rebuttal up here. Again, this goes to anyone reading this, keep the discourse civil, or I, or another moderator will take action.

[CAPFlyer]

Konny, that sounds like a good way of doing it I guess. I still think that buying a new airplane every 2 weeks out of pocket is allowing things to grow too fast for something that should be designed to run for years and not month. I think leasing and loans are still the way to compensate for the lower multiplier to allow for a reasonable increase in fleet size without paying out large sums of money to fly large airplanes under the current system.

Justin -

I have a challenge for you. The next time you go fly, ask to see the aircraft's data plate. Tell the stewardess or captain that it's for a research project or whatever. On that dataplate (it's inside the cockpit) it will say the aircraft's type, registration, serial number, and who owns it. 95% of the airplanes you'll ride on in the real world are not owned by the airline that flies them. They're owned by the bank that holds the note on them.

I've been on the flightdeck of a good portion of JetBlue's fleet. Their aircraft are all on loan. They have zero aircraft in pocket. I will almost garuntee you that the same is true for Jazeera and Starflyer. It's all about getting financing, not about purchasing out of pocket. Not even the big airlines do that.

Finally, you continue to call older aircraft "clunkers". It is an unfair statement of the facts because many of the older airplanes have a BETTER dispatch reliability than the new ones. Why? Because they've had all their problems worked out and they are simpler to operate. I've been on A320s that (by the dataplate) are 10 years old and be in MUCH worse shape than a 737-200. It all comes down to maintenance. A well maintained older aircraft can be more efficient and more profitable for an airline than a decently maintained new one. Being new only goes so far to making an airplane "better".

Edit: Justin, I took down the old post to reword it because I took a second look at your post and noticed a few things, but my original point still stands, you have no experience with how an airline is run or any in-depth knowledge of the airline industry. I've spent years both working in and researching behind the industry and I have had the great opprotunity to be able to work behind the scenes with the purchase of aircraft. The two purchases I was involved in, we bought out of pocket, but they were used airplanes and thus were affordable. Had the third purchase we were looking at gone through, it would have been financed. We had the cash on hand to buy it, but with a very favorable interest rate and some other factors, the decision was made to finance the purchase. It also had the side effect of having a more favorable resale potential by financing it which did factor into our decision on how we were going to pursue the purchase.

Just because you decided to purchase your car doesn't mean that a big company that has a lot of money chooses to buy out-of-pocket its airplanes either. Then again, most companies don't have enough cash on hand to do it either. BA recently disclosed that it only has $3 Million cash on hand at any given time. That's definitely not enough to purchase an aircraft. I doubt many airlines have much more than a few million of "free" cash in the bank at any time. Most of the money is already tasked for disbursement in payments of one form or another.

[cmdrnmartin]

Konny, that sounds like a good way of doing it I guess. I still think that buying a new airplane every 2 weeks out of pocket is allowing things to grow too fast for something that should be designed to run for years and not month. I think leasing and loans are still the way to compensate for the lower multiplier to allow for a reasonable increase in fleet size without paying out large sums of money to fly large airplanes under the current system.

Justin -

I have a challenge for you. The next time you go fly, ask to see the aircraft's data plate. Tell the stewardess or captain that it's for a research project or whatever. On that dataplate (it's inside the cockpit) it will say the aircraft's type, registration, serial number, and who owns it. 95% of the airplanes you'll ride on in the real world are not owned by the airline that flies them. They're owned by the bank that holds the note on them.

I've been on the flightdeck of a good portion of JetBlue's fleet. Their aircraft are all on loan. They have zero aircraft in pocket. I will almost garuntee you that the same is true for Jazeera

and Starflyer. It's all about getting financing, not about purchasing out of pocket. Not even the big airlines do that.

Finally, you continue to call older aircraft "clunkers". It is an unfair statement of the facts because many of the older airplanes have a BETTER dispatch reliability than the new ones. Why? Because they've had all their problems worked out and they are simpler to operate. I've been on A320s that (by the dataplate) are 10 years old and be in MUCH worse shape than a 737-200. It all comes down to maintenance. A well maintained older aircraft can be more efficient and more profitable for an airline than a decently maintained new one. Being new only goes so far to making an airplane "better".

We can always do a reset if things grow out of hand.
I'll do that the next time I fly KLM or Westjet.

And Clunkers: No matter how hard an airline tries, you will not get economics out of a DC-9 than a CRJ. A 747-400 will beat out a 747-100. If it was better to use old planes, I could still get a flight in a 707. But they arnt beter, they are a short term solution in a cash crunch. Again, Westjet, they have actively gotten rid of their -200s because they were too expensive when compared to the modern NGs that now form the totality of their fleet. Don't get me wrong, I get a thrill out of the idea of riding on a NWA DC-9, but I realize that the days for those jets are numbered simply because new airplanes are so much better. but its all beside the point bcause we dont model age in FLYnet.

While my experience in Aviation is limited to observation, I do have an experience in game design, and while reality is a noble goal, for FLYnet, it doesnt make a lot of sense. We need the user base, and years to purchase a plane will drive away people. Every 2 weeks may sound fast, but thats only 32 planes a year, not that many for any decent sized airline, but enough to satisfy people who play FS9 over the weekend. Business Lite, thats, in my opinion, what FLYnet should be.

[HS1]

I support Cmndrmartin's proposal of giving bonus' to pilots who fly with no or little time compression, and not to penalise those who cannot take time out of their schedules to fly in real time.

I also agree that we need to implement a system which encourages airlines to buy used planes. However, we cannot afford to alienate airlines who would prefer purchasing a newer, smaller aircraft to an older, larger one. Currently, there is no reason why an airline would want to sell aircraft - apart from fleet streamlining - and this, perhaps, needs attention.

It is probably representative of the views of most FlyNET airlines if I say that we preferred the old system to the new, but would prefer a compromise most of all. Naturally, there has to be some sort of reward for pilots who fly without time compression, but those who cannot should not be penalised for using the little time they have to plan and excecute a flight.

[CAPFlyer]

Every 2 weeks may sound fast, but thats only 32 planes a year, not that many for any decent sized airline, but enough to satisfy people who play FS9 over the weekend. Business Lite, thats, in my opinion, what FLYnet should be.

Business Lite is great and well, but at the same time oversimplifying by having people buy out-of-pocket if they want to get a new airplane instead of leasing or financing gives people the wrong idea of how hard it is to really run an airline. As I've said in the past, we can introduce a fixed interest rate to make it easier to do the calculations, but I think that financing and leasing should be a major part of the equation of how new airplanes are acquired, not purchasing out-of-pocket.

Also, if you have a "normal"-sized VA of 20 active pilots, then buying 32 planes a year means that within a year you have 1.6 planes per pilot. That's a bit much. Should you not have 1.6 pilots per plane? Remember, you're talking about 32 new airplanes being purchased from profits made from a flight, not the replacing of an older airplane by selling the old one and making up the difference in gained profits to buy the new one, so if you go from 0 to 32 planes in a year, you've outpaced your pilot growth by 1 1/2 times. That's not responsible growth in my opinion.

[Ionathan]

Today I had another idea about reducing the fast evolution of an airline which I think will be more acceptable by anyone.

Set the finance system to what it was (multiplier x1000, no time compression rate penalty) but restrict the booked flights to 24 virtual hours per day (24 real clock hours) per pilot.

This way it will be more realistic as noone will be able to fly 6 trans atlantic flights per day, both 1x (realistic) pilots and 16x pilots (busy people with no much spare time) will have the same opportunities without being unfair to the first category and without excluding the second and the game will not be dramaticallu slowed down as with the 100x multiplier. The multiplier could be soemthing less than 1000x and my suggestion focus on the time compression rather than the miltiplier. After thinking a bit more I have the feeling that 100x slows the game too much. I believe it is easier in implementation from a technical point of view as well.
It is a practice I have seen in virtualpilots.org.

I believe everyone will be satisfied with this.

I understand a few people may prefer the 100% realism but I have to add that FlyNet must be a place where we can practice our hobby and have fun with as much realism as possible without destroying that fun. After all real life pilots indeed seat in their aircraft's cockpit for several hours but they are also paid for this as it is their real life job. Well, it is not a real life job for us.

[LESairways]

I agree with Wardair and Ionathan's latest proposals. Its seems also that it would be quite easy for CAPflyer to welcome the penalized sim-rate addition, as most of Green Mountain Cargo's flights are less than 300nm, which all-in-all isnt a huge amount of time to fly at 1x compression. The bonus for flying the sim rate seems ok, without drastically reducing the profits of those of us who enjoy the mid to long haul routes. I also like the daily 24 hour limit, thats interesting thinking that can easily make things a bit more realistic without once again hitting the time-compressers in the pocket.