More multiplier brackets

[ep-irl]

Hi Joe,

the current system of making as much money as possible by doing long haul flights with passengers and/ or packages and cargo, this IMO can get very boring over a long period of time and its possible some pilots will get bored and move on or worse give up FSAirlines.

It seems to me to be the ONLY way to get up the leader board, surely there must be another way or a more balanced approach to airliner flying and light aircraft flying?

instead why have more of an incentive for more small prop flights or "bush trips" with rewards for the pilot other than 1 or 2 passengers and 40g packages, perhaps a financial bonus (from the VA funds) for best landing rate, or extra money for landing at difficult airports.
not sure if weather can be sensed in the FSA client, but foggy/windy / Icey conditions, wouldn't it be great if you got extra bonus for landing in these condition's?

another one i see could work is a community warehouse for shared packages, where 1 VA could start a flight with packages and another could deliver the package and both VAs get a % of the profit, and of course the loss if they are left in the warehouse for too long

[ep-irl]

regarding the multiplier question, if reducing the profit of the "Big Guys" is balanced with more enjoyment for the individual Pilots (as mentioned above) or "a giving back to the community" approach , then I'm ok with that

[ep-irl]

allow smaller airlines access to the A225, which lets face it, makes a lot of money for airlines that have access to it

[joefremont]

allow smaller airlines access to the A225, which lets face it, makes a lot of money for airlines that have access to it

I am always conflicted on this as there are way too many AN-225's flying around the FSA world, 33 of an aircraft were only one was built seams excessive.

[ADAM-007]

Your going to to refresh my memory on that one.

Just searched the entire forum for this and couldn't find anything - Sorry I thought you'd mentioned experimenting with airlines investing in things, my mistake.

I think what our colleague Robert Neumaier said, is the right thing to say,

"I think there is no need to change anything. If an airline feels it has so much money that it no longer has a target to hit, I suggest some sort of sponsorship. I mean, donate billions (or millions) to their partner airlines, or even other airlines. I bet they would LOVE to get some money.
It would be great to see smaller airlines grow, get bigger and NOT have a money problem, with the help of a sponsor."

Instead of implementing Multiplier reduction, wouldn't Joe be better off implementing what in real life happens; for example:

1) The collection of airport fees, not just parking. They are landing and takeoff fees, this one is charged by the Maximum Landing and Takeoff Weight. I think Joe is already familiar with it.

2) The charge for Radio Aids, Airspace crossing.

3) I see feasible, the property tax.

4) Aircraft insurance.

I think all of the above could be more feasible than the modification of multipliers.


Erick Fco. Aldrighetti.
CEO- VVA 45312

Love your ideas here Erick re more airport fees, property tax and aircraft insurance policies. Fantastic ideas.

Adam
If your VA is loosing the urge or " there is no real aim financially anymore " just give all your money to less fortunate airlines then they will be able to buy planes they couldn't buy before and then your VA will be able to start all over again and start enjoying to fly rather than making money, its brilliant just to enjoy a flight and not worry about how much money you have to make for the VA (just a thought mate).
Ernie BVG-002

Hi Ern, hope you're well mate.

I've considered burning the cash but some of our guys didn't want to just lose hard earnt cash (Understandably so) I'd love to invest in other airlines or whatever but Joe doesn't like the idea of that due to it causing issues.

The loans system doesn't really work for us as there are so many time wasters that start a va and then abandon it after a month or two meaning our loan goes abandoned and I have to involve Joe to recover funds. So I gave up on that.

I've totally given up on flying for money now and have taken to ignoring it entirely and just flying for the fun of it.

I simply floated this idea as particularly for our airlines with over 150bil in cash a multiplier reduction wouldn't affect either of us in the short term.

regarding the multiplier question, if reducing the profit of the "Big Guys" is balanced with more enjoyment for the individual Pilots (as mentioned above) or "a giving back to the community" approach , then I'm ok with that

Glad you guys are in support. Hope you're well too Eric.

[Sabchen]

I also think there is no need to change the multiplier. I agree with Robert Neumaier's comment.
Win and loss accounting in games is a complicated matter. At the moment there is a system in FSAirlines that we are all used to. Unbeknownst to many, in addition to income with a 25-fold multiplier, expenses also play a major role. The planes need maintenance, which costs money. Sometimes expensive repairs are necessary because young virtual pilots in particular may land the machines too hard on the runway or crash. A multiplier towards reality could mean that the fun for airlines and especially for pilots who see entertainment and fun in FSAirlines may turn away. What Joe has brought to FSAirlines in terms of cost equalization and balance, and what we have become accustomed to over the years, is good.

Airlines that have too much money could also transfer money from time to time, for example because of special services. Airlines could also raise salaries. Giving the pilots a low salary (10%), but at the same time complaining about too much income is not appropriate. Even airlines that complain about high earnings, but at the same time have an average age of 5 years with their fleets at FSAirlines, would have the opportunity to spend money by scrapping aircraft and buying new ones.

My suggestion would be to increase the possibilities to spend money or to use the existing possibilities. Higher salaries for pilots. Bonus payments when set goals are reached. As an example, the first 3 pilots with the highest number of passengers carried/NM get a big bonus. Raise salaries to 100% at times during the Christmas season or at Easter, etc. These are all ideas that the airlines can already implement now. Other ideas that Joe might implement in the game might also be an option.

[mark171]

Hi Joe, everyone,

I'm responding to the invitation from Joe and after reading the above points I'm not sure if this is really a problem?
If an airline feels it has too much money isn't there already enough tools available to 'spend' it?
I just checked to be sure - on the Virtual Airline Settings page there is a multiplier option already which goes down to x1, or am I missing something? (probably!).

There have been some great suggestions on how to introduce various taxes and I'm not opposed to any of them but if they are applied on a 'per flight' basis going forward they won't reduce your present bank balance.
Conversely if you apply taxes on a monthly basis then potentially you will punish the less active airlines.

I'm in no position to tell pilots what type of flying they should do - its a hobby and people can fly what and where they like - but if any VA is going to field an unrealistic number of An-225 and fly them 24/7 then they should expect to end up with an unrealistic bank balance.
To me it feels unfair to "punish" all the other VA's to solve a problem that most don't experience.
To recap, the multiplier can already be set to 1 voluntarily so I don't see it as a problem.
If you want a challenge why don't you have fun crashing some aircraft and try rebuilding your rep? Some of our pilots seem to think that's the point!

[joefremont]

The basic way this site was built was to make it easy to start and build your virtual airline, the way the multiplier works is a big part of that, gradually decreasing until it stops at 25x. But this of course does not place an upper limit on the size of an airline. The multiplier stops at 25x when you reach 5B, but that has not stoped growth, there are 50+ airlines with a value greater than 20B and three with a value greater than 160B, where the initial proposed 5x multiplier can would kick in. Of those three, they average more than 50 aircraft per pilot, which would seam much more than any need.

The advantage I see in these new multiplier limits is to just slow down the growth of large airlines, to the point where you have way more assets than you know what to do with. As I think about it waiting for an airline to reach 160B is probably too late to stop it getting 'too big' and if we were to do this the 5x limit would probably have to be reached sooner. I did check some numbers, comparing flight revenue at the lower multipliers for all airlines, taking flight profit and subtracting maintenance and parking fees, the only airlines that would be cash flow negative with these changes were already cash flow negative with the current rules.

Property tax would be problematic, there are some very old airlines that have become more like tributes to the groups or members that used to take part, they have lots of cash and aircraft accumulated in the old days, but now there are just a few pilots left and a tax would punish them quite hard. We sort of went through that discussion when we put into place the maintenance requirements and that sort of put a price on having aircraft you don't use.

Of course the reason I broadcast this idea to the CEO's of the major airlines is that so far the only ones who have commented is me and Adam, so I wanted to get a wider group of voices before I made this change. If there is no consensus behind it I am not going to do it.

On the idea of allowing partner airlines to take packages from a VA's warehouse, that actually would not be hard to do and I think as long as the package has been moved at least once before a partner could take it should reduce the possibilites of shenanigans happening in package handling, I will consider that.

[ep-irl]

of course we could all quit our VAs and start again , that would solve the problem of having too much money

[ep-irl]

allow smaller airlines access to the A225, which lets face it, makes a lot of money for airlines that have access to it

I am always conflicted on this as there are way too many AN-225's flying around the FSA world, 33 of an aircraft were only one was built seams excessive.

Allow leasing of the A225 aircraft to smaller airlines to help them build their VA

[joefremont]

allow smaller airlines access to the A225, which lets face it, makes a lot of money for airlines that have access to it

I am always conflicted on this as there are way too many AN-225's flying around the FSA world, 33 of an aircraft were only one was built seams excessive.

Allow leasing of the A225 aircraft to smaller airlines to help them build their VA

Um, no, my instincts tell me to make it harder to get rather than easier, besides you will make a higher profit margin with a 747F than you will with a 225 given how much the 225 costs. Besides this talk of the 225 in this thread is a bit off topic.

[mark171]

I've considered 'burning' some of our cash but was met with a great backlash from my pilots when suggesting this.

Now I've had some more time to reflect on this (backed up with some experience) in my opinion I would suggest the least painful way to reduce airline income in the long run is to take the focus off airline income entirely and onto something more related to flying.

We reduced our multiplier to x5 and increased pilot wages to 20% to see if we could continue to make a modest profit.
The instant reaction we witnessed was a couple of our most active pilots leaving to start their own VA.
Sadly their main goal appears to be to accumulate virtual dollars for the VA rather than enjoy the flying which is a shame for all parties.

No matter how much it was pointed out that they personally were getting more money, they still fixated on the income the airline received.
I suspect this is an issue because that is what everyone see's on their FSA 'homepage'.
Right at the top of the page, just after the name of the VA is their cash balance and then placed prominently in the view is how much the last 5 flights earned.
My 1st recommendation would be to remove the airline balance off the homepage and put it where it belongs on the finances screen.
My 2nd recommendation is make the last 5 flights section display pilot wages instead of airline income, then I think there would be less focus on airline wealth - it's also more realistic - you want your employer to do well but your main concern is how much you get paid at the end of the week/month!!

(I may be edging off topic next but I think it is related) :- 'last 5 flights'- replace the financial (airline income or wages) statistic with flight/pilot performance related things e.g. the landing rate (v speed) rating - I would suggest even using icons, green smiley for a great or smooth landing, a 1960's style Batman 'Kapow' for a terrible one and so on. Just to inject a little fun!

instead why have more of an incentive for more small prop flights or "bush trips" with rewards for the pilot other than 1 or 2 passengers and 40g packages, perhaps a financial bonus (from the VA funds) for best landing rate, or extra money for landing at difficult airports.
not sure if weather can be sensed in the FSA client, but foggy/windy / Icey conditions, wouldn't it be great if you got extra bonus for landing in these condition's?

There were some great suggestions by Eric in that post to aspire to but rather than find more ways to earn even more money, turn it into 'badges' or awards for flying (by which I mean icons) which could also be displayed on the 'last 5 flights' to introduce some competition between pilots (and pilot profile pages).
This would also give the light aircraft fliers a level playing field with the big jet's as you're only comparing the pilot skill rather than money.

The statistics page defaults to who flew the biggest planes furthest rather than any piloting skill! That's easily changed.
I'm not against the big iron, it's what I fly most often, but FSA is biased towards the financial aspects of flying rather than the flying itself - the crux of the problem imho. I'm not saying remove these finances from FSA but reduce their prominence.

I know the name is FSAirlines but maybe we should have a more balanced approach with more emphasis placed on the pilots skills rather than airlines and their virtual bank balance. You can still have both but consider that whenever someone visits FSA for their first time - if the main goal is perceived to be creating wealth then that is what type of pilot you will be attracting.

In summary, don't place the finances prominently in front of the pilots - distract them with shiny trinkets and baubles. Ask any politician!
Reduce the multiplier - it is that simple, in the words of Nike - just do it. You don't need any elaborate schemes.
And finally, thank you Joe, I love FSA. I only ever fly without it when I forget to start the client

[MrJTSZ]

Maybe for the insurance of the planes we can put a switch asking if you want to be charged or not, as we have with the parking. So the smaller airlines could decide whether to activate it or not

[joefremont]

I do admit the idea of insurance does not have much appeal to me, since in our world even in a crash the aircraft and even the pilots survive. Most of the time after a crash if asked we will delete the flight, I don't remember the last time I said no.

In the real world the biggest deterrent to crashing your aircraft is that the pilots want to live, that does not exist in our world,

We could add insurance almost as our form of property tax, say it covers the damages to passengers, cargo and what ever on the ground gets hit but repairs to the aircraft have a big 'deductible' and we would reduce the cost of C or D checks by 50%.

Its also something you don't want airlines to be able to turn on or off, its like the health insurance debate in the United States, you don't want people to not have insurance, and then buy it when you get sick and need it. All airlines with a value over a certain amount would have to have it.

Not sure how popular that would be.

[Tower]

I think what our colleague Robert Neumaier said, is the right thing to say,

"I think there is no need to change anything. If an airline feels it has so much money that it no longer has a target to hit, I suggest some sort of sponsorship. I mean, donate billions (or millions) to their partner airlines, or even other airlines. I bet they would LOVE to get some money.
It would be great to see smaller airlines grow, get bigger and NOT have a money problem, with the help of a sponsor."

Instead of implementing Multiplier reduction, wouldn't Joe be better off implementing what in real life happens; for example:

1) The collection of airport fees, not just parking. They are landing and takeoff fees, this one is charged by the Maximum Landing and Takeoff Weight. I think Joe is already familiar with it.

2) The charge for Radio Aids, Airspace crossing.

3) I see feasible, the property tax.

4) Aircraft insurance.

I think all of the above could be more feasible than the modification of multipliers.


Erick Fco. Aldrighetti.
CEO- VVA 45312

I could not agree more with your proposal, Erik. In the real life, there are lots of airport taxes, costs, handling, insurances and hundreds of differents ways to spend the Company money better than change the mutiplier system.
It is the first time in my life I heard someone complaining for earning too much money.....