The multiplier question again

[Konny]

Well, I can't help but bring up the question again. I know we have discussed it before but to be honest I'm not satisfied with the current system. It's still too easy and airlines grow way to fast. With the cargo and simrate bonus it gets even worse. Guess you have to convince me again that it has to be like this

I just don't see the point in having a fleet of 50 aircrafts for your own. Especially when you're flying alone every aircraft should be hard-earned. Is it really so much fun to buy a Boeing every two flights ? Obviously, yes But would it really hurt if you had to wait for it let's say 15-20 flights ?

So I'ld like to know ( once again ) what you think of the current system. You know that I'm a fan of the 100x multiplier but maybe we can find another solution. Possible would also be something like different "difficulties" each airline can choose individually. Like "dynamic" and "fixed at 100 " multiplier. But I see it coming that you all like it as it is and I have to comply

[Matthew]

i think the multiplyer should be like 400X not 1000X i agree 1000X is too much, makes it too easy and takes the challenge away slightly

But also. i think you need a new system with creating VA's. I think you need to set requirments such as so many flying hours. Just to reduce one man airlines.

[CAPFlyer]

I think that first we need to prevent people from being able to create airlines as soon as they sign up unless they already have an established VA. It's one thing to bring an established VA online, it's another to start a VA from scratch right out of the box. Heck, GMC has been on the system for a pretty long time and I've not had a single person apply. Now, I've been having problems getting my webmaster to make me a site, but still, it's kind of rediculous to have a VA and not be able to get any interest in it.

You know my stance on the multiplier.

[JJacobs]

CAP & CAT dont make 50 million every time just when we are lucky but really there's got to be a better way

[UKD192]

Hmmm, well there are lots of people who didn't like the x100 - I thought it was great !
However maybe there is a way to get the Money back from the airlines and into the system.

- An insurance system for each aircraft. Say 1 million a month (example only) Its optional.
If you have insurance and one of your pilots lands heavy and it costs v$15 million to repair - then if the aircraft was insured it would cost say v$2 million.

- Aircraft Storage space, apron rental for idle aircraft.
For aircraft that have not flown for say 14 days, a tax is levied on them.
This would stop one man Startup VA's buying loads of aircraft and just leaving them all over place.

- A general Tax is levied on how many aircraft a VA has.
Obviously all these aircraft need ground crew, safety checks etc.
There should be a weekly/monthly/daily/ tax/deduction call it what you will, for aircraft maintenance - even for the ones that are not flying.

- Make it more difficult to get passengers.
Obviously if you have a low reputation and high fare you get (very) few passengers. However where there is an airport that is served by several VA's with a good reputation, then the one with the lower fare prices should get a much higher percentage of the available passengers.

I agree, that its too easy to make money. After EACH flight with a A346 you make enough money to buy another NEW B737 - that cannot be right.

However, I am enjoying this FLYNet experience, thanks to all the programming work you put in.

Cheers now

Rob.

[BigQ]

Those are great ideas Rob... It'll hurt me, but hey, i'm fine with that...

I second your ideas, except that the aircraft storage tax should be over a longer period...

[JJacobs]

that crushes my chance of ever reaching my goal fleet size of 650 aircarft (550 of which would be GA) I know its ambitious but thats what we need.

[BigQ]

And you hope to have 650 pilots?

I'm not expanding anymore for now... got enough on my hands...

[JJacobs]

yeah! I expect them to rus to my VA!

[pete999]

I like your ideas Mark very nice!!!

But some are a bit heavy

Pete

[Konny]

I think that first we need to prevent people from being able to create airlines as soon as they sign up unless they already have an established VA. It's one thing to bring an established VA online, it's another to start a VA from scratch right out of the box.

I don't think that only established VA's should be able to join, but we definitely have to set up some restrictions. Some flying experience on FlyNET or always two people to found a VA.

- An insurance system for each aircraft. Say 1 million a month (example only) Its optional.
If you have insurance and one of your pilots lands heavy and it costs v$15 million to repair - then if the aircraft was insured it would cost say v$2 million.

Will definitely come. In which way has to be discussed though. I'm considering including that in the costs for each flight.

- Aircraft Storage space, apron rental for idle aircraft.
For aircraft that have not flown for say 14 days, a tax is levied on them.
This would stop one man Startup VA's buying loads of aircraft and just leaving them all over place.

- A general Tax is levied on how many aircraft a VA has.
Obviously all these aircraft need ground crew, safety checks etc.
There should be a weekly/monthly/daily/ tax/deduction call it what you will, for aircraft maintenance - even for the ones that are not flying.

That's an excellent idea I think both points can be put together because active aircrafts need paron rental, too. And I'ld say weekly would be a good period for the taxes.

- Make it more difficult to get passengers.
Obviously if you have a low reputation and high fare you get (very) few passengers. However where there is an airport that is served by several VA's with a good reputation, then the one with the lower fare prices should get a much higher percentage of the available passengers.

I actually included that just some days ago, but maybe the effect is not big enough yet.


But these suggestions will only help to get the airplane/pilot ration somehow balanced, but I think that's not enough we need to go down with the multiplier.

[BigQ]

- Make it more difficult to get passengers.
Obviously if you have a low reputation and high fare you get (very) few passengers. However where there is an airport that is served by several VA's with a good reputation, then the one with the lower fare prices should get a much higher percentage of the available passengers.

I actually included that just some days ago, but maybe the effect is not high enough yet.

I noticed it.

[cmdrnmartin]

Et Tu, Multiplier?

I think with the cargo system, the large VAs could go down to 100x.

I think that small VAs want to get a quick start, so the 1000x stays for airlines < certain amount.

- Make it more difficult to get passengers.
Obviously if you have a low reputation and high fare you get (very) few passengers. However where there is an airport that is served by several VA's with a good reputation, then the one with the lower fare prices should get a much higher percentage of the available passengers.

This bothers me, I know it can be implemented (airline empires) but you run risks. One: Gouging. What's to stop an airline from stealing passengers with 1$ flights? Not fun for the oher airlines. Two: SInce FLynet requires us to actually fly the planes, but this algorithm operates indepednadntly of that, requiring only flights from an airport, whats to stop an airline from making a lot of flights from an airport, and then never flying them? Take a look a CYYZ for example. This would make legitimate airl;ines flying from the area have much more difficulty attracting passnegers. The nightmare scenario is of course, Points 1 and two taken together, 1$ flights from airports the airline doesnt fly from just to hurt the competition.

I would say the lower priced airlines should enjoy a little advantage, but no more than 5% +/- (Which is still a lot of people on a 747) Maybe make the highest load 95% of the seats on a plane, instead of 100%, and allow this 5% to determine the rest?

Next item, Aircraft Taxes: Yes. Good Idea, you have to pay for gate space etc. However, if we can purchase "Hubs" I think this should be one of the benefits, ie less taxes on your planes there. As well, what sort of tax are we looking at here? .025% of each plane? 25000 for each plane? Once we have a set value, than we could implement waysto get discounts.

Don't forget, there are new ways to throw away our money now as well (Advertisements) Even the smallest sized one (350x100) still costs 15 million to run for 500 clicks. Thats a signifigant cash outlay, and requires several flights to make it work.

Anyways, those are my thoughts.

[CAPFlyer]

I think that first we need to prevent people from being able to create airlines as soon as they sign up unless they already have an established VA. It's one thing to bring an established VA online, it's another to start a VA from scratch right out of the box.

I don't think that only established VA's should be able to join, but we definitely have to set up some restrictions. Some flying experience on FlyNET or always two people to found a VA.

Konny, you misunderstand. Please re-read my statement. I didn't say that one can't start a VA. Only that one can't create on on FlyNET as soon as they join (as they can now) unless the VA is an established one (i.e. has a website, pilots, verifiable activity of a period of at least 3 months, etc). This will prevent most of the "one man" VA's on FlyNET but not prevent people who want to add FlyNET to their existing VA from being able to bring their VA into FlyNET without having to jump through unnecessary hoops.

I also think that the "hurdle" that should be jumped for a pilot to be able to found his own airline shouldn't be just hours. It should be monetary as well. A pilot might get 50 hours in a few months, but if he's only flying little airplanes, he may only have $75,000 in the bank. If we make it where they need at least $250,000 (enough to civer the purchasing of the first airplane) then we've got a good threshold that must be achieved. Now, once they hit that threshold, we can give them a "loan" of "X" dollars to help him get started, but at least $250,000 of his personal account is moved into the VA's business account. If there's more than one guy starting it, then each of them contribute an even portion to make up that $250,000 requirement, but both must still have $250,000 in the bank before they can start the airline.

Now, the actual amount can be played with, but I think this will help dissuade people from just forming an airline and getting v$25 Million. This way, they really do have to work to build the airline from the ground up. Even with a slightly lower multiplier (say 500x for new airlines instead of 1000x) this will still allow them to grow fairly quickly as long as they start with a few used airplanes and then trade up to new aircraft once they get established.

[Konny]

Konny, you misunderstand. Please re-read my statement. I didn't say that one can't start a VA. Only that one can't create on on FlyNET as soon as they join (as they can now) unless the VA is an established one (i.e. has a website, pilots, verifiable activity of a period of at least 3 months, etc). This will prevent most of the "one man" VA's on FlyNET but not prevent people who want to add FlyNET to their existing VA from being able to bring their VA into FlyNET without having to jump through unnecessary hoops.

Ok, I got it now. Anyway, I don't think it should be too hard to create a new VA. In my opinion it could even stay as it is at the moment, you just shouldn't be able to buy anything you want after 20 flights. But that's just what I think.

This bothers me, I know it can be implemented (airline empires) but you run risks. One: Gouging. What's to stop an airline from stealing passengers with 1$ flights? Not fun for the oher airlines. Two: SInce FLynet requires us to actually fly the planes, but this algorithm operates indepednadntly of that, requiring only flights from an airport, whats to stop an airline from making a lot of flights from an airport, and then never flying them? Take a look a CYYZ for example. This would make legitimate airl;ines flying from the area have much more difficulty attracting passnegers. The nightmare scenario is of course, Points 1 and two taken together, 1$ flights from airports the airline doesnt fly from just to hurt the competition.

Well, I could easily add that only flights which were actually flown in the let's say last 7 days are counted.


And regarding the multiplier:
I don't want to be forced to set the multiplier higher again after a week, as it was the last time . So it will be your choice if you want the multiplier as it as at the moment or if you want to give it a shot and set a fixed value. I'ld really appreciate it if someone would test the x100 multiplier over a period of time and afterwards give a statement here. And it would be great if not only people who already are in favour of the x100 multiplier test it.
So you can set a fixed multiplier in your airline-settings now ( even x50 is possible ) but if it's more than you normally would be allowd to, than it will be set down automatically if you book a flight.