I know all would say that this would be hard to implement. But I came up with a ( sort of ) good " Disaster Creator Predictor " which is as follows:
Every 275 000 flights there will be a random PR relations disaster for a random airline.
Every 750 000 flights ( with condition under 75% ) there will be a slight mechanical failure which will cause the following 2 flights to be cancelled, and any flights which don’t start from the airport which the cancellation is at.
Every 1 500 000 flights ( with condition under 70% ) there will be a mechanical failure which will cause the following 4 flights to be cancelled, and any flights which don’t start from the airport which the cancellation is at.
Every 5 000 000 flights there will be a crash but the aircraft will be salvagble at the cost of repairs.
Every 17 000 000 flights they will be a crash where the plane will be destroyed completely.
You are free to edit the amount of flight between these events and can build on this idea.
I really like this idea. Adds a bit of interest. Also, you could change the rates depending on the country you are based in eg Indonesia is higher than eruope.
Great idea! It will also make you more cautious about your aircrafts’ meintenance.
But in my opinion the country does not play a role at this. If your hub is at Europe or USA and you are pushing your aircrafts to the limits an incident or an accident is very much possible. Sure more possible than the guy who has his hub at an Asian country and he really takes very seriously his aircrafts’ meintenance.
I didn’t invision it as per country or per airline. I meant for the flight numbers to be for the entire world.
I would also like to add one more thing to my previous post:
The country can send a Crash Investigation Teqm if a Plane Crashes and the Invesigation team can pull up the airline’s files, and if the airline mis-maintained the plane to the point of mechanical failure, the airline would be forced to pay a fine.
Sure, in reality those things happen, but in game: who can guarantee that events strike one company multiple times?
I think this would add an "thats unfair!" to the world, i think other things (that can be influenced by the player to make them NOT happen) are more appropriate for the game (as strikes if wages are too low, breakdown of an aircraft (as your stated "slight mechanical failure") if the condition is too often too low,…).
So, please NO random events striking a single airline!
I know that the topc was brought up before, but normally in those topics they give a very complicated system but I stated a system which may be less demanding of the server and easier to understand.
Still this would be made under wrong assumption. For your model you assume that every so and so many flights something happens, however I’d argue that sometimes something happends and the amount of all those incidents gives a certain ratio, but changes over time. For Instance in September 2001 you had significant increase of passenger aircraft losses in the US but since then it has been very low. Still those event would increase the overall ratio of flight crashes. Oftentimes incidents are caused by missmanagemen (for instance a PR desaster). In Airlinesim however, players would have no way to avoid any such, since the events would be just distributed randomly. For this reason it does not make sense to add such events because they really do not add any functional reality to the game.
I know this answer sounds very complex, but I’ve you are interested in this I suggest you take a look in some book or podcast about economic statistic.
as a complete newbie who just started playing, i am still learning about all the game offers.
i do agree with the OP that this would be an interesting option - and there should be accidents/PR issues as in real life.
Airlines with old planes - under maintained planes and then just simply bad luck.
I have not found a weather overlay on the game - so i am assuming this does not exist, however those who use airport hubs where the weather is particularly bad - fog/ice etc… would be more prone perhaps to this random event. For real life example look to Tenerife (sp?)
No! A bad idea doesn´t get better by bringing it up regularly (please use the search button…).
Real airlines have staff to cope with irregularities. AS players have not. If I had to do that job, spending 24 hours at the computer, I would expect a salary for playing AS.
Airlinesim is a game, we are here for having fun. The question is if this feature would add any fun to the game; I think it doesn´t.
I don’ t want to be rude but, do you have any empirical data to support your argument ? Because otherwise I could also argue the other way around, in particular that airports in extreme environments tend to be more safe because staff handle flights more carefully there and you’d have special requirements and training to be allowed to approach them.
When talking about Tenerife, I think your talking about the KLM/PanAm Incident at Los Rodeos. That tragic catastrophe happend in the 1970s because of lacking equipment and procedures that do not exist anymore today. For the last 30 years there have been no fatal commercial aircraft accidents (EDIT: In TFS or TFN, I mean) , so I wonder how this would affect statistics.
I do agree with you. Take Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport as an example. The runway 13 final approach is indeed challenging (maybe an understatement?) but accidents hardly happened because airlines deploy their best pilots to Hong Kong…
As a variation on the disaster theme, a more realistic and more frequent scenario in the real-word is a delayed flight. If a plane is delayed, it arrives late, passengers miss their connections, the delay eats into the next service slot, meaning the plane misses its 2-hour service, loss of revenue, loss of image, refunds and so on…
The delays could be random, but related to the service quality and percentage - poor service means more delays.
That could be solved if there are stand by aircraft, they may cost more (example is a 777 in a 1000 mile route) but passengers would get to the destination on time and with no image loss. There may then be some airlines that opt to make more money my not having stand by aircraft and some others that are heavily dependent on image or connections that do decide to have an assortment of stand by aircraft that may be needed.