Okay, nice. So you say that it is a good move to have a game lose a lot of long time players just to make room for new players? Why would AS want to do so? When I like to run a MDs-airline and found a way that it works it’s a nice feeling for me, because I love the MDs. It’s kinda satisfying. AS gives me instruments to do it. Now, from one day to the other, AS makes my airline non profitable and you say that it’s good because you want me to leave?
2 Likes
I don’t want to make it personal, I have nothing against any players old or new. But I do think that for the game it’s better to have new airlines than old airlines (regardless if it’s created by a new or old player). It’s no secret that AS is getting much better profits on the new game worlds and that’s also the reason why the newer longterm game worlds have a higher price for players. These old game worlds aren’t generating profits, maybe even losing money. If there is a situation that can cause these old game worlds to get in influx of new players then that’s a win in my opinion.
Whether this situation causes that, I’m not sure. I’ve posted a reason why I can imagine it is, others counter that argument. So, I’m not sure.
1 Like
When you have old players leave, no, unfortunately of my 8 years on AS, that’s not how it works. What you have is a server with fewer but much larger old players. Most of the old players will just take up all the possible space that comes available. The only time when it opens a new market is when the sole player of a non-open market country leave the game, most of the time they are just leaving AS in general, not because of some external pressure.
If you drive the older player out of the older gameworld, all you are doing is making the server even less profitable, and if Martin decided to shut down the server because of that, then i would say all the players on server, especially old players who started when AS started (since 2007-2008), would probably never come back.
Also, i don’t understand why you think if a lot of older players leave the old server, there will be enough new players to replace them in the first place… as far as i see the number of new players joining my server in a much slower rate than the amount leaving, even if the old player in the same market didn’t take up the market space right the way.
2 Likes
As far as i know all long term gameworlds cost 6 credits per day. For example Gatow (2013, old ORS) cost the same as Limatambo (2020, new ORS)
Okay, I saw at the Game World overview that the newer worlds (Limatambo, Xiguan and Hoover) specifically stated that the cost was 6 credits per day and thus I assumed all other worlds, including the old permanent game world, had the “regular” cost of 4 credits per day.
Yes, ATR is the only one that is larger available in that market. but unfortunately, there are markets that require these kinds of aircraft to operate. That’s the reason at least ATR is still in the market, and you see airlines like JAC still orders them. You don’t see them that often is because the market is small in the first place, and it was also quite over-saturated (you also have the ERJ option, Dash 8 etc). Most of the airlines using them will use them for a very long time before replacing them, and some of them find them become impossible to replace (talk to dash 7 operators and hear how much they want a new aircraft but nothing is for them).
The issue is AS is heavily on connection but has a connection window, so some of the markets, like Papuan which is full of one bar airports, needs to use something very small, like LET or beech or twin otter to serve. Even if something large is possible, it would be An148. Please tell me if i am wrong, but i don’t see any other airlines in any servers that can serve all the Papuans destinations like what i am doing while using anything that is in that efficient aircraft category. I am not sure how you feel, but would it be very boring if everyone on AS only serves larger demand airports? I think that’s what AS will head towards if you only use the most recent and efficient aircraft and take out all older-gen aircraft, and to be fair, i don’t know about Papuan, but there are plenty low demand airports in the world which government actually subsidise airlines to serve them (airlines like silver, cape, and Boutique in US literally survive with that money), and that doesn’t happen in AS. so i think AS is already too hard on the airlines using small aircraft for low demand airports.
So, overall, you can’t compare real-life with AS in the first place. The demand, booking, route network will never be the same between the two, and what should be feasible to operate would and should also be different as a result
Edit: Here is an idea, not sure how easy it is programming-wise: making the low demand airport operation cost (landing fee etc) somewhat a function of the fuel price, if the fuel price jumps up to a certain level, the landing fee reduces, and if the fuel price is very high, you can end up negative (subsidising landing fee). I think that is also closer to how real life works because from my understanding, for US essential service, if you achieve a certain profit level, the government will no longer allow you to be in the program. This will allow you to operate the realistic low demand airport with smaller aircraft while somewhat doing what you want, which is promoting more efficient aircraft. (though i don’t think the argument on whether the older players with an older aircraft fleet should suffer because a sudden jump in fuel price is closed)
3 Likes
Most of the old players that are active are also playing in the newer worlds anyway, so it’s not about driving out the older guys, but being able to breathe new life into the worlds…
unfortunately all of this is a whole dilemma between do we want to prioritize and cater to the existing base or encourage new enterprise. Common dilemma of loyalty v growth, businesses experience it for millennia. There is no right answer and so why it is so debated. I advocate to where the degree possible keep some sort of balance.
1 Like
I don’t have a number in front of me, but i think as far as people on Kaitak, most of the old players only stay on kaitak. I know there are a couple of my alliance members who have airlines on other servers, but i think most of us don’t, and i think that’s the people you might going to lose if they lose the airline due to some dramatic change or server shutdown (probably including myself). Even myself, 8 years have been a long time, and life changed during these years (not counting the people who have been there for more than a decade, like Henning). but all of us has been spending a lot of time to get to where we are now. Not everyone can just change and overhaul their whole fleet now, but I think most of us are still happy to do the regular maintenance due to new competition etc.
I think the best way to put it is as one of members from my alliance who is on more than one server said, the older server is more like a waiting game, new servers are completely different. I don’t think anyone wants to change that dynamic and rush into changes because of some sudden change in-game dynamic on my server. i don’t think you will ever find a balance if both newer and older serves have exactly the same settings: the older gameworld probably need more stability, while the new game world is the one everything change, and if the older players want to have that challenge and time to invest, I am pretty much they will jump on to the newer servers, but i think people should expect players on different servers can expect the game to be different dynamics, especially for those who has been here for a very long time.
When an old player/airline leave my server, i named one of my planes after their holdings, and i can tell you the list has been already very long… half of the players of my original alliance is gone (most of them after many years in AS but lost their company for many reasons), and unfortunately i never see them actually back. I guess if the game is so much that it forces me to end my airlines, i will just join that long list
1 Like
I agree with that fact that when players leave their market share is usually taken up by other players with the same traffic rights. That is usually the case in a completely unregulated market like AS. It will always be way earier for a carrier with billions to quickly cover a market than somebody starting with 10 million. We have no anti trust laws in AS and monoplies will eventually be established.
On Idlewild there are 3 players in China, 3 in the US and 1 in Europe operating multiple thousands of aircraft. In tier two markets such as India, Russia, Japan, Egypt, Indonesia, etc all have monopolies. The economics that these carriers have makes it very hard to compete with them. They can essentially flood the market and survive themselves but drive out any competition, that’s what I did. I bet that even in the real world with a completely unregulated market then this would happen. Let’s say Alaska Airlines go under. American, Delta and Southwest will immediately cover the market before a new carrier can get a foothold. It’s how late game competition works. Sure, having only one carrier with complete dominance of a specific market makes the game less dynamic but it’s the way things become. In AS, regardless of fuel prices a newbie has no chance against these juggernauts. That really isn’t an argument.
I like your idea of small airports. Honestly I would just suggest making landing and handling fees free for all 1 bar airports. Even air traffic control fees could be free. These tiny municipalities would do anything to get a carrier to serve them, even straight out hand out cash. I don’t believe we should implement cash subsidies in AS but we could eliminate costs. I have the same issue in Siberia and the Russian far east as you have in Papua. Getting 20 pax per day in a ERJ simply isn’t sustainable but as I have no competition I have just raised prices on these routes. Pax have no choice than to fly with me as there are no ground network or other carriers. If my loads drop I will just grid of the routes, 20 pax per day is nothing when compared to an 787 with 250 pax which could use the same slot.
1 Like
What I don’t get in this discussion is that two thing seem to be concluded.
A) Old players want a fix for the increasing fuel prices as they fear their companies go down and the don’t have the time to compensate for this by changing to more fuel efficient aircraft
B) New players don’t get any benefit from these increased fuel prices because the old established airline, regardless of fuel prices, still dominate the market.
Now, these two can’t both be true at the same time, at least not for the same markets. If A is true and established airlines go bankrupt then that automatically means that new airlines can take their spot. If B is true and new airlines have no chance because the established airlines will still dominate regardless of higher fuel prices, then A is not true because one can only continue to dominate by continuing to operate (thus not go bankrupt).
Can someone please explain where my reasoning goes wrong.
Here is what happened to both of your statements:
A and B are both true at the same time, but not at the same time for the same company:
A is true when the fuel price is so bad, and in that case, the majority of the old players who don’t have a HUGE cash reverse or don’t have a good profit margin, in general, will go under. If you have a hundred plus fleet, and you own ALL of the aircraft (which some of the large players do), this statement does not apply, because you are making tons of cash no matter what is fuel cost due to no leasing cost. The ones who will suffer are the ones that have a lower profit margin, and the one that has accepted losing money during low demand time, but did not account for that much fuel price change. They will lose a lot of money due to additional the fuel price and might go under. And there are a lot of companies like this on an older server
B is true is because A case doesn’t apply to everyone, so what you end up with is the one that survives, which most likely has the billions in their bank and are the richest on the server, will expand into the ones who go under, which means it will be no space for new players anyway. If the A is so bad that all the players go under, there is no way you can replace them with the new players, which means you will probably lose that server.
What I see, at least, is that there are 3-4 schools of thought.
1 - this fuel price is interesting and a challenge, keep it, (add inflation while you’re at it)
2 - this fuel price will kill my old airline with guzzler planes, take it off
2.5 - this fuel price will kill my old guzzler airline that I could renew the fleet in but it’s too much of a hassle, take it off (or you risk losing me)
3 - this fuel price kills new airline growth, which is what should be encouraged moving forward, take it off
I lean #3 but i’m not absolute.
1 Like
The ones who will suffer are the ones that have a lower profit margin, and the one that has accepted losing money during low demand time, but did not account for that much fuel price change. They will lose a lot of money due to additional the fuel price and might go under. And there are a lot of companies like this on an older server.
You’re right about this. In the old servers it’s not that uncommon, but I know owning a/c in Xiguan isn’t the most common, and definitely not the case in Limatambo… though quite a few leasing subs have opened up… it’s gonna kill anyone who didn’t prepare (and who could have predicted this in Jan/Feb?)
actually, i am pretty much in that unprepared category. I start to the replacing my fleet while was trying to help one of my alliance members who is leaving AS on his IPO. It’s a huge company so i spend a lot of my cash reverse on it.
Most of my company might be still profitable with this crazy price (i am still watching for a better estimation after the next closing) , which only my Papuan division has been always the troubled child due to how things work in AS (as i explained on the low demand airports). but i know there are plenty airports that doesn’t have that good profiting positions on my server.
Okay, this I get. But still, this only applies to either investment open countries or countries that already have multiple airlines. There are a lot of countries where this does not apply, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, Canada, Mexico and more usually only have one airline having a monopoly and don’t have direct competition. Thus, if they go bankrupt these countries are empty.
Of course, Europe, China and the US will most likely have one or more airlines remaining that will pick up the demand that’s left from one or two airlines that go bankrupt and these investment open countries will see the same situation. Either these weren’t interesting before this moment or they are, in which case the possibly empty space is filled up by a major airline from another country.
Here are the reasons it doesn’t work even for closed market countries:
-
on AS, countries are not just contained within that country because there are no domestic-only airport restrictions. I can spill into Malaysia airport if i really want to and slot blocking any possible new airline there (i literally did in JHB because the player who pushed out my old friend in Malaysia is taking away my own domestic traffic from there, so i just slot block him for any further aggression toward my market). i am pretty much sure i can do that for Singapore also if i want to. Canada can be influenced by USA etc
-
a lot of the players on these single market who has been a monopoly for a really long time will have a lot of cash reverse to play with. so you will either lose everyone or lose no one from all these markets based on how bad things get. And after the whole affair, you only leave everyone on the server with a bad taste because of how things are handled. even if only a few who are not prepared are gone, because of how long the old server has been running, word will spread because after so many years, a lot of players communicate even across alliances. and to be fair, the newer you are on the server, you probably have less cash to play with, so i guess you are not pushing old players out of the market, but medium ago players out
-
The important part, which i think you might be missing from my last post, is you can push them, out, but you might push too many of them out. A lot of the players on the old servers have similar fleet practices because they are built in a similar timeframe. If you look like Kaitak, a lot of old players use 737ngs, and a lot of time they end up owning them. (i understand some other servers can be different). If you look at the loading and rating over time, you will see a lot of players are accepting losing during low time practice. unless you want to start targeting certain countries with high fuel price, i think the risk of losing too many players are far larger than opening up a couple of countries.
I don’t think any player who operates owned 737NGS should at all worry. I agree with neighbouring players blocking markets but Indonesia is also a prime example of this. You pretty much dominate South East Asia. You have huge influences of the Singapore, Malaysia and sometimes even Thai markets. With that said you will never be able to block any of those markets completely. Whatever you do you will never be able to fully block all slots in Malaysia. You will only make it less desirable to play there. I have a similar case with Belarus, running a Russian airline. If a player suddenly decides to play Belarus on Idlewild he will still get ok loads on certain routes, even if I completely surround him.
Also, I don’t really understand your strategy at JNB. Running so many ERJs must cost you a fortune with these high fuel prices.
If we are talking about view points I am all for the fuel price but don’t want inflation, too hard to model well.
I don’t think a single high index will bring airlines using NG down at all, but if you look into how loading play into it at the lower index, a lot of old airlines will get into trouble, because they are not that profitable even at regular fuel price. Completely agree that you would not able to block the country completely, but my point is new players probably won’t get the clean market they are hoping for by getting rid of the old player. All it does is make the nearby player more monopoly because of the loss of traffic balance.
I think it is getting off the topic, yes, it is costing a lot for me to run these ERJs. But the alternative is every single slot free for him will be one more flight to my airports, especially CGK. and it literally happened during his previous round when he pushed my friend out of the Malaysian market. Even if you look at it now, he still has 400+ flights between JHB and CGK. If it really gets into trouble because of the high fuel price, I might pull it out, but I am pretty much slot blocking him to prevent him slot blocking me. I’m not a fan of what i am doing at all actually; if not because of what i saw in the past, I won’t even open a little hub there. I rather prefer to utilise the airports in my own operational countries because i don’t think using up slots in neighbouring countries is helping anyone. If BTH ever becomes transferable on my server, i probably will pull it out and compete with JHB through pure competition, instead of the current slot blocking method.
To be frank, personally, I am fine with dealing with the high fuel for a while, but i think if that is the case, the index should not be dropping anymore. I think it will be too much for a lot of the old players to deal with both at the same time. Also, it will just make some of the markets, like Papua, Russia far east etc become very hard to serve if you don’t increase the ticket price significantly based on the current base structure. And to be fair, i don’t think fuel price is helping everyone anyway, so in that case, i rather it not happening in the first place. There are only losers here: even if the players use more efficient planes, they will already out-compete the ones who don’t already, no matter what is the fuel price. Using sudden high fuel prices so that it might drive some players out is sadly purely unpleasant.
I think it will be too much for a lot of the old players to deal with both at the same time.
it’s all players, not just the old ones…
Also, it will just make some of the markets, like Papua, Russia far east etc become very hard to serve if you don’t increase the ticket price significantly based on the current base structure. And to be fair, i don’t think fuel price is helping everyone anyway, so in that case, i rather it not happening in the first place. There are only losers here: even if the players use more efficient planes, they will already out-compete the ones who don’t already, no matter what is the fuel price. Using sudden high fuel prices so that it might drive some players out is sadly purely unpleasant.
I echo the sentiment here…
Hey all, we followed the discussion regarding the recent fuel price development and decided to share a blog post addressing the topic - here’s the link, if you’re interested! We know it’s not really possible to find the perfect solution in this situation, but we hope the post can at least provide you with some more details 