Was it fair? Please give me answers..

English Boards General
1

I am the CEO of King Airlines. My company was reset one week ago. I have contacted the AirlineSim Support to seek an answer, but they can not give me a satisfied answer. So I decide to post it here and ask for an answer.

 

This might be a long post. So I will give an abstract first and explain more later. If you do not have enough time, please just read the abstract.

 

Abstract

My company was reset because “On our 2nd check on January 4th, the following airlines were found still having standard and/or slimline HD seats in Business and First.” However, I think I had consulted AirlineSim Support before. They emailed me and permitted me to do so at that time. So, in this case, was it fair to punish one company when it did not violate the regulations? And was it fair to sentence a company death but not give it a chance to defend itself?

 

The reason to reset my company

The King Airlines was reset on Jan 21. The announcement is post at

http://community.airlinesim.aero/topic/5779-en-usage-of-small-seats-for-higher-income-on-aspern-server/?p=48593

The reason is “On our 2nd check on January 4th, the following airlines were found still having standard and/or slimline HD seats in Business and First and will be resettet therefor.”

 

To get more information on why my company was reset, I contacted the AirlineSim Support and got their email written as,

“You already had some EMB-195 on January 4th - the date of the check - with these seats in service - so the user advisory board decided this way.”

My defense:

  1. Before Dec 24, I had 2 EMB 195s, 1 EMB 195LR and 6 B736s with small seat configurations. After I received the fair-play email, I immediately reconfigured  2 EMBs to better seats (C36Y72, I can not remember the seat configuration exactly, but definitely not of standard and/or slimline HD seats in Business and First ), and started to quit all B736s and the EMB 195LR from my fleet. Two B736s and 1 EMB 195LR were quitted on Dec 31, and other B736s were quitted in the following week. So, on Jan 4, I did not have any EMB 195s with small seats (if I remembered correctly). I was trying to get a clear and exact explanation on which EMB 195 was in bad seat configuration on Jan 4. However, when I contacted with AirlineSim Support through emails, they did not give me an answer. 

2. When I had planned to quit my B736s, I did not know whether I should immediately reconfigure them or not. So, I wrote emails to AirlineSim Support to consult.  I wrote:

"I have some B736s that have been set small seats. But, I plan to replace them by A319s or A320s with better seats in following days, when this week leasing contracts expire. Should I change the cabin configuration of B736s right now? or I can still use them until these planes are replaced. "

AirlineSim Support replied:

"about the 737-600 - as long as they are stored - like in the moment - there is of course no need to reconfigure them."

The reply I got clearly indicated that it was unnecessary to reconfigure planes when they were in the process of replacement. This was the reason that I did not reconfigure these B763s and 1 EBM 195LR.

My questions:

1. Which planes in my fleet were in bad seat configurations on Jan 4? I think I do not have the EMB 195 with small seats at that moment.

2. I indeed used some planes with small seats on Jan 4. But, that did not mean I still intended to take advantage from them. The reason I did not reconfigure them was because they would be replaced soon, which had been acknowledged from AirlineSim Support. So, in this case, was it fair to punish my company by this reason?

3. The companies in the AirlineSim just like lives in the real world. Was it fair to sentence a company to death but not give it a chance to defend itself?

Please give me answers. Thanks!

2

I'm going to knitpick:

AirlineSim Support replied:

"about the 737-600 - as long as they are stored - like in the moment - there is of course no need to reconfigure them."

 

I think 'stored' means they they should not be scheduled for any flights, and be sitting idle. 

3

I'm not a member of the UAB or anything, but I think you pretty much answered your own question here:

"I indeed used some planes with small seats on Jan 4. But, that did not mean I still intended to take advantage from them."

As with the statement above from saadmohd, if the planes were flying, you were taking advantage of them, plain and simple. Whether you, in your head, didn't view it as taking advantage of them, the UAB obviously thought you were, since they were still in flight at that time. Considering how much money can be made with an EMB 195 with a tight configuration (maybe, what, $25,000 per flight after expenses?), a new configuration costing even $100,000 isn't much. AS and the UAB laid out what they considered as "rule breaking", whether there was a written rule or not. They gave you notification, you apparently didn't satisfy their concerns.

4

I have to agree with the two users above...

"I indeed used some planes with small seats on Jan 4."

You pleaded guilty, case closed.

5

I'm going to knitpick:

AirlineSim Support replied:

"about the 737-600 - as long as they are stored - like in the moment - there is of course no need to reconfigure them."

 

I think 'stored' means they they should not be scheduled for any flights, and be sitting idle. 

Yes. I did not scheduled any further flights. As written in the email, "- like in the moment -", I think it meant AirlineSim Support agreed with me that the process of B736s were legal!

6

I'm not a member of the UAB or anything, but I think you pretty much answered your own question here:

"I indeed used some planes with small seats on Jan 4. But, that did not mean I still intended to take advantage from them."

As with the statement above from saadmohd, if the planes were flying, you were taking advantage of them, plain and simple. Whether you, in your head, didn't view it as taking advantage of them, the UAB obviously thought you were, since they were still in flight at that time. Considering how much money can be made with an EMB 195 with a tight configuration (maybe, what, $25,000 per flight after expenses?), a new configuration costing even $100,000 isn't much. AS and the UAB laid out what they considered as "rule breaking", whether there was a written rule or not. They gave you notification, you apparently didn't satisfy their concerns.

Did you read the email I quoted? 

"about the 737-600 - as long as they are stored - like in the moment - there is of course no need to reconfigure them."

Why did I still fly these B736s? The only reason is that it was permitted by AirlineSim Support!!!

When I wanted to quit some planes, first, I can not terminate all flights immediately, and second, all flights are scheduled several days ago. So, I asked the AirlineSim Support to know whether at that moment I could fly them or not. It was the replied email permitted me to do so!!!!

Did I fly B736s with small seats at that time? Yes! But, should I be punished by that? Of course not! The ASTeam should not punish the action they permitted!! At one hand, ASTeam asked us to play fairly, but at the other hand, they did not recognize what they permitted? Is it fair?

7

I'm not a member of the UAB or anything, but I think you pretty much answered your own question here:

"I indeed used some planes with small seats on Jan 4. But, that did not mean I still intended to take advantage from them."

As with the statement above from saadmohd, if the planes were flying, you were taking advantage of them, plain and simple. Whether you, in your head, didn't view it as taking advantage of them, the UAB obviously thought you were, since they were still in flight at that time. Considering how much money can be made with an EMB 195 with a tight configuration (maybe, what, $25,000 per flight after expenses?), a new configuration costing even $100,000 isn't much. AS and the UAB laid out what they considered as "rule breaking", whether there was a written rule or not. They gave you notification, you apparently didn't satisfy their concerns.

I do not want to argue what the rule is. Somebody used smaller seats to have more money. But it is not in all cases. I would like to say that I had better overall profit rate after I quitted these planes with smaller seats. Because, using better seats, I could sell tickets at higher price. So, it is simple and naive to only judge by the seats configurations.

8

I have to agree with the two users above...

"I indeed used some planes with small seats on Jan 4."

You pleaded guilty, case closed.

Come on! I did it because I got that email from AirlineSim Support!!! Did you carefully read what I quoted before you blamed me?

9

Are you sure that is what they meant? Or is that what you want it to mean? My first (and only, really) language is English, and that statement actually doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially the "like in the moment" part. Knowing as I do the main language of the AS team is German, I would probably have checked with them to make sure I understood what they are saying, especially if the alternative was losing my airline. I would have made damn sure I was following the rules to the letter.

If you're looking for sympathy, I don't think you'll get it.

10

I think this would be good moment for AS to make their statement, especially in regards to the email sent by them to the OP. While it says "in storage" on one hand, it may have been a confusing reply to the OP. But on the other hand, OP should have become alerted why they talk about stored aircraft if the aircraft was flying.

Anyway, a statement by AS might shed more light on what actually happened.

11

This is a bit nitpicky... but has there been any discussion about adding some sort of English translator prior to posting anything regarding official stances on topics? Honestly, when reading something as technical as policy, it'd be nice to not have to guess what is meant by weird phrases such as "like in the moment" which makes very little sense. AS English announcements can be very difficult to read, I understand this is a German game, but there was an obvious push toward an English market.

Otherwise, I'd say that re-setting an airline that utilized unfair seating configurations is just. The unfair configurations generally allowed airlines to grow much quicker than their counterparts and put them so far ahead in base capital that simply forcing them to reconfigure doesn't really do much to their unrealistic start. The market would've forced them to do that soon any way, re-setting such airlines or giving them fines to off-set their head start is really the only fair option.

12

Well there are two aspects:

1st - the 737-600 - you had small seats in business and/or first. This WAS a violation. You put them out of service.

2nd - the EMB-195 - also with small seats in business. And you had them still in service.

This has been the reason for the decission to delete the airline. If the 195er would have been stored too directly (or reconfigured), the UAB may have decided on a penalty fee and not a reset.

Is it fair? I believe it is fair. Is it fair to claim fairness for youself but using bugs before? I don't think so. It's interesting to see that the people who don't care for fairness call for it the loudest.

13

 It's interesting to see that the people who don't care for fairness call for it the loudest.

I like that. That's sig worthy.

14

amen, brother.

15

Well there are two aspects:

1st - the 737-600 - you had small seats in business and/or first. This WAS a violation. You put them out of service.

2nd - the EMB-195 - also with small seats in business. And you had them still in service.

This has been the reason for the decission to delete the airline. If the 195er would have been stored too directly (or reconfigured), the UAB may have decided on a penalty fee and not a reset.

Is it fair? I believe it is fair. Is it fair to claim fairness for youself but using bugs before? I don't think so. It's interesting to see that the people who don't care for fairness call for it the loudest.

Good. At least you admit that the reset of my company was not from these B736s.  But, I still have some questions.

1. Could you tell me which EMB-195s were still with small seats? Actually, I have asked this question in my several emails to the AirlineSim Support. But nobody gave me an answer. I had 5 EMB-195s. On Jan 4, 2 EMB-195s were in the original configuration, (C12Y96). The other 2 had been reconfigured to better seats. The only one had not been reconfigured was the EMB-195 LR. It quitted my fleet before Jan 4 (if I remembered correctly). The processing of my EMB-195 LR was exactly as that of my B736s. 

2. All my EMB-195s quitted my fleet soon. I think the email from AirlineSim Support indicated me that if these planes are stored and are quitting from the fleet, no need to reconfigure them. Do you indicate that the same actions on B736s were legal but on EMB-195s were illegal?

3. I do not know what these criteria are to reset a company or fine a company. These penalties were operated under the table (at least under our players' table). In total, I only had 3 EMB-195s with small seats (2 of them had been reconfigured already, one had already quitted my fleet). But, on Jan 4, I had more than 30 or 40 planes. Do these companies, which were fined, only have 1 or 2 planes with small seats? So, could AS Team gives us an announcement on how these punishments are given and what are the quantity criteria or rules? Without clear rules, how could make these punishments fair? Or were these punishments only made by someones' preferences?

You always said using small seats is a bug. OK, could you tell me how it can be known as a bug for a new player? Is it written in the wiki? Is it written in some announcements that you asked new players to read? I am a new player. Do you expect me to know these under-table rules and play as so-called fairly as you required? The only fairness I know is to obey the rules of this game. Furthermore, this a sandbox game. The most attractive part of this game is the freedom of strategies. For a new player, could you give me a hint on how to distinguish a bug and a good profitable strategy?

Actually, I do not think I took much advantage from planes with smaller seats. After I quitted all my planes with small seats, the overall profit ratio of my company became higher. I have tried different strategies. Using small seats was only one of them. There are other strategies better that it, e.g. using better seats with higher prices. That was why I only used several planes with small seats. My majority of planes were with better seats. If you think a very high profit rate is a bug, please give a line on how much the appropriate profit rate should be. Otherwise, maybe several days later, you have to define another strategy illegal only because it has a higher profit rate.

16

Are you sure that is what they meant? Or is that what you want it to mean? My first (and only, really) language is English, and that statement actually doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially the "like in the moment" part. Knowing as I do the main language of the AS team is German, I would probably have checked with them to make sure I understood what they are saying, especially if the alternative was losing my airline. I would have made damn sure I was following the rules to the letter.

If you're looking for sympathy, I don't think you'll get it.

If you, as a native English speaker, do not think that email makes a lot of sense, I think it is not a problem of me, but it would be a problem of AirlineSim Support.

It's stupid to find sympathy here. I only want answers.

17

This is a bit nitpicky... but has there been any discussion about adding some sort of English translator prior to posting anything regarding official stances on topics? Honestly, when reading something as technical as policy, it'd be nice to not have to guess what is meant by weird phrases such as "like in the moment" which makes very little sense. AS English announcements can be very difficult to read, I understand this is a German game, but there was an obvious push toward an English market.

Otherwise, I'd say that re-setting an airline that utilized unfair seating configurations is just. The unfair configurations generally allowed airlines to grow much quicker than their counterparts and put them so far ahead in base capital that simply forcing them to reconfigure doesn't really do much to their unrealistic start. The market would've forced them to do that soon any way, re-setting such airlines or giving them fines to off-set their head start is really the only fair option.

I think the problem is how to define an unfair configuration. Should a configuration having a high profit ratio be an unfair configuration? If so, how much profit ratio should be defined as the red line?  50%, 60% or 70%? Actually, I think there are many configurations to have high profit ratio, not only using small seats, such as using better seats but with higher price. Are they all unfair? 

I think AS Team should clearly define what a bug is and what a good profitable strategy is.

18

I like that. That's sig worthy.

Buddy, I am seeking answers for myself, but I am also seeking answers for all of us! I just try to clarify some rules and criteria on how to come out a punishment. This time, it is me. Maybe next time, it will be you! Do you know how the AS Team or UBA define an illegal action? Do you know how a strategy will be defined as a bug? If you do not know, how do you know the strategy that you are current using won't be regarded as a bug next?

19

I am a new player. 

So let me understand you correctly. You stumbled across AS at the happy coincidence of a new gameworld starting, and your first thought was to exploit a brand new feature of the game so that you achieve an advantage over hundreds of other players. Most "new" players seem to be concerned with the type of aircraft they might buy, the routes they might fly and how to schedule a flight to see if any passengers book it. But you were different. You were able to spot a bug and exploit it without the rest of the learning curve that other new players experience? 

Buddy, I am seeking answers for myself, 

All of the answers are here, in this thread and many others that are similar. I think the point you might be misunderstanding is the spirit of the game. Most players consider that filling business and first with the smallest seats available to gain an unintended advantage, is not in the spirit of the game. You might disagree. And that is probably the end of it. 

20

If you, as a native English speaker, do not think that email makes a lot of sense, I think it is not a problem of me, but it would be a problem of AirlineSim Support.

That's called "passing the buck". It isn't their fault you didn't understand what they were saying. They spoke. What you understood is not their responsibility. I agree it's not ideal... both parties having to use a second language to communicate. Just have to be careful in this situation.

(Edit: removed parts that could be considered flame and personal. Apologies.)