Even if it´s legal - I don´t like these cheap leasings. They contradict a main principle of Airlinesim: Equal chances!
Some players on existing game worlds have an abundance of money. With cheap leasings, they can support whom they like, and hold off players they don´t like. Indirectly they can catch any market they want. Its a bit like those boys on the playground, that decided who may play there and who may not.
Big players that discourage newcomers is a main problem of existing game worlds; we all know in what agony some of them are. If we want a more exciting game, we should think about how to make it more challenging for big players, and more dynamic for newcomers. In my opinion, cheap leasing is not helpful for the gameplay.
@rubiohiguey2000
Let´s call a spade a spade: Cheap leasing is nepotism. You are right: Nepotism is helpfull. It is great! For those who are inside the system. For the others it is the opposite. As you put it, “players who get cheap lease (= who have the right accomplices) stay longer in the gameworld”. Is that really a fair game?
Fluggast07 is simply 100% right. it is not fair play. it is just dirty gaming, playing a big advantage into the hand of accomplices. usually this discourages new players. and some new players complained about it. will they be heard?
Dont get going again with the "system" conspiracy theories. Do you think I am part of this system? Being one of the most active on this community surely I am friend with most other active players but not ones have I given or received any in game benefit from anybody who is active on the forums. The only actual in game collaboration with anybody active on the forum was when I leased one LET at full price to Bob. Except for the team and UAB discussion I have never had any group discussion with other top posters, instead I have individual messages with almost all. Sure there are certain friendships between players playing on the same worlds exactly like I have some very close partners on my game worlds but sometimes it just happens that two or more of these partners are active on the forum. To conclude either there is no system or I have not ever heard anything of it which is pretty unlikely. For those still believing that some certain individuals share their cannolis in the dark planning how to concur the game could watch this clip of O´leary:
I think its a subject that is not 100% good nor bad. I mean on one hand "helping" airlines and new players is great practice and a nice touch. However I have a feeling you have to know, or be friends with, the people who are leasing the planes. I reckon if I asked out of the blue for some cheap 737-900ers for my Stapleton airline id get jack from any airline as I am a lone wolf, yes I post on here, but I am hardly in the "circle" so to speak. (Maybe I am wrong I have never asked to be fair.)
But if a “new” player set up in my hub with 737s leased cheap at like 10-15% leasing rate because they are friends with someone on the staff team, id be very pissed off as this is my first and only airline i’ve ever had “success” with and to be honest, the lessor is not doing that for profit, they are simply helping a friend regardless of how you swing it.
Maybe there should be a “cap” or minimum lease rate but the more and more “caps” we put in place the less and less realistic this game becomes.
Then again in real life there is caps and limits of airlines helping each other. AA/BA was contested and limits are there. If QR, Emirates and Etihad came together to form a super mega airline, that wouldnt be allowed by international law.
You dont even play on Stapleton first of all. Second off all if you manage to persuade one of the large alliances that you would bring value to them, you are competent at the game and you are a nice guy you will get some help. Not 100 cheap 737-900ERs neither 10 but maybe up to 5.
The problem: You can decide arbitrarily, who you help, and who you combat by privileging his competitors. I do not say that you, CBE, are doing this in an malign way, or that you where part of a conspiracy. I criticize, that the game allows players to do so.
In my opinion this is not the meaning of an economic simulation game.
You dont even play on Stapleton first of all. Second off all if you manage to persuade one of the large alliances that you would bring value to them, you are competent at the game and you are a nice guy you will get some help. Not 100 cheap 737-900ERs neither 10 but maybe up to 5.
Yes I do, Esteghlal Airlines of Iran on Stapleton?????????????????????????
. I have been debating whether to join an alliance or not for a while. I dont think I am good enough yet sadly. Pressure of being in one is putting me off for now.
The problem: You can decide arbitrarily, who you help, and who you combat by privileging his competitors. I do not say that you, CBE, are doing this in an malign way, or that you where part of a conspiracy. I criticize, that the game allows players to do so.
In my opinion this is not the meaning of an economic simulation game.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the meaning of an economic simulation game. Large entities are looking for investments and will choose their investment partners according to many reasons, often irrational ones. Forging personal relationships is hugely beneficial.
You can argue that cheap leases are not fair if you like, but the "free market" argument is for the other side.
Yes I do, Esteghlal Airlines of Iran on Stapleton?????????????????????????
. I have been debating whether to join an alliance or not for a while. I dont think I am good enough yet sadly. Pressure of being in one is putting me off for now.
Oh, it´s run under a different name. I guess you have the same issue as I do with different names in game and forums. You are welcome to apply to Unity Skies which is the biggest English speaking alliance, we need an Iranian member again :). Dont worry we believe in collaborating together and we dont apply pressure on members and you are certainly better than what I was during my first time here and I was accepted into Unity.
The problem: You can decide arbitrarily, who you help, and who you combat by privileging his competitors. I do not say that you, CBE, are doing this in an malign way, or that you where part of a conspiracy. I criticize, that the game allows players to do so.
In my opinion this is not the meaning of an economic simulation game.
In the end it´s business not charity and personal interests are prioritised. AirlineSim shall be a simulation of the real world. I partially work in the private healthcare industry. For the last nurse position which we opened there where around 40 applicants, some with worse situations than others but in the end the most competent and most willing and motivated to work was employed. Some applicants where refugees some had attractive appearances but in the end the best for the business was chose and I dont doubt it a moment that is was the right choice. We didn't employ one who has small children and currently works miserable hours at the government hospital neither did we employ an currently part time employed friend. In the end AS is a simulation of the strategic choices which need to be taken in everyday life. I put great interest in charities but work and charity have to be different. If a business was run like a charity it would not work. I am an ambassador for an organisation working with handicapped children in Romania and I patron several orthodox churches but that is with money earned from a working business not a charity to give to needing charities who do a much better job at running a charitable operation than what I would.
Oh, it´s run under a different name. I guess you have the same issue as I do with different names in game and forums. You are welcome to apply to Unity Skies which is the biggest English speaking alliance, we need an Iranian member again :). Dont worry we believe in collaborating together and we dont apply pressure on members and you are certainly better than what I was during my first time here and I was accepted into Unity.
Yeah ive realised SRNP and Eireaan is different? But I click on "forum" via my Esteghlal airlines page? Why is that.
One guy on fornebu is playing 25 days in China and in just 25 days, he bought almost all of used 737 and MDs. He is even buying all other 737 and MDs on his other holding on same acount. I really cant compete with him, because him cheap lease almost all used crafts on server, filled main airports and also holds rest of planes on different companies.
In that case i would like to see somebody is bidding agains him, because just can`t compete that way, but i would do same thing if i could :).
Just example how easy is to domitate China in 30 days. I will not stand any chance there ;-)
But it is realistic, in real world it is working same way 1% hold everything :)
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the meaning of an economic simulation game. Large entities are looking for investments and will choose their investment partners according to many reasons, often irrational ones. Forging personal relationships is hugely beneficial.
You can argue that cheap leases are not fair if you like, but the "free market" argument is for the other side.
I don´t think a free market can survive without regulation. It would collapse. We have seen this in reality, just remember the financial crisis of 2008. A free market is like a soccer game: Every team is free to play the strategy they want - but without rules it wouldn´t work.
Personal relationships may be beneficial for a small group, for the short term. On the long term they can destroy whole countries. Look at the Corruption Perceptions Index: The corrupt countries are not the wealthy ones.
Like real world, an economic simulation game needs reasonable regulation, to let a free market happen. Offering a product for 10% of its market value is not reasonable at all.
I´m not arguing for charity here. Of course Airlinesim is not about charity. Its about economy, abount gaining market share and making money.
But like the real economy, it needs reasonable rules. A soccer game has strict rules, otherwise it would not work. These rules are not for charity, they are for fair competition.
In Airlinesim, we have often made the experience that prices need a corridor. This applies to ticket prices, or to the stock market. Whithout a price corridor we get absurd prices and an unfair, boring game. Why should leasing be an exception?
I’m astonished how fast this valid topic got personal. But then again, should I be surprised?
I’m also surprised how many people (especially lessors!) defend this possibility, even tough it does not serve them any purpose commercially.
Basically, and that’s a fact, cheap leases interfere with market dynamics. With a ridiculous low lease one can operate below the normal cost and therefore gains an unfair advantage over his competitor. There’s simply no valid point against that. And no, usually cheap leases are not available to anybody.
It is currently legal but my point is clear: Cheap leases are for bad managers, a good airline manager does not need cheap leases!
AirlineSim shall be a simulation of the real world ... If a business was run like a charity it would not work.
While I can see your point of not interfering too much into free business decisions I have to say that
no airline in the real world leases out planes below market rates and that’s exactly because it wouldn’t work (as you said) and
obviously “leasing charities” work here (not enough competition, too high demand etc.)
When you call for AS to be a simulation of the real world (which I strongly support) then cheap leases should definitely have no place in your argumentation.
It is currently legal but my point is clear: Cheap leases are for bad managers, a good airline manager does not need cheap leases!
So what are you?
It's not about good or bad manager. It's about getting a quicker foothold into an already occupied region. It's about growing fast(er) so that you have an equal chance to grab some slots, before your super big neighbors floods an airport with his planes.
It's not all just black and white.
It is a simulation, yes. But there are so many areas where it is restricted, there should also be some, where it is not.
It's not about good or bad manager. It's about getting a quicker foothold into an already occupied region. It's about growing fast(er) so that you have an equal chance to grab some slots, before your super big neighbors floods an airport with his planes.
It's not all just black and white.
It is a simulation, yes. But there are so many areas where it is restricted, there should also be some, where it is not.
no Matth, i disagree.
most times it is used in another way: a good market opens, let's say singapore, with only one significant airport and several players, maybe even newbees among them try there luck there.
these players have to start slow in the usual way and the one who does it better will prevail, means grow faster and at the end have the largest market share.
but ... then a monster airlines comes and subsidizes a "friend" by leases of 50 or 100 modern aircrafts for the minimum price. so this "friend" can grow 10 times faster and occupy SIN easily before the competitors get even medium size airlines.
how can somebody dare to say this is fair? that all have the same chances at the beginning? not at all.
it is a very dirty move, just good to frustrate fair players who dont use or cannot use these dirty game tactics because they dont have a "friend" in this world or as they are new at all and dont know anybody.
everybody with an only minimum feeling for fairness will understand that.
such moves (and others) have to be banned. no doubt.
in addition it does not contribute anything to the game, just again gives the monster-airlines more capabilities to squeeze away others.
Ok here’s a good example. I’m based in KUL. New airline launches in SIN it is obviously going to be bad news for me no matter what. Airline one decides to open in SIN, launches 20 daily flights to KUL and then gets his panties in a twist when I deny his IL request. Airline two opens in SIN, sends a polite IGM saying hey, can we work together. We agree that he avoids KUL and sends his aircraft elsewhere while I continue to serve SIN-KUL 24 times a day. In return he gets a feed, and then also because airline one is dead set in competing against me I decide to help a friendly airline out by providing cheap aircraft. I don’t see what’s wrong with that?
Both airlines had equal opertunity to co-operate. One decides to compete, one decide to work with making both airlines stronger. Why should I give the one that wants to compete cheap aircraft?
Ok here's a good example. I'm based in KUL. New airline launches in SIN it is obviously going to be bad news for me no matter what. Airline one decides to open in SIN, launches 20 daily flights to KUL and then gets his panties in a twist when I deny his IL request. Airline two opens in SIN, sends a polite IGM saying hey, can we work together. We agree that he avoids KUL and sends his aircraft elsewhere while I continue to serve SIN-KUL 24 times a day. In return he gets a feed, and then also because airline one is dead set in competing against me I decide to help a friendly airline out by providing cheap aircraft. I don't see what's wrong with that?
Both airlines had equal opertunity to co-operate. One decides to compete, one decide to work with making both airlines stronger. Why should I give the one that wants to compete cheap aircraft?
i can explain you what is wrong with that: such a move is equivalent to shoving a pile of money to opponent B. it is ok to co-operate with one oponent, but it is not acceptable to push mountains of money over the table (leasing for 10% is identical to that) and therefore it is prohibited by all other means! the "cheap leasing" is just a loophole in order to do what is not allowed otherwise ... for good reasons.