Giving planes away

English Boards General
21

You can always ask first. I once saw several aircraft at about 60 percent value. The first thing I did was to message the airline in question if the leases were open to anyone or if they were made for a specific player. Only after receiving the positive reply did I bid on them. That way I assured that the aircraft leases will not be canceled soon thereafter. It's not that difficult to send in game message.

Your assuming a player knows to ask first.  If the player is that new they their company only has 20 aircraft, they might not know the open market is not really an open market.

22

once again, it is an open market

you bet to lease an aircraft with a garantueed minimum leasing period of one week. and that is exactly what you get.

you are not asking for an actual open and liberal market but for market rules benefitting the lessee. which is fine, but stop calling for an open market.

oh, and while I see where the "give newbies a chance" argument is coming from, you could apply that to everything. and before making something like the UM more transparent to newbies, maybe more fundamental things such as passenger distribution and the ORS should be explained in more prominent places within the game.

23

Strange question:

Would it in any way be better for anyone if private aircraft offers would be possible? The only reason why this aircraft appeared on the open market was, because you can not lease the aircraft to the partner airline it is supposed to go to without putting it on the open market. So the main question is:

1. Are you pissed because the plane was offered at the open market but you could not keep it?

2. Are you pissed because it is possible to lease out aircraft to friends for 10% of the price to support them, no matter what size they are?

Two totally different aspects I by now I do not get what the main issue is.

The main issue was pointed out in the original post.

"When I found the aircraft, the weekly payment was under $20,000 a week, which is FAR UNDER the weekly leasing rate if ordered from the builder.  That seems to fly directly in the face of the AirlineSim rule, "All activities your holding is involved in should be with the intention of making a profit." At that rate, it would take the airline who put the aircraft up for bid, 1930 weeks or 37 years to earn its investment back.  Hardly making a profit at that rate."

It reminds me of a saying a coworker of mine uses when things we get in the grey area of our jobs.  "The rules apply and are absolute, except when they don't".

24

The main issue was pointed out in the original post.

"When I found the aircraft, the weekly payment was under $20,000 a week, which is FAR UNDER the weekly leasing rate if ordered from the builder.  That seems to fly directly in the face of the AirlineSim rule, "All activities your holding is involved in should be with the intention of making a profit." At that rate, it would take the airline who put the aircraft up for bid, 1930 weeks or 37 years to earn its investment back.  Hardly making a profit at that rate."

Profit is an overall profit generated by holding not a single activity. If we went to such huge extremes as to literally take the quoted sentence, than every single activity would need to be profit-generating. It would be under such circumstances be impossible to operate loss-making fights such as feeder flights, or even loss making flights in general under low AGEX. From your posts I assume Edited to add: (maybe incorrectly)  you have not studied business and you work in a field far away from business or economy science Edited to add: (maybe incorrectly). Else Edited to add: (I think) you would Edited to add: (presumably) know, that it's the overall strategy and profitability that matters to a business. Businesses frequently engage in certain loss-making actions in order to generate more profit from other actions which without the loss-making actions would not be possible or would be less profitable.

Such loss-making actions are called loss leader actions. It's the final profit/loss equation that matters. An airline offering lease even for 0% could make overall net profit on transaction, for example:

- exclusive interline feeds more passengers into sponsor lessor's network

- route strategy helps move more connecting passengers through lessor's network

- lessor's abandoned terminal in lessee's new hub may get use and revenue generated from lessee's flights

(in other words, in the "case" of your CS100, the lessor was going to make money elsewhere in that business relationship with lessee airline)

etc. etc.

If we are going to talk apples, let's talk apples, and not oranges or pears or mangoes.

If we are going to put every single click and action done by a player to conform to your supposed profitability rule, then half of airlinesim actions would be illegal. For what its worth, even most of new airlines would be doing illegal things because most of their new flights are not profit generating. It's not one action that matters, but a sum and combination of all of them, the final profit equation.

25

Profit is an overall profit generated by holding not a single activity. If we went to such huge extremes as to literally take the quoted sentence, than every single activity would need to be profit-generating. It would be under such circumstances be impossible to operate loss-making fights such as feeder flights, or even loss making flights in general under low AGEX. From your posts I assume you have not studied business and you work in a field far away from business or economy science. Else you would know, that it's the overall strategy and profitability that matters to a business. Businesses frequently engage in certain loss-making actions in order to generate more profit from other actions which without the loss-making actions would not be possible or would be less profitable.

Such loss-making actions are called loss leader actions. It's the final profit/loss equation that matters. An airline offering lease even for 0% could make overall net profit on transaction, for example:

- exclusive interline feeds more passengers into sponsor lessor's network

- route strategy helps move more connecting passengers through lessor's network

- lessor's abandoned terminal in lessee's new hub may get use and revenue generated from lessee's flights

(in other words, in the "case" of your CS100, the lessor was going to make money elsewhere in that business relationship with lessee airline)

etc. etc.

If we are going to talk apples, let's talk apples, and not oranges or pears or mangoes.

If we are going to put every single click and action done by a player to conform to your supposed profitability rule, then half of airlinesim actions would be illegal. For what its worth, even most of new airlines would be doing illegal things because most of their new flights are not profit generating. It's not one action that matters, but a sum and combination of all of them, the final profit equation. I have some great graduate-level business strategy books in PDF which I would be happy to send you for your reading enjoyment.

Using your "logic" I should be able to charge to charge less than the minimum price on cargo in AirlineSim, as I can still make a profit on the passenger operation alone.  That cargo would be a loss leader.  I should be able to charge less than minimum price on buisness class, as I can still make a profit on the flight using economy pax alone.  The rules in this game are the rules, and it has been proven that what happens in real life does not matter in this game. 

Your assumption on my background would be incorrect, and I will just leave it at that. Quite frankly, I don't listen to a known cheater on their interpretation of the rules of this game.  

26

removed as a sign of goodwill

27

wuahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha

Your last comment make me ROTFLOLAKLAC ROTFLOLAKLAC ROTFLOLAKLAC ... I think Mr. Littlesatp is envious of someone running a 10x more profitable business

wuahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha

 It is a game.  I am not envious of anyone here.  Of course, since you have been caught cheating at least twice, I would think your profits should be taken with a grain of salt. 

28

removed as a sign of goodwill

29

Can you name those for me please?

http://community.airlinesim.aero/topic/9858-official-statement-concerning-the-candidates-of-the-may-2016-uab-elections/

Martin mentions both in this thread.

On May 30th 2016, Martin says, “This also applies to rubiohiguey2000’s prior conviction”

And on July 7th 2106, Martin reveals the ruling on your other little issue. “rubiohiguey2000: guilty in 2 out of 3 cases”

 

And btw, my profits from flight operations can be taken with two spoons of honey and one drop of cinnamon.

As can your opinions

30

removed as a sign of goodwill

31

On second thought, let’s just make peace… I will not stick it to you and you promise to not stick it to me. Would make most sense. No need to make another round of AirlineSim forum show right? After all the spectators do not pay any admission so why should they get free entertainment? So what do you say? Let’s just hit a couple of delete keys. I go first as a sign of goodwill…

32

Using your "logic" I should be able to charge to charge less than the minimum price on cargo in AirlineSim, as I can still make a profit on the passenger operation alone. That cargo would be a loss leader. I should be able to charge less than minimum price on buisness class, as I can still make a profit on the flight using economy pax alone. The rules in this game are the rules, and it has been proven that what happens in real life does not matter in this game.

Your assumption on my background would be incorrect, and I will just leave it at that. Quite frankly, I don’t listen to a known cheater on their interpretation of the rules of this game.

I don't think that is the same. Will you gain some more business in any other place just because you offer business class tickets below price? I don't think so. That was implied by Rubio, as his examples could lead to advantages in other areas by subsidizing another.
33

First of all, let me say that I don’t see the point in discussing the size of Ufsatp’s company or his RL background. He has raised a topic that could be raised by any person, and if there is any need to mention his companies size, it has to be necessary for the argument. For the same reason there is no need to give any names (or hints indicating the name) to discuss topics like this one, although now it makes no difference anymore, since Matth took it upon himself.

“All activities your holding is involved in should be with the intention of making a profit.”

This quoted statement is not a rule by itself, but part of a rule that has intentionally more than just one sentence.

“Every player has the right to fair competition. All activities your holding is involved in should be with the intention of making a profit. Running a holding or enterprise with the sole intention of damaging other companies, or bullying other players is forbidden.”

Why is it important? Because this rule is not meant to protect the majority of players against actions by a single player or a small group of players (that is done by other rules), but to protect a minority or a single person against pure destructive behavior against them. This is necessary to ensure a fair competition within the complex economy of this game, and that means that you can do nearly everything (besides cheating, of course) focused on long-term profit, even if it doesn’t bring you any short-term profit - as long as it is not aimed directly against another player. On the other hand, competing directly against another player is not forbidden, of course, but very restricted.

To come back to this case; if someone gives away very cheap planes to a company that is solely focussed on fighting the competitors of the lessor (both intentionally), than it would be an action against the quoted rule. Otherwise, it is not. So we don’t need to discuss, if this action is against this specific rule. Of course we can discuss if there is need for a rule that makes these actions illegal - but then we have to be aware about the consequences.

I admit that for me giving away new planes for 10% or 20% is worth a check, but for me it is not necessarily cheating in any way. Why? Because the given calculation (37 years) is just an extrapolation, based on the assumption that the rate is fixed and that it is a solely leasing deal at all. But there is no argument indicating that. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why leasing out a plane for this rate is in fact economically useful.

In my opinion, the only point left is the question if offering leasing only to a single company or a small group of companies is illegal. And that is in fact a very powerful question, because it means a discussion about freedom of business. Is it illegal to give interline only to a group of players or a single company? Or offering terminals? I don’t think so, and I don’t think we should restrict more than it is restricted right now.