Joint ventures would increase cooperation and planning among players and would also give more material meaning to alliances. Idea would be to have joint ventures on a per flight basis, where the costs and revenues would be shared equally between the (two) joint venture partners. The non-operating airline would have access to booking numbers, but the service and price would be set by operating airline (after mutual agreement of the joint venture partners).
Players could decide to jointly operate some or all flights between their respective countries.
Joint venture setting would be done on a per-flight basis in flight settings.
What is the problem? You create new airline and do IPO, your partner have to buy shares up to 49,99%, then it called Joint-Venture ;)7
Your shares 50,01%
Your partner shares 49,99%
If you dont have traffic right (for example you are in US, but want airline in Europe), then other solution, you only create airline (dont take anyone aircraft) and do IPO
Your shares 34%
Your partner airline A (in europe) shares 33%
Your partner airline B (in europe) shares 33%
(66% shares in Europe, you have traffic right in Europe ;))
I like rubiohiguey's Idea, Joint Ventures like that are used quiet often in the real Airline business. It would ad a whole new factor of realism to the game. It would probably be tough to implement, but i'am sure the team can make it happen :)
Joint ventures are different from just buying near half of the share of the airline. If you have an IPO, it would be pretty hard for you to get half of the share. I think the non-operating airline will have more influence on an airline than just getting half of the shares.
About the case on pearls, I review the airline and it's now owned by a Chinese airline... Even though it may happen before, I think there is no way Chinese government will allow this happen in the real life. It's even hard for a private airline to survive in China in the real world. Maybe we should have some restrictions on this in game ;)
What is the problem? You create new airline and do IPO, your partner have to buy shares up to 49,99%, then it called Joint-Venture ;)7
Your shares 50,01%
Your partner shares 49,99%
If you dont have traffic right (for example you are in US, but want airline in Europe), then other solution, you only create airline (dont take anyone aircraft) and do IPO
Your shares 34%
Your partner airline A (in europe) shares 33%
Your partner airline B (in europe) shares 33%
(66% shares in Europe, you have traffic right in Europe ;))
This airline owned to toxiroxi (his holding is in Taiwan, no traffic right in China)
Co-ownership of a subsidiary and a joint venture are different concepts. The JVs that exist today and what Rubiohiguey is referring to are more like an expanded code sharing agreement, which in itself is an expansion of the interlining agreements that exist in the real world and what we have access to currently. An example of a joint venture would be the AC/UA/LH+ orgy, where all revenues and expenses for all flights between North America and Europe are pooled and divided between the carriers. Co-ownership is more like the ownership and (now) operation of Virgin Atlantic. Originally 49% owned by Singapore Airlines, who sold their share to Delta, VA operates as a distinct brand.
What is the problem? You create new airline and do IPO, your partner have to buy shares up to 49,99%, then it called Joint-Venture ;)7
Your shares 50,01%
Your partner shares 49,99%
If you dont have traffic right (for example you are in US, but want airline in Europe), then other solution, you only create airline (dont take anyone aircraft) and do IPO
Your shares 34%
Your partner airline A (in europe) shares 33%
Your partner airline B (in europe) shares 33%
(66% shares in Europe, you have traffic right in Europe ;))
Then you have to say codeshares. That is really interesting ;)
Not entirely. A codeshare is an expanded interline agreement, but a joint venture is an expanded codeshare. To the passenger, it doesn’t really make a difference, but to the accountants, it matters a great deal. As an accountant, I find it extremely facinating.
Let’s take two flights, Air Canada operates AC850 (YYC-LHR) and AC009 (YYC-NRT). AC850 is part of the joint venture between AC/UA/LHGroup, and AC009 is a codeshare flight with ANA. Under the JV agreement, each carrier gets a portion of the ticket revenue and is responsible for a portion of the costs. This means that UA and LH are earning revenue even though I’m flying from Canada to the UK, but AC is also earning revenue from a passenger flying from Munich to Chicago.
With AC009, ANA is allowed to sell tickets for the AC flight, using an ANA flight number, and considering YYC to be part of their route network. ANA keeps the ticket revenue, because AC is also selling tickets and keeping the revenue for certain ANA flights, and also adding additional destinations to AC’s route map.
And now the lowest form of relationship, the interline agreement. Air Canada doesn’t fly to Newcastle UK(NCL), nor do they have a UK partner anymore. However, they do have an interlining agreement with British Airways, even though BA is a competing carrier from a competing alliance. AC will sell me a ticket for YYC-LHR-NCL, with the LHR-NCL portion operated by BA. AC receives all the revenue, and pays all expenses for LHR-YYC, but they have to pass on my fare to BA for my LHR-NCL flight, because BA gets all the revenue and pays all the expenses for a flight that they operate. If I had booked BA102 (YYC-LHR) instead, AC and their JV partners get nothing at all, but American Airlines gets some.
Actually, with interline, and lowest level of code share (ad hoc bookings, no capacity purchase agreements), AC would not pay full fare to BA.
They would pay to BA what is called "prorate" portion of the whole through fare AC sells.
How much they shall pay, is calculated according to IATA guidelines, based on kilometers flown by each airline's metal.
Then there are special-pro-rate agreements (SPA) which go above and beyoned basic IATA interline fare calculations, which can ward more or less money for segments flown by interline partners.
So, in basic interline and code-share, YYC-LHR-BHX interline ticket will not cost the same as YYC-LHR (AC) plus LHR-BHX (BA), but usually less ... YYC-LHR will be base fare, and YYC-BHX will be calculated on its basis as a through fare, with certain minimum per-km charges on LHR-BHX segment. We could say, that AC will pay BA a "wholesale rate" for the kilometers flown on LHR-BHX segment by that particular AC passenger.
One thing though, nowadays you will hardly find non-code share interline tickets online on airline websites. You usually need a physical agent in the call center, ticket office, or a travel agent, to build an interline itinerary (outside of code shares and joint ventures).
Put "Interline Prorate" in Google and check out some links, it's fascinating reading.
And excerpt from Google Books: Straight and Level: Practical Airline Economics
JV is a great concept in real life, but I'm not sure how useful it is in AS. Let's say I'm based in Singapore, and I have my SIN-HKG flight having potential to be a JV.
Scenario 1. A HK-based airline wants to JV the route SIN-HKG with me
The HK-based airline can easily set up their own SIN-HKG route and get the full share.
Scenario 2. A Perth-Australia-based airline wants to JV with me the route SYD-PER, PER-SIN, SIN-HKG since this airline does not have traffic rights SIN-HKG and want to serve the HKG market, and I currently do not have the right plane to fly to Sydney.
I won't accept the JV. I can fly SIN-HKG totally on my own and get 100% profits, I don't want to give any share to the Perth-based airline. I would happily sign an interlining contract, or codeshare in real life with the company, and both of our aims are achieved.
Generally in AS fixed costs (such as opening a station, doing research, marketing) are really low. Airlines in AS can afford a lot of trial-and-errors to figure out the best plane, configuration to fly a route. Therefore, JVs would likely turn out to be more cosmetic.
You are forgetting that there are many scenarios where JV would be useful. For example, within alliances. Also let’s say I am the only airline in country X and you want to fly long haul there. I will not accept interline unless we do a JV on your long haul flight. Or an airline in Europe might want to create JV with US airline for flights from EU to USA That do not depart from airline’s home Country. Or I am just a regional airline and do not want to maintain long haul fleet for a handful of feasible long haul destinations. There are so many possibilities whee joint ventures could be useful. But most of all, they would give more meaning to alliances. After all, the true game play in terms of player cooperation does not come when “it’s all about me” but rather “when it’s it’s about US”.
JV would be great for inter alliance projects. Like there is an idea in my alliance at the moment for a Inter Alliance leasing corporation to help members of the alliance.
You can still do that. Let’s say an alliance with 10 players. One player IPOs an 8 billion project the other alliance members subscribe to it, and subscribe 2 billion. Now you have a 10 billion public company, and each alliance member buys shares to hold 10% of it total. Now you have a 10 billion leasing company where each playerfeom the alliance holds 10%.