Airline Club

Ok, so apparently it's not a bug, but a feature - at least for the first five routes: https://airlineclub.createaforum.com/version-2-updates/pushing-updates-from-this-iteration-and-resetting-data-now!/?message=3083

Hey patson, I'm not exactly sure what I've done, but I was just able to open two routes without using any delegates.

I've opened a first route, just normally using 4 or 5 delegates. Then I wanted to create a second route with seven frequency, but I did not have enough delegates for that. So I canceled the "negotiation dialogue" and reduced frequency. When clicking "create" then, the "negotiation dialogue" did not show the negotiation part, just the comparison part (prices, frequences, etc. before and after) and I was able to create the route without using any delegates.

Thought I'd let you know...

Hey, as I heard some mumbling about a reset I thought I'd bring some things up regarding wrong aircraft data. There are several planes where some data should be adjusted:

- "Dornier 328ET" -> It's actually called "Dornier 328JET" (as it is a 328 with jet engines). Source: https://328.eu/dornier-328-jet/

- Embraer ERJ-Family: The "ERJ175" and the "EMB170-200" in game are actually the same plane irl. The Embraer E-Jet-Family consists of four models:
-- E170 (or EMB170-100)
-- E175 (or EMB170-200)
-- E190 (or EMB190-100)
-- E195 (or EMB190-200)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family#Operators
(in the subsequent modernised E2-Family, the E170 was discontinued and there are only three models: E175-E2, E190-E2, E195-E2)

- MD-11: The capacity in game is too low! The in game capacity is a 3-class-configuration. The max. capacity of the MD-11 irl is 410! Source: https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/md11-passenger.pdf

- Boeing 737s: several of the classic- and next-generation-families have wrong seat numbers for max. capacity. They should be:
-- 737-400: 168 capacity
-- 737-500: 132 capacity
-- 737-600: 130 capacity
-- 737-900ER: 215 capacity
Source, p.5-7: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/737.pdf

- Boeing 737-700C we have in game is not really a thing. It's the same as a 737-700, just that it has a cargo door and seats can be removed to make space for cargo. Just 20 have been built, there is not really reason to have it in game.

Maybe this can be corrected for the coming resets!

Pardon the vague title, this touches upon a number of things... I generally approached this with the goal of making niches viable and more fluid standings, so newcomers/players outside prime regions can have fun with something that works for them. That said, I realize patson has his own vision and philosophy and these are just based off my own somewhat subjective impressions, so I completely understand if he rejects these ideas

Aircraft selection can be very hit-or-miss - there are breakpoints that make an aircraft become light, medium, large, etc, which can have significant effects on how competitive they are, as the slot fee depends on these brackets. Moreover, range is also binary - either your aircraft can serve the route, or it can't. Then there's turnaround times, max speeds within certain range brackets, etc. As a result, there are many aircraft that are less competitive than they might otherwise be - for example, hardly anybody uses the Airbus A319 because it barely misses the cutoff to be considered a Regional jet, while the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is a popular option because it maxes out the Medium bracket.

To this, I would suggest eliminating the categories entirely and replacing category-dependent things with capacity scaling - this will smooth out aircraft selection and avoid aforementioned funny situations. Since the aircraft supplier discount is based on these categories, perhaps maintenance, training, and operational costs might be based off the number of aircraft families an airline has. This would allow up-and-coming airlines the ability to specialize, while larger, more established airlines would have to make strategic decisions about where and what they do. The current limit for model of aircraft your airline can have is a little dissatisfying since it's locked behind reputation - there's often not much you can do besides sit and wait for reputation to increase, especially if you're maxed out and don't have a free model to gradually transition your fleet.

One other factor missing is that currently aircraft are more fuel-efficient maxing out their range, as the takeoff/landing portions consume more fuel and range brackets limit max speed: the extra distance averages out towards cruise fuel consumption. This, however, doesn't factor in that aircraft flying longer routes need to carry more fuel on takeoff (which translates into more weight/less fuel efficiency), so the fuel-efficient optimum IRL is a "medium" distance, less than the aircraft maximum. The fact that long hauls are more efficient than shorter flights, given the same aircraft, makes point-to-point flights more attractive. This mostly benefits the large, rich cities with attractors and makes regional hubs less viable - after all, why connect to a regional hub when I can connect directly to LHR/JFK/etc?

I understand that the Staff system was added in part to mitigate this by forcing airlines to carefully choose where they connect, but I'd argue the effect of limiting frequency/routes makes these cities more important - if I've got limited routes, I'm going to prioritize the important, well-connected cities with guaranteed volume over the less connected ones. Perhaps this might change as the routes get more saturated, but right now it seems like performance is very dependent on city charms and not so much geography. This is doubly true when factoring in higher-capacity planes are less reliant on Staff, so it's more rewarding to connect large hubs to each other than underserved, smaller cities.

Lastly, a small change I'd suggest is scaling aircraft condition reduction with utilization rate. I think this makes sense, since the more you cycle the aircraft, the more wear & tear they get. Right now, any usage at all reduces condition at the same rate.

I kept the  General aviation ones but removed all military base and closed one.

Many thanks!


The change will show in the next beta