Money Sinks

[YoloWingPixie]

You do mention 'hard mode'

FSEconomy has voluntary, self imposed ways to spend extra v$ to simulate various expenses one might encounter running a business in real life. A free form would be voluntary and leave it up to the player's imagination. Hopefully it would be easy to code.

One unpopular route would be to fix the income multiplier at a set value and apply it to all FSA players. FSEconomy does not have multiplier and everyone has to grind away to make v$.

My original OP here also suggests that these financial decisions should be an opt-in Hard Mode, or otherwise entirely opt-in from the current economic system as I don't think *all airlines* would appreciate more difficult finances, but I know many would.

[Mesquaki]

What about an optional line item free form expenditure:

This screenshot is just a quick example I made using FSEconomy's game engine. Could you make a "free form" expense feature so VAs can simulate spending v$ on anything they want to simulate?

I was going to say that I was not sure how popular this idea would be and lets see how many second the motion, but then Alan brings up the idea of 'dividend' payments and your idea of a random payment overlaps. Having a page where the VA could pay a 'divided' to the stock holders would not be difficult, the money would go into a payment transaction and leave the VA and disappear into the either, never to return.

As former FSE users ourselves over the years, my wife and I would not have an issue with the idea mentioned regarding the free form expenditure. IIRC, we could even book accommodations where we were, i.e. book a hotel for the night so we can press on the next day. Payments made for such could go right to the bank of FSA for future endeavors.

Of course we realize you have other priorities but in the off chance little extras like the above could be added just to perhaps expand the dynamic a little, we would certainly have no objection to contributing and using them. I also realize we are just two in our little VA pond but have really enjoyed everything we have seen. We look at the idea as a way to give back to the system in some form or another in contributing to the FSA economy.

[joefremont]

You know I once had an idea of making every pilot declare a home base, or have a home base assigned to the pilot from there VA. If the pilot was away from the base for a period of time, the VA would have to pay hotel bills for them. But figured that was too much under control of the pilots instead of the VA management and never went forward with it.

[joefremont]

My original OP here also suggests that these financial decisions should be an opt-in Hard Mode, or otherwise entirely opt-in from the current economic system as I don't think *all airlines* would appreciate more difficult finances, but I know many would.

This is true, although part of me does not want to add another flag for this to the VA settings and thinks that at a certain point very large airlines should automatically be part of it. One idea that just crossed my mind is that this 'hard mode' would be active if a VA has set there max multiplier to 100x or lower or if total assets exceed some threshold (say 7B-10B).

There are two things we have discussed I can see easily being part of this is liability insurance and dividend payment.

Liability Insurance would cover damage caused to others in accidents other issues and would be based on the value of aircraft owned or operated. Aircraft that operated would pay one level, those that were owned but did not fly a lower and those that were mothballed the entire month would probably be exempt. Rates TBD.

Dividend payments would trigger either be a percent of cash above some threshold or a percent of profit, again rates TBD.

Making free form payments could be done and would not require 'hard mode' as its totally under the control of the VA.
And I have started on the gate maintenance so landing fees are coming to everyone regardless.

Before anyone panics I have not made a decision on this, just talking.

[YoloWingPixie]

Liability Insurance would cover damage caused to others in accidents other issues and would be based on the value of aircraft owned or operated. Aircraft that operated would pay one level, those that were owned but did not fly a lower and those that were mothballed the entire month would probably be exempt. Rates TBD.

Would it be possible for rates to be affected by # of crashes in a rolling period recorded for the airline? Or some other indicator of airline performance like rating.

[joefremont]

Liability Insurance would cover damage caused to others in accidents other issues and would be based on the value of aircraft owned or operated. Aircraft that operated would pay one level, those that were owned but did not fly a lower and those that were mothballed the entire month would probably be exempt. Rates TBD.

Would it be possible for rates to be affected by # of crashes in a rolling period recorded for the airline? Or some other indicator of airline performance like rating.

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. The both airlines reputation and count of crashes or other accidents should be part of the formula. Reputation alone probably would not be enough. A crash may drop your reputation by 40% but forty flights later your back on top, which for a big VA is not long. But at this point I have not done much analysis of this so am not going to give numbers right now.

[Mesquaki]

Liability Insurance would cover damage caused to others in accidents other issues and would be based on the value of aircraft owned or operated. Aircraft that operated would pay one level, those that were owned but did not fly a lower and those that were mothballed the entire month would probably be exempt. Rates TBD.

Would it be possible for rates to be affected by # of crashes in a rolling period recorded for the airline? Or some other indicator of airline performance like rating.

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. The both airlines reputation and count of crashes or other accidents should be part of the formula. Reputation alone probably would not be enough. A crash may drop your reputation by 40% but forty flights later your back on top, which for a big VA is not long. But at this point I have not done much analysis of this so am not going to give numbers right now.

That sounds interesting. Although we are a VA of 2 and our forty flights to recover would be more like 140 given we have DC-3's LOL. But I would be all for the idea. I do not mind grinding it out to climb out of a hole I happen to fall in. My wife would agree.

[joefremont]

That sounds interesting. Although we are a VA of 2 and our forty flights to recover would be more like 140 given we have DC-3's LOL. But I would be all for the idea. I do not mind grinding it out to climb out of a hole I happen to fall in. My wife would agree.

Well the system does not care what AC you are using, a flight is a flight. Crash a 747 and then fly a bunch of C172's to make up. Clearly the new system for insurance is going to have to take into account the value of the aircraft crashed. A C172 that plants itself in a field should have less effect than that 747.

[Mesquaki]

Well the system does not care what AC you are using, a flight is a flight. Crash a 747 and then fly a bunch of C172's to make up. Clearly the new system for insurance is going to have to take into account the value of the aircraft crashed. A C172 that plants itself in a field should have less effect than that 747.

I don't do crashes- my wife would not let me live it down considering she flies and does not crash either. She'd ground me from flying if I had an accident. I'd become her personal plane washer, never to fly again

On topic, I understand the explanation. Sounds like another interesting dynamic being considered/planned/plotted.