Wouldn’t it be possible—or even more than fair—for the respective airport to receive a small compensation whenever someone picks up their aircraft there?
I mean, I can certainly understand that, for owners, it often barely makes financial sense to leave their aircraft parked at airports that generate little to no revenue. Consequently, people tend to ferry the aircraft they rent back to their *own* airports—in the hope that the planes will take off again from there, thereby generating passenger revenue as well as additional Airport XP.
As things currently stand, however, the host airport comes away empty-handed in every respect.
Just to clarify, are you referring to when someone moves an aircraft (either by their premium credits or paying pax) away from your airport? If so, I’d actually argue that airport owners should NOT receive compensation for that, and here’s why: This is to discourage airport owners to hoard as many aircraft as possible at their airport, essentially forcing other players to depart from there.
Let’s say that the owner has a lower category airport and is even is not paying the “standard” 60% to the pilot. This will discourage players to rent that plane. That wouldn’t really be fair to anyone.
However, if someone actually FLIES OUT of your airport, generating PAX revenue and Airport XP, then yes, you are compensated for that. That’s the intended mechanic.
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Please accept my apologies if it was somewhat difficult to understand.
I can only speak for myself here. Naturally, I try to land at my own airport in order to boost its level—and, of course, I also hope that other simmers will depart from there. However, if one can simply “pick up” one’s aircraft without actually departing from that specific location, I view this as a disadvantage for the airport; after all, it receives absolutely no credit or reward when an aircraft simply vanishes from its premises.
I would also very much like to allocate more than 20 percent to the pilots, but unfortunately, this is not possible without a Premium subscription. It would make no difference to me whether this compensation took the form of experience points (XP) or a small share of the passenger revenue.
It is simply the case that not everyone can afford the cost of a Premium subscription.
Personally, for instance, I actually generated the passenger revenue required for my airport through my own flights.
My hope in acquiring an airport was that I would be able to generate more passengers if other pilots departed from there; however, if aircraft can simply be removed from the site without the airport receiving anything in return, I consider this to be a disadvantage.
Airports are meant to grow organically by offering good value: “competitive” pilot shares, good location, and good partnerships.
What you consider a disadvantage, if changed, would actually be a major disadvantage to aircraft owners who have invested in their planes. Rentals would drop, as pilots typically avoid airports that pay less. Regardless, they have a cost of repositioning their aircraft if it’s being cornered at an airport.
If you want planes at your airport to attract pilots, the path forward is to invest in aircraft and place them there. But unfortunately from my point of view, without Premium, with the 20% pilot share cap or even renting planes without premium is pretty much a dead end.
Most times I relocate my plane from other airports to my own airports, so I understand as i feel sorry for the other airport owner who may have expected a take off with my plane on his airport.
Maybe a small share of the relocation fees could be used for that to compensate the airport owner, (kind of granting some fees for parking the plane or for the “virtual take off of the plane transfer”) , but actually most relocations are free with the premium plan.
Paying subscription is not organic growth - its progression behind paywall (not guaranteed anyway as its to many 60%-ers).
Maybe its not so much expensive but it sadly destroys the organic economy possibility (simply speaking apart from some exclusions here if its not 60% i am not flying there - thats the mentality here by 99% of users).
I have reactivated 60% thing but is it that much worth (given 50% of people do that also - not so much).
Entire system suffers from that in fact. Airports irrespective premium or not should have some sort of bonus in XP at least for physical planes placed there and departing from (“fake” unrestricted flights vs rental flights).
Far worse is situation with planes 0% share on non-sub aircrafts. This is just complete not fair from the platform creators - moment when this was announced - after some people purchased digital airplanes for big bucks… and they have learned they can basically stick those airplanes … deep into a pocket lets put it politely.
By far airplanes not providing returns - even if set on 60% - except maybe tier7 but horizon to break even is like 3 years or more. Upgrades does not change influx of tokens anyway and make break even point even further ahead.
That is exactly what I mean. No one lands at an airport where they earn nothing—or, if they don’t have a Premium subscription, where they receive only 20%.
Therefore, the strategy of simply flying somewhere and hoping that someone will take over the aircraft is futile; it makes no sense to purchase an airport or an aircraft without a Premium subscription.
For this reason, I believe a small compensatory fee would be a sensible addition.
After all, the goal is to build something modest; eventually, one gets the idea to buy an airport, fly there, and receive a small additional share of the revenue generated by other pilots departing from that location.
I understand, of course, that 20% is not attractive to pilots and that they might look elsewhere for flights. However, if an aircraft is parked at a location and ready to fly, it is there to be flown. If someone spawns the aircraft to their own location without incurring any disadvantages as a result, it would only be fair for the airport owner to receive some small compensation for this—regardless of the specific form that compensation takes.
If you do not have a Premium subscription and you purchase an airport, you are essentially stuck, since no one will fly to that specific location—and/or because aircraft owners can simply remove their planes at any time.
That is precisely why I say that without a Premium subscription, you don’t stand a chance.
Naturally, it is understandable that pilots who have purchased an aircraft would move them away from—let’s call them—the “lesser” airports.
I also understand that costs would rise if one were required to pay a fee to the airport.
However, I would argue that a fee of, say, 0.10 to 0.30 per passenger—or something along those lines—is hardly a significant enough burden to warrant feeling disadvantaged. After all—if I’ve understood correctly—they have the ability to transfer their licenses back and forth free of charge more frequently, something that those without a Premium subscription cannot do.
The pax figures mentioned serve merely as an example.
Not to mention that this new never announced mission was perfect opportunity to be able to incentivize plane rentals (even 0%) because in my opinion it should be only option to do it with rented plane.
Well, what about a mutual agreement between all the non premium users? I mean, we all agree that we need more and more simmers in simfly. As you can see, a lot of members just fly between their airport, maybe because there are part of an external VA, or mainly because they are premium..and I find that a great thing, they are “together”… let’s just… Get together. As a famous phrase said once… “Simmers… Assemble!”
By the way it’s kind of weird reading about premium members that discourage the activation of a premium account… is there some concern on having more premium users that might let actual premium members loose their advantage?
I repeat, if it’s not so convenient and as you say, the more we go on, the more can get worse, why in the world you are a Premium.. maybe, you should state what are the benefits that “you” get for being premium member no matter the odds. How much did you gain in real money for example. I remember that a premium member wrote down exactly what he gained in money. Maybe you should write down, once a while, not every time of course , just once a while..something good about premium, just because you’re a premium member.
The fact is that no matter the odds, you are a premium.. what should user think about it?
You have to read with understanding or give yourself some time before asking questions already answered.
How much did i get in real money from premium - nothing. You get something only if you can sell something not because of premium sub itself (logic) and vast majority of tokens I’ve accumulated were not because of sub but being super active and using a lot my own assets constantly.
Ok specially for you I will repeat (since you struggle to understand) - “I have reactivated 60% thing but is it that much worth (given 50% of people do that also - not so much”
Meaning its a single month re-activation to test how does it look. It does not seem to be worth to much in tokens (which does not equal money again). Only real value for me is that I can relocate aircrafts and licenses (in fact I am using 2 different career mods) and it does not hurt to run SimFly since its being paid already (even with license that has zero timer).
I am not 15y.o. anymore to brag about how much i “earned here in money” - maybe I’ve already got what I spend maybe not - none of your business with all the respect.
I am sharing my own opinions - the fact you don’t agree with it won’t make me changing it.
Anyone who becomes a premium member, is part of the system, that seems not to be worth it.. so what’s the final objective to achieve in beeing part of a system that isn’t worth it? Maybe to try and sell what ever achieved and then leave? That would make more sense, rather than writing about something that keeps on not changing, no matter the eventual suggestions, and be an active part of it.. would that be interpreted as logical?
Hey everyone, let’s all just calm down a bit. Whether or not a Premium membership offers benefits is actually irrelevant to the point I want to address here. It goes without saying that one should receive certain perks when signing up for a Premium subscription. However, I do not consider it fair that players without a Premium subscription—regardless of whether they cannot afford it or simply choose not to spend money on it—are disadvantaged to such an extent that neither purchasing an aircraft nor acquiring an airport constitutes a worthwhile investment. As others here have already noted: No pilot is going to fly to an airport that pays out less than 50% of the revenue to the pilot—and exactly the same applies to aircraft available for rent. For this reason, I personally try to station aircraft at my airport so that other players can *depart* from my airport, allowing me to earn a share in the process (after all, one invests a large sum in purchasing an airport—among other reasons—precisely to secure a little extra income on the side). However, the fact that an aircraft can simply be removed without the airport receiving any form of compensation is more than unfair to all players without a Premium membership. It renders the purchase of airports completely pointless and ensures that such an investment will never pay off. Therefore, I would like to see a system implemented that provides for compensation in the event that an aircraft owner removes their aircraft from an airport without actually flying it away.
@Dkueppers
I double what you have written but it can lead to some abusive actions with premium sub allocation feature (you can shift 50 planes per month therefore you may use it for non-intended mechanism).
Also what is important - what sort of compensation we are talking here. Tier3 TBM for example on good flight below 2h can earn around 0,35 PAX tokens for TIER4 lvl2 airport
A proposal could be like below:
Lets say somebody moved it without premium feature to another airport - for non premium users it cost depending on distance (can be quite a lot) - lets say 10% of that non-premium payment should be deducted from system income to owner of airport.
In case of premium users to prevent them abusive relocations - it could still “charge” 10% of normal transfer fee - as a preventive action against PAX-printing mechanism without starting engines.
I can almost hear screaming now - ok maybe system should grant that to owner of an airport but then again its, safer/better if its from airplane owner wallet (reasons already described).
BTW. did anybody noticed that increasing airport level by +1 - airport card says increase income by ~20% while in fact it is 5-6% tops now… either its a bug or… ok i will got jumped again most probably.
I prefer seeing planes flying instead of “moving” them, just like in the real world. BTW, who ever treats Simfly as a “job”, little or big, gets only frustrated in economical investigation on percentage and rates and etc.. just fly as we wer used to before Simfly appeared, and things will suddenly turn right.
as I said in another post, all (we) non premium can just make an agreement and fly to our airports. We can start by listing non premium airports by range, by country, by tours.. we just need to start in some ways.
is there some concern on having more premium users that might let actual premium members loose their advantage?