Subsidiaries- According to Devblog #20 each person will be responsible for each airport however this is a problem for alliances with over 10 people as there are currently 10 airports in game. So subsidiaries will act as a different alliance but still under one main alliance so members are together and reap the same benefits and make contributions
Rotational Operations - Another possible solution for alliance with 10+ ppl. This will act as a roster (like the ones they use for cabin crew + pilots irl) members will put their preferred airports and the game (and even maybe alliance executives) will create a roster based on player preference however just like a roster it is uncertain if the player will get it due to seniority, role in alliance, amount of contributions etc…
After, members will play airports according to the roster E.g - Playing LHR for 2 weeks then switch to MCT for an extra 2 weeks. Moreover players will be able to swap airports with other members if permitted by executives + the executives will also have the ability to make changes to rosters due to diferent factors like member availability, demand, competition etc
I think it’s too complicated to implement, bro. The Alliance is essentially an airline with multiple bases, each of which can only be managed by one player. But it might be feasible to replace one of the bases managed and operated by a player.
Indeed it is. Including myself, I also operate two North American airports at the same time. Maybe my understanding of the alliance is not accurate. Compared to the alliance’s operating model, I look forward to what fly boy said about each alliance having its own independent livery. The current painting is too simple.
True that. I wonder how it will work with the bigger alliances
I’ve asked the devs for more info but no response yet. Although, it would be nice to see the contribution system come into play.
Imo, I think what the devs meant was that each player gets a specific airport (the description never specifically said one person per airport) “Alliances will connect players into groups where each member manages a specific airport.”
The devs probably knows that there are larger alliances out there.
Any thoughts on my interpretation of the description?
The only issue with that is that it suggests that the efforts at one airport is all that will count. So if I managed LHR for example, all the effort at developing my route network at NGO would be useless in that regard.
Until we know more, the alliance dev blog has given more questions on the matter, particularly how it’ll work.
Two types of Alliances can exist. One Alliance being the current “Player Based (PBA)”, where members exchange planes as we do now. And a “Game Based (GBA)” one as being discussed here.
Limited GBA’s can be formed from larger PBA’s. From one PBA multiple GBA’s can also be formed. You can then “check in” and “check out” when you want to switch from playable airport, currently taken by another member, but free in other GBA.
The cohesion and cooperation between Player Alliance members will continue and can even be more strengthened with this gameplay.
Yea but If the player has a small fleet or don’t have enough money than that would make the tax system completely useless unless they are rich.
If they do add the tax system than say all you want but I’m not joining it.
Your lucky as my country is in a cost of living crisis with taxes ridiculously high, for example I bought a holiday package which is happening this June for like €2500 and they charge an insane amount of €450 which was added to the cost.
In fact, I think this system is quite reasonable. However, the internal mechanism needs to be balanced according to the player’s airport. After all, this kind of income can be used for alliance construction, maintenance and upgrades, etc., which is quite necessary.
.
