From what I can tell, if you have a pro subscription then you get one lift every month. Everything else expires unless you pay monthly to keep
1 Like
I will use my money to invest than to buy lift that can’t lift me from Nigeria to UK in real life.
1 Like
These days buddy Im just trying to invest to feed my kids and my car 
1 Like
So, you still think having 30 aircraft per 100 pilots is to low?
That’s a 3:10 ratio
Ryanair had:
2:21
Simplify the ratios even more:
Yours 1:1
My example 1:3
Ryanair 1:10
And I thought that having 3 pilots per plane was too much. Ryanair had OVER TEN pilots per plane. And it’s the best airline in Europe. And why does this work? Because not all the planes are flying at the same time and not every pilot is flying at the same time.
1 Like
Just imagine Ryanair having 2100 planes (or 1050 cuz irl you need 2 per). I’m sure the IF team did some math to make a VA have a reasonable ratio between pilots and planes
Yeah, sorry, my small charter outfit isnt bringing on 21 pilots
All in all though, live is pretty neat and Im sure its going to be fantastic when its opened up to everyone. Im just blowing off some steam because I had to layoff a pilot this week. Happy flying and safe travels everyone!
This function is really great.
I understand that it has to cost something becaus of the servers. But 3 lift for two planes and then 10 lifts for 3 planes is not very balaneced and is far away of covering server costs.
I‘d suggest to let people having 1 plane per lift up to 5 planes and then start charging more. Would cover the server expences and makes it fun for poeple buiding a small balanced fleet of an airline without crowding airports. So also smaller airports.
And other suggestions would be to limit the big hubs as home airport to a certain organisation size. This would have the effect that smaller organisations would start their fleet on a smaller airport (e.g. a small Lufthansa fleet in Berlin or Hamburg). Furthermore this would be more realistic as slots are limited as well in real world. And smaller Airports would get more attention as base. To take this even further, the limit for a plane before being taken to a hangar could be shorter for organisation that don‘t have their Base there.
This would make live more server friendly and fun for everyone despite being in an organisation or having an own small fleet of up to 5 planes
Just an idea.
3 Likes
Good afternoon,
It would be great if organizations can use their available lifts directly towards aircraft’s registrations instead of that lift coming directly out of a members wallet. (Maybe there is a good reason why it’s like this 
).
I purchased 35 lifts for our AFKLM VA organization and now I have to wait one week before I can return them to use them on the registrations.
Just a suggestion 
Lots of Blue skies and Tailwinds everyone 
1 Like
AI post over here?
1 Like
Okay, I’ve had my coffee, so I think I can finally put my concerns about lift pricing into a more coherent and constructive argument. 
If you’re a customer like me, you want your fleet to be ready to go before you launch a formal recruitment effort. In the case of an organization like the U.S. Air Force—or many other large VAs and VOs—the fleet can be substantial. Naturally, that means it is going to require a meaningful financial investment.
I’m a yearly Pro subscriber, so I’m not opposed to paying more for a service that provides real value. However, as others have pointed out, under the current model, we simply aren’t getting much for our money when it comes to increasing the number of aircraft we own. In my opinion, the current lift model doesn’t really solve the problem for organizations that need a meaningful fleet to operate.
That brings me to the bigger question:
What would a fair pricing model look like for both Infinite Flight and the owners of VAs and VOs?
I think the answer could be franchising.
Instead of treating individual aircraft lifts as the primary way to build a fleet, VAs and VOs could essentially lease or franchise an organization and its fleet from Infinite Flight.
For example, an organization could have a fixed initial startup cost that provides access to the aircraft required for its fleet, including the appropriate liveries. That would give VA/VO owners a clear financial target from the beginning. We would know exactly what it costs to establish our organization rather than having to continually calculate the cost of adding individual aircraft.
The cost could then be divided into two components:
• Initial startup/franchise cost — provides access to the organization’s established fleet and liveries.
• Subscription cost — monthly, six-month, or yearly, allowing the organization to continue operating its franchise while providing Infinite Flight with recurring revenue to support the service.
I think this could benefit both sides.
VA/VO owners would have a predictable cost structure and something tangible to work toward when building their organization. Infinite Flight LLC would have a more predictable revenue stream to help offset the cost of providing and maintaining these fleets.
Most importantly, I don’t think the solution should simply be to pass increasingly high costs down to individual members every time an organization needs another aircraft. That can make it difficult for a VA/VO to establish a meaningful fleet in the first place.
I’m not suggesting that a franchise model should be inexpensive. In fact, I would expect the initial cost to be significantly higher than purchasing individual lifts. The difference is that the customer would actually be purchasing something substantial and predictable: the ability to establish a complete organization with a meaningful fleet.
In other words, I would rather pay a clearly defined higher startup cost and then a reasonable recurring subscription than continually pay for individual lifts without knowing where the total cost will ultimately end.
I think this is worth considering as an alternative to the current model. If franchising isn’t the answer, then I believe there still needs to be some solution to the cost of allowing players to establish VAs and VOs with significant, meaningful fleets.
I also spoke with Laura in the Discord this morning about these concerns, and I want to give her credit: she responded quickly, intelligently, and professionally. I appreciate that the developers are willing to engage with the community on this.
Ultimately, I think the goal should be finding a model where Infinite Flight can fairly recover the cost of providing these services while VA/VO owners can realistically build the organizations they envision.
3 Likes
If you have a friend that owns these mode, ask to him if he can add you in live
1 Like
Just trying to fix my A21N not being in a compatible spot at VIDP…
I’m already in live