It's going to be long, so i'll break up your post, so that the separating boxes make it slightly less of an eyesore.
yes, there will be people eager to fly to the new planets, probably the same group that currently go to CND. But thats only a minority of the EU population.
I seriously doubt it. Perhaps after the dust settles, yes. But certainly not in the begining. The most likely outcome in the wake of post-release is a massive wave of people traveling to CND, the new planet and space.
I'de also like to point out that CND's visitors are hardly a small group by any means, as you seem to be trying to insinuate through your word choice. Remember that he earns around 15K/month at the last count.
Why CND and not CP? I'm sure new planets will hold even bigger creatures, and i'm sure ubers won't be shy about going there constantly for the challenge.
Im not exaclty strapped for cash, but usually stay planet side rather spending the 50 ped hunting there than on a flight up (after a 1/2hr wait), i would suggest im representitive of the majority in this.
It's more a case of many not being bothered about CND, rather than them not being able to afford it. Which is why my first point agrees with you long-term but not for the initial periods.
And your only addressing hunters. Miners far seem to prefer CND in my experience as a pilot. And who is to say that there won't be many, many new proffessions introduced which calypso does not possess which may be far more popular than our current list?
Your not a representative, everyone has their own reasons. We don't know the majorities circumstances.
And i have an apartment. yes, speculation and conjecture on my part, isnt it all? im not being down on space, im being pragmatic. sorry if you only like to hear one opinion.
Apartments and hangars are hardly comparitable. Hangars actually increase in value as history shows and are useful for things other than storage - most impostantly, apartments cost you 10ped/month, hangars can make you over 2Kped/month.
Apartments have been stagnant in value for years and are not rare at all. I've got one on Amethera and one on CND and they hold nothing similar to hangars aside from being structures.
Better to compare apartments to storage boxes. And as no other items are used for travel in the same way, only other hangars are a suitable comparisons for hangars.
I'm not against other opinions, as long as people realise that this is all it is, and that it has no real standing. But most don't, and feel that it is absolute because one of their friends agreed. Or even worse, when people hear one persons opinion and agree because they can't be bothered to actually look at the issue and really find a solution, spout it as if it were fact. Especially on forums is this the case. Most decide that the first answer they come across must be right.
A good example being this nonesense argument that more hangars are needed. This would have the reverse effect to what many here believe. Leafren attempted to point this out earlier in the thread, but as expected, it was to no avail.
But there is a blatantly simple reason it falls on deaf ears.
What people really want, if we were to cut the crap and be frank, is to have everything handed to us for free.
That's why you all moan about bad loots.
That's why you all moan about pilots charging - what you all make out to be - a vast fortune to fly.
That's why you want more hangars in the market and prices to drop - because you want to buy one and you want it cheap, in order to get ped.
In other words, when most say they want more hangars, what they really mean is, they're pissed off and jealous because they either missed the opportunity to get one while they were cheaper, or weren't a part of PE/EU at the time.
The very same bs is put towards most high-end merchandise, and the same attitude is displayed towards beta. Christ, that's so well accepted an attitude that ND and MA have it written in the description for their upcoming "Space Pirates!" event poster.
look up the difference between "investors" and "speculators". Investors are in for long term gain, speculators are in it for short term greed: investors support economies, speculators ultimatly crash them (see all IRL stock crashes, ERM, Oil market, current banking crisis).
I don't need to look up the difference. If you think about it logically, the ones who are technically in it for short term are the ones actually flying. Inflation is a long-term process, flying is a short-term quick fix gain - lower amount of course, but certainly short-term. The owners to whom you are referring, are in it for the long-term gain. This is why they have been sitting on them for years.
When was the last time you seen the likes of Skalman in twin selling tickets? - Because he owns one. Or are these people excused from the common argument? I never seem to hear their names in such discussions.
Personally i think that your all afraid to mention their names incase you offend them and are shunned by everyone. Which is rediculous, considering most of these players are nice people and wouldn't want to be seen in that way. (Of course, no-one will admit to being afraid and may even slander them out of protection of their pride when accused of such things, so my saying this should be considered my mind running as it is fruitless.)
Here in PE/EU we have a different name for speculators, "resellers".
The definitions are blurry anyway, since short-term investments are not uncommon at all. Infact if we're looking at the stockmarket, since you brought it up, the majority of investors are afraid of long-term and simply invest short-term in whatever meets their criteria for a good bet.
The housing market? The reasons go far beyond simple buy low and sell high.
Speculation also runs the market just as investment does.
I think you'll find that it is generally when investors and speculators combine and attempt a monopoly that trouble appears. It's not the work of speculators alone. This is why monopolisation is illegal and speculation is not.
(And in truth, monolopies would be fine if people weren't raised in this civilisation to be so greedy. Once competition is gone, you can charge more if you want. Obviously the other half of the reason is that it hampers free enterprise. But there are ways around that. There are no ways around the abuse by greed other than banning.)
All stock market crashes do not have the same cause. If they did, this pattern would have been spotted very quickly, and safeguards put in place.
Anyway, the stockmarket is only one outlet of the financial market.
More importantly, this isn't RL, and there is no stockmarket.
I would also like to point out that our economic system defies the RL systems in many ways. A good example of this is trading ores/enmatters in bulk. IRL the more, the cheaper. IPE/IEU the more, the dearer. The reason for this is that in PE/EU this save a large amount of time for the buyer searching for more, at the expense of the sellers time. - in a word, convenience. IRL this just doesn't happen. There are a multitude of reasons, but i'm not going to go through them as this post is too long as it is already, so i'll wrap it up here.
Once again, i'm not against hearing others opinions. However, these "discussions" serve for nothing but to push us apart.
We start our own wars.
As usual, sorry for the long and boring post.
Pheonyx
. So assuming the lower the cost of flying for the pilots, there would still be the same amount of pilots being active, who will probably keep their profit margins the same so the net result is the same service for a lower price. Bad for MA (decay ship), good for consumers, no effect for pilots. Isn't the issue that there aren't enough active pilots though? 
