Aircraft Families

[Unknown98]

Aircraft families have been implemented, in anticipation of family maintenance costs. Please review the new aircraft research page, which has been re-done to be grouped by manufacturer, and then by family. 

I do have a few questions, for example the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/B717 - Are these all the same family? Or is there a DC-9 family and then a MD-80/90 family? What family would the 717 belong to?

The 747-8... is that it's own family? Or should all 747s be grouped together?

[WhiteFright]

The 717 was originally supposed to be the MD-95 before MD was bought by Boeing, so I'd say it falls under the same family. Also it could be argued the MD-11 is part of the DC-10 family.

[Unknown98]

Good point with the DC-10/MD-11, I've grouped them together now.

[sw889432]

As for the 747-8, the ground handling aspect should definitely be grouped with the other 747, they share commonality for ground handling equipment. Maintenance wise, it is more similar to the 787 than the 747, for check intervals, engine, wings, avionics, etc. If the 737NG and MAX are in different families, the 747-8 should be the same.

Also, I think the A320ceo and a320neo family should have a special thing. They share 95% same spares and parts, but since there is a new engine, there is a separate competency. But it is only ~0.5-1 day more of training in addition to the A320ceo training. So maybe they should be grouped but somehow different to account for additional 0.5 days of training and the 5% part difference and new engines.

[Unknown98]

So are the A320neo and the 737MAX series just the older generation models with new engine options? And maybe a few aero improvements?

If so I think they could all be grouped into the same family. A320ceo/A320neo and 737NG/737MAX. 

Basically the question is, would it be inefficient for an airline to operate, say 3 737NG's and 3 737MAX's, as opposed to 6 NG's or 6 MAX's? Or are parts and maintenance essentially the same between the two generations other than the engines?

[ALT2870]

What it comes down to is the training aspect. Regardless of the age it is always cheaper to have the same family of aircraft. Ex any 737 starting from -100 all the way to -9. A mechanic or pilot will only need a little bit of training between aircraft. Technically speaking you could actually group the 757 and 767 together as they were built on the same platform per say. Going beyond that, if you really think about it, the design principals are really shared with all families of aircraft with the same manufacturer. In the end, an all Boeing fleet versus a fleet mixed of Boeing and Airbus, the all Boeing fleet is much cheaper because you only have to train maintenance on one companies aircraft.

To be honest, you really should group in that way, by manufacturer rather then by family. The expense would come in when you decide to have many different manufacturers.

[sw889432]

Esstentially, yes. The 737Max only share 75-80% commonality for parts and procedures with the NG. I am not sure about the efficiency, I will try to see if I can ask my brother about it. I do know with the A320ceo/neo are basically maintained together.

The 747-8 is in the same situation as the Max. Not sure if they should be grouped or not from a maintenance perspective.

[Unknown98]

Hmm well then maybe the NG and the MAX can remain in separate families but the ceo and the neo could be grouped together.

@ALT I could work something into the maintenance commonality formula to take into consideration manufacturer commonality as well as family commonality. Shouldn't be too difficult.

[sw889432]

I think the manufacturer commonality isn't as big as the family commonality, every type commonality requires competency training and certification. Each type training costs about the same, takes about the same time, from both the majors. Parts, maybe if you have a all B or all A fleet they can cut you a deal, but that is an acquisitions thing. It doesn't matter which manufacturer from a maintenance perspective, only a acquisition and pilot training perspective. Plus, a manufacturer can have planes that vary greatly, a Bombarider 415, a turboprop amphibious is vastly different from a CS300, a modern narrow-body airliner..

An single type family = save money, all same manufacturer, but bunch of different types, not so much. I'd same same type is 80%, 10% size, manufacturer is 10%.

---

Oh, just as a additional thing, I think a great way to group is by maintenance certifications/training. Maybe group the re-engines together.

[ALT2870]

That's in interesting though, but I disagree. Yes, each type requires it's own training. But between the same manufacturer, you only have to learn a little more rather then a lot more between families. So, I firmly believe that having the same manufacturer should lower prices.

But lets hold that thought. So what are we defining as maintenance anyway? Is it the labor? Is it the parts? Both? I think we need to define maintenance within the game. And lets be clear, maintenance on aircraft really only happens at A, B, C, and D checks. Sure, there may be little things here and there, but the biggest cost is the checks.

That being said I think those checks need to happen with this as well. Here's an idea:

Weekly Maintenance: Really doesn't exist if you think about it. But since the game doesn't support such random breakdowns, I'm fine with it. But the number should be lower. The cost is based on: Age, Related Aircraft, Manufacturer.

A, B, C, & D Checks: Airlines can complete these checks within a certain time or cycle frame. Most costly.

I don't know if that came clear or not, let me know.