Aircraft Families

[USA]

I mean if we're talking about discounts on MX costs - just on spares alone there's savings by having the same family of AC - I was actually going to suggest that there be a fixed cost (cover part spares, initial training, etc., etc.) for operating each family and then you add $X for each aircraft of the family in the fleet. There is real savings there for airlines.

Now having the same manufacturer I don't really agree there should be a discount (assume we're talking about new plane purchases?). Just because you're a loyal customer of a manufacturer doesn't mean you automatically get a discount vs the competition on that capital cost. I agree in the sense that it might happen for the largest customers but don't agree that it should be hardwired into the game code.

[sw889432]

Line maintenance is still going to be a cost for most airlines. The few MROs I know make 25-40% on line services. That is what "weekly" maintenance is in this game, or at least how I interpret it. Every time the plane lands, you have to pay the mechanics to inspect the plane, check the log books, change tires, rotate the data disks, advise the pilot during the preflight, pushback/engine starts, etc. Also, since ABCD checks are not going to be noob friendly, especially with simplistic used aircraft market, I am also gonna assume that the weekly maintenance is also including the amortization of the checks.

Let's go back to the same manufacturer thing.
I am not disputing that a maintenance with a single manufacturer group is going to make it cheaper, I am saying the amount is negligible. The saving you get is from bulk acquisition of parts. Eg. 100 Airbus parts instead of 50 Boeing and 50 Airbus, assuming your fleet is split 50/50. Maybe a bit from loyalty if you have special maintenance that can only be done by the manufacturer like AOG (usually stuff the pressure bulkhead damage or tail strikes and the like) or transitions.

Lets say a 727 and a 777-200. You are going to need another engineer, another set of tools, another set of training, another set of parts. Maybe the same avionics guy.
Now lets look at a 737-800 and A320. You are going to need another engineer, another set of tools, another set of training, another set of parts. A different avionics guy.  See how it is similar to above? You might have to spend a bit more in comparison, but not a lot.
Consider scenario with A319 and A320. You can get the same engineer to sign off, tooling will be the same, only 1 set of training since Airbus certifies in families, and  shared pool of parts. This is when you are going to save significant amounts of money.

Another reason why same type does save is parts swapping. Like engine swaps and the like. But you are not going swap an engine between a 787 and a 737, even though both are Boeing.
And with learning aspect, maybe for the mechanic to learn quicker or something, but from a legal, and from a company standpoint, each type family is completely separate, and they all require separate tests, ratings, and training courses. When my brother did his type rating for the 777 it took him ~1 month, total, including practical and courses and the cert. When he did the 737, about the same. 3.5 weeks for the A320.

Your maintenance company isn't going to charge less if you own an all Boeing or an all Airbus fleet. With large maintenance companies like ST Aero or HAECO, they are probably not going to care for type or manufacture.  A C check for a 777 is $XX and a 737 is $YY. Maybe a bulk discount, but that is committing to amount of checks and is not dependent on manufacturer. As with all maintenance related activities in every industry, the largest cost is going to be labour.

[Unknown98]

That all makes sense, really good info there.

I mean if we're talking about discounts on MX costs - just on spares alone there's savings by having the same family of AC - I was actually going to suggest that there be a fixed cost (cover part spares, initial training, etc., etc.) for operating each family and then you add $X for each aircraft of the family in the fleet. There is real savings there for airlines.

This is how I was planning on implementing it - Fixed weekly cost for each family. And then we have the per aircraft cost on top of that, which is what we have now.

The few MROs I know make 25-40% on line services. That is what "weekly" maintenance is in this game, or at least how I interpret it. Every time the plane lands, you have to pay the mechanics to inspect the plane, check the log books, change tires, rotate the data disks, advise the pilot during the preflight, pushback/engine starts, etc.

That would be correct.


Still not sure how A/B/C/D checks will work in this game since it's real time. I think we had a discussion on that a while ago. I'll have to find it and read through it again.

[ALT2870]

The few MROs I know make 25-40% on line services. That is what "weekly" maintenance is in this game, or at least how I interpret it. Every time the plane lands, you have to pay the mechanics to inspect the plane, check the log books, change tires, rotate the data disks, advise the pilot during the preflight, pushback/engine starts, etc.

So what is the salary we are paying Mechanics for then? Most of what you are mentioned they are getting payed for. I shouldn't need to pay them more for doing their jobs. lol

I mean if we're talking about discounts on MX costs - just on spares alone there's savings by having the same family of AC - I was actually going to suggest that there be a fixed cost (cover part spares, initial training, etc., etc.) for operating each family and then you add $X for each aircraft of the family in the fleet. There is real savings there for airlines.

I think this works better for the weekly cost.

The other option is to get rid of the Mechanic position.

Still not sure how A/B/C/D checks will work in this game since it's real time. I think we had a discussion on that a while ago. I'll have to find it and read through it again.

I think that was way back with CAv4. lol Not sure. Out of curiosity, why does that affect anything? Real time game then why not real time maintenance checks?

Lets be honest, we could go on and on about the manufacturer deal. In the end its all hearsay until someone actually goes to an airline and downright ask them. For now it is what Unk chooses.

[sw889432]

So what is the salary we are paying Mechanics for then? Most of what you are mentioned they are getting payed for. I shouldn't need to pay them more for doing their jobs. lol

The salary, line maintenance is more than just salary. Tires costs money. Towels cost money. The parts costs money. Tapes cost money. Vehicle fuel cost moneys. Tools. etc.


I'll report on Dragonair's stance on the all Airbus fleet and maintenance relationship with CASL/HAECO by next week.

[Unknown98]

I think that was way back with CAv4. lol Not sure. Out of curiosity, why does that affect anything? Real time game then why not real time maintenance checks?

It may have been. I guess it doesn't.. that's probably what I will end up doing. My thinking was things like C/D checks would never happen, but with the used market I guess they would pop up occasionally. We may still want to speed up the time it takes to do the maintenance checks however. Having a plane out of commission for 2 months may be a bit too much... unless that's what most people want. Personally I wouldn't have an issue with it as a player. It would require some strategic planning, having backup aircraft in place, etc. Might add a cool element to the game with regards to fleet management.

So currently you pay mechanics a salary. That is separate from the "weekly maintenance cost", which is a representation of line maintenance + parts, spares, equipment, tools, etc + the amortization of the A/B/C/D checks.

Once maintenance checks are implemented I'll need to adjust the weekly maintenance cost.

[Unknown98]

So I've combined the 737NG and MAX into one family, as well as combined the A320 ceo/neo into one family.

What is everyone's thoughts on combining the 757 and 767 into one family? Are the aircraft similar enough mechanically to warrant having them in one family?

[sw889432]

With the 757 and 767, they are similar for operation and pilots, especially with the flight decks, and engine programming. As for mechanically, they share ~50-60% parts and about 30% line items, according to a old HAECO guide. Airwaysim keeps them separated.

IMO, they should be separate.

[USA]

I’d be more of a fan of keeping them separate