Jump to content


Photo

Changes to multiple aircraft type penalty


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 qunow

qunow

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 28.11.2016 - 21:31

The current game mechanism is reportedly a 15% increase in maintenance fee to all aircrafts if a 4th aircraft type is added. That does not appear to make sense - Like if an airlines operate thousands of A380, B777 and A350, how would adding a single LET into the fleet result in those A380/B777/A350 suddenly become 15% more expensive to maintenance?|
 

Proposal: instead of "penalty", separate aircraft maintenance fee into fixed cost and per-aircraft cost. If a single aircraft of a type is added to the game then it would immediately add a relatively large amount of fixed cost to the airline, but as the airline grow and operate more aircraft of the type, that fixed cost spread out and become more economical. (some of those fixed cost might also increase as aircraft count grow, but they grow slower) If an airline operate lots of different type, then that mean lots of different fixed cost that cannot be spread out and that mean more expensive to maintain those aircraft. However as long as those operators maintain a large enough pool of those aircraft then that won't cause any problem. I think it would be closer to reality and more realistic.

 

It might come with a shortcome that new players with relatively few aircraft in its fleet cannot compete with large players in term of economy. Sure it is also a reflection on reality, but this realism might be undesired. A possible workaround might be offer a discount in fixed cost for player with only one aircraft type [no wide body] and only a few of those aircraft. Alternatively these measures can also be determined by play time.



#2 highscore

highscore

    Senior Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • LocationBetween MUC and FMM

Posted 28.11.2016 - 21:58

Why? It is a challenge but that's the game...



#3 Ufsatp

Ufsatp

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Indiana.

Posted 28.11.2016 - 22:16

Why? It is a challenge but that's the game...

 

So was working around regional jets flying between large airports.......


enterprise.png?id=3094enterprise.png?id=37791[


#4 qunow

qunow

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 28.11.2016 - 22:22

Why? It is a challenge but that's the game...

ABOUT AIRLINESIM

The only Airline Simulation of its kind: With over 300 different aircraft, nearly 4000 destinations worldwide, and a realistic economic model, AirlineSim offers you the opportunity to manage the airline of your dreams. 



#5 highscore

highscore

    Senior Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • LocationBetween MUC and FMM

Posted 28.11.2016 - 22:23

? Don't know what flying with regio jets between large airports has to do with maintenance categories ?



#6 highscore

highscore

    Senior Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • LocationBetween MUC and FMM

Posted 28.11.2016 - 22:24

qunow - can't you imagine yourself why the "penalty" was introduced?



#7 qunow

qunow

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 28.11.2016 - 23:31

If I am to guess then I would imagine it is a easy way to surface the burden of having too many different aircraft types but your wordings seems to indicate something else

#8 highscore

highscore

    Senior Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • LocationBetween MUC and FMM

Posted 28.11.2016 - 23:33

A big airline could easily lease all aircraft types and would have a huge advantage. That's why this rule is in place.



#9 Bakpapier

Bakpapier

    Second Officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 29.11.2016 - 00:30

The current game mechanism is reportedly a 15% increase in maintenance fee to all aircrafts if a 4th aircraft type is added. That does not appear to make sense - Like if an airlines operate thousands of A380, B777 and A350, how would adding a single LET into the fleet result in those A380/B777/A350 suddenly become 15% more expensive to maintenance?|
 

Proposal: instead of "penalty", separate aircraft maintenance fee into fixed cost and per-aircraft cost. If a single aircraft of a type is added to the game then it would immediately add a relatively large amount of fixed cost to the airline, but as the airline grow and operate more aircraft of the type, that fixed cost spread out and become more economical. (some of those fixed cost might also increase as aircraft count grow, but they grow slower) If an airline operate lots of different type, then that mean lots of different fixed cost that cannot be spread out and that mean more expensive to maintain those aircraft. However as long as those operators maintain a large enough pool of those aircraft then that won't cause any problem. I think it would be closer to reality and more realistic.

 

It might come with a shortcome that new players with relatively few aircraft in its fleet cannot compete with large players in term of economy. Sure it is also a reflection on reality, but this realism might be undesired. A possible workaround might be offer a discount in fixed cost for player with only one aircraft type [no wide body] and only a few of those aircraft. Alternatively these measures can also be determined by play time.

I completely agree with your suggestion ! This would be a much more realistic system. The cost of maintenance should be reduced if you have lots of aircraft of one maintenance category. Rather than an unrealistic penalty applying to all aircraft when you have more than 4 types.

 

Of course this g ives some advantage to larger airlines with lots of aircraft. I think there are other ways to help new airlines get started, in order to overcome this.



#10 Ufsatp

Ufsatp

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Indiana.

Posted 29.11.2016 - 03:06

? Don't know what flying with regio jets between large airports has to do with maintenance categories ?

 

Your response of "Why? It is a challenge but that's the game." reeks of things can not change in the game.  

 

Dealing with smaller aircraft in large airports was a challenge, and was part a part of the game.  That is no longer the case.


enterprise.png?id=3094enterprise.png?id=37791[


#11 Ufsatp

Ufsatp

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Indiana.

Posted 29.11.2016 - 03:07

ABOUT AIRLINESIM

The only Airline Simulation of its kind: With over 300 different aircraft, nearly 4000 destinations worldwide, and a realistic economic model, AirlineSim offers you the opportunity to manage the airline of your dreams. 

 

 

  It is false advertising by AS.


enterprise.png?id=3094enterprise.png?id=37791[


#12 martin

martin

    Fleet Captain

  • simulogics
  • 4923 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 29.11.2016 - 08:48

As mentioned many times before, the current maintenance model is obviously nonsense, including the 15% rule.

 

Sooner or later, we will come up with a new model that will hopefully be more in line with our "mission statement". Modeling the fixed costs associated with the introduction of a new type isn't a trvial affair though...quite a few factors to play into this in reality.


enterprise.png?id=49
AirlineSim - the only online airline simulation of its kind! | My personal blog | @lunikon


#13 bobb

bobb

    First Officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts

Posted 01.12.2016 - 01:33

Your response of "Why? It is a challenge but that's the game." reeks of things can not change in the game.  

 

Dealing with smaller aircraft in large airports was a challenge, and was part a part of the game.  That is no longer the case.

 

So are you going to whine about the change in every unrelated topic in the forum until you get your way?

 

We get it, you don't like the new system. Either post the suggestions for change in the appropriate topic, or just grow up.


enterprise.png?id=60214enterprise.png


#14 Ufsatp

Ufsatp

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Indiana.

Posted 01.12.2016 - 16:59

So are you going to whine about the change in every unrelated topic in the forum until you get your way?

 

We get it, you don't like the new system. Either post the suggestions for change in the appropriate topic, or just grow up.

 

I don't want to grow up.   And yes I will whine about it until I get my way.  It seemed to work for some of you in getting the new bs rules put in place, so maybe I will try it.  If you don't like it, don't read my posts. I will sleep just fine at night if you choose to skip over them.

 

BTW, I did post my suggestion for the change, that it needs to be rolled back at the higher end, with the larger RJ's.  That would reflect what is seen in real life.  


Edited by Ufsatp, 01.12.2016 - 17:04.

enterprise.png?id=3094enterprise.png?id=37791[


#15 bcavalini

bcavalini

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • LocationSão Paulo Brasil

Posted 04.12.2016 - 22:46

The 15% penalty make sense for me, but I think that like Me I mostly operate airbuses like A320 A321 and A350 (ok a32x family same type) but I could suggest that narrow and wide body of the same brand could count as 1, and or maybe in the future give ability to build manteinace services (like terminals) but with singularity that you need to have one for each manufacturer (this because of certifications of the manteinace facilities). Just a line of thinking...

enterprise.png?id=12527enterprise.png?id=4079


#16 Guest_Jumper_*

Guest_Jumper_*
  • Guests

Posted 05.12.2016 - 21:42

I see no realistic background for this. Every mechanic needs special education for each different aircraft type, no matter if it is A320/A380 or B737,CS1 or whatever. Another big cost point for aircraft maintenance is having spare parts available. As you might agree an A350 does not share many parts with an A320, with some luck maybe some buttons in the cockpit and that is it. So the way it is now is much more realistic than what you suggest or better maybe would like to have. Even more realistic would be to have penalties for the second maintenance category already. Maybe not 15% but 10% for each additionsl category higher than 1 would be a lot closer to reality.



#17 qunow

qunow

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 06.12.2016 - 00:05

I see no realistic background for this. Every mechanic needs special education for each different aircraft type, no matter if it is A320/A380 or B737,CS1 or whatever. Another big cost point for aircraft maintenance is having spare parts available. As you might agree an A350 does not share many parts with an A320, with some luck maybe some buttons in the cockpit and that is it. So the way it is now is much more realistic than what you suggest or better maybe would like to have. Even more realistic would be to have penalties for the second maintenance category already. Maybe not 15% but 10% for each additionsl category higher than 1 would be a lot closer to reality.

What I mean is that these penalty should not depend on total amount of type you are operating. No matter if it is A320/A380/B737/CS1 or whatever. Of course you need spare part for each type, but adding a new A350 into your fleet shall not make you prepare more spare part for your A320, likewise adding a new A380 into your fleet won't suddenly require you to have more A320 technician. That's what I mean by unrealistic.



#18 ianmanson

ianmanson

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 1372 posts

Posted 06.12.2016 - 00:17

What I mean is that these penalty should not depend on total amount of type you are operating. No matter if it is A320/A380/B737/CS1 or whatever. Of course you need spare part for each type, but adding a new A350 into your fleet shall not make you prepare more spare part for your A320, likewise adding a new A380 into your fleet won't suddenly require you to have more A320 technician. That's what I mean by unrealistic.

 

If you want realistic in those terms then maybe every single fleet should attract an 80% increase?



#19 Guest_Jumper_*

Guest_Jumper_*
  • Guests

Posted 06.12.2016 - 17:17

 

What I mean is that these penalty should not depend on total amount of type you are operating. No matter if it is A320/A380/B737/CS1 or whatever. Of course you need spare part for each type, but adding a new A350 into your fleet shall not make you prepare more spare part for your A320, likewise adding a new A380 into your fleet won't suddenly require you to have more A320 technician. That's what I mean by unrealistic.

I got that statement and agree on it. My answer was focussed on the post just before of bcavalini.



#20 qunow

qunow

    Flight Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 06.12.2016 - 21:25

If you want realistic in those terms then maybe every single fleet should attract an 80% increase?

So you mean getting an A330 in your fleet would make all your A320 needs nearly double as much spare part?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users