Jump to content


Photo

Changes to multiple aircraft type penalty


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Hajek21

Hajek21

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 09.01.2017 - 05:56

The OP is absolutely correct regarding the 15% penalty not being realistic. Not sure how difficult coding would be, but a more true to real life model might look like this:

 

You would have two different maintenance options and could freely choose either for each of your AC types at any given airport/maintenance location.

 

Option A: Outsourced Maintenance

1) only hourly+parts (or per maintenance block) charges

2) no 15% penalty

3) per aircraft costs are higher than in the following "in-house" model

4) this option will make sense for starting airlines and/or singe (or small) AC fleets

 

Option B: In-house Maintenance

1) the 15% penalty is non-existent and is replaced by each AC maintenance type having a relatively high fixed costs (to cover parts, type specific training,...). This "type overhead cost" would of course vary depending on the type. E.g. a B777 or A380 overhead would be significantly higher than a LET or ATR overhead cost.

2) individual per-aircraft maintenance fee then on top of the overhead fee

3) mechanics would be treated and paid just like your other staff... thus their salaries would affect their morale... thus affecting quality and effectiveness

4) this model will make sense for fleets with larger numbers of AC, and would be quite cost prohibitive for singe (or small) AC fleets (especially larger jets)

 

 

This then allows for further development of the maintenance model by adding features such as:

 

1) Maintenance contractors (for outsourced maintenance) are airport specific (smaller airports may have limited choices, varying prices,...)

2) Hangar/shop leasing - in-house maintenance would then be possible only at airports where you have leased space to do it

... 1&2 lead to a more realistic airline behavior (e.g. discouraging aircraft being left overnight at just any random airport for a "maintenance block". Instead have an incentive to set your flight plans such that they return to airports where maintenance is possible / or cheaper.

 

3) Being able sell/do maintenance for other airlines (if your capacity permits)

... Leading to a scenario where e.g. your parent holding company or one of your subsidiaries or airlines has one set of shops/employees/parts... and is able to service your fleets across all your subsidiaries. 

 

4) Scheduling of annual/hourly/cycle inspections requiring AC to be pulled out of service for a period of time at regular intervals (necessitating the need for stand-by aircraft or pausing of service if none available)

 

5) Random mechanical problems requiring unscheduled maintenance resulting in flight delays. Their frequency/severity would be proportional to the age of aircraft and quality of scheduled maintenance.

 

 

(My apologies for the lengthy post, but I do believe the maintenance aspect of the game has a huge potential for improvement and added depth.)



#22 akashh

akashh

    Pilot in Training

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 04.02.2017 - 21:12

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...

Yes, it will be more realistic if AS provides the ability to create maintenance facilities like terminals etc. But, i know, aircraft will be haulting at many airports without such maintenance facilities, then in that case we can apply the current system of sub-contracting other companies like african maintenance etc or if like sharing terminals with other player, sharing maintenance facilities with other players.



#23 MIke

MIke

    First Officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • LocationAmsterdam

Posted 11.02.2017 - 12:25

Would it even be possible to make an alliance type maintanance party, giving MRO to the whole alliance and all partners bare the cost per aircraft they own. So that it would be equal to all.


enterprise.png?id=38914enterprise.png?id=52051


#24 ReganRotineque

ReganRotineque

    Pilot in Training

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia

Posted 17.04.2017 - 17:54

Perhaps the best way to modify this would be to approach it from the opposite end, where an airline flying one type of plane (I am thinking of the Easy Jet/Ryan Air examples) would achieve efficiencies vs some of the older legacy carriers with much more varied fleets.

 

If you fly only one type of plane you only need to store one type of parts, train one type of mechanic, have one set of tools etc...   

 

As you add other types it makes sense to have increased costs associated with additional parts, training for mechanics, tools in the repair facilities etc...

 

Another way to look at it may be to have the increase in fees associated with the use of aircraft at airports.   What I mean is lets say I have 1 airbus 320 and 1 boeing 737 and 1 Cseries 100.    If I fly all three from Frankfurt to Berlin and this is my only route then all three require maintenance at FRA and TXL - so i have to have parts, mechanics and tools for all three types at both airports to service them.  More complex and should be more expensive.

 

However lets say I fly only the airbus out of Frankfurt and all my flights out of FRA are now Airbus 320s - the cost and complexity should go down, now that I am flying only one type from this hub.

 

I can move my Boeing and fly them exclusively out of London and My Cseries are moved to fly out of my Moscow hub.

 

AS long as they do not cross paths they should receive the lowest costs for maintenance/servicing since i only need one type of parts/mechs/tools in each airport that they would be receiving servicing.

 

That way an airline could fly multiple types of planes

 

I noted an earlier post about the current iteration preventing large airlines buying up all leased planes.  Perhaps explore a new feature that prevents this, this type of thing would add additional costs, and if all they did with the older fleet was park them somewhere then charge parking fees that exponentially increase as you fill parking spaces.

 

Just some random thoughts, but it would be nice to have a better modeling of servicing in the game, and reward players who want to explore the EasyJet/Ryan Air type models.  I see with the new passenger types this is coming soon :)

 

Cheers



#25 hole

hole

    Pilot in Training

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • LocationSGF

Posted 28.06.2018 - 01:25

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.

How do I become more than just a "newbie"? Do I have to post more stuff here? 



#26 hole

hole

    Pilot in Training

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • LocationSGF

Posted 28.06.2018 - 01:27

The OP is absolutely correct regarding the 15% penalty not being realistic. Not sure how difficult coding would be, but a more true to real life model might look like this:

 

You would have two different maintenance options and could freely choose either for each of your AC types at any given airport/maintenance location.

 

Option A: Outsourced Maintenance

1) only hourly+parts (or per maintenance block) charges

2) no 15% penalty

3) per aircraft costs are higher than in the following "in-house" model

4) this option will make sense for starting airlines and/or singe (or small) AC fleets

 

Option B: In-house Maintenance

1) the 15% penalty is non-existent and is replaced by each AC maintenance type having a relatively high fixed costs (to cover parts, type specific training,...). This "type overhead cost" would of course vary depending on the type. E.g. a B777 or A380 overhead would be significantly higher than a LET or ATR overhead cost.

2) individual per-aircraft maintenance fee then on top of the overhead fee

3) mechanics would be treated and paid just like your other staff... thus their salaries would affect their morale... thus affecting quality and effectiveness

4) this model will make sense for fleets with larger numbers of AC, and would be quite cost prohibitive for singe (or small) AC fleets (especially larger jets)

 

 

This then allows for further development of the maintenance model by adding features such as:

 

1) Maintenance contractors (for outsourced maintenance) are airport specific (smaller airports may have limited choices, varying prices,...)

2) Hangar/shop leasing - in-house maintenance would then be possible only at airports where you have leased space to do it

... 1&2 lead to a more realistic airline behavior (e.g. discouraging aircraft being left overnight at just any random airport for a "maintenance block". Instead have an incentive to set your flight plans such that they return to airports where maintenance is possible / or cheaper.

 

3) Being able sell/do maintenance for other airlines (if your capacity permits)

... Leading to a scenario where e.g. your parent holding company or one of your subsidiaries or airlines has one set of shops/employees/parts... and is able to service your fleets across all your subsidiaries. 

 

4) Scheduling of annual/hourly/cycle inspections requiring AC to be pulled out of service for a period of time at regular intervals (necessitating the need for stand-by aircraft or pausing of service if none available)

 

5) Random mechanical problems requiring unscheduled maintenance resulting in flight delays. Their frequency/severity would be proportional to the age of aircraft and quality of scheduled maintenance.

 

 

(My apologies for the lengthy post, but I do believe the maintenance aspect of the game has a huge potential for improvement and added depth.)

How do I get a sideways silhouette like you have?  



#27 Matth

Matth

    Senior Captain

  • Moderators
  • 2014 posts
  • LocationVHHH - HKG

Posted 28.06.2018 - 06:27

Probably by uploading a pic in that format

enterprise.png?id=41748 enterprise.png?id=320


#28 highscore

highscore

    Senior Captain

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

Posted 28.06.2018 - 10:24

How do I get a sideways silhouette like you have?  

 

Why do you hijack a thread to ask that silly question? You have uploaded a photo so what is the point to ask how to do it?



#29 Eireann

Eireann

    First Officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 239 posts

Posted 29.06.2018 - 16:43

I would love a new dynamic economies of scale to be introduced to the maintenance. Effectively it would cost more to have 1 of each aircraft type than 20 of the same type but I wouldnt even know where to start in doing that. 



#30 TWAAir

TWAAir

    Senior First Officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts
  • LocationKDAB

Posted 30.06.2018 - 05:45

Sorry for giving a note to a reply posted over 1 year ago... but i just want to post some of my thoughts

 

The OP is absolutely correct regarding the 15% penalty not being realistic. Not sure how difficult coding would be, but a more true to real life model might look like this:

 

You would have two different maintenance options and could freely choose either for each of your AC types at any given airport/maintenance location.

 

Option A: Outsourced Maintenance

1) only hourly+parts (or per maintenance block) charges

2) no 15% penalty

3) per aircraft costs are higher than in the following "in-house" model

4) this option will make sense for starting airlines and/or singe (or small) AC fleets

 

Option B: In-house Maintenance

1) the 15% penalty is non-existent and is replaced by each AC maintenance type having a relatively high fixed costs (to cover parts, type specific training,...). This "type overhead cost" would of course vary depending on the type. E.g. a B777 or A380 overhead would be significantly higher than a LET or ATR overhead cost.

2) individual per-aircraft maintenance fee then on top of the overhead fee

3) mechanics would be treated and paid just like your other staff... thus their salaries would affect their morale... thus affecting quality and effectiveness

4) this model will make sense for fleets with larger numbers of AC, and would be quite cost prohibitive for singe (or small) AC fleets (especially larger jets)

 

i like the ideas so that the maintenance would be part of the game, but i kind of doubt the solutions would introduce maintenance in game like what happened in real life. 

 

First of all, TechOps/Technik is part of the airline, but also not part of the airline. You don't really mange these companies the same way as how you mange an airline. It's not just hiring the mechanics, you also need engineers to support the company, and it's not just one engineer. The game already missing engineers in FlightOps departments, but it is not a large amount, so i just assumed it's already part of departments already put in in game. However, you can't ignore these 'other personals' in TechOps, because there are too many of them in the company. I also don't know how are you going to count the amount of people who also work in workshops and other places. The problem for the solution suggested is that it might be too easy for airline to introduce a maintenance department, while in real life you won't build a TechOps unless you have enough resource and a large fleet. To make it easier, some research probably needed so the game can estimate the amount of employees needed for each a/c type with an estimation of salaries. 

 

I do like the point of discouraging leaving aircraft at random airports; i would even suggest for these very random airports, e.g. those Farm track airports, should not even allow any large maintenance because simply this is what happening in real life. This is also related to a/c type, as part of the original post suggested, because it is probably easier to find a place to fix a PC12 than a 747, with a hope that this won't encourage slot blacking. Aircraft should be only fixed up to a lower level, less than 100%, to reflect the fact that these airports won't provide you enough resource to do a large maintenance. It should be also accumulated so that you have to schedule a maintenance at a larger airport with enough resource, e.g. first day you can get it fixed up to 95%, then 90% second day, then 85%, etc. i know this will probably destroyed a lot of airlines using wave system, including some of my owns, but if we are getting into maintenance business, we should make it right. 

 

There is also the issue of engine maintenance: you always treat the engines as a separated thing on the a/c than any other parts of the a/c. The game is already disregarding the performance change based on different engines, but for maintenance, it is very important because you might have situations when you have different types of engines in your fleet for one a/c type. It won't be an issue if you are ordering aircraft as new since you can choose the engines, but if you are using used aircraft, you probably will run into this issue very quickly. Maintenance cost will go up no matter whether it's in-house option or outsourced option, so it would be two a/c aircraft types in total: one for the aircraft which is already used in game, and one for the engines. It's also not a multiple case as you can have same engine used on different a/c types, e.g. CFM56 on A320s and B737s. I know they are still different variations, but the cost difference shouldn't be as large as compared to a completely different engine. This also means data about engines on used a/c in AS needed to be collected, and i understand it's not a fun work. 

 

Overall, i like the idea a lot, and it's a very good start. I believe something is better than nothing. 

 

I think i would end this post as the original post:

 

 

 

(My apologies for the lengthy post, but I do believe the maintenance aspect of the game has a huge potential for improvement and added depth.)

Edited by TWAAir, 30.06.2018 - 05:48.

enterprise.png?id=70553


#31 MIke

MIke

    First Officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • LocationAmsterdam

Posted 02.08.2018 - 11:26

AS is slow with new features so this will be on the list but when?.. nobody but Martin knows.

enterprise.png?id=38914enterprise.png?id=52051


#32 devanshrshah

devanshrshah

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 18.08.2018 - 09:29

I think a realistic model could just be that you get a discount for operating large fleets of the same aircraft.

The first aircraft you add of a fleet type, the maintenance cost could be 20% or 30% higher than otherwise..
And diseconomies of scale could start sinking in after some point..

It could be little more advantageous to large players and little more challenging for new players, but that is the real world..
Maybe first 5 weeks of business, you get a government-aided maintenance-package with a 30% discount.. That could be real..

Or the maintenance company offers first 2 weeks free for trying out their services.. Hehe 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users