Changes to multiple aircraft type penalty


#1

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

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


#3

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

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


#4

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

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


#6

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


#7

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

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


#9

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

? 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.


#11

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.


#12

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.


#13

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.


#14

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.  


#15

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…


#16

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.


#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?


#18

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?

#19

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.)


#20

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.