Maintenance, training and cabin configurations

Let’s talk a bit about those things, in real life legacy airlines have their own maintenance and training centers. It would be really useful to have the option of setting up our own maintenance and training centers in order to reduce our costs and, if we could eventually be able to become maintenance and/or training provider for third parties, increase our revenues.

About the cabin configurations, I’d like to discuss if it would be possible to introduce new seats. While the choices we have for long haul are satisfactory, my concern is mainly focused on short haul business and economy class. Two years ago the seat manufacturer Recaro introduced the award winning BL3520 which has since been ordered by many large airlines such as Lufthansa, Swiss, Austrian, Alaska Airlines and many others. With the introduction of such seats we’ll be able to offer the same level of comfort but with an increased aircraft space utilization, which means more productivity with less airplanes, a better utilization of our assets. LH, in example, with the introduction of the new seats has added roughly 2000 seats, which is the equivalent capacity of 12 Airbus A320s, and as stated, with no loss of comfort for the passengers.

I agree that some aspects of the game need updating,if only to keep things interesting. Seating is one of them. New aircraft types are introduced most of the time, but advances/changes in other areas of the industry are not. Another is web check-in. maybe at a loss of prestige and a one-of cost in introducing it someone could minimize the check-in personnel needed on his/hers airports. these things could give an advantage to new players (refitting the cabins of 400+aircraft is costly and not an easy decision.

The penalties for say web check-in could be offset by marketing (years now unimplemented feature) or the number of airlines adopting it. In a world where mandatory check in the norm there should be no penalty (incidentally giving alliances more weight as their decisions could affect the overall gameplay), this could be true for other things like cabin layouts or in-flight service. In an analogous way to the effect average salary has to the employees, average comfort would make passengers happy or not.

I am also interested in providing maintenance for my (and others) planes. This should further differentiate the game. I also believe there should be a "store" feature for airplanes, long or short term storing is a must since the introduction of the market index, capacity fluctuates and companies should be given the tools to cope with that.

There are tons of ideas that could be proposed from a change in the market index to reflect regional changes or introduce seasonality, to charter services and un-bundling of the fares to introduce real LCCs to the game.

I don’t know what AS team is thinking but I know I would be happy to see the game change in any of the ways FLGroup or I have posted.

Seems like we’re getting some really good ideas here, I really like the suggestion that FxxxR explained up above. Online check in, storage option, charter services and unbundled fares, as well as the long awaited marketing tool, are really good ideas which would add a lot of challenge to this game.

As FxxxR said, we get new aircraft soon after their introduction, but the seats have been the same for many years now, while we’ve witnessed many advances in the seats design and technology too, which have not been reflected in the game.

I am not satisfied with the seats and service profile for Long Hual flights. Cause I am not able to get a rating of 5 stars for both my seats and service profile for Long Hual flights. I used the best seats and service possible for my long hual flight. From the ORS, business and first class passengers prefer to pay more to transfer flights rather than to take my direct flights due to poor seat and service profile.<div><br></div><div>Attached below is the ORS screenshot for business class seat for Singapore to New York flight which is the longest flight in the real world. You will be able to see that connection flights which takes a longer time and are more expensive have better ORS rating than me. I didnt managed to printscreen the entire website. There were many other flights involving 3 connections that get better rating than my direct flight.</div>


I don’t think it should result in a loss of prestige/image, because in real life most people prefer now web checkin in comparison with the "normal" checkin. It really helps to save time and you don’t have to que at the counter. Actually there should be a possibility for two options: A airline offers both kinds of checkin, which will result in some costs and a better image. Or the could offer webcheckin and the "normal" checkin only for a fee (like f.e. Ryanair in real life) which might result in a slight loss of image (but actually reduced cost as you save personal) as some older people still are not used to computers and rather like to have a personal contact.

And other option which might be included in marketing or as on own option might be a frequent traveller program. This would also be an excellent option to give alliances some advantages (common frequent traveller program in one alliance or between interlining partners). This would increase costs, but the image would increase (if possible it would rather help to keep passengers from changing to the competition, but this might be hard to implement).

I don’t really see this as a problem with seats and service profile as much as the way the game rates long haul flights. It is a known problem, but still very frustrating. The rating seems to work well for n/s vs connection on sub5000km flights, but not for true long haul flying.

I’d really like to know what the team thinks about the suggestions that have been raised in this thread, anyone out there?? :)

Did someone mention Ryanair? Why not have Speedy Boarding and a $ to use the loo?

Seriously though, another option worth considering in my opinion is a true low cost airline option. Like Ryanair/Easyjet in real life.

Lets cram them in like sardines and charge them for the food and drinks!

To mimick the likes of these airlines on the current game model is not an option, could this be implemented?


Any news from the team about the above mentioned suggestions? I think that a revision on the seats would receive a warm welcome by most of the players since it will represent a better utilization of our assets.

Kindly ;)


Regarding seat room being low, you would be in the same position as any other airline flying the route. You (or they) would not have a competitive advantage as they are also probably getting the same rating.

I know, but what I’m suggesting is a mean to increase the utilization of our assets, so that one could offer the same volume of seats on a route with less planes being utilized on that route.

As I wrote on the first post, with the introduction of the new seats Lufthansa has added roughly 2000 seats, which is the equivalent capacity of 12 Airbus A320s.



well can we get in cabin configurations 2 things:

  1. layout of airplane from above with number of seats and rows - its visual expression for easy configuration

  2. can we get pictures for cabin services: seats, meals and rest of gadgets ? :D

its only visual add on existing system, you don’t have make any deep changes for that, I think.

Fully agreed. However: as long as it is possible to operate A319s with only 70 seats or Q400s with only 40 seats - there is probably no need to lower the costs per seat…

Most airlines in real world tend to put more seats into their aircraft to lower costs and theer is no argument that British Airways uses the highly successful A318 with 32 seats. This is not the standard. Just look at Lufthansa: they began in their A320s with F8CY126, later CY144, CY150, CY156 and now CY168. A 168-seat A320 would be very unpopular at Airlinesim I think…

On the other hand I tried a new configuration alongside the standard 155 seats on a few MD-82 used by my airline. I copied Swissair from 1996 and configured them with only 127 seats: C40Y87. The results were a disaster: demand for Business dropped extremely.

Months ago I saw CRJ200s with only 23 seats here at Airlinesim. In real world even the 50-seat CRJ200 is so problematic that more and more airlines are looking at replacements.

I would also welcome additional options like onboard-sales (drink for XX Dollars, cake for XX, snack for XX. I would introduce this change on domestic flights for example and not only Ryanair/easyJet charge for beverages and food. Finnair did that many years ago on domestic flights. Slimline-seats would be fine, new hushkits for several types of aircraft, many small measures from the real world to optimize the product and costs.More and more airlines are offereing more than First/Business and/or Economy. Several companies introduced a class between Business and Economy. For example I would like to put 110 seats into my 717s like the configuration planned for Delta with F12/Y+15/Y83 but I fear that this arrangement would result in a drop of demand. I also wonder that I could lower my First Class fares below Business Class fare and no one books First Class despite far better service and seats :wink:

Just my two cents :wink: