22 replies to this topic

[ccvl]

I think once Timetables happen, we should make it so a/c have to be out more realistically than 4 hours per day. So weekly 5 hour A checks, bimonthly 24 hour B checks, biannual 5 day C checks, and starting at age 10 years then every 5 years D checks. Also, each maintenance check could cost different amounts of money, so if you order 100 planes, in about 10 years you would get a noticeable cash impact.

[Yuxi]

I think once Timetables happen, we should make it so a/c have to be out more realistically than 4 hours per day. So weekly 5 hour A checks, bimonthly 24 hour B checks, biannual 5 day C checks, and starting at age 10 years then every 5 years D checks. Also, each maintenance check could cost different amounts of money, so if you order 100 planes, in about 10 years you would get a noticeable cash impact.

A/B/C/D checks are a good idea. The complicated part is how to deal with the affected routes when aircraft are out for maintenance without too much micromanagement. I suppose if you have enough spare aircraft to cover the routes, the affected routes on those days would still be flown, otherwise they won't?

[Delta787]

Okay, Im liking this.

[Spanish David]

Maybe move the flights to other avaiable aircraft ?

[Sheepy]

Well, one idea I've had is the option to 'base' an aircraft at an airport, and then the hours available on the based aircraft be overall treated as one aircraft for the purpose of adding routes, this would be in addition to the current system for any aircraft flying from more than one airport. With this system, there'd be a larger 'spare hours' time frame for maintenance checks. Though what to do about non-based aircraft would be tricky.

[mrvol]

Guys Realistic Maintenance is a good idea, but each OEM have their own spec on how A/B/C... check are done. More over check are not only Monthly task but also cycles and flight hours.

I'm working for an OEM and even the operators have difficulties with this system I doubt you want to go that deep in a game... My 2 cents

[Moldova96]

It would defienetly help with getting people to fly realistic hours, I know im one of those culprets, also should there not be more of a likeliness if you fly more hours on an aircraft the more it will break or need replacement parts so additional cost will have to be paid out by the airline which would remove the incentive to fly more hours.

[mrvol]

Agree RJs useally fly 2500 hours per years, something like 48-49 hours a week!!! 140 hours is a lot

Main line planes does fly more hours but does also less legs

[ccvl]

Well, one idea I've had is the option to 'base' an aircraft at an airport, and then the hours available on the based aircraft be overall treated as one aircraft for the purpose of adding routes, this would be in addition to the current system for any aircraft flying from more than one airport. With this system, there'd be a larger 'spare hours' time frame for maintenance checks. Though what to do about non-based aircraft would be tricky.

I have thought about this but it get's to complicated with things like winglets, different IFE but not seating, different engines, etc. So I like Yuxi's idea.

[ccvl]

A/B/C/D checks are a good idea. The complicated part is how to deal with the affected routes when aircraft are out for maintenance without too much micromanagement. I suppose if you have enough spare aircraft to cover the routes, the affected routes on those days would still be flown, otherwise they won't?

Yes, I agree, and also with timetabling if there was more slack on say Saturday, the maintenance could be saturday centric. Also, A checks are easy because you could just do them on a RON or in random spare hours.

[Yuxi]

Agree RJs useally fly 2500 hours per years, something like 48-49 hours a week!!! 140 hours is a lot

Main line planes does fly more hours but does also less legs

Is that flight time or block time? Aircraft utilization in AE is calculated by block time.

[Obelix]

Here’s some info about aircraft maintenance that could help http://en.wikipedia....ntenance_checks

For AE purposes A and B checks would be combined so no down time for that aircraft is expected and airlines would be able to choose when each A/B check is done between 500 and 800 hours.

C checks would be performed every 15 to 21 months (the airline decides when to do it) and the time to complete the check (1 to 2 weeks) would be based on the maintenance level of the aircraft. Since the aircraft is out of service during the C check airlines have the option to assign a new aircraft to the route or not fly the route during the check. If an aircraft isn’t assigned to replace the one in the C check the route still remains open but there’s no income in the flights for that aircraft until the C check is completed.

A C check should be paid for when returning or early terminating a leased aircraft.

D checks would be like C checks with the airline deciding if it’s every 5 or 6 years.

The maintenance costs would be determined by the maintenance level of an aircraft i.e. if A/B check is done every 500 hours it costs less than if the A/B check is done every 800 hours.

Maintenance costs would be paid when the A/B/C/D check is done and not on a monthly basis.

C and D checks are done at the airline’s home base or nearest HUB. If an aircraft isn’t based at the home base or a HUB the aircraft would do a ferry flight.

[Delta787]

Here’s some info about aircraft maintenance that could help http://en.wikipedia....ntenance_checks

For AE purposes A and B checks would be combined so no down time for that aircraft is expected and airlines would be able to choose when each A/B check is done between 500 and 800 hours.

C checks would be performed every 15 to 21 months (the airline decides when to do it) and the time to complete the check (1 to 2 weeks) would be based on the maintenance level of the aircraft. Since the aircraft is out of service during the C check airlines have the option to assign a new aircraft to the route or not fly the route during the check. If an aircraft isn’t assigned to replace the one in the C check the route still remains open but there’s no income in the flights for that aircraft until the C check is completed.

A C check should be paid for when returning or early terminating a leased aircraft.

D checks would be like C checks with the airline deciding if it’s every 5 or 6 years.

The maintenance costs would be determined by the maintenance level of an aircraft i.e. if A/B check is done every 500 hours it costs less than if the A/B check is done every 800 hours.

Maintenance costs would be paid when the A/B/C/D check is done and not on a monthly basis.

C and D checks are done at the airline’s home base or nearest HUB. If an aircraft isn’t based at the home base or a HUB the aircraft would do a ferry flight.

I like what Obelix is getting at here. And why not add another twist to it: If the airline doesn't want to do its own maintenance, like the C/D Checks, or 'Heavy Maintenance' checks, and yes I am a Aircraft Mechanic and have done C/D Checks and they are a pain in the a*$, but fun, the airline could outsource it to another airline that does the Heavy Maintenance checks, but that airline would have to be certified to do that, how that would work out, I have not thought that out yet, but it would be a fun addition to the game. But Obelix is on to something here. I like.

[Obelix]

I like what Obelix is getting at here. And why not add another twist to it: If the airline doesn't want to do its own maintenance, like the C/D Checks, or 'Heavy Maintenance' checks, and yes I am a Aircraft Mechanic and have done C/D Checks and they are a pain in the a*$, but fun, the airline could outsource it to another airline that does the Heavy Maintenance checks, but that airline would have to be certified to do that, how that would work out, I have not thought that out yet, but it would be a fun addition to the game. But Obelix is on to something here. I like.

I like what Delta suggests. For C/D checks airlines would have to build maintenance hangars at airports where they have a terminal. Just like gates, maintenance hangars would have a size that determines the number of aircraft that can be worked on and the airline would have to choose which aircraft manufacturer their mechanics are trained for.
C/D checks could also be made by a system MRO however having a maintenance hangar reduces cost. Airlines would then have the chance to offer MRO services provided they have space available in their maintenance hangars.

[M.F. Ensembleson]

Oy vey, I do not want to be the one designing this!

[Delta787]

Hey Midwest, these are just suggestions we are throwing out there. It is up to admin to actually put it in the game. But yes, this could be a pain to the guy designing it, but we are just throwing out ideas. No need to sweat, yet.

[Yuxi]

Hey Midwest, these are just suggestions we are throwing out there. It is up to admin to actually put it in the game. But yes, this could be a pain to the guy designing it, but we are just throwing out ideas. No need to sweat, yet.

[Delta787]

Come on Yuxi, I'm sure you have been in tighter spots before. But you guys have done a wonderful job with AE! Keep up the good work!

[Airbus A320]

I like the idea of A/B/C/D checks. Other airline management games use it and it works great  information_features30.JPG   25.45KB   0 downloads  information_features44.JPG   54.57KB   0 downloads This is airwaysims version

[Yuxi]

I like the idea of A/B/C/D checks. Other airline management games use it and it works great  information_features30.JPG   25.45KB   0 downloads  information_features44.JPG   54.57KB   0 downloads This is airwaysims version

One of the main reasons I quit playing AirwaySim was the tedious scheduling of A checks (and tedious scheduling in general)