Bad m*****f*****
MIT here, and we have data on daily block hours utilization for (at least US) airlines and the verdict is that it's consistently in the 9 to 10 hours per day range. But that daily usage works out to about 70 hours a week per plane, with 80 giving you 11 hours daily utilization.
http://web.mit.edu/a...ft&Related.html
http://web.mit.edu/a...ating Fleet.htm
Discuss
For some reason I can't see this site - won't load, however, I do know from prior knowledge and other sites that there are airlines that use their Widebody planes for as much as 13-14, possibly 15 at times, hours. Sure, they get delayed, but that's what happens in real-life.
100% yes, never really knew where the 140 came from on a realistic scale anyways.
Established Oct. 2012
#GOSTROS
Restricting hours would definitely make it more challenging although in hindsight, 80 turns out to be too low considering how JetBlue managed over 13 hours (91+ hours a week). 100 might be more appropriate for an absolute max.
I think you'll like them!
Also keep in mind AE utilization includes time spent at the gate, whereas actual airline utilization times are pushback to parking. The real reason AE utilization is so high is because planes don't have to worry about flying at times with peak demand, AE pax don't care if a flight departs at 7am or 2am, and in real life this is a significant part of lower utilization especially of longhaul aircraft.
Bad m*****f*****
The data provided includes daily block hours per aircraft, as well as daily airborne hours per aircraft
immature
The 2016 maximum was more than 13 block hours per day, so it would be unreasonable to set the limit below that in my opinion. That'd be about 90-95 hours per week.
CLT, BOS, JFK, LGA, EWR, ALB, BDL, SYR, HPN, EWN, RDU, PHL, ATL, CVG, MCO, DCA, IAD, BWI, MDW, HOU, DFW, PHX, DEN, BZN, FAT, SAN, LAX, BUR, SBA, SFO, SEA, ANC, KOA, MTJ, MBJ, SXM, CUN, PVR, YVR, SJO, JNB, LLW, LGW
A319, A320, A321, A333, A346, B734, B738, B752, B762, CRJ2, CRJ7, CRJ9, E145, E170, E190, DH8B
AWE, AAL, DAL, UAL, SAA, SWA
I think you'll like them!
The data provided includes daily block hours per aircraft, as well as daily airborne hours per aircraft
Block hours still don't include turnaround time. Block hours are pushback to parking, airborne hours are takeoff to touchdown, AE hours are block hours+minimum turnaround time added on top.
I allow my westjet 80 hours off per plane. Which seems quite realistic for a budget airline.
My opinion is that if you want this to be implemented, other things to make the game more realistic like actually scheduling blocks with maintenance (A,B,C, and D) as well as accurate fuel consumption with fluctuating prices and hedging should be added. (737-800 should not have a higher fuel flow than 737-400). I personally like this game because its simple and fun and isnt realistic in some ways but not others.
My opinion is that if you want this to be implemented, other things to make the game more realistic like actually scheduling blocks with maintenance (A,B,C, and D) as well as accurate fuel consumption with fluctuating prices and hedging should be added. (737-800 should not have a higher fuel flow than 737-400). I personally like this game because its simple and fun and isnt realistic in some ways but not others.
TBH, it seems as if people get their suggestions straight from Airwaysim. To refrain from blatantly copying their game, Maintenance checks should not be added without a massive overhaul of the scheduling system. The issue is (and in Airwaysim), is that when a plane enters maintenance, it's flights are just not flown at all. In reality, a new plane just fills in. This is quite tedious to manage on the current system.
Inactive
Us AE'ans need to stop thinking that we can get payware features in freeware.If you do, you are lucky.
Capping to 100 hours would basically cover the downtime required for A, C, D-checks without the hassle of rescheduling. I find AE's relative simplicity very appealing.
Proud Virtual Airliner since 1989
4
2
Carlos "SUJETO" Vargas Sánchez.
Proud Virtual Airliner since 1989
4
2
TBH, it seems as if people get their suggestions straight from Airwaysim. To refrain from blatantly copying their game, Maintenance checks should not be added without a massive overhaul of the scheduling system. The issue is (and in Airwaysim), is that when a plane enters maintenance, it's flights are just not flown at all. In reality, a new plane just fills in. This is quite tedious to manage on the current system.
Carlos "SUJETO" Vargas Sánchez.
Inactive
Iberia is not a fair example. Also, that plane is going to have days off on maintenance to cover its long shifts.
I think 125 should be the ABSOLUTE maximum cap if we will bring it down. But for long haul that is still low. 140 is actually not that high when you realise how much Norwegian 787s fly. They are a rare case but not unrealistic. That is why I think there is no need to change the hour caps. Although that is 18+gate timings. This game actually makes no sense. ALEN or AEn has a very good model on route scheduling. It is quite tough with route scheduling but it keeps most airlines in order and prevents them from absolutely hammering their aircraft. Especially since AEn passengers don't like flying at redeye hours
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
