33 replies to this topic

[sviridovt]

hello all,

I think that there should be a feature for bigger airlines that operate allot of planes to have expedited deliveries, and here is where I am coming from:

currently in beta 70 I have:

20 something L1011's and 100+ on order (to replace DC10-30's), when MD 11 comes out I plan to replace all L1011's with it and it would take about 10 ingame years to replace it, about the time when I plan to start replacing MD 11's with 764's/772's which would also take about 5 years (because I plan to replace it about half and half so its faster)

200+ 722's which I want to all replace with 738's however, it would too take about 10 years to do that, and I would have to start replacing them sooner with 734's (sometime in the early 90's) on routes where it is possible to operate them and then replace the rest with 738's and then replace 734's with 738's and those estimates are only if I dont open any more routes (which I have to stay competitive) and thats not even speaking of other planes that I will have to replace with 737NG's (like 733's/732's/735's)

less dramatic ones include:

50 something DC9-40's with 16 on order (about 40 more will be ordered to replace BAC 1-11's) which I then plan to replace with Boeing 717's which would take about 5 years to replace
about 60 743's which would be replaced with either 744's (early 90's) or 772ER (late 90's) and then 744's will be replaced with 773ER's
60 A300B4's which would be replaced by 763/763ER's and maybe later by A330's (to bypass delivery limits to replace other AC's)

Thanks, Tim

[Delta-Northwest]

you wont get expidited delivery in the real world and the manufactur wont be able to make the planes faster either. so i dont like this idea...

[Sheepy]

Plane delivery is already too fast. Don't need to make it faster.

[SirMoo]

I vote for the opposite. Larger airlines should have more delays to allow for smaller airlines to grow.

[sviridovt]

I vote for the opposite. Larger airlines should have more delays to allow for smaller airlines to grow.

but then it would take 20 years to replace aircrafts and then that is not realistic

[sviridovt]

Plane delivery is already too fast. Don't need to make it faster.

actually some manufacturers do expedite delivery for certain special costumers (and I think ordering 100+ planes is pretty special)

[Sheepy]

You aren't special in AE...
If you can't replace so many aircraft, don't operate them in the first place.

[Conor]

I vote for the opposite. Larger airlines should have more delays to allow for smaller airlines to grow.

I will second this motion.

[mariowebbocious]

How about paying way more money (may be 100 to 1000% of its original price) for large airlines who want to expedite their plane delivery?

But of course, dont make it easy.

[violetQueen]

Manufacturers do offer better deals for larger orders, for example we receive 1 737 every 2 weeks, that's about 26 a year, last year FR took double that.... I don't think it's feasible to take 52 aircraft each year for 10 years, but I believe when you place an order it could give you the list of the manufactures preferred delivery slots, i.e. for an order of say 120 aircraft.

Year 1 : 20 aircraft (1 every 2 weeks, after 4 weeks from order)
Year 2: 26 aircraft
Year 3: 26 aircraft
Year 4: 26 aircraft
Year 5: 22 aircraft

But I also believe that the airline should then be able to expedite its delivery schedule, up to 1 aircraft per week, at a cost. For the added cost, I was thinking something like adding 200% of the aircraft value for each EXTRA aircraft in the first two years of delivery. Every year after that 10% is taken off of the 200% but it shouldn't drop below 100%.

So for the above order, expediting it as much as possible we'd get something like:

Year 1: 40 aircraft (200% extra for each of the extra 20 aircraft)
Year 2: 52 aircraft (200% extra for each of the extra aircraft)
Year 3: 28 aircraft (190% extra for each of the extra aircraft)

Though, if we're looking at the real world, FR for the last 4 or so years has had 43, 48, 49, 52, if my memory serves correct. U2 with its A319 order had planned delivery of 3, 21, 28, 36, 32 to make its 120. I also think that if an airline has placed an expedited order they should pay a premium when (if) they chose to defer their delivery and that the expedition should only be limited to 1 aircraft per week for aircraft advertised for 1 every 2 weeks, and 1 every 2 weeks for aircraft advertised for 1 every 3 or 4 weeks, 1 every 3 weeks for anything above 4 weeks advertised.

[Conor]

Manufacturers do offer better deals for larger orders, for example we receive 1 737 every 2 weeks, that's about 26 a year, last year FR took double that.... I don't think it's feasible to take 52 aircraft each year for 10 years, but I believe when you place an order it could give you the list of the manufactures preferred delivery slots, i.e. for an order of say 120 aircraft.

Year 1 : 20 aircraft (1 every 2 weeks, after 4 weeks from order)
Year 2: 26 aircraft
Year 3: 26 aircraft
Year 4: 26 aircraft
Year 5: 22 aircraft

But I also believe that the airline should then be able to expedite its delivery schedule, up to 1 aircraft per week, at a cost. For the added cost, I was thinking something like adding 200% of the aircraft value for each EXTRA aircraft in the first two years of delivery. Every year after that 10% is taken off of the 200% but it shouldn't drop below 100%.

So for the above order, expediting it as much as possible we'd get something like:

Year 1: 40 aircraft (200% extra for each of the extra 20 aircraft)
Year 2: 52 aircraft (200% extra for each of the extra aircraft)
Year 3: 28 aircraft (190% extra for each of the extra aircraft)

Though, if we're looking at the real world, FR for the last 4 or so years has had 43, 48, 49, 52, if my memory serves correct. U2 with its A319 order had planned delivery of 3, 21, 28, 36, 32 to make its 120. I also think that if an airline has placed an expedited order they should pay a premium when (if) they chose to defer their delivery and that the expedition should only be limited to 1 aircraft per week for aircraft advertised for 1 every 2 weeks, and 1 every 2 weeks for aircraft advertised for 1 every 3 or 4 weeks, 1 every 3 weeks for anything above 4 weeks advertised.

I have to strongly disagree with you here Growth in AE already surpasses what I would call `explosive` and to allow airlines to expedite their orders would throw growth into an even bigger upward spiral.

For example you have a small airline and a large airline. The small airline cannot afford to expedite any orders because of the financial cost. However a large airline with a nice DOP will be able to expedite most of their aircraft orders. If this was to be implemented the large airlines would be able to expand at double speed.

Thats not cool

[sviridovt]

I have to strongly disagree with you here Growth in AE already surpasses what I would call `explosive` and to allow airlines to expedite their orders would throw growth into an even bigger upward spiral.

For example you have a small airline and a large airline. The small airline cannot afford to expedite any orders because of the financial cost. However a large airline with a nice DOP will be able to expedite most of their aircraft orders. If this was to be implemented the large airlines would be able to expand at double speed.

Thats not cool

I intend this to make replacing older aircraft faster, I mean when did you hear of an airline taking 10 years to replace a plane type

[sviridovt]

You aren't special in AE...
If you can't replace so many aircraft, don't operate them in the first place.

then I would get killed by competition, maybe you think I am evil or something for operating a large airline, but its actually very hard to maintain that rank, for example, when I went for vacation I had limited time for AE (except for when I got sick during the vacation) and I drpped 10 ranks just because of that, and if I dont expand I will get smashed by competition. The only thing I am trying to do is to stay competitive by being so large. And this suggestion isnt to expedite expansion, but to allow replacing aircraft faster which is term is more realistic.

[SirMoo]

I intend this to make replacing older aircraft faster, I mean when did you hear of an airline taking 10 years to replace a plane type

Not been to Northern/Central Africa on a domestic flight recently have you...

None-the-less, a logical solution would be that the lines start out small and people have to pay around a trillion dollars (collectively) to upgrade the assembly lines. Say each line has 5 speed stages and the collective has to pay +1 for each. So stage five would cost 5 trillion. ( plus the the roughly 10 trillion already paid for the other levels). This is the only logical way I can see it... Or simply 1% of each plane sell goes to a 1 trillion 'new production line fund'. Production is super slow at the start and speeds up by level.

[Delta Force]

That is a good suggestion actually. The amount of assets a company devotes to an aircraft production line increases as time goes on if the aircraft proves to be a success. The more orders an aircraft family gets, the more swiftly it should be produced.

[Sheepy]

then I would get killed by competition, maybe you think I am evil or something for operating a large airline, but its actually very hard to maintain that rank, for example, when I went for vacation I had limited time for AE (except for when I got sick during the vacation) and I drpped 10 ranks just because of that, and if I dont expand I will get smashed by competition. The only thing I am trying to do is to stay competitive by being so large. And this suggestion isnt to expedite expansion, but to allow replacing aircraft faster which is term is more realistic.

It's very hard for a large airline to be bankrupted. Practically impossible.
Even if intended to be used for replacement, expansion is the more likely use for many.

[sviridovt]

It's very hard for a large airline to be bankrupted. Practically impossible.
Even if intended to be used for replacement, expansion is the more likely use for many.

No, I went bankrupt twice, both were because of changes made to the game in beta

[Conor]

No, I went bankrupt twice, both were because of changes made to the game in beta

Thats a totally different reason though

[SirMoo]

Thats a totally different reason though

Yup. Bad idea is bad.

[Stevphfeniey]

Maybe if we didn't run airlines with 800+ aircraft we wouldnt have this problem