AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Fleet Commonality questions...  (Read 872 times)

L1011fan

  • Former member
Fleet Commonality questions...
« on: February 02, 2011, 02:37:29 AM »
Do the 737-300/400/500 actually share alot of commonality with the 737-600/700/800/900 as the latter are, for lack of better term, very new and advanced from the former versions. Does that make sense? Essentially new planes? And what about the Boeing 717? I see that as more in common with the MD's, such as the MD-90. Boeing just happened to takeover while these planes were being assembled.
Thoughts please? :)

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4332
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2011, 03:34:20 AM »
The 737 Classics vs NGs are different enough to justify a different class of plane. New wing, higher cruising speed, more range (and heavier weight), glass cockpit.

The M90's and M95's (aka B717) could theoretically be considered the same or similar type, however, the 717s were delivered with a full glass cockpit, and most M90's delivered were closer to MD88 style cockpits (except those delivered to Saudi, which are 717 style). 

When you step back into the Super 80's,you go to low bypass JT8D's and analog flight decks, though some of the 82, 83 and 88's in service are newer than the oldest MD90s...

MidlandDeltic

  • Former member
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2011, 03:40:50 PM »
I've been thinking about this, and there are several issues over commonality which grate slightly.  I thnk the core issue is the, for want of better terms, "maintenance" commonality is combined with "operational" commonality in AWS.

I'll try and explain using examples.

The DHC Dash 8-300 and -400 are very similar in maintenance terms, but operationally are different due to the higher speed of the -400.  As a result in AWS they are not a common family, and this impedes airlines in developing a range of capacities by imposing an unnecessary additional cost.

Now look at 737-200, -500 and -600.  All of these are mechanically different, especially the -200.  However, because each of the "families" of 737 are treated in common (-200, classic and NG), "operational" commonality is lost where it should not be.  For the aircraft listed, all are the same size (120 max Y-class), but turnaround times are different, meaning again that airlline upgrades lead  to inefficiencies.  (I have another pet hate about turnrounds, in that several real-world airlines turn 737/A320s round in less than 30 minutes successfully, but in AWS at least 70 mins is required for a 737-300 to be reliable, but that's another story!)

While I suspect the coding required would be significant, I would like to see the "operational" and "Maintenance" commonalities seperated in AWS.

MD

Meraki

  • Former member
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2011, 01:50:30 AM »
Now look at 737-200, -500 and -600.  All of these are mechanically different, especially the -200.  However, because each of the "families" of 737 are treated in common (-200, classic and NG), "operational" commonality is lost where it should not be.  For the aircraft listed, all are the same size (120 max Y-class), but turnaround times are different, meaning again that airlline upgrades lead  to inefficiencies.  (I have another pet hate about turnrounds, in that several real-world airlines turn 737/A320s round in less than 30 minutes successfully, but in AWS at least 70 mins is required for a 737-300 to be reliable, but that's another story!)

Staff required between fleet types doesn't make sense sometimes as well. The MD80s require 3 cabin crew, yet the MD90 requires 4?

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4332
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2011, 01:54:21 AM »
Staff required between fleet types doesn't make sense sometimes as well. The MD80s require 3 cabin crew, yet the MD90 requires 4?


The M90 is about a 6 foot stretch of the M80s which brings the standard configuration for most airlines to about the 160 seat mark. Going by EU/US rules, there's a minimum of 1 FA per 50 pax capacity on the plane (EU also requires 1 per door as an alternate minimum).

Most M80's are configured in the 140-150 seat range, thus typically require 3 FAs.

Meraki

  • Former member
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2011, 09:47:46 PM »
But in AWS the MD80 and MD90 are identical capacity wise.

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4332
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2011, 12:15:52 PM »
But in AWS the MD80 and MD90 are identical capacity wise.

They are certified for the same number of maximum passengers (172). My understanding us that aws uses that in conjunction with cabin length to determine seating in the game. That's why they top our at the same number but the seat wizard behaves differently for the two types.

For the flight attendants, I'm guessing that is manually keyed in based on either us or eu standards for a typical configuration as I discussed above

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2011, 03:50:31 PM »
Flight attendants are a function of the number of pax and emergency exits

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16346
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Fleet Commonality questions...
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2011, 04:42:55 PM »
conjunction with cabin length to determine seating in the game

Cabin length is not a factor yet, seat capacity calc. is based only on max number of seats. (cabin length will be included perhaps in v.1.3 if the missing data gets .. found somehow)

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.