Is Fleet Commonality Really That Big of a Deal?

[Sigma]

Its best if you can. I have stuck with mainly one company but had a couple from 2 other companies at the same time. The cost increase was marginal. Just don't over do it. I had no problems in that game.

There is no "company" commonality in AWS.

It doesn't matter if your two planes are a 737-100 and a 737-800, or a 737-100 and an A321-200.  It's exactly the same commonality penalty.

[tm07x]

*strained look on face*

trying . . . not . . . to turn . . . this thread into . . . a Boeing . . . vs Airbus . . . debate

The Boeing crap is what keeps SAS afloat along with the international flights.

It's not Boeing's fault that the danes and scandinavians don't know how to operate a successful airline.

Even the Q400 debacle was down to SAS mechanics not being qualified and skilled enough to work on the AC, and danish Q400 pilots complaining about the cockpit layout. Funny how Widerøe never had a nose-wheel collapse on the Q400.

it's only a matter of time till Lufthansa absorbs SAS and closes Copenhagen base due to being to close to Frankfurt.

[EYguy]

Fleet commonality is actually the only thing that keeps airlines afloat when you have fuel spike. Provided that you have efficent engines e good a/c.
Most of you listed A330 and A340 as two separate groups of a/c while with maintanance and training they're mostly similar. Engines (like CF6, CFM56) are common between fleets (like CF6 for B747 and A330 and CFM 56 for A340 and B737NG/C and A320 family).

The key is not having only a common fleet, but a fuel efficent fleet. If you can split your costs among your fleet, you can stay afloat even with fuel spikes, when your a/cs are burning less fuel than the ones of your competitors.

[Maarten Otto]

I tried it out in current "Modern times" scenario.

Went to 3 fleet types and it nearly killed my airline.

I had to re structure my business till I ended up with just 2 fleet types.

By that time I had a huge disadvantage against my hub mate.