Shouldn't B717 and MD-90 be in the same fleet commonality group?

[Andre]

B717 was called MD-95 before Boeing grabbed it. As far as I know it has the same cockpit, avionics and other systems. It would help many AWS airlines a lot if they could buy B717s and MD-90s and consider them being in the same group. Just a suggestion..  PRETTY PLEASE!!

[mar88]

I gotta agree on this one. I stick with the MD-80s usually because the MD-87 is part of the same group and allows for easier service on smaller routes, in reality the MD-90 and 717 are part of the same family and placing them as such would make them competitive against the MD-80 series and allow greater flexibility with the MD-90.

[swiftus27]

They are and should be but they aren't. Same reason ppl deal with the dash 8 q made by bombardier being different from those made by dehaviland. 

[Troxartas86]

Might be too hard/annoying to put two aircraft of technically different manufacturers into the same fleet group.

[alexgv1]

Partial commonality.... the answer. Got to be my number one feature request, if we ever figure out a way to implement it properly 

[brique]

Partial commonality.... the answer. Got to be my number one feature request, if we ever figure out a way to implement it properly 

Oh yes... E145 has 75% parts commonality with the earlier E120 too... )

alas, I think I sense a '[-]' heading for that idea....

[mtnlion]

They're different aircrafts commonality wise in the real life so I see no reason why they should be the same fleet type in AWS. Some time ago Blue1 replaced MD90s with B717s and it took a lot of time to re-train the pilots and crews. Just to give an example from the real life.

[alexgv1]

They're different aircrafts commonality wise in the real life so I see no reason why they should be the same fleet type in AWS. Some time ago Blue1 replaced MD90s with B717s and it took a lot of time to re-train the pilots and crews. Just to give an example from the real life.

That is staff training commonality, but there are many levels such as brique said the parts is one. That's why it should be broken down. And of course the differences training of MD90->B717 is less costly and shorter than a new type rating onto another aircraft completely different such as A320.

[Andre]

They're different aircrafts commonality wise in the real life so I see no reason why they should be the same fleet type in AWS. Some time ago Blue1 replaced MD90s with B717s and it took a lot of time to re-train the pilots and crews. Just to give an example from the real life.

I don't believe they're that different commonality wise, at least not more than an MD-87 and an MD-81. The training the pilots and crews had to do in Blue1, they would have to do with any different version of the same ship. Same thing if they went from a A321 to A318 for example.

[Sami]

The training the pilots and crews had to do in Blue1, they would have to do with any different version of the same ship. Same thing if they went from a A321 to A318 for example.

As per my information, the main types (ie. DC-9, MD-80, MD-90, B717) are all considered different airplane types when it comes to pilot certification. And you need to undergo a type conversion course if you swap between these "main types".  (or actually not sure if MD-90 was still counted as MD-80 there, but anyway, that is the principle)

And on the other hand I could fly a mix of any of the small Airbuses during the same work day even (318,319,320,321) and then hop and fly big Airbus on the next day (330/340). Hence baby-Busses are in same fleet, and Douglases not. Another difference may be (have not checked) the cruise speed.

Maintenance and parts commonality is only partly modelled by this, as others have noted. (actually perhaps an idea of "commonality percentage" is not a bad idea, like saying "A320 series has 20% maintenance commonality and 80% training commonality towards 330/340 fleet" .. but who'd is to figure out the numbers then.. and how to apply them to calculations?!)

[Andre]

Okay, gotcha..  

Although I know that pilots can fly the different aircraft within the DC-9 series, MD-80 series, and MD-90 series within the same day like within the A320 group. And since the B717 actually is an MD-95, I figured it belonged in the MD-90 group. (My father was a pilot on DC-9, MD-80, MD-90 before)

Maybe the percentage thing is something you could work on (cause I'm sure you have nothing else to do   ) before the next world opens?

[brique]

Maintenance and parts commonality is only partly modelled by this, as others have noted. (actually perhaps an idea of "commonality percentage" is not a bad idea, like saying "A320 series has 20% maintenance commonality and 80% training commonality towards 330/340 fleet" .. but who'd is to figure out the numbers then.. and how to apply them to calculations?!)

It's a tough job, but we are sure you could do it

but as a small offering : perhaps something on the lines of a fixed percentage 'commonality bonus' for operating a 2nd fleet from the same manufacturer, to reflect parts commonality?

[Sanabas]

How to apply them to commonaliy calculations wouldn't be too hard, and it could be built into a brand new, more intuitive commonality model, too. I'd cheerfully crunch numbers for that.

How do decide what % overlap there should be in each category between particular groups, that I don't know.

[Andre]

How to apply them to commonaliy calculations wouldn't be too hard, and it could be built into a brand new, more intuitive commonality model, too. I'd cheerfully crunch numbers for that.

How do decide what % overlap there should be in each category between particular groups, that I don't know.

The only way to get real numbers would be by contacting real airlines I guess.. or the manufacturers themselves.

[brique]

How to apply them to commonaliy calculations wouldn't be too hard, and it could be built into a brand new, more intuitive commonality model, too. I'd cheerfully crunch numbers for that.

How do decide what % overlap there should be in each category between particular groups, that I don't know.

Thus my notion of a 'bonus' for brand loyalty to offset the existing penalty for starting a different fleet group. It would reflect common parts, tools, working methods, manufacturer-related training, parts inventory systems and supply chains being established already.

So, if it is reduced to just deciding how much of a bonus is applicable between a manufacturers fleet groups (and few seem to get above 3 groups anyway), it shouldn't be that much of a grind gathering the relevant numbers. Or we can just go for something like a simple 50% reduction in the commonality penalty when adding a further fleet from same manufacturer?

[Troxartas86]

Thus my notion of a 'bonus' for brand loyalty to offset the existing penalty for starting a different fleet group. It would reflect common parts, tools, working methods, manufacturer-related training, parts inventory systems and supply chains being established already.

So, if it is reduced to just deciding how much of a bonus is applicable between a manufacturers fleet groups (and few seem to get above 3 groups anyway), it shouldn't be that much of a grind gathering the relevant numbers. Or we can just go for something like a simple 50% reduction in the commonality penalty when adding a further fleet from same manufacturer?

I like this concept. It might finally convey some sort of benefit to operators of unusual aircraft such as myself. I'd love a "You're seriously sticking with Tupolev?" discount. 

[Jackson.S]

Wouldnt say the Boeing 717 and Md-90 are the perfect example for commonality,
While they are the same family, they have different avionics, power plant and handling
Meaning that many of the bonuses that come with commanility aren't really there
When Boeing took over the project 13 major systems were redesigned to meet Boeing standards

However Saudi did retrofit their Md-90 with Honeywell displays to make their cockpits
Near identical to the 717 (Idea for future?)

I agree with the idea of partial commonality, particularly on the 757/767 models,
In terms of finding a percentage which commanility is based on can be by power plant, avionics,
Similar systems etc? Each similar system could be 5% commonality etc, means the A320 family can have a small benefit On the A340 etc

[Andre]

Wouldnt say the Boeing 717 and Md-90 are the perfect example for commonality,
While they are the same family, they have different avionics, power plant and handling
Meaning that many of the bonuses that come with commanility aren't really there
When Boeing took over the project 13 major systems were redesigned to meet Boeing standards

However Saudi did retrofit their Md-90 with Honeywell displays to make their cockpits
Near identical to the 717 (Idea for future?)

I agree with the idea of partial commonality, particularly on the 757/767 models,
In terms of finding a percentage which commanility is based on can be by power plant, avionics,
Similar systems etc? Each similar system could be 5% commonality etc, means the A320 family can have a small benefit On the A340 etc

The powerplant of the aircraft is covered by the engine commonality, and the handling of the aircraft has nothing to do with commonality costs. I'm curious which 13 systems were redesigned? Do you have link so I can read up on it?

I see that some aircraft types in "game" belongs to the fleet group of another type, for example the Viking Air Twin Otter belongs to the de Havilland Canada DHC-6 fleet group. So putting a Boeing 717 in the McDonnell Douglas MD-90 fleet group should be technically straight forward.

The question if it belongs there or not, it seems like people are divided. My opinion is that it belongs there. It's an MD-95. I don't believe it's more different from an MD-90, than a DC-9 Super 80/MD-81 is different from an MD-87 (Which is in the same fleet group).

[schro]

Wouldnt say the Boeing 717 and Md-90 are the perfect example for commonality,
While they are the same family, they have different avionics, power plant and handling
Meaning that many of the bonuses that come with commanility aren't really there
When Boeing took over the project 13 major systems were redesigned to meet Boeing standards

However Saudi did retrofit their Md-90 with Honeywell displays to make their cockpits
Near identical to the 717 (Idea for future?)

I agree with the idea of partial commonality, particularly on the 757/767 models,
In terms of finding a percentage which commanility is based on can be by power plant, avionics,
Similar systems etc? Each similar system could be 5% commonality etc, means the A320 family can have a small benefit On the A340 etc

Saudi is the only carrier that ordered MD-90's as they were intended to be sold (they were NOT retrofitted, they were delivered with the glass). Delta was the major driver towards the older style avionics as they wanted commonality with their recently delivered MD-88's (which they took 120 of (1988-1992) just before placing a 16 firm and 100+ options for the M90).  In the early 90's before McD decided they were going to sell themselves to Boeing, the intention was to have the same glass in the MD-11, MD-90 and MD-95 (Saudi wanted commonality with the MD-11, not the MD-95). The MD90-50 was also on the table to stretch the 90-30 to close to 200 pax. They could then sell the MD-90/95 as a whole family, effectively matching the Airbus and Boeing mix for capacity and performance.

This is one of those scenarios where the line between reality and a simulation should be blurred a bit - based on original spec and marketing intentions, they are the same fleet group, period. The marketing comparison line up should look something like this -

B717-200 = B737-600 = A318
B717-300 = B737-700 = A319
MD90-30  = B737-800 = A320
MD90-50  = B737-900 = A321

And yes, I know the 717-300 and MD90-50 never launched thus would likely not get added to AWS...

[Andre]

What about placing MD-90 and MD-95/Boeing 717 in the MD-80 fleet commonality group?

MD-88 and MD-90 are almost the same aircraft, they even have the same cockpit. The only big difference is that the MD-90 is longer than the MD-88 (and the powerplant, but that's already covered in engine commonality). There's probably less differences between MD-88 and MD-90, than between MD-88 and MD-81. MD-81 is just a larger DC-9 with a more modern cockpit.

The way commonality works now, you have to set a hard line between aircraft model commonalities. It would really make the MD-80/MD-90 series more viable and a better competitor to the others if they were put in the same group. Even the Boeing 737 classics come with different cockpits. The early ones had the option of the traditional B707/B727/B737 cockpit instead of modern EFIS panels.

Unless Sami introduces a smoother more advanced commonality system that includes factors like cockpit and manufacturer, I really wish that the MD-80/MD-90/MD-95 were in the same group.

Please, either put the MD-90 and B717 together in one group, or put MD-80 and MD-90/B717 in one group?