Two Week/Rolling One Month Schedules

[GrayAnderson]

What it says on the tin.  On a lot of longer-distance routes, I could easily set up a two aircraft rotation on a route or route set (weekly maintenance included).  Being stuck on a weekly schedule really constrains this and results in quite a bit of inefficiency.

A longer schedule would be nice insofar as it would allow for advanced planning on b-checks (if not also allowing a bit more flexibility on C-checks when those come up).

[DanDan]

What it says on the tin.  On a lot of longer-distance routes, I could easily set up a two aircraft rotation on a route or route set (weekly maintenance included).  Being stuck on a weekly schedule really constrains this and results in quite a bit of inefficiency.

A longer schedule would be nice insofar as it would allow for advanced planning on b-checks (if not also allowing a bit more flexibility on C-checks when those come up).

especially with small fleets and a lower number of destinations, this is really a valuable feature!

[Zobelle]

Combine this with base to destination to base (any base you operate) and you might have a winner.

[alexgv1]

Combine this with base to destination to base (any base you operate) and you might have a winner.

We need this... ABCBA routing between bases (A and C bases, B outstation)

[GrayAnderson]

I was thinking of this as well (as a way to work around the fact that, for example, it might make more sense to slap two aircraft on alternating rotas than to "force" them back to base due to scheduling) but wasn't quite sure how to phrase it.

For example, if I have (for example) LAX and JFK as bases, a flight LAX-Cleveland (which is timed to take advantage of a lull in airport business) might be better served by carrying onwards to JFK (arriving before 2300) and overnighting there than returning to LAX and showing up at an awkward hour or having to overnight in Cleveland.  This would also allow for a bit of structural flexibility in long-haul rotas...again, it might make more sense due to timing to send a TATL/TPAC flight "back" somewhere (and then in reverse).  At major airports, "kludge a flight in where a slot is available" does become an issue.

[Zobelle]

Let’s also consider that A checks are more typically done in the schedule of our B checks, I could reasonably see two week schedules however being a reality as a compromise with A check needed at the end or beginning of such and B checks being pushed out to twice yearly, C checks being on alternating years (biannual) and D checks being pushed to 10 year intervals. Even better would be maintenance checks being timed by hours/cycles flown (This would make scheduling them a bit more of a pain though with the odd flight cancellation(s) due to hitting hours/cycles required for these checks)

In brief,

A checks once every 2 week rotation (If utilization is at or close to 17.5hday) or every 250 flight hours
B checks 2 times yearly or every 3,250 flight hours.
C checks 2y time or every 13,000 flight hours.
D checks 10y time or every 65,000 flight hours

[DanDan]

A checks once every 2 week rotation (If utilization is at or close to 17.5hday) or every 250 flight hours
B checks 2 times yearly or every 3,250 flight hours.
C checks 2y time or every 13,000 flight hours.
D checks 10y time or every 65,000 flight hours

i would remove the D check by time altogether or put the time very high.

[Zobelle]

i would remove the D check by time altogether or put the time very high.

Yes and no, If there’s anything aircraft hate doing, it’s sitting on the ground but for those who have lower utilization figures (15h/day or below) one could easily delay a D check by a couple years and likely be fine, similarly an aircraft with 20h+ daily utilization (nearly impossible unless mostly long haul) would run closer to the current 8yr timeframe.

[wilian.souza2]

Combine this with base to destination to base (any base you operate) and you might have a winner.

Mmm... sounds exactly like this: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78525.msg462661.html#msg462661

Let’s also consider that A checks are more typically done in the schedule of our B checks, I could reasonably see two week schedules however being a reality as a compromise with A check needed at the end or beginning of such and B checks being pushed out to twice yearly, C checks being on alternating years (biannual) and D checks being pushed to 10 year intervals. Even better would be maintenance checks being timed by hours/cycles flown (This would make scheduling them a bit more of a pain though with the odd flight cancellation(s) due to hitting hours/cycles required for these checks)

In brief,

A checks once every 2 week rotation (If utilization is at or close to 17.5hday) or every 250 flight hours
B checks 2 times yearly or every 3,250 flight hours.
C checks 2y time or every 13,000 flight hours.
D checks 10y time or every 65,000 flight hours

It would be a lot better if maintenance costs shouldn't be tied to aircraft's age only - which is the most unrealistic feature AWS has now.