[-] Automatic re-schedule of routes of planes in a "C" or "D" check

[kclarke]

Hi All,

Not sure if this idea has been raised before but thought it could be a good idea and see if others think it would be helpful.

Over the years as airlines get larger and slim down to 3 fleet types you can have 50+ planes sitting in "C" or "D" checks earning no money anywhere from 20-80 days for the larger aircraft.

Potential enhancement is that if you have a spare aircraft and it matches the aircraft type/range and seating configuration and at the same base the system would automatically move the schedule for you onto the spare aircraft.

I do this manually currently for aircraft in "D" check but it's too time consuming for the constant flow of aircraft in "C check'.

As an example if you had 100 of the same aircraft with the matching criteria you could have just  6-7 extra unscheduled aircraft available to cover the 100 "C" checks for the year meaning your routes are constantly being flown.

Could have an option on each aircraft so that you can tick it to be included in rescheduling for "C" & 'D" checks in case you didn't want the spare aircraft to be used for re-scheduling.

Cheers

Kclarke

[Talentz]

....................................

Mmm.. I wrote a 3 paragraph rant on why this really doesn't make sense. Someone told me today to be nice and to that end, I'll just say: It doesn't matter because as you grow, it shouldn't matter. If your running your airline correctly, it never crosses your mind.



Talentz

[kclarke]

I’m always up for robust conversation 😜, would be great to hear your views.

As we are now in 2004 I have used all the allowable aircraft numbers outside of my HQ and my home base is covered so growth is now via mainly passenger growth.

Some quick numbers below:

Let’s say on avg my aircraft makes a profit of $1m per week which means over a year it misses out on $3m when in “C” check

$3m x 100 aircraft is $300M per year missed profit.

Say I buy 7 x aircraft to cover which costs me $700M at $100M a piece

It would take just over 2 years to recover the $700 m and then I have the planes for another 22 years or so to use.

The payback is fast and I now have increased passengers and revenue with no routes not been flown.

I have trialled it earlier on in the game with less aircraft and it worked well but too time consuming now with a large fleet changing the “c” checks all the time.

Would love to hear your views so I can see why it possibly wouldn’t work?

Cheers

Kclarke

[Talentz]

Alrighty then..


First, its not that it wouldn't work. Its that it doesn't matter. If your already maxed out... then the game is pretty much over. What does the extra cash provide for you? Profit chasing? Padding stats? Pretty pointless at end game, no?

Second, lets address time consuming. But not for the player, but for the person who codes the game. Now of all things that we can have our developer and programmer work on... you think a stable of unscheduled aircraft is in the top 5 most important things AWS needs addressed? Top 10? Top 20? Considering the above, this fruit is pretty low hanging.

Besides, it seems the reason this is even a topic with you is because your maxed and probably bored. Join the club. That's what happens at end game. You know what, you take the lessons learned from this GW and apply them to the next. The process starts all over again. If you want to change the settings, you choose a harder airport to fly out of and/or a more experienced player to compete with. That's what is means when you reach the mid-level in AWS. Move on and challenge more.

Third, lets jump into these numbers here:

100 aircraft worth of C checks equates to 300 weeks of maintenance that costs 300m in "lost" or missed revenue. 7 Aircraft have at max 121 or so weeks of maintenance. Were not going to include the lost time those "spare" aircraft have to spend in maintenance themselves or the fact that it would be impossible to have the aircraft go immediately in and out of maintenance to maintain 0% time spend on ground waiting on aircraft.

So now were looking at most 121m of that 300m "lost" revenue recovered per year at a cost of 700m. So spending 700M to make 121M is a good investment in your mind? I know your bored and have nothing really left to play for but... might want to re-consider. If you think buying more aircraft will just make it better... then again, your not seeing the bigger picture.

It shouldn't matter, because if your running your airline correctly, 300M a year profit is a drop in the bucket as far as OPS goes.

Btw, In GW1, I have planes that make 300m+ a year in profit. Single planes... you think it matters to me financially if it goes down for 3 weeks? If your maxed/capped out, how much more money do you need?

That's why this doesn't make any sense. No one in their right mind would keep spare planes on the side as their growing. This only comes to topic once your at end game and once you reach that point... it becomes quite pointless. Because its End Game*


Talentz

[kclarke]

Sorry Talentz that has to be one of the biggest dribble pieces you’ve posted in a while...

Sounds like you’re having a bad day.

The game world that I’m in has 30 years to run so not bored and still plenty to do so you are missing some key takeaways.

1. Airlines in the real world don’t just cancel your flight when they have maintenance they move it into a new aircraft which is available to continue there operations

2. This is about an efficiency that will help all airlines in the game and is a frustration for a lot of larger airlines

3. This thread is was made by Sami for ideas so although you may think you’re king dingaling you’re not, Sami will decide what ideas are worth pursuing and in what order so please let the thread serve it’s intended purpose.

4. To spend a one off amount of $700m to recoup around around $250m a year including maintenance for the new aircraft is a no brainer, just to spell it out let’s be conservative and do $250m x $24 years is $6b recouped on those seven planes... imagine that for those with 1000 planes!

5. Years ago when you changed aircraft you had to spend hours rescheduling to the new aircraft type which was a massive efficiency gain and helped everyone and this is exactly the same.

6. Why can’t airlines try and strive to have great stats, keep growing? That’s the whole reason they were introduced to make the game more dynamic and interesting, if you’re not interested in them that’s fine you don’t need to look at them.

7. This request is about an efficiency to match what happens in the real world so it’s pretty straight forward.

Cheers

[Talentz]

Most of that is fine and dandy Kclarke, but the biggest takeaway from your suggest is that your capped/at max. If that's true, then being more efficient doesn't matter when your a 1000+ aircraft airline. The amount of money lost from scheduled maintenance is a nothing compared to the amount of money you make per week. Your suggesting the amount of lost profit per year* is something to actually be concerned about when you probably make that in one week* during normal OPS.

Again, I don't understand why it should be a concern. An airline that large with that many aircraft makes far, far more money then you could ever need. At some point, you reach a level of absurd cash that you can leave your airline on auto pilot for 30 years and still have 100s of billions left. A year's worth of profits is a drop in the bucket. Why bother at that high of a level?


That's the point I am coming from. Not the realism of it.


Talentz

[kclarke]

That’s fair enough but not all airlines are sitting on billions of cash and also not making $1m per week on planes that was just my example.

For airlines who are at max or don’t want to expand any further this is a way to still keep the airline efficient and with steady passengers numbers and having extra planes to automatically switch out without having to manually move plane schedules around.

I’ve been playing on and off for years and for some who are time poor this would be a great function to be able to have to keep planes in the air and switch out maintenance automatically which I think would be a great feature.

Cheers

[gazzz0x2z]

Still does not make sense in the grand scheme of things. Sami has better priorities than such a petty detail.

[groundbum2]

I have 450 B757F, all exactly identical since they're freighters so no submodels like 767-200,767-200,767-300ER etc.No seat configs.

So to code for planes like 757F would be easy, since they're all identical. And I'd love this feature.

I think AWS is a great game, but it has matured over the years,as have the players, and we have the same interface/tools for a 2 aircraft airline as for 1000 aircraft airline, and it is painful later on doing boring repetitive tasks to keep your large airline going. It would be great if Sami took on "large airline management" as a functional (not UI) improvement all of it's own. Here's what needs adding to make large mature airlines fun to play
- aircraft pools as mentioned in this request
- comprehensive 7 day scheduling/management as per my request of a few weeks ago
- comprehensive slot management page as per my request a few months ago
- better flow of used aircraft into airline as per my request of a few weeks ago
- finer control of which aircraft get automatic C/D checks, so old aircraft don't get C/D checks automatically, so they can be scrapped instead as per my request a few weeks ago
- extract of aircraft, route data to Excel/CSV
-ability to appoint co-CEO to help manage large airline

I'm sure there's plenty more improvements that are minor in nature but would remove much of the drudgery..

Simon

[Sami]

An open thread exists of this matter, please do a search before opening a duplicate request.