AirwaySim

Please use this thread for feedback on the updated Fleet Commonality features.

View details of the update here: https://feedback.airwaysim.com/changelog/updates-15

There is still a bit of work in progress since the User Interface will be changed to group aircraft and engines on own "tabs" to avoid long scrolling, and to add a "commonality calculator" to the page. Additionally the "partial commonality" benefits for operating similar manufacturers and similar fleet types will be introduced with the next update.

The plan is to fully finalize this feature's update to v.2.0 and then move on to other things (i.e. not to re-visit this feature after that anymore with any minor updates).

Update #1

- Tabbed page format added to the Commonality page.

Update #2

- Partial commonality bonus for using aircraft fleets from the same manufacturer is added (2% bonus in costs per shared fleet). (similar coming to engines later)

"Another notable change for realism is that all your aircraft in operational state ( = even the ones with no routes) count towards the commonality costs (since the costs for having the ability to operate the aircraft naturally start when the aircraft is in your possession). Aircraft in long-term storage are still free of all commonality related costs."


Does this mean, that fleets of planes one is not using at all but just buying for selling & trading are increasing the fleet count??? That would make things really uncomfortable...

It would be nice to have totals.

Total for all fleet types, Totals for all engine types and than also Grand total.

Also, it would be good to have this permanent maintenance on a separate line on the income statement from A/B/C/D checks.  Maybe one of those expandable things where you can drill in.

Ideally:
+ maintenance
 | recurring maintenance
 + A/B/C/D checks
  | A Checks
  | B Checks
  | C Checks
  | D Checks

Quote from: DanDan on May 20, 2025, 02:09:39 PMDoes this mean, that fleets of planes one is not using at all but just buying for selling & trading are increasing the fleet count??? That would make things really uncomfortable...

Counts only if plane is in operational status, i.e. available for scheduling.

Update #3

- Partial commonality bonus for using engines from the same manufacturer's engine group is added (2% bonus in costs per shared engine group).

- Fleet size bonus for engines added; Begins with a 1% discount at the 10th engine of the same type, and caps at a 20% discount by 200 engines.

Update #4

- Partial aircraft model commonality bonus added (this is a big update!) ==> Now we can "combine" fleets with different specifications in performance into one or similar cost-groups. Such as B757 and B767.

 - The "commonality matrix" is still being built, and how the figures scale will need more tuning.

 - But basically you will have a bonus on fixed maint costs and crew training. Admin costs are not covered by this bonus. The bonus can range from 5 to 75% reduction in costs. The partial bonuses cover mostly only the modern models but there are a few older ones like Tu-104/124.

More details and documentation will follow later on.

Update #5

Manual page updated to reflect these updates: https://manual.airwaysim.com/simulation-documentation/fleet-commonality

btw. Would like to hear opinions on the Partial Commonality, and which models should be included there and why.

We can have bonus for Training and Maintenance costs (with varying percentage).

Currently we have:

A300/A310 ↔ A330/A340 
A318/A319/A320/A321 ↔ A330/A340 
A318/A319/A320/A321 ↔ A350 
A330/A340 ↔ A350 
737-100/200 ↔ 737-300/400/500 
737-100/200 ↔ 737NG/MAX 
737-300/400/500 ↔ 737NG/MAX 
757 ↔ 767 
747-100/200/300 ↔ 747-400/-8 
777 ↔ 787 
DHC-8-100/-200/-300 ↔ Dash 8 Q400 
Saab 2000 ↔ Saab 340 
Tu-104 ↔ Tu-124 
Tu-104 ↔ Tu-110 
DC-9 ↔ MD-80/90/B717 
Il-86 ↔ Il-96 
BAe ATP ↔ HS748

The bonus can be from 5% to 50% (maint/train defined separately).

Note that manufacturer similarity bonus is different and counted automatically.


Any other fleet groups that should share a similarity bonus?

Quote from: Sami on May 27, 2025, 05:01:26 PMAny other fleet groups that should share a similarity bonus?

Useless information dump:

I don't actually know much about it, but aren't the 707, 727, and 737 all based on the exact same fuselage? I don't know if that would constitute some commonality between them, but I'm assuming Boeing did this in the past to save money on R&D costs, and production/tooling.

The 727 and 707 also have identical flight decks if I recall right.

The 757 came from the 7N7 which started as the 727-400. How much commonality that meant the original had by the end? I'm not sure.

The 767 and 777 share similar noses/front sections. Saved money when Boeing was designing them. This probably is a tiny bit of similarity, and not worth including as commonality. Just noting if some know more on that front.

Fokker 100 was a stretched version of the F28. Could have some commonality between those two, beyond just manufacturer.

EMB-120 is basically an enlarged EMB-110. Just with pressurization.


If you can't tell, I really like this change. Having the ability for more fleet types to be "included" is a great change. It means we might see people experimenting with extra fleets that share large amounts of commonality with their major fleets; without taking a massive loss to profits. Anything to get people to break off from the status quo and have fun experimenting with fleet types is a plus, to me.

This is probably a change that might have to be implemented at an entirely different time, but could cargo aircraft get some sort of commonality? Even if they are different manufactures and sizes? Similar to the change being implemented, but only between cargo specific fleets. That might give people an incentive to create an "all cargo" airline. One that could use MD-11s all the way down to ATRs without sacrificing profits. Sort of like a modern take on FedEx or UPS and their subsidiaries.

- 707 vs 727 added

- 767 vs 777 is covered by 5% manufacturer bonus, I think that's enough since they are different designs to begin with and rather different cockpits?  (767-400ER is already close, but can't wrap whole 767 under it because of -400ER)

- F28 vs F100 added

- But I disagree on EMB-110 vs EMB-120, it's a different plane all-together and new design (from what I know at least?). ERJ-145 shares the fuselage's basic diameters with EMB-120 though but it is also a really different plane.

Will manufacturer bonuses follow the mergers and buyouts?

Douglas into Mcdonnell Douglas into Boeing for example.

While buying parts from the factory is expensive I assume that Airbus will still make Bombardier commercial parts and Boeing will support the old 707s.

Quote from: lumberguy5 on May 27, 2025, 09:34:32 PMWill manufacturer bonuses follow the mergers and buyouts?

No, it's simply based on the manufacturer name (/ id number) which is static.

I have a further suggestion: the A350 and a380?

Etihad pilots are allowed to fly on both aircraft types. Source: https://www.airwaysmag.com/legacy-posts/etihad-pilots-certified-to-fly-both-a350-and-a380

I do think it is still the only airline, but maybe it can be added with a small bonus.

And something a little of topic, a year ago there was a page which listed all aircraft models in game, but it does't work/isn't available anymore, will this come back? And any plans for new aircrafts in the game?

Thnx for your hard work, really like this new commonality page!

Quote from: Sami on May 27, 2025, 08:09:07 PM- 707 vs 727 added

- 767 vs 777 is covered by 5% manufacturer bonus, I think that's enough since they are different designs to begin with and rather different cockpits?  (767-400ER is already close, but can't wrap whole 767 under it because of -400ER)

- F28 vs F100 added

- But I disagree on EMB-110 vs EMB-120, it's a different plane all-together and new design (from what I know at least?). ERJ-145 shares the fuselage's basic diameters with EMB-120 though but it is also a really different plane.

I think the 767 vs 777 with the 5% manufacturer is plenty good. It's a tough one to call, so that's easily plenty.

And I'm not confident either on the two EMBs. I always thought the 120 was "supposed" to be an enlarged 110 with pressurization, but that's word of mouth stuff.

Didn't know the 120 and ERJ were similar though. Could be fun to have a little more bonus between those two for smaller countries? Then smaller country based airlines can have a more diverse medium/small fleet.

Quote from: luke02 on May 28, 2025, 06:08:52 PMI have a further suggestion: the A350 and a380?

Etihad pilots are allowed to fly on both aircraft types. Source: https://www.airwaysmag.com/legacy-posts/etihad-pilots-certified-to-fly-both-a350-and-a380

I do think it is still the only airline, but maybe it can be added with a small bonus.

Actually Lufthansa has many of their pilots in MUC rated on both types simultaniously as well.

Quote from: Sami on May 27, 2025, 05:01:26 PMbtw. Would like to hear opinions on the Partial Commonality, and which models should be included there and why.

....

Any other fleet groups that should share a similarity bonus?

de Havilland Comet & Sud Aviation Caravelle - Sud Aviation worked a licensing deal with de Havilland to use the Comet's nose area and cockpit layout.

Piper PA-31 & PA-42 - even though no one uses them

DC6 & DC7 share a common type rating maybe DC4 in there too?

Update #6

- Commonality Calculator is now added.

- Added minor partial bonuses for A380 vs A350/A330+A340, B767 vs B777, PA-31 vs PA-42 and DC-6 vs DC-7.


This feature is now complete. Rollout to all other existing games starts soon.

This is great, especially the commonality calculator.

I played around with the calculator in the Age of Flight.  Seems like the calculator can only be used to figure commonality costs for aircraft that are currently flying.  Would it be possible to add all types that are currently available for order?  B707s and Bristol Brittanias, for instance, can be ordered but since they aren't flying in this game world, you can't see how adding one of these fleets would impact your commonality.

Quote from: chwatuva on June 25, 2025, 03:01:06 PMWould it be possible to add all types that are currently available for order?

Yep, I changed that now.

Is it possible to make the calculator for multiple fleets?

For example you may want to retire fleets A & B and replace them with fleet C. You want to see what your costs will be after you combine the fleets. Or the other way around where you want to split a single fleet into 2 new separate fleets? Thinking along the lines of the 707/DC8 transitions were some routes will go to a large aircraft like the 757 and some may go to a widebody like the 767/a330.

Quote from: Fisher970 on June 25, 2025, 10:13:15 PMIs it possible to make the calculator for multiple fleets?

Yes, but no. I want to keep it simple and move on to other development areas. :)

What was the rationale in implementing the change mid-way through a game?

Quote from: Jack Ruskin on June 26, 2025, 01:37:15 PMWhat was the rationale in implementing the change mid-way through a game?

The game worlds that have this update mid-game will still run for nearly 1 year, and I want to have the "latest product" available at all of them. And, not going to delay the launch of ESSENTIAL updates (v.2.0) just because we run very long game worlds, since having multiple versions running in parallel is a mess and also extremely confusing for users. And effects of this update are positive to the users in all aspects, so no reason to delay it. (MT game world was excluded from the update since it has so little running time left - makes no sense to update it this close to the end)

But as a general rule: Minor and Major new updates will ALWAYS be implemented to all running games, if feasible and if it does not have major adverse effects.

Update #7

The new v.2.0 commonality rules are now active in all game worlds, apart from the Modern Times which is ending soon.

Additionally:

Due to the transition, any "old" game worlds that were just updated to this new Fleet Commonality v.2.0 feature (AG and HatF), will have the old rule in force where aircraft with no routes scheduled will NOT count towards commonality costs. This is to avoid unnecessary fleet management that you have not planned.

Any other game worlds will have the full new ruleset for this new feature.

Not sure I'm a fan of having a fleet type that's completely unscheduled counting against commonality as it will add a good bit of expense to doing plane buying/brokering for fleets that you do not plan to fly. How can I make a deal with an alliance mate to sell them planes at cost when cost will then vary depending on how long it 1. Takes me to list them and 2. For them to buy/lease them?

I propose that fleet types that 1. Are not in service with your airline at any base and 2. All are located at your HQ that said fleet type does not count for commonality purposes.

Quote from: schro on June 27, 2025, 04:31:13 PMNot sure I'm a fan of having a fleet type that's completely unscheduled counting against commonality as it will add a good bit of expense to doing plane buying/brokering for fleets that you do not plan to fly.

The rationale is that if the aircraft is sitting on the tarmac and is "ready to fly", then you must have the paperwork and training etc. in order. In reality of course it's a 6-12 month project to introduce a new fleet type before you can hit the skies with that, but here that would be a bit too extreme so this "instant-cost" method is chosen.

But indeed have to think of some middle-way for this situation where you have no intention even to fly that fleet. Don't yet know what's the most feasible solution for this; ideas?

(but planes for sale in the market do not count into the expenses anyway)

Rather than having a new airplane delivered to one of your bases, could it be coded so that the plane could be delivered directly to storage (to allow for holding aircraft until using them to transition your own fleets) and transferred directly from storage to the used market (to allow for selling, including to alliance mates)?

Quote from: Sami on June 27, 2025, 08:52:18 PMThe rationale is that if the aircraft is sitting on the tarmac and is "ready to fly", then you must have the paperwork and training etc. in order. In reality of course it's a 6-12 month project to introduce a new fleet type before you can hit the skies with that, but here that would be a bit too extreme so this "instant-cost" method is chosen.

But indeed have to think of some middle-way for this situation where you have no intention even to fly that fleet. Don't yet know what's the most feasible solution for this; ideas?

(but planes for sale in the market do not count into the expenses anyway)

So, if the criteria I gave in the post was a no go...

What about the ability to have planes delivered from the market directly to storage, and allow them to be listed from storage? I would think that the prepping to move to a new owner/2 week delivery time from there would cover the "remove from storage time" (kind of like the seat changes are covered there).

I'd think adding "Long Term Storage" to the base drop down would be a quick way to do this for both New/Used orders, then allow us to list to the market from storage (assuming valid C/D checks). I think that'd also improve cases where a player has stored planes with valid C/D that they want to see if they could sell (but would prefer to scrap than pay another C/D check) as it'd fall back off the market into storage without getting auto-checked.

Alternatively, I think there's a feature request buried in the backlog that's about facilitating/automating player to player deals, but that's probably a bigger boondoggle to chase.

Now with these latest changes, would it make sense to split out Dornier 328 Jet to its own fleet group to leverage the speed and offer a very very low penalty commonality wise to the prop?

Great changes.  Way more realistic.

Thanks for this update, it's really a great addition to the game.

One fleet that I think should be addressed is the Dornier D328. The D328Jet has been pretty much unusable in game, because it's common type with its turboprop brother means it's flying at the same speed and simply burning more gas doing so.
I think it would make more sense to split the D328Jet off into its own fleet type, let it fly at its real life speed of M.59/380kts (at least that's the speed my research shows) and then give it major commonality boost of like 90% with the rest of the D328 family.

Thanks for considering.

Cheers,
Cedric

Quote from: joakimhz on June 29, 2025, 07:24:48 AMNow with these latest changes, would it make sense to split out Dornier 328 Jet to its own fleet group to leverage the speed and offer a very very low penalty commonality wise to the prop?

Yep, gotta do this for the next games.

Sorry for the late query, as just started up again after years away. A question after reading through the thread, and working off reality at work; 330/350 is a single type rating (as  is 757/767) and rostered as interchangeable but doesn't seem to be grouped together in the earlier lists or in game. Compared to 320/ 330/350 where we can fly both but just not on the same duty day.

Quote from: Sami on June 27, 2025, 08:52:18 PMThe rationale is that if the aircraft is sitting on the tarmac and is "ready to fly", then you must have the paperwork and training etc. in order. In reality of course it's a 6-12 month project to introduce a new fleet type before you can hit the skies with that, but here that would be a bit too extreme so this "instant-cost" method is chosen.

But indeed have to think of some middle-way for this situation where you have no intention even to fly that fleet. Don't yet know what's the most feasible solution for this; ideas?

(but planes for sale in the market do not count into the expenses anyway)

Simple solution would be to give a grace period of 1 game month (or 1 week real life) for a type that is not flown. For example you get A320, you dont use that type yourself, it sits on tarmac and if it is not put for sale within grace period, it would count towards fleet count. So if you manage put into UM and then you get next one, grace period starts all over again.

That would help in situations when you get back plane from lease and it wouldn`t go immediatly in your fleet costs.

Quote from: hjp766 on June 30, 2025, 10:04:05 PMSorry for the late query, as just started up again after years away. A question after reading through the thread, and working off reality at work; 330/350 is a single type rating (as  is 757/767) and rostered as interchangeable but doesn't seem to be grouped together in the earlier lists or in game. Compared to 320/ 330/350 where we can fly both but just not on the same duty day.

A350 has some partial commonality with 330/340 (very small for maint & bigger in training) and also very small with 320 (in training).

Quote from: debitants on July 01, 2025, 09:22:28 AMSimple solution would be to give a grace period of 1 game month (or 1 week real life) for a type that is not flown. For example you get A320, you dont use that type yourself, it sits on tarmac and if it is not put for sale within grace period, it would count towards fleet count. So if you manage put into UM and then you get next one, grace period starts all over again.

That would help in situations when you get back plane from lease and it wouldn`t go immediatly in your fleet costs.

This is probably the easiest way. Does have a few challenges technically though, but have to look into it.

Also note that we do have the "Automatically send leased out planes to long-term storage when aircraft are returned from lease" setting already available if needed.

Quote from: Sami on July 01, 2025, 11:33:22 AMThis is probably the easiest way. Does have a few challenges technically though, but have to look into it.

Also note that we do have the "Automatically send leased out planes to long-term storage when aircraft are returned from lease" setting already available if needed.

Yeah, but we can't list them back to the market from storage and that makes that a big pain.

I'm personally not a fan of the month of grace time, mostly because I'm lazy, and sometimes I'll go a half a game year between listing them (when time isn't of the essence, especially in a late stage part of the game like MT is now). I'd also guess that my suggestion would be a bit easier on the technical side versus tracking delivery/return dates and charging if certain conditions are met....

Update #8

Tweaks to the fleet commonality system. https://feedback.airwaysim.com/changelog/updates-17


    Added "Idle Fleet Types" rule to Fleet Commonality.

    A fleet type is considered idle (and exempt from commonality costs) if both of the following conditions are met: a) No aircraft of the fleet type are assigned to any active routes AND b) The oldest aircraft in the fleet type was delivered no more than 45 game days ago.

    This grace period ensures flexibility for airlines adding or returning fleet types (e.g. from leases from other players) without incurring immediate costs.

    This change is now "live" in all games apart from "Airline Generations" and "History and the Future". The change will apply to these two games next week - please check your idle fleets before that.

The updated rules mentioned in the previous message are now live in all game worlds, meaning the fleet commonality update is now finished.

QuoteNew features
Partial Commonality feature ("Fleet Similarity Bonuses") added. Similar models, such as A320 and A330 can now benefit from cost savings based on similarity between fleets.

Is there a list of all the models in the game that are affected by the Partial Commonality feature? I read about 757/756 and the example above and I know about the Saab 340/2000 but are there more?

Sami, it looks like there is some missing commonality between early Pratt Jet Engines.

The JT3C (called the J-57 in military applications) -> JT3D turbo fan version of the JT3C
The J-57 -> J-52 (which was a simplified development of the original J-57)
The J-52 -> JT-8D (which was the commercial turbofan version developed for civilian use)

I would say its fair that between series numbers, the commonality would be the greatest, but there should be some between the 3->8 as well.