Aircraft Allowance Reminder

General AVIATION RELATED chatter

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

Locked
User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Aircraft Allowance Reminder

Post by CAPFlyer » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:24 pm

Just a reminder to everyone -

Military aircraft and aircraft *NOT* in the civilian fleet (this means operated by a non-manufacturer) are *NOT* allowed in FlyNET. The aircraft have to see revenue service for an airline before the aircraft will be added to FlyNET.

This means that the following aircraft which were submitted to the list recently are *NOT* acceptable under the rules set forth by Konny -


A300-600ST "Beluga"
V-22
A380


Please read the rules before submitting aircraft to the database. None of the DB Admins like to repeatedly deny aircraft being added to the database.
Image

User avatar
cmdrnmartin
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
Location: CYWG

Post by cmdrnmartin » Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:26 pm

Please read the rules on submissions, especially the bold red text dealing with the A380.

It will be added when it enters service. Not before.
Image
Image

pete999

Post by pete999 » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:07 pm

The Beluga will never enter to airlines!

But I still think it should be added as it is used all the time by airbus!

I can see why the A380 isnt available tho!

Pete

Redhmt
Ticket Agent
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Redhmt » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:16 pm

I hold my hands up to one of them, the A300-600ST, I know it never went into civilian use as it is used exclusively by airbus to transport aircraft parts, but who is to say airbus wouldnt sell some to cargo carriers if they requested them?

I really don't see why it can't be added to the database, I can understand why others ( fighter jets....A380) wont be,but at the end of the day its Konny who sets the rules so if I can't have a couple of Beluga's (god that plane is ugly :)) then so be it.

The above is just my personal opinion and not intended to cause any offense.

Phil
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Post by joefremont » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:38 pm

While I am in total agreement that military aircraft and aircraft that have not entered civilian fleet have no place in flynet but I think the A300-600ST "Beluga" does have a place. It does have a civilian type certificate and has entered service with airbus for civilian cargo missions. I am sure if someone approached airbus sales they would be happy to build one for them (for the right price), they would probably even be willing to do charters if it would not interfere with there production schedules.

A parallel example is the Antonov An-225 which is already in the system, only one is in service and its owned and operated by Antonov itself, which charters it out for cargo missions.

For the record I did not submit the A300-600ST for approval nor do I have any plans to operate it if it is approved.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Post by joefremont » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:59 pm

More information in support of the beluga.

From the airbus website
A wide range of commercial charter missions have been performed by Airbus Transport International, from airlifting a 17.6-metre-long x 6.5-metre-diameter chemical tank weighing 39 metric tonnes to transporting a large French masterpiece painting.
http://www.airbus.com/en/services/airtransport/

From airliners.net
Program management of the A300-600ST is the responsibility of the Special Aircraft Transport Company, or SATIC, an economic interest grouping formed on a 50/50 basis by Aerospatiale and DASA operating on behalf of Airbus Industrie. While much of the work on the aircraft is performed by the Airbus partners, other European companies are also involved in the program.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=19

In this case it has performed charters for clients other than airbus and is operated by a company partially owned by airbus so I see no reason to deny it.

We will have similar situation when the Boeing 747 LCF enters service.

Personally I think the standard for inclusion should be modified slightly to allow non experimental aircraft operated by only there manufacturer that were used to transport civilian personnel or cargo.
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:01 am

Sorry guys, but this was discussed quite some time ago and the conclusion was made by Konny not to allow aircraft like the Beluga and other aircraft only operated by the manufacturer into the database.

Here's two REALLY good reasons why too -

1) Price. We don't have a "sale" price for the aircraft as they've never been offered for purchase. The Beluga hasn't and the LCF hasn't, so there are no prices set for these aircraft. How do we set the price for aircraft that have no analogue? How do we set "realistic" cost metrics for these aircraft if/when we change some of the ways things are done since that information is not available to the public?

2) Limitations of FlyNET. FlyNET only observes weight, not size. Both the LCF and Beluga are built for very specific missions and their actual weight carrying capability is very limited. They can carry outsized cargos, but not particularly heavy ones. In the real world, if the LCF or Beluga were in actual civilian service, they would demand much higher prices per pound because of their purpose. FlyNET doesn't allow for that.

Until Konny decides otherwise, the rule is the rule.
Image

AK_Dave

Post by AK_Dave » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:02 am

Not trying to stir things up....but I notice the BUFF is one of the aircraft in the dB. Sooooo.......B-52's have seen civilian commercial service? Tell me about it. (I'm really interested, not, as I said, trying to be a jerk).

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Post by joefremont » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:47 am

CAPFlyer wrote: Until Konny decides otherwise, the rule is the rule.
If that is the case we should probably drop the Antonov AN-225 from the database, I don't think anyone is operating it.

Dave, apparently the B-52 was in the system before the rule was adopted and was grandfathered. I think only one is in service and they are not going to allow any more.
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:59 am

Joe, the An-225s are in use by Antonov Airlines (a joint venture of Antonov Design Bureau and Air Foyle if I remember correctly). However, in this case, it is just like the B-52, it was grandfathered in and most likely no more will be allowed (unlike the An-124 which is still in production in the real world).

There are aircraft in the database that have been "grandfathered" as some have gathered. The reason for this being mostly that some people had gotten the aircraft before the rule was adopted and approved and as such, it would be unfair to force them to give up what they'd "legally" purchased. The B-52 is a major loosing enterprise anyway since it doesn't carry passengers or cargo. It's mainly just a "showpiece" for the airline that owns it.
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:08 am

Okay, now there's no more argument. The An-225 has been removed from the database. I checked the database and the 2 that had been bought are gone (completely) so there are no An-225s in use which means I could safely delete the entry. So, now we conform 100% with the rule in that there are no aircraft in the database that haven't seen civilian revenue service outside of the manufacturer.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Post by joefremont » Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:52 am

Consistency is good.
Image

pete999

Post by pete999 » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am

Euro Link would like to have the Beluga as a show piece please! :)

ivanT3

Post by ivanT3 » Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:04 am

Um, can I have a space shuttle?? DOH {duck%^&* Run} :roll: :roll:

Locked