Price of 727's too low

[Brian Peace]

My arguement would be that a 737-200 (an old plane) now costs 12,500,000 (which I think is fair) but a larger aircraft (the 727-200 adv, 727-200, and 727-200F) are all around 3.5 to 4 million.... tooo cheap!

They should be bumped up to around 15 mill or so at least. Just my 2 cents worth

[flightsimer]

ya i think the aircraft should cost what they did back then and not now... heck you can get a 737-200 for 500k nowadays...

[Quantum]

Hi,

To a certain extent everything is relative. My personal views are that many of the older less fuel efficient aircraft are overpriced. They are more difficult and expensive to operate even when any enhancement is made to the ticket prices. There is an incentive to buy them on FSA at lower prices although profits will be lower and VA growth slower. There are some aircrafts that are old and are still available today on the used market and they are very cheap to buy in real life. However, as in the real world by buying the more fuel efficient aircrafts on FSA the profits are greater and growth is quicker. In that respect FSA does mirror rl to some extent. I do think that some of the prices need to be reviewed especially those that were entered onto the database a long time ago and haven't been reviewed since.

Regards

John

[CAPFlyer]

Cost is very relative. The 737-200's are still in fairly high demand and thus demand a higher price. However, the 727 is not. The 727's have 2 "strikes" against them - 1) there are a lot of them available, and 2) not many are wanted due to European noise regulations and fuel "in"efficiency; so their price is much lower. v$12M versus v$4M is probably a bit too much of a difference, but the 737-200 being more expensive is not unrealistic.

[IslandBum]

I agree with John

Although Im not overly concerned with the size of our coffers , the most modern aircraft that VHA operates is the BAe146 - it is VERY difficult to make
a huge profit with any second generation Jet and nye on impossible with first gen. (with the exception of the 707/Dc8) Even "back then" as Tyler puts it
(Not getting at you Tyler - "Back then" was my youth) 727s were NOT overly expensive because of their numbers as Chris pointed out - the 737-200
remains to this day a viable aircraft in many parts of the world === Lets look at another aircraft--- FSairlines shows the MD80 series priced at 32M to 37M
a copy - The prices are totally out of proportion - the most our (real) airline has paid for a single MD80 is 1/8th those prices. So whats the deal there?
Most people on FSA apparently wish to fly (or buy and lease) modern aircraft - thats fine there are many of us who enjoy flying older aircraft especially as
there are some excellent representations of them for FS9 and FSX and FSair provides a purpose to our flying - so why force us to play the competitive
game - If you wish to make FSAirlines more realistic as far as this matter is concerned then make the maintenance costs for older aircraft higher - and remember again as Chris and John pointed out we who chose to fly these aircraft are consuming 3-4 times the amount of "virtual" Avjet as you are flying yor electric jets.

Horses for courses

Leif

[joefremont]

Personally I think our pricing for aircraft that are near the end of there RW economic lives is off, the 727's are too low. The reasons for this are:

1) Aircraft in FSA don't have to worry about noise restrictions, updating safety or avionics equipment or metal fatigue due.

Some of the RW jetliners you can get for a few mil are old junkers that are only two or three flights away from the scrap yard and the value reflects the scrap value of the airframe. Also since we added the ticket factor the extra revenue they can produce will offset there less fuel efficient engines.

2) The cost to maintain an aircraft in FSA is based on the value of the airframe.

Right now in FSA a new 737-800 costs almost 16 times the price of a used 727-200A, but you can't tell me that a 738 is going to cost 16 times more to maintain! Yes you will be able to get used parts for the 72A that will help lower the cost, but since its older airframe is going to require more hours of work to keep it functional.

I would propose that for older aircraft the price of them should never be lower than 1/2 the price of an equivalent new one.

[IslandBum]

Some of the RW jetliners you can get for a few mil are old junkers that are only two or three flights away from the scrap yard and the value reflects the scrap value of the airframe. Also since we added the ticket factor the extra revenue they can produce will offset there less fuel efficient engines.

Joe
I'll remind Maury Gallagher of that fact next time I see him -- I'm sure he will love to know his entire fleet is "one or two flights from the scrapheap" especially as the airline is one of only two making a profit for fiscal 2008


Leif

[alemaobaiano]

Leif

I was going to quote a report that Allegiant had recently bought a batch of MD-80s for US$4m each, and they are not an airline noted for buying old wrecks, but you got that one in first

If anything, the price of the 727 is correct, and the prices of many other "older" aircraft are too high, the MDs being a very good example. But, as maintenance is based on value , perhaps we need another maintenance cost scale? Year of introduction to service perhaps?

TTFN

[CAPFlyer]

While Leif was a bit blunt, there is no reason that we should change the pricing scheme "just because" (which is what you're proposing Joe). I and others have suggested several times that the way that maintenance is calculated needs to be changed and proposals of how to change it. It has been ignored or flat out refused every time and I don't see why we should have to "create" value for an aircraft where real world values are available just to satisfy some sort of "fairness".

Yes, it's more work to reprogram the system to do maintenance differently, but at the same time, it solves multiple problems to do it right instead of continuing to use what is in effect an arbitrary number and scheme that has no relation to the actual usage or reliability of the aircraft. Value-based charging is simple, but it is not realistic nor is it effective. Change to a time (flight) based maintenance schedule whose cost are based on the weight of the aircraft with modifiers based on the operating cost of the aircraft (i.e. fuel consumption) and the type of aircraft (pistion, jet, turboprop, or helicopter). Basically, the heavier, the more expensive it is to maintain (this is fairly universal) and the more fuel it burns (i.e. the more inefficient it is) the more the maintenance on the power usually costs because it tends to wear out those components faster than an aircraft with a higher efficiency powerplant. As well, pistons and helicopters tend to require more maintenance per flight hour than jets or turboprops (due to increased complexity of the moving components) and turboprops tend to be only slightly more expensive than jets due to their inherent fuel efficiency making up for much of the added complexity of the gearbox and/or free turbine and propeller assembly(s).

[Myrm]

To those stating that the price of the 727 is too low:

Tell you what; I'll buy some 727's at the "too low" price and sell them to you for a more realistic greater price. How's that then?

[joefremont]

Chris, I am not apposed to changing the way we calculate maintenance costs. Many moons ago I made this proposal that was not accepted, of course at the time I was not in a position to implement it.

http://www.fsairlines.net/forum/viewtop ... 037&p=5078

I am willing to revive that proposal as a starting point for a new maintenance cost formula.

[CAPFlyer]

Joe, I still think we need to go to a time based maintenance system with a percentage based failure system is the way to go. Percentage based maintenance just doesn't work as well since your maintenance can be too easily minimized by maintaining it before you go through the threshold for the next level of maintenance.

Also, I think we still need to have 4 levels of aircraft - jet, turboprop, helicopter, and piston. Those levels would trigger modifiers that would (in that order) progressively increase cost to account for level of difficulty to maintain (and thus cost). Beyond that, your original proposal still holds the same merit I said before.

[Brian Peace]

Ok I guess my point is. a 727 is 4 million, a cargo 72Q is less yet... but a DC10-30F - also a OLD airplane - is 118 million????? Let's revisit that then