Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

You are missing something, or have a cool idea for us ? Tell us here !

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

Post Reply
ygor_ma
Ticket Agent
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:57 pm

Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by ygor_ma » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:47 pm

Well, hi again guys!

It would't be a good idea if when we buy an aircraft, and then the aircraft apears in the manufacturer hub. Like this: if i bought a Boeing aircraft, the aircraft will apear at boeing field at seattle, so i need to call a pilot to take the aircraft to our main hub. The first flight would be empty, because they are only tranporting the aircraft. Or if the VA want, they pay an tax to tranfer the aircraft location. With small kind aircraft this would be like the actual system, nothing changes, because i think that there is a delivery for this kind of aircraft.

In real life, companies, or private pilots must to pay to change the aicraft registration.

It would't be interesting if the companies could choose the way that they pay the pilots? For %, hour, night flights calculation, etc..

Sorry for the english again!
Image
Image

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

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by CAPFlyer » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:45 pm

Yes and no. Boeing delivers airplanes wherever the customer wants them delivered. Often, it's not at Everett or Renton. Many times, its at the customers "home base" because of favorable a tax situation for the customer. Other times, it's a "third party" country for the same reason. Occasionally, it's over international waters off the west coast of the US, again for the same reason (i.e. plane takes off from the plant as a Boeing plane, lands as a customer plane).

I think the current system where you can specify the delivery location for new aircraft allows for everyone to simulate that idea however they want. The only aircraft that appear "randomly" are out-of-production models, which would be realistic since in essence you're buying a used aircraft, not a new one.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2254
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by joefremont » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:23 pm

Personally I am more along the lines of having a manufactures hub, yes they will usually deliver it where you want but that is factored into the price on the contract. I have also though it strange that in our system, if you want a new aircraft you can get as many as you want right away, but if you want a used aircraft you may have to wait (if there are none in the market right now). A more realistic would be you place your order, it goes into the production line queue and you get it after it rolls of the production line, after the airlines who placed there orders first. 787's are rolling of the production line now but if you order a real one from Boeing today you will have to wait years for delivery. But i don't think we want our airlines having to wait that long.

I am not planning on making any changes on this any time soon.
Image

ygor_ma
Ticket Agent
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:57 pm

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by ygor_ma » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:26 pm

Ok, that is correct, i totaly agree with both.

But what about the payment, and the aircraft registration?
Image
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2254
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by joefremont » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:49 pm

To the best of my knowledge, registering an aircraft is pretty cheap, according to this URL the FAA charges only 10$ and another 10$ to change the N-number.

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificate ... _nnumbers/

Do you have additional information on this?
Image

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

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by CAPFlyer » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:20 pm

Yeah, registration fees in most countries are fairly trivial. I wouldn't over complicate things by adding them in, just consider them "included" in the cost of operation. ;)

As for pilot pay, I know I'd discussed it with Konrad many, many moons ago about allowing other options, but it was a "low priority" project since it's not just adding a few lines of code to make sure it works right.

However, I'd like to see the following methods -

1) Percentage of Profit
2) Flat Per Hour (rates set by type, fleet, or rank)
3) Flat Per Mile (rates set by type, fleet, or rank)
4) Salary (flat rate per month as long as "X" flights are completed) - mainly for managers

I wouldn't get into trying to add bonuses for night or other things like that. Very, very few airlines have differentials just because you fly at night or because you were on time. It's considered "part and parcel" to your job to be able to fly at night, in bad weather, and be on time, so why would you give bonuses for doing what you're supposed to do? :)
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2254
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by joefremont » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:26 am

Agreed. The cost of the registration is trivial, its the inspection where the real cost is. Now we can assume the cost for the standard A-Check or B-Check includes the inspection. We could require that every aircraft at least have an A-check within one year or its grounded. We could even require it more often if the airline is using a high multiplier.

Another thing that has always bugged me is that we base the cost of maintenance on the current market value of the aircraft rather than the size of the aircraft. Right now in our DB a 737-400 has a market value of 11.5m and a 737-800 has a market value of 78.5, which are based on real world values. Both aircraft are about the same size, but you can't tell me that a -800 costs almost 7 times as much to maintain as a -400. I would prefer a new formula based on empty weight, number of engines and engine type (piston engines being more expensive than turbines or jets).

The idea of different pay scales is interesting. Would probably include a per flight also. We could combine it with something so that airlines could set the minimum number of flights/hours a pilot would have to do to maintain a type rating. It would be optional of course and the airlines could set who it applies to, so maybe minimum hours a month/quarter would apply to junior pilots but not senior pilots.
Image

User avatar
MMattyK
Captain
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:05 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by MMattyK » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:07 am

Regarding manufacturing hubs, how will aircraft out of production be catered for, especially if the original airfield is no longer in use in any capacity? I'm thinking of vintage aircraft such as the deHavilland airliners.
Regarding maintenance costs, I think it depends upon just how detailed you want to go/get. You could argue that out of production aircraft will be more expensive to maintain than in production aircraft as well, and the longer out of production the more expensive (progressively with time) repairs become, and it will also be affected by the number of aircraft type in use, regardless of age... market forces (I imagine) would have better spares availabillity, engineering expertise (and cheaper) when (for example) 600 of an ac type is in still in use, rather than 6 if you get my drift.
I think that compatabillity of spares between models would also have a bearing on these costs, but could also impact turnround maintenance times, and maintenance teams/space available at an airport at any given time. For example, my airline is based in Brussels, so perhaps my aircraft maintenance should be a priority at that base, so if I have an aircraft in maintenance at that airport, other aircraft requiring maintenance who do not have Brussels as their base and aircraft require servicing, has to wait until my aircraft servicing is complete, and likewise, I can only service a specific maximumun number of aircraft at any given time, anything over the maintenance space available will have to wait until hanger space/maintenance teams become available.
There will also be limitations of what airport can support (maintenance wise) what aircraft.
Perhaps a good addition will be adding maintenance 'slots' at airports, perhaps by a number, and also allocating aircraft types a number of maintenace 'slots' required to do specific servicings (eg a DH Rapide 1 slot for an A-check, and a 747 48 slots for an A-check). At an airport which has 24 maintenance 'slots' available, a rapide would complete an A check in 1/24th of a day (an hour), whereas the 747 would take 48/24th (2 days) to complete an A-check. The numbers are purely for demonstration purposes. By implementing servicing in this manner, it might be easier to sort the costings out.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2254
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by joefremont » Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:45 pm

In Hubs for out of production aircraft, retired aircraft they often end up at mothball centers like we have out here in Tucson Arizona or Mojave California. We could designate one such center on each continent and out of production aircraft could end up there.

Maintenance of older aircraft is an interesting question and one that came up before. I would agree that older aircraft will need more repairs, but then this could be offset by the availability of used and rebuilt parts. There are on our systems, several airlines that specialize in vintage aircraft, I would not want to put them at too much of a disadvantage. One idea I had for a formula started with the idea that for a four engine prop liner the cost of maintaining the engines would be the same as the rest of the aircraft. So the 'maintenance value' of any aircraft would be something like dry weight * (8 + number of engines * engine type factor) * some constant, where the engine type factor would be 1 for jets, 1.5 for turbo props and 2 for piston. The constants would be set so the average maintenance cost would close to what it is today.

Maintenance centers is an interesting idea. Maybe an airline could build a maintenance center at an airport, with a cost to buy and maintain, but then a lower cost to work on aircraft. Maybe even get a profit when it works on aircraft for different airlines.
Image

User avatar
MMattyK
Captain
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:05 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Manufacturer Hubs and other ideas

Post by MMattyK » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:46 am

I'll start a new thread regarding maintenance centres and maintenance pricing.
Image

Post Reply