Aircraft storage / mothballing unused aircraft

[Virgin Serbia]

How about a feature that allows you to mothball an aircraft?

Mothballing an aircraft would remove all maintenance costs as long as the aircraft is stored. The aircraft will keep the same value while in storage. Storing the aircraft, however, will cost a standard fee pr. month, and when bringing an aircraft back from storage, it will take 24 hours to bring it back to the fleet (due to checks and such, also performed in the real world). 

What says thar captain and his crew?

[pseudoswede]

Regardless if a plane is being used or not, it will lose value over time.

[Virgin Serbia]

Regardless if a plane is being used or not, it will lose value over time.

Yes, you are right. That was a stupid proposal, i don't know what i was thinking.

But maintenance costs would be 0.

[1993matias]

I think it's a great idea! I'm the type of person who buys lots of planes, just to have them standing there until you get the time and obsession to create mor e routes.

[danielkang1234]

I think it's a great idea! I'm the type of person who buys lots of planes, just to have them standing there until you get the time and obsession to create mor e routes.

So am I! Im all for it!

[Mastafa]

I think it's a great idea! I'm the type of person who buys lots of planes, just to have them standing there until you get the time and obsession to create mor e routes.

So am I! Im all for it!

I second that x64

[CHR]

I think there is some merit to the suggestion. When maintenance is revised, the costs will be tied to aircraft utilisation, so in effect, not using an aircraft will lower long term maintenance costs. I think that, under such a system, it makes sense to partially tie aircraft value to utilisation too (as a well used, worn out, aircraft is going to be worth less than an unused one). In effect, I think a new maintenance and value formula could implement a large part of this suggestion.

The idea for long term storage has been brought up before, and I think it has been fairly well received. I don't think it is too much of a priority, but I don't think it would hurt to have an additional feature to mothball planes. I think that there should be some, albeit considerably reduced, maintenance costs for the aircraft. I would agree with the idea of having a 24 hour period to bring the plane back into service - which would discourage people mothballing planes to avoid a day or two's maintenance costs before they use the planes.

[StephenM]

Before I took a holiday and moved house I was about a days work away from a test world running the new maintenance formula. Thats all gone on the back burner once again but to be honest there's no point in having a solution such as this when we are so close to beginning a full test of the new maintenance formula. In the new system having a plane with 24 hours on it will have a very low maintenance cost which is as good as aircraft storage.

[pseudoswede]

Before I took a holiday and moved house I was about a days work away from a test world running the new maintenance formula. Thats all gone on the back burner once again but to be honest there's no point in having a solution such as this when we are so close to beginning a full test of the new maintenance formula. In the new system having a plane with 24 hours on it will have a very low maintenance cost which is as good as aircraft storage.

That's all fine and dandy. However...

For those that may have a lot of aircraft (with 24 hours on them) available to create routes with, it would be nice to have a "hangar" option so that such aircraft aren't displayed for selection when creating routes. My only current solution to the problem is to have the aircraft listed on the open market for 133%, but that still won't prevent people from buying them.

[Virgin Serbia]

Before I took a holiday and moved house I was about a days work away from a test world running the new maintenance formula. Thats all gone on the back burner once again but to be honest there's no point in having a solution such as this when we are so close to beginning a full test of the new maintenance formula. In the new system having a plane with 24 hours on it will have a very low maintenance cost which is as good as aircraft storage.

That's all fine and dandy. However...

For those that may have a lot of aircraft (with 24 hours on them) available to create routes with, it would be nice to have a "hangar" option so that such aircraft aren't displayed for selection when creating routes. My only current solution to the problem is to have the aircraft listed on the open market for 133%, but that still won't prevent people from buying them.

Place them on the leasing market for an insane price for a 1 month lease.

[PatrickZ]

Good suggestion, I like it.

However, what to do with aircraft on sale? Can you sell a mothballed aircraft or do you need to put it back into the fleet before putting it on the market? Right now I got a number of aircraft grounded because they are on sale, but I havent sold them yet. If mothballing would be possible, would you have to choose between putting an aircraft on the market or mothballing it or could it be combined? Can you sell a mothballed aircraft?

[StephenM]

For those that may have a lot of aircraft (with 24 hours on them) available to create routes with, it would be nice to have a "hangar" option so that such aircraft aren't displayed for selection when creating routes. My only current solution to the problem is to have the aircraft listed on the open market for 133%, but that still won't prevent people from buying them.

That can be done as an expansion out of the fleet management system. Just assign the aircraft to a special fleet that is excluded from appearing on the create route page.

My proposed solution of the fleet management system approach would allow aircraft to be for sale and excluded from the create route page, even though simply having them for sale would already exclude them.