Aircraft Age

[oddward]

I am not sure if this has been suggested yet, but the idea is that when an aircraft reaches a certain number of cycles or miles it should be scrapped, if you decide not to replace it you will incur fines from a body such as the CAA for operating an aircraft that is unsafe as this is what would happen in real life if you continued to operate an aircraft that is over it's recommended number of cycles. This could in theory lead to an ability to implement crashes which would only happen after an extended period in the danger zone and therefore not effect new players unless they decide to buy an old plane and then run it beyond the limit in which case it would be their fault for the incident if they don't replace the plane. If i plane is over the max number of cycles then it should not be possible to buy on the market and must be sold for scrap. A fine should be imposed per flight the plane makes depending on several variables possible ones would be, Number of passengers on board, the fare, the distance and how far over the cycle limit the plane is.

[pseudoswede]

Seriously, what part of "random events like crashes will never be implemented" do people not understand?

There are many airlines in the world that operate really old aircraft. The insanely high maintenance costs associated with very old planes ensures that they are maintained enough to operate safely.

[Virgin Serbia]

As it is now, the maintenance formula won't allow for it. Right now we have to scrap newish (3 - 6 years old) planes because they are too expensive to operate. 

[oddward]

I am not saying we should allow crashes but it would create a region in which people would know a crash could happen unlike previous suggestions which could happen to a brand new aircraft.

[1993matias]

Maybe when the maintenance formula has been fixed and we have persuaded Stephen to make random events in the game.

[Virgin Serbia]

I am not saying we should allow crashes but it would create a region in which people would know a crash could happen unlike previous suggestions which could happen to a brand new aircraft.

It's the same thing Crashes (old or new) won't be implemented.

[oddward]

you are missing the point of this i am not suggesting that crashes should be implemented i am suggesting a way to make it more "realistic". i made the point that IF crashes  were implemented then there would be a region in which it was expected not just at anytime

[Virgin Serbia]

you are missing the point of this i am not suggesting that crashes should be implemented i am suggesting a way to make it more "realistic". i made the point that IF crashes were implemented then there would be a region in which it was expected not just at anytime

It's a rather pointless suggestion anyway. As it is, planes already cost more to operate as they age. Which is very realistic (we just need to fix the formula so the planes can remain in service for 20 years). And statistics show that newer planes crash more often than older planes, at least in the west.

Besides, it's not a question IF crashes will be implemented. They wont be. Never. StephenM has already said no many times.

Besides, many airlines operate old planes without any problems. Delta operates DC-9s that are over 40 years old. American Airlines, SAS, Delta and Alitalia all operate antiquated MD-80s that are up to 30 years old. Southwest has plenty of 20+ 737-300s. Lufthansa operates a Ju-52, and is slated to receive a Lockheed Constellation within the next few years. Oldest mainline LH plane is a 25 year 737-300. Air Baltic has a 23 year old Fokker 50. Greenlandair operates 2 46 year old S-61s.

[1993matias]

The basic idea is to have fines if the aircraft is too old. Crashes are only a 'bonus' idea.

[Virgin Serbia]

The basic idea is to have fines if the aircraft is too old. Crashes are only a 'bonus' idea.

Already implemented -> mx costs.

I have never heard of any airline receiving a fine for operating old aircraft. If a plane reaches the limit of it's cycles, it either undergoes a check where it is reset (I've only heard of this for C-130s though), or it is simply withdrawn from service and not allowed to fly.

[PatrickZ]

or it is simply withdrawn from service and not allowed to fly.

And as far as I understand, that's the basic idea behind it.

I know Martinair has recently returned their 767's to Boeing because they had reached the maximum number of cycles allowed for the airframe. Boeing has to determine wether the planes are still safe enough to continue service for some time, or that they should be scrapped. Martinair has used these plane very intensively so their 767's are currently the ones with the most cycles.

On the other hand I know of some company from Iran that still flies a 707, the only one in the world still in passenger service. This plane has been in military service before and therefor has very few cycles, the military rarely used it. So it still has a lot of cycles ahead before it is to be withdrawn from service. Other 707's that have flown more have long been retired.

[DAirways]

Do you mean Saha Air?
I once flew on its 707s

[Virgin Serbia]

On the other hand I know of some company from Iran that still flies a 707, the only one in the world still in passenger service. This plane has been in military service before and therefor has very few cycles, the military rarely used it. So it still has a lot of cycles ahead before it is to be withdrawn from service. Other 707's that have flown more have long been retired.

Thats probably not the best example though. There are other reasons that Saha still flies the old 707s, among them the fact that Saha is in fact owned and run by the Iranian Air Force, and the embargo on new planes for Iran. On top of that they have low oil prices.

The Iranians couldn't care less about operating airliners beyond what the Americans say is safe.