Maintenance Cost

[herrgoda]

Maintenance should be the same as fuel costs. We all know that older engines use more fuel than new ones. But AM ignores that. Why? Because it would be too complicated to make this cost variable.

Maintenance cost should be much more simple than it is now. I understand that under the current calculation, displaying that cost is difficult. So what I'm suggesting is reshape the maintenance cost structure and make it more aircraft based. On the same train, introduce discounts if an airline has more planes from the same manufacturer.

Or at least introduce an extra field "current maintenance cost" for each plane.

Older jets DO consume more fuel than newer jets. Even in AM. The 747 uses almost double the amount the A340 needs, so that is reflected in the game. And engines do not consume more fuel when they get older. This is only true for badly-maintained engines, which would have failed decades ago anyway...

As for changing the way maintenance is calculated right now: I totally agree, as the current calculation is far from what one would expect, and maintenance costs rocketing to 600% after not even 2 years of service? Honestly, this can not be realistic. At this rate you'd have to constantly replace your fleet on a yearly basis to maintain some sort of profit...

[Chavaquiah]

Since the previously posted code was removed I'll try to avoid quoting it too much. Anyway, shouldn't COUNT(is_focus) be replaced with SUM(is_focus) or something along these lines?

[neo]

i got a maintenance cost of 598,911,379
which I have 158 planes
that is 3,790,578 each

but in grand total, i pay 10.6 B737-300 each month for maintenance
i dont think it make sense.. and is totally stupid!!


maintenance is making up 70% of my total cost,
which today airlines main composition of cost
should be oil, which account for less than 15% of my cost

should the formula be changed to reflect the reality?

[iranair777]

should the formula be changed to reflect the reality?

If fuel and oil is being charged less than maint, then definitely yes
EDIT: Just checked and OMG! Fuel being charged is only 4.1million in total and maint is 121.7million for a fleet of 54!

[Virgin Serbia]

When buying a new aircraft, fuel burn should be an important factor. At the moment, maint` is.  
The difference in fuel burn between a fleet of 737-200 and 737-500 is hardly noticeable...

[herrgoda]

Since the previously posted code was removed I'll try to avoid quoting it too much. Anyway, shouldn't COUNT(is_focus) be replaced with SUM(is_focus) or something along these lines?

Ehm, no as SUM would return the number of all gates at airports marked as focus city. Count only returns the number of fields.

[Chavaquiah]

Since the previously posted code was removed I'll try to avoid quoting it too much. Anyway, shouldn't COUNT(is_focus) be replaced with SUM(is_focus) or something along these lines?

Ehm, no as SUM would return the number of all gates at airports marked as focus city. Count only returns the number of fields.

Not quite. Yes, if you were summing gates, but it seems to me that "is_focus" is a bit field describing if a city is a base. In SQL, counting this will in effect count ones and zeros, thus yielding the number of cities where you have gates, not the number of bases.

On another thread ( http://www.stephenm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64199 )...

The number of Engineers is the fleet size divided by 3. [...] Each Engineer is on an annualised salary of €42,000. [...] The AM Monthly cost for an Engineer is 3,500. Due to the cost of running multiple bases, the cost of Engineers are multiplied by the number of bases, divided by 2. (6 bases, 3 times the Engineer Cost)

For Tech Services staff, its the fleet size divided by 3, and a monthly pay of €2,500. There is no penalty for multiple bases, as these staff are in the HQ and not in the Line Station/Base.

Trouble is this month my costs with "Monthly Engineer & Tech Services Salaries" alone were €1,380,453,750. This for 1,584 delivered planes. If you deduct 1584 / 3 * €2500 for Tech Staff, that leaves €1,379,133,750 for engineers. At €3,500 per month, that's over 394 thousand engineers on my payroll! 1584 planes should require 528 times some factor. This factor should be 3.5 (7 bases / 2) but is instead 746.

That or I do indeed employ 394,038 engineers. Small wonder my planes never have problems and are always on time.

[Shawa]

Hey just rename your airline as NASA and appply for gov't funding

[herrgoda]

Not quite. Yes, if you were summing gates, but it seems to me that "is_focus" is a bit field describing if a city is a base. In SQL, counting this will in effect count ones and zeros, thus yielding the number of cities where you have gates, not the number of bases.

I'd need to know the structure of the database for that, something I don't know (and probably never will). Maybe the field for non-focus airports has no value at all, and will thus not be counted as it's void.

Trouble is this month my costs with "Monthly Engineer & Tech Services Salaries" alone were €1,380,453,750. This for 1,584 delivered planes. If you deduct 1584 / 3 * €2500 for Tech Staff, that leaves €1,379,133,750 for engineers. At €3,500 per month, that's over 394 thousand engineers on my payroll! 1584 planes should require 528 times some factor. This factor should be 3.5 (7 bases / 2) but is instead 746.

That or I do indeed employ 394,038 engineers. Small wonder my planes never have problems and are always on time.

Are you sure you got the correct price? I have 140 planes around, and my tech salaries add up to 21m monthly, so yours should be around 250m or so, with that fleet...
Anyway: I don't know where the 21m come from, as:
140/3 is roughly 47.
47x2500=117,500
47x3500x3=493,500
117,500+493,500=611,000

Even if tech staff earned the quoted amount _daily_, I'd still be 7m below the 21m I am charged. The salaries are in fact more than 34x as high as they should be....

[Air Elbonia]

Trouble is this month my costs with "Monthly Engineer & Tech Services Salaries" alone were €1,380,453,750. This for 1,584 delivered planes. If you deduct 1584 / 3 * €2500 for Tech Staff, that leaves €1,379,133,750 for engineers. At €3,500 per month, that's over 394 thousand engineers on my payroll! 1584 planes should require 528 times some factor. This factor should be 3.5 (7 bases / 2) but is instead 746.

That or I do indeed employ 394,038 engineers. Small wonder my planes never have problems and are always on time.

Actually, thanks. that was a bug.  I've corrected it. (it's not bitwise, it's tinyint in hopes that we can eventually pull off hub upgrades, however a quick mod to the where clause should have fixed it).

Hmm.  I've also modified the formula slightly.  Unfortunately for myself, I've stared at that dozens of times and missed what Herrgoda found.  Most all active players should see a drop in their maintenance costs. a few inactive ones should see a small increase. but they're inactive, so...

I used total aircraft value and average fleet age for my calculations to back the above statement.

[herrgoda]

I am curious how large the effect of your alterations will be. I guess we'll see at the next month change?

[yourefired]

Good. I hope the drop is significant because my profit margin went from 48% to 36%. And my maintenance cost went up €150 million for adding 10 planes to my fleet. I know you don't expect me to believe that the maintenance cost of a DC9-50 is anywhere NEAR 15 million.

[epxair]

i guess my Maintenance Fees are the highest among all of u guys :shock:....with a monthly cost of €5,465,521,763

[Vamerica]

i guess my Maintenance Fees are the highest among all of u guys :shock:....with a monthly cost of €5,465,521,763

Well Vegas might, his or her airline is loaded with concords

[Seattle]

i guess my Maintenance Fees are the highest among all of u guys :shock:....with a monthly cost of €5,465,521,763

Do you lose money? :shock: