Is fleet/Pilot commonality overhyped?

To be frank its a very complex subject. However as someone who has seen the effects of fleet commonality, I can tell you the cost savings are not to be sniffed at – i.e. several million ££s!!!

With regards to the benefits on the crew side of things, if an airline operates a fleet of 10 a/c for its short haul operation, regardless if its a single type or mixed fleet, the airline will still need approximately the same number of pilots.

733 was a huge improvement on the 732. 732, I suspect like many jet transports of its generation, was a bit of a challenge to the tyro jet pilot. Very ‘twitchy’ is the best summation….speed unstable (especially on the approach), just breath on the rudder and the machine would roll dramatically (secondary effect of rudder with a swept wing). Plus nothing like FMCs or anything like that. Blasting off towards the Canaries across the water involved pointing towards a strong commercial radio station on Tenerife, and cross checking position from VOR beacons in Portugal and Morrocco….nothing like now when almost every jet tracks the airway centreline to within a matter of metres!

733, handled like a larger jet I always thought. With (reasonably) big fan engines, just set the correct power setting on the approach and the speed was correct. Much easier to handle….most of the ‘twitchiness’ of the 732 seeemed to have been designed out. Plus, of course, FMC, with all its benefits

However……….as a first jet to fly, 732 was just fine, as the Mark 1 brain had to used to a large extent. It was a great learning experience!

Thanks for that, very interesting.

It seems though that the B737 NG’s aren’t a great improvement from the classics. I have heard that they aren’t built as well, not nice in crosswinds, unforgiving landing gear, a bumpier ride in turbulence becuse of the thinner wing, not as nice to hand fly as the classics.

Flex 35

Moondance, A bit off topic here but did you enjoy flying the 300?

733 was a huge improvement on the 732. 732, I suspect like many jet transports of its generation, was a bit of a challenge to the tyro jet pilot. Very ‘twitchy’ is the best summation….speed unstable (especially on the approach), just breath on the rudder and the machine would roll dramatically (secondary effect of rudder with a swept wing). Plus nothing like FMCs or anything like that. Blasting off towards the Canaries across the water involved pointing towards a strong commercial radio station on Tenerife, and cross checking position from VOR beacons in Portugal and Morrocco….nothing like now when almost every jet tracks the airway centreline to within a matter of metres!

733, handled like a larger jet I always thought. With (reasonably) big fan engines, just set the correct power setting on the approach and the speed was correct. Much easier to handle….most of the ‘twitchiness’ of the 732 seeemed to have been designed out. Plus, of course, FMC, with all its benefits

However……….as a first jet to fly, 732 was just fine, as the Mark 1 brain had to used to a large extent. It was a great learning experience!

There are actually 2 issues here as well IMHO. Mixed Fleet Flying and Cross Crew Qualification. MFF is what BA currently do as can be evidenced by 1L’s profile and CCQ is the 757/767 common type rating. I can go to work in the morning in a 757 and come home in a 767 whereas this is not permitted with MFF. Pilot training costs can be huge and do have quite an influence of direct operating costs and therefore the seat/mile cost as does the original purchase price.

Purchase price on its own is not a deciding factor but then I don’t think any one issue is. It is all about the package and the contracts that are offered. Many arilines don’t actually own their aircraft but lease them. Some even buy them, sell the to a leasing company and lease them back to be able to run the budget efficiently and not having millions tied up in aluminium. I think EZY ended up with the Airbus because the price was right and the fact that Airbus included some very favourable clauses in the contract like conversion of options and performance guarantees.

I don’t think you can ever say that someting that saves money in a very tight industry can ever be overhyped. Maybe the goal posts have moved though.

Andrewm – Am I to assume that my, and other pilots on the forum don’t hold the same regard as the others you mention?

Commonality wasn’t overhyped. It was a tremendous economic and operational benefit. Even though it occasionally meant sticking an square peg into a round hole (or maybe rather an oval peg in a round hole!), the benefits to the bean counters (training, parts, etc, etc) were significant, as was the impact on operational flexibility – when the s**t hit the fan, having flexibly rated crews and some common component smoothed the water so much more quickly and at lower cost.

However, the world is changing somewhat and the cost emphasis is moving too. The gaps left by that square (sorry, oval) peg being fitted into a round hole are now sometimes wiped out by other operational costs, like increased fuel prices etc. Likewise, at one time it might have been cheaper to have a common fleet of lot of aircraft of one size, and have a few empty seats rattling around the network from time to time because the aircraft was slightly too big, or leave some demand unsatisfied because it was slightly too small. However, as economics change, as things like fuel prices increase, so it starts to make more sense to optimise as closely as possible each aircraft type to each different mission. Thus the balance starts to slowly shift.

Commonality isn’t dead – far from it (just consider for example how Boeing planned to allow manufacturers engines on the 7E7/787 to be changed when an airplane moved between owners, so that airlines didn’t have to deal with multiple engine types when they aquired a/c from various sources) – but at present the cost equation in some cases might tip the balance in another direction.

Andy

RE the 737; Many of my collegues at my company have converted from the steam gauge 737-200 to the -800 and they say it’s like night and day. You’ve got all the automatics there should you want them but you can just as easily hand fly it(the -800) as like the -200.

The main benefit is the situational awareness with the map, weather, TCAS etc. all on one screen..nice. I’ve only ever flown the -200 in the sim and it’s a nice aircraft to fly but I’d say it gets tiring on the 6th sector of the day alright 🙁 However the -200 is so easy to land compared to the NG which seems to be very hit and miss.(It wasn’t my fault boss I swear 🙂 )

Air Europa have recently re-configured their 737NGs to the more modern PFD/ND to use the aircraft as it was originally designed. The disadvantage is the extra training required ie here in Ryanair it was 3 weeks training for 732>738 vs less than one week for the ‘dumbed down’ conversion.

bmi-star,

Pleased to be back my friend. I also agree with what your saying.

Flex 35

Good to see you back Flex, its been a while!

I think fleet commonality is not as important as it was by now. Look at Aer Arann, they are looking to order new aircraft, but they have said that they don’t mind looking at Bomardier products, to add to their ATR fleet. Also EZY work well with the 737 and 319, so no its not as important as it was i think

Nice to get two pilots professional viewpoint on it. Quite interesting.

Moondance,

A bit off topic here but did you enjoy flying the 300?

Flex 35

I was 737-200/300 qualified with Orion half a lifetime ago. The Orion 733s were considerably “dumbed down” to enable the 200/300 rating. They had FMC and the goodies associated with that (VNAV, LNAV etc), but, crucially, no EFIS (ie clockwork instruments and NO map!). The glass cockpit, particularly the map display, gives the pilot so much situational awareness…..anything less makes the job much harder work.

As to the general question of economics, no idea. Airline economics are a secret to the mere drivers.

Bmused55,

It is not EXACTLY like the old gauges in the B737-200s/300s/500s so any attempt at “fleet commonality” is compromised anyway, and it is a really stupid way to use technology. Moving backwards rather than forwards. There is also a loss in clarity as the screens are cluttered with information.

Most pilots don’t like this option on the B73G I think you’ll find, for the reasons stated above.

Flex 35

It all depends on the airline. If you are large enough you can even operate the 737NG and the A320 side by side, if the deal to buy one and not the other is so good that you can´t say no.
If you are large enough to operate a sizeable fleet of any type, then you do not need commonality, as you will be very rarely shifting crews from one fleet to the other.
If you can do it fine, but not if you have to buy an inferior plane because of it.

If you are hwoever a smaller airline, who operates some long-range wide-bodies and a sozen or so standardbodies, then it becomes vital for your operation.

They have gone for the “Classic” setup of the B737NG (which tries to recreate the older models but fails miserably, quite a few airlines have gone for the option – Kenya Airways, Air Berlin and Air Europa spring to mind). Also the B737 classics (300s/500s) are built like the B737-200s with the steam gauges. None of them have autothrottle or VNAV enabled. But they do have an FMS unit with some sort of lateral navigation available.

Regards
Flex 35

If it fails so miserably, why have other airlines taken the same route? Surely there is some gain in this? A quicker pilot transition from old to new?

The most obvious example is Southwest whose crews are regurlarly flying the 737-2/3/5/700 all under one type rating. The flightdecks are significantly dumbed down compared to most other airlines to make it possible, however. They save millions by allowing them to have flexibility and fewer pilots.

I wouldn;t say they are dumbed down. That infers an inferior product.

Southwests NGs share a lot of instruments with their 300s, which in turn share a lot of instruments with their 200s. It is a very common sense approach that seems to have worked magnificently for Southwest. It enabled their 200 pilots to transition to the 300s with ease, then using similar intrument layouts they made the transition to the NGs almost as simple.

Far from dumbed down, quite clever, IMO

who knows ?…. it may well be something as simple as boeing offering a better price than airbus could, when a deal is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, a small percentage difference really adds up!

Hmm, no doubt initial price is an eye opener to a deal. But where is the sense in saving a penny to spend a pound later on?

If you save $3m an aircraft during purchase against its competitor, but the eventual cost of running it against your other fleet types adds up to a $1m loss a year because you only bought for the price and not for its suitability… where is the sense in that?

IMHO, Price is an important part, but not bay any means a driving factor. Its how the plane fits into an airlines strategy that matters the most, again, IMHO.

who knows ?…. it may well be something as simple as boeing offering a better price than airbus could, when a deal is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, a small percentage difference really adds up!

Oops, sorry for that! In my defence, it was a long weekend. 😉

Think nothing of it. Your argument was sound anyway, just misplaced this time round.

I think you misunderstood me.

Oops, sorry for that! In my defence, it was a long weekend. 😉

A fair point, but let’s not forget that Northwest already operate a sizeable fleet of B757s as well as a mixed long-haul fleet of A330s, B747s and (still) DC-10s. NWA has a mixed long-haul fleet now and will have a mixed long-haul fleet of A330s and B787s in the future.

I don’t think the issue is quite as clear cut as you think – not in this particular example, at least.

I do not think nor profess that it is clear cut. Indeed this is entirely my point.

In the months leading up to the NWA 787 order, Airbus fans on fora all over the net saw NWA as a clear A350 customer. Commonality of parts and pilots being trumpetted at anyone who dared suggest the 787 had a chance, their argument being that it was a more capable aircraft than the A350 in its market.
I saw a lot of neutral enthusiasts as well as Boeing fans conceed to the commonality argument for the A350. Boy were they all shocked.

I used NWA as an example to show that commonality, in the sense that A and B fans have insisted, is not a prime consideration.
For years, especialy on A.net, it has been argued as being one of the most important factors.

Many an AvB argument has had A fans insisting that it is the A320s pilot commonality with the A330 and A340 that make it all a winning combination and that Airbus’ entire family shines because of how one type rating can fly them all. (Not strictly speaking true, but thats another argument for another thread).
NWA, with their A320s and A330s and their efforts to begin shrinking their fleet types to the Airbus’ were a key element in this argument.

Its precisely this overhyping I want to address on this thread.

A fair point, but let’s not forget that Northwest already operate a sizeable fleet of B757s as well as a mixed long-haul fleet of A330s, B747s and (still) DC-10s. NWA has a mixed long-haul fleet now and will have a mixed long-haul fleet of A330s and B787s in the future.

I don’t think the issue is quite as clear cut as you think – not in this particular example, at least.