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
Sign In
