In the area of Flight Training Devices (i e fixed-base simulators with or without visual systems), the latest devices now are generic with screens that can display several types, for example 737 or A320 or 777 or A340.

The FTD’s I’ve seen aren’t generic rather have the same setup as a full-motion sim minus the visuals and movement. The one’s I’ve used even have the appropriate resistance on the flight controls as well as stick-shakers and pushers. They’re quite complex but offer a cheaper introduction to procedures and ergonomics for pilots instead of wasting thousands of dollars in a Level D sim.

The first FTD we had at our company was the actual cockpit from an earlier hull loss that they retrofitted. The fuselage was converted into a full motion cabin trainer for flight attendants and even includes a smoke machine for added realism.

Let me add my tribute to the best looking small jet in service today.

When you said small jet this is what I was expecting:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/347509/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/272591/M/

🙂

So there is no reason that an A320 sim would cost any different than a B737 sim with a few small exceptions. An argument that such training item cost would factor into a fleet purchase are unfounded.

I think company owned training facilities sell sim time to outside operators during slow times (when they aren’t hiring). A newly hired pilot will require the most amount of time in the simulator compared to those pilots who only have to return for their 1 day recurrent simulator training. If all a training center use is for such recurrent training then there will be a lot of down time on the simulator. That is when they open their doors to outside users, to help offset their fixed operating costs.

We’re hiring like crazy right now. Between new hire training and recurrent training we are using at least 3 simulators from other training centers in addition to our own 3 simulators. All that for 1 fleet type.

What ever happened the Singer-Link company? Did they get bought out by CAE or someone else? I have a memory that one of UAL’s 777 sims was built by Singer when I saw it back in ’98.

Since when did overall costs of pilot training, maint., and everything else the bean counters take into account not matter.

Training is a moot point as most operators own their own training operation so the only real difference in price will come down to the price of the simulator. I would venture a guess that an A320 sim and B737 sim cost about the same. Spreading that cost across the fleet order purchase and any difference in training cost will be nearly invisible. Also most manufacturers offer free training for a set number of crews per aircraft purchased. I think we got 2-3 crews trained at the cost of Embraer even though we own our own sims (3 in fact).

Maintenance is a deciding factor. Airbus offered basically a no-cost maintenance program for JetBlue for 5-7 years (I can’t remember the exact time frame) which was the deciding factor in them making the A320 family their aircraft of choice. Boeing didn’t match the offer so they went with Airbus. I’ve never heard a mechanic complain about the repair history of the 737 family, the A320 on the other hand…. (which might be a reason Airbus offered the “free” maintenance.)

Airlines dont just buy a plane on account of Airbus offering a bit off the price tag they spend weeks and months researching what fits their operation best.

Most of the orders we’ve seen here in the US have been by new airlines. When you are starting up an airline your biggest cost is your infrastructure and equipment. Saving $3 million per aircraft can be the difference between living or dieing during the first 5 years of business.

Consider this a non-bias POV as I fly a Brazilian jet. 🙂

Ugh, that’s nasty looking.

As for the engines, being that modern engines are high-bypass types most of any ingested foreign material wouldn’t make it into the actual turbine. Actually since grasshoppers are soft they would be pulverized by the fan. The remaining bug bits wouldn’t pose much of a problem for the engine.

isnt it the same as the 767-400 but more dramatic on the 7e7?

That’s like saying the 744 winglet is the same as the BBJ only more dramatic. Yes the 7E7 is incorperating raked wingtips which are also found on the 764 and 773. It appears from this windtunnel model that the 7E7 wingtips will have a newly designed shape yet to be seen on a Boeing.

Interesting raked wingtip.

As long as they have money to maintain the aircraft, they should have money to paint them.

Aircraft repainting is a scheduled event similar to maintenance checks. After so many years the aircraft needs to be repainted no matter if the livery has changed or not. Now with a livery change the repainting schedule/frequency is just noticeable where as until now most people just assumed that each aircraft was painted once 10 years ago and never saw a new coat of paint.

This paintjob is cheaper and doesn’t use as much paint as the grey scheme, anyhow.

Are you sure about that? Unless an airline decides to utilize a paint scheme similar to American with bare metal how does one design use more paint than another. Perhaps having a line painted overtop of a base coat would add additional paint but as far as I could tell the old UAL livery had very little cheat lines (or whatever they are called).