G-ASTJ needs maintenance

DanKH · Post by **DanKH** » 14 Sep 2006, 14:47

Sorry I didn't read the original post correctly...

Forgive me, I'm a Dane!

Just wanted to make a bad joke about me always wanting to take G-ASGK no matter what her condition might be. If she's in for maint, I'll just hold my breath...

I'll get my coat....

Back on rack....

Post by **DaveB** » 14 Sep 2006, 15:01

You sure had me confused there Dan and it doesn't take a lot!!

ATB

DaveB :tab:

blanston12 · Post by **blanston12** » 14 Sep 2006, 17:53

MALTBY D wrote:I've been waiting for my first 1-11 maintenance job for ages & when it finally happens - I'm in bed !!

DM

Sorry Dave, I should have at least waited till it was home. If its any consolation, others have been putting the VC10's into maintenance before I have the chance, but I am not complaining. Since I am 8 time zones behind I can cover any emergencies that may happen on the grave yard shift.

Post by **DaveB** » 14 Sep 2006, 18:31

Who's got the 10's Joe?? I've only ever put one in and at the time.. there was only John and me able to do it!! Ah.. rethink.. I guess you have the 10's!!

ATB

DaveB :tab:

VC10 · Post by **VC10** » 28 May 2007, 16:49

DaveB wrote: maint will only take one day and is based on the cost of the aircraft.
DaveB :tab:

In the real world a 1-11 'periodic' check took 4 and a half days!

Paul

Post by **DaveB** » 28 May 2007, 18:18

Hi Paul,

Tks for that. Problem is that we as an airline run quite a large assortment of aircraft and FlyNET as a whole run a darned sight more. Not all aircraft have the same maint periods so for the sake of uniformity (across all VA's), it is scaled using a combination of engine/airframe hours and landings.

You can put an aircraft in for maint at any time.. the shortest and least expensive of these is one day which corresponds to 95% and this is the reason we don't let our aircraft fall any lower. As the percentage number falls (based on engine/airframe hours/landings) maint periods get longer and cost progressively more. You can, in reality, run an aircraft into the ground but you risk more and more FlyNET induced errors and will end up having a maint that equals the cost of a brand new aircraft. The cost of any maint is based on the cost price of a new aircraft so the lower the percentage, the higher the cost.

It's far from real but the current setup is a good compromise

ATB

DaveB :tab: