I hear a lot about the advantages of commonality and the savings
it entails but it seems that some important airlines do not care
much about this concept.
I would like to know if here in the forum there are some
insights into the reasons for this.
I'll Ilustrate with an example:
When Airbus launched the 330/340 family, it told its potential
custommers that each variant was complementary and tailored for
a specific mission. This way the custommer would buy a mix of
330/340 and use the 330 in routes 2000 nm to 5000 nm long
and the 340 for routes longer than 5000 nm. The custommer
would operate the 2 variants with the operating cost of
a single type due to airframe and avionics commonality.
Well a lot of companies went for that complementary aproach,
but since the 777 was launched, more and more decite to order
a mix of 330/777 for their wide-body fleet. They complement
each other, alright, but there is no commonality whatsoever.
So in fact companies seem to analyse the running costs of their
planes based on their individual performance but and seem not to
care a lot about the savings that commonality could bring.
So what I'd like to know is if, in the opinion of this board's members,
this "commonality" concept is more of a marketing device than a real
operational advantge. What do you think?