Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aircraft Outlaw Age Proposal  
User currently offlineBehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4755 posts, RR: 43
Posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

You know there are many airlines (pax and cargo) that operate aircraft well over their intended life period. For example PIA operating F 27s for 40 years almost, NWA having DC9s for 30+ years, British Airways-JAL-LH kept their B 741s/2s for over 20 years etc etc.

So my suggestion is that ANY PASSENGER aircraft should be banned to be flown after flying for 20 years of flying and any converted or all cargo freighter should be banned on 25 years of service max.

Also an airline should be told by the IATA that it must look for a replacement aircraft for an or series of aircraft it has that have reached 15+ years of service so that before the aircraft gets banned at the age of 20, a newer one would be in the fleet.

In this way, I feel BOEING and AIRBUS too benefit as it will be compulsory for airlines to place small or large scale orders on a regular basis.

Now if this law was applied today, lets take an example of a passenger aircraft :

1. NWA's numerous DC 9s would be long gone and Airbus would have add a sizeable A 318-319 order to replace the type.

2. IBERIA wouldnt be operating the B 742s and instead it would have forced to place a replacement order for A 346s earlier than recently.

3. This rule would have made sure that Indian Airlines and Air India placed an order for aircraft replacing their AB4s and B 742s well ahead of time instead of the snail's pace that its currently going through.

4. NWAs numerous B 747Fs alongwith JALs 74Fs would have been replaced a few years ago by B 744Fs!!! Infact NWA still is not saying when they will replace their ageing 74Fs with 744Fs!!!

5. BIMAN too would not be flying its DC 10-30s today if this rule was enforced!!!

[Edited 2004-02-29 10:35:01]

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2479 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

I think the age of aircrafts are "mesured" in the number of cycles and not by age.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Bad idea,

There are plenty of 60 year old DC-3's, Beavers, Otters that are still getting around just fine.

Economic lives being what they are, it doesn't pay to keep older jets around as long as their prop counterparts, or even the first generation of jets.

And I can think of one area of operation where the best suited aircraft for pax service was a 50 year old airplane. More modern examples just didn't have the combination of range, payload, and performance.

DC-6's are really popular freighters up here too because they combine those factors and don't need to go high, like a jet.

Besides, fuel burn and noise restrictions are already killing them off fast enough.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Airliners should be judged by cycles, instead of age. Also, you have to think about money.


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

I don't agree at all with this. "Intended life period" is a very fuzzy concept. If you mod the plane (new engine type on DC-8/727, for example), you change the whole equation.

- Some cars run 50 years and some break after 5. And even so, planes are not cars. They are looked after with tender loving care from the minute they roll out, with what most industries would consider incredibly excessive maintenance.

- "Age" depends on initial quality, maintenance, operating regime, climate conditions and upgrades, not years of service.

- A lot of planes may be "old" but the engines, pumps, tires and a host of other parts have been changed, probably several times. And it's the moving parts that tend to break first.

- In the hands of some operators, a plane may be unsafe from the day it is delivered, while other operators operate 30 year old planes as safely as new ones. And if you look at crash statistics, you will probably see that aircraft age is not very often the determining factor.

- Forcing airlines to upgrade just to produce aircraft orders seems a bit like economic blackmail, since there is no rational reason for it.

- If an airliner does not meet FAA/JAA airworthiness requirements, it should not take off, be it 6 years of 60 years old. That's like a pilot physical. If you pass it at 25 or 55, you are still as fit to fly the heavy metal.

The one thing I could see is environmental concerns (noise and air pollution) but these are "easily" addressed by hanging new engines on old planes, and other things.



[Edited 2004-02-29 11:15:28]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

I never understood why people think old airplanes are unsafe....


Lets face it, if they wheren't safe, they wouldn't have gotten to be old airplanes.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

L-188 said:
Lets face it, if they wheren't safe, they wouldn't have gotten to be old airplanes.


Incredibly well said!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

L-188 said:
Lets face it, if they wheren't safe, they wouldn't have gotten to be old airplanes.


Incredibly well put!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4755 posts, RR: 43
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3154 times:

Some of your counter points are valid but what about the economic costs of operating these old planes...their heavy fuel burn compared to more modern jetliners (DC9 vs B 737-700/A 319) + very high maintainance costs + the economics of operating a very old aircraft like B 742 vs B 744 or AB4 vs A 332 !!!

User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3130 times:

Lets not forget that airlines operating new equipment for the first time sometimes have accidents.

If this were the case then we can wave bye bye to all the DC-10s, DC-9,s, 727's and other classic aircraft.

This is one of those really stupid points put forward to make more money, just like our government doing away with road tax and charging by the mile driven, they are going to make more money. Just pointless.

As for the environment, to hell with it. Environmentalists screwed Concorde early in it's life and new environment rules are making it harder to find Smokies in the UK.

Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlineMoolies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3083 times:

It also depends on how good the maintenance is.

SAA had a 742 that has done 106700 hours and is 27 years old or some age around there.

It is to make one mroe flight before being finally retired at Rand airport.
ZS-SAN has served many faithful hours and is still going strong.



User currently offlineRyan h From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 1534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3081 times:

In my opinion if an aircraft is in good condition and well maintained why get rid of it?. So if a cargo operator for example used a 707 it would probably cost more to get a newer aircraft and train the crew than it is to keep what thay are using going.
L-188 summed it up perfectly. If an aircraft is so unsafe it would have gone to the scrapyard a very long time ago.



South Australian Spotter
User currently offlineMoolies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3067 times:

It also depends on how good the maintenance is.

SAA had a 742 that has done 106700 hours and is 27 years old or some age around there.

It is to make one mroe flight before being finally retired at Rand airport.
ZS-SAN has served many faithful hours and is still going strong.



User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3062 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My wife wouldn't be too happy with this idea, she is a flight attendant on the only two passenger certified DC-4s in the world!

Moolies, ZS-SAN entered service with SAA on 6 November 1971, 32 years and 4 months ago!






After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3046 times:

Behramjee said:
Some of your counter points are valid but what about the economic costs of operating these old planes...their heavy fuel burn compared to more modern jetliners (DC9 vs B 737-700/A 319) + very high maintainance costs + the economics of operating a very old aircraft like B 742 vs B 744 or AB4 vs A 332 !!!


That's not necessarily good economics. The operator has made an investment for a plane and expects to use it for a certain period of time. If he buys/leases a new plane, that's still a cost (up front or staggered) that needs to be paid, and the decrease in operating costs may take years to recoup the investment. You don't buy a new car every two years just because the newer one burns less fuel, do you?

If and when it is a valid proposition, the operator will replace the plane.

And what about the old plane? You have to sell it on today's market. Simply not using it does not mean that it suddenly costs nothing. It binds up capital (a problem since you need the capital to buy the new plane), maybe costs ground rent, and if you are leasing it or have taken a loan to buy it, those costs do not disappear.

Granted, most operators don't envisage 30+ years of useful life out of a plane when they buy it, but if you are cash-strapped and have a bad credit rating, keeping the old planes may cost less in terms of interest payments alone! NWA stated that the DC-9's are completely paid for. NWA has no interest payments. Buying new planes would entail using capital (or borrowing) which they would rather not do.

BTW, I haven't even gone in to all those other costs involved in buying new planes: new stocks of spares, new ancillary equipment, training of ground and aircrews, training of maintenance personnel, simulators, certifications, and I could go on but I think you get the picture.





"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2072 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 3002 times:

So if an airline must start looking for replacements once they have aircraft that are 15 years old then BA and AF would have to be looking at replacing their oldest A320 aircraft as these are 16 years old this year.  Insane


Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlinePER744 From Australia, joined Mar 2003, 405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2999 times:

It'd even out the playing field, once everyone is bankrupt things will be fairer  Big grin

User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

"Some of your counter points are valid but what about the economic costs of operating these old planes...their heavy fuel burn compared to more modern jetliners"

Yes, and the millions of dollars that you would have to spend to replace aircraft prematurely that are still as airworthy as the day they delivered them in 1966 or throughout the 70's and 80's would totally negate these costs. The aircraft are payed for, no leases, no upfront costs. It ends up saving the airlines a great deal of money. That would be like buying a Mercedes E class, and when it turned 2, you sold it just because you could get a new E Class with a .3 mile per gallon advantage. But then you just shelled out how much more money as well?

Not only that , but if a company is having financial difficulty and the mandatorially had to replace a sizeable amount of their perfectly operational and safe aircraft with newer ones, the costs assosciated with that could possibly run the airline into the ground.

Edot: Whoops, just saw starlionblue's response which is somewhat similar to mine. Sorry starlion! I guess great minds think alike.

[Edited 2004-02-29 14:47:22]


Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

No problem DeltaMD11!

The beancounters have calculated the entire predicted lifespan of the aircraft way before the contracts are signed. SQ, for example, have a high fleet turnaround, so their beancounters calculate how much it will take to pay back the aircraft (plus a profit of course) in that time. Other companies do the same, with longer planning horizons. This principle is of course valid for any investment.

Of course, nothing ever turns out the way you think it will, and all of a sudden fuel costs go up/down, the economy changes, Mr. O'Leary makes an appearance on CNN, the weather is unusually cold, etc. And that's where hedging comes in. To guard yourself agains, for example, rising fuel prices, an airline will buy fuel options and be able to buy fuel at a predetermined price in a couple of years. This way the beancounters, who like certainty, can sleep at night.

Now, the airframer has probably guaranteed a certain performance level over a certain period, so the operator already knows today how much each plane will cost for every year in the next couple of decades. The further in the future, the fuzzier the forecast, but there is a lot of history to be drawn on and these guys are, like insurance actuators, good at probabilities and statistics.

If I were a shareholder in NW today, I would definitely not want them to buy new planes to replace the DC-9's, since that would decrease my projected dividends in the next decade, or in other words decrease the profits of the company.

Ok, I (and others on the board) could probably go on about this sort of thing for ages. Buy yourself a copy of Brealey/Myers "Principles of Corporate Finance", the quintessential textbook on investment, for (much) more detail.






"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAa777flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

Bad idea, that would also press ticket prices higher since airplanes would have to be replaced more frequently. Look at NW will all those D9S, if they were FORCED to replace them a few years ago, then they would not be in as good financial shape as they are now (all the 9's are paid for).
By your logic then you should be forced to buy a new car every say once the car gets 80,000 miles on it.
If an airplane is well maintained it is as safe as it was the day it came off the assembly line.


User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2902 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

There are certain countries where this proposal is in effect. In Nigeria, after a rash of BAC 1-11 crashes, they instituted a 22 year maximum age on aircraft there, with some older airframes grandfathered in (depending on the kickback, this IS Nigeria after all). Indonesia has a 20 year limit on airframes doing Hajj charters. Most of these regulations stem from previous experiences where the fault could be attributed to shoddy (or complete lack of) maintainence, or human factors. I can't think of an accident with a properly maintained airframe that could be attributed solely to the age of that airframe. The only thing this proposal would serve to do is to drum up more buisness for aircraft manufacturers. If they didn't overproduce during the late 90's, there would be no reason for them to need this help.

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

It is a crude method of regulating, but I can see the point. Although a more refined policy would produce better results.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDeltaffindfw From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2721 times:


Also, if they did institute regulations like this, what would a.net members do? I think I would miss the weekly "when will NW replace their DC-9s"  Big grin


User currently offlineDutchflyer From Netherlands, joined Feb 2004, 169 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Yep, replace aircraft after 20 years of service, then we also replace the F/A after 5 years, the flight crew after 15 years and the pax after 25 years.

What a silly idea.

If the planes keep their certificate of airworthyness then they are able to fly safely.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Andz,

Was your wife in SXF at the ILA airshow back in 1996 with Cpt. Flippie Vermeulen and Kevin May? I might have met her then!

Jan


25 ANX4fishing : Behramjee, was that a goof post..? Such nonsense. ANX
26 Andz : Jan, if that was the Berlin Airlift commemoration then yes she was!
27 Post contains images WGW2707 : I must say, the notion of a legal "maximum age" on airliners in service is absurd for the following reasons: 1. The age of an airliner is not measured
28 Ual727222 : In reply to a previous post, the 744 is not an old, fuel-inefficient aircraft. The 744 is still in production and has only been in service since 1989.
29 Post contains images Cospn : Lets Just Replace All Airline Employees every 5 Years... Like SQ Does..
30 Post contains images Flyguyclt : Just woke up and this is the first thing of life outside of my home that I have had contact with. I can see my day will be full of humor ! Safe Flying
31 MD11Engineer : Andz, Thiswas when "Lebombo" blew #1 cylinder of #3 engine and the flight to THF had to be canceled? I was giving the guys a hand back then. There was
32 AirframeAS : If it aint broken, dont fix it as to if its maintained very well, keep flying it.
33 DeltaGuy : If you take good care of your tennis shoes, you don't have to replace them nearly as much. Same goes for a -9 or a 747. If you have qualified mechs wo
34 CRJ'sRule : It's hard to make a judgement on merely the age of the aircraft on whether it's airworthy. There are plenty of airlines in the world that are relative
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Official US Retirement Age On Aircraft? posted Mon Aug 9 2004 20:57:45 by BIGBlack
Aircraft Age Longhaul Vs. Shorthaul posted Thu Jan 29 2004 17:17:27 by Na
Average Aircraft Age posted Mon Oct 6 2003 10:06:01 by Jhooper
Do Aircraft Loose Performance With Age? posted Sat May 17 2003 18:50:33 by SAA-SAL
Average Aircraft Age posted Tue Jan 29 2002 19:02:24 by B727-100
Do Aircraft Come With Free Shipping And Handling? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 05:19:16 by Remcor
Muslim Kicked Of Aircraft Due To Toilet Trip posted Sat Dec 9 2006 06:14:46 by 777ER
6 QF 744 Aircraft At LAX Today posted Sat Dec 9 2006 05:12:49 by PA110
Aircraft Involved In Litvinenko Affair posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:59:49 by Bennett123
Aircraft In United New Colors? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 07:24:07 by San747