Positiverate From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1590 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6186 times:
Quoting GFA330 (Thread starter): I am not an expert but recently found out that all A320's within our company are running at this utilization.
I am not an expert, but why not go ask your maintenance staff if it is safe or not...? They would probably know more then we would, since they work with the airplanes on a daily basis and know what type of maintenance is done.
GFA330 From Turkey, joined Oct 2006, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6141 times:
Quoting Positiverate (Reply 1): I am not an expert, but why not go ask your maintenance staff if it is safe or not...? They would probably know more then we would, since they work with the airplanes on a daily basis and know what type of maintenance is done.
all outsourced to SR technics. One of the reasons I am asking is that we are incurring quite some delays recently due to tech situations, so naturally the question is coming up with a lot of people if we are not squizing too much out of them.
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1647 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5654 times:
Just a question : Can someone tell us what the rough dispatch reability of the A320 is. Would be interesting for comparison, with the 737 NG family.
15,5 hours a day sounds pretty impressive wonder how many cycles this plane has.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6077 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5615 times:
It has more to do with length of flights than number of hours.
The more cycles, the more airframe stress.
As far as tech delays, this is a problem inherent to A320 ops... just ask Northwest, who enjoys better dispatch reliability out of their elderly DC-9 fleet than their A319s. At least, that's what Favre used to say. Whatever happened to him, anyway?
Anyhoo, tech delays happen, regardless of aircraft age (United had a terrible time introducing 777 service... LOTS of problems, with brand-new aircraft) or utilization.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2289 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5337 times:
I remember reading that some Euro charter airlines would keep their aircraft in the air for 17 hours a day, which meant 3-4 flights a day. As reply 7 says: many cycles are more stressing to the airframe than many flight hours.
15.5 on 10 daily cycles is a different kettle of fish from 15.5 hours on 2-3 daily cycles flying primarily longhaul routes.
Just checked on the A320 the average is about 8 to 10 cycles.
It seems that our 767's have similar problems, utilization is ok but the average stage lenght is about 2,5 hrs.
Our maintenance guy told me that because of this the undercarriage had to be exchanged at the age of 8 years, while normally they would do this at 12-14 yrs, as the average stage lenght should be about 4,5 to 5 hrs.
This is typical problem for gulf carriers as they often rotate wide bodies intra gulf throughout the day i.e. DXB BAH or DXB DOH etc ....
Interesting to look into this in comparison to other parts of the world. It seems that the Gulf carriers squize a lot out of their acft but not always necessarily the most efficient way.
Cobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1065 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5220 times:
It si really impressive how much time modern aircraft stay in the air, most than half of their lifetime. I think I read somewhere that KLM 747 are used 18 hours a day on average, I think that must be record. BTW and one rolls royce engine logged around 60000 hours on wing. Impressive
ZB330 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3419 times:
On earlier aircraft the normal maintenance package dictated that the aircraft went in to the hangar one night every month. However on more modern aircraft (B737NG/A318-A321) the maintenance package is divided in 'small' tasks which can be performed on the line.
As an example the greasing of the gear. Which in some companies is now divided in three packages i.e. left main gear, right main gear and nose gear. So every time the aircraft is on the ground with sufficient time one of these (or all depending on time) will be performed. Within a month everything 9whole aircraft/whole maintenance package) is done and they start all over again. Obviously it requires close monitoring so that every item is performed when its due.
It's a good system when i worked with it. Hangar time was drasticly reduced and therefore more utilization of the aircraft was possible. Of course the aircraft still needs to be in the hangar because there are these jobs that cant be performed on the line.
In summer we operate our A320/A321 on an average of 18/19 hours with 6 sectors. We don't have any dispatch reliability problems in these months. In our company the dispatch reliability of the A320/A321 fleet is 95%+ (don't know the exact figure at this moment)
The KLM 747 utilization is completely different than a shorthaul aircraft. They may use them for 18 hours a day but this is often only two cycles. And there is normally always a spare 747 standing around in AMs. So its easier to take an aircraft off line to perform maintenance when required.