Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Double A320 Lifespan  
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4151 posts, RR: 37
Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18460 times:



Quote:
FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - EADS's aircraft manufacturing unit Airbus plans to double the life span of its short- to medium-range A320 plane to 120,000 flight hours by technical upgrades, Handelsblatt reported, citing the company.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited...eds/afx/2008/01/02/afx4485083.html

IMO this indicates that Airbus is heavily targeting the A32X pax2freighter market. Raises the question how serious both Airbus and Boeing are really looking on a NB replacement - extending the life indicates that they don´t expect any real replacement soon.


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18198 times:

Like I have been saying all the time.
I'm happy for Airbus getting all those A32x orders, but as long as the backlog remains on 2500 (and about 1700 for B737) we wont see a NB replacement before 2020.
However, I really hope I am wrong.


User currently offlineGorgos From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18182 times:

It would seem to me that the primary structural elements are the limiting factor in the lifespan. How do you 'technically upgrade' primary structural elements' against wear and tear?

User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 17719 times:



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 2):
It would seem to me that the primary structural elements are the limiting factor in the lifespan. How do you 'technically upgrade' primary structural elements' against wear and tear?

I also thought that the key limitation was the number of cycles, not number of flying hours. Which is a structural issue. While it is possible to replace key structural elements, and even the skin and fasteners with redesigned ones... I am not sure that this can be done while keeping the same shape, key dimensions, and weight (even with the use of advanced alloys).

The Boeing 737 line has long had about twice the usefull life of the Airbus planes (give or take a bit depending on specific model). This has allowed Airbus to build cheaper planes and gain market share on this size of plane (for the companies that would accept shorter life planes).

I find it very interesting that Airbus now feels that it must have a plane with similar life to the 737 line to compete.... Methinks that will raise the cost of the plane as well.


User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17663 times:



Quoting Chiad (Reply 1):
However, I really hope I am wrong.

Really strange we always want new A/Cs to developed and then when the A/Cs are developed we cry the whole day about how beautiful the DC10 or 707 were , same thing then we'll be crying about 320s and 737s .  Smile

Maybe they get some new engines , and they make very little structural changes .

Constantin


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17611 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
The Boeing 737 line has long had about twice the usefull life of the Airbus planes (give or take a bit depending on specific model).

I never knew that. It's very interesting. So why can't Boeing command "a higher price for the twice the life" then??



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17383 times:



Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):

I never knew that. It's very interesting. So why can't Boeing command "a higher price for the twice the life" then??

The original buyer is concerned with utilization for a specific time period, and the residual value after that period is a factor. But in comparison to the operating costs and original acquisition cost it is relatively minor, so the longer life expectancy of the 737 cannot claim a very big premium. Very few airlines figure when buying a new aircraft that they will fly it until it is ready for the scrap yard, although sometimes they end up doing that. The thing to look at is what are used 737's selling/leasing for versus the comparable age A320's. Anyone have figures?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 17318 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
I also thought that the key limitation was the number of cycles, not number of flying hours. Which is a structural issue. While it is possible to replace key structural elements, and even the skin and fasteners with redesigned ones... I am not sure that this can be done while keeping the same shape, key dimensions, and weight (even with the use of advanced alloys).

I thought is was always a combination of hours and cycles, takeoff/landings, as the airframe is assumed to "see" a typical load spectrum each hour ontop of pressurisation cycles to arrive at a fatigue hours/cycles number.

Given the time frame, Flying-Tigers' comment about being associated with the A320PF project in my view is spot on. The fatigue life on the A320 is more than ample for a normal life as a passenger aircraft.

Being modified as a package freighter seem to me like a good opportunity to make modifications required to extend its new life and make the investment into the PF count.

An assumption you have made is that all parts of the aircraft have the same fatigue life, when normally the fatigue life is is limited normally by a few specific areas, not the entire airframe.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
The Boeing 737 line has long had about twice the usefull life of the Airbus planes (give or take a bit depending on specific model). This has allowed Airbus to build cheaper planes and gain market share on this size of plane (for the companies that would accept shorter life planes).

Can you give an example of an airline which has kept a 737 for the fatigue life of a 737 ?

The economics of operating an aging fleet for airlines (large C/D checks and engine components etc) determine the life of old aircraft well before their fatigue cycles.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
I find it very interesting that Airbus now feels that it must have a plane with similar life to the 737 line to compete.... Methinks that will raise the cost of the plane as well.

Think you are off base here, in my view this will be part of the PF conversion, not for new build passenger aircraft.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):
I never knew that. It's very interesting. So why can't Boeing command "a higher price for the twice the life" then??

Bit like asking why Land Rover cannot command twice the price for their aluminum 4x4 vehicles. They will not rust like their competitors, but like their competitors the cost of replacing engines, gearboxes, spare etc becomes less attractive than buying a new vehicle after a number of years of ownership with constant useage.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4151 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 17244 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
I find it very interesting that Airbus now feels that it must have a plane with similar life to the 737 line to compete.... Methinks that will raise the cost of the plane as well.

Think you are off base here, in my view this will be part of the PF conversion, not for new build passenger aircraft.

Here I disagree - IMO Airbus will introduce these items into the A32X pax newbuilds as well with the clear target to have more A32X "ready-for-conversion" (without this modification to be retrofitted then) in 2025 and beyond. Lay the foundation today for more business in future one could think.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 17147 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
Can you give an example of an airline which has kept a 737 for the fatigue life of a 737 ?

No, but 6 to 9 months ago there were several threads about NW retiring Airbus planes largely because key structural components were reaching their fatigue limit (not worth repairing/replacing the required components) that were age wise a lot younger than many Boeing aircraft that were still in service (not to mention the hallowed DC-9). It was also considered that the scrap value of those Airbus planes were high because other non-structural members could be sold as parts that were both in good condition and in high demand.

I will agree that the life of an airliner is determined by more than just the fatigue cycles. But, it does look funny when you are retiring aircraft because of fatigue cycles and not because of wear out of the other major components. It is not like NW has a lot of very frequent short hops like you see for the airlines in Japan or even Hawaii (and if I were to look for examples of Boeing plane that reached their fatigue limits - I'd look at those airlines to see if it happened).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 17039 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
Can you give an example of an airline which has kept a 737 for the fatigue life of a 737?

AQ243 [N73711]?

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Thread starter):
IMO this indicates that Airbus is heavily targeting the A32X pax2freighter market. Raises the question how serious both Airbus and Boeing are really looking on a NB replacement - extending the life indicates that they don´t expect any real replacement soon.

I believe Boeing will launch the 737RS before Airbus can launch the A320RS - perhaps as much as 4-5 years earlier in the extreme. As such, it is in Airbus' interest to stuff the A320 line with orders as deep into the 2010's as possible. Improving the plane as a passenger carrier through the A320E program and as a freight carrier through this frame-life extension program would both help towards that goal.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16828 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 9):
...6 to 9 months ago there were several threads about NW retiring Airbus planes largely because key structural components were reaching their fatigue limit (not worth repairing/replacing the required components) that were age wise a lot younger than many Boeing aircraft that were still in service (not to mention the hallowed DC-9).

 checkmark  The design service goal of A320 family types is 48.000 cycles, whereas 737 family types have 75.000 cycles. This can be extended based on operational experience.

Some further reading on the topic
http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2006-04-18-06-3621
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16827 times:



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 2):
It would seem to me that the primary structural elements are the limiting factor in the lifespan. How do you 'technically upgrade' primary structural elements' against wear and tear?

Might be via analysis...if they have better data now to recompute the fatigue life of the primary structural elements, they can extend the airframe life without actually changing any structure.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
The Boeing 737 line has long had about twice the usefull life of the Airbus planes (give or take a bit depending on specific model).

I never knew that. It's very interesting. So why can't Boeing command "a higher price for the twice the life" then??

They do. The initial purchase, resale, and lease rates for 737's are higher than equivalent aged A320's, although not by very much. 2-3% was suggested in another thread, although I don't know what the source was.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
I thought is was always a combination of hours and cycles, takeoff/landings, as the airframe is assumed to "see" a typical load spectrum each hour ontop of pressurisation cycles to arrive at a fatigue hours/cycles number.

It depends on which element you're talking about. Landing gear and fuselage skins are almost entirely cycle limited. Wing spars are much more hour limited. Anything whose primary load is landing or pressure related will tend to by cycle limited, anything whose primary load is flight-related will tend to be hour limited.

Tom.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16715 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 9):
No, but 6 to 9 months ago there were several threads about NW retiring Airbus planes largely because key structural components were reaching their fatigue limit (not worth repairing/replacing the required components) that were age wise a lot younger than many Boeing aircraft that were still in service (not to mention the hallowed DC-9).

A distorted version of the truth, some leaving as they were leased, others scrapped as they were worth more in parts than complying with an AD. I am not aware of any of the scrapped NW A320 aircraft going past 60% of their fatigue cycles.

With the thousands of A320s flying, and new spare parts dominated by Airbus, the demand for second life spares is high.

AFAIK NW own their DC9s, so no ongoing lease costs, and much lower demand for additional DC9 spares as enough aircraft have already been parked.

Parting out popular aircraft yields a lot of money. Replacing it with a new aircraft gives the depreciation advantages, more efficient and capable aircraft, as well as a warranty period which could be negotiated to cover several years.

Please note you also have a few 777s being scrapped soon, maybe only 11 years old ? I would suspect for the same reasons for the NW A320s, they are worth more in parts, it is an indication of how popular the airframe is.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 9):
But, it does look funny when you are retiring aircraft because of fatigue cycles and not because of wear out of the other major components.

That statement is a fallacy, it is a pure economic decision. Comply with an AD which could be a considerable expense and use considerable maintenance resources as well as being off line not earning revenue, or part it out and make more money that what the book value is for it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
AQ243 [N73711]?

Think you could have picked a better example ?



The aircraft suffered a fatigue related failure below the limit (the limit was not the standard 75000 cycles due to their MX program), it would have been grounded otherwise.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
It depends on which element you're talking about. Landing gear and fuselage skins are almost entirely cycle limited. Wing spars are much more hour limited. Anything whose primary load is landing or pressure related will tend to by cycle limited, anything whose primary load is flight-related will tend to be hour limited.

Thanks, just as I remembered.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16649 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 13):
A distorted version of the truth, some leaving as they were leased, others scrapped as they were worth more in parts than complying with an AD. I am not aware of any of the scrapped NW A320 aircraft going past 60% of their fatigue cycles.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 13):
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 9):
But, it does look funny when you are retiring aircraft because of fatigue cycles and not because of wear out of the other major components.

That statement is a fallacy, it is a pure economic decision. Comply with an AD which could be a considerable expense and use considerable maintenance resources as well as being off line not earning revenue, or part it out and make more money that what the book value is for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here... But was not the key AD that was going to be so costly and time consuming to do fatigue cycle related? If so, then the planes fatigued out past their economic usefull life before they wore out (even if they did not reach the longest fatigue component life on the airframe).


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 16234 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 14):
But was not the key AD that was going to be so costly and time consuming to do fatigue cycle related?

From memory had to be done by 25,000 cycles, it is an arbitrary line in the sand that was drawn that was considered to be safe.

Some ADs have other limits like within 4500 flight cycles or 6000 flight hours after the effective date, 3 calender months/date, 3 landings, immediate, x number of airframe hours. You will find cycle related ADs on just about any aircraft, including the 737 and DC9. Major service intervals are also normally geared around cycles and airframe hours.

The standard A320 cycle limit is 48,000 cycles. Operators have to make an economic decision to comply with the AD which costs time, resources, and money, and then have 23,000 cycles available, or to part the airframe out when the second hand part market for the A320 is hot.

Even without the AD, aircraft coming up to a major C or D check often get scrapped because the investment required to put the aircraft through the check cannot be justified.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15907 times:

Makes sense. I bet they want to see what the trans-atlantic open skies does to the airline industry so they can design a new family of aircraft capable of bridging the gap between the A319/320 and the A350, similar to what we saw when Boeing designed the 757/767 family. I can imagine a 2 class, 150-200 seat airplane capable of flying 4500-5000nm with a good load, to be a huge success.

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 14869 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 14):
But was not the key AD that was going to be so costly and time consuming to do fatigue cycle related?

I think the affected structure was the lower skin of the center wing box, which would seem uneconomical to replace. But easy to address on new production aircraft.

That said, I have no objections against the 'low' A320 design service goal. Seems to suffice for 15 years of operation, and my personal feeling is that everyone should be interested in getting a commercial aircraft out of service at that age - except the cheapskates operating them...


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12289 times:

I see a misunderstanding of my understating of the fatigue problem with the A320 here.

Apparently at about 25,000 cycles the A320 has to undergo a major AD based on a known fatigue issue. Only if you do that do you get to 48,000 cycles.

NW chose not to do that AD and anticipated repairs was uneconomical. Thus, the real fatigue life may be 25,000 cycles.

I am unaware of a similar low cycle based AD issue with the 737

Now it would make sense for Airbus to upgrade that structural component to eliminate the 25,000 cycle issue. But, until they do... why are people calming 48,000 cycles when planes are being retired at the 25,000 cycle point for fatigue issues?

Can someone pull up the cycle count for the first major fatigue issue with component replacement for the 737. That would provide a much better comparison.


User currently offlineBravoGolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12115 times:

And the crew from the last extended life A320 to be scrapped, will be flown home on a DC9.

User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2758 posts, RR: 45
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12110 times:



Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):
I never knew that. It's very interesting. So why can't Boeing command "a higher price for the twice the life" then??

Because a 737 is half as good as an A-320!  Wink


User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11640 times:

Also, the expensive, life limited major rotating parts of the engine have cycle limits. This is not affected by maintenance plans, they must be scrapped. On PW engines, its usually 20,000 cycles. Not sure about a CFM or a V though. This can run easily to $2 mil or so per engine.

I would not have guessed 48,000 cycles for a 320, or for any narrow body. Its kind of low. A wide body will most likely never see half of this in service, but its not that long in time if you're averaging low hours/cycles.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11296 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 28):
I see a misunderstanding of my understating of the fatigue problem with the A320 here.

Seems you are hearing incorrect third hand info, here is the AD that you can read for yourself, http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...a!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-2,-3

I would suspect that this AD will be assessed on a case by case basis, some aircraft will have no fatigue cracks at all in the area, some will, depending on if a repair/modification is required, will determine the fate of the aircraft.

Fatigue cracks are common on all aircraft, and I would wager every aircraft you see flying today has many fatigue cracks on it.

As far as I am aware this A320 AD has been around in various forms for about 10 years (originally FAA issued AD 98-22-05 in August 1988), It does not change the fatigue life of the aircraft, just asked for inspections, repair/modification. The main driver for this this AD was the way airlines operated the aircraft, the in service history of the A320 fleet showed that weight of fuel at landing and the average flight duration are higher than those defined for the original fatigue analysis, Airbus has a fix for this via the factory mod 22418 or Service Bulletin A320-57-1043 incorporated in-service.

NW is not the only operator of the A320, and other operators have older airframes, you are not seeing widespread scrapping of A320s as a result of this AD over the past 10 years.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 28):
I am unaware of a similar low cycle based AD issue with the 737

Every metal airframe has fatigue cracks, Google 737 fatigue crack FAA AD and you will get a number of ADs like AD 2005-21-06 which is fatigue crack AD for the 737NG aft pressure bulkhead.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...182DA862570A10050E2EB?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...323AF86256F4D005E2745?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...3B6E286256E5200536FC8?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...F6103862569890077DBBD?OpenDocument

This one for the 737NG kicks in at 7000 cycles and replacement at 15,000 cycles.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...10F7486256B040052123E?OpenDocument

You can easily access most of the FAA ADs via AD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet" target=_blank>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...ry/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

It is just another part of operating an airline, complying with ADs, no aircraft is immune from them.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 28):
Now it would make sense for Airbus to upgrade that structural component to eliminate the 25,000 cycle issue. But, until they do... why are people calming 48,000 cycles when planes are being retired at the 25,000 cycle point for fatigue issues?

You need to read the AD, in particular note the reference to Airbus Modification 22418, or compliance with previous service bulletins. Airbus Modification 22418 would be a factory modification, so it would not be applicable to all A320 aircraft.

Quoting MarkC (Reply 31):

I would not have guessed 48,000 cycles for a 320, or for any narrow body. Its kind of low.

757 is 50,000 cycles.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3197 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10522 times:

Zeke....

Well said! The voice of reason around here again! Thank you so much for taking the
time to explain these things to so many people here, and share your knowledge. Honestly
I hear so much hype with either no or little understanding of the facts (or even awareness of
an issue at all... hence some of the absurd conclusions drawn in this thread), and its so
good that you made the effort to explain it all, and back it up with facts, even if it irks off a few ppl
in the process.

A final note to some of you. What you're suggesting is, lets say I have an 8 year old car...and it
has 100 000 kms on the clock. I can easy get another 100 out of it, but its headlights blew, and it needs
an oil change and a new muffler. The value of the car, at this point...lets just say its about $3000. Also, lets say
the cost of the work needed is about $500. Not much compared to the replacement value of the car as a whole.
So do i scrap the car? Of course not.... but lets just say, for some reason, we're stuck in a town with a shortage of car parts... and a taxi company really needs to keep its cars on the road, and is willing to pay you $4000 for the transmission and the engine? The taxi company could pay expensive prices and wait for new parts...but its loosing a few thousand dollars a week in lost income while the car is not on the road...so its happy to pay 4000 for just part of the car. that is effectively what happened at NW.

One of the reasons it probably appealed to NW and it didn't to other carriers is the fact NW has so much variable capacity with its DC-9s. It can stick replacement DC-9s in service at low cost almost straight away... other carriers wouldn't have had that option, and would have had to WAIT for new aircraft to be delivered. Same for the leasing company... opportunity was there to make a quick buck. NW also seem to be committed to introducing new A319s... they hardly seem to be abandoning the type.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10198 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
NW is not the only operator of the A320, and other operators have older airframes, you are not seeing widespread scrapping of A320s as a result of this AD over the past 10 years.

Does anyone know what the current high-cycle A320 airframe is? ...and how many are currently flying past that 25k mark?



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
25 Post contains links Alessandro : Lemark, my guess would be Gulf Air got some high cycle ones? Flying Manama-Doha-Dubai easily builds up cycles. Among the accidents I http://aviation-s
26 Zeke : Maybe the BA 320-100s, I think they went out with about 26000 cycles and 33000 airframe hrs, NW 320-200s I think were around the 22000 cycle mark and
27 StoutAirLines : At an airport, nearby where I live, we've been seeing more of them come in now to be scrapped. " target=_blank>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory..
28 KLMD11L : Speaking of aircrafts lifespans, I have some Q's: 1. Why it's not mentioned with the aircraft's specifications? 2. Is there an online source for lifes
29 Mendaero : Your quite right aluminium dosen't rust, it corrodes, but also aircraft are not made of aluminium, but alloys, which seem to corrode quite well if no
30 United787 : One thing I don't see anyone mentioning here is the environmental benefits of this announcement. Increasing the life of any product is extremely susta
31 MD11Engineer : Being a Land Rover driver myself, I can happily say that spares are very cheap compared to other vehicles. If you do a bit of preventive maintenance,
32 474218 : Answers: 1. It is not required. 2. FAA, Aging Aircraft Program: Widespread Fatigue Damage, Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).* 3. Yes, see * belo
33 2175301 : Zeke: Thank you for the information. It does clear up a lot. However, I would like to point out that at 25,000 cycles that some form of repair was re
34 Cloudy : Is this a true structural difference in fatigue life, or is it just a certification difference? There are plenty of products that get certified to hi
35 MD11Engineer : IMO, Airbus originally tested the structures simulating a lifespan of 48.000 hrs and corresponding cycles, based on laboratory data. Now the first air
36 474218 : No. The regulatory agencies do not use empirical evidence, only data that is backed-up with methodology and analysis.
37 Tdscanuck : Yes. The design goals were different, so there are actual structural differences reflecting those goals. However, there is a certification requiremen
38 Post contains links and images VV701 : BA has just (29 December) retired the last of its 320 100 series aircraft. They (BA) do not have a reputation for high daily utilisation of their air
39 474218 : Please provide an example of the FAA (or other regulatory agency) use empirical evidence. Normally the way the FAA works is as follows: If an AD is i
40 Tdscanuck : Engine blade out testing. Qualification of all new alloys, composites, fire extinguishants, oils, and fuels. Ultimate load testing for all primary st
41 Zeke : Airbus is developing a new package that will allow A320 Family operators to fly their aircraft for an additional 10 to 20 years or even longer. Based
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...
WSJ: Airbus To Boost A320 Series Production posted Mon Nov 20 2006 06:46:56 by PanAm_DC10
AirAsia To Double Airbus A320 Order posted Wed Jan 3 2007 13:53:51 by N1786b
Airbus Poised To Launch A320 P2F Conversion posted Wed Nov 21 2007 11:18:16 by Zeke
AF: Miami A320 Service To Double posted Sat Jun 16 2007 08:41:07 by MAH4546
Airbus To Upgrade Current A320 posted Wed Mar 22 2006 18:53:16 by OyKIE
Airbus To Select City For Chinese A320 Line. March posted Sun Feb 19 2006 23:59:39 by Keesje
Pressure On Boeing & Airbus To Improve 737&A320? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 01:14:35 by Keesje
Airbus To Shift Entire A320 Wing To China posted Thu May 17 2001 15:44:34 by B757300
Skybus To Double Flights Out Of PGD On 1/15/2008 posted Sat Dec 29 2007 12:12:16 by KarlB737
Carson - Airbus To Beat Boeing In 2007 posted Thu Dec 6 2007 13:38:34 by Scbriml
Airbus To Launch A320 NEO Wednesday (1.Dec) posted Tue Nov 30 2010 14:07:07 by Eaa3
Airbus To Increase A320 Production To 40/month posted Fri Jul 30 2010 01:11:27 by Centre
Airbus To Relaunch A320 Winglet Tests posted Sat Sep 13 2008 03:42:25 by Aviationbuff
Airbus To Build A320 Completely In Hamburg posted Mon Jan 15 2007 15:53:45 by LHStarAlliance
WSJ: Airbus To Boost A320 Series Production posted Mon Nov 20 2006 06:46:56 by PanAm_DC10
AirAsia To Double Airbus A320 Order posted Wed Jan 3 2007 13:53:51 by N1786b
Airbus Looking To Increase A320 Capacity posted Tue Jun 15 2010 13:11:19 by LAXDESI
AirAsia Defers 8 More A320; Airbus To Cut Prod'n? posted Sun Oct 4 2009 17:41:04 by Flybeq400
Airbus Poised To Launch A320 P2F Conversion posted Wed Nov 21 2007 11:18:16 by Zeke
AF: Miami A320 Service To Double posted Sat Jun 16 2007 08:41:07 by MAH4546