Quoting Flightglobal: Airbus is about to begin fatigue tests of full-scale A320 sections as it undertakes a major programme to extend the life of twinjet that could ultimately result in the flight-hour (FH) limit being tripled to 180,000h.
GPIARFF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3882 times:
While I don't think it's a bad idea, can someone explain the financial reasons for doing this?
Aren't they spending engineering dollars that ultimately will cut their own throat in the replacement market?
Or is their nextgen narrow body so far out beyond Boeings that this will more greatly affect Boeings narrowbody replacement market?
Dufo From Slovenia, joined May 1999, 752 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3878 times:
After 20 years, few thousand deliveries and many million hours flown, combined with other factors, they sure must know this can be safely done. I personally would not have a problem with flying on 179,998hr A320 as long as it's released into service as prescribed.
I seriously think I just creamed my pants without any influence from any outside variables.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3845 times:
Quoting GPIARFF (Reply 1): While I don't think it's a bad idea, can someone explain the financial reasons for doing this?
Aren't they spending engineering dollars that ultimately will cut their own throat in the replacement market?
Sort of. The existing fleet of A320's is so large, and the backlog so full, that the old frames may start to run out of life faster than those operators can get replacements. In addition, they're thinking of future customer loyalty for the replacements. If Airbus just cut off existing operators when the service life was up, knowing full well that they could extend it, those operators are far less likely to go back to Airbus for the replacement.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6519 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3722 times:
I think the As20 will be another 727 and 757 (when the 57 is in it's grandfather stage).
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
BWilliams From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3699 times:
Question: do the flight-hour limits only apply to air carriers, or is it a part of the Airworthiness Cert / Type Cert? I ask this because, if the 320s can't get the higher certified life, would it be possible for private individuals to pick them up relatively cheap from airlines who can't legally operate them anymore? Seems like, with so many A320s in service, that could be a lot of planes entering the market within about a decade or so, which would be cheaper to reconfigure in VIP configuration then a new ACJ.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3306 times:
Quoting BWilliams (Reply 5): Question: do the flight-hour limits only apply to air carriers, or is it a part of the Airworthiness Cert / Type Cert?
I believe that there are inspections that must be carried out that get more rigorous as a plane ages. I do not know if there are any hard and fast life limits, though. There may be certain life limited parts, which if not replaced effectively ground the plane. After the Aloha accident the FAA (and probably other regulatory agencies) paid a LOT more attention to older planes. Actually, it is cycles more than hours that determine an airliner's life, and if it is not airworthy for passenger service it is not airworthy, period.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Ex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 3202 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9): After the Aloha accident the FAA (and probably other regulatory agencies) paid a LOT more attention to older planes. Actually, it is cycles more than hours that determine an airliner's life, and if it is not airworthy for passenger service it is not airworthy, period
The major problem with ageing aircraft is that no one can predict ALL of the problems that have yet to rear their heads. The older they get the obviously more extensive, expensive, and frequent the inspections and repairs will get.
I watched the DC9 and DC10 fleets encounter problems that many engineers at both the airline and the manufacturer did not anticipate. So new or newer replacements can be the a benefit.
I have a lot of trouble seeing the A320 as robust as the DC9, but time will tell.
"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
Scarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 291 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3105 times:
It's perfectly normal to extend the service life of an airframe during it's service life. There is now 20 years of performance data to support or discard the possibility of redefining the service life of the A320 series and changing it's type certificate.
This will make the older A320's more attractive for cargo conversions when their pax life is up.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Slovenia, joined May 1999, 752 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 291 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
