XJETFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6180 times:
I have flown with many airlines. Some have a newer and nice fleet. Some have plain junk and are just plain scary! I was just wondering from some of the people who may have insight in to the commercial industry. I can't imagine age is anywhere at the top, even though I would like to believe it. I'm guessing hours of flight and use???
Generally, age is a major factor, but retirement is not always based solely on the number of cycles and the aircraft's age. Sometimes, other considerations come into play.
For example, back around 2002-2003, when AA was parking about 30 MD80s, they didn't necessarily pick the 30 oldest or highest-cycle MD80s they had in their fleet. Instead, they parked the aircraft that were about to come due for heavy overhauls. The reason is obvious: an overhaul of an aircraft takes weeks and millions of dollars in equipment, labor and facility utilization. As such, AA was all too happy to keep flying a high-cycle MD80 that didn't need a heavy overhaul for five years versus a newer, lower-cycle plane that was coming due for an overhaul in six weeks.
ORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6080 times:
We all are aware of the running joke about the NW DC-9s around here. They are paid for and fit the needs of NW despite the higher maintenance and fuel costs associated with those birds. SQ on the other hand sells off entire fleets young before they can even start to consider serious age associated costs. However I think part of the SQ philosophy is also a prestige issue about always having the latest and greatest.
LXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2137 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6057 times:
It probably also depends on the financial condtion of airlines. If they can't afford to replace aircraft too often they would fly them as long as they can. Nevertheless this is often in long run not always the most economical solution.
Quoting ORDagent (Reply 3): However I think part of the SQ philosophy is also a prestige issue about always having the latest and greatest.
Regarding SQ I would assume that this has to do with it. For instance premium airlines like LH or BA keep aircraft much longer in their fleets and they could afford tehoretically to replace aircraft types earlier.
Pilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5952 times:
Quoting XJETFlyer (Reply 5): I thought if an aircraft was having more repair cost it would be a reason for retirement!
That's usually the best way to determine it. Age doesn't matter, as long as they are still making a profit. But as soon as they get old enough (which changes per type and even individual aircraft), and they start causing more costs (to do heavy checkS) then they can make, that means it's time to do something with that aircraft (ie get rid of it).
Don't you think that's a pretty all encompassing statement? There are carriers like Tiger, JetStar and Air Asia that have fleets younger than all US legacy carriers. Perhaps the LCC carriers I mentioned should look at selling some of their aircraft to the US legacy carriers when it comes time to replace them.
AirPortugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3799 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5818 times:
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10): Don't you think that's a pretty all encompassing statement? There are carriers like Tiger, JetStar and Air Asia that have fleets younger than all US legacy carriers. Perhaps the LCC carriers I mentioned should look at selling some of their aircraft to the US legacy carriers when it comes time to replace them.
Probably. Should probably have thrown in the word "certain"
I think in the end, the environments in which the aircraft primarily flies and the maintenance that is performed on said aircraft is the make/break factor.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2865 posts, RR: 49
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5590 times:
Quoting XJETFlyer (Thread starter): I have flown with many airlines. Some have a newer and nice fleet. Some have plain junk and are just plain scary!
I have to ask: who is flying "junk" and how are you in a position to know? I have flown 30 year old and brand new aircraft from the factory, but I've never flown one that was unsafe.
Quoting Flynavy (Reply 6): Quoting XJETFlyer (Reply 5):
It just seems the age does not mean that much to the airlines.
Quality over quantity. I'd rather fly in a well-maintained 737-200 over a poorly maintained thrid-world "newer" aircraft.
I agree inasmuch as I would rather fly in an older but well maintained aircraft operated by experienced and qualified crews than a new aircraft flown by a carrier that skimps on maintenance, or hires marginal, inexperienced, or insufficiently trained crews.