Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5898 times:
With the A320 having been in service for two decades, examples are clocking up a considerable number of hours, testing the original design goals.
The original design goal of the A320 was for 48,000 cycles and/or 60,000 hours. A320 fleet leaders have already exceeded 60,000 hours with 40,000 cycles also surpassed.
There has been a need to see an increase in the design life and Airbus are working towards a massive tripling such that aircraft could potentially fly for 180,000 hours or 90,000 cycles whichever is reach first.
Based on a utilization of 3,500 hours per annum, the 180,000 hours would equate to 50 years. Aircraft values are currently based on an economic life of 25-30 years though 20-25 years is seen as more prudent.
The tripling of the design goals should allow values to achieve a higher level.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 933 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5752 times:
There is really no problem with keeping the aircraft going on and on, assuming the appropriate spare parts remain in production. There are really relatively few components that would cause an operator to think of scrapping the aircraft, rather than replacing it. Things like main wing spars.
For example, one of the Monarch A300s has a crack in its spar. Whilst it is within limits the aircraft will fly, but I doubt that an airline will pay to have the wings removed, and put back on again with a new spar for an old aircraft, when it would be much cheaper to retire it.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5712 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 6): Whilst it is within limits the aircraft will fly, but I doubt that an airline will pay to have the wings removed, and put back on again with a new spar for an old aircraft, when it would be much cheaper to retire it.