The first Airbus A320 to break the 30-year in service mark

WIederling · Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:17 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

These older '88/89 birds are still part of the same generation and variant as a brand new CEO off the line today. I agree with SteelChair, we will see these CEO's going well into their 30's after all of the newer 767's and 757's from the 2000's have become beer cans.

Airbus hasn't changed the design in 30 years because they don't have to - technology has not changed in 30 years.

77% of 757s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service
22% of A320s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service

The facts show that 757s last longer in service than A320s

To be fair, in 1989, the 757 was in service for 6 years already; in 1989, the A320 was in service for a year or so.
In 1989, the 757 was a more mature aircraft than the A320 was.

Also, the mission profile of the A320 in its early years was shorter hops than the 757. So, more cycles.

It is a rather carefully selected data point apparently.

Then you have to look at cycles/hours as certified ( a paper value ) and how the airframe performs in reality.
( and who initially "stamped" those values as certified. EASA, the precursors, .. or the FAA )

T4thH · Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:21 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

These older '88/89 birds are still part of the same generation and variant as a brand new CEO off the line today. I agree with SteelChair, we will see these CEO's going well into their 30's after all of the newer 767's and 757's from the 2000's have become beer cans.

Airbus hasn't changed the design in 30 years because they don't have to - technology has not changed in 30 years.

77% of 757s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service
22% of A320s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service

The facts show that 757s last longer in service than A320s

To be fair, in 1989, the 757 was in service for 6 years already; in 1989, the A320 was in service for a year or so.
In 1989, the 757 was a more mature aircraft than the A320 was.

Also, the mission profile of the A320 in its early years was shorter hops than the 757. So, more cycles.

The first series of A320 family were the A320-100; this series ended in 1989, these first series of 21x A320-100 jets were only good for around 20 years of duty and have been all scrapped (with exception of the prototype, which was upgraded to the A320-200 prototype). They all left duty between 2007 and 2010 and as already said, were scrapped. The A320-100 was structural weaker, had less range an had not got the MTOW increase and had no wingtip fences e.g.
The last 4 of them had been delivered in 1989? The A320-200 are good till for the heavy check with 30 years (and remind, no one had expected, a A320 will reach an age of 30 years, this was not scheduled in 1989). It is regular just to expensive to perform this last check, also they were structurally e.g. good enough for further 5 to 10 years, till they will reach the maximum flight hour numbers and cycles? Also these (1989) were still the first jet generation of the A320 with several disadvantages, so also these first generation A320-200 have a little bit shorter lifetime to be expected. And the A320-200 has since few years a 100% 1 to 1 replacement with the A320 Neo. And of course, what is regular the third live cycle? The P2F conversion to a freighter, as also old A320 were still highly requested for passenger service, this was just not done, now it is to late for these.The P2F conversions are just starting and the A321 conversions are preferred.

For the B757, 1989 was already a full production year, these were not any more early jets in 1989. There is still no 1 to 1 replacement; there is a limited replacement for the B757-200 with the A321 Neo, an according replacement with the A321 LR now in delivery and of course, in some years, the A321 Xlr will be seen. But to order an Airbus is not fully suitable for all Boeing airlines and Boeing has never produced a 1 to 1 replacement, also some Max 10 gave been ordered as. And many from 1889 still flying are already long time out of passenger service and have their third live as freighter P2F conversion. Old B757-200 were much less requested for passenger service in comparison to the A320.

If someone wants to compare the A320 deliveries of 1889, compare it best with a comparable jet of size, construction and deliveries.
How many B737-400, delivered in 1889, are still on duty?

EDIT: some points added to A320 and B757 (P2F part).

lightsaber · Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:44 pm

a2b7 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
sergegva wrote:
Indeed! I read a very old topic on airliners.net some times ago. Almost all posters were saying that A300 and A320 were built to serve around 20 years, at a maximum!

Early certification was 48,000 FC and 60,000 FH.

LH won't make 30 years due to being too close to the current limit of 120,000FH to justify maintenance. The 60,000FC is sufficient. For example, the high utilization AS MD-80 is being retired at 87,000+ FH and 48,000 FC (going from memory).

I'm sorry lightsaber but I am afraid the old LH A320s are retired based on the cycle limit. (They also were the cycle leaders)
According to a post at https://www.aero.de/forum/Kommentare-zu-aktuellen-Nachrichten/Lufthansa-mustert-ihre-erste-A320-aus/ , D-AIPA for example was retired with 56983 FC and 71402:28 FH. Compared to the AS MD-80, their average flight hours per flight cycle ratio is significantly smaller.

Thank you. I must have read a bad source. Facinating. There is no economic justification to perform a c-check on an aircraft with only 3,017 allowed cycles. Well used.

Ok, if wasn't hours, but cycles. A320s are today being used for longer and longer missions. Yes, HA HNL-LAS is an extreme example, but not after the xLR enters duty.

IIRC, LH had stored the aircraft waiting for the certified extension to its life from 48,000FC to 60,000FC.

Hey, I live in the Western USA. It is a foreign concept on short flights! So the 60,000FH to 120,000 FH seemed logical. Regional bias?

Either way, for high utilization duty, the early A320s needed reinforcement to become 30 year aircraft. But Airbus did their homework.

Rumors persist that Airbus wants to extend the certified life. They failed (found too many cracks) on 90,000FC and 180,000FH. I'm not a structural engineer, so I just have exposure. I wonder where the cracks were and what the limit is (I see value for some airlines, such as you corrected for LH, but as someone who flies TCON a lot, more so on hours).

Lightsaber

Weatherwatcher1 · Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:18 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

These older '88/89 birds are still part of the same generation and variant as a brand new CEO off the line today. I agree with SteelChair, we will see these CEO's going well into their 30's after all of the newer 767's and 757's from the 2000's have become beer cans.

Airbus hasn't changed the design in 30 years because they don't have to - technology has not changed in 30 years.

77% of 757s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service
22% of A320s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service

The facts show that 757s last longer in service than A320s

To be fair, in 1989, the 757 was in service for 6 years already; in 1989, the A320 was in service for a year or so.
In 1989, the 757 was a more mature aircraft than the A320 was.

Also, the mission profile of the A320 in its early years was shorter hops than the 757. So, more cycles.

My original point was countering 1989worstyear who said 1988/89 vintage A320s will remain in service longer than 757s and 767s is flat out wrong. If 1989 built A320s were less mature, let’s look at other years to see how long 757s last in service compared to A320s

Let’s look at 1994

58% of A320s built in 1994 (25 years old) are still in service
82% of 757s built in 1994 (25 years old) are still in service

If we can pick 1998

76% of A320s built in 1998 are still in service
95% of 757s built in 1998 are still in service

The data shows that 757s are used in service longer than A320s

WIederling · Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:22 pm

Some reading stuff:
(Lessons learned) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -1664-3_42

A321 stuff, trade offs into service intervals. ( extended )
https://www.ajw-group.com/storage/downl ... gement.pdf

results/requirements on p12 ff.
48,000 FC/96,000 FH" seems to be a lot nearer the optimax of value per money spent.

Weatherwatcher1 · Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:28 pm

T4thH wrote:
If someone wants to compare the A320 deliveries of 1889, compare it best with a comparable jet of size, construction and deliveries.

How many B737-400, delivered in 1889, are still on duty?

I can get that number

39% of 737-400s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service
77% of 757s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service
22% of A320s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service

a2b7 · Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:29 pm

lightsaber wrote:
a2b7 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Early certification was 48,000 FC and 60,000 FH.

LH won't make 30 years due to being too close to the current limit of 120,000FH to justify maintenance. The 60,000FC is sufficient. For example, the high utilization AS MD-80 is being retired at 87,000+ FH and 48,000 FC (going from memory).

I'm sorry lightsaber but I am afraid the old LH A320s are retired based on the cycle limit. (They also were the cycle leaders)
According to a post at https://www.aero.de/forum/Kommentare-zu-aktuellen-Nachrichten/Lufthansa-mustert-ihre-erste-A320-aus/ , D-AIPA for example was retired with 56983 FC and 71402:28 FH. Compared to the AS MD-80, their average flight hours per flight cycle ratio is significantly smaller.

Thank you. I must have read a bad source. Facinating. There is no economic justification to perform a c-check on an aircraft with only 3,017 allowed cycles. Well used.

Ok, if wasn't hours, but cycles. A320s are today being used for longer and longer missions. Yes, HA HNL-LAS is an extreme example, but not after the xLR enters duty.

IIRC, LH had stored the aircraft waiting for the certified extension to its life from 48,000FC to 60,000FC.

Hey, I live in the Western USA. It is a foreign concept on short flights! So the 60,000FH to 120,000 FH seemed logical. Regional bias?

Either way, for high utilization duty, the early A320s needed reinforcement to become 30 year aircraft. But Airbus did their homework.

Rumors persist that Airbus wants to extend the certified life. They failed (found too many cracks) on 90,000FC and 180,000FH. I'm not a structural engineer, so I just have exposure. I wonder where the cracks were and what the limit is (I see value for some airlines, such as you corrected for LH, but as someone who flies TCON a lot, more so on hours).

Lightsaber

Indeed, they were well used. Yeah, there are many destinations that you can reach within 1 or 1.5 hours of flight from Germany.

I think for the time being, the current LOV is good enough, as I don't see enough demand for an extension in flight cycles - LH is getting the neos (and a few extra end of the line ceos) as a replacement - and the FH leader C-FDQV was retired in April with 90,746 FH (see https://twitter.com/aircanada/status/1113534769906749440) , so there is still a buffer of roughly 29,000 FH. (Okay, technically an FC limit of a few thousand more cycles and LH maybe wouldn't have ordered the extra ceos).

Matching the rumors you mention indicate, I think it makes sense to work on an extension of the flight hours limit, as the LR and even more the XLR will use up their FHs more quickly.

PW100 · Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:17 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The data shows that 757s are used in service longer than A320s

And what does that tell you . . . ?

longhauler · Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:59 pm

PW100 wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The data shows that 757s are used in service longer than A320s

And what does that tell you . . . ?

That 757s have been around longer than A320s. I’d bet that DC-3s have been in service longer than A320s too.

But ..... when Boeing sells 10,000 757s ......

1989worstyear · Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:47 pm

longhauler wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The data shows that 757s are used in service longer than A320s

And what does that tell you . . . ?

That 757s have been around longer than A320s. I’d bet that DC-3s have been in service longer than A320s too.

But ..... when Boeing sells 10,000 757s ......

I guess what I meant to say was - a 30 year old A320-200 is not obsolete, as the same exact variant is even offered today.

Therefore, these older A320's will likely survive past most of the 757's and 767's built this century, as the latter are more in line with the DC-3 generationally, as you imply.

It's the technology of these types - not their durability I was commenting about. Modern aircraft started in 1988.

1989worstyear · Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:58 pm

T4thH wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

77% of 757s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service
22% of A320s built in 1989 (30 years old) are still in service

The facts show that 757s last longer in service than A320s

To be fair, in 1989, the 757 was in service for 6 years already; in 1989, the A320 was in service for a year or so.
In 1989, the 757 was a more mature aircraft than the A320 was.

Also, the mission profile of the A320 in its early years was shorter hops than the 757. So, more cycles.

The first series of A320 family were the A320-100; this series ended in 1989, these first series of 21x A320-100 jets were only good for around 20 years of duty and have been all scrapped (with exception of the prototype, which was upgraded to the A320-200 prototype). They all left duty between 2007 and 2010 and as already said, were scrapped. The A320-100 was structural weaker, had less range an had not got the MTOW increase and had no wingtip fences e.g.
The last 4 of them had been delivered in 1989? The A320-200 are good till for the heavy check with 30 years (and remind, no one had expected, a A320 will reach an age of 30 years, this was not scheduled in 1989). It is regular just to expensive to perform this last check, also they were structurally e.g. good enough for further 5 to 10 years, till they will reach the maximum flight hour numbers and cycles? Also these (1989) were still the first jet generation of the A320 with several disadvantages, so also these first generation A320-200 have a little bit shorter lifetime to be expected. And the A320-200 has since few years a 100% 1 to 1 replacement with the A320 Neo. And of course, what is regular the third live cycle? The P2F conversion to a freighter, as also old A320 were still highly requested for passenger service, this was just not done, now it is to late for these.The P2F conversions are just starting and the A321 conversions are preferred.

For the B757, 1989 was already a full production year, these were not any more early jets in 1989. There is still no 1 to 1 replacement; there is a limited replacement for the B757-200 with the A321 Neo, an according replacement with the A321 LR now in delivery and of course, in some years, the A321 Xlr will be seen. But to order an Airbus is not fully suitable for all Boeing airlines and Boeing has never produced a 1 to 1 replacement, also some Max 10 gave been ordered as. And many from 1889 still flying are already long time out of passenger service and have their third live as freighter P2F conversion. Old B757-200 were much less requested for passenger service in comparison to the A320.

If someone wants to compare the A320 deliveries of 1889, compare it best with a comparable jet of size, construction and deliveries.
How many B737-400, delivered in 1889, are still on duty?

EDIT: some points added to A320 and B757 (P2F part).

There are only two generations of the -200: the CEO and NEO. The older craft in question are part of the same generation occupied by the end of line CEO's LH and Peach are receiving currently.

Nothing has changed in the frame or systems since November of 1988 - even Airbus admitted a brand new NEO is 95% parts compatible with a 30 year old -200.

CowAnon · Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Wider isles

Which was technically impossible in the past??

lightsaber wrote:
What I don't get:. GLARE and other fancy alloys helped save weight in the past, why are these not applied more to narrowbodies?

Because Airbus blocks other OEMs from using GLARE just as well as it gets in its own way of using the material:

From https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... -spotlight (July 2017):
From viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1414917&start=72 (February 2019):
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
And as far as I know, the reason GLARE was ditched was because it was too expensive. (even more expensive than CFRP!)

GLARE has always been fighting internal political battles due to not-invented-here syndrome for certain key people. Two years ago it was all systems go for developing further applications since a number of manufacturing demonstrators passed all requirements (including costs) - then "for some reason" all budget was pulled without notice.

It is still a very, very competitive solution - so It will hopefully have another day in the sun following a few management retirements...

French resistance to GLARE within Airbus goes back a long time:

lightsaber · Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:17 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
T4thH wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
To be fair, in 1989, the 757 was in service for 6 years already; in 1989, the A320 was in service for a year or so.
In 1989, the 757 was a more mature aircraft than the A320 was.

Also, the mission profile of the A320 in its early years was shorter hops than the 757. So, more cycles.

The first series of A320 family were the A320-100; this series ended in 1989, these first series of 21x A320-100 jets were only good for around 20 years of duty and have been all scrapped (with exception of the prototype, which was upgraded to the A320-200 prototype). They all left duty between 2007 and 2010 and as already said, were scrapped. The A320-100 was structural weaker, had less range an had not got the MTOW increase and had no wingtip fences e.g.
The last 4 of them had been delivered in 1989? The A320-200 are good till for the heavy check with 30 years (and remind, no one had expected, a A320 will reach an age of 30 years, this was not scheduled in 1989). It is regular just to expensive to perform this last check, also they were structurally e.g. good enough for further 5 to 10 years, till they will reach the maximum flight hour numbers and cycles? Also these (1989) were still the first jet generation of the A320 with several disadvantages, so also these first generation A320-200 have a little bit shorter lifetime to be expected. And the A320-200 has since few years a 100% 1 to 1 replacement with the A320 Neo. And of course, what is regular the third live cycle? The P2F conversion to a freighter, as also old A320 were still highly requested for passenger service, this was just not done, now it is to late for these.The P2F conversions are just starting and the A321 conversions are preferred.

For the B757, 1989 was already a full production year, these were not any more early jets in 1989. There is still no 1 to 1 replacement; there is a limited replacement for the B757-200 with the A321 Neo, an according replacement with the A321 LR now in delivery and of course, in some years, the A321 Xlr will be seen. But to order an Airbus is not fully suitable for all Boeing airlines and Boeing has never produced a 1 to 1 replacement, also some Max 10 gave been ordered as. And many from 1889 still flying are already long time out of passenger service and have their third live as freighter P2F conversion. Old B757-200 were much less requested for passenger service in comparison to the A320.

If someone wants to compare the A320 deliveries of 1889, compare it best with a comparable jet of size, construction and deliveries.
How many B737-400, delivered in 1889, are still on duty?

EDIT: some points added to A320 and B757 (P2F part).

There are only two generations of the -200: the CEO and NEO. The older craft in question are part of the same generation occupied by the end of line CEO's LH and Peach are receiving currently.

Nothing has changed in the frame or systems since November of 1988 - even Airbus admitted a brand new NEO is 95% parts compatible with a 30 year old -200.

There are four generations of CEO structure. Someone will have to provide a link.

Latest generation has Sharklet reinforcement built in by default.

Mid generation is retrifitable to Sharklets, but must add significant weight (and it takes time) to retrofit Sharklets.

Earliest A320-200 structure cannot support winglets and requires expensive modifications to get past 48,000 FC/60,000FH

A320-100 structure. 48k cycle/60k FH limit if double biggie. Others required weeks of work for life cycle extension (often not economically viable).

Then there is a the NEO.

I'm not aware of a single aircraft to get past #500 without significant structural changes. The A330 and 777 compete for the record in the extent.

Is the A320CEO on its 3rd or 4th generation of avionics? The 737NG underwent two hydraulic system redesigns to cut weight and maintenance.

The NEO is the first to significantly change wing aerodynamics (cross section changes to increase laminar flow).

The new structures can be retrofitted, so old parts are no longer inventoried for spares. Except for the keel changes. But unless an A320 is less than 7 years old, if you damage past doublers, the plane is scrap anyway.

Lightsaber

1989worstyear · Sat Aug 31, 2019 11:04 pm

lightsaber wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
T4thH wrote:
The first series of A320 family were the A320-100; this series ended in 1989, these first series of 21x A320-100 jets were only good for around 20 years of duty and have been all scrapped (with exception of the prototype, which was upgraded to the A320-200 prototype). They all left duty between 2007 and 2010 and as already said, were scrapped. The A320-100 was structural weaker, had less range an had not got the MTOW increase and had no wingtip fences e.g.
The last 4 of them had been delivered in 1989? The A320-200 are good till for the heavy check with 30 years (and remind, no one had expected, a A320 will reach an age of 30 years, this was not scheduled in 1989). It is regular just to expensive to perform this last check, also they were structurally e.g. good enough for further 5 to 10 years, till they will reach the maximum flight hour numbers and cycles? Also these (1989) were still the first jet generation of the A320 with several disadvantages, so also these first generation A320-200 have a little bit shorter lifetime to be expected. And the A320-200 has since few years a 100% 1 to 1 replacement with the A320 Neo. And of course, what is regular the third live cycle? The P2F conversion to a freighter, as also old A320 were still highly requested for passenger service, this was just not done, now it is to late for these.The P2F conversions are just starting and the A321 conversions are preferred.

For the B757, 1989 was already a full production year, these were not any more early jets in 1989. There is still no 1 to 1 replacement; there is a limited replacement for the B757-200 with the A321 Neo, an according replacement with the A321 LR now in delivery and of course, in some years, the A321 Xlr will be seen. But to order an Airbus is not fully suitable for all Boeing airlines and Boeing has never produced a 1 to 1 replacement, also some Max 10 gave been ordered as. And many from 1889 still flying are already long time out of passenger service and have their third live as freighter P2F conversion. Old B757-200 were much less requested for passenger service in comparison to the A320.

If someone wants to compare the A320 deliveries of 1889, compare it best with a comparable jet of size, construction and deliveries.
How many B737-400, delivered in 1889, are still on duty?

EDIT: some points added to A320 and B757 (P2F part).

There are only two generations of the -200: the CEO and NEO. The older craft in question are part of the same generation occupied by the end of line CEO's LH and Peach are receiving currently.

Nothing has changed in the frame or systems since November of 1988 - even Airbus admitted a brand new NEO is 95% parts compatible with a 30 year old -200.

There are four generations of CEO structure. Someone will have to provide a link.

Latest generation has Sharklet reinforcement built in by default.

Mid generation is retrifitable to Sharklets, but must add significant weight (and it takes time) to retrofit Sharklets.

Earliest A320-200 structure cannot support winglets and requires expensive modifications to get past 48,000 FC/60,000FH

A320-100 structure. 48k cycle/60k FH limit if double biggie. Others required weeks of work for life cycle extension (often not economically viable).

Then there is a the NEO.

I'm not aware of a single aircraft to get past #500 without significant structural changes. The A330 and 777 compete for the record in the extent.

Is the A320CEO on its 3rd or 4th generation of avionics? The 737NG underwent two hydraulic system redesigns to cut weight and maintenance.

The NEO is the first to significantly change wing aerodynamics (cross section changes to increase laminar flow).

The new structures can be retrofitted, so old parts are no longer inventoried for spares. Except for the keel changes. But unless an A320 is less than 7 years old, if you damage past doublers, the plane is scrap anyway.

Lightsaber

Didn't the 763 ER pretty much stay identical structurally between 86-14?

WayexTDI · Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:48 am

1989worstyear wrote:
T4thH wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
To be fair, in 1989, the 757 was in service for 6 years already; in 1989, the A320 was in service for a year or so.
In 1989, the 757 was a more mature aircraft than the A320 was.

Also, the mission profile of the A320 in its early years was shorter hops than the 757. So, more cycles.

The first series of A320 family were the A320-100; this series ended in 1989, these first series of 21x A320-100 jets were only good for around 20 years of duty and have been all scrapped (with exception of the prototype, which was upgraded to the A320-200 prototype). They all left duty between 2007 and 2010 and as already said, were scrapped. The A320-100 was structural weaker, had less range an had not got the MTOW increase and had no wingtip fences e.g.
The last 4 of them had been delivered in 1989? The A320-200 are good till for the heavy check with 30 years (and remind, no one had expected, a A320 will reach an age of 30 years, this was not scheduled in 1989). It is regular just to expensive to perform this last check, also they were structurally e.g. good enough for further 5 to 10 years, till they will reach the maximum flight hour numbers and cycles? Also these (1989) were still the first jet generation of the A320 with several disadvantages, so also these first generation A320-200 have a little bit shorter lifetime to be expected. And the A320-200 has since few years a 100% 1 to 1 replacement with the A320 Neo. And of course, what is regular the third live cycle? The P2F conversion to a freighter, as also old A320 were still highly requested for passenger service, this was just not done, now it is to late for these.The P2F conversions are just starting and the A321 conversions are preferred.

For the B757, 1989 was already a full production year, these were not any more early jets in 1989. There is still no 1 to 1 replacement; there is a limited replacement for the B757-200 with the A321 Neo, an according replacement with the A321 LR now in delivery and of course, in some years, the A321 Xlr will be seen. But to order an Airbus is not fully suitable for all Boeing airlines and Boeing has never produced a 1 to 1 replacement, also some Max 10 gave been ordered as. And many from 1889 still flying are already long time out of passenger service and have their third live as freighter P2F conversion. Old B757-200 were much less requested for passenger service in comparison to the A320.

If someone wants to compare the A320 deliveries of 1889, compare it best with a comparable jet of size, construction and deliveries.
How many B737-400, delivered in 1889, are still on duty?

EDIT: some points added to A320 and B757 (P2F part).

There are only two generations of the -200: the CEO and NEO. The older craft in question are part of the same generation occupied by the end of line CEO's LH and Peach are receiving currently.

Nothing has changed in the frame or systems since November of 1988 - even Airbus admitted a brand new NEO is 95% parts compatible with a 30 year old -200.

I'm surprised about that. The project Power8 (after the A380 Wiring fiasco) dictated a good amount of new avionics, at least, in the A320 family. The boxes were 2-way interchangeable, but none of the internals were; and most of the PCB's were no longer repaired/officially repairable after Power8.

santi319 · Sun Sep 01, 2019 1:01 am

Mmmmm congrats to this plane, safe to say DL is dying to buy it and bring it to their fleet?

a2b7 · Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:03 pm

WIederling wrote:
Some reading stuff:
(Lessons learned) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -1664-3_42

A321 stuff, trade offs into service intervals. ( extended )
https://www.ajw-group.com/storage/downl ... gement.pdf

results/requirements on p12 ff.
48,000 FC/96,000 FH" seems to be a lot nearer the optimax of value per money spent.

Thank you very much for posting the links. The article from MRO Management was a nice read.
What I found particularly interesting was that the first A321 to reach the DSG FH limit was MSN 677 in June 2013 (Thomas Cook back then) and the first to reach the DSG FC limit was expected to be MSN 1356 (Asiana) in January 2017 - both when they only were 16 years old. Coincidentally MSN 677 is among the A321 acquired by Vallair for P2F conversion.

Additional sources: planespotters.net, Vallair News 2018 Apr 25 https://www.vallair.aero/news-events.php

multimark · Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:38 pm

longhauler wrote:
I am old enough to remember when A320s started replacing 727-200s. The feeling among "experts" (like us) was that this "disposable French airplane would never last as long as a Boeing".

Air Canada's first A320 will hit 30 years old at the end of this year ... the 727-200s it replaced lasted roughly half that at Air Canada!

Which makes their decision to go with the 737 MAX even more ridiculous. Karma to see those new a/c sitting on the ground. Rovinescu should look up the British saying "penny-wise, pound-foolish".

DocLightning · Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:52 pm

T4thH wrote:
And of course, they expected, that only 700 A320 will be build...LOL.

I think they seriously overestimated how well the A340 would do and seriously underestimated the A330, as well.

Then again, can you imagine that the men designing the 737 would expect that their grandkids would still be building them?

lightsaber · Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:21 pm

a2b7 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Some reading stuff:
(Lessons learned) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -1664-3_42

A321 stuff, trade offs into service intervals. ( extended )
https://www.ajw-group.com/storage/downl ... gement.pdf

results/requirements on p12 ff.
48,000 FC/96,000 FH" seems to be a lot nearer the optimax of value per money spent.

Thank you very much for posting the links. The article from MRO Management was a nice read.
What I found particularly interesting was that the first A321 to reach the DSG FH limit was MSN 677 in June 2013 (Thomas Cook back then) and the first to reach the DSG FC limit was expected to be MSN 1356 (Asiana) in January 2017 - both when they only were 16 years old. Coincidentally MSN 677 is among the A321 acquired by Vallair for P2F conversion.

Additional sources: planespotters.net, Vallair News 2018 Apr 25 https://www.vallair.aero/news-events.php

First, thank you for the links. Was it really 2009 the extension to 60,000 FC /120,000FH occurred? Very few links discuss the attempt to 90,000FC/180,000FH that had to be ended.

What amazed me:
. "For redesigned parts (including powerplant and
related system), direct maintenance costs are 54%
lower than for the A320ceo, achieved by both fewer
tasks and longer intervals between inspections."

Now, I should note overhaul costs are higher, but by dramatically reducing line maintenance, for the CEO about half the maintenance costs, both NEO engines (after warranty) have reduced overall maintenance costs.

Besides the increased maintenance intervals, predictive maintenance on the NEO/later CEO/CEOs with updated avionics will have a higher utilization rate.

Allegiant is the poster child of this. They buy old, usually 14+, year old CEOs. But by going with a predictive maintenance program, they are saving money vs. the break and find the issue MD-80s.

If Airbus can extend the Level of Validity (LOV), we can expect more elderly A320s.

I certainly didn't expect certain production to 2030+.

Lightsaber

WIederling · Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:30 pm

DocLightning wrote:
T4thH wrote:
And of course, they expected, that only 700 A320 will be build...LOL.

I think they seriously overestimated how well the A340 would do and seriously underestimated the A330, as well.

Then again, can you imagine that the men designing the 737 would expect that their grandkids would still be building them?

Engineering with the mindset apparent before the 737 creation probably would have done a new design much earlier.

But things are similar to Atari: they had a very bright designer working on the ST, MEGA-ST series.
Rather well done set of ASICS ( with only minor glitches in bus arbitration ).
That guy left Atari afaik around the introduction of the MEGA-ST series.
Every following generation gyrated around this initial set of ASICS while "lesser" engineers "enhanced" the systems with
stuck on discrete logic to shoehorn expanded requirements and newer CPUs into to the series.
Atari first slogged on and went under eventually.

lightsaber · Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:41 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

There are only two generations of the -200: the CEO and NEO. The older craft in question are part of the same generation occupied by the end of line CEO's LH and Peach are receiving currently.

Nothing has changed in the frame or systems since November of 1988 - even Airbus admitted a brand new NEO is 95% parts compatible with a 30 year old -200.

There are four generations of CEO structure. Someone will have to provide a link.

Latest generation has Sharklet reinforcement built in by default.

Mid generation is retrifitable to Sharklets, but must add significant weight (and it takes time) to retrofit Sharklets.

Earliest A320-200 structure cannot support winglets and requires expensive modifications to get past 48,000 FC/60,000FH

A320-100 structure. 48k cycle/60k FH limit if double biggie. Others required weeks of work for life cycle extension (often not economically viable).

Then there is a the NEO.

I'm not aware of a single aircraft to get past #500 without significant structural changes. The A330 and 777 compete for the record in the extent.

Is the A320CEO on its 3rd or 4th generation of avionics? The 737NG underwent two hydraulic system redesigns to cut weight and maintenance.

The NEO is the first to significantly change wing aerodynamics (cross section changes to increase laminar flow).

The new structures can be retrofitted, so old parts are no longer inventoried for spares. Except for the keel changes. But unless an A320 is less than 7 years old, if you damage past doublers, the plane is scrap anyway.

Lightsaber

Didn't the 763 ER pretty much stay identical structurally between 86-14?

Pretty much is challenging to define. Did it undergo less radical changes than the A320 and 737NG. Yes. There was an engine pylon structural improvement , minor change to the canoes, nacelle improvements, and the major aft pressure bulkhead changes (shocked me how many in service 767s had this retrofitted by replacing the aft pressure bulkhead). But nothing of the magnitude of the 737-900ER aft bulkhead or redo of wing structure the A320 underwent for Sharklets.

IIRC, the 787 is on the 3rd wing/body join configuration. Post A340, dramatic internal A330 structural changes to increase MTOW and the A330NEO build off the prior wing, but so many parts are thicker, it looks like the same structure, but isn't.

So no, I'm not aware of any commercial jet aircraft in production for a decade that didn't undergo significant structural changes.

For the A320, Airbus is looking to replace aluminum parts with 3D printed titanium. The old assemblies will just become obsolete and instead if replacing a few parts, a new sub-assembly will be purchased and installed.

Airbus has a program to remove several hundred kg of weight from the A320 per year. That requires structural changes.

The A321xLR will be the greatest structural change yet! The wingbox is getting modified to create"free" fuel space. It wouldn't surprise me if Airbus didn't take lessons learned to extend the A321xLR to 90,000 FC/180,000FH. Not that anyone cares about that future a life.

But if the maintenance intervals could be, incrementally, increased by 50% or in other words reduce overhaul costs 33%, airlines will pay a premium for that.

What is the weight of structural reinforcement to meet the extended maintenance intervals for the A320? I've heard rumors to bring old structure up to new structural limits is on the order of 180kg of doublers throughout the old A320 (I've heard 40kg more for the A321). Does anyone have a link?

To be clear, Airbus has done a great job of continuous improvement. Old aircraft being upgraded need weeks of work to perform significant structural upgrades. This is normal. I fully expect the A321xLR to go for the 50% life increase. I expect eventually the A320 to gain that structure too, but after a few year lag. From what I see, this upgrade is not economical to retrofit. C'est la vie.

Lightsaber

T4thH · Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:15 pm

DocLightning wrote:
T4thH wrote:
And of course, they expected, that only 700 A320 will be build...LOL.

I think they seriously overestimated how well the A340 would do and seriously underestimated the A330, as well.

Then again, can you imagine that the men designing the 737 would expect that their grandkids would still be building them?

The B737 story is 100% comparable, I really would like to travel back in time, to meet them just at that day, when the first had been delivered and to explain them, that 40 years later it is stil in production and already more than 10.000 have been build. And to see their silly faces, when I have to explain them, that after 40 years, it has still not been replaced by a clean sheet design. Of course I will like to do the same with the engineers, who have constructed the A320.

Sorry, but for me, the A330/A340 family story is not comparable. the whole family has performed better than estimated. The importance of the ETOPS certification was the underestimated game changer.

Slash787 · Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:53 pm

Does anyone has the flight deck photos for this bird?

Weatherwatcher1 · Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:08 pm

T4thH wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
T4thH wrote:
And of course, they expected, that only 700 A320 will be build...LOL.

I think they seriously overestimated how well the A340 would do and seriously underestimated the A330, as well.

Then again, can you imagine that the men designing the 737 would expect that their grandkids would still be building them?

The B737 story is 100% comparable, I really would like to travel back in time, to meet them just at that day, when the first had been delivered and to explain them, that 40 years later it is stil in production and already more than 10.000 have been build. And to see their silly faces, when I have to explain them, that after 40 years, it has still not been replaced by a clean sheet design. Of course I will like to do the same with the engineers, who have constructed the A320.

Sorry, but for me, the A330/A340 family story is not comparable. the whole family has performed better than estimated. The importance of the ETOPS certification was the underestimated game changer.

Back in the 1960s, everyone thought Super Sonic travel was the future. The 737 was not the prestigious program back then. The prestige was the SST. Similarly In the 1980s 4 Engines 4 Long Haul was the established precedent. Few thought the A320 or even A330 would be flying ETOPS. Back in 1988, there were no twinjets flying to or from Hawaii. It is amazing where we have come.

WIederling · Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:03 pm

T4thH wrote:
Sorry, but for me, the A330/A340 family story is not comparable. the whole family has performed better than estimated. The importance of the ETOPS certification was the underestimated game changer.

I don't think Airbus underestimated ETOPS. But Airbus would not have got traction in the then primary market _before_ Boeing had a competitive product. ( A300 had to go FAA 60minutes for US airlines until ETOPS was "invented" for the 767.)

The A330/A340 combo was imho quite the engineering accomplishment and availed good contingency capabilities to Airbus.

debonair · Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:37 pm

mxaxai wrote:
And it still flies! Bringing people to Antalya every day, ZS-GAL celebrated its 30th birthday three days ago.

I had the pleasure to have a tour on these birds, unfortunately not flying. The cabin is still in excellent conditions with nice leather seats, surprising, as I expected the full, old US interior (as shown on their homepage). However, there was a strange, mouldy smell.
Their secret is a 3 man flight deck with an engineer, who will fix problems immediately and keeps the a/c going soldiering on.

SomebodyInTLS · Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:43 pm

lightsaber wrote:
What I don't get:. GLARE and other fancy alloys helped save weight in the past, why are these not applied more to narrowbodies?

As mentioned by CowAnon (thanks to him/her for bringing my attention to this subtopic by using my old quote):

CowAnon wrote:
French resistance to GLARE within Airbus goes back a long time

There have been interesting studies, but they only ever get a fraction of the attention/budget that CFRP does.

SIVB · Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:19 pm

Back at my previous airline we had both factory new CEOs and a couple of old A320s (circa 1990 MSN ~140). I remember one of those frames still flying back in 2013, which was bought by Airbus and leased back to the airline on a very good deal (pay by the hour I think) and it was used basically as a spare plane. Apparently this aircraft had developed cracks in the wing root and had to be scrapped a few months later, but Airbus along with the airline did a couple of “test flights” and I was told by the Chief Pilot that they were meant to acquire data for a cycle extension program.
I do have to say that newer frames were a good deal lighter than older ones (around 300 kgs with the same equipment) and had much better dispatch reliability.
I do miss the A320 (I’m now on the B737NG) and think is a fine product that has aged wonderfully, much to the dismay of some older captains I knew that tought “these plastic airplanes are never going to last as long as good ol’ MD80s”.

seabosdca · Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:11 am

WIederling wrote:
The A330/A340 combo was imho quite the engineering accomplishment and availed good contingency capabilities to Airbus.

IMO a brilliant stroke of product planning given the situation at the time, and brought Airbus credibility even with airlines that had no need for widebodies. Without the A340, the A330 would never have got off the ground; without the A330, the A320 would not be the dominating force it is today.

1989worstyear · Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:24 am

SIVB wrote:
Back at my previous airline we had both factory new CEOs and a couple of old A320s (circa 1990 MSN ~140). I remember one of those frames still flying back in 2013, which was bought by Airbus and leased back to the airline on a very good deal (pay by the hour I think) and it was used basically as a spare plane. Apparently this aircraft had developed cracks in the wing root and had to be scrapped a few months later, but Airbus along with the airline did a couple of “test flights” and I was told by the Chief Pilot that they were meant to acquire data for a cycle extension program.
I do have to say that newer frames were a good deal lighter than older ones (around 300 kgs with the same equipment) and had much better dispatch reliability.
I do miss the A320 (I’m now on the B737NG) and think is a fine product that has aged wonderfully, much to the dismay of some older captains I knew that tought “these plastic airplanes are never going to last as long as good ol’ MD80s”.

They're aged wonderfully because the technology has not changed in 30 years. Airbus has not needed to change much of anything to remain competitive.

I expect the -200 CEO to become the next DC-3 - all of these older builds flying regular pax service proves this.

TWA772LR · Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:34 am

1989worstyear wrote:
SIVB wrote:
Back at my previous airline we had both factory new CEOs and a couple of old A320s (circa 1990 MSN ~140). I remember one of those frames still flying back in 2013, which was bought by Airbus and leased back to the airline on a very good deal (pay by the hour I think) and it was used basically as a spare plane. Apparently this aircraft had developed cracks in the wing root and had to be scrapped a few months later, but Airbus along with the airline did a couple of “test flights” and I was told by the Chief Pilot that they were meant to acquire data for a cycle extension program.
I do have to say that newer frames were a good deal lighter than older ones (around 300 kgs with the same equipment) and had much better dispatch reliability.
I do miss the A320 (I’m now on the B737NG) and think is a fine product that has aged wonderfully, much to the dismay of some older captains I knew that tought “these plastic airplanes are never going to last as long as good ol’ MD80s”.

They're aged wonderfully because the technology has not changed in 30 years. Airbus has not needed to change much of anything to remain competitive.

I expect the -200 CEO to become the next DC-3 - all of these older builds flying regular pax service proves this.

Could it be that the original A320, and 737 for that matter, were simply ahead of their time?

blacksoviet · Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:03 am

I once read that the A320 is what forced Boeing to develop the 73G and the 738. United was not impressed with the 734 and refused to order it.

WIederling · Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:11 am

1989worstyear wrote:
They're aged wonderfully because the technology has not changed in 30 years. Airbus has not needed to change much of anything to remain competitive.

With the A320 Airbus created a rather future proof basic framework.
"Abstracting" the FBW system was done right as a step change.
Parting out of functionality/control path into functional modules was done right.

Aero, engines, hydraulics, electrics, : all move slowly forward, can improve on its modules
or even change the basic operating mode of a module ( like changing from hydraulic actor to
and electric one ) but the basic design stands and does not need repartitioning.
Airbus can thus leverage the progress of technology on a 30 year old basic design.
Keep it modern and very competitive.

Boeing never really got beyond accessorizing over the existing established art.
All made to feel just as if the plane is still controlled by cables and pushrods.
Most extreme example is the MAX ( and the path via NG ) with the escalating number of traps springing up because
their onion layering technique of bringing products forward is kind of blowback prone.

WIederling · Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:26 am

TWA772LR wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
SIVB wrote:
Back at my previous airline we had both factory new CEOs and a couple of old A320s (circa 1990 MSN ~140). I remember one of those frames still flying back in 2013, which was bought by Airbus and leased back to the airline on a very good deal (pay by the hour I think) and it was used basically as a spare plane. Apparently this aircraft had developed cracks in the wing root and had to be scrapped a few months later, but Airbus along with the airline did a couple of “test flights” and I was told by the Chief Pilot that they were meant to acquire data for a cycle extension program.
I do have to say that newer frames were a good deal lighter than older ones (around 300 kgs with the same equipment) and had much better dispatch reliability.
I do miss the A320 (I’m now on the B737NG) and think is a fine product that has aged wonderfully, much to the dismay of some older captains I knew that tought “these plastic airplanes are never going to last as long as good ol’ MD80s”.

They're aged wonderfully because the technology has not changed in 30 years. Airbus has not needed to change much of anything to remain competitive.

I expect the -200 CEO to become the next DC-3 - all of these older builds flying regular pax service proves this.

Could it be that the original A320, and 737 for that matter, were simply ahead of their time?

True for the A320. no question.
Afaics the 737 was a stitched together composite to fit some customer demand. ( LH ), wasn't it :-)

sergegva · Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:35 pm

Blotto wrote:
sergegva wrote:
I'm interested to know if all old LH A320 are very close to their next heavy check, or if some of them have still 1 or 2 years before it, and thus will pass the 30 years mark.

Planning is volatile (inspection findings, capacity, economy) but most likely there will be LH A320s flying in their 30s in the near future. No bird is expected to enter its 32nd year.

As I writed four days ago, two LH aircraft did indeed break the 30 years old mark: D-AIPB (first flight: August 11th, 1989) and D-AIPC (first flight: August 23th, 1989).

The list of A320 to reach 30 years old is now as follows:

1. MSN 029, JY-JAC (Jordan Aviation, flying for Cubana) - 30.7 y.o. - still flying, 2-3 cycles/day (irregular)
2. MSN 053, ZS-GAR (Correndon), 30.4 y.o. - still flying, around 5 cycles/day
3. MSN 054, ZS-GAW (Correndon), 30.3 y.o - still flying, 4-5 cycles/day
4. MSN 064, ZS-GAL (Correndon), 30.2 y.o - still flying, around 4 cycles/day
5. MSN 070 - D-AIPB (Lufthansa), 30.1 y.o - still flying, around 6 cycles/day
6. MSN 071 - D-AIPC (Lufthansa), 30.0 y.o - still flying, around 6 cycles/day

rikkus67 · Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:10 pm

C-FDQQ is an October 1989 build. NTU by Ansett, it entered Air Canada's fleet in January 1990. AC also has multiple 1990 builds still flying within its fleet.

T4thH · Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:30 pm

Lufthansa D-AIPB "Heidelberg" has reached the 30 years on duty yesterday.
https://www.flugrevue.de/zivil/heidelberg-gut-in-schuss-lufthansa-a320-begeht-30-dienstjubilaeum/

ExMilitaryEng · Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:26 pm

rikkus67 wrote:
C-FDQQ is an October 1989 build. NTU by Ansett, it entered Air Canada's fleet in January 1990. AC also has multiple 1990 builds still flying within its fleet.

Air Canada's C-FDQQ (MSN 59, which first flight was on 27/10/1989) still soldier on.

So, six more days before hitting 30!!!

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/c-fdqq
https://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-a320-59.htm

2nd2none · Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:39 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
rikkus67 wrote:
C-FDQQ is an October 1989 build. NTU by Ansett, it entered Air Canada's fleet in January 1990. AC also has multiple 1990 builds still flying within its fleet.

Air Canada's C-FDQQ (MSN 59, which first flight was on 27/10/1989) still soldier on.

So, six more days before hitting 30!!!

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/c-fdqq
https://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-a320-59.htm

But not delivered to AC before Jan 19 1990 (originally planned for Ansett Airlines)

C-FDQQ Airbus A320-211 Air Canada
19 Jan 1990 C14Y132 2x CFMI CFM56-5A1 C0099D 201
leased from GECAS

sergegva · Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:41 pm

sergegva wrote:

The list of A320 to reach 30 years old is now as follows:

1. MSN 029, JY-JAC (Jordan Aviation, flying for Cubana) - 30.7 y.o. - still flying, 2-3 cycles/day (irregular)
2. MSN 053, ZS-GAR (Correndon), 30.4 y.o. - still flying, around 5 cycles/day
3. MSN 054, ZS-GAW (Correndon), 30.3 y.o - still flying, 4-5 cycles/day
4. MSN 064, ZS-GAL (Correndon), 30.2 y.o - still flying, around 4 cycles/day
5. MSN 070 - D-AIPB (Lufthansa), 30.1 y.o - still flying, around 6 cycles/day
6. MSN 071 - D-AIPC (Lufthansa), 30.0 y.o - still flying, around 6 cycles/day

7. MSN 076 - ZS-GAS (Correndon #4). Base: Antalya
8. MSN 078 - D-AIPE (Lufthansa #3). Base: Munich
9. MSN 081 - ZS-GAZ (Correndon #5). Base: Antalya
10. MSN 083 - D-AIPF (Lufthansa #4). Base: Munich
11. MSN 086 - D-AIPH (Lufthansa #5). Base: Munich - First flight was 30 years and 1 day ago

Air Canada soon!

PacoMartin · Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:15 pm

Delta's oldest A320 will reach 30 years on 1 Aug 2020 (Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 118)

As of 02/16/2018(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)82,835 Total Cycles 37,591
As of 04/27/2017(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)80,865 Total Cycles 36,551
As of 03/04/2016(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)77,466 Total Cycles 34,921

seabosdca wrote:
Worth noting that Airbus has a program to extend the original design life of all but the earliest A320 series aircraft, from the original 60,000 FH/48,000 FC to the current 90,000 FH/60,000 FC. Airlines such as LH, DL, and AC that are flying early A320s have almost certainly taken advantage of this program. Airbus originally wanted to do a further extension to 120,000 FH/75,000 FC, but apparently that proved uneconomic.

Also looks like AC will need to retire some A320s pretty soon for reaching flight hours limits, if the numbers reported upthread are accurate. Presumably they are being replaced by 737 MAX 8. DL's have a bit more headroom (I don't know about LH's).

Here is the press release 06 March 2008
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2008/03/new-service-package-will-extend-a320-039-s-life.html

Summary
Airbus' Extended Service Goal package will allow A320 Family operators 
to extend the operating lifetime of their aircraft by 10 to 20 years or more, 
and benefit from longer revenue service as well as 
increased residual market value of their single-aisle fleet.

Airbus is developing a new package that will allow A320 Family operators 
to fly their aircraft for  an additional 10 to 20 years or more. Based on in-service 
experience and market expectations, 
the Extended Service Goal (ESG) package is divided into two phases. 

ESG I will enable A320 Family aircraft to fly up to 
60,000 flight cycles or 120,000 flight hours, 
and is planned for approval by the end of 2010. 

ESG II will go even further, up to the 
maximum economic potential of the airframe.

The Extended Service Goal will enable A320 Family operators to earn additional revenue by flying their aircraft longer, 
as well as benefiting from the increased residual value of their Airbus single-aisle fleets. 
In addition, A320 operators will be able to make the most of the aircraft's potential with Airbus fleet upgrade and 
harmonization services such as the In-service Enhancement Package, and the enhanced cabin or 
fuel saving measures offered by Airbus to keep in-service aircraft at the highest level of efficiency. 

The maintenance programme for higher-time aircraft is coming close to the end of its original approved validity 
(48,000 flight cycles/60,000 flight hours). For aircraft having already reached 60,000 flight hours, 
an intermediate service goal solution was provided in late 2007 to allow these aircraft to be operated until ESG I completion.

To achieve approval for the Extended Service Goal package, Airbus is carrying out full-scale fatigue tests 
on specially-manufactured partial aircraft test sections. The original A320 configuration will be taken into consideration, 
as well as the specificities of each type. 
All of the results will be compiled to show the fatigue behaviour of the complete aircraft. 
These tests will take into account the 20 years of experience in A320 Family operations and make use of 
new generation calculation and simulation methods in a modern and representative test environment. 
The tests will continue until mid-2010 to assess and confirm the ESG II requirements.

The A320 Family incorporates all the latest advances in technology, such as fly-by-wire flight controls, 
the extensive use of new materials, an advanced flight deck with side sticks and the centralised fault display system. 
Airlines have benefited from A320 Family advanced technology and its unique operational commonality 
for over 20 years of successful operation. 

Demand for the A320 Family continues to be very high, with more than 3,300 aircraft delivered to 200 operators 
and a backlog of more than 2,300.

T4thH · Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:41 pm

PacoMartin wrote:

Delta's oldest A320 will reach 30 years on 1 Aug 2020 (Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 118)

As of 02/16/2018(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)82,835 Total Cycles 37,591
As of 04/27/2017(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)80,865 Total Cycles 36,551
As of 03/04/2016(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)77,466 Total Cycles 34,921

seabosdca wrote:
Worth noting that Airbus has a program to extend the original design life of all but the earliest A320 series aircraft, from the original 60,000 FH/48,000 FC to the current 90,000 FH/60,000 FC. Airlines such as LH, DL, and AC that are flying early A320s have almost certainly taken advantage of this program. Airbus originally wanted to do a further extension to 120,000 FH/75,000 FC, but apparently that proved uneconomic.

Also looks like AC will need to retire some A320s pretty soon for reaching flight hours limits, if the numbers reported upthread are accurate. Presumably they are being replaced by 737 MAX 8. DL's have a bit more headroom (I don't know about LH's).

Here is the press release 06 March 2008
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2008/03/new-service-package-will-extend-a320-039-s-life.html

Summary
Airbus' Extended Service Goal package will allow A320 Family operators 
to extend the operating lifetime of their aircraft by 10 to 20 years or more, 
and benefit from longer revenue service as well as 
increased residual market value of their single-aisle fleet.

Airbus is developing a new package that will allow A320 Family operators 
to fly their aircraft for  an additional 10 to 20 years or more. Based on in-service 
experience and market expectations, 
the Extended Service Goal (ESG) package is divided into two phases. 

ESG I will enable A320 Family aircraft to fly up to 
60,000 flight cycles or 120,000 flight hours, 
and is planned for approval by the end of 2010. 

ESG II will go even further, up to the 
maximum economic potential of the airframe.

The Extended Service Goal will enable A320 Family operators to earn additional revenue by flying their aircraft longer, 
as well as benefiting from the increased residual value of their Airbus single-aisle fleets. 
In addition, A320 operators will be able to make the most of the aircraft's potential with Airbus fleet upgrade and 
harmonization services such as the In-service Enhancement Package, and the enhanced cabin or 
fuel saving measures offered by Airbus to keep in-service aircraft at the highest level of efficiency. 

The maintenance programme for higher-time aircraft is coming close to the end of its original approved validity 
(48,000 flight cycles/60,000 flight hours). For aircraft having already reached 60,000 flight hours, 
an intermediate service goal solution was provided in late 2007 to allow these aircraft to be operated until ESG I completion.

To achieve approval for the Extended Service Goal package, Airbus is carrying out full-scale fatigue tests 
on specially-manufactured partial aircraft test sections. The original A320 configuration will be taken into consideration, 
as well as the specificities of each type. 
All of the results will be compiled to show the fatigue behaviour of the complete aircraft. 
These tests will take into account the 20 years of experience in A320 Family operations and make use of 
new generation calculation and simulation methods in a modern and representative test environment. 
The tests will continue until mid-2010 to assess and confirm the ESG II requirements.

The A320 Family incorporates all the latest advances in technology, such as fly-by-wire flight controls, 
the extensive use of new materials, an advanced flight deck with side sticks and the centralised fault display system. 
Airlines have benefited from A320 Family advanced technology and its unique operational commonality 
for over 20 years of successful operation. 

Demand for the A320 Family continues to be very high, with more than 3,300 aircraft delivered to 200 operators 
and a backlog of more than 2,300.

Just for your information: ESG 1 is implemented. But implementation of ESG II failed (as I remember/have heard, they have found too many cracks at around 80.000 cycles). If I remember correctly, the target of ESG II was 90.000 cycles and 120.000 hours.

seabosdca · Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:59 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Delta's oldest A320 will reach 30 years on 1 Aug 2020 (Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 118)

As of 02/16/2018(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)82,835 Total Cycles 37,591

So this bird, at least, will be done by no later than late 2021. Seems fitting that it will most likely be replaced by an A321neo.

T4thH · Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:06 am

seabosdca wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Delta's oldest A320 will reach 30 years on 1 Aug 2020 (Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 118)

As of 02/16/2018(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)82,835 Total Cycles 37,591

So this bird, at least, will be done by no later than late 2021. Seems fitting that it will most likely be replaced by an A321neo.

Sorry, but this is still a young bird. in comparison to all the 30 years old Lufthansa A320's, which are all around 56.000 to already >58.000 cycles.

The Delta A320 has still 38.000 h and 23.000 cycles left, as ESG I is since long time approved. When Delta has accordingly upgraded the bird to ESG I.
ESG I is 60.000 cycles and 120.000 flight hours.

The 30 years old LH birds are all at the end of live, around 90.000 flight hours and near to the maximum 60.000 cycles. MSN 69 D-AIPA is already in parting out and scrapping in Sofia, D-AIPB has recently reached 30 years after delivery e.g and will leave soon in next month. For them the next heavy check is the end. And just remind, we are talking about 30 years after delivery and not after first flight. And all of these 30 years old LH birds are still on heavy duty to the last day, till they will retire and will perform the last flight for part out and scrap on following day..

sciing · Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:56 pm

After the last commercial flight from Dublin this morning, D-AIPB moved to Ostend today, RIP
https://fr24.com/data/flights/lh9922#229ad4ba

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4

Airbus A320 -211 70 D-AIPB Lufthansa ferried 25oct19 MUC-OST, for part-out & scrap ex F-WWIJ

tnair1974 · Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:07 pm

sciing wrote:
After the last commercial flight from Dublin this morning, D-AIPB moved to Ostend today, RIP
https://fr24.com/data/flights/lh9922#229ad4ba

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4

Airbus A320 -211 70 D-AIPB Lufthansa ferried 25oct19 MUC-OST, for part-out & scrap ex F-WWIJ

After D-AIPA was retired earlier this year, I would look up AIPB from time to time; it was still going full steam with four to six flights a day with hardly any days off which is rather impressive for a 30 year old bird.

Granted, it's "all hands on deck" during the busy northern hemisphere summer season. Also, while a 25-30 year old airliner of course needs more maintenance than a much younger same model, perhaps much of the additional needed TLC can be done during off-peak periods(?).

Still, despite the A320-100 having relatively poor longevity, older A320-200s are nicely exposing the myth that A320s don't last.

Since new build A320s are already in effect built to ESG 1 hours/cycles, I wonder if new builds today will able to be upgraded to ESG II standards years from now (as pointed out earlier, today's oldest A320s have been unable to be upgraded to ESG II).

PacoMartin · Sun Oct 27, 2019 12:02 am

1989worstyear wrote:
[It's the technology of these types - not their durability I was commenting about. Modern aircraft started in 1988.

Wouldn't you say that "Modern Aircraft" began with the classic B737-300) in 1984?

Table of deliveries for the entire family
Table excludes original B737-100/200/200C (1144 deliveries).
Table excludes newer B737 Max and and A320 neo families.

737 Year 320 family
7 1984 na ------------ first deliveries of B737 classic B737-300 with new CFM engine
83 1985 na
120 1986 na
137 1987 na
158 1988 16
146 1989 58
174 1990 58
215 1991 119
218 1992 111
152 1993 71
121 1994 64
89 1995 56 ------ B737 classics winding down in preparation for Next Generation
76 1996 72 ------ B737 classics winding down in preparation for Next Generation
135 1997 127
274 1998 168
295 1999 222
271 2000 241
281 2001 257
213 2002 236 ------------ A320 family more deliveries than B737 family
167 2003 233
199 2004 233
208 2005 289
291 2006 339
324 2007 367
284 2008 386------------ A320 family peak more deliveries than B737 family
367 2009 402
366 2010 401
365 2011 421
411 2012 455
434 2013 493
482 2014 490
491 2015 491 ------------ A320 family equals deliveries of B737 family
490 2016 477 ------------ A320neo family begins deliveries (not shown on this table)
455 2017 377
323 2018 240
60 2019 84
8535 total 8054

tnair1974 · Sun Oct 27, 2019 12:10 am

seabosdca wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Delta's oldest A320 will reach 30 years on 1 Aug 2020 (Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 118)

As of 02/16/2018(mm/dd/yyyy) Total Time (hours)82,835 Total Cycles 37,591

So this bird, at least, will be done by no later than late 2021. Seems fitting that it will most likely be replaced by an A321neo.

I had heard this 2021 retirement figure for much of this year and maybe last year. Delta's Wiki page (yes, it's only Wiki) also stated a 2021 phaseout for the oldest DL 320s, although there were no supporting sources used. But that Wiki entry is gone. Dialog here seems to indicate this 2021 year having little foundation in reality.

True, at the last minute seven older but otherwise usable DL A320s (they apparently had already received the Airbus life extension) were retired in 2017. But other posters indicate this was more a matter of DL disposing of surplus equipment as well as getting good parts from the seven parted out birds.

It may not be surprising if DL's current oldest A320s retire due to rising maintenance costs rather than cycles/hours. And even that could still be years from now.

PacoMartin · Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:33 am

tnair1974 wrote:
It may not be surprising if DL's current oldest A320s retire due to rising maintenance costs rather than cycles/hours. And even that could still be years from now.

I was under the impression that aircraft that were otherwise performing efficiently were typically retired when they were scheduled for a D check, or a "heavy maintenance visit" (HMV) and the cost of the HMV check was higher than the residual value of the aircraft. I thought that was typically the third D check. The aircraft was usually sold in the third world.

I thought that maximum cycles or flight hours were almost never reached.

But that view of the world is decades old. Now the Mexican airlines are all flying much newer equipment than the USA airlines. Aeromexico, which is 49% owned by Delta has retired all their B767s and B777s and now has a widebody fleet of 18 Dreamliners that are 6.5 years or younger and average less than 4 years old on average.

Delta has a fleet of 154 widebodies that average 16.2 years old.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net