I suspect this is the usual media jump on one almost fact seize upon another almost fact and jump to the conclusion that 1+1= 275.

 

Ive no doubt there are a few old aircraft in service with american airlines however im willing to bet that if you did what the journalists seem unable to do and look at a companies entire fleet you would see some new aircraft , some older aircraft, and the majority of the fleet somewhere in the middle.

 

Besides why buy new aircraft if your older well maintained aircraft are still economically viable, safe and servicable. After all new aircraft are expensive.

 

As for Airoflot buying new well lets be honest the old fleet failed to meet the above criteria - and not for nothing were they known as Aeroflop.

 

Incedently take a look at the average age of the worlds airforces tactical transport fleet. I reckon the average age of a c130 has got to be around 25-30 (higher if you exclude the J)

 

Regarding tax Older aircraft tend to be penalised because they fail to meet the newer more stringent requirements regarding environmental impact, typically noise.

 

Regards

 

Its all done by cost/benefit analysis and determining if the airframe is still safe to fly. 

 

If the plane is still safe to fly, and its cheaper to keep that older plane in the air than replace it with a new one, the plane stays.  Its just good business sense.  When it is more cost effective to replace an older aircraft, it is replaced. 

and US aircraft just are better BUILT.

 

CBAs take that into account when replacement cycles we calculate.

 

Herald

I have to disagree with the build quality comment, in general i dont think theres much difference in how well built they are (ignoring perhaps former soviet block airframes), I would conceed maybe better designed particuarly from a mechanics point of view and possibly supported. If you were blind folded and placed inside an empty fuselage of both an A320 and a B737 you would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

 

 

That includes the otherwise FINE products put out by AIRBUS.

 

THALES is just no damned good.

 

Herald

Rasputin

 

As regards older aircraft and fuel efficiency, yes they are less efficient and that means a cost passed on to the passenger but dont overlook the fact that if youre paying for the new aircraft youre going to pass that cost on, now that may equateto more than the increased fuel costs of an older airframe.

 

As far as passengers are concerned whilst flying a new aircraft may sound sexier in reality if you board via an airbridge most people wouldnt know what they were flying on if they were not told, especially if the cabin had recently been upgraded - less common on short haul but long haul aircraft its big business trying to keep the cabin one step ahead of the oppositions.

 

 

Well said, you have shed some light on some good valid points, particularly that the big business is on the long haul international flights. And such long haul flights are usually flown by 747s. And even I have to admit, even when told and not having seen the pilots cockpit, I find it very hard or even impossible to discern the differences of the various 747s, for all I know the cabins could simply have been refurbished. For such aircraft that are still in production, the engines can just be easily replaced and upgraded when required.

 

However, won't older aircraft have higher maintenance costs due to their age, and like keeping an old clunker car running the parts, labour and time may not be worth running when compared to that of the cost of purchasing and utilizing newer and more efficient aircraft.

 

I appreciate what youre saying but it doesnt quite work out in that fashion - before i go any further i will apologise in advance if the following seems patronising or suck eggs, I have trouble explaining myself so im going to keep it very simple for my benifit not yours.

 

Scheduled maintenance checks are not affected by so much by aircraft age but by hours flown and type of operation.

A heavy maintenance check  (sometimes lasting 4-6 months) typically occurs around the (every) 5 yr mark - obviously youre more likely to find problems eg corrosion on an older airframe, but the intervals are the same.

 

 

Engines are overhauled it is very rare (as in almost never) that an aircraft would be re-engined it just would not make financial sense in most cases - amongst other things the aircraft manafacturer has to design test test fly and then get the FAA CAA and all the rest to certify this.

 

You are correct in that there is a point that the aircraft will become uneconomically viable for the airline and then yes it will be replaced.

 

 Recent concerns and incidents regarding aging aircraft wiring may well change the dynamics. There has been a lot of talk about additional inspection of old wiring, and from some corners the proposal is to replace wiring when the aircraft gets to around 20-25 years old, this may result in lots of scrapped or sold off aircraft.

 

Just for fun check out the age of most cargo fleets - a hell of a lot of freighters are ex passenger that are not for a variety of reasons suitable for the airlines any more.

 

 

 

I do understand that in the United States, some of the domestic airlines, actually retain or still have the workshop capacity in their maintenance crews to actually manufacture or recondition parts, which is rather useful for out of production aircraft such as the DC9s.

 

Handy ability if they have the approval to do this, i find it suprising unless they have a lot of them that they do it in house and dont out scource, but as im british and a large fleet is more than 6, i cannot comment.

 

 

 However for the 3rd world country airlines, it is kind of scary to think that they are charging budget prices for their flights, and you sort of guess that maintenance of their old aircraft fleet is not something that they have high on their agenda, which is to put the most planes they have up in the air to service the ever increasing demands for short haul flights in asia. Hence the negative view on old 20 yr plus aircraft.

 

And that paragraph is the reason everyone wants to fly on a new airplane - well quite frankly id rather fly on a 25 year old N123AB or a G-ABCD than a 5 year old aircraft operated by a number of 3rd world airlines.

 

P.S

 

Many countries have a list of nations/ operators whose aircraft are not welcome in their airspace. following an incident possibly in the uk involving a newish operator - that had unbenown to the uk been banned from other european countries, the respective authorities decided to cross reference between themselves.

 

Now the Useful bit they now post the list online - so if youre traveling abroad give it a look.

(for the EU)

link

For those who dont want to troll the list avoiding anything Congolese, indonesian or from the Kyrgyz Republic seems a good starting point.

 

 

Kyrgyz Republic??   Anyone

Old doesn't always mean useless.  Airlines make a huge investment in an aircraft, maybe $250 million!  The margins on a commercial flight aren't much (I've read the typical airline turns a profit on the last two passengers).  So how many flights does that aircraft have to make to turn a profit?  You get the idea.

 

Newer aircraft may have some technical improvements that will make an aircraft safer or more fuel efficient or appealing to passengers (more room or other comforts).  But that doesn't make older aircraft unsafe or unprofitable.  And when a jet does become impractical for passenger flights, you can always use it for cargo or sell it to some third world airline.

 

Another interesting point here:

While most of the technical innovations in the last 30 years have improves safety and fuel efficiency, neither of these improvements have a big direct effect on the profitability of an aircraft.  The biggest cost of flying a commerical aircraft is actually labor (e.g. pilots, baggage handlers, screeners, ticket clerks, flight attendants, etc...).  You may have an employee for every passenger, and each of those employees will probably have medical benefits and a pension.  It adds up.

 

The point being that if I bought a DC-9 ten years ago for $100 million vs a 787 for $250 million today, I might save a bit on gas, but that DC-9 is probably already paid for.  Everything I make on it is pure profit.  But I still have to pay extra for that gas efficiency.  Is it worth it?  Maybe, but it will mean either a big increase in fuel costs or flying a lot of years.