Airliner lifecycle ?
Discussion
How long do they last ?
Interested in what point they get retired, assuming no major damage is it cycles, hours, maintenance due, problems or a combination ?
Whats the average lifespan of a plane, who has the oldest fleet and is it true that when western carriers are finished with them they go and live out their days in Africa and parts of Asia ?
Any interesting stories ?
Interested in what point they get retired, assuming no major damage is it cycles, hours, maintenance due, problems or a combination ?
Whats the average lifespan of a plane, who has the oldest fleet and is it true that when western carriers are finished with them they go and live out their days in Africa and parts of Asia ?
Any interesting stories ?
A300 recently retired after 23 years, the last European passenger service apparently, and it was/will be scrapped.
Some of them are converted into freighters, easy to spot because they have blanked out windows, if built for freight from scratch they don't have windows.
Some of them are converted into freighters, easy to spot because they have blanked out windows, if built for freight from scratch they don't have windows.
Edited by G600 on Wednesday 29th June 21:34
Chuck328 said:
No real stories but I believe Iran Air are still poodling about with a 747 SP? And god knows what's still going in deepest Africa.
Iran Air does indeed have probably the oldest fleets of mainstream airlines, 26.3 years on average according to https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Iran-AirThank god for their huge incoming orders, they must be desperate for them.
ETA, yes they still have an 747SP active, built almost 40 years ago in 1977. Here it is in late 2015 (not my photo)
https://www.planespotters.net/photo/703496/ep-iac-...
Edited by Equilibrium25 on Thursday 30th June 08:19
Airliner lifecycle is most often decided by economics than it literally running out of fatigue life.
The basic book costs for a widebody airliner are in region of:
This is why most airframe types tend to get re-engined over their production lifespan.
When the oil price is high, and demand is there it makes sense to replace relatively new aircraft (8-10 years) in long haul with brand new aircraft to take advantage of the fuel burn improvements.
These aircraft will then either be sold into freight operation, freight is much heavier than passengers and planes fly much shorter routes and burn less fuel hence fuel efficiency is less important. This is why at the end of an aircraft’s lifecycle it tends to be manufactured purely as a freighter.
In the event that there isn’t demand for freighters then the plane will usually be laid up to wait for the oil price to drop or the economy to improve or broken for parts. Often aircraft with unpopular engine choices will be broken to provide parts for aircraft with more popular engines. Again one of the advantage of re-engining a type is that they can use a substantial portion of spares from the existing fleet.
http://aviationweek.com/mro/tearing-down-young-a32...
An aircraft overhaul generally involves removal of virtually everything down to the metal and then a fuel ultrasonic crack inspection. This generally sets the operator back in the region of $5-10 million and this along with a major engine overhaul is usually when an airliner will be considered for scrapping or conversion.
The basic book costs for a widebody airliner are in region of:
- $150 million – purchase of the aircraft
- $20-60 million fuel per year dependant on oil price (currently at the bottom end usually near the top end)
- $8-10 million engines per year on a long term deal, or around 25-30 million to purchase and then 10-20 million every 3 years
This is why most airframe types tend to get re-engined over their production lifespan.
When the oil price is high, and demand is there it makes sense to replace relatively new aircraft (8-10 years) in long haul with brand new aircraft to take advantage of the fuel burn improvements.
These aircraft will then either be sold into freight operation, freight is much heavier than passengers and planes fly much shorter routes and burn less fuel hence fuel efficiency is less important. This is why at the end of an aircraft’s lifecycle it tends to be manufactured purely as a freighter.
In the event that there isn’t demand for freighters then the plane will usually be laid up to wait for the oil price to drop or the economy to improve or broken for parts. Often aircraft with unpopular engine choices will be broken to provide parts for aircraft with more popular engines. Again one of the advantage of re-engining a type is that they can use a substantial portion of spares from the existing fleet.
http://aviationweek.com/mro/tearing-down-young-a32...
An aircraft overhaul generally involves removal of virtually everything down to the metal and then a fuel ultrasonic crack inspection. This generally sets the operator back in the region of $5-10 million and this along with a major engine overhaul is usually when an airliner will be considered for scrapping or conversion.
It's a complex story depending on a number of factors. Purely technically, an airframe with have a standard certified life xx thousand hours and yy thousand cycles. Shorthaul aircraft have a much higher cycles to hours ratio. Typically they will be designed for 20-30 years useful economic life and can be extended by life extension programs if its still a desirable performance aircraft (payload/range vs operating cost).
However, economics come in to play - fuel economy, residuals etc. according to economy health, fuel price etc. This gives rise to early retirement or possibly re-engining (not that common though). One weird effect can be a good serviceable aircraft being worth less than the sum of its parts. That is to say if you break it and sell off the parts (primarily driven by engine value) you get more than the aircraft could fetch whole. I worked for an operator that returned 737-700's off-lease that were broken up at 7 years old. This was primarily due to the collapse in aircraft financing for "second age" aircraft at that time.
Some aircraft types just don't succeed so end up being retired prematurely eg A318, A340, B717, B737-600. That might happen to the A380 and 747-8 if they can't find a freight market. Freight conversions have a break even model which is a function of acquisition + conversion price vs operational revenue. The dedicated cargo market has been on its arse for several years.
Interestingly, a lot of developing nations have imposed age limits for import which in theory restrict movement of older aircraft into those markets but there's generally a dodge around if required. They do this as a blunt instrument "for safety" but that's another story.......
However, economics come in to play - fuel economy, residuals etc. according to economy health, fuel price etc. This gives rise to early retirement or possibly re-engining (not that common though). One weird effect can be a good serviceable aircraft being worth less than the sum of its parts. That is to say if you break it and sell off the parts (primarily driven by engine value) you get more than the aircraft could fetch whole. I worked for an operator that returned 737-700's off-lease that were broken up at 7 years old. This was primarily due to the collapse in aircraft financing for "second age" aircraft at that time.
Some aircraft types just don't succeed so end up being retired prematurely eg A318, A340, B717, B737-600. That might happen to the A380 and 747-8 if they can't find a freight market. Freight conversions have a break even model which is a function of acquisition + conversion price vs operational revenue. The dedicated cargo market has been on its arse for several years.
Interestingly, a lot of developing nations have imposed age limits for import which in theory restrict movement of older aircraft into those markets but there's generally a dodge around if required. They do this as a blunt instrument "for safety" but that's another story.......
Edited by Speed 3 on Thursday 30th June 22:45
Don't know if you saw the BBC series "City in the Sky" that aired over 3 parts recently.
They covered all sorts of items and the last one touched on this topic, firstly they showed an Etihad A380 undergoing a strip down overhaul where they completely removed all the interior revealing all the wiring ( they also covered the building of an A380 too with all the sections coming from the various component manufacturers to the assembly factory.
Then they moved over to the USA where some airlines have their planes cocooned out in the Arizona desert and rotate them in and out to keep the costs under control and hours low.
Then they covered the end of life reclamation by the destruction of an MD80 ( sad to see any plane reduced to scrap ).
It was an interesting series that covered a lot of areas in aviation - it may be on catchup services.
They covered all sorts of items and the last one touched on this topic, firstly they showed an Etihad A380 undergoing a strip down overhaul where they completely removed all the interior revealing all the wiring ( they also covered the building of an A380 too with all the sections coming from the various component manufacturers to the assembly factory.
Then they moved over to the USA where some airlines have their planes cocooned out in the Arizona desert and rotate them in and out to keep the costs under control and hours low.
Then they covered the end of life reclamation by the destruction of an MD80 ( sad to see any plane reduced to scrap ).
It was an interesting series that covered a lot of areas in aviation - it may be on catchup services.
NM62 said:
Then they covered the end of life reclamation by the destruction of an MD80 ( sad to see any plane reduced to scrap ).
I know what you mean but I always think that if an airliner is being broken up, its carried millions, safely and it is a good outcome, choosing to reduce it to bits when there are those that end up in bits for other reasons, its done its job.Willy Nilly said:
When you say $8-$10 million for the engines each year, is that a lease separate from the rest of the plane, or is that engine running costs, R&M? I thought those engines were very low maintenance.
That'll be engine running costs. An overhaul or performance restoration will set you back several million dollars on a big turbofan and easily 1-2 mill per on a narrowbody engine like CFM56 or V2500. Generally you'll have to accrue for those costs or you're in for a shock when the time comes (or more strictly in accounting terms you'll capitalise the work and amortise over the next OH period). Thats where "Power By The Hour" offerings make sense to smooth cashflow. You pay a fixed fee per hour flown for a stated scope of support including shop inputs.
FourWheelDrift said:
Aerosur (Bolivia) still flies a 727-200 (44-49 years old)
look at the tail numbers of Some of the US (in US service or US sourced) military transport or airliner dervied ISTAR aircraft... e.g. the Project Airseeker RC - 135V rivet joint aircraft just delivered to the RAF are 1964 aircraft.Willy Nilly said:
When you say $8-$10 million for the engines each year, is that a lease separate from the rest of the plane, or is that engine running costs, R&M? I thought those engines were very low maintenance.
Engines are sold separately to the air frame. Airlines will look for the best deal, some will split their fleet between engine manufacturers to mitigate the risk of a problem affecting a particular engine (design issue etc) and grounding the fleet.Typically the engine manufacturers sell an engine along with a service/maintenance plan for a number of years. The engines don't directly make that much money, if at all - the service contract does.
The contracts are pretty tough though, lots of penalty clauses - if an engine comes off the wing earlier than specified the manufacturer will pay some sort of fine, worst case is the engine causes a cancellation/delay of a flight. I believe that there are also guarantees around efficiency/fuel usage and so on.
The manufacturer will expect certain operating procedures and inspection/maintenance schedules to be followed, anyone working on the engines to be suitably trained/qualified.
Basically the manufacturer takes the punt that looking after the engine will cost less than the contract cost on the basis the engine is used in the correct manner. I heard of an engine failure that caused a flight cancellation - I forget the detail but the engine either didn't start or takeoff was aborted. Engine manufacturer flew out a new engine (unusual - they don't typically have these things laying around, usually built to order), all said and done it cost them a seven figure sum (ouch!).
Engine manufacturers now see data analysis as a critical part of risk mitigation. The aircraft records engine data whilst in operation, from that the manufacturer can tell if the engine is performing correctly, displaying abnormal or unexpected behaviour etc.
Even in engine development data is important. Look at Airbus A320neo test flights - the Pratt engine has had some issues with startup for a little while and they couldn't get to the bottom of it, some of the testing that aircraft was meant to undergo got switched to the aircraft with the CFM engine. The initial customer threatened to change their order to buy CFM engines rather than the P&W if they didn't sort the problems out. Data analysis could help them determine the problems (IIRC there were two or three of them in the end). Meeting expected performance targets is a huge deal for a new engine - if it isn't performing data analysis becomes really important to gain understanding of whats going on.
If a common fault appears they want to know which engine might being to have the same issue - are a batch of parts potentially faulty ? which engines are fitted with a part from that batch ? Are engines operated in certain environments more likely to develop the problem ? (e.g. ingestion of debris - sand int he middle east, cold temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, use at airports with unusually difficult takeoffs/landings, use for short jourrneys etc). If they know engines that may develop the problem they can request an inspection or preventative maintenance etc.
Its all very big money and a dicey game really - not only on engines but airline operations too - I know one airline gambled on a fairly long term for a deal on fuel supply when prices were very high, price of oil dropped quite significantly but they were still paying a pretty high price - that causes them a problem because if they price tickets high (to account for their costs) they get beaten by competitors, price tickets cheaply and they might not be able to cover costs.
Edited by Crafty_ on Saturday 2nd July 15:28
Willy Nilly said:
When you say $8-$10 million for the engines each year, is that a lease separate from the rest of the plane, or is that engine running costs, R&M? I thought those engines were very low maintenance.
Engines are pretty much always bought separately from the plane, generally they won't need anything other than routine maintenance for 3-5 years at which point they will come off wing. At this stage most gas path components in the hot end will be swapped out, every second period you will probably swap out nearly the entire back end.However airlines will generally take a finance/maintenance deal on the engine depending on their credit rating and their technical competence/scale. These can range from purchase or rent the engine and then pay for maintenance on a per flight hour basis to buy the engine outright and then pay for parts which you fit at your own maintenance depot.
The market has diverged so that the larger traditional airlines have partnered with the manufacturers to upscale their overhaul centers and then service other people engines or smaller or low cost airlines who outsource all maintenance.
When the airline buys the engines they will usually sign a long term deal with the engine manufacturer, the figure I quoted was just the total value booked by the manufacturer per aircraft ~$100 million spread over the 10 years of a deal. In practice that annual figure may be more or less lumpy dependent on what deal they strike.
Quite a few years ago I carried out an inspection on the BA 747 maintenance centre in Cardiff. It's one of the highest value buildings in South Wales, and is quite frankly remarkable.
It can/could hold up to 3 747's. One of these could also accommodate 777's - I suspect they've adapted to include more than one by now. They also could park one more plane with a jetway to the side.
Most Hangers at the time would start with the plane parking in the hanger and then building scaffolding - takes a day to build and a day to strip. They drive the 747 in, and fold a hinged concrete mezzanine floor around the plane at door level. At the same time two platforms come in from the rear, around the tail suspended on two 10 tonne screws
They have pits to allow them to test the landing gear without jacking. It is an absolutely astounding facility, that I expect has been replicated since.
It can/could hold up to 3 747's. One of these could also accommodate 777's - I suspect they've adapted to include more than one by now. They also could park one more plane with a jetway to the side.
Most Hangers at the time would start with the plane parking in the hanger and then building scaffolding - takes a day to build and a day to strip. They drive the 747 in, and fold a hinged concrete mezzanine floor around the plane at door level. At the same time two platforms come in from the rear, around the tail suspended on two 10 tonne screws
They have pits to allow them to test the landing gear without jacking. It is an absolutely astounding facility, that I expect has been replicated since.
Didnt they test the landing gear outside the hanger in Cardiff as well some years ago?
Fresh off a major check, no pins in, sorting out a snag.
Landing gear selected Up.
The gear retracted correctly and the airframe shuddered onto the ground.
i always wondered if the guy responsable just got his coat and went home.
How do you explain that away to the boss?
Fresh off a major check, no pins in, sorting out a snag.
Landing gear selected Up.
The gear retracted correctly and the airframe shuddered onto the ground.
i always wondered if the guy responsable just got his coat and went home.
How do you explain that away to the boss?
That story is not totally accurate but what I can assure you it was the boss responsible for that incident. I've heard many stories and the truth is in there somewhere.
Unbusy said:
Didnt they test the landing gear outside the hanger in Cardiff as well some years ago?
Fresh off a major check, no pins in, sorting out a snag.
Landing gear selected Up.
The gear retracted correctly and the airframe shuddered onto the ground.
i always wondered if the guy responsable just got his coat and went home.
How do you explain that away to the boss?
Fresh off a major check, no pins in, sorting out a snag.
Landing gear selected Up.
The gear retracted correctly and the airframe shuddered onto the ground.
i always wondered if the guy responsable just got his coat and went home.
How do you explain that away to the boss?
Jamesgt said:
That story is not totally accurate but what I can assure you it was the boss responsible for that incident. I've heard many stories and the truth is in there somewhere.
I heard a version of it happening to an early F-16, which allegedly now has a load sensor on the undercarriage to prevent it happeningUnbusy said:
Didnt they test the landing gear outside the hanger in Cardiff as well some years ago?
Fresh off a major check, no pins in, sorting out a snag.
Landing gear selected Up.
The gear retracted correctly and the airframe shuddered onto the ground.
i always wondered if the guy responsable just got his coat and went home.
How do you explain that away to the boss?
Fresh off a major check, no pins in, sorting out a snag.
Landing gear selected Up.
The gear retracted correctly and the airframe shuddered onto the ground.
i always wondered if the guy responsable just got his coat and went home.
How do you explain that away to the boss?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff