Warbird Information Exchange

Yes but with Boeing & Douglas, you were still talking about a 20-30 year airframe life whereas with the Airbuses built since the initial A300B2's and early B4's, if they make 15 years, you're lucky. In fact, if the airplanes see service with more than one airline, you're probably looking at the exception rather than the rule whereas many Boeing and Douglas aircraft are on their 4th or 5th owner/operator.

Can you back up those claims with data?

Sincerely interested,

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

Okay, below is a list of the types built by each of the 3 major manufacturers in the last 30 years - Airbus, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas. I'm not making any differentiation between whether a plane was scrapped or crashed as safety isn't in question, it's longevity of the airframe. In addition, stored aircraft may return to service, but may not, so it's not used to determine the "percent active" since that can lead to bad numbers, especially on some of the really old airframes listed.

As such, the general conclusions are - Airbus has a smaller percent of their fleet over 15 years old in service still by a fairly significant margin compared to most Boeing and Douglas products of the same average age.


Key - built, in service, stored (or preserved), derelict/scrapped/written off/crashed, average age, percent active

A300 - 567, 311, 85, 171, 17.8, 54.8%
A310 - 255, 169, 35, 51, 20.9, 66.3%
A319 - 1154, 1143, 15, 1, 6, 99.0%
A320 - 2244, 2099, 83, 62, 8, 93.5%
A330 - 650, 635, 10, 5, 4, 97.7%
A340 - 374, 347, 21, 6, 9.1, 92.8%

B717 - 156, 138, 17, 1, 7.7, 88.5%
B727 - 1832, 315, 429, 1088, 34, 17.2%
B737 Classic - 3124, 1836, 607, 681, 21.5, 58.8%
B737 NG - 2973, 2949, 23, 5, 5.2, 99.2%
B747 - 1420, 811, 200, 409, 17.9, 57.1%
B757 - 1050, 943, 72, 35, 16.0, 89.8%
B767 - 981, 827, 101, 53, 15.4, 84.3%
B777 - 830, 819, 9, 2, 6.8, 98.7%

DC-8 - 556, 60, 109, 387, 41.2, 10.8%
DC-9 - 976, 176, 312, 487, 38.2, 18.0%
MD-80 - 1195, 715, 288, 192, 20.2, 59.8%
MD-90 - 117, 105, 3, 9, 12.1, 89.7%
DC-10 - 446, 177, 63, 206, 30.2, 39.7%
MD-11 - 201, 179, 14, 8, 15.4, 89.0%

Edit: Added A330 & A340

I'm not very familiar with airliner types but I think you would need to divide that by segment types. Some types can be retired sooner not because of airframe problems but market changes no? from the top of my head that is just one thing that could skew results.

You list, for instance,

A319 - 1154, 1143, 15, 1, 6, 99.0%
A320 - 2244, 2099, 83, 62, 8, 93.5%

99%? 93.5%? don't these numbers speak against you?

Total tally, from your numbers (total active)/(total produced)*100 %...

Airbus 88%
Boeing 70%
Douglas 40%

so... I'm I misreading the numbers? And... for instance...

Oldest flying..
A300 since 1973, 39 years.
A310 since 1982. 27 years.
A320 since 1987. 22 years.

PS: I don't think these numbers prove something because there is much to be taken into account which is not expressed by them. I would just say I don't believe Airbus aircraft are such bad engineering products as you're claiming them to be.

best regards,

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

rreis,

First, you're putting words in our mouths. W never said they were "bad engineering products", we said that they weren't built to last as long. They're built to last exactly as long as they do, and that's why Airbus is able to offer such low prices.

As for the data, you are looking at it completely wrong. The point of the data is that as the fleet ages, more of each type drop out of service. This is why you use the median age of the fleet. For example, you say that the oldest A300 is a 1973 model. That's true, but there is only ONE aircraft from 1973 still flying. The next oldest A300 still flying is from 1975 (again, a single example). The first "large" data point is 4 of them from 1977. This is why median age is much more useful in determining how well the fleet is aging because it takes into account that not all aircraft accrue hours at the same rate, and thus "run out" at different times. By looking at the median, you're getting a better look at the average longevity of an airframe.

As another example, the oldest 747 still flying is from 1969 (1). However, there are 1970 (5), 1971(3), 1973(4), 1974(4), 1975(3), etc. models still flying. Now, given that the 747 has 1420 examples built compared to less than half the number of A300s (567), but the point is that as a whole, the A300s aren't surviving as long as the 747s.

In addition, it's important to note here that many of the Boeing and Douglas aircraft got their lives extended because they were easily converted to freighters after their passenger carrying lives were over. That has not been the case with the Airbuses after the A300. In fact, there have been statements from Airbus representatives that the A320 family was designed in a way that conversion to a freighter would be very expensive and uneconomical. As such, even if it doesn't run out of fatigue life they are being scrapped simply because no one wants them anymore as a passenger carrying aircraft.

This is very misleading.

First, we'll revise the Airbus percentage to 90% since I added the A340 and A330.

Compare the average age of the entire fleets-

Airbus - 11 years
Boeing - 15.6 years
Douglas - 26.2 years

Now, considering that the average age of the Boeing fleet is almost 45% younger than Airbus, but only 20% more have been retired, I think that it speaks well of the longevity of the Boeing fleet (meaning that they're effectively being retired at half the rate of Airbuses). In addition, the Douglas fleet is 1.4 times older but only 48% more have been retired, speaks volumes as well.

Also, for the sake of "commonality", I'm going to remove the DC-8 from the list and run the numbers again since the DC-8 was conceived well before the A300.

Douglas aircraft built - 2935
Total active aircraft - 1352
Total percent active - 46%
Average age of fleet - 23.2 years

Now, you have a fleet that's twice as old as Airbus's and only 42% more of the fleet has been retired. Now, granted, Douglas doesn't make planes anymore so it does skew the numbers in their favor somewhat, but it's not by 8%+.

You also have to concede that 707s, 727s, early 737s, DC-8s and DC-9s (pre series 80) are not being retired due to age but due to the inefficiency of their low bypass engines.

I wonder what the story looks like if the analysis is limited to the airframes with the higher bypass engines?

A case could also be made for the KC-135 and KC-10 fleet since these are equivalent to commercial airframes, but probably don't accrue flight hours as quickly as commercial aircraft. When was the last KC-10 delivered, 1988? Only one KC-10 is out of service and that was due to a ground fire.

Reengined DC-8 70 series are still making money every day for freight haulers. Having taught the 8 to mechanics I know that as long as longeron 24 can be kept intact, you will never wear a DC-8 out, they are built tougher than Martian algebra.

When I was @ Boeing and in QC on AWACS over 30 years ago, the last regular 707 built experimentally mounted 4 CFM's. The test program showed promising results but the 70 series was already a going thing and Boeing didn't see justification in continuing production on the airframe. The aircraft was converted back to regular JT4's and was delivered to Ghana Airlines. The data went into the KC-135R.


What will eventually take the last 727 out of the sky won't be it's wearing out, it will be the inability to find servicable magnesium kreuger flaps. Boeing doesn't make them anymore and they are proprietary to Boeing so no one can make them on their own. FEDEX modded several 727-200's with JT8-217's @ 1 &3 (a lot of work!!! we did it @ BADWRENCH) and UPS modded several 727-100's with 3 R/R SPEYs @ DALFORT. Now FEDEX is getting Boeing remaned 757PF's after passing on them when new (and $42M each) old Fred and the boys are no ones fools. Old -200 series 737's have been driven off the South America and Africa because of noise regulations (stage 2) not because they are worn out, there are still a few 707's making a buck for their owners today too.

And as CAPFlyer states, Airbus purposely made the 318-321 airframe almost impossible to turn into a freighter, one reason I've always suspected was because they know the airframe can't take the constant pounding it would get as a box hauler. Looking at a 320 with 45 years of pespective on big tin, it is designed to within 5 cents of the price asked, so everything is made as light and thin as possible to make the cost target and clings to the European airframe manufacturers philosophy of hours limiting design so you can assure repeat customers if they like your product (or your government likes the deal it gets to buy themfor the state run airline) and everyone likes the idea of getting a new car every few years. as long as you can live with never ending payments-I like to buy something, pay it off, and use it for a few more years to get return on investment and 'drive my money out of it'. To show how frugally they are built, the flight deck seats are made of CFRP and are like sitting on a cement block even with a cushion. there is no 'give' in the seat pan so your rearend goes numb in a few minutes just sitting there, and looking at the materials and methods used in finishing the flight deck interior, it reminds me of just how tacky things can get when meeting a price is the only objective, it looks low end and cheap, like the interior found in a YUGO, lots of odd colored blue 'blistered looking' hard plastic window cutout trim and everything feels low budget and flimsy. When I get in a cheaply made car, I immediately wonder about mechanical things like steering and brakes and structural integrity, do pilots have the same '6th sense' ?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Yes, I was addressing that single point but slipped on the language, my apologies. You notice also that I said "I don't think these number prove". I'm not at all that familiar with the airline world and said that the info you provide was not enough to prove anything. It doesn't state the age of the aircraft for instance. You mention the "median age of the fleet" but I don't see such values in your table (the "oldest" values were provided to me by a friend in the business). Does the distribution of operational type with age is available on the web (probably is, maybe you could spare me the search and post a link?). And doesn't type use (flag carrier, long haul, low cost, etc...) and maintenance practices have to be taken into account? I can give you for instance some values (gently given to me) of operation at TAP (the portuguese carrier):

Airbus A310, operating since 1988, 21 years, now flying in other companies (they were retired from TAP in 2008)
Airbus A320, " " 1992, 17 years, some flying in other companies
Airbus A340, " " 1994, 15 years and will continue to soldier

Sorry if it looks I'm being picky but I'm genuinely interested in the question and quite agnostic towards the answer.

Notice for instance



Right here you're saying that it would not be a construction quality problem - has it seems to be implied by your previous statements, if I read you correctly - but another issue completely (an option to build a dedicated airliner without the margin to turn it into a freighter).

The main thing is, I haven't seen enough data. A lot of reasons can work out for airplanes to get out of service. Engines being un-economical or too noisy. Too expansive to convert a type to follow regulations. Changes of market. Being unable to renew the fleet due to economic reasons can also be a motive to keep them flying. Or the low-carriers market to which the airplanes would naturally go in their second-hand/third/etc life being saturated... Should all these be taken into consideration? The only thing I can maybe see from these data is, maybe, the inbuilt capability of a type to adapt to work and keep soldiering on (long live the DC3). But I'm not even sure of that.

I'll think more on your points, haven't had my coffee yet. But I do thank you for enduring with me.

best,

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

- I can ask if the quality of finishing doesn't depend on how much money the client wants to spend in it?
- About the way companies decide to operate their aircraft, owning them or leasing them, doesn't it has to make financial sense? Is like renting and owning a house. In some markets it makes more sense to own it (like Lisbon in Portugal, where a state induced market made the regular renting level so high you better live paying it to the bank and having a house in the end) other to rent it continuously (see for instance the car sharing options in some cities and for some use profiles). It's an expensive business, airliners, so the main question would be what types or better philosophy serves today airliners. And the discussion will be endless I think (but enriching also).
- I think your point in the materials is also interesting. I though aircraft builders would always go for the lightest, cheapest material that would conform to specs (be them security or "feel")

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

No, it depends on what the manufacturer decides the customer is going to get based on sharp penciled bean counters. The auto industry learns very quickly how to please customers by upgrading materials and design in the cars interior where the buyer spends all his time. If you don't believe the appearance drives the deal, look at old pictures of HONDAS and TOYOTAS where the interior was sleezy, cheap looking and cheap feeling vinyl and compare to more recent, very plush interiors, this was the same lesson the Koreans had to learn but Airbus soldiers on continuing the tradition of 'you don't know what you want but we do' that has frustrated sales of European airliners in the U.S.

You can reduce weight without sacrificing crew comfort by materials selection, I've seen 500 pound 1st class sleepers installed that were backbreakers and also seen coach seats that weren't all that bad so it pays to listen to the customer and work towards his needs. If the big guys @ NARROWSEAT AIRLINES don't care about their crews comfort then they accept whats supplied in the flight deck and apparently consider the crew and the airframe as mutually replaceable units and not worth bothering about. If every time you fart it sounds like bagpipe music then it makes no matter what the customer asks for.

When McDonnell took over Douglas, old man Mac informed the airline customers that they would get two lavs, both blue and nothing else no matter what they thought they wanted. It was very quickly and forcefully pointed out to him by the customers that he wasn't dealing with the Air Force any more, and if they didn't get things EXACTLY as they specified, then there was this really big airplane store about 1800 miles North of Long Beach that bent over backwards to satisfy the customers wants and needs.

One of Boeings big sales points is that the airframe either can be converted to a freighter later on or that there is a freighter model being built or in design stages. The trip (777) is just now being delivered in pure freighter so the carrier can maintain commonality and reduce crew training and maintenance costs. Right now, with the merger between DELTA and NORTHWEST I would hate to be the guy in charge of fleet logistics. The 767 was designed from the getgo with a military option, the hydraulics are widely separated against potential battle damage.

We are staring to diverge from the subject a bit, lets all wait until the RFP is issued and see where we are at after the first of the year.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

FYI, I purposely excluded all military variants from the statistics becuase of their low hour accrual rates.

Actually, I do state the value. It's the 5th item in each line on the first set of data and is even keyed as such -



Also, as for the thing on the freighter conversion - the only reason it's uneconomical to make the conversion is because the aircraft wasn't built to handle the kinds of loads and stresses - thus, it's not built to last as long as the exact things that make it a good cargo aircraft are also what makes it a long lived one.

I know little about commercial cargo aircraft, but I think they need to be able to sustain the required floor loading and they need a cargo barrier to keep the cargo from coming into the cockpit during a crash (9g barrier?). If a plane cannot be retrofitted with those things it can never become a freighter.

That's part of it. Replacing and strengthening the floor isn't a major deal and is done on many conversions. It's more the carry-through structures for the wings that have to be able to accept the reinforcement and strengthening of certain landing gear components to make them more resilient to the heavier loads typically experienced by freighters. In addition, the fuselage has to be able to fit standard sized cargo containers and pallets after modification. This last item is what I believe to be one of the largest problems with the A32x family conversions in that the fuselage is not of a size to be able to carry any of the current standard containers on the upper deck after conversion in any "profitable" configuration.