Average Lifespan of the A320?

EILAX

Was just looking on Airfleets and noticed Air Canada's A320 fleet date back to delivery in January 1990. I`m surprised there still in service considering their age? I thought operating these would be much more costly then a brand new one? Also, they have the older 211 engines meaning its not as efficient, would there be a conversion to 214s if possible?
Take C-FFWI for example, its first flight date goes back to 1990.
I also read somewhere that these engines mean a slower climb rate?
Also, don`t short haul aircraft go through more pressurization cycles then long haul?

Locker10a

Many Airlines around the world fly planes for 25-30 years! Its very common in America for example ! Yes they may not be as efficient as new ones but they are fully paid for and owned by the airlines so they are relatively "cheap" to operate as they are not paying a lease on them etc.

EILAX

Locker10a wrote: »

Many Airlines around the world fly planes for 25-30 years! Its very common in America for example ! Yes they may not be as efficient as new ones but they are fully paid for and owned by the airlines so they are relatively "cheap" to operate as they are not paying a lease on them etc.

What about life extension maintenance and extra structural checks etc?

Locker10a

EILAX wrote: »

What about life extension maintenance and extra structural checks etc?

Costly indeed but there are obviously benefits when so many airlines hold onto older aircraft, once they are maintained well they are perfectly airworthy and safe as any new build, so its just up to the individual airlines to assess what cost and what return they can achieve and what works best for them performance(financially) wise

L1011

There are late 1980s A320s in use with mainstream airlines or their LCC subsidiaries. The -100 series are all retired but a lot of the early -200s are still working away.

The older frames are less capable than brand new ones in many ways - range would be one, climb rate would be another depending on engine choice - but they're usually fully paid for and owned outright.

EILAX

Locker10a wrote: »

Costly indeed but there are obviously benefits when so many airlines hold onto older aircraft, once they are maintained well they are perfectly airworthy and safe as any new build, so its just up to the individual airlines to assess what cost and what return they can achieve and what works best for them performance(financially) wise

How longer will they last? Possible upgrade to CFM565B4s (214)?

L1011

EILAX wrote: »

How longer will they last? Possible upgrade to CFM565B4s (214)?

Major airlines with very elderly A320s almost universally have replacement orders - either 320NEO or rarely 737MAX (Air Canada), so a year or two before they start going away in big numbers.

EILAX

L1011 wrote: »

There are late 1980s A320s in use with mainstream airlines or their LCC subsidiaries. The -100 series are all retired but a lot of the early -200s are still working away.

The older frames are less capable than brand new ones in many ways - range would be one, climb rate would be another depending on engine choice - but they're usually fully paid for and owned outright.

-100s were the ones with no wingfences and were very hard to balance? Heard a story that airlines wouldn`t operate them on a flight over 2 hours due to weights.

L1011

EILAX wrote: »

-100s were the ones with no wingfences and were very hard to balance? Heard a story that airlines wouldn`t operate them on a flight over 2 hours due to weights.

No fences, much lower MTOW, and I've heard of balance issues before. All are retired for some time at this stage except MSN001 which was converted to a -200 and is now almost a NEO. Its being retired as the test aircraft soon though.

EILAX

L1011 wrote: »

Major airlines with very elderly A320s almost universally have replacement orders - either 320NEO or rarely 737MAX (Air Canada), so a year or two before they start going away in big numbers.

Unusual that they would switch to B737 MAXs considering their years of experiences flying/maintaining A320 aircraft.

PinOnTheRight

EILAX wrote: »

-100s were the ones with no wingfences and were very hard to balance? Heard a story that airlines wouldn`t operate them on a flight over 2 hours due to weights.

Most of the -100s had a MTOM of 68,000kg. Compare that with most of the -200s operating now with a MTOM of 73,500kg (can structurally do 77,000Kg but use 73,500 for navigation charges)

The 68,000kg models were a pain on sectors of any significant length in finding a 'balance' between payload and range. They didn't suffer from balance problems in terms of trim, just to avoid any confusion.

L1011

EILAX wrote: »

Unusual that they would switch to B737 MAXs considering their years of experiences flying/maintaining A320 aircraft.

Boeing were cheaper, basically. Boeing would see them as a lost customer and there were serious allegations of corruption about the late 80s A320 purchase from both sides (bribery from Airbus, Boeing buying De Haviland Canada to try get favour - since sold to Bombardier) so it was an easier deal than most I'd say.

billy few mates

A twenty five year old A/C would still be perfectly airworthy and relatively cheap to lease from that sector of the industry that specialises in older airframes. They'd be vastly different to the modern versions and would likely have the older CRT EFIS screens and the older CIDs system, the clunky electrical system and would most likely have a fairly jaded looking cabin but this would not bother some operators. Twenty five years is about the point where it's probably time to think about retiring them because the maintenance costs start to shoot up about then with additional CPCP tasks and some of the higher structural checks start falling due. It's also the time to start thinking about replacing the landing gear again as this is due every ten years and it won't be worth replacing it on a thirty year old A/C because you definitely won't be operating it at forty.

Skuxx

I was involved in doing an extended life check on an A320 from 1989 (MSN in 90's)! It involved a lot of heavy structural work and the A/C was on the ground for approx 3 months! I remember asking the customer technical rep how it was commercially viable to keep the A/C flying and was told the airplane was owned outright by the airline and all the work would be payed off with less then 1 month worth of revenue flights!!
I don't know how true or accurate that is but I've no reason to doubt him!!

EILAX

Skuxx wrote: »

I was involved in doing an extended life check on an A320 from 1989 (MSN in 90's)! It involved a lot of heavy structural work and the A/C was on the ground for approx 3 months! I remember asking the customer technical rep how it was commercially viable to keep the A/C flying and was told the airplane was owned outright by the airline and all the work would be payed off with less then 1 month worth of revenue flights!!
I don't know how true or accurate that is but I've no reason to doubt him!!

I guess it depends on how often the aircraft is used and how profitable the routes are going to be to pay it back.

EILAX

billy few mates wrote: »

A twenty five year old A/C would still be perfectly airworthy and relatively cheap to lease from that sector of the industry that specialises in older airframes. They'd be vastly different to the modern versions and would likely have the older CRT EFIS screens and the older CIDs system, the clunky electrical system and would most likely have a fairly jaded looking cabin but this would not bother some operators. Twenty five years is about the point where it's probably time to think about retiring them because the maintenance costs start to shoot up about then with additional CPCP tasks and some of the higher structural checks start falling due. It's also the time to start thinking about replacing the landing gear again as this is due every ten years and it won't be worth replacing it on a thirty year old A/C because you definitely won't be operating it at forty.

Is it possible/would it be economical to upgrade the A320 to a A320-214 from a -211?

Tenger

Skuxx wrote: »

I was involved in doing an extended life check on an A320 from 1989........................the airplane was owned outright by the airline and all the work would be payed off with less then 1 month worth of revenue flights!!
I don't know how true or accurate that is but I've no reason to doubt him!!

Sounds legit. Just look at how many old Mad-dogs are still flying in the US, or older B737's for that matter.

Stovepipe

bear in mind also that airlines will work hard to reduce the cost of heavy maintenance checks by doing as much in-house as they can and they will argue over every cent spent when the aircraft goes to a third party for work. Airlines think in terms of flight cycles on the airframe (pressurization cycles) rather than hours.

ohigg84

If you think a 24 year old A320 is old, think about the Congolese Government which still flies a Boeing 707-138B, the world's oldest 707 which is 56 years old!

Tenger

ohigg84 wrote: »

If you think a 24 year old A320 is old, think about the Congolese Government which still flies a Boeing 707-138B, the world's oldest 707 which is 56 years old!

But thats just for street cred........... its not old, its "vintage"

billy few mates

ohigg84 wrote: »

If you think a 24 year old A320 is old, think about the Congolese Government which still flies a Boeing 707-138B, the world's oldest 707 which is 56 years old!

And it probably only does a couple of hundred hours a year.

There are still quite a few military ones knocking around, the IAF still have one which I was on a few months ago when I was in the States. They'd just put it through a check and repainted it so they're obviously planning to operate it for a while yet. Up close it was actually in really good condition....

Comhrá

Boeing 707-138B

Sounds like it might be an ex-Qantas aircraft. Wonder if it's a sister-ship of John Travolta's recently decomissioned craft?

Stovepipe

Most military aircraft fly no more than a few hundred hours a year. You look at some of the retired fighters and you'll see aircraft with 3000 hours that are thirty years old, but that's got 2000 hrs of plus 6g and the operator has decided that it's not worth their while to overhaul them/engines are obsolete/electronics gone out of date,etc,etc.....in the case of commercial aircraft, things like JT-8 engined 737s and MDs or Dart-powered turboprops are just too fuel-hungry, oil-hungry, noisy, heavy, electronically stone-age,etc to be worth keeping on.....Look at the Transall. Very good aircraft but engines are out of production and avionics are stone-age so it's the breaker's yard for them,despite the military need for medium-sized airlift. In modern times, leasing companies have no loyalty to their aircraft and will happily chop them up if it generates money.

Stovepipe

Incidentally, the Air Corps' executive aircraft,the 125, G111/GIV and King Air respectively were among the busiest in terms of hours per year, for that class of aircraft, with the King Air vying for top place with, of all people, the Australian Royal Flying Doctors Service. 240 was retired with over 11,000 hours on it's hull. Not unique but up there with the highest.