THE WAY TO SAVE THE AIR LINE INDUSTRY IS TO:

[JToole]

I bounced the subject off the Director of Maintenance at work (ASTAR Air Cargo). We fly Airbus 300, DC-8 and Boeing 727 aircraft. Apparently it is all a wash. What one is better at the other makes up for somewhere else.

My take on saving the airlines? Let the big ones who monopolize unprofitably with their stupid hub systems die! The little guys are profitable despite the problems of the oligopoly. Viva la Competition!

I would like to go somewhere on the topless airline, though. My luck, it would still have the same ancient flight attendants!

Hmmm. Somoa airlines, anyone?

[new2BMW]

Jonothan;
Don't take me wrong. Both companies make a fine airplane. When I say that Airbus has issues, I simply mean that they just aren't quite as good at some aspects of the business. Believe me, Boeing has issues in other parts of the business. To be fair, Airbus is a much younger company and they are still in the learning curve. There is no question that they are improving.

Jtoole says it correctly when he says

Apparently it is all a wash. What one is better at the other makes up for somewhere else.

Of course the A300, DC-8 and 727 are all very old airplanes that require very little up front cost but high levels of maintenance. Aging aircraft S/Bs and ADs alone dictate more in depth service each time the airplane is towed into the hangar.

If you were to compare next generation airplanes such as the 737-700 and newer versions of the A320, you would find that the initial cost of the 737 is substantially higher than the A320, but the cost of maintaining the aircraft throughout their life span is cheaper for the Boeing. Additionally, the Boeing has a much higher resale value than the Airbus. Again, it all depends on your philosophy as an airline.

As an example, Grupo Taca in El Salvador and Cost Rica stocked up heavily on the A320 due to low initial cost (lease program). Their long term plan is to return the aircraft prior to the heavy maintenance years (roughly ten years) and take on newer aircraft. In contrast, All Nippon Airways (The airline I am stationed at in Japan) decided to buy 737 NG aircraft and fly them longer. They will have a higher initial outlay of cash, but they will recover the investment with lower maintenance costs, and when they sell the aircraft in 17 - 20 years. ANA flies 25 A320 and about 30 737-300/500 aircraft and is very disappointed in the maintenance cost and poor resale value of the Airbus.

According to their history with the two aircraft types, their profit per passenger (PPP) is higher with the Boeing aircraft. Most airlines decide based on their ability to pay up front or hedge their future expenditures on future business while taking the savings now.

In the end, it is like paying cash for a Hyundai or making payments on a Toyota. When and where do you you want to spend your money?

(By the way, if I had my way, I would prefer to work on DC10 every day.)

I'm sure Ian is a very competant guy. My limited experience with British Midland is that they have a very good engineering department. My company (The NORDAM Group) does some business with British Midland in our facility in Cardiff. I wouldn't be surprised if Ian knew some of our guys.

Airbuses are designed for ease of maintenance. Ian cites the difficulty of accessing the GPU turbine in the 737 which has been shoehorned into a very small space when compared to that of the Airbus. Also he said that the quality of the fasteners on the Airbus was noticeably better and whereas the Boeing fasteners on the outside of the aircraft corrode and often need drilling out and retapping, those on the Airbus seldom do. He cited other quality differences too though I cannot recall these but, to be honest, they were pretty minor and I'd happily fly in either a Boeing or an Airbus. They both do the job well. It was just interesting to hear the view of someone who spends all his working life working on both marques.

Every aircraft type has different characteristics. 747 maintenance is very different than 757 maintenance due to their time of design. However, just a few points.
GPU (ground power unit) is a stand alone electrical generator that is not part of the aircraft, but part of the ground equipment rolled up to the aircraft during service or maintenance. I think you mean APU (auxiliary power unit) which is a gas turbine generator installed in the tail of the 737 to provide electrical power when the engines are not running. I'm not an APU guy, but from my experience, all APUs are stuffed into small places. I don't know the A320 APU, but Ian is right, the 737 APU is a real booger. On the other hand, the A320 fan reversers for the V2500 or the CFM56-5 engines are real crap made by Goodrich at the lowest bid. The 737 (Boeing built) fan reverser is a much better and easier to maintain unit that lasts longer and is cheaper to overhaul when it is removed. The point is that there are thousands of subcomponents on every airplane. Each one has there good and bad points.

Most aircraft fasteners are industry standard fasteners with MS or NAS designations. These things are produced by third party companies to military or commercial standards. They are used on all airplanes no matter the OEM. If they corrode on a Boeing, they will corrode on an Airbus. Skin/stringer/rib construction for both airplanes is done with aluminum rivets using the same basic engineering design. Many times, corrosion on these joints is a direct result of the airline's maiontenance practice associated with initial paint quality and maintenance of protective coatings.

Anyway, I wouldn't hesitate to fly on either brand of aircraft as they are both well made. I do on the other hand choose my airlines carefully. My previous job was travelling the world providing afetrmarket services to most airlines on every continent. Some of these airlines have no business taking humans airborne.

Cheers,
Jeff

[jonothan]

Thanks for the informative post, Jeff. I really enjoyed reading it.

Yes, I meant APU not GPU.

Interesting point about the thrust reversers. Tell me, do these remain the same more or less whichever engines are fitted. At the end of the day, the engines are down to the customer's spec just like the interior layout, aren't they?

I think the point that you make about choosing the airline rather than the aircraft type is really what it's all about.

Recently I've flown on quite a few types. Boeing and Airbus (obviously) but also Fokker (KLM from our local airport - Humberside - HUY), Embraer, BAe and Saab. Not forgetting the fantastic little De Havilland Twin Otter seaplane in the Maldives.

They all took off and landed OK, all run by reputable airlines though I would suggest that Ryanair were a bit suspect. I don't know how well they maintain their fleet which includes a number ageing Boeing 737 200s.

Jonothan

[Paper]

Edited, and moved on...

[new2BMW]

Interesting point about the thrust reversers. Tell me, do these remain the same more or less whichever engines are fitted. At the end of the day, the engines are down to the customer's spec just like the interior layout, aren't they?

Jonothan,
It's interseting that you wrote thrust reverser. A thrust reverser and a fan reverser are very similar in function, but slightly different. A thrust reverser works like a parachute on a dragster to redirect the actual engine thrust into a somewwhat forward direction to slow the aircraft on the runway after landing.
A fan reverser does the same thing, except that it actually redirects the fan air (non-exhaust). A fan reverser is used on the newer (the last 40 years or so) high bypass type engines. A thrust reverser is used when an engine does not have much, or no fan bypass such as many smaller jets such as business jets or the old 737-22, 727, DC9, MD80 etc.
The fan reverser is specific to the engine in 90% of the cases. Each engine manufacturer selects the vendor to manufacture the fan reverser. Boeing is the only manufacturer of the big three to actually make their own fan reversers, but only on some engine configurations. Boeing makes the best fan reverser by far (unfortunately for me since my company makes a lot of money overhauling fan reversers).

New airplanes are usually offered with a choice of two or three engine brands. Most often GE, Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce. There is also a manufacturer in Eurpope called the Safron Group (formerly Snecma) and another in Israel called International Aero Engines (IAE). Safron and IAE are old companies, but there engines on large commercial aircraft are somewhat limited as of now. Both are up and coming in the commercial jet market. recently there are at least two JV engine companies. CFMI which is a JV between GE and The Safron Group, and GP which is a JV between GE and PW.

Your observation is correct. Aircraft manufactured by Saab, Aerospecial, BAe, Fokker and Embraer are all very functional and will provide many years of service. In fact, the Fokker F100, although famous for being slow, is extremely fuel efficient and is a real money maker for those airlines that still fly them. Maintenance is a pain in the butt, but the efficiency more than pays for it.

Not forgetting the fantastic little De Havilland Twin Otter seaplane in the Maldives.

That is one brilliant airplane. I've never flown in one, but I've been to their factory many times outside of Toronto. I had a really nice time weeding through their engineering drawing library one day. What a history they have.

By the way, don't worry about Ryan Air. They do a good job with maintenance even though some of their aircraft are somewhat dated.