AIR - Air NZ.

[777]

There's also the efficiency of new aircraft, there's only so much you can do to improve that on an older aircraft.

The argument was limited to safety.

[Beagle]

Yes, "In theory" you can keep an aircraft flying forever with rigorous maintenance as most components are life cycled to various intervals for overhaul. Whether that's practical and whether that maintenance is truly rigorous is another matter entirely. As I posted earlier, Kiwi regional airlines has been the subject of four Civil Aviation audits already. This seems highly unusual for such a young company and it is interesting to note that their plane had to be taken out of service for unscheduled maintenance, which could well of been because of concerns uncovered in one or more of those audits. (They usually only audit that frequently when there's concerns). Just as well we can rely on the CAA to do their job rigorously isn't it !!

Small airlines running really old plane(s) is not a new business model by any means...whether its one you want to support is another thing.

[Raz]

The differences between an airplane and a car are subtle, so it is understandable if you can not tell them apart.

So provided the airframe has not done too many hours in the air (by the way I am talking about an airplane here, not your 1986 Porsche 911 Turbo) and it has not exceeded the prescribed number of take-off and landing cycles (airplane again, still not the Porsche) and it has a full maintenance history (could be either now) it is better than a new one (read on)

One of the well known engineering phenomenon is that new things are unreliable, there are a surprising number of early life failures.
Things then settle down and on the whole give you many years of fairly trouble free enjoyment.
Then after a certain point the unreliability starts to increase.

This holds true for airplanes, cars and even people.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

How do airlines determine if metal fatigue has developed in air planes? Airlines are really relying on the manufacturer's maintenance programs. The manufacturers design the aircraft to be trouble-free for a certain period of time. There are maintenance actions to preclude any catastrophic failures, but that's not to say that the aircraft might not experience metal fatigue before those times…. When you get to a certain point in the aircraft's lifespan, you need to inspect or replace certain parts. At a point you are going to have a situation where the actual knowledge on a plane after so many pressure cycle on the the entire system is limited. It turns more into a risk management exercise where replacement of parts will most likely not cause the catastrophic failure but the simple fatigue not know will cause the failure. Have a chat to aircraft engineers and they will all tell you of their concerns sign off on older airplanes for a reason, inherent risk from metal fatigue not detected is on the rise.

[mondograss]

The argument was limited to safety.

I was responding to your comment about the "equation" the airline has to consider. The airline however has to balance the equation on more than just maintenance so it's pointless to only look at one consideration in isolation because you just can't separate it out with any empirical certainty.

The only way to evaluate public safety concerns I'd have thought would be to find some stats on passenger numbers before and after publicly notified incidents and see how things change. I suspect Malaysian has had a bit of a lean time lately for example.

[RTFQ]

Aircraft components these days are replaced "on condition " and are not lifed. Metal fatigue is not normally an issue with modern aircraft. Corrosion is the biggest fear for airline maintenance programs as AIR recently found when Boeing started using environmentally friendly primers.

Most modern aircraft run an onboard data monitoring system, recording some 2000 parameters and this data is fed back to the companies maintenance computer at short intervals. If a trend develops, say the oil pressure in an air conditioning actuator has changed 2 psi in the last 4 days then a maintenance alert is generated predicting a failure in say four months. This has no consequence to the continued operation. The airline then plans maintenance so there is no down time for the aircraft.

This is what Malaysia had but wasn't using on their short haul fleet.

[Beagle]

Let's see how today goes as being the last day before it goes ex-div tomorrow.

Can't help but speculate how quickly it recovers the 10 cent divvy...one day, a few days or a few weeks ? Big institutional holders are not used to airlines paying divvies so its probably immaterial to them...meanwhile the rest of us will be planning how to reinvest it

[sb9]

Can't help but speculate how quickly it recovers the 10 cent divvy...one day, a few days or a few weeks ? Big institutional holders are not used to airlines paying divvies so its probably immaterial to them...meanwhile the rest of us will be planning how to reinvest it

I would say it'll recover divvy amount within few days. And good thing with this one is its paid out within week by next Friday, you can't beat that, right?

I think lot of us will be enjoying those well earned divvies this month and next month as NZ companies start paying them out.

[Beagle]

I would say it'll recover divvy amount within few days. And good thing with this one is its paid out within week by next Friday, you can't beat that, right?I think lot of us will be enjoying those well earned divvies this month and next month as NZ companies start paying them out.

Agreed and no you can't to the best of my knowledge beat that for timliness. I'm pleased the Govt wants its dividend money quickly aren't you

[Jantar]

.....
All food for thought,,but the real question is just how many have decided not to fly with an airline because they think the planes are unsafe.
For the sake of argument--lets narrow that down to planes coming to NZ..(so we dont go wandering off to some local Indonesian airline)
If we look at stats ,is this a debate that is going to affect the bottom line?--(Talking strictly safety ,not fuel savings etc.)

There are some airlines I choose not to fly with for safety reasons if I can avoid them. But it isn't because of aircraft safety, its because of pilot training.

Some airlines choose and train pilots in manner we expect here in NZ: A young person learns to fly at a local aero club or commercial flight school. They gain a private Pilot's licence, then a commercial Pilot's licence, an instrument rating, possibly an instructor's rating, then they build their hours actually flying. After they have 800 -1000 or so hours hands on flying they will work for a local flying company or, if they are lucky direct to a small commuter airline. after 2000 hours maybe they will advance to a link airline (Mt Cook), and at around 5000 hours to a major airline. This is what happens in NZ, Australia, USA, Canada, Britain, Germany etc. and pilots are expected to be able to actually fly the plane if they need to. I am very happy to fly on any of these irrespective of the type or age of the aircraft.

Then there are places that copy our system for the first 250 hours, then do all remaining training and experience in a simulator. When they are deemed ready they go straight into the right hand seat of a 777 or similar. Airlines that follow this method are Emirates, Etihad, India, France and a few others. Mainland Air in Dunedin trains many overseas pilots for that first 250 hours, and I have seen a large range of abilities in the students that gain their CPL there, even to the point of intervening with one of their students who was on his first cross country as his approach and landing at our local airfield was dangerous (He didn't eventually pass). These airlines are my second choice.

Then there are airlines that skip even that first 250 hours of actual flying, and all training is done in the simulator. The first time a trainee pilot actually sits in an aircraft is likely to be as a Second Officer on an A320, or even an A380 full of passengers. It is mainly Asian airlines that use this method. Some actually make their trainee pilots pay for this whole training, both simulator, and while flying as second officer with passengers, and don't go on the payroll until they are promoted to First Officer. I do not fly on these airlines if there is any alternative.

There are a few who try to mix pilots with at least one trained in the traditional methods and one in the simulator method. Singapore is one of those.

On my last trip to Europe I could have saved over $500 by flying on one of my non-preferred airlines. I chose to pay a bit extra and fly Air NZ and Lufthansa. Next year when I travel to Vienna I will do similar.

[Beagle]

There are some airlines I choose not to fly with for safety reasons if I can avoid them. But it isn't because of aircraft safety, its because of pilot training.

Some airlines choose and train pilots in manner we expect here in NZ: A young person learns to fly at a local aero club or commercial flight school. They gain a private Pilot's licence, then a commercial Pilot's licence, an instrument rating, possibly an instructor's rating, then they build their hours actually flying. After they have 800 -1000 or so hours hands on flying they will work for a local flying company or, if they are lucky direct to a small commuter airline. after 2000 hours maybe they will advance to a link airline (Mt Cook), and at around 5000 hours to a major airline. This is what happens in NZ, Australia, USA, Canada, Britain, Germany etc. and pilots are expected to be able to actually fly the plane if they need to. I am very happy to fly on any of these irrespective of the type or age of the aircraft.

Then there are places that copy our system for the first 250 hours, then do all remaining training and experience in a simulator. When they are deemed ready they go straight into the right hand seat of a 777 or similar. Airlines that follow this method are Emirates, Etihad, India, France and a few others. Mainland Air in Dunedin trains many overseas pilots for that first 250 hours, and I have seen a large range of abilities in the students that gain their CPL there, even to the point of intervening with one of their students who was on his first cross country as his approach and landing at our local airfield was dangerous (He didn't eventually pass). These airlines are my second choice.

Then there are airlines that skip even that first 250 hours of actual flying, and all training is done in the simulator. The first time a trainee pilot actually sits in an aircraft is likely to be as a Second Officer on an A320, or even an A380 full of passengers. It is mainly Asian airlines that use this method. Some actually make their trainee pilots pay for this whole training, both simulator, and while flying as second officer with passengers, and don't go on the payroll until they are promoted to First Officer. I do not fly on these airlines if there is any alternative.

There are a few who try to mix pilots with at least one trained in the traditional methods and one in the simulator method. Singapore is one of those.

On my last trip to Europe I could have saved over $500 by flying on one of my non-preferred airlines. I chose to pay a bit extra and fly Air NZ and Lufthansa. Next year when I travel to Vienna I will do similar.

What a brilliant and illuminating post and explains in graphic detail how accidents like the 2014 Air Asix x one happen when pilots actually have to try and fly the aircraft on one engine.
Then there are the airlines that do inadequate psychological profiling of their pilots as well as flying over known war zones...MALeficence on their part ?

One of the rare times I flew on Jetstar we had a Chinese pilot that in full daylight and perfect clear blue skies and no wind had to fly a go around at the full length Christchurch airport because he couldn't land on the first approach ....I guess he hadn't done the Christchurch approach in his simulator training.