All,

Just a little bit of data. US airlines are not subsidized and, over the last decade, many have been in and out of bankruptcy -- some on more than one occasion. Aircraft ages for the larger airlines are significantly older than you see elsewhere in the world. For an example, look at Northwest Airlines (where I sit in one of their World Clubs as I write this). Their most prevalent domestic aircraft (over 100) is the DC-9 --nearly all of which are older than most of the adult passengers.

To give credit where credit is due these aircraft are in remarkably good condition and the pilots love them because they  are "real" airplanes (in other words the pilots fly them as opposed to telling the computer what to do).

As to aircraft quality there are a number of things that need to be looked at. First, the actual lifetime that can be expected from a airframe. Let's, again, use Northwest as an example. I know a number of folks at NWA and I came across some interesting information from these folks. It turns out that the newer Airbus aircraft (320, 319) are aging at a rate that will retire them in a fraction of the time of some of the older equipment. These aren't my data, just what some of the NWA folks tell me.

Several years ago I sat next to the Chief Pilot of NWA on an Osaka run and I had a nice conversation with him. I asked him why NWA had chosen Airbus for some of their new gear and I asked him what, from his point of view the difference was between Airbus and Boeing. He popped up (the seat belt sign was off) and stomped on the floor board of the 747. He said that I should listen to the sound and then do the same thing on an Airbus. I later did and I got it. Airbus builds their non bearing elements much more lightly than Boeing. Now, while Airbus is not a Yugo it is certainly more like a cheap Ford than one of the older, industrial strength Mercedes'.

BTW, the reason that NWA bought (or leased) Airbus was kickbacks per this source. Most NWA employees that I have talked to did not want Airbus.

The reason I was interested in this was simple. I have trouble with the control systems design that Airbus uses as opposed to Boeing. Airbus uses a dead sick, algorithm dominate design. What this means is that they remove much of the proprioceptive feedback that pilots are used to with the non fly-by-wire aircraft (the stick pushes back when moved to extreme in an non proportional way). Further, the European design concept is to prefer the judgment of the computer to the judgment of the pilot. So, if the pilot decides that a certain convolution is required and the computer decides that this maneuver is outside the design parameters of the aircraft then the pilot will not be able to perform it.

Boeing, OTOH, built a proprioceptive, pilot dominate fly-by-wire system. All senses are used by the pilot and if the pilot decides that, for whatever reason, an outside the envelope move is needed the computer gets out of the way.

It's only at the extremes that these things are important. But when they are important I want a guy with twenty some odd years experience making the call and not a theoretical construct written by some guy safely on the ground some years ago.

Best,
wjr

Those were quite a couple of good answers.

I was looking at the aviation records of 3rd world countries that continue to operate aging 20 + yrs aging airbuses and Boeings, makes no difference, for example Indonesia, these older smaller domestic flight aircraft simply either crash land or fall out of the skies at the rate of one per month. Since there is a limited lifespan to each aircraft, I was wondering why besides 3rd world airlines, American airlines continue to service 20 + yr old aircraft fleets. And their inefficiency in their fuel consumption passed to the consumers.

However it is a fact that in America there are people that can keep these old birds flying safely.

Still it does look as though the American domestic passenger does not get a good deal as compared to passengers in the rest of the world.

Now that Virgin America is coming into the domestic airline foray, it would be interesting to see if the above answers and theorys hold true, or that the consumer does not care for antiques aircraft, but go for the best values.

Either way it is kind of weird that an American cabin crew union is protesting against Mr Richard Branson for bringing the budget airline to the old dame fleets.

Rasputin,

I am guessing you are probably talking about in relation to some of the European airlines and other parts of the world. This is most due to the surge of low cost airlines in Europe and asia due to increases in demand (especially in Asia). Most of these new airlines are exactly that, new airlines with brand with brand new fleets. While you will find most of the older carriers have the older and still very cost efficeint aircraft, as their increases in demand represent a smaller propotion of their entire fleet. For example if Delta has 300 aircraft, adding 30 new aircraft won't do much to the average age. But if Asian airlines have 30 aircraft and add 30 new aircraft their average age drops dramatically in half. Basically as you said above its usually cheaper to just refit the cabin to "modernize" their fleet tahn replace aircraft.

Also Herald do you do cost benifit analysis on comercial or millitary aircraft? They have completly different requirements for use so you cannot simplily state American commericial aircraft are better built than European if using millitary CBA's(if anything nowdays I would assume European standards may actually be a very small fraction higher than American standards; say 0.001%). Generally millitatry aircraft will require higher strength for a good CBA. In commercial aircraft weight and fuel are a larger fraction of entire lifecycle cost due to the reduces stress on the airframes.

Wjr1 jumping up and down is no indication of build quality. Can you say the same thing about a house? Will jumping up and down tell you if it is built upon a 200mm slab or a 100mm slab??? An example: Say the aircraft has a design life of 50 years, the floor of an airbus has a design life of 60 years and the floor of a 747 100 years. What is the point of the extra 40 years in the 747? It just adds weight and increases fuels costs. For the record the 747 will have a stronger floor because it has another story below the cabin and will require different strengthening requirements in the floor vs the single story airbus. Also bells and whistles can be nice for the pilot but, in the commercial aviation world if the pilot can do the job safely and at the same cost without all the bells and whistles, why on earth pay extra for the bells and whistles.