A320 Parted out after 17 years of service???

[Jeff Helgeson]

Not exactly....

The crew who flew this Airbus 320 to the scrapping yard was picked up and taken home in a Boeing!

When the last Airbus is dropped off in the desert, the pilots will ride home on a DC-9!

I guess they'll be flying NWA

 

[HAL]

According to ATW, the highest time 320's belong to America West and Lufthansa, and aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

As an America West Airbus pilot, and also having flown Boeing & Douglas planes, I think I can reliably speak up on this.

The oldest of AWA's Airbus planes are going away; they're being replaced as new ones arrive. The planes all have IAE engines, but the old ones are -A1 powered. The newer ones are all -A5 powered and have much better performance, especially on hot days in Phoenix. As much as I appreciate the high technology in the Airbus (and find it enjoyable to fly) I think that they have chronic maintenance problems sooner than Boeing or Douglas planes have. You can easily tell the age of the plane just by looking at the panel and the maintenance logbook. New, they're both clean. Old, they're both cracked with patches and MEL stickers on them. I think it's a shame, but it seems to me that the Airbus does have some problems lasting as long as other planes. Do they still fly? Yes. Do they do so reliably? Yes, for the most part. Are they cheaper to buy than Boeings? (a-ha!). Yes.

This absolutely isn't designed to be a Boeing vs. Airbus vs. Douglas thread. I've flown them all, and enjoyed them all. The Douglas was stone simple, overbuilt, and will probably last until I'm well into retirement. The Airbus is a great example of high technology - an engineers plane, built as inexpensively as possible (good for the airlines). The Boeing is somewhere in-between; well engineered with the pilots first in mind, but sturdy enough to take a lot of abuse. They're all good. They're all different.

HAL

 

[n5374f]

I thought Champion Air would have been flying this one.

 

[barnyard]

Why so much hatred for France? Are you folks that easily manipulated by conservative talk radio? I know Metro 752 is, shall we say, not a "well-rounded individual", but what about the rest of you? Do you anti-French even know anybody from France?

I've known plently people from France, been there at least 10 times for 'pleasure' and I can can say from first hand experience, F France.

 

[ProLine4]

It's simple economics that determines if the airplane gets scrapped. If it's worth more in parts than as a whole, here come the torches and excavators. Another key factor is if the airframe is due for a heavy maintenance inspection. If the operator is not planning to fly the airplane long enough past that heavy check to amortize the inspection cost, they'll park the airplane.

 

[Hung Start]

Hal:


That was a nice, refreshing post. Good to see someone with actual experience giving a well thought out opinion.

Now, back to the usual drivel.

 

[McWilly]

FRENCH Piece of CACA

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

I fart in your general direction....

 

[Hung Start]

See, I told you,,,,,,,,,

 

[jetflier]

The crew who flew this Airbus 320 to the scrapping yard was picked up and taken home in a Boeing!

Or even a DC9..........

 

[ATRedneck]

I bet you wouldn't say, "F... the Embraer" would you?

Master Shake might not say that, but I sure would.

The 145 series will be lucky if it gets anywhere near 17 years. The oldest ones are not even half of that yet, and they're getting pretty junky.

When I was on the mighty ATR, the average was about 10 years old, and they were in better shape than a 5-year Embraer.

Say what you want about the Frogs, but they make a pretty good airplane compared to the "Mexican Citation."

 

[USMC319]

As an America West Airbus pilot, and also having flown Boeing & Douglas planes, I think I can reliably speak up on this.

The oldest of AWA's Airbus planes are going away; they're being replaced as new ones arrive. The planes all have IAE engines, but the old ones are -A1 powered. The newer ones are all -A5 powered and have much better performance, especially on hot days in Phoenix. As much as I appreciate the high technology in the Airbus (and find it enjoyable to fly) I think that they have chronic maintenance problems sooner than Boeing or Douglas planes have. You can easily tell the age of the plane just by looking at the panel and the maintenance logbook. New, they're both clean. Old, they're both cracked with patches and MEL stickers on them. I think it's a shame, but it seems to me that the Airbus does have some problems lasting as long as other planes. Do they still fly? Yes. Do they do so reliably? Yes, for the most part. Are they cheaper to buy than Boeings? (a-ha!). Yes.

This absolutely isn't designed to be a Boeing vs. Airbus vs. Douglas thread. I've flown them all, and enjoyed them all. The Douglas was stone simple, overbuilt, and will probably last until I'm well into retirement. The Airbus is a great example of high technology - an engineers plane, built as inexpensively as possible (good for the airlines). The Boeing is somewhere in-between; well engineered with the pilots first in mind, but sturdy enough to take a lot of abuse. They're all good. They're all different.

HAL

Hal,

Its refreshing to finally have someone post a fair analysis of the different airframes rather than revert to a childish "Ford vs Chevy" debate in which most posters have no clue. I too have flown extensively in Douglas, Boeing and Airbus equipment and have found that they all have their pros and cons. Anyone that characterizes any of these aircraft as a "piece of shi!", simply has no experience in the equipment and probably has no appreciation, or at least no passion for aviation in general.

In my youth I prefered the Douglas for its ruggedness and ability to complete the mission under less than optimal conditions. Most of my flying experience is in the Boeing, which proved to be a very reliable and pilot friendly airframe. The Airbus however, is by far the most advanced and easiest to fly for an old boy like me, which makes it the best "retirement" airplane. The creature comforts and amenities are hard to beat.

 

[Geronimo4497]

The crew who flew this Airbus 320 to the scrapping yard was picked up and taken home in a Boeing!

Negative, they were picked up in a Douglas! (DC-3 to be exact)

 

[oldskoolbronco2]

Robot chicken is sweet, how can you not like "Pimp my Sister!"

 

[pilotyip]

And the DC-3 will haul the scrap when they start parting out the 787 and A-380.

 

[Spooky 1]

Creature comforts on a B737...WTF?

Hal,

Its refreshing to finally have someone post a fair analysis of the different airframes rather than revert to a childish "Ford vs Chevy" debate in which most posters have no clue. I too have flown extensively in Douglas, Boeing and Airbus equipment and have found that they all have their pros and cons. Anyone that characterizes any of these aircraft as a "piece of shi!", simply has no experience in the equipment and probably has no appreciation, or at least no passion for aviation in general.

In my youth I prefered the Douglas for its ruggedness and ability to complete the mission under less than optimal conditions. Most of my flying experience is in the Boeing, which proved to be a very reliable and pilot friendly airframe. The Airbus however, is by far the most advanced and easiest to fly for an old boy like me, which makes it the best "retirement" airplane. The creature comforts and amenities are hard to beat.

Could you expand a little on the "creature comforts" in a B737. One of the sorriest cockpits in a modern airliner!

 

[USMC319]

Could you expand a little on the "creature comforts" in a B737. One of the sorriest cockpits in a modern airliner!

I didn't say anything about "ceature comforts" in a B-737, namely because there aren't any. Go back and review my post. I said the Boeing was a reliable, pilot friendly airplane. I was refering to the Airbus for creature comforts. Anyone who has spent any time in one will surely agree.

 

[AA717driver]

Everyone is confusing the French government with the French people. They have as little direct control over the actions of their government as we do over ours. Everyone happy with everything OUR government does?

Now, having made that distinction, I will say that the French, like many other nationalities, have a vastly different mindset than we do. They are just more vocal about it than others. Just like New Yorkers are different than Texans or Oregonians (?), the French are different than others.

Part of the problem is many in France believe theirs is the superior culture in the world and the rest of us are cretins for not adopting their way of life. I don't let it bother me.

But their government does suck. TC

 

[Ralph Cramden]

I was refering to the Airbus for creature comforts. Anyone who has spent any time in one will surely agree.

Agreed.

Haven't flown the 737, but I can tell you it's jumpseat was designed for FAA inspectors and other people that deserve to be punished.

I love the bus. Well, all but the friggin FMS. That is proof enough that the French view of "superior culture" is just plain wrong.

As for it being a no deposit, no return disposable plane: Maybe so. I will say that flying the DC 3 and F 27 felt like being the commander of an iceberg breaker. OTOH in the bus I don't have to slug it out as much. I will admit that flying around lightning in an electric fly by wire bird is disconcerting at times.

 

[Saabslime]

The creature comforts and amenities are hard to beat.

Sure makes those 5-6 hour legs bearable.........