Must be rightsizing for another merger!

I will have to see them enter this proposed maintenance before I believe this. Airbus pay rates are jumping pretty high and I believe it's a head fake to get guys to buy off on a poor TA. Don't trust the head shed.

Does anyone know the lifespan of the airframe of the bus vs Boeing?

The Bus rates aren't any different than the 737's that are coming on property, so what different does it make?

I flew some of the oldest A320's a couple of years ago in SE Asia. Numbers 300-311. They were 20 years old, but not a lot of hours. 28,000-30,000. A third of the hours they would have had at an efficiently run airline. They were complete junk, but part of that was the maintenance. Lots of airframe vibration above 300 knots, and the LG felt like it was held on by bailing wire.

I don't know how much of this was bad maintenance or bad airplanes. Last UAL one I flew was just over 4 years ago and they seemed fine although the number of MEL's was rapidly increasing.

I really don't know the maintenance side of the industry so I don't know how long they will last or how much it costs to keep them going.

You all keep calling it a "head fake" on the raising of the bus pay rates. If you go back to the original rates the bus was well above UALs 737 and just shy of the 767. I believe the amount was about $10 less than the combined 767 757 UAL rate prior to the BK give away.

What this means is they are returning to where they should be since the bus pilots took the biggest hit in pay during BK.

Doing a quick search on-line, the 737 has been tested for 60 or 75,000 cycles (depending on Classic or NG); the A-320 is 48,000 cycles and 60,000 hours.

I did a paper on airframe fatigue for a Master's class 20 years ago (). At the time, there had been three notable fatigue-incidents, of which the Aloha 737 was the most famous, as well as the United 747 that lost the forward cargo door (and tore off significant skin when it departed; 6 died).

Boeing at that time maintained that their airplanes had an unlimited life. While there were recommended cycle limits, they were not compulsory. It merely meant that if you went beyond those recommendations, it was likely to cost more money to keep it airworthy.

I found a reference (back then) that showed the cycle/hour comparisons for the 727, 737, and 747. The hour to cycle ratios were proportional to the type of flying each was anticipated to fly. The 737 was lots of cycles, short trips. The 747 was given more hours, but fewer cycles---indicative of long-haul international flying.

Interestingly, the SWA 737 that blew out the cabin a few years ago had only achieved one-third the expected cycles. There is significant concern that the cycle testing (typically done using only a fuselage shell mounted in a test rig) does not realistically simulate revenue service. No hard landings, no twisting/torsion due to turbulence, no spilled sodas seeping into the lap-joints, no being parked in a humid environment for days on end, no catering truck dings, no jetway dings, etc.

I would guess the Airbus limits are similar.

In military service, other than being made obsolete by new threat technologies, one of the biggest factors 20 years ago leading to airframe retirement was not the airframe per se....it was wiring. It seems that in the late 1970s/early 80s, a new wire insulation called Kapton became all the vogue.

Unfortunately, it turned out to have a limited life, especially in salt environments. Lots of Naval aircraft were grounded because the wiring was shot, and it was cost-prohibitive to replace the entire wire harness of a fighter.

I can't help but wonder if the Bus, with a fuselage designed three decades after the 737, has a better method of routing wire bundles, that would make it easier to replace, if necessary.

When you see someone flying a restored WWII fighter, and knowing all the yank and bank it has been through, years of neglect, corrosion, and restoration, it makes me believe that with good maintenance, one can keep an airplane flying almost indefinitely.

Interesting post & great discussion (mostly because it hasn't devolved into Boeing vs. Airbus - yet...)

Do any NW or US types have an input? I believe their buses are the oldest.

OpSpec D-485 lists every airplane by 'N" number and type. It shows the manufacture date of the airframe and the date it enters the Aging Aircraft Inspection and component retirement plan.

You can find all our OpSpecs on the CAL Flight Operations website under "Communications" and then E-Documents. It fits in to your iPad's iBooks nicely.

One of the CAL purchase agreement covenants with Boeing is that we only operate the aircraft 20 years and then we cut it up. Boeing wants to sell new airplanes. Take a look at the airplanes older than 20 years. They are all UAL, Inc. airplanes.

An airplane retirement schedule is sitting on Jeff's desk. You can bet "The J's" have seen it. Kind of makes sense why Pierce isn't in a big hurry and Heppner is.

Do the math, then you decide.

Airbus recently came out with an extended life cycle program for the 320 series which is probably the reason that UCH is re-thinking the timeline. Prior to this the hour/cycle restriction on the 320 was a hard limit and the reason for the "disposable aircraft" moniker. There was a running change during production so only 320's built after a certain serial number are eligible for the extension. This is presumably the reason that DAL is retiring their oldest 40 (or so) Airbuses as they time out but retaining the rest. All of UAL's should be eligible for the program based on delivery dates.