longwings wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 07:37
RoMax wrote: ↑27 Jan 2025, 10:49
Because it's simply irrelevant to the point being that there are huge subfleets amongst major airlines globally that are equally and often older in age than the subfleets of SN. If age would be such essential element in operational reliability to the extent as some members here claim (because of course nobody denies it is 'a' factor), those airlines would equally suffer or even much more regardless of also having younger subfleets in their fleet. It's not like e.g. BA has 10 spare A320neo's ready to fly to back-up their old A319's, etc. (with the PW-powered NEO fleets it's rather the opposite still.., same with e.g. 787's having poor service record with some engine versions)
I am confused by your retort. If your argument is that age is irrelevant, why not explain that instead, and point to Brussels’ on-time arrival rating that is actually pretty good for the narrowbody fleet. Or explain how maintenance is a more important factor.
By listing only older fleet, you invite the conclusion that Brussels’ fleet is not older than its peers, when in fact it is. You also skip over that age is a factor, even if – again – not as important as a good maintenance program. United’s oldest 777s are deployed almost exclusively on domestic routes and never far from a parts store or a base because they have a lower dispatch reliability… Air Canada doesn’t keep its oldest A330s on domestic runs only, but they intentionally have a lower utilization rate… AA’s oldest A319s fly less hours than newer models…
Does Brussels Airlines even have a mix of older and younger aircraft to make similar decisions? Not a rethorical question, by the way.
1. You say twice I skip over that age is a factor, that I say it's irrelevant, yet you quote me on a part where I literally say that it is of course a factor...
2. You refer to the oldest UA 777's (which are 10 years older than the oldest SN A330!), but almost their entire fleet of >70 -200ER's is older than the oldest SN A330, by far not all of them fly the same MX base to base domestic network...
3. Sure aircraft/fleets of a certain age will often fly less hours if the airline has the choice and 'luxury' to do so, not just (not even mainly) due to pure ops reliability in view of age but more directly due to these older aircraft having higher operating costs (fuel efficiency, maintenance becomes more expensive, ...) - but that's not a major factor yet for 2005-2010 built aircraft when it comes to reliability. Again the examples you take out like the oldest AA A319's and oldest UA 777's - these are 10-15years older than SN's oldest A330
SN is renewing slowly but surely it's A320family fleet, where it also has the oldest aircraft. Main driver are much lower operating costs (not only fuel and maintenance but also airport charges at an increasing number of airports).
The A330 fleet is not the youngest around, nobody denies that, but its operational performance has nothing to do with pure age (will there be higher costs on the oldest aircraft in terms of maintenance, more work during heavy checks, etc. - yes of course, but that's something else than operational reliablity outside of planned checks, which is causing cancellations and the whole reason we started this age discussion again). The recent cancellations had absolutely nothing to do with aircraft age. Last year SN also suffered quite some long-haul cancellations also due to a lack of RR Trent 700 engines (a general issue on the market). But look at how many A220's, NEO's and 787's are heavily impacted and even grounded for extended period of times due to PW and RR engine issues (the reason SN didn't get CityJet wet-lease aircraft in summer 2024 was the high amount of grounded aircraft at LH and LX and so higher wet-lease needs there, all young and shiny aircraft but without engines to fly..). So such things like the Trent 700 shortage is not an age issue either, there are much broader engine supply chain issues in the market.
And contrary to the aged A319's, operating costs on the A333 are still competitive, so the pressure for replacements also in that domain (like on the short-haul fleet) is not yet a pressing factor now. Especially in a group where there are still much older and much less cost-efficient widebodies pending replacements (and there I come back to a part of my list). It's not because LH has young A350's and 787's (which are being delivered much slower than anticipated, not to mention the 777X saga obviously..) that they don't have a more pressing need to replace their oldest and least efficient aircraft that are quite a bit worse than the A333's. Same for the remaining A340's still at LX and WK and for the 767/777 fleet at OS. With the current rate of new widebodies getting on the market, if SN would want to start replacing A330's today, it's getting them at such slow rate (and so a very extended mixed-fleet period) that it simply doesn't make sense vs. keeping a harmonized A333 fleet for a little longer. 'But they do it at OS with the 787' - yes but at OS we are talking about a much older fleet to be replaced, and the rate of 787 deliveries is already slower than it was planned because of too slow new aircraft deliveries to the group - don't think for moment that this is a desireable situation now mixing 3 widebody types in their small fleet for an extended period. Besides, do you think Lufthansa Group spread of multiple airlines would invest several hundreds of millions in new A333 cabins in the coming years for unreliable and old aircraft that are no longer competitive?
between Kinshasa and Brussels, is a key partner of the embassy & an important player in relations 
