Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

[KriVa]

The oldest plane in the fleet (OO-SFM) is 22 years, that's still quite a long way (and a few D-checks) away from 30 years. While still a respectable age, the "AOG mess" simply comes from having a small subfleet. SN's funds are not unlimited, so simply buying up A330s to replace the raging fleet is not an option. Doing that same thing gradually is, and is, in my eyes, exactly what will happen.

[OO-ITR]

OK let's play the game :

For the OO-SSx, which is only used for A319 so far - if I understand well - we still have some numbers left (of course maybe they are used for other aircraft already?):
OO-SSJ
OO-SSL
OO-SSO
OO-SSS
OO-SST
OO-SSX
OO-SSY
OO-SSZ

Many more are available in the OO-SNx series for the A320 and the OO-SFx series for the A330

Personally I thought that more than a handful would be 5+1, so 6 but without the A330 ...

Cheers,
Danny

Don't forget to add OO-SSP also IF it has left the fleet.

[sean1982]

The oldest plane in the fleet (OO-SFM) is 22 years, that's still quite a long way (and a few D-checks) away from 30 years. While still a respectable age, the "AOG mess" simply comes from having a small subfleet. SN's funds are not unlimited, so simply buying up A330s to replace the raging fleet is not an option. Doing that same thing gradually is, and is, in my eyes, exactly what will happen.

As far as I know SFM and SFN are among the oldest A330's operating commercially? I didnt say it had to happen all at once, but adding newer airplanes to an older fleet is not going to improve dispatch reliability if used for expansion only

[KriVa]

SFM and SFN are indeed among the oldest A330s still operating, being line number 30 and 37, respectively. Considering their age, they're still doing rather well, in no small part thanks to the MX department at SN.
Of course, it would be nonsense to compare them with a 2 year old A330 with all PIPs and whatnot added to it. They're not going to have the dispatch reliability of that kind of plane, and that figures.
However, they're not by far as dramatic as is portrayed from time to time.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: The reason for the "AOG mess" (which is an exaggeration in itself) is only in small part due to the age of the planes, the largest part of it comes from operating a small subfleet and, not unimportant, operating said subfleet to places where support and maintenance are hard(-er) to come by.

[Inquirer]

Maybe a stupid question so late in this discussion, but exactly what is an AOG????

[crew1990]

Most of the time the plane are AOG due to bird strike, lightning strike etc, it's not always due to the age of the fleet.

[KriVa]

And AOG in itself is the abbreviation for Aircraft On Ground.

[Inquirer]

And AOG in itself is the abbreviation for Aircraft On Ground.

Thank you!
Didn't know that abbreviation.
Does it also come with a (technical) reason, or can it be for anything, incl like was said natural causes?

[crew1990]

AOG is the term used in aviation when an aircraft is grounded for technical reason. For exemple when all the aircraft were grounded during a volcano irruption is not considered as AOG.

To come back to Brussels Airlines, the A330 are not more AOG than any other aircraft of the fleet. the problem is that there are not any back up, the back up is Hifly but not always available. As any airlines, some aircraft of the european fleet are AOG from time to time like for example with the truck which hit the engine of the "tintin A320", bus as there are some back up in the airbus and Avro fleet so there are not any problem as a new aircraft can be send within a short time.

[MD-11forever]

As far as I know SFM and SFN are among the oldest A330's operating commercially? I didnt say it had to happen all at once, but adding newer airplanes to an older fleet is not going to improve dispatch reliability if used for expansion only

KLM operates 25-year old 747s that are still going strong, Delta operates 25-year-old 767s which are doing their job just fine.
As long as an aircraft is well maintained, I don't see the age of an aircraft to be a problem for reliability?

[Conti764]

As far as I know SFM and SFN are among the oldest A330's operating commercially? I didnt say it had to happen all at once, but adding newer airplanes to an older fleet is not going to improve dispatch reliability if used for expansion only

KLM operates 25-year old 747s that are still going strong, Delta operates 25-year-old 767s which are doing their job just fine.
As long as an aircraft is well maintained, I don't see the age of an aircraft to be a problem for reliability?

People seem to compare a plane to a car, which useful life usually ends around 10-15 years, depending on distance driven...

However, if we as ordinary people would invest a relative amount of money in our cars as airlines do in their planes, our cars would be able to run up to 30 years and maybe more then a million km as well... But we don't...

[RTM]

Aircraft age and reliability are not related! As long as an aircraft is well maintained, the age is not a factor in that respect. And SN's fleet is well maintained.

It does however bring other costs. Fuel burn is one. Newer aircraft have a later generation engine normally, than one of 20years old. But in case of the 330, that's quite relative. At least untill the NEO production kicks in.The other thing is, maintenance cost. It is not hard to imagine that an aircraft with 20 years on the clock brings more wear and tear than one of just 2 years of age. That is where the big difference is, and that is where eventually, the scale will tip towards replacemment. Mind you, higher maintenance is also compensated with lower leasing cost. So as long as there is some sort of balance, the age is not relevant.
Also, engine age is not related to aircraft age. So if an aircraft developes an engine problem that impacts the reliability, that can just as easily happen on a much younger aircraft. There are 2 year old aircraft flying around with a 20 year ols engine, and vice versa. So go figure...

Having said that, aircraft replacement is something you can plan. And that planning is best started some years in advance. So I am quite confident that apart from expanding the fleet, SN is also working toward replacing the older aircraft. Just when that will be executed though, is something we will have to wait and see...

[Flanker2]

Aircraft age and reliability are not related! As long as an aircraft is well maintained, the age is not a factor in that respect. And SN's fleet is well maintained.

Yes they are related and you know that very well.
What you are saying is a common saying but it's factually wrong.

Here are examples of items that are affected by age/prolonged use:
-All EWIS items. See aging aircraft program Reference: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... ngair.html
-Any ducts, pipings and related components/systems. Think about bleed air, airco, water, hydraulics, fuel.
-Hydraulic components that are not removed during heavy checks
-Airframe, mainly through corrosion, but also fatigue and also previous repairs
-Engines, mostly due to their EWIS components, but also due to internal erosion, fatigue and general damage caused by FOD and other things
-LRU's due to exposure to dust/own heat, and they tend to rotate within a fleet
So pretty much everything.

Maintenance costs increase with age, dispatch reliability decreases with age.

People seem to compare a plane to a car, which useful life usually ends around 10-15 years, depending on distance driven...

However, if we as ordinary people would invest a relative amount of money in our cars as airlines do in their planes, our cars would be able to run up to 30 years and maybe more then a million km as well... But we don't...

I don't like the comparison because cars and aircraft are different.
For starters, the materials used in the structures are so different that it's like comparing a can opener with a wrench. Steel versus aluminium or composites. Different corrosion properties.
Second, the standards to which they are built are totally different. The surface treatments and protective coatings are so much better on aircraft than they are on cars, simply because of the semi-monocoque or monocoque strcutures of aircraft.
A car will start to corrode after 5 years. Yes even luxury brands like Mercedes are known for being rust buckets. Yet there are 50 year old Cessna's flying around without ever having undergone corrosion repair.
Next, the environments to which they are subjected are different.
Finally, economic viability of maintenance for the operator is a major consideration.



I also find that it's ridiculous to say that this or that operator maintains its planes well without hard proof.
For all I know, the maintenance programs are based on MPD's based themselves on requirements from the manufacturers and MRB. So if you follow them, you have an aircraft maintained to standards, which does not qualify to be called "well-maintained" as this should be the norm.
But the world is not perfect, so corners are cut virtually everywhere. Adhering to these standards is hence often misinterpreted as "well-maintained" while this should be the norm.
Take for instance all the contracting of heavy maintenance that is given out to the lowest bidder. So how do you offer the same service at a lower price to win the bid on a heavy maintenance overhaul?
Different ways here:
-You base your heavy maintenance contracting business in a country with low wages, itself a reflection of lower living standards, lower standards of education and lower quality of work.
-You carry out maintenance on paper, ie you don't do said maintenance but sign it off as if it was carried out. Heavy maintenance provides plenty of opportunities to do that, for instance the inspection tasks
-You work with parts suppliers who supply lower quality products. Consumables, screws, nuts, sheet metal, tooling, paint, and such come to mind.

I think that there are very few airlines that can boast the reputation of "maintained to standards", ie Japan Airlines for all I know. They have the highest maintenance cost per flight hour and carry out mostly everything in-house.

So SN is definitely feeling the age of their old fleet, but it all comes down to maintaining a positive balance between maintenance costs and the other costs.

[crew1990]

Having said that, aircraft replacement is something you can plan. And that planning is best started some years in advance. So I am quite confident that apart from expanding the fleet, SN is also working toward replacing the older aircraft. Just when that will be executed though, is something we will have to wait and see...

My theory is that the priority is to harmonise the Euro fleet. 2 thing had to be done, removing the OO-SSP to make that the A32S fleet is harmonized, so this is done now. Then removing the Avro's and replace it with other A32S. This should be done by 2017. Once this step will be over Brussels Airlines will able to concentrate the budget to expand and renew the A330 fleet. n the mean time I guess the older A319 will start leaving the fleet replaced by new A319/A320 and even A321. I do think that the A321 would perfectly fit in the fleet, but this is not a subtitle for the Avro's so I guess they could start coming with the renewal of the A32s fleet around 2020I guess.

[RTM]

Flanker... There is so much wrong with your post, that I am not going to bother replying to it in detail. It just proves (again) that Google and Wikipedia do not buy you an aircraft maintenance license. Lets just agree you have a vivid imagination. But please stop imagining your facts.

I do give you one thing though. Yes, there is some relationship between age and reliability. But people here are so over exaggerating that effect. It does happen from time to time, and yes it costs money to fix, but as long as the defect does not cause delays and cancellations, the reliability stays in tact. It's just another thing on the to do list, or if it is a bit more serious, it will be dispatched according the MEL, which may or may not have some consecuences or limits, but as long as it's flyable, it will fly. So yes, maintenance costs go up, but the effect on reliablilty is very limited.

@Crew1990,
Totally agree. Just meant that if they are going to be focussing on A330 replacement by mid 2017, they should be starting to open their eyes about now. Or probably should allready be wide open.

[lumumba]

It's maybe a bit crazy but why not taking over all de A340 600 fleet from Lufhansa there are not so economic but very reliable.
For those flights to Africa economics is less important and you can take big amount of cargo.
For the flights where Lufhansa is competing they need a more economic plane to compete.
They are between 12 and 6 years old.
It's just an idee I now it's a big plane and sure if you want to stop the triangle flights....

[OO-ITR]

It's maybe a bit crazy but why not taking over all de A340 600 fleet from Lufhansa there are not so economic but very reliable.
For those flights to Africa economics is less important and you can take big amount of cargo.
For the flights where Lufhansa is competing they need a more economic plane to compete.
They are between 12 and 6 years old.

There are several reasons why SN will not take over LH's A340s.
First of all, LH is planning to keep these birds in their fleet for some time.
Secondly, SN does not need the range that this aircraft can provide.
Third, true the fuel price is low at this moment, but SN is better off with aircraft that consume less than the A340.

Also I can see some reasons why SN is not taking brand new aircraft (although this has been discussed over and over again) :
- because they don't have the funds to purchase shiny, new aircraft
- because the majority shareholder(s) (55% of several companies) don't want to invest heavily
- the other shareholder (45% - LH) does have a veto right concerning fleet decisions but will not purchase new aircraft for SN for the simply reason they don't own SN completely (yet).
- and last but not least, we all remember what happened with SABENA after they ordered a whole bunch of new Airbus A/C (with some additional aircraft they would never need)

Also we all know that SN is not the only flying with old frames. Most of the american airlines have birds older than SFM. Like many mentioned here. it all depends on the maintenance they receive. One can say a lot about SN but not that their maintenance sucks.
And a brand new aircraft is not a guarantee that it will not be AOG. Take JAF's dreamliner for exemple....

Like I mentioned before KLM is disposing of their A332 fleet as from now. They have around 12 of this type. Excellent for SN, no?

[lumumba]

Yes that's right the A330 200 is a perfect plane.
You can add frequency and stop this uncomfortable triangle flights.

[OO-ITR]

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-a319-1086.htm thought SSC was in OSR for a maintenance but it's mentioned as stored ? anyone got more info about this ?

SSC is flying

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BEL3722

[Airbus A330]

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-a319-1086.htm thought SSC was in OSR for a maintenance but it's mentioned as stored ? anyone got more info about this ?

SSC is flying

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BEL3722

Flightradar shows any recent flight operated by OO-SSC. I suppose SSC is still in C-check at OSR (as C-checks last a few weeks).

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/oo-ssc/