This sort of media beat up is mostly probably lead by the Engineers in a lead up to there new EBA.
Good old Labour government rewriting the rule book.
Sometimes you just have to look at the bigger picture.
Printable View
This sort of media beat up is mostly probably lead by the Engineers in a lead up to there new EBA.
Good old Labour government rewriting the rule book.
Sometimes you just have to look at the bigger picture.
at least we can agree on something!Quote:
Originally Posted by clean32
On fleet ages:
Emirates 5.8 years
Continental 8.3 years
Air France 9.1 years
Air Canada 9.8 years
Air New Zealand 9.8 years
Air India 10.4 years.
Garuda Indonesia 10.3 years.
Qantas 10.8 years
Japan Airlines 10.8 years
British Airways 11.5 years
Thai 12 years
Malaysia 13.4 years
Delta 13.5 years
United 13.6 years
American Airlines 14.7 years
all of which proves not very much.
the statistic isn't all that useful as it is heavily distorted by various factors. e.g. Continental has purchased a huge number of late model 737 aircraft recently. Prior to those very recent purchases fleet age would have been CONSIDERABLY older.
Also some airlines transfer their older aircraft into subsidiaries which therefore makes their fleet age newer.
Air India's fleet is statistically newer - would you rather fly them If so you must be insane.
Garuda Indonesia has a younger fleet than Qantas but there are a growing number of countries they aren't allowed to fly to as they are so bloody unsafe .
Fleet age is NOT the main game here, clean32. You are misguided.
please re read the ( according to you ) *** i have posted an respond in context if you are at all possable of doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
any way to address your point, are you claiming that a 10 year old air craft with say 4000 landings and takeoffs are as safe as a new aircraft?
NB we are talking about aircraft and not Pumas here.
and are you saying clean that new aircraft are reliable...?
If so as far as I have been made aware the A380 is not that reliable and a number of mechanics hate them!!
I have also heard (can't claim it is true though) that one company that had a number of them on order wants to cancel...as they have numerous problems with them on the ground since putting them in to service.
My friend runs a hotel here in NZnear the airport where they used to combine Air NZ and Qantas maintence staff , He said it was amazing to watch they had 2.5 qantas guys doing what a AIr NZ guy would do taking 40% longer to do it and demanding a higher class of accomadation and corparate cabs to take them to and fro from work!!!. The workers damanded 5 star hotels of a higher grade than the bosses got, Even the air NZ guys were amazed at the featherbedding, Lets hope at least they do a good job!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by clean32
They're a bit like Puma's DB.:angel: Still working out a few bugs but generally a wonderful aircraft and very efficient too. Not sure if they have limp home mode though:wasntme:.Quote:
Originally Posted by dullbird
And will you grumble bums play nice:mad:...otherwise I will start talking about whether a 2 yo Puma is safer than a 10 yo Td5:p - depends on it's service history and treatment!
are they any good? :confused:
Sorry, with my spanglish I am :confused: about which puma are refering to :angel:
The specs are HERE
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...154B3CE372.jpg
Oh I can appreciate that however having a claim that new aircraft are reliable is ludicrous I think....for this very reason.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepy
I know a couple of mechanics that would not share your view of a wonderful aircraft in Oz and the UK....at the moment:p.
doint fish, i said safer.Quote:
Originally Posted by dullbird
Not surprising, the poms and the aussies have older fleets, older than the numbers show if you remove what’s been purchased in the last 2 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by dullbird