Proneutron
SOC-13
Just check out the number of DC-3s still running around the globe.
Rules for Used Ships
- Thread starter Adam Dray
- Start date
Just check out the number of DC-3s still running around the globe.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Exactly - it would NOT be cost-effective to design and built a new aircraft that has the same short/unimproved runway capability with the given passenger/cargo/range capability - especially considering the global supply of tens of thousands of repairable engines available really cheap.
With how solidly-engineered & built the airframes were (far stronger and more-durable than modern aircraft) and the numbers built, it was more cost-effective to install new avionics (radios, nav systems, ground-speed/altitude radar, etc) and new turboprop engines (starting in the 1980s, as the supply of repairable piston engines began to run out).
Add in the lower costs of training of pilots & ground crew for most of its time in service, and the cost/benefit equation has favored the Gooney Bird for over 70 years now.
Just like the Type S scout!
With how solidly-engineered & built the airframes were (far stronger and more-durable than modern aircraft) and the numbers built, it was more cost-effective to install new avionics (radios, nav systems, ground-speed/altitude radar, etc) and new turboprop engines (starting in the 1980s, as the supply of repairable piston engines began to run out).
Add in the lower costs of training of pilots & ground crew for most of its time in service, and the cost/benefit equation has favored the Gooney Bird for over 70 years now.
Just like the Type S scout!
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Airline marketing departments liked to emphasize the youthfulness of their fleets, which a couple of years ago was like five years old for one of the aggressive Arabian ones, and seven for Singapore Airlines.
Airliner procurement is a rather Machiavellian arrangement, where the manufacturers try to undercut and spy on one another, with huge secret discounts going to major customers, especially if they need to kickstart, or resurrect, a specific production line, like the Seven Three Seven Max.
There seem to be three parts to this, getting the most efficient engine, designing the lightest possible airframe, and maintaining the lowest possible operating cost, whether or not air safety is accounted for.
Leasing seems the most popular form of aircraft purchase mode, so if it's on a ten year lease, you presume both sides make their money, and the airline corporation doesn't have to worry as to where they have to dispose of their old aircraft, and can invest in a new generation.
Airliner procurement is a rather Machiavellian arrangement, where the manufacturers try to undercut and spy on one another, with huge secret discounts going to major customers, especially if they need to kickstart, or resurrect, a specific production line, like the Seven Three Seven Max.
There seem to be three parts to this, getting the most efficient engine, designing the lightest possible airframe, and maintaining the lowest possible operating cost, whether or not air safety is accounted for.
Leasing seems the most popular form of aircraft purchase mode, so if it's on a ten year lease, you presume both sides make their money, and the airline corporation doesn't have to worry as to where they have to dispose of their old aircraft, and can invest in a new generation.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Which explains why airliners keep getting safer how? :coffeesip:
More data points:
The Space Shuttle flew 135 missions over 30 years, twice as long as it was designed for.
A typical modern (2020) cruise ship serves 30 years, by which time it has depreciated to just 15% of its original value.
A couple years ago, the Navy considered extending the service life of its non-nuclear fleet. According to Defense News, "Arleigh Burke destroyers to 45 years and the Flight IIAs to between 46 and 50 years. It also proposes cruisers could be extended to between 42 and 52 years; littoral combat ships to between 32 and 35 years, up from 25 years; and the amphibious assault ships to as long as 53 years." Also, "The average cruiser, for example, is almost pushing 30 years old. The oldest destroyers, the Fight I Arleigh Burkes without a helicopter hanger, are between 21 and 27 years old."
The Space Shuttle flew 135 missions over 30 years, twice as long as it was designed for.
A typical modern (2020) cruise ship serves 30 years, by which time it has depreciated to just 15% of its original value.
A couple years ago, the Navy considered extending the service life of its non-nuclear fleet. According to Defense News, "Arleigh Burke destroyers to 45 years and the Flight IIAs to between 46 and 50 years. It also proposes cruisers could be extended to between 42 and 52 years; littoral combat ships to between 32 and 35 years, up from 25 years; and the amphibious assault ships to as long as 53 years." Also, "The average cruiser, for example, is almost pushing 30 years old. The oldest destroyers, the Fight I Arleigh Burkes without a helicopter hanger, are between 21 and 27 years old."
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That wasn't a single shuttle though, it is the number of flight for the entire program of 5 orbiters, and two of those ended rather catastrophically.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
It's a question of the consequences of catastrophic failure.
A train derails, a ship sinks, survival varies but tends to be good for the majority of those onboard.
With Boeing, the corporate culture changed when McDonnell Douglas swallowed it, and they took the Federal Aviation Administration hostage. With regard to the Seven Three Seven Max, look up Ford Pinto for clarification. Essentially, to minimize operating costs, they tried a sleight by hand by attempting to make the controls operate the same as previous models, and thereby save on retraining and recertifying pilots.
Which brings us to more efficient engines: the Seven Three Seven airframe is too close to the ground, and to avoid the new engines scraping the tarmac, they had to move them and shift the centre of gravity.
Speaking of the airframe, it's like half a century old design.
They knew the crash risk was high, like one every five years, but any insurance pay out would be worth it in order to continue the production line of their largest number, and likely most profitable, aircraft series.
Next up would be complaints by both military and civilian customers that delivered aircraft had metal shavings and tools left onboard, and in some areas that could damage control wiring.
Any plane delivered from Boeing Georgia gets microscopically examined by their customers, and whistleblowers say that managers just force feed the production line down there.
A train derails, a ship sinks, survival varies but tends to be good for the majority of those onboard.
With Boeing, the corporate culture changed when McDonnell Douglas swallowed it, and they took the Federal Aviation Administration hostage. With regard to the Seven Three Seven Max, look up Ford Pinto for clarification. Essentially, to minimize operating costs, they tried a sleight by hand by attempting to make the controls operate the same as previous models, and thereby save on retraining and recertifying pilots.
Which brings us to more efficient engines: the Seven Three Seven airframe is too close to the ground, and to avoid the new engines scraping the tarmac, they had to move them and shift the centre of gravity.
Speaking of the airframe, it's like half a century old design.
They knew the crash risk was high, like one every five years, but any insurance pay out would be worth it in order to continue the production line of their largest number, and likely most profitable, aircraft series.
Next up would be complaints by both military and civilian customers that delivered aircraft had metal shavings and tools left onboard, and in some areas that could damage control wiring.
Any plane delivered from Boeing Georgia gets microscopically examined by their customers, and whistleblowers say that managers just force feed the production line down there.
The Navy has a different economic model than commercial interests, however.
The Navy funding is based as much whimsy of the political class as it is on anything.
Commercial funding is based on markets and revenue.
I mean, at a high level it doesn't make much sense to me to see company with large fleet of vehicle retire them so quickly, but clearly they do it for internal reasons, and in the end they feel they do what they do make as much revenue as practical.
Meanwhile, random farm or ranch has their typical 20+ year old pick up truck that just "runs and runs" and was paid off, amortized, and depreciated a zillion years ago. So, there's both ends of the spectrum.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If it isn't pork politics, and the need to repay their campaign donors, politicians aren't that enthused to fund the military, or associated industrial complex.
Empires need to defend their trade routes and project their power, as well as protect their interests and those of their client states and allies.
Going on some commentary, General Staffs who are aware of these pendulum swings, tend to over production at the end of conflicts, so that they have extra equipment during the coming peace time.
Empires need to defend their trade routes and project their power, as well as protect their interests and those of their client states and allies.
Going on some commentary, General Staffs who are aware of these pendulum swings, tend to over production at the end of conflicts, so that they have extra equipment during the coming peace time.
Space Gamer 38 (April 1981) has a nice, simple system for used starships: "Ya Wanna Buy a Used Ship?" by Tim Brown and William A. Barton.
I thought the Corinthian leather option was only available through Fantasy Island wishes.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Food for thought: Here is a video from I'd guess the 80's showing a 90 year old Great Lakes steam powered freighter still hauling cargo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg3U66TcRX8
I thought the Corinthian leather option was only available through Fantasy Island wishes.
You don't want it. Your captain will just yell at the guy who sold you the interior package, seven years later.
Last edited:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Some RL ships are still working 90 years in, some only last 15 years before their specialized market/run they were designed for evolves/greater capacity for cheaper runs ships run them out.
I expect RL ships are paid off for the value they have provided within less then a decade- I don't know that for a fact, but that's the sense I get. Then, it's a matter of operating costs vs. profits and whether refitting is worth it. Handling, storm stresses, tempo of operations and other quick aging of the vessels would also be factors (not the age but the mileage).
I expect RL ships are paid off for the value they have provided within less then a decade- I don't know that for a fact, but that's the sense I get. Then, it's a matter of operating costs vs. profits and whether refitting is worth it. Handling, storm stresses, tempo of operations and other quick aging of the vessels would also be factors (not the age but the mileage).
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
I saw a new article (can't find a link atm) about a 100kT+ Carnival cruise ship that was put in service at the end of 2019 was sold for scrap only 11 months later (I think maybe in October). They saw no point to mothballing it for a few years in hope the travel industry would recover from the current public health mismanagement.
My old cruise ship data showed a 133kT Carnival Panorama scheduled for 2019, original cost $780M. Probably the ship in question. Wow, that's a write-off.
My old cruise ship data showed a 133kT Carnival Panorama scheduled for 2019, original cost $780M. Probably the ship in question. Wow, that's a write-off.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Nope. ALL the new ships Carnival is letting go are being sold not scrapped. You can look at their press releases for the exact data.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Going by recent events, you can stretch out your billion buck losses as tax write offs, for over a decade.
