Originally Posted by
ATNotts
You make an argument for withdrawing older aircraft on environmental grounds, but how much is the environmental cost of scrapping and then building a replacement? Computers are totally different to a piece of machinery such as an airframe surely? I don't believe for example that a 30 year old aircraft would have the same avionics kit, same engines etc. throughout its operational life. They are consumables and must to some extent be capable of updating so the age of the airframe itself isn't the whole story. Noise pollution is certainly a more valid argument, but I for one can't tell that much difference between the noise levels of, for example a 737-800 and and 737-MAX - perhaps its down to my "cloth ears". Is a 737-300 really that much noisier than a 737-800? If it was significantly noisier than more current technology then I would be surprised if legislation were not introduced to severely restrict their us, but so far as I am aware it hasn't so far.
I think people are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. A complex aircraft is not comparable to a spade or hi-fi is it? Also, does the spade or hi-fi affect as many people as an aircraft does every day on numerous landings and take offs and of course flying over thousands of miles.
Does 30 years not seem like a good compromise for a car or aircraft? It seems to be the age most aircraft get scrapped so there must be some logic to it. Yes some new items such as electric cars have a huge environmental footprint before they have even been delivered but we don’t have electric planes yet and that’s certainly not relevant to the point I was making. There have been 2 evolutions since the 300s and 800s can be picked up dirt cheap and is the overwhelmingly their biggest fleet. Fleet commonality anyone? 200s might be used in Canada but that’s because they operate from gravel strips and their engines aren’t as close to the ground. It’s still ridiculous but at least there is a proper reason to justify it. Jet2 are only keeping the 300s around as they are paid off and cheap. My personal view is they should be removed from the fleet immediately along with the 757s.
I suppose you'll lose your mind when you realise a large number of GA aircraft are 50+ years old. Working wonderfully I might add.
Powered by leaded file and for very selfish purposes. Again, the CAA should put a date in the diary when leaded fuel is banned and any GA not conforming is no longer allowed.
Originally Posted by
Bradley Hardacre
There are plenty of 30 year old plus class 08, 37, 43, 47 diesel engines working all over Network Rail, some older than 60 years, and don't get me started on the60 year old C 135, KC 135, RC 135s. Who would pick a user name like Rivet Joint and complain about ancient airframes?
Does no one understand the word context? The railway is hardly a comparable when we are talking about modernisation. Plus the old trains and planes you refer to are for specialist purposes and used sporadically. They aren’t used every day on numerous sectors for commuters. Same goes for the person mentioning old war planes used for a few displays a year.
Originally Posted by
xanda_man
My 31 year old "Classic" Mini has just passed it's MOT and met the required emissions standards as set by the DVSA. Your point is completely invalid.
This thread has gone off on a right tangent.
Your “classic” mini that I assume you don’t use as an every day and that has a tiny engine? Ironic you talk about a point being invalid.
Originally Posted by
chaps1954
I have a freezer in the cellar that is probably 30 years old and it has outlasted the later ones(2) and still works perfectly should I go and throw it away and buy anther one
Appliances are a different matter and should be built to last or made repairable. In fact, there is already legislation in play that is tackling that.