Fleet compositions
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Brussels
Fleet compositions
I have been reading various threads about the decisions made when acquiring aircraft and the various factors that go into these decisions. There is a great thread for example about what Qantas will be getting to replace their earlier 747s.
One of the factors seemed to be commonality of training and maintenance etc. and so it occurred to me if it is a generally a good thing to minmise the number of different types performing the same function, why do you have airlines like Austrian that seem to have two or three of everything. E.g. 3x 772, 5x 767, 4x 330, 2x 342 and 2x 343. It seems rather inefficient having small numbers of a comparatively large range of types.
Would love to hear people's thoughts on why this is the case. Thanks!
One of the factors seemed to be commonality of training and maintenance etc. and so it occurred to me if it is a generally a good thing to minmise the number of different types performing the same function, why do you have airlines like Austrian that seem to have two or three of everything. E.g. 3x 772, 5x 767, 4x 330, 2x 342 and 2x 343. It seems rather inefficient having small numbers of a comparatively large range of types.
Would love to hear people's thoughts on why this is the case. Thanks!
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 60
From: Anderlecht
In layman terms, I think that you will find commonality between the the various Airbus a/c and again between the Boeings. This now effectively reduces the fleet basically to two generic types. The Boeings came with AUA's acquisition of Lauda.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
From: Coastal
George, not a bad question at all. I suggest that what is at issue when an airline buys equipment is "What are our current and projected desires, what will fill them... airlines can and do have mutliple profiles. They will hopefully buy the closest fit based on requirements and cost vs gain
