How much is a middle aged Airbus narrowbody worth
 

More in pieces than at an airline.

According to an article in Flight International(can't find a link).....

15 to 19 year old A319's and A320's are worth far more parted out than being leased.

Yup, this is pretty much par for the course.

Can we delete this time wasting thread now mods?

It depends whether you're buying or selling.

Don't delete it, keep it going! What are you trying to hide by deleting it?

How would this compare with a 15 to 19 year old B737 or any comparable type?

It would be fairly similar Trossie.

The new aircraft of the type generally have the advantage of weight, current customer wants such as personal device supports, fuel efficiencies and other wants and needs over the older siblings.

This is desirable to many airlines as it both attracts customers and reduces costs such as fuel burn.

The older aircraft to the owner at a certain time start to cost the owner more in maintenance and customer upgrades and efficiency upgrades such as engines, this to gain a lower lease return than a new aircraft. So at a stage and that will depend on improvements and markets, many older aircraft get sold to countries/airlines than are a high risk to lease aircraft to often as a low price but cash up front.

Now is where the real money can be made with remaining older types with expensive components or checks due - part them out.

It's a little naïve the way the thread is proposed...
It's known that happen with all artifacts made on industrial lines: airplanes, cars, boats, freezers, vacuum-cleaners or laptops.
Re-produce a good with spare-parts is much more expensive than the original line-made.

And the same with human beings.
How much costs a "lost life" in terms of an insurance company (or a court) and how much some "spare-part" like a compatible kidney (being black or legal market)???

At around 15 years old an A320 won't have much useful life left in it for passenger operators and there is no afterlife as a freighter like there is for the B767/757.

Fuel burn will be well above the current sharklet and neo versions, and dispatch reliability heads down hill which isn't acceptable to low cost operators with tight scheduling.

This basically limits options to parting it out or selling it to an airline in the Congo who keep flying it until it crashes into a village at the end of the runway whilst taking off grossly overloaded.

Aircraft that age are often worth more in spare parts than as a whole aircraft. This says more about what spare parts cost than what a second hand aircraft costs..

Not correct, there are now P2F conversion programmes existing for the A320 and A321 aircraft.

USD $350,000 for the rolling airframe with APU plus whatever the engine value is relative to disc time remaining.

I would say the biggest value would be the engines and landing gear, with some of the black boxes making up the rest.
The airframe is worth next to nothing.

When EZY got rid of their B737-700's some of them went for parts and they were less than 10 years old

Thanks for the replies guys. Just thought that it was something interesting about the aircraft many of us fly.

Can we delete the above time wasting person from the forum now mods?

I dont know about the A320 but until we get the 737 Max next spring , there is no difference with regards to the fuel efficiency of the new -800 we have and the 15 year old I flew this week.
So for the BossMan it is worth more as he has already payed it of several times, engines are new and if he keeps it until just before it pulls an AlohaAirlines it is a pure cash cow.
I do not know how C and D checks effects the money game, but the cow hide seats and yellow plastic is indestructible, so is the loo.
Now I got curios, need to check into this.
The trick I have heard is to keep them in the air with pax to destination.
Even an old Norseman has value , when well maintained , Ask any Canadian.

Here comes my wife, I shall ask her.
Regards
Cpt B

The airframe on the 737 is designed to be a high-cycle, low-maintenance airframe, while the A320 comes from the factory with a lower design goal. The Airbus supplementary goals, while still falling short the out-of-the-tin 737 DSO, can be extended (ESG I, ESG II), but these programmes come with extra cost and more time out of service for the added maintenance required to achieve the extended life goals.

Even with the Airbus ESG extension, the 737 still remains a longer lived aircraft - and thus worth more money in the secondary market. In addition, maintenance costs on the 737 are much lower than its European cousin, and those costs will only increase over the life of either aircraft.

All the above said and generally known, the higher maintenance costs and lower life limits have not hindered the popularity of the Airbus narrow body, with a great majority of the world's airlines saying 'yes' to Mr. Leahy over the past decades.

Different times, financial crash and no airline is interested in expanding using used goods...

Airbus 15years , Leasing co. has made its profit. Rest is (africa) gravy.........

Market's a bit bigger then just the Congo....... Central and South America, for example.

Whilst the program might be there, I've never seen an A320 freighter, plenty of B737s but never an A320. There is a ready market for the B767/757 as MD11s and B727s get scrapped. Perhaps a shorter design life an greater complexity make them less attractive ?

There are always airlines, even in first world markets, interested in leasing older A320s as well. Lease rates go down a lot after the first 8 to 10 years. That said, for the leasing company it is probably more profitable to break it down for parts and sell it off.

And of course there are quite a few differences between the first 737-800 to the current ones. Different engines, although they can be swapped around (7B vs 7BE), more capable avionics and split scimitar winglets, to name just a few. Every aircraft evolves over its production life.

A 1990 CFM equipped A320 (with fresh C check) may fetch only $6M US on the used market, in that case surely flogging the parts makes a lot more sense, was surprised they were so low priced.

I'm wondering how the figures work out if you include the cost of dismantling the aircraft for parts, the costs of holding onto the Big Pile of Parts until they're all sold, and the costs of making a lot of separate sales. Does that make much difference?

I believe the first A320 leased by SkyWest for FIFO work in Western Australia was a 1993 build. Obviously the economics made some sense in this case as it was retained when they were taken over by Virgin Australia Regional Airlines in 2013.

At those prices, I'll take two :}

This has been true for some time. Very low interest rates mean that the price difference between leasing an old vs new aircraft isn't as big as it used to be. So once an aircraft is past its first lease, the bean counters at the leasing firm will do the sums to see if better to lease again, or break for spares. Some of the big boys own their own parts/ breaking firms.

Legacy airlines are more likely to own their own aircraft, so the maths for them is a bit different. So you see FSC airlines keeping aircraft longer than LCC. (plus they have their own in house maitenance arms to be kept busy)

Plus spare parts price >> parts sold as original equipment

There was a case where (I think )P&W didn't have a tight contract with a Japanese airline on reselling. The airline purchased extra engines as part of the deal, then as soon as they were delivered nroke them down, sold as spare parts, and made a nice little profit...

That's how the bottom feeders in eastern EU work..They then wet lease west.......

There are many carriers which have made a significant business out of mid-life fleets. Take Jet2 in the UK, which built up a substantial fleet of 15-year old 737-300, 737-800 and 757. Only recently have they moved on to their first new fleet purchase of 737-800 from the manufacturer, but at the same time are still expanding their mid-life fleet further. The new and mid-life aircraft appear to be used turn-and-turn-about on comparable duties, and the dispatch reliability appears similar as well. It would be interesting to see the lease rates and maintenance costs.

Back in the old days, Cathay Pacific used to buy second hand aircraft and overhaul them because engineering in Hong Kong was cheap, they effectively got a new aircraft at a discounted price.

Freight aircraft generally have lower utilisation than passenger ones so ground time can be used for maintenance. Whilst fuel consumption may be higher, the much lower purchase price can offset this and lower flying hours reduces the total fuel bill. A B727 carries roughly the same as an A320 but burns twice as much fuel. When oil prices are low like they have been until quite recently, older aircraft get a stay of execution, once the price heads north again modern replacements make more sense.

For specialist roles such as engine test platforms and fire bombing, where utilisation is very low, an obsolete aircraft such as a B747SP or DC10 costing a few hundred thousand dollars is ideal as the higher fuel burn over the few hours it spends airborne is insignificant compared to the millions that would be tied up in a new model.

These can be real residual operations where you cannot get hull insurance either - fire bombing, operation into unlicensed strips in remote areas, etc. This is why old piston-engined large aircraft lasted so long on such missions, notwithstanding Avgas cost, although they are pretty much all gone now. MEA at Beirut carried on with 707 operations long after everyone else for the same reason.

Not Airbus, but haven't Delta been buying older MDs for quite a few years now, then breaking them up themselves to provide 'cheaper' spares for their own, flying fleet ?

FEDEX never saw a DC10/MD11 that they didn't want.

Or show him where the OFF button is on his computer ?

No one is forced to read anything.

Not any more...
FedEx is gradually retiring their fleet of DC10/MD11s and replacing them with new production 767-300F.

Not massively important I'd have said - most coming up lease end, the lessors will have done its money by the 12Y check.

Perfect Hajj airplane in its max config and I'd say a good ship for certain high yield, high volume routes (say LHR-North America, Middle East, Far East).

I'd say what EK have done though with their 100+ is pretty remarkable up against the economics. Just about profitable, but they have got several advantages over the market.

About this much!