Wrong. The age of the plane is not in itself a factor in its overall safety. The maintenance of the plane is the most important factor. Older planes can be maintainined in a perfectly safe condition for a very long time.IOP wrote:Older airplanes worse resist to turbulent condition, right?
Known by whom? Airlines will sell planes when they reach a certain age for a number of reasons. For example, newer models will normally be more fuel efficient, plus they can be fitted with the most modern cabin environment. And once the cost of the aircaraft has been amortised over its initial operating period, it may not be considered efficient to continue paying for the major maintenance overhauls needed to ensure airworthiness. And SIA like to be able to boast that they have one of the youngest fleets in the business - that's about marketing, not safety.and it is known that SIA sells older planes to keep its safety records.
Not correct. Airframe wear is much more complex than that. An airplane that flies between Singapore and KL 5 times a day has many more take off and landings per hour of flight than a long haul trans Pacific flight. In addition to the stresses of landing, the pressurization/depressurization cycles fatigue the metal.IOP wrote:Older airplanes worse resist to turbulent condition, right?Mi Amigo wrote:Correct. And your point is...?
and it is known that SIA sells older planes to keep its safety records.
IOP wrote:It's not SIA, it is Scoot.Mi Amigo wrote: Do you seriously think that SIA would allow its subsidiary airline (Scoot) to fly unsafe aircraft? It's a ridiculous suggestion.
And if something happens to Scoot, it will not hit SIA so hardly.
By the end of the day, they are making money.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests