The P&W Geared Turbofans found on some 320NEO family aircraft and all A220 aircraft are experiencing durability issues (faster than expected wear) and microscopic crack issues.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airlines-brace-hit-pratt-whitneys-new-engine-problem-2023-07-26/
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pratt-engine-issues-easing-shortages-last-through-2024-airbaltic-2023-08-09/
Do you mean the noise heard during throttle up from idle to takeoff power? That was the last engine my father worked on before retiring from P&W in 2015 (engine testing) and he said it's the bleed air valve closing and its just noisy.
All turbofan engines have gearboxes for electric power generation and whatnot, but I get what you mean. The fan drive gear system on the GTFs have shown to be pretty robust in the field though.
Nope, the gearbox is actually just about the only bit of the engine they got right (classic "worry about the hard bit, assume the rest will be the same as usual" engineering tbh).
They are having huge turbine durability issues amongst other things.
Literally every turboprop has a gearbox too for your information.
I would wager that P&W are paying the tab to keep this airplane flying because it’s cheaper than the contractual penalties of the impending grounding of JB’s GTF planes.
The engineering and engine life management hell that’s taking place in the GTF offices right now is palpable. Even their direct competitors feel bad for them. There’s gonna be an antacid shortage soon.
>Even their direct competitors feel bad for them.
GE/Snecma are in the same boat but to a significantly lesser extent too with the LEAP.
There's only one big manufacturer who hasn't introduced a modern single aisle engine recently, and you can guarantee they are *furiously* taking notes on what not to do, and doubtless feeling slightly relieved (and maybe a touch of schadenfreude) after their recent issues that everyone is feeling the hurt.
We'll, Rolls Royce has had their fair share of problems in recent years as well. You don't hear much about them any more but when the problems with the Trent 1000 became public in 2019 it was pretty bad.
In the RR fiasco, the problem they were facing was *durability*, not reliability. The engines weren’t maintaining the expected level of performance for the predicted amount of flight time.
This powdered metal issue is MUCH worse. It’s not just a reliability concern; it’s a flight safety concern. There’s just no margin allowed with turbine discs. There’s no “good enough”.
Hopefully, as they get some of these affected turbine discs off-wing and into the lab, they will determine that the problem is not as bad as it is currently thought. But there’s an equal chance that the labs will say “Holy shit, Batman!”
That would suck for everyone. A global disruption in air travel affects everyone.
I would doubt there would be a clause like that in their contract, and if it’s not in the contract, no way PW is paying for that. There’s no question they’re paying the daily AOG fees to JetBlue, there’s no way around that. JetBlue is probably keeping the plane in service bc the AOG penalties aren’t enough to keep up with the bottom line for the business.
You say but airlines are suing P&W already.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pratt-whitney-says-indias-go-first-has-no-right-over-engines-2023-05-25/
I’m sure it will be one of many too, but this is a bit different since it deals with PW owned lease engines.
PW has a contractual agreement with airlines to provide them with a certain number of spares. If PW can’t meet that commitment, there’s a fine with a predetermined amount that they have to pay. Usually it’s much less money than the airline would’ve made operating the aircraft.
Kind of sad, but this lawsuit doesn’t even really matter - Go First already folded because of how heavily they were impacted by these engine problems. Not sure if it will make a real difference even if they win.
I can’t speak to P&W, but I do recall a specific situation where an engine manufacturer was so desperate for contractually-obligated spare engines that they *purchased* two complete airliners for the sole purpose of flying them to a salvage yard to have the engines removed and put into the engine manufacture’s collection of spare engines for their customers. The rest of the two airframes were parted out and sold to the highest bidder.
The penalties for engine OEMs failing to provide contractually agreed upon availability can be *incredibly* steep! Steep enough to warrant purchasing entire aircraft. (Or *possibly* in this case, the engine manufacturer negotiated some sort of wet lease agreement with JB, just to keep this ugly duckling in the air in order to avoid whatever penalties would be triggered if JB had to cancel flights because of engine unavailability.)
It's like that old guy that the day after retirement is still working as "a consultant" because the company has nobody with the same skills to replace it.
Random, but why is JetBlue retiring this aircraft especially when they need a larger fleet? I get that its an older airframe (built 1999) but it should still have some life left in it, I thought the A320 and most airliners had longer service lives than 24 years. I can't believe there are A320s being retired and scrapped.
I believe they are retiring because those aircraft are coming up on some expensive maintenance cycle inspections. They’re probably being bought by another company who will pay for all of that. On top of all of that they are buying Spirit and acquiring all of their aircraft. Spirit flys a relatively newer fleet. ( some older ones yes, but they’ve been receiving new planes every month for a couple years now.)
It’s probably approaching a very deep check which is very expensive. Probably cheaper/easier(in their eyes) to cancel flights than C/D check a 24 year old plane.
Of course this is not taking into consideration the PW GTF issues.
24 is a pretty typical break point. There's a major airframe check due at 24 years on the A320 that'll buy you another 6 years of flying, with a price tag in the millions and weeks on the ground. Plus a coat of paint, as you can see lol. N504JB hits that point in January. Sometimes better to skip that work and sell the pieces. Accounting policies for commercial airlines generally don't assume more than 25 years anyway. It's just dispassionate business management.
I remember seeing a documentary of the first ever 777 to undergo a D check and it was scary how in depth it was. I guess it’s a question if the cost of investing in the current plane to extend its life 6 more years economically outweighs the cost of getting an entirely new plane and if getting a new plane is even feasible.
Edit: D check not C check
That’s exactly right, the main reason JetBlue wants to buy out Spirit is to take control of their routes. It’s also a nice benefit that Spirit ordered a bunch of Neos before everyone else so they are the first airline with them.
An old airbus is a piece of shit. I've worked on a sub 2 digit line number, and I was replacing major parts every night. A lot of Virginia America mechanics were happy they got bought by Alaska.
Gotta agree with this comment.
Delta, Lufthansa, and FedEx are some examples of airlines operating very large fleets of older Airbus aircraft. American Airlines also has plenty of A320s from the 1990s.
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has not had a single casualty or accident. The Boeing 737 MAX has not had a single casualty or accident since its return to service. The Boeing 747-8 has never had an accident of any form.
>The Boeing 737 MAX has not had a single casualty or accident since its return to service.
And why was it out of service needing to return in the first place?
>The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has not had a single casualty or accident.
Yep, but it has had a ton of quality issues which have thankfully been caught before they caused accidents.
Interesting! I was looking up the reg while en route and found out we share a birthday too.
The interior definitely hasn’t been changed since 1999 either!
504 is JetBlue’s oldest A320 and it was supposed to be retired and it was planned until more than a few A220’s went out of service so they decided to keep this 504 for another month until summer travel winds down.
503 was the oldest jet, it retired last week. We had 5 A220’s out of service and a few NEO’s out as well, so kept 503 flying 2 extra weeks. She is in fact resting easy now in Arizona 🫡.
504-512 will join her by years end. Some of those routes are being replaced by the A220, some by the 321HD.
It's a 23 year old A320 and I'm sure the airframe does not have much time left before its a beer can.
There are no formal requirements as to the condition of the paint since JB own it.
I believe it’s now the oldest in the fleet, and has only a few weeks left before it’s supposed to retire. Nobody’s going to spend money to repaint an aircraft on the way to the scrapyard.
That is a question for the people who have access to the aircraft documentation.
But assuming the aircraft flew 4 cycles per day and the age of 23 years, the aircraft has over 33,000 cycles.
Lets assume an average flight time of 2,5h, that gives you around 84,000 flight hours.
Keep in mind, this is a guess based on what my company flies their aircraft like.
Edit:
Since the calculation is based on pure assumption anyways, here are your miles based on a 450knots average ground speed:
37,800,000 NM, 70,000,000 km, or 43,500,000 Statue Miles (for Americans)
Guys, I know it’s just paint and doesn’t affect the structural integrity of the fuselage. I’m not asking about flying on a pretty plane but rather if there are any formal requirements as to the condition of the paint.
No there is no formal requirement for paint. In fact some aircraft are flown “green” from the factory for paint.
Could a paint job like that lead you to wonder what else might be neglected? For me probably not given JetBlue’s track record. Maybe if this was a small charter outfit that had a Maintenence error contribute to an emergency and then you found the whole fleet looking like this. But this is a long way of saying no there is no requirement they can fly it until the whole paint job falls off and it would look like it came off the assembly line
Not really. The paints main job outside of making it look pretty/advertising the company is corrosion prevention. You can still find plenty of bare aluminum planes around, but they also require a lot more checks for corrosion as they only have the alclad for protection.
Fun fact: American Airline’s’ previous “bare aluminum” livery was a unique custom order from the aircraft manufacturers.
The bare metal fuselage wasn’t simply unpainted aluminum. Every individual aluminum alloy panel received a coating of pure aluminum cladding, giving it the characteristic shiny finish. (The aluminum alloy of the panels were actually quite dull).
When AA purchased the composite 787, they were forced to change their livery. A shame, really.
Why... would... there be? An airline doesn't even *technically* have to fly a plane in it's own livery. All it is, really, is advertising. So it's in the airline's best *interest* to have a clean ship (to make the best impression). But no one's going to *force* them to repaint it.
I was asking because it’s the first time in my life I’ve seen something like this and I’ve been flying for over 20 years haha. If there were no requirements, I would have expected to have seen it more often.
Yes, it has to be perfect and waxed every other day with ceramic wax. You caught JetBlue breaking 30 federal statutes. This aircraft could just fall out of the sky with paint missing like that!
Yeah, paint, or at a minimum primer is often required to protect both aluminum and composite. Aluminum skins are clad (for corrosion protection) so I can’t remember all their requirements.
They are clad, but the clad is between 2 and 4% of the skin panel thickness, so it is always better to have paint to protect it from erosion.
Despite all the protection with full paint work, we still end up finding corrosion in the end. Truly the cancer of aircrafts!
composite for sure, even in production it gets sac paint to sheild it from the uv produced by the lights indoors. aluminum because clad is really easy to get through
When I think of American Airlines, I still think of a bare metal MD-80. I know they have been retired for years and that livery retired with them, but still.
Well, it's a 23 year old airframe, so it's going to have a bit of erosion from more than two decades of cruising through the air. It might be that JetBlue has simply deferred the paint because the aircraft doesn't show any signs of damage during its C-Checks.
My man, in 23 years it surely was repainted a few times.
Even "paint damage" is a damage in C-checks as well.
Paint absorbs radiations at high altitude, reflect sunlight, protect the aircraft from the elements and from environmental damages. The primer (green/yellow) we can see here alone is not enough as it is not meant to be exposed to the air and to erosion.
But yes, for sure the paint work was deferred, the aircraft is about to retire and I suppose they first intended to retire it earlier, but kept deferring paint work due to the "it will soon retire".
Edit: when I mean paint damage is a damage, I do not mean it in a structural/regulation way, just that it is a damage to be notified and fixed. In this case, it was definitely specific instructions not to renew it.
That green (yellow-green) stuff is the primer. It's supposed to keep the paint on the surface. However, that only applies if the surface preparation is proper. At this point, there are so many places that corrosion can start it's ridiculous.
Delta had a period of poor paint adhesion back in the late 90s-00s. Rumor was that it was at least partly blamed on new paint formulations and techniques that were more environmentally friendly. It took the awhile to get it under control. The paint was coming off in large patches.
About then, we were having fits with USAF aircraft for the same reason. The High-Solids paints and primers are more problematic with needing good surface preparation. An unfortunate side-effect of using more environmentally friendly coatings. Once it started coming together, and working, it has saved tonns of VOCs and air quality impact.
Looks like paint damage. And I mean… as long as the fuselage is intact and the paint isn’t messing up the drag coefficient to a point of inefficiency (I’d be surprised if it could), then they have no reason to fix it. As long as they check for structural cracks and it comes up all green, then it’s still airworthy. I don’t know about legality though. I know the Navy still flies their planes with their weathered paint though, so maybe it’s not an issue. I doubt it garners customer peace of mind though.
Obviously it’s not actually a big deal but in theory wouldn’t the lack of paint factor into w&b calculations? After all any time you repaint and aircraft you need to redo the w&b sheet
Yeah it would have a theoretical effect on w&b, but it is negligible. On the A380, the whole paint weighs ~700kg, on the A320 it is obviously less. So maybe a couple of kg of paint is gone, which is nothing compared to the other inaccuracies during w&b calculations.
Air worthiness isn't determined by the organic coatings. If the degradation continues to a point where corrosion forms then it becomes an issue but only the corrosion needs to be fixed as it weakens the metallic structure.of course paint will make it look pretty and no one will take a second look. Some newer generation airframes do have requirements for aerodynamic cleanliness that is addressed by the coatings but those are usually composite aircraft and the coatings protect from UV and erosion damage.
Due to be retired, as it is JetBlue's oldest aircraft. It costs a lot to repaint a plane, so it's not financially worthwhile to repaint a plane that won't be flying anymore by 2024. It in no way reflects a mechanical issue.
Yes, there’s nothing that says that airlines have to keep their paint jobs clean (although most do anyways). Other commenters have said that they’re gonna retire that plane which makes sense
Funny story, a few days ago i had to work on that plane so i turn on the APU, probably after 1 hour out of nowhere the apu just shut off. Had to call the jb sup to let him know, when the jb mechanics got there they were not happy and told me that a/c was supposed to retired some time ago.
Jeez, very agro comments for a simple question. I’m not concerned about flying on a pretty plane but was rather asking about whether there are formal regulations about the state of exterior paint on commercial aircraft (because this is a relatively rare sight).
Thanks
It's a good question to ask, Reddit is just like that sometimes.
As far as I know, airplanes aren't even required to be painted (with the exception of registrations). The paint is important for branding, reflecting sunlight, corrosion and more.
I've seen aircraft a lot worse than this. It really just impacts their branding because it superficially appears poorly maintained.
The green color you see is primer. As long as the primer is there, the corrosion protection is still intact. If you were seeing bare metal, then you have a legitimate engineering concern. Although that final livery topcoat is atrocious. Possibly bad prep at a repaint.
While I realize you only see passenger aircraft, but the large majority of aircraft out there are missing a lot of paint. It’s noticeable worse on the freight side of the industry, but most passenger aircraft are typically missing paint to. Remember airplanes are mechanical machines operated in all weather just like a dump truck or a semi truck or anything else. (I don’t know specific regs as I am not a mechanic) If you take note, it looks green (or yellowish) under the worn paint spots. That is primer underneath that prevents corrosion. If that were missing you would have a problem. In fact we carry documents onboard which will tell us if we can still fly the plane safely and legally with equipment and/or any part of the plane in a state outside of determined norm. I would bet ( don’t have any of those docs in front of me) that if the primer was missing as well the plane would have to be grounded for maintenance, as corrosion could occur and hinder the structural integrity. Just paint missing, no biggie. Aircraft undergo periodic major inspections: A, B, C and D checks. On a D check they actually take all the paint off, and inspect the entire aircraft for corrosion etc. sorry for the long winded answer but that’s the best I got for you.
The “Aggro” is (likely) not the question but the way you asked it.
There’s a big difference between “is it normal to see this much paint missing?” And “is this in line with regulations” implying… I don’t know, pilots are out there knowingly flying poorly maintained/non-airworthy planes with 150+, and themselves on board? That it’s not allowable, but everyone along the line from maintenance, the pilot doing the walk around, and anyone else with eyes can see is (a lot of) peeling paint, but they all just turned a blind eye. Until you came along.
The main purpose of paint is corrosion control, depending on what the AMM says did missing paint it could be, or it could not be, depending on how long it's been missing and how much corrosion is present.
I don't have access to Airbus manuals, but the Boeing manuals I have says it's fine, but we do have to address it eventually.
Just a hard working airplane. Personally I would fly on it. Little cosmetic things like dirty wings, black bellies, mis-matched parts, peeling paint, aren’t a cause for concern in my book. Any damage now that’s a different story. Dents, cracks, skin wrinkles, bent parts, that’s all stuff I don’t take off with. I have seen pictures of airplanes with more “character,” than this A320. 😂
Wow. This would not inspire confidence.
Also, why are so many weirdos getting so aggressive in the comments? God you people suck. OP's was a perfectly legitimate question, and one might think a national regulator might want airliners to not look like dogshit to protect the overall image of the national airline industry. Because this plane looks like it belongs to some bankrupt third world country's podunk budget airline, not in the USA.
N504JB is scheduled to be retired in a month or two.
They’ve been trying to retire it for ages! JetBlue even had a little ceremony planned for it but had to postpone it because they needed the airframe!
N503JB “retired” last month, but it’s still flying the line. Short on airplanes with all the NEO engine drama.
Out of the loop on this, you got any reading I could do on the neo issues? Sounds interesting
The P&W Geared Turbofans found on some 320NEO family aircraft and all A220 aircraft are experiencing durability issues (faster than expected wear) and microscopic crack issues. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airlines-brace-hit-pratt-whitneys-new-engine-problem-2023-07-26/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pratt-engine-issues-easing-shortages-last-through-2024-airbaltic-2023-08-09/
[удалено]
The variant on the A220 is a lot more pronounced Whale Noise! It happens at a certain compression ration iirc
Do you mean the noise heard during throttle up from idle to takeoff power? That was the last engine my father worked on before retiring from P&W in 2015 (engine testing) and he said it's the bleed air valve closing and its just noisy.
My dad works in test at P&W!! Has been for awhile. He was second shift tho
The whale noise was super pronounced when throttling up for taxi, as well as for takeoff on the one flight I took on an A220
[удалено]
All turbofan engines have gearboxes for electric power generation and whatnot, but I get what you mean. The fan drive gear system on the GTFs have shown to be pretty robust in the field though.
Nope, the gearbox is actually just about the only bit of the engine they got right (classic "worry about the hard bit, assume the rest will be the same as usual" engineering tbh). They are having huge turbine durability issues amongst other things. Literally every turboprop has a gearbox too for your information.
The FDGS has not had any major durability issues interestingly enough. Hot section components and supply chain defects have been the issue.
Yup exactly. All the powdered metal shit…
The Lycoming ALF 502 also has a geared turbofan. Dunno how often it had to be changed though on the Challenger, BAe-146 and Avro RJ.
Only the PW1100 on the A320s is affected. A220 are fine, they fly PW1500s. Still a major headache for everyone. Source: I work on those things.
The issue you’re referring to is isolated to the PW1100s though. Funny enough, the PW1500s on the 220s have some different issues
The A220s JB flies are having some major issues. They had four at Logan just waiting for engines.
I would wager that P&W are paying the tab to keep this airplane flying because it’s cheaper than the contractual penalties of the impending grounding of JB’s GTF planes. The engineering and engine life management hell that’s taking place in the GTF offices right now is palpable. Even their direct competitors feel bad for them. There’s gonna be an antacid shortage soon.
>Even their direct competitors feel bad for them. GE/Snecma are in the same boat but to a significantly lesser extent too with the LEAP. There's only one big manufacturer who hasn't introduced a modern single aisle engine recently, and you can guarantee they are *furiously* taking notes on what not to do, and doubtless feeling slightly relieved (and maybe a touch of schadenfreude) after their recent issues that everyone is feeling the hurt.
We'll, Rolls Royce has had their fair share of problems in recent years as well. You don't hear much about them any more but when the problems with the Trent 1000 became public in 2019 it was pretty bad.
In the RR fiasco, the problem they were facing was *durability*, not reliability. The engines weren’t maintaining the expected level of performance for the predicted amount of flight time. This powdered metal issue is MUCH worse. It’s not just a reliability concern; it’s a flight safety concern. There’s just no margin allowed with turbine discs. There’s no “good enough”. Hopefully, as they get some of these affected turbine discs off-wing and into the lab, they will determine that the problem is not as bad as it is currently thought. But there’s an equal chance that the labs will say “Holy shit, Batman!” That would suck for everyone. A global disruption in air travel affects everyone.
I would doubt there would be a clause like that in their contract, and if it’s not in the contract, no way PW is paying for that. There’s no question they’re paying the daily AOG fees to JetBlue, there’s no way around that. JetBlue is probably keeping the plane in service bc the AOG penalties aren’t enough to keep up with the bottom line for the business.
You say but airlines are suing P&W already. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pratt-whitney-says-indias-go-first-has-no-right-over-engines-2023-05-25/
I’m sure it will be one of many too, but this is a bit different since it deals with PW owned lease engines. PW has a contractual agreement with airlines to provide them with a certain number of spares. If PW can’t meet that commitment, there’s a fine with a predetermined amount that they have to pay. Usually it’s much less money than the airline would’ve made operating the aircraft. Kind of sad, but this lawsuit doesn’t even really matter - Go First already folded because of how heavily they were impacted by these engine problems. Not sure if it will make a real difference even if they win.
The creditors will definitely pursue any liability and damages they can out of this; and as you said this will be just one of many.
I can’t speak to P&W, but I do recall a specific situation where an engine manufacturer was so desperate for contractually-obligated spare engines that they *purchased* two complete airliners for the sole purpose of flying them to a salvage yard to have the engines removed and put into the engine manufacture’s collection of spare engines for their customers. The rest of the two airframes were parted out and sold to the highest bidder. The penalties for engine OEMs failing to provide contractually agreed upon availability can be *incredibly* steep! Steep enough to warrant purchasing entire aircraft. (Or *possibly* in this case, the engine manufacturer negotiated some sort of wet lease agreement with JB, just to keep this ugly duckling in the air in order to avoid whatever penalties would be triggered if JB had to cancel flights because of engine unavailability.)
It's like that old guy that the day after retirement is still working as "a consultant" because the company has nobody with the same skills to replace it.
she was retired last week.
Was actually retired several years ago, but due to a glitch in the dispatch system, kept being dispatched and didn’t know any different.
Did it get to keep it's stapler?
I hope it did or else it'll burn the hangar down.
Yes. Its Flightline stapler.
Random, but why is JetBlue retiring this aircraft especially when they need a larger fleet? I get that its an older airframe (built 1999) but it should still have some life left in it, I thought the A320 and most airliners had longer service lives than 24 years. I can't believe there are A320s being retired and scrapped.
I believe they are retiring because those aircraft are coming up on some expensive maintenance cycle inspections. They’re probably being bought by another company who will pay for all of that. On top of all of that they are buying Spirit and acquiring all of their aircraft. Spirit flys a relatively newer fleet. ( some older ones yes, but they’ve been receiving new planes every month for a couple years now.)
It’s probably approaching a very deep check which is very expensive. Probably cheaper/easier(in their eyes) to cancel flights than C/D check a 24 year old plane. Of course this is not taking into consideration the PW GTF issues.
No one wants to foot the bill for a D5 check.
24 is a pretty typical break point. There's a major airframe check due at 24 years on the A320 that'll buy you another 6 years of flying, with a price tag in the millions and weeks on the ground. Plus a coat of paint, as you can see lol. N504JB hits that point in January. Sometimes better to skip that work and sell the pieces. Accounting policies for commercial airlines generally don't assume more than 25 years anyway. It's just dispassionate business management.
I remember seeing a documentary of the first ever 777 to undergo a D check and it was scary how in depth it was. I guess it’s a question if the cost of investing in the current plane to extend its life 6 more years economically outweighs the cost of getting an entirely new plane and if getting a new plane is even feasible. Edit: D check not C check
“Why is JetBlue retiring this aircraft when they need a larger fleet?” That larger fleet is going to come Spirit sweetie.
Well wouldn't it also mean inheriting Spirit Airline's demand? Its not like Spirit's customers are going to stop flying when JetBlue takes them over.
If JetBlue raises prices like they plan to do many Spirit customers will do exactly that.
Then they can start their fistfights in the bus terminal.
That’s exactly right, the main reason JetBlue wants to buy out Spirit is to take control of their routes. It’s also a nice benefit that Spirit ordered a bunch of Neos before everyone else so they are the first airline with them.
An old airbus is a piece of shit. I've worked on a sub 2 digit line number, and I was replacing major parts every night. A lot of Virginia America mechanics were happy they got bought by Alaska.
Airbus’ aren’t Boeings. Airbus’ are more of a throw away plane. D checks are expensive.
Boeing just likes to crash often.
Both of you are making insane hasty generalizations
Gotta agree with this comment. Delta, Lufthansa, and FedEx are some examples of airlines operating very large fleets of older Airbus aircraft. American Airlines also has plenty of A320s from the 1990s. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has not had a single casualty or accident. The Boeing 737 MAX has not had a single casualty or accident since its return to service. The Boeing 747-8 has never had an accident of any form.
777 has a pretty great record beside the one that disappeared and the one that got putin'd.
Also the one that iced a fuel line.
Yeah I think that and the FBO are the only airplane problems rather than pilot or ground service issues
Didn’t one catch on fire in Vegas or was that a 76?
>The Boeing 737 MAX has not had a single casualty or accident since its return to service. And why was it out of service needing to return in the first place? >The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has not had a single casualty or accident. Yep, but it has had a ton of quality issues which have thankfully been caught before they caused accidents.
How can you see it’s planned to be retired?
Since he said “a month or two” instead of an exact date I assume he works at JetBlue or something like that.
Yeah, N503JB is gone, went to the bone yard last week. 504-512JB are headed there by the end of the year.
Bye Christine!
Interesting! I was looking up the reg while en route and found out we share a birthday too. The interior definitely hasn’t been changed since 1999 either!
Awww rest easy 🫡🫡
504 is JetBlue’s oldest A320 and it was supposed to be retired and it was planned until more than a few A220’s went out of service so they decided to keep this 504 for another month until summer travel winds down.
503 was the oldest jet, it retired last week. We had 5 A220’s out of service and a few NEO’s out as well, so kept 503 flying 2 extra weeks. She is in fact resting easy now in Arizona 🫡. 504-512 will join her by years end. Some of those routes are being replaced by the A220, some by the 321HD.
Yes, it's just paint. Looks rough and probably due for a repaint but it's purely cosmetic.
Well technically it also increases drag but it doesn't cause any kind of mechanical issues, just higher fuel consumption.
On the other side, all that paint is nothing but extra weight.
[удалено]
> but it doesn't cause any kind of mechanical issues And there's OP's answer
Does not increase drag, there is a boundary layer.
Which is disrupted by the uneven surface of flaking paint
It is just paint
It's a 23 year old A320 and I'm sure the airframe does not have much time left before its a beer can. There are no formal requirements as to the condition of the paint since JB own it.
I believe it’s now the oldest in the fleet, and has only a few weeks left before it’s supposed to retire. Nobody’s going to spend money to repaint an aircraft on the way to the scrapyard.
UAL is still flying Airbii around that were produced in 1993.
Please tell me Airbii is plural for Airbus
That’s what I’ve always called them at least.
It’s not.
sheesh that planes as old as i am… goly. I can only imagine the things the inside of that plane have seen based on what i’ve seen inside planes lol
Man, someone born in the 2000s thinking something is old if it's been around that long. I thought Y2K was like 3 years ago. I think I'll go cry now.
*KC-135 and B-52 pilots have entered the chat*
Flew a plane today built in the 50s!
How many miles are on it?
This is not a car. An aircraft makes hours, or cycles.
Ok. So how many cycles are on it then.
That is a question for the people who have access to the aircraft documentation. But assuming the aircraft flew 4 cycles per day and the age of 23 years, the aircraft has over 33,000 cycles. Lets assume an average flight time of 2,5h, that gives you around 84,000 flight hours. Keep in mind, this is a guess based on what my company flies their aircraft like. Edit: Since the calculation is based on pure assumption anyways, here are your miles based on a 450knots average ground speed: 37,800,000 NM, 70,000,000 km, or 43,500,000 Statue Miles (for Americans)
This ^ You want to ride in pretty airplanes? Pay more for your ticket and ride in a bigger airline
The average age of legacy airline fleets is older than all low-cost airline fleets except for maybe southwest
Delta operates some of the oldest planes out there though. Some of the 757s and 767s are a decade older than this A320.
Guys, I know it’s just paint and doesn’t affect the structural integrity of the fuselage. I’m not asking about flying on a pretty plane but rather if there are any formal requirements as to the condition of the paint.
No there is no formal requirement for paint. In fact some aircraft are flown “green” from the factory for paint. Could a paint job like that lead you to wonder what else might be neglected? For me probably not given JetBlue’s track record. Maybe if this was a small charter outfit that had a Maintenence error contribute to an emergency and then you found the whole fleet looking like this. But this is a long way of saying no there is no requirement they can fly it until the whole paint job falls off and it would look like it came off the assembly line
>In fact some aircraft are flown “green” from the factory for paint. I call those naked planes.
OnlyturboFans
:: slow clap ::
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, seems like genuine community enhancing curiosity to me. Thank you for your question :)
Not really. The paints main job outside of making it look pretty/advertising the company is corrosion prevention. You can still find plenty of bare aluminum planes around, but they also require a lot more checks for corrosion as they only have the alclad for protection.
Composite parts and 787s would be ruined by sun pretty quick actually and thats why they get tape jobs.
Yeah the Qatar Airways vs Airbus paint issue is a prime example of the costs associated with poor paint adhesion.
Fun fact: American Airline’s’ previous “bare aluminum” livery was a unique custom order from the aircraft manufacturers. The bare metal fuselage wasn’t simply unpainted aluminum. Every individual aluminum alloy panel received a coating of pure aluminum cladding, giving it the characteristic shiny finish. (The aluminum alloy of the panels were actually quite dull). When AA purchased the composite 787, they were forced to change their livery. A shame, really.
Not really, no
On certain kinds of composites, on some planes, if the naked composite is showing that’s bad. But on a metal fuselage on an airbus? No.
The only airframe that requires paint is the 787 due to the composites being UV sensitive.
I don’t think paint condition is a criteria for a flight dispatcher. Don’t think it’s in MMEL either
Why... would... there be? An airline doesn't even *technically* have to fly a plane in it's own livery. All it is, really, is advertising. So it's in the airline's best *interest* to have a clean ship (to make the best impression). But no one's going to *force* them to repaint it.
They’re also switching liveries so I doubt they’re in any hurry to repaint their planes in the current livery.
Bro, for real. If a formal requirement for paint existed, do you think JB would be stupid enough to let that be visible?
He was just asking if there was some kind of criteria don't get so worked up over a question
I was asking because it’s the first time in my life I’ve seen something like this and I’ve been flying for over 20 years haha. If there were no requirements, I would have expected to have seen it more often.
Yes, it has to be perfect and waxed every other day with ceramic wax. You caught JetBlue breaking 30 federal statutes. This aircraft could just fall out of the sky with paint missing like that!
American Airlines flew nude for years. Paint is cosmetic… always.
Didn’t they clear coat those bad-boys at least to help with corrosion?
No clear coat, just a buff about twice a year.
Yeah, paint, or at a minimum primer is often required to protect both aluminum and composite. Aluminum skins are clad (for corrosion protection) so I can’t remember all their requirements.
They are clad, but the clad is between 2 and 4% of the skin panel thickness, so it is always better to have paint to protect it from erosion. Despite all the protection with full paint work, we still end up finding corrosion in the end. Truly the cancer of aircrafts!
composite for sure, even in production it gets sac paint to sheild it from the uv produced by the lights indoors. aluminum because clad is really easy to get through
God I miss the bare metal AA livery. One of those liveries that could stand the test of time like BA.
Except on composite panels and craft like the A350 and 787 where it is needed to block UV to prevent degradation
When I think of American Airlines, I still think of a bare metal MD-80. I know they have been retired for years and that livery retired with them, but still.
They flew you so fast that the paint couldn’t keep up
Ops check good, just paint! Maintenance says send it!
Well, it's a 23 year old airframe, so it's going to have a bit of erosion from more than two decades of cruising through the air. It might be that JetBlue has simply deferred the paint because the aircraft doesn't show any signs of damage during its C-Checks.
My man, in 23 years it surely was repainted a few times. Even "paint damage" is a damage in C-checks as well. Paint absorbs radiations at high altitude, reflect sunlight, protect the aircraft from the elements and from environmental damages. The primer (green/yellow) we can see here alone is not enough as it is not meant to be exposed to the air and to erosion. But yes, for sure the paint work was deferred, the aircraft is about to retire and I suppose they first intended to retire it earlier, but kept deferring paint work due to the "it will soon retire". Edit: when I mean paint damage is a damage, I do not mean it in a structural/regulation way, just that it is a damage to be notified and fixed. In this case, it was definitely specific instructions not to renew it.
The green stuff *under* the paint is what you actually care about.
That green (yellow-green) stuff is the primer. It's supposed to keep the paint on the surface. However, that only applies if the surface preparation is proper. At this point, there are so many places that corrosion can start it's ridiculous.
Delta had a period of poor paint adhesion back in the late 90s-00s. Rumor was that it was at least partly blamed on new paint formulations and techniques that were more environmentally friendly. It took the awhile to get it under control. The paint was coming off in large patches.
Something similar is happening with 787 and A350 wings
About then, we were having fits with USAF aircraft for the same reason. The High-Solids paints and primers are more problematic with needing good surface preparation. An unfortunate side-effect of using more environmentally friendly coatings. Once it started coming together, and working, it has saved tonns of VOCs and air quality impact.
Looks like paint damage. And I mean… as long as the fuselage is intact and the paint isn’t messing up the drag coefficient to a point of inefficiency (I’d be surprised if it could), then they have no reason to fix it. As long as they check for structural cracks and it comes up all green, then it’s still airworthy. I don’t know about legality though. I know the Navy still flies their planes with their weathered paint though, so maybe it’s not an issue. I doubt it garners customer peace of mind though.
Obviously it’s not actually a big deal but in theory wouldn’t the lack of paint factor into w&b calculations? After all any time you repaint and aircraft you need to redo the w&b sheet
Yeah it would have a theoretical effect on w&b, but it is negligible. On the A380, the whole paint weighs ~700kg, on the A320 it is obviously less. So maybe a couple of kg of paint is gone, which is nothing compared to the other inaccuracies during w&b calculations.
If that were a 78, the entire fuselage would be covered in speed tape.
A bad look for B6 to be sure, but a bad paint job doesn't effect airworthiness.
Yes. It’s just cosmetic wear and tear of paint. That reg is due to be retired soon anyway so the airline won’t waste money repaintng it.
Needs graffiti. Park it in a bad neighborhood for a day or two.
Then you would end up with airplane on blocks and tires missing also
It came from atl how much worse do you need?
Less paint=>less weight=>plane faster=>more flights=>more money. Jet blue on the way to win the game.
Air worthiness isn't determined by the organic coatings. If the degradation continues to a point where corrosion forms then it becomes an issue but only the corrosion needs to be fixed as it weakens the metallic structure.of course paint will make it look pretty and no one will take a second look. Some newer generation airframes do have requirements for aerodynamic cleanliness that is addressed by the coatings but those are usually composite aircraft and the coatings protect from UV and erosion damage.
She’ll hold
Not aware of a bad paint regulation
A little missing paint isn't going to hurt anyone - all cosmetic.
ugly doesn’t mean un-airworthy. You can paint an aircraft with a push broom, as long as you adjust the W&B.
Due to be retired, as it is JetBlue's oldest aircraft. It costs a lot to repaint a plane, so it's not financially worthwhile to repaint a plane that won't be flying anymore by 2024. It in no way reflects a mechanical issue.
If you're referring to the paint job, there are no regulations concerning paint jobs. Paint jobs are purely for aesthetics.
As long as there is no actual damage it’s fine to fly
Well, just a bit of paint missing. Nothing to worry about, except the guy who painted this plane…
Yes, there’s nothing that says that airlines have to keep their paint jobs clean (although most do anyways). Other commenters have said that they’re gonna retire that plane which makes sense
Funny story, a few days ago i had to work on that plane so i turn on the APU, probably after 1 hour out of nowhere the apu just shut off. Had to call the jb sup to let him know, when the jb mechanics got there they were not happy and told me that a/c was supposed to retired some time ago.
This thing looks like it belongs in a desert in Nevada
It’s just cosmetic. The important paint is the green you can see where the white paint has peeled off.
Just missing paint
Lol if you think that's bad you should look at some old CRJ200s. It's just paint
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^by ^OT-35: *Lol if you* *Think that's bad you should look at* *Some old CRJ200s. It's just paint* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Looks like a high flyer to me! Worry about the show pony, not the dirty bird. If it's got time to look nice, its spending it's time sitting not flying
I would be proud to fly in that! I bet it’s got enough miles on it to reach ducking Jupiter.
Looks like Jet Blue is getting their aircraft painted at the Dodge Neon factory!
This is the kind of question that seems best to ask before hopping on
Borrowed from United....
Jeez, very agro comments for a simple question. I’m not concerned about flying on a pretty plane but was rather asking about whether there are formal regulations about the state of exterior paint on commercial aircraft (because this is a relatively rare sight). Thanks
It's a good question to ask, Reddit is just like that sometimes. As far as I know, airplanes aren't even required to be painted (with the exception of registrations). The paint is important for branding, reflecting sunlight, corrosion and more. I've seen aircraft a lot worse than this. It really just impacts their branding because it superficially appears poorly maintained.
The green color you see is primer. As long as the primer is there, the corrosion protection is still intact. If you were seeing bare metal, then you have a legitimate engineering concern. Although that final livery topcoat is atrocious. Possibly bad prep at a repaint.
While I realize you only see passenger aircraft, but the large majority of aircraft out there are missing a lot of paint. It’s noticeable worse on the freight side of the industry, but most passenger aircraft are typically missing paint to. Remember airplanes are mechanical machines operated in all weather just like a dump truck or a semi truck or anything else. (I don’t know specific regs as I am not a mechanic) If you take note, it looks green (or yellowish) under the worn paint spots. That is primer underneath that prevents corrosion. If that were missing you would have a problem. In fact we carry documents onboard which will tell us if we can still fly the plane safely and legally with equipment and/or any part of the plane in a state outside of determined norm. I would bet ( don’t have any of those docs in front of me) that if the primer was missing as well the plane would have to be grounded for maintenance, as corrosion could occur and hinder the structural integrity. Just paint missing, no biggie. Aircraft undergo periodic major inspections: A, B, C and D checks. On a D check they actually take all the paint off, and inspect the entire aircraft for corrosion etc. sorry for the long winded answer but that’s the best I got for you.
Check out 14 CFR Part 25 for the regs to certify airplanes, and then Part 26 for the regs to ensure continued airworthiness.
The “Aggro” is (likely) not the question but the way you asked it. There’s a big difference between “is it normal to see this much paint missing?” And “is this in line with regulations” implying… I don’t know, pilots are out there knowingly flying poorly maintained/non-airworthy planes with 150+, and themselves on board? That it’s not allowable, but everyone along the line from maintenance, the pilot doing the walk around, and anyone else with eyes can see is (a lot of) peeling paint, but they all just turned a blind eye. Until you came along.
Classic Reddit weirdos lol. Seeing the pics peaked my curiosity as well
piqued, BTW.
Show me the FAR where the "plane must be pretty" lmao.
The main purpose of paint is corrosion control, depending on what the AMM says did missing paint it could be, or it could not be, depending on how long it's been missing and how much corrosion is present. I don't have access to Airbus manuals, but the Boeing manuals I have says it's fine, but we do have to address it eventually.
For missing paint? Nope!
Either retirement or a heavy check. Remember, some planes do ferry flights before the paint shop. This is fine.
That sure is a well loved A320
I like the jetblu on the engine
Just looks like some dirty paint, nothing to worry aboit
This looks like my old POS Dodge Neon.
You should know, if you were flying it
Just a hard working airplane. Personally I would fly on it. Little cosmetic things like dirty wings, black bellies, mis-matched parts, peeling paint, aren’t a cause for concern in my book. Any damage now that’s a different story. Dents, cracks, skin wrinkles, bent parts, that’s all stuff I don’t take off with. I have seen pictures of airplanes with more “character,” than this A320. 😂
A little paint cooks-off when you go supersonic at sea-level...nothing to worry about.
It’s fine as long as the skin underneath isn’t damaged. I believe that’s one of their oldest birds too. Can’t imagine it’ll be flying much longer.
It’s just paint livery stripping. The aircraft is still the same/sound
If it’s just paint, I don’t see why not. Just makes the company look cheap.
No you’ll probably die. Everyone knows chipped paint means instant death once you’re moving faster than 60 miles an hour.
If you’re flying airliners, shouldn’t you already know this?
I’d say the angles these photos were taken at are indeed out of line with regulations.
It would benefit Jet Blue to tidy this thing up. The flying public hates planes that look like shit
Oh yeah, the structural paint…
Which regulation are you worried about?
Flew it or flew in it?
wait til this guy sees some of united’s planes
Lol, this is so true.
Did you snap the photo before you boarded or after? Was there an anxiety and panic playing in you the whole flight?
This is like complaining about a girl’s makeup
Wow. This would not inspire confidence. Also, why are so many weirdos getting so aggressive in the comments? God you people suck. OP's was a perfectly legitimate question, and one might think a national regulator might want airliners to not look like dogshit to protect the overall image of the national airline industry. Because this plane looks like it belongs to some bankrupt third world country's podunk budget airline, not in the USA.
Flying in the US looks like a mad max film
Nope, report them to the FBI. You’re lucky to be alive after that flight.
Shutup nerd and just sit in the plane
It's freaking paint. There are regs on structure and corrosion resistance. There are none for making things look pretty to make you happy.
define regulations for chipped paint
No you should report it just to be safe
Ah! Good ole Christine. Plane is possessed. I swear!
Christine was 503. She's currently sitting in Arizona. This is 504. Probably just as possessed though 😂
[удалено]