Eos and MAXjet fleet age - your thoughts

Unlike the most successful new airlines of recent years, Eos and MAXjet have started up with some relatively old pre-owned equipment, and to my knowledge have no orders for new aircraft on the books. According to Wikipedia, Eos's average aircraft is over 12 years old and MAXjet's is over 21. In as much as new aircraft can be a point of differentiation for airlines, e.g. Jetblue, Continental, etc., does anyone see this being an issue for the 2 JFK-Stansted limo companies and are either of them in a financial position to order new aircraft? I know Primaris just gave up its 787 slots, which admittedly seemed unlikely to be taken up.

I'm not sure it matters, the 767 has a long life and you can use NW as an example of an airline that successfully operates old planes. Its saves both airlines a huge amount of money to lease these older birds then lease or buy new. Even with the fuel burn on the 762 MaxJet still saves. As for Primaris, they are basically done, they have one 737 and no plans to expand like they once had.

Yeah it really doesn't matter. Those planes have a turnaround time of about 30 minutes.(And that's just to refuel). Also they wouldn't be flying if they didn't meet FAA reg's, and also these planes really aren't "work-horses". They went from carrying 200 people to 20 people so there is no stress on em.

From an engineering perspective you are both right, but from a marketing perspective I am not so sure. Remember, these are being marketed as premium services to people who pay more and expect state of the art. B6 has been able to define itself as a premium service (premium to the legacy carriers' economy class) by starting up with new equipment, and CO - winner of most airline service awards in recent years - makes it a point to highlight its use of the youngest jet fleet in its advertising. This is not to mention the fact that the most premium of global airlines, like Emirates, Singapore, Virgin etc generally have younger fleets. I see nothing premium or state of the art about '80s-era aircraft that once flew for African and Latin American airlines that have been retrofitted with nice seats, and was wondering if at some point Eos and Maxjet will have to go in for some 787s or 48-pax BBJ type of aircraft like Privatair uses.

Eos and MaxJet don't have to market that their planes as young. Their market is small enough that it doesn't matter one bit. As for who these planes were flow by again it doesn't matter, if they were unsafe they wouldn't be flying today. The fact is age is meaningless to most passengers. If it was really a big issue airlines like AA, NWA, and DAL would be in big trouble. Planes are so highly maintained that they can fly for 50 years, in-fact most of the B52s the airforce use are over 50 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Planes are so highly maintained that they can fly for 50 years, in-fact most of the B52s the airforce use are over 50 years old.

---

Well, not quite. The first B-52s were built in 1952, but the oldest variants are long retired. The current model flying is the B-52H. which first went into production in 1960/61 and the oldest of those have been retired as well, so those in service today are 40-odd years old (and typically have much less flight time than airliners).

They do plan to use them for another 40 years or so, I guess that makes them middle aged now...

BTW, back in my USAF days, I often flew KC-135s that were older than I was :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

The fact is age is meaningless to most passengers.

---

I think the plane being old is not a dealbreaker, but they would be able to attract more people if they were able to throw the word "new planes" into their marketing. But would the cost/benefit of buying a new plane versus an old one be worth it? Probably not.

These passengers DO expect state-of-the-art, but jsut in terms of their accomodations.

Most of those flying can't even identify the kind of plane they are on, much less know whether it's new or old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonstop2AUH

Unlike the most successful new airlines of recent years, Eos and MAXjet have started up with some relatively old pre-owned equipment, and to my knowledge have no orders for new aircraft on the books. According to Wikipedia, Eos's average aircraft is over 12 years old and MAXjet's is over 21. In as much as new aircraft can be a point of differentiation for airlines, e.g. Jetblue, Continental, etc., does anyone see this being an issue for the 2 JFK-Stansted limo companies and are either of them in a financial position to order new aircraft? I know Primaris just gave up its 787 slots, which admittedly seemed unlikely to be taken up.

---

Both the 767 & the 757 are good aircraft, as far as age, airlines really look at the number of cycles the aircraft has, rather than the age.

It is a wise move for both EOS & MaxJet, to fly the 757 & 767, they are reliable aircraft, quite familar for the mechanics at most airports, readily available of pilots, & the aircraft can carry a good amount of cargo.

Also, not only did they good rates from the leasing companies, but, they can use these aircraft as a testbed as to what amenities they want to use for the future.

And if the business plan is success, then, maybe, you will see these airlines invest in newer aircraft.

You can't compare EOS & MaxJet to a Jetblue, totally different type of flying, where the Jetblue aircraft are getting numerous landing/takeoffs per day......

re these passengers DO expect state-of-the-art, but just in terms of their accomodations.

The accomodations are not quite state of the art. State of the art means private cabin with built in, comprehensive IFE like Emirates, on-board wi-fi internet like ANA or Lufthansa, maybe even stand-up bar like Virgin Upper Class, etc. Something that makes you very different from what others are offering at the same or lower price.

Maxjet has last-generation Delta business class seats with new coverings, but that's ok because they are marketing themselves as a value-oriented premium service, sort of alternative to BA or VS premium economy, and you can't expect a flat bed at those prices.

On the other hand, Eos is all about the seat, their entire proposition is based on a seat. It's not a bad seat, I've sat in one, but they still have very limited handheld IFE (i.e. a laptop, as Maxjet offers at much lower prices) and not much else to offer with the current product. In an interview I believe one of their execs said they didn't want to spend the money to wire a leased, older aircraft for wifi and comprehensive IFE. That implies they might be willing to do it with a newer aircraft or perhaps one that they owned outright.

I'd like to see them both do well, but with established network competitors investing to enhance their long haul premium products, I wonder how soon it will be before they have to throw in additional differentiators. A new aircraft could be one of those, and certainly good for marketing. For the record, Mike Boyd says the whole concept is doomed to fail, but he hasn't always been right...

The only way most pax know if they're on a new airplane is if the airline's marketing campaign says "we fly new planes." You think people can tell the difference between on of CO's 20 year old 733s or 20 month old 73Gs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mateo

The only way most pax know if they're on a new airplane is if the airline's marketing campaign says "we fly new planes." You think people can tell the difference between on of CO's 20 year old 733s or 20 month old 73Gs?

---

Don't underestimate the passengers, your savy travellers know the difference between passengers, in terms of interior comfort.

Passengers that travel frequently, are quite aware that the United 747 has no IFE, while the United 777 is quipped with the IFE, now, from the exterior, they may not be aware that the 747 has "4" engines :roll: :lol: