Comment by akira2501
1 year ago
> This alarming-sounding situation
That's not what's alarming to me. What's alarming is that the plane could possibly be in a position to be continuously powered on for 51 days in the first place.
1 year ago
> This alarming-sounding situation
That's not what's alarming to me. What's alarming is that the plane could possibly be in a position to be continuously powered on for 51 days in the first place.
When a minute of downtime costs thousands, why wouldn't you expect planes to be in constant utilization?
> why wouldn't you expect planes to be in constant utilization?
They require weekly maintenance which takes them out of service for at least 12 hours.
What we may of as 'constant utilization' is quite different in a regulated fleet environment like airlines.
maintenance would happen with the aircraft in 'wheels on ground' mode but that may not mean all systems are turned off. I expect it's like a bug in the SMC on a computer. To really turn it off you have to do some magic.
"Constant utilization" means "they aren't sitting idle", not "they aren't undergoing necessary maintenance ever".
The number of flights varies a lot by time of day, so there is nothing close to constant utilization.
There's not much reason to turn them off outside of maintenance. When they're parked, they're connected to grid power.
2 replies →
I've flown with airlines before where there was a cascading delay due to a "plane deficit" at the terminal (not the technical term, that's my own). Not to say it's always uptime, but I imagine there are instances of constant uptime.
1 reply →