Comment by manquer

DC-3 was an exception[0]

The point was not on any specific technical or economic factor. It was to illustrate that rapid evolution in comfort, or speed and also safety[1] means people will prefer adoption of newer tech quickly and not be concerned about longevity and actively devalue slightly older products.

When the improvements start becoming marginal only then longevity start to matter. The planes developed from 90s to now have lot to offer operators but not much new[2] to passengers, we are still designing(not just operating) new 737 variants after all. Most people cannot tell the age of the plane if the cabin has been refreshed.

This preference for newer generation of tools has little to do with previous generations having different values as nostalgically some like to ascribe to, but simply to technology maturity was my point.

---

[0] As impressive the 100 year history and the longevity of a pre-war design has been. We have to keep in mind the dynamics of unpressurized plane operating at less than 300 knots with a service ceiling of less than 25,000 feet is hardly comparable to that of any modern passenger aircraft cruising at 0.90+ mach for 12-15+ hours daily at 37,000 feet going through tens of thousands pressurization cycles.

[1] Airframes perhaps were not a popular safety concern directly, pressurized and reduced noise in cabins were major selling points.

Air safety regulations were famously said to be written in blood. It is undeniable that was massive drop in fatalities in 80-90s from 60-70s after safety became concern and everyone held both operators and manufacturers accountable.

[2] Improved range or better engine reliability that meant we can do longer ETOS on twin engine etc do benefit passengers indirectly.