Misery Called Life wrote:Won't be surprising if Low Cost Carriers actually did skip maintenance to cut costs.
If you assess LCC on a global scale especially in Latin America and Asia you'd find that they use really old planes as well. That in itself represents some risk.
And probably owing to shorter distances they tend to take things for granted.
And finally higher seat density. I think they can manage that owing to lower baggage allowances?
Indeed, older aircraft fleets are more susceptible to safety risks. Aircraft technology makes sure that every new update or new design is incorporated with the latest innovative solutions.
From a cost perspective though, its wiser for older aircraft to keep the aircraft in good order as this raises the sales value. Also, if an airline tries to lower costs by compromising on engine maintenance (costly) or airframe components and assemblies under influence of wear and tear (like landing gear or flight controls) they will experience more downtime if you refer to research statistics.
And you all know that downtime means loss of revenue. Also a delay longer than 3 hours means that an airline (in Europe for sure) has to pay compensation if the customer files a complaint. So they can't compromise on essential maintenance as those carriers simply shoot themselves in the foot.
As for LCC carriers. I have a feeling their maintenance is actually very good due to the above reasons. Downtime is loss in revenue and the profit margins in LCC airlines are already low. They earn on additional inflight services like drinks, food and some on backseat IFE options.
The trend in MRO maintenance is currently in-house maintenance and I believe this is changing towards outsourcing maintenance to renowned MRO contractors in the future. That are the 'SR Technics' of the world.
If my memory is still correct, then Mubadala Investments Group increased its share in SR Technics recently...
Preparing for the future...