> 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.
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.
It is very surprising that how a lot of comments here claim the contrary.
Even when parked for next flight, until resupply and cargo routines are declared, it is also not powered.
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.