It’s not necessarily extra cost. Periodically the planes must undergo a full maintenance process, which involves complete disassembly, inspecting each component down to the bolts. As part of this, the fuselage is stripped down to the metal to check for cracks and fatigue. Then the plane is reassembled and painted. So one livery is about the cost of another.
If the planes are being repainted as they are assembled, which is what the article seems to suggest, then it’s not a cost issue.
How’s that for efficiency in government spending!?
It’s not necessarily extra cost. Periodically the planes must undergo a full maintenance process, which involves complete disassembly, inspecting each component down to the bolts. As part of this, the fuselage is stripped down to the metal to check for cracks and fatigue. Then the plane is reassembled and painted. So one livery is about the cost of another.
If the planes are being repainted as they are assembled, which is what the article seems to suggest, then it’s not a cost issue.
They are doing it to multiple planes including the bribe one from Qatar and there is no way they are all on the same maintenance time frames.
It is absolutely not a negligible cost. It is a waste of money.
A plane of that size can be repainted in hours if required. The timescale quoted suggests this work is taking place as part of a maintenance cycle.
Thanks. Consider me educated on the matter. :)