As the 737 Max has shown, this isn’t exactly the industry you want to “move fast and break things” by attempting to try out every late and great technology. Then there is just an issue with the business model in general. Customers typically make their purchasing decision on the lowest cost option, things like the weather are out of your control, there’s huge capital investments needed, and there’s a high risk if anything goes wrong.

This is exactly what has happened — the 787 is the result, and is hugely popular with airlines. But the operational life of a big jet is measured in decades, and there are plenty of 50-year-old airframes in regular operation today.

For some context in case anyone is curious: putting together information from various websites suggests that the following is the oldest plane in commercial service today. https://m.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/737/5Y-CGV-Zone-...

It is a Boeing 737-200 and it has been in service for 43.7 years.

Hardly.

There are still DC-3's in commercial operation, and production of those ended in 1942.

http://www.buffaloairways.com/ is one operator.

They don't seem to be a scheduled service operator. They look like a charter airline.

Common definition of a "commercial operation" for airlines is scheduled operation, not charters.

So... That boeing just may be the oldest flying airliner on scheduled routes.

It appears you are correct in this regard and the websites I used are not.

Are there any such planes used for regular scheduled (passenger) airline services? It appears to me that Buffalo Airways is charter and cargo only.

They have two Curtiss C-46 from 1945. Its interesting that its cheaper to continue to pay for the maintenance and fuel than lease something more modern.

Replacements don’t exist. Those old prop liners can operate off unimproved dirt strips, grass, even snow and ice - and off short runways too.

Jets don’t like that.

For back country missions the only thing maybe better than a DC-3 is a Basler... and that is a modernized DC-3 with reinforcements and turboprops for more power. They suck a lot more fuel than a plain DC3 though, which can be problematic as some of these fields they have to fly fuel in.

A C130 should be a viable modern alternative for those use cases, if economic

A fully loaded DC-3 can takeoff in just over 2000ft. A C-130 needs almost 4000ft.

There are no small planes that can replace DC-3. C-130 is massive!

do you have any idea how many carbon emissions are created with a two hour meeting? The network, the video servers, the laptop/desktops - the monitors, the A/C to cool each of those people at the distributed locations?

While it is valid to bring this up, I'm pretty sure the emissions and energy usage of a videoconference are minuscule in comparison to the flights that are replaced. Laptops will be needed in both cases, as well as A/C (if that is necessary at all).

I'm pretty sure the parent comment was in jest.