Why turnaround time consistency will define MRO competitiveness in 2026
January 31, 2026
Suresh Iyer is Founder and CEO of Impresa Corp, bringing over 30 years of leadership across aerospace, defence, logistics and digital manufacturing. A pioneer in MRO and digital twin technologies, he combines technical insight with operational execution to help MROs reduce turnaround time, improve compliance and enhance margins.
Ask an airline operations leader what keeps them up at night, and the answer is rarely a single long maintenance visit. It is the uncertainty.
An aircraft that was supposed to return on Tuesday but comes back on Friday. A redelivery date that slips just enough to disrupt crew planning, cascade into schedule changes, and trigger a chain of cost decisions no one budgeted for.
That kind of disruption is becoming more common, not less. As the aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) sector heads into 2026, demand is accelerating faster than capacity, fleets are ageing into heavier checks, and the margin for operational error is shrinking.
In this environment, the industry’s long-standing fixation on faster turnaround time (TAT) deserves closer scrutiny. Speed still matters, but consistency matters more.
Two MROs can advertise the same average TAT and deliver radically different value to airlines and lessors. One supports predictable planning and stable economics. The other introduces volatility, forcing customers to build buffers, absorb delays and manage around uncertainty.
As pressure mounts across the system, that difference is becoming a decisive competitive factor.
Demand is rising faster than MRO capacity
The structural forces shaping the MRO market are well understood. Global commercial fleets continue to grow, with narrowbody aircraft flying at high utilisation rates.
At the same time, the average age of many in-service fleets now exceeds 11 years, pushing more aircraft into complex maintenance events that demand deeper coordination across labour, parts, tooling and regulatory requirements.
Capacity, however, has not kept pace. Workforce shortages remain acute, with industry estimates pointing to the need for tens of thousands of additional technicians globally by the end of the decade.
Certification pipelines are long, training is resource-intensive, and experienced personnel are increasingly difficult to replace. Supply chains, while improving, remain uneven, particularly for rotable components and specialised materials.
For airlines and lessors, this combination leaves little room for unpredictability. A delayed shop visit is no longer a localised inconvenience. It can trigger flight cancellations, wet-lease expenses, crew reassignment challenges and ripple effects across the wider network.
On the leasing side, maintenance delays disrupt transitions, complicate remarketing efforts and affect asset utilisation and valuation.
The hidden cost of inconsistent turnaround time
Average TAT figures often look acceptable in reports and proposals. An MRO delivering a 40-day average for a heavy check appears competitive on paper. But averages conceal variability, and variability is where operational risk lives.
Consider two maintenance providers with the same average TAT. One delivers most aircraft within a narrow window around the committed date. The other delivers some early, some on time and a meaningful portion well past schedule. From a statistical perspective, they look similar. From an operational standpoint, they are not.
For airlines, inconsistent TAT forces conservative planning. Spare aircraft must be held longer. Schedules are padded. Contingency budgets grow. Each of these responses carries a cost that is rarely attributed directly to maintenance performance, but is nonetheless real. Over time, unpredictability erodes trust and reshapes sourcing decisions, even if headline metrics remain unchanged.
Consistency is not about shaving days off the fastest visit. It is about reducing the spread between the best and worst outcomes, and delivering aircraft when promised.
Turnaround time inconsistency is an MRO orchestration problem
The causes of TAT variability are seldom singular. Delays rarely originate from one dramatic failure. More often, they emerge from a series of small disconnects across the maintenance operation.
Aircraft maintenance depends on the synchronised readiness of people, tools, parts, certifications and documentation. If any one element is unavailable at the moment it is needed, progress stalls. When systems managing these elements operate in silos, issues are discovered late, often after the schedule has already been compromised.
Manual handoffs remain a common weak point. Work packages move between planning, production, quality and supply teams through spreadsheets, emails and informal updates. Certification checks may occur just before task execution rather than well in advance. Tool availability can appear sufficient at a planning level, only to break down when multiple jobs converge on the same calibrated equipment.
Each breakdown adds friction. Individually, the impact may seem minor. Collectively, they create the multi-day slips that define inconsistent TAT performance.
Why traditional MRO performance metrics are not enough
Many MROs rely on retrospective indicators: percent complete, labour hours consumed, or tasks closed versus planned. These metrics describe what has already happened. They offer limited insight into what is likely to go wrong next.
Consistency depends on anticipation. The critical questions are forward-looking:
- Will a certification lapse before a task is scheduled to begin?
- Is a critical part at risk of delay based on supplier behaviour?
- Are multiple work packages competing for the same specialised skill set next week?
When these questions are answered reactively, recovery options are limited and expensive. Over time, expediting fees and schedule renegotiations become routine. The delivery date slips, not because of a single failure, but because risk surfaced too late to manage proactively.
Practical AI for reducing turnaround time variability in MRO
Artificial intelligence is often framed as a way to automate or replace human roles. In MRO operations, its most immediate value lies elsewhere: reducing variability by improving visibility and timing.
Operations-focused AI can continuously validate readiness across upcoming maintenance steps, checking whether certifications, tools, parts and documentation will be in place when required. When gaps emerge, teams receive early warning, days or even weeks before the issue would traditionally surface.
Pattern analysis can reveal where workflow breakdowns tend to occur, based on historical performance rather than anecdotal experience. If certain task sequences or conditions consistently introduce delay, planners can adjust schedules and resource allocation accordingly.
Scenario modelling allows operations leaders to understand how small disruptions propagate through a visit. Instead of reacting to symptoms, teams can prioritise interventions that protect the committed redelivery date.
The objective is not to replace planners or technicians. It is to give them clearer, earlier insight into where variability is forming, while it is still manageable.
Consistency is what makes scale possible
As demand increases, many MROs are under pressure to push more aircraft through existing facilities. Scaling an inconsistent operation magnifies its weaknesses. Each additional check introduces more opportunities for disruption, increasing volatility rather than absorbing it.
Consistent operations scale differently. When variability is controlled, capacity planning improves. Workforce scheduling becomes more reliable. Customer commitments carry less risk. The organisation spends less time firefighting and more time refining processes.
For airlines and lessors, this predictability translates directly into value. Maintenance becomes something they can plan around with confidence, rather than hedge against.
The defining advantage of 2026
The year ahead will challenge the aviation MRO sector. Demand will remain strong. Labour and parts constraints will persist. Customers will have little tolerance for missed commitments.
In that environment, the industry’s emphasis on faster turnaround times deserves a reset. Speed matters, but predictability matters more. The MROs that stand out in 2026 will be those that treat TAT consistency as a primary operational objective, addressing it as an orchestration challenge supported by better visibility, earlier insight and practical use of AI.
Delivering aircraft faster is valuable. Delivering them when promised is indispensable.
