Nsfguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6674 times:
Just incredible the amount of trucks in the last few days coming out of Marana onto I-10 loaded with busted up 747 hulls! All going to the smelter in Douglas I'm told. What a sad and disrespectful end for such an historic and stalwart part of world history. Sorry for being so sentimental here folks, just seems like donating these hulls to small towns for aviation museums and the like would have been a better use. I assume one could do like the folks in Europe did and take a few apart and re assemble for the joy and education of the public. I understand the value of a totally stripped out (re usable components removed) is only about $65.000. what a way to end up, from the pride of the sky's to a dumpster.
Type-Rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6574 times:
While I can understand the emotional attatchment, 747's are not living beings so they really can't be slaughtered! Broken up, yes but slaughtered, no.
I know your thoughts about donating these planes is well intentioned, but sometimes these old planes can become liabilities as they take up a rather large amount of space.
I believe that NW donated one to Western Michigan University for use in their A&P program. After a few years the aircraft became a problem for them and they had to have it removed, which was quite costly. I believe the problem was there just wasn't enough room for it at their airport and it was in the way of traffic. Maybe someone else here knows more about this.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6124 times:
I agree it's sad to see them go, but honestly, the rent money airlines and lessors are paying could be put to better uses, along with the salvage income they're receiving. It's sort of useless to keep frames sitting around that have no other use than sentimentality except if they were involved in special "firsts" of one kind or another. Remember, we're paying for fleets of planes and ships to sit in storage for the Air Force and Navy that will never see the skies or oceans again, all adding to a bloated federal budget.
While I was searching for something else last night, I found these pictures of a Connie "in use" in Bolivia for another purpose. No matter how humorous this one is, one hopes others are available to the public without having been made into billboards, and that the 747 types saved wouldn't meet a similar fate with the 1000 or more than will eventually have to be retired.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5849 times:
Thankfully, the desert will not be filled with the 1000 plus all at one time, especially because even those airlines most loyal to Airbus will not phase out their 744s overnight. LH for example plans to keep them flying for another 4 years or so before they phase them out, at least that is what I've heard. I just don't see why airlines feel the need to retire a plane that is not really replaced (the A380 is far too big to be considered an ideal 747 replacement), and is still farely young (the oldest 744 is something like 18 years old). That is nothing compared to UA and TW 747-100s, which flew for over 25 years. My point here is that retirement likely will be more progressive...I doubt we will see 744s rushed into retirement.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 15202 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5677 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
$65,000??? That seems low. In 2000 a DC-9's scrap value was $250,000 (including engines that were at EOL).
On the positive note, there should be a few dozen 747's proudly displayed in museums around the world. This aircraft changed history with its trans-Pacific range helping to open up the world. While the LA museum is too small, the IAD branch of the Smithsonian should have one (does it? I haven't made it there... yet.) as well as some others. Man, the pictures of the KLM 747 on display look great!
HA! My drone is lighter than required for registration.
777STL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5483 times:
"My point here is that retirement likely will be more progressive...I doubt we will see 744s rushed into retirement."
Yes I realize they won't be retired all at once. My point was, 50 years down the road when they're nearly all gone, we're not going to be able to turn every single one of them into a museum or a restaurant or something.
Nsfguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5398 times:
$65.000 is for a hollow shell. Someone on anet presented a flyable L-1011 a few months ago for $250.000! I remember it well, timed out but still flyable with a ferry permit. The gear, avionics and engines are gone, as is anything that can remotely re used or sold on the 747 hulls. even many flaps and slats are somehow rebuilt for other planes.
MD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (11 years 14 hours ago) and read 3121 times:
It's a shame to see old 747s getting cut up, but that's life. Hopefully a few will be preserved at museums.
>>It is a shame that neither of the initial A300B1's were saved.<<
I agree 100%. Airbus should have preserved one of them and put it on display in Tulouse. It's the airplane that got them started and put them on the map, and the first of the widebody twins. This is a classic aircraft that deserves recognition and preservation.
ClipperNo1 From Germany, joined May 1999, 672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (11 years 13 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
With the current shortage of steel worldwide, I guess there's a quick buck to be made right now, so they will probably accelarate the break-up processes.
These old kerosene-guzzling airliners (like classic 747s) sadly have no use left in them, with the high oil prizes of today. So they "cash" them in.
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."Ã¯Â¿Â½ Alfred Kahn, 1977
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13765 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (11 years 12 hours ago) and read 2986 times:
Aircraft are mostly aluminum, not steel. Recycled Aluminum is a lot cheaper than new product, especially for most uses (like beverage cans). While removal of the paint, removal of fluids, has to take place, it is still cheaper that new. Besides, if an aircraft is no longer usable due to safety, or uneconomical to operate, just like a car, then it's time to be recycled.
If you worry about some 747's being perserved, don't - the 1st 747 & 737's built by Boeing, reside at the Seattle Museum of Flight (although one cannot go into them at this time). They also have a Concorde (BA), an early 727, the second Air Force One 707 there too. You can go into the Concorde and 707. While it is great to perserve more 747's it is expensive to do so in terms of maintenance and space required. This is further compounded by the financial situations of almost all airlines.
57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2586 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 hours ago) and read 2930 times:
Also bear in mind that, due to the tax laws pertaining to museums, any donations or outside fundings sources are taxable if there is a direct link between the museum and a for profit organization. The Museum of Flight in Seattle is almost certainly a separate organization with no legal ties to the Boeing Corporation though they may have started it. Another good example is the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. They were founded at the turn of the last century as part of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad's operating department-charged with the preservation of historic equipment for corporate use. Eventually the collection grew so large that it was put on permanant display at historic Mount Clare Shops for public viewing. However, the museum still remained an official railroad department so it was ineligible for historic preservation funds and grants. CSXT realized this was a major handicap for the museum and did not fit in with the mission of the railroad. Wisely, they spun the museum off after taking legal steps to ensure the future of the museum and agreeing to sponsor the museum. Preserving historic items such as airplanes and trains is not as easy as one might think.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."