Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747 For Sale, "If You Buy It, You Must Scrap It"  
User currently offlinePlainplane From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 849 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 45064 times:

I came across this news story today about the auction of an old classic 747 being led by the US Department of Defense:
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/boeing-747-to-be-sold-for-scrap

When I noticed this line:

Quote:
Whoever buys the plane will have two weeks to work with a contractor in Roswell to tear it apart. The tear down has to be witnessed by personnel from the Department of Defense to make sure it can never fly again.

Is it normal to mandate something like this in a sale?

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9097 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 45013 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Plainplane (Thread starter):

That sucks... I would love to buy it and keep it. Selling it and then scrapping it? I guess someone wants to make money out of it.

R.I.P. old 747.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 44248 times:

Seems a bit silly to be so specific, what else is someone going to do with a 41 year 747 stripped of all its useful parts?


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1583 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 44177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 2):
Seems a bit silly to be so specific, what else is someone going to do with a 41 year 747 stripped of all its useful parts?

Exactly----typical government over-kill


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7019 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 44132 times:

Well, in another thread someone claimed to have flown in a 747 built in 2006, which I promptly labeled a counterfeit, as all 747's delivered after 2005 were freighters. Perhaps the government wants to keep parts away from whoever is counterfeiting 747's?


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinerdh3e From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1795 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 44084 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 2):
Seems a bit silly to be so specific, what else is someone going to do with a 41 year 747 stripped of all its useful parts?

Use it as a restaurant etc. I don't see their motivation for the forced scrapping.


User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 44065 times:

DOD has gone to the practice of forced demil-ing almost all aircraft they sell. If this is owned by DOD, then it doesn't surprise me. This is why you will never see aircraft that are modern now flying the airshow circuit in 50 years because the DOD refuses to sell them. 50 years ago you could buy any surplus aircraft you wanted, now you can't hardly get anything.

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1896 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 43719 times:

They don't want someone to buy it an abandon it when their plans fall through.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 43403 times:

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Polar%20Air%20Cargo-stored-b747.htm

It looks like N851FT.

If it is a 41 yr old B747-100, then clearly it will not being flying anywhere.

The article also says that parts have been stripped from it, suggesting that it is a hulk.

The interesting question, is why did the DOD acquire this aircraft in the first place.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3649 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 43303 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 8):
The interesting question, is why did the DOD acquire this aircraft in the first place.

The most obvious answer is training or testing. Whether equipment, planning, personnel, or whatever.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2150 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 43257 times:

If they are going to require that it be scrapped, they should just do it themselves.

User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 43239 times:

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 5):

Use it as a restaurant etc. I don't see their motivation for the forced scrapping.

Or build a house with it. I saw a TV show about this house in Malibu made from a 747's wings:

http://www.studioea.com/projects/residential/wing_house/

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 8):

The interesting question, is why did the DOD acquire this aircraft in the first place.

The Air Force and Canadian military used it for force on force ground training.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...camp-in-new-mexico/article1836500/



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3531 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 43041 times:

Quoting trigged (Reply 6):
This is why you will never see aircraft that are modern now flying the airshow circuit in 50 years because the DOD refuses to sell them.

Well, the last few generations of military aircraft are quite a bit more complex than even F-86/Mig-15 era surplus.

Keeping and maintaining a WWII fighter aircraft flyable isn't too much different than maintaining a complex and turbocharged general aviation single from the '60s (I'm talking about it from a maintenance/technology standpoint - not expense) ... holding onto an F-100, F-4, A-7 or whatever other Vietnam-era or later aircraft would be quite the challenge for anyone except for someone with the deepest pockets.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 42973 times:

Many thanks Canoecarrier, I suspected something along those lines.

Clearly, it is likely that this training makes the aircraft no longer airworthy. Also the damage caused by this training could give hints about the nature of the training.

This could be why scrapping is mandatory. Clearly, if nothing can be salvaged then this will reduce it's value further.

it will be interesting to see who will buy it.


User currently onlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6157 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 41617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planespotting (Reply 12):
holding onto an F-100, F-4, A-7 or whatever other Vietnam-era or later aircraft would be quite the challenge for anyone except for someone with the deepest pockets.

Aren't there a few privatly owned F-4s?

Quoting trigged (Reply 6):
This is why you will never see aircraft that are modern now flying the airshow circuit in 50 years because the DOD refuses to sell th

What about if you buy them from another country? Or do they not allow reimportation?



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3531 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 41467 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 14):
Aren't there a few privatly owned F-4s?

Probably, but a lot fewer than there used to be private P-51s, F-4Us, B-17s, etc.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently onlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6157 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 41329 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 13):
Clearly, if nothing can be salvaged then this will reduce it's value further.

it will be interesting to see who will buy it.


If you can get it cheaper than the value of the scrap metal and the labor cost to cut it up, you have a money maker. You could also sit on it and wait for the scrap prices to go up, but then again it could go down. Looks like you would have to cut it up on the spot and they may want it gone in a hurry.

I love scrap. I would buy it and cut it up if I could and got a deal on it.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 41190 times:

Quoting planespotting (Reply 12):
holding onto an F-100, F-4, A-7 or whatever other Vietnam-era or later aircraft would be quite the challenge for anyone except for someone with the deepest pockets.
AH-1 Cobra and OV-10 Bronco are flying in civilian hands, which are both typical Vietnam era aircraft. The cost is no more than a Mustang/Spitefire-type of aircraft.
(Trojan, Skyraider, Skymaster, etc served in Vietnam too but are a decade or more older.)

Apart from that I think you are quite right, it becomes increasingly difficult to operate some newer ex mil aircraft. Sadly enough...

About that 747, the aluminum would probably be worth around $120-130k, but it takes quite a job to to recycle it and make it something usable...

[Edited 2011-10-05 14:05:36]

[Edited 2011-10-05 14:05:59]

User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 590 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 40760 times:

Quoting sf260 (Reply 17):

We had two Grumman OV-1D Mohawks until the mid 2000's when we sold one of them because we didnt have enough pilots to fly both. We still fly the one we have now to airshows. Both flew Vietnam and the first Gulf War.

Ironically, we were in talks to recieve a second one again, but we wouldn't fly it.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 40035 times:

The requirement to tear down within 2 weeks would possibly limit your ability to "sit on it".

Besides how much of the estimated 160K pounds is not Aluminium.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 39417 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 13):
Clearly, it is likely that this training makes the aircraft no longer airworthy. Also the damage caused by this training could give hints about the nature of the training.

I'd venture to guess that's exactly why they don't want this aircraft to see the light of day. Especially when it comes to ingress and egress points.



PHX based
User currently onlineordpark From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 576 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 39367 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm missing something...why doesn't the DOD contract with someone to break it up?

User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 39274 times:

Quoting silentbob (Reply 10):
If they are going to require that it be scrapped, they should just do it themselves.
Quoting ordpark (Reply 21):
I'm missing something...why doesn't the DOD contract with someone to break it up?

Read the article. The buyer can do whatever they want with the scrap metal - except for trying to fly it around as an airplane.


User currently offlineScooter01 From Norway, joined Nov 2006, 1207 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 38826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 1):
I guess someone wants to make money out of it.

Or, -they could spend some money on it (forget about the current economical restraints....)
by repainting it, just like what they recently did to the old firetrainer at FBU, which was trucked up to GEN

at FBU:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Mowinckel



at GEN before painting:
http://i55.tinypic.com/n71i8k.jpg

after painting:
http://i54.tinypic.com/24fh537.jpg

the two last images are credited to:
stein380's photostream

Sorry, to me, OSL will always be GEN   

Scooter01



"We all have a girl and her name is nostalgia" - Hemingway
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 38607 times:

Sorry, the DOD want it torn down.

25 falstaff : I would be more concerned with what isn't some type of metal. If it is metal it can be scrapped. You should see the stuff I see at the scrap yard, ev
26 Post contains links DL_Mech : Information about N851FT and a video: http://www.govliquidation.com/auctio...S8457&cm_re=1-_-hotlots-_-row1col1
27 planespotting : These aircraft are both turboprop powered - I was referring to pure jets.
28 Post contains images soon7x7 : By virtue of this airframe having flown for Polar...it would at the time have already been a flying patch quilt...much like Towers 747's were. Having
29 fanofjets : If the government had been using the airframe for terrorist training, the damage and modifications to the hulk could yield sensitive information. My g
30 runga08 : I have a feeling this has Iran written all over it. Isn't Iran still trying to fly some 747-100's? and SP's that they have left and can't get replacem
31 johnkrist : Yeah, but they state that only the 2 companies on site are allowed for down sizing and mutilation of the aircraft. Buyer is not allowed to do it them
32 TCASAlert : Why don't they just scrap it themselves, lazy gets?
33 Bongodog1964 : If you go through to the DOD disposal website, it appears that the "mutilation to ensure no future use" clause is fairly standard. Within 2 minutes I
34 bennett123 : The fact that there are only 2 viewing days, (5 hours each) suggests that few viewers are expected, (unless it is groups of prospectives) which seems
35 jfk777 : Why would any one buy this junk ?
36 trigged : It is possible to re-import them, but it is a red tape forest. I do know there are a few civilian F-4's and there is even a civilian F-18 out there.
37 L-188 : E-4 parts. It's the reason why by the late 1980's there where so few 707's around. They where getting bought and parted out by AMARC for E-3 and KC-1
38 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Would be a lot more expensive doing it themselves.....plus they'd need someone to blame if something was missed. So there may possibly be a few bits
39 canoecarrier : Aluminum is going for around $0.82/lb. there's supposedly 160,000 lbs of aluminum in this plane that works out to $131,200. Figure the guy that's bre
40 bennett123 : The current best bid is $170. Clearly, not much interest.
41 SEPilot : Do you seriously expect logic in DOD procedures? Clearly, they have rules for disposing of unwanted aircraft that do not differentiate between a 747
42 bennett123 : Price is now $5,150. Two days to go.
43 Post contains images canoecarrier : Haven't you ever bought anything on eBay It will be interesting to see what this actually goes for.
44 bennett123 : Yes the price normally jumps at the end.
45 Post contains links canoecarrier : Bumping in case anyone is interested in watching the final 10 min of bidding. It's up to $20.5K. Which of you a-netters are bidding on your own 747?
46 bennett123 : The sale is now over. The price is not clear, one part of the site said $12,700 and another $18,500 + 10% Buyer Premium. The buyer now has 30 days to
47 canoecarrier : You sure? click on the link.
48 bennett123 : Now $21K. The closing time seems to keep shifting.
49 canoecarrier : Looks like $21K buys you a 747. It would be interesting to see what 160K lbs of aluminum nets profit off that. You have to use one of two on site com
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
727,747 For Sale posted Mon Mar 18 2002 02:24:14 by Grounded
Air Djibouti´s 747 For Sale posted Wed Jul 11 2001 14:29:51 by Na
Savings If You Buy 737 W/o IFE posted Sun Sep 30 2007 17:18:25 by Jush
Boeing: If You Think 05 Was Good, Wait For 06, 07 posted Thu Feb 2 2006 12:27:25 by EHHO
What To Do If You Don't Want To Pay For Headphones posted Tue Jul 26 2005 04:53:51 by C172
Can You Check In On-line For AA If You Have Bags? posted Fri Jul 23 2004 15:05:43 by Nycfuturepilot
If You Had A Chance To Fly For... posted Sat Mar 6 2004 20:07:08 by Vio
If You Had An Airliner For 24 Hours..... posted Tue Jan 13 2004 14:03:23 by EZYAirbus
If You Had To Live In An Airport For A Long Period posted Fri Nov 7 2003 23:36:16 by EIDW
747-400 Freighters For Sale posted Mon Dec 13 2010 16:08:38 by KShafiq7