Did this aircraft suffer an extremely hard landing or other structural impairment? The first 777 was delivered in May 1995. How can the above aircraft already be broken up if it was not more than 11 years old when the picture was taken in 2006?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26804 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4616 times:
I still haven't seen any photos of this 777 being parted out which seems strange for such a large aircraft. They certainly can't do that kind of a job indoors. Can anyone confirm definitely that it has in fact been parted out?
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4404 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 6): As I understand it, weren't Varig's 777's A market models picked up second hand from UA, and due to RG's financial state, endured some less than desireable maintenance practices?
Don't know about RG's MX but the rest is right. To boot, their 777s got impounded and probably haven't flown at all in the past year or two. Being non-ER planes they may very well have suffered not so much from shoddy maintenance, as from short domestic flights (high cycles) while in service with UA.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4363 times:
That is tragic if that is the case. How anybody can justify breaking up an aircraft type that hasn't even been around for hardly a decade is beyond me. So sad to see a perfectly useful machine go to waste.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4334 times:
Quoting Thrust (Reply 11): How anybody can justify breaking up an aircraft type that hasn't even been around for hardly a decade is beyond me.
Easy...M-O-N-E-Y.....!!! The plane is worth more for parts then it is as a whole. This will only happen for a short time though.. You'll see a few 777 get scrapped over the next few years, then it will die off again. The same thing will happen to the A380 in about 10-15 years. The operators of other 777 can now buy parts at a much reduced price over buying them new from the OEM. The parts broker will make a killing....and the airlines will save a ton on purchase price. I remember a few years back I saw a Saab 340 on eBay that I had actually worked on a few times. It was being sold for $300,000. I thought... shoot, sell the engines and all the rest is profit. It was fresh out of overhaul and all the parts had Certs and were half life or less..... pure profit...
My point..? You can't look at this as an aviation buff/geek. You need to look at this in the business sense. My guess.. they sold the engines and all the rest is pure profit. Notice in the other pictures that the interior is gone. Interiors get the most wear and tear so I'm sure they had airlines knocking the door down to buy it.
[Edited 2007-12-31 14:40:00]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4280 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
They certainly can't do that kind of a job indoors. Can anyone confirm definitely that it has in fact been parted out?
The aircraft was flown to a little airport in Arkansas to get parted out. I've seen pictures... It's on MyAviation. Last photo in the data base is just at a year old.
According to Universal Aircraft Management, Inc., the company that does the scrapping, one aircraft was saved and sold, the other is in the process of being broken up. In fact, browsing around their site, many of the images include those of the 777.
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1472 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4247 times:
You all are missing one of the main reasons this particular aircraft got or is getting scrapped.
It is actually part of a very unique and small subfleet of 777-200 aircraft. There were only 5 777-236 aircraft built originally for BA with GE90-76B engines. These were the first 777s with GE90s and a unique variant at that since surpassed by the -85B, -92B, -94B on the -200/-200ER.
Only two of these five were returned by BA to Boeing in 2002 and susequently leased to Air Algerie, Khalifa, and VARIG. They were attempted to be remarketed (available for lease), but there were just no takers due to the unique engine variant and the lessor decided to scrap them instead. I understand that the modification to hang the higher thrust later variant engines was prohibitively expensive.
Since I work for TZ, I know in fact that we looked at these, but even with the relatively cheap lease rate, it was not attractive enough for AMC business.
The plain and simple here is the aircraft was too unique, got no takers because of it, and ended up as parts. Remember that to a business, an aircraft is merely an asset and this was a business decision, nothing else.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
ReidYYZ From Kyrgyzstan, joined Sep 2005, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3841 times:
Having gone through the previous thread (linked above) and this thread, what it seems to boil down to is that this frame is a bastard child nobody has use for. It's bastard status as a direct and exclusive result of the engines hanging on it. Is this correct? This is not a loaded question, just one of pure curiosity. So, as discussed: it was a result of poor mtce, a victim of a bad landing, a non-ER variant, high cycle machine...etc are all guesses. Is this analysis correct as well? It seems to me that the story as told by TZTristar500 of the engine choice is the most logical. As a side note, the 777 was certified ETOPS from the get go, which was a minimum requirement of the original purchasers. I refuse to believe a company would acquire some ER certified machines and pay money to have ER essential equipment removed and have the airframe re-certified? For this, is there any truth to the statements about "non-ER" airframes? If so, is it because of the GE90's?Thanks,Reid.
ScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3619 times:
as was mentioned before, the site of the asset manager, aka scrapper has info right on their site...
Quote: industry challenge: a client with 2 neglected b777-200's needed marketing options
our solution: UAM used one aircraft as a spare parts surrogate, allowing the other to return to service.
The in-service aircraft was sold and the second disassembled, creating an uptapped secondary market for B777 parts.
from their wording, it seems that it made economical sense to make one good plane, and then sell the parts leftover for good money because no one else had the supply that these guys did.