Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"First 777 Due To Be Broken Up"?  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4460 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Marshall



The legend to this photo includes the above text.

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?

Faro


The chalice not my son
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2438 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

This same photo was used in an earlier thread on the same topic, with 54 replies:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...id=3183985&s=varig+scrap#ID3183985

.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

Aviation is a business, that's all.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4417 times:



Quoting CitationJet (Reply 1):
This same photo was used in an earlier thread on the same topic, with 54 replies:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...83985

Incredible! Thanx for the feedback.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4404 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quite simply she is worth more as parts then as a complete airframe.

User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25316 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4202 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?

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6385 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

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?


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

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.

[Edited 2007-12-31 12:12:13]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3991 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
It's on MyAviation. Last photo in the data base is just at a year old.

Not to sound like a jerk or anything, but if you're gonna mention the photo, could you at least put it on here, or a link would be suffice.

Share the wealth dude  Silly


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3990 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.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3968 times:

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 8):
Not to sound like a jerk

Aaahhh I forgot the photo link code to the MyAviation site..!! I did find this. The engines are gone, but the fuselage is in tact.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers


Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 8):

Share the wealth dude

Here ya go buddy....
MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Eric D Smith- Rocky Mountain AvPhotos


[Edited 2007-12-31 12:42:54]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3949 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.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3920 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"
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3866 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.

 checkmark  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.


User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1452 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3833 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.
User currently offlineHOOB747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3825 times:



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 14):
TZTriStar500 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 497 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted Mon Dec 31 2007 20:54:21 your local time (9 minutes 9 secs ago) and read 0 times:


You all are missing one of the main reasons this particular aircraft got or is getting scrapped.

Thanks for your informative post. I learned alot about a 777 that has had many of us wondering why???



747 Number One Fan from U.S.A
User currently offlineReidYYZ From Kyrgyzstan, joined Sep 2005, 536 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3427 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.

[Edited 2008-01-04 02:30:31]

User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3205 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.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic "First 777 Due To Be Broken Up"?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Delay Due To "fuel Imbalance" - Real Or An Excuse? posted Tue Jan 24 2006 11:35:36 by Cxsjr
Why Is London ATC Said To Be "among The Best"? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 12:10:11 by Mozart
"Broken" DC-10-30 posted Tue Sep 4 2007 19:07:16 by Fxfan
How Long Does It Take To Be In The Cass System posted Sun Dec 9 2007 12:30:21 by Tuhlhorn
I Want To Be A Commercial Pilot posted Fri Nov 9 2007 01:24:12 by ThreeFourThree
Reduced Approach Speed Due To Winglets? posted Wed Jul 4 2007 03:10:20 by Tom12
Is Their Going To Be A New Garmin 496 Coming Out? posted Sun Jul 1 2007 00:21:18 by FlightPlan06
What Needs To Be Updated On Current Airliners? posted Mon Apr 23 2007 03:57:34 by PanAm747
Why Do Wings Need To Be Longer, Not Wider? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 06:22:51 by CoolGuy
A380 To Be Autoland Only posted Sun Feb 25 2007 10:06:07 by Tito

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format