I'm surprised FI isn't looking to convert any for their own freighter opportunities. Dissapointing nonetheless with the scrapping of 757's.

I hope TF-FIC is gone, they couldn't even bother to install wifi on it this time around. And just told us it wasn't working lol.

Any speculation on buyers? Besides AA, FX, 5N, and UA, who else has sizeable fleets of RR 757s?

TWA772LR wrote:

Any speculation on buyers? Besides AA, FX, 5N, and UA, who else has sizeable fleets of RR 757s?

AA? They just retired their fleet, why would they be interested in buying them?

Breathe wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Any speculation on buyers? Besides AA, FX, 5N, and UA, who else has sizeable fleets of RR 757s?

AA? They just retired their fleet, why would they be interested in buying them?

Heck some of these aircraft are former AA birds.

I'd wager SF is a safe bet for the freighters.

TWA772LR wrote:

Any speculation on buyers? Besides AA, FX, 5N, and UA, who else has sizeable fleets of RR 757s?

I don’t expect United to, they’ve got plenty of MAX waiting to come back on line, and the XLR as the long term 757 replacement.

Im surprised no talk of Cabo Verde airlines getting some. Doesnt Icelandair own the majority of the company/their 757s?

Also the Cabo Verde Airlines deal is reportedly on thin ice. FI was worried Cape Verde were going to seize the aircraft as wages are not being paid so they flew the aircraft to be stored at OPF. They were due to add another 757 D4-CCE which was painted in their livery at CAN, then was repainted all white, the registration cancelled and flown to KEF as 2-CCEA.

https://expressodasilhas.cv/economia/20 ... -cva/71642

Revelation wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Four 757-200s will be scrapped: https://www.visir.is/g/20202022150d/fjo ... estu-vikum

Fish of Iceland, rejoice!

Are those ex-AA birds? If so, they would be incredibly high up in utilization. I cannot imagine there is much life left on the scrapped birds.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Four 757-200s will be scrapped: https://www.visir.is/g/20202022150d/fjo ... estu-vikum

Fish of Iceland, rejoice!

Are those ex-AA birds? If so, they would be incredibly high up in utilization. I cannot imagine there is much life left on the scrapped birds.

Lightsaber

If they are indeed 1994 and 2000-manufactured as mentioned above, several former IB could fit in the description along with at laeast one former ATA.

lightsaber wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Four 757-200s will be scrapped: https://www.visir.is/g/20202022150d/fjo ... estu-vikum

Fish of Iceland, rejoice!

Are those ex-AA birds? If so, they would be incredibly high up in utilization. I cannot imagine there is much life left on the scrapped birds.

Lightsaber

At least TF-ISL is ex. AA N661AA. TF-ISY, TF-ISF, TF-ISD and TF-ISK are also some 1990 - 1992 vintage ex. AA birds, which I suspect are likely candidates for scrapping. I think TF-ISY (ironically the oldest one) will be the one surviving as it joined FI one year later, while all the others will be scrapped as they should share nearly the same amount of hours, cycles and maintenance intervals.

They have 25 757-200s? I had no idea it was so many.

PM wrote:

They have 25 757-200s? I had no idea it was so many.

Plus two cargo: https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Icelandair

Maybe TF-FIA might be the 2000 bird to be sold? It hasn't flown ever since it's gear collapse earlier this year

I know some people have a deep affinity for any 757 and are having withdrawal symptoms like from quitting smoking with some now facing scrapping. They are a great model but at some point they become physically obsolete, push limits of hours and cycles, burn too much fuel, mx costs increase, newer models are more efficient and eventually the accountants at FI say they have to go. The Covid-19 pandemic economic and airline fallout is a tipping factor as well. By removing them by scrapping may be a better tax write off, they save big bucks in storage, insurance costs. Right now every airline in the world must conserve cash, cut costs to the bone to be around when the pandemic is over and well beyond due to the financial depression it has triggered.

There have been many days during this pandemic where two back-to-back cargo 757s plus a 767 passenger flight have been coming to Boston.

ltbewr wrote:

They are a great model but at some point they become physically obsolete, push limits of hours and cycles, burn too much fuel, mx costs increase, newer models are more efficient and eventually the accountants at FI say they have to go.

That argument is broadly true but it's not cycles, hours, age or fuel costs that are killing these 757s: FI just doesn't need the capacity in the Covid-19 era.

Everybody can look for fleet cuts by pretty much every passenger carrier. Older aircraft are targets because they're not good candidates for expensive long-life maintenance investment; types with a (small) unique pilot group will be targets. Anything with a high trip cost (high passenger count, not-great fuel burn, or maintenance hogs) will be a target.

MIflyer12 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

They are a great model but at some point they become physically obsolete, push limits of hours and cycles, burn too much fuel, mx costs increase, newer models are more efficient and eventually the accountants at FI say they have to go.

That argument is broadly true but it's not cycles, hours, age or fuel costs that are killing these 757s: FI just doesn't need the capacity in the Covid-19 era.

Everybody can look for fleet cuts by pretty much every passenger carrier. Older aircraft are targets because they're not good candidates for expensive long-life maintenance investment; types with a (small) unique pilot group will be targets. Anything with a high trip cost (high passenger count, not-great fuel burn, or maintenance hogs) will be a target.

To expand on your comment:

Older aircraft are also targets as their book value is close to the scrap value. Rephrasing, the airlines kept high variable cost aircraft as during the prior boom that reduced required investment (refuced fixed costs) while providing a surge capacity.


In my opinion, the A321NEO, in particular the highest MTOW variants, is an excellent 752 replacement. For most of the US3 (the bulk if 752 pax operations), the MAX-10 would be an equally good replacement. I am personally a fan of frequency, so I see nothing wrong with A320NEO or -8 MAX replacing the 752s. (Not fir Iceland Air, but in general).

For Iceland air, a fleet reduction to avoid heavy maintenance visits or to just cut engine maintenance costs is just wise.

It is with anticipation and dread I look forward to the 3q2020 earnings reports of all airlines.

Lightsaber

ltbewr wrote:

They are a great model but at some point they become physically obsolete, push limits of hours and cycles, burn too much fuel, mx costs increase, newer models are more efficient....

Shhh! Don't tell FX (119 frames) and 5X (75 frames)

tjwgrr wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

They are a great model but at some point they become physically obsolete, push limits of hours and cycles, burn too much fuel, mx costs increase, newer models are more efficient....

Shhh! Don't tell FX (119 frames) and 5X (75 frames)

Wont happen. FX is quite content with what they got. They wont be adding any more

Could Titan Airways be interested in a 757?

TWA772LR wrote:

Any speculation on buyers? Besides AA, FX, 5N, and UA, who else has sizeable fleets of RR 757s?

UA already has parked 752's ready to go if needed. Granted they're the 240k MTOW PW models, but UA is happy with their 787-10s right now, both on transcons and TATLs. They have plenty of 752s, 753s, 739s, and hopefully soon MAX 9s/10s to fill in the rest, with A321XLRs coming in the long term.

For the ones to be scrapped, 5X, FX, or UA will likely be in the market for those engines and parts.

tjwgrr wrote:

Shhh! Don't tell FX (119 frames) and 5X (75 frames)

IIRC all of 5X's 757s are factory-built freighters. They don't take conversions.

readytotaxi wrote:

Could Titan Airways be interested in a 757?

Titan's 2 Boeing 757s were already due to leave the fleet in 2020, so I doubt they would be in the market for more. They have 2 A321neo on order to replace the 757.

ltbewr wrote:

... burn too much fuel,
mx costs increase,
newer models are more efficient...
and eventually the advice from the * accountants at...
...The Covid-19 pandemic economic and airline fallout is a tipping factor as well.
By removing them by scrapping may be;
... a better tax write off,
... they save big bucks in storage,
...they save big bucks in insurance costs.
...Right now every airline in the world must conserve cash, cut costs to the bone to be around when the pandemic is over and well beyond due to the financial depression it has triggered.

So I apologizing for pulling it out this way - but I really want to thank you for explaining as well some of the other considerations (and how they mature) in making that decision. Past the point of the aircraft not being there, there are many 'hidden' costs and savings that well equate to the:

ltbewr wrote:

and eventually the accountants at FI say they have to go...

*{sorry, but paraphrasing to suit the visual}

Once again, thanks for putting that light to the decision making process. One good thing to come out of 2020, I suppose - those of us that survive it will be able to see that we have seen it all. Could you have imagined having this conversation, a year ago?

Rajahdhani wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

... burn too much fuel,
mx costs increase,
newer models are more efficient...
and eventually the advice from the * accountants at...
...The Covid-19 pandemic economic and airline fallout is a tipping factor as well.
By removing them by scrapping may be;
... a better tax write off,
... they save big bucks in storage,
...they save big bucks in insurance costs.
...Right now every airline in the world must conserve cash, cut costs to the bone to be around when the pandemic is over and well beyond due to the financial depression it has triggered.

So I apologizing for pulling it out this way - but I really want to thank you for explaining as well some of the other considerations (and how they mature) in making that decision. Past the point of the aircraft not being there, there are many 'hidden' costs and savings that well equate to the:

ltbewr wrote:

and eventually the accountants at FI say they have to go...

*{sorry, but paraphrasing to suit the visual}

Once again, thanks for putting that light to the decision making process. One good thing to come out of 2020, I suppose - those of us that survive it will be able to see that we have seen it all. Could you have imagined having this conversation, a year ago?

This is a great example of:
1. Risk, how the lockdown is favoring dedicated freighters, conversions, and airlines with low leverage.
2. Fixed costs for keeping aircraft, it is not free. Regulated markets have high continuing costs
3. Rapid shifts in Aircraft availability.
4. How even with cheaper oil pricing, older aircraft might still be scrapped.

I believe Iceland Air is making rational choices. The 757 is a neat aircraft, but so is the A321NEO.

Lightsaber

I notice Icelandic has two 757-300s, Rolls Royce powered that are now in storage. TF-FIX was bought new March 18, 2002 and stored Oct. 1, 2020. TF-ISX was bought used on March 1, 2018 and stored on Sept 7, 2020. I am curious if they are in temporary storage or will be retired. Delta has 16 757-351s that are Pratt & Whitney powered so I doubt they would have an interest in them. United has a slightly larger number that are from Continental and Rolls Royce powered. United most likely would not want them either. If Iclelandic does not return them to service I doubt their is much future for them as they would be orphan aircraft and only used as parts aircraft.

Rajahdhani wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

... burn too much fuel,
mx costs increase,
newer models are more efficient...
and eventually the advice from the * accountants at...
...The Covid-19 pandemic economic and airline fallout is a tipping factor as well.
By removing them by scrapping may be;
... a better tax write off,
... they save big bucks in storage,
...they save big bucks in insurance costs.
...Right now every airline in the world must conserve cash, cut costs to the bone to be around when the pandemic is over and well beyond due to the financial depression it has triggered.

So I apologizing for pulling it out this way - but I really want to thank you for explaining as well some of the other considerations (and how they mature) in making that decision. Past the point of the aircraft not being there, there are many 'hidden' costs and savings that well equate to the:

ltbewr wrote:

and eventually the accountants at FI say they have to go...

*{sorry, but paraphrasing to suit the visual}

Once again, thanks for putting that light to the decision making process. One good thing to come out of 2020, I suppose - those of us that survive it will be able to see that we have seen it all. Could you have imagined having this conversation, a year ago?

I think last year FI was planning on retiring some of the oldest 752's to make room for the Max's, so it wouldn't have been too surprising.

Who knows what's going to happen now...

NWAROOSTER wrote:

I notice Icelandic has two 757-300s, Rolls Royce powered that are now in storage. TF-FIX was bought new March 18, 2002 and stored Oct. 1, 2020. TF-ISX was bought used on March 1, 2018 and stored on Sept 7, 2020. I am curious if they are in temporary storage or will be retired. Delta has 16 757-351s that are Pratt & Whitney powered so I doubt they would have an interest in them. United has a slightly larger number that are from Continental and Rolls Royce powered. United most likely would not want them either. If Iclelandic does not return them to service I doubt their is much future for them as they would be orphan aircraft and only used as parts aircraft.

DE also let go of a leased unit. I'm sure FI is keen on keeping theirs. I always wondered why AA never picked up any 753s.

Those birds spent a lot of time over the years at KF Aerospace in Kelowna in heavy maintenance. They know more about those aircraft than Icelandair themselves.

Have they hinted at what they will replace them with,once traffic starts picking up and since the 737MAX future is very uncertain?

marcogr12 wrote:

Have they hinted at what they will replace them with,once traffic starts picking up and since the 737MAX future is very uncertain?

There have been rumours about an A321neo order, but at the moment, who knows? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1440641

Ishrion wrote:

According to this: https://flugblogg.is/2020/10/08/iceland ... the-fleet/


The 757s that will be scrapped - TF-ISL, TF-ISY, TF-FIJ, and TF-ISF

Those aircraft are all less than 30 years old and they all have Rolls Royce engines. They should not be scrapped. They can serve as an excellent replacement for Iran Aseman’s 727-200 fleet. Those 4 727s have not flown in over a year.

Trump will not buy a 757-200 unless it has Rolls Royce engines.

FlyingViking wrote:

On a one for one I think the 321Neo is a better replacement for a 757 though.

Icelandair’s worst mistake

FlyingViking wrote:

My son flew on the 738Max last year ORD-KEF-ORD before the grounding. Is the Max done at Icelandair?. I thought Icelandair still had a bunch in storage. I expect it to be cleared for service in a few weeks/months. On a one for one I think the 321Neo is a better replacement for a 757 though.

Me too was on a FI 738max shortly before the grounding - CPH-KEF. So your son and I were winning a 249,999 against 250,000 chance of survival. Well your son in fact 124,999 against 125,000 since he made a return flight on the Max.

I returned on a 30 years old 752 recently bought from AA. In fact I felt a lot more uncomfortable on that 752 after having noticed all that plaster doublers all over that old bird. I have forgotten the registration of that plane, but I really do hope that it is one of the four planes now being scrapped.

Normally FI didn't fly such old planes which needed sheet plaster for not falling apart. Maybe it was financially needed to buy those old worn out AA scrapheeps in order to kill off competitor WOW? They are gone now, so get over it.

santi319 wrote:

FlyingViking wrote:

On a one for one I think the 321Neo is a better replacement for a 757 though.

Icelandair’s worst mistake

Care to explain?

WayexTDI wrote:

santi319 wrote:

FlyingViking wrote:

On a one for one I think the 321Neo is a better replacement for a 757 though.

Icelandair’s worst mistake

Care to explain?

I'd like to be educated too.

The A321CEO lacked range for Icelandair, but for many airlines was a great cost savings. The A321CEO had 1,800 ordered, with a surge post Sharlets and engine PiPs as that was needed for many operators, in particular the US3 (reliable TCON range). The Select One/Two PiPs changed the V2500 popularity on the A321. The A321NEO has 1,985 orders and the NEO engines really were optimized for the long NEO, so sales should do better.

I guess we should be talking payload at range, because it is all about the fish. The A321NEO raised the bar enough and cut costs tremendously.

For Icelandair, I couldn't think of a better better option.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

santi319 wrote:

Icelandair’s worst mistake

Care to explain?

I'd like to be educated too.

The A321CEO lacked range for Icelandair, but for many airlines was a great cost savings. The A321CEO had 1,800 ordered, with a surge post Sharlets and engine PiPs as that was needed for many operators, in particular the US3 (reliable TCON range). The Select One/Two PiPs changed the V2500 popularity on the A321. The A321NEO has 1,985 orders and the NEO engines really were optimized for the long NEO, so sales should do better.

I guess we should be talking payload at range, because it is all about the fish. The A321NEO raised the bar enough and cut costs tremendously.

For Icelandair, I couldn't think of a better better option.

Lightsaber

The A321LR and A321XRL should be able to carry the same payload as a B752 - or greater - in almost all circumstances. The only scenario in which a B752 will perform better, is a in a hot-and-high scenario such as Denver.

If you compare the payload range line for A321XLR and A321LR to a B752, it generally allows for greater payload at most distances. However, the B752 cargo hold has more space. For Icelandair specifically, that doesn't matter too much, because fish has high weight density, so you'll run out of payload weight before you run out of space. Therefore, super useful for exporting fish.

FlyingViking wrote:

santi319 wrote:

FlyingViking wrote:

On a one for one I think the 321Neo is a better replacement for a 757 though.

Icelandair’s worst mistake

I was surprised when FI ordered the 8Max. Is it that they figured it was easier to fill the smaller 8Max than a bigger 321Ceo/Neo at a decent yield?

So was I, but I guess they got a good deal from Boeing.

WayexTDI wrote:

santi319 wrote:

FlyingViking wrote:

On a one for one I think the 321Neo is a better replacement for a 757 though.

Icelandair’s worst mistake

Care to explain?

The A321Neo and LR was inspired in the 757, specially for Single aisle medium to long haul. FI was a 757 operator for medium to long haul flights, its a no brainer. I really don’t understand what their management was thinking. Perhaps they wanted more frequency and smaller niche destinations with the Max? Who knows. I think if it isn’t broken, why fix it. I guess now they learned the hard way.

santi319 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

santi319 wrote:

Icelandair’s worst mistake

Care to explain?

The A321Neo and LR was inspired in the 757, specially for Single aisle medium to long haul. FI was a 757 operator for medium to long haul flights, its a no brainer. I really don’t understand what their management was thinking. Perhaps they wanted more frequency and smaller niche destinations with the Max? Who knows. I think if it isn’t broken, why fix it. I guess now they learned the hard way.

If it isn't broken, why fix it???
Well, first thing is because the 757 has been out of production for 16 years now; so, no more new planes, no more improvement, etc.
Then, the 757 is a much heavier aircraft than the A321, and not as efficient.
Lastly, because the A321 (with the neo, LR and XLR) has drastically encroached in the 757 "territory"; which makes the latter no longer a viable option when a newer more efficient model more attractive.

People need to finally realize that the 757 golden years are behind us; no need to dwell on the past and on less efficient aircraft, especially when aviation is attacked worldwide by green movements.

WayexTDI wrote:

santi319 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Care to explain?

The A321Neo and LR was inspired in the 757, specially for Single aisle medium to long haul. FI was a 757 operator for medium to long haul flights, its a no brainer. I really don’t understand what their management was thinking. Perhaps they wanted more frequency and smaller niche destinations with the Max? Who knows. I think if it isn’t broken, why fix it. I guess now they learned the hard way.

If it isn't broken, why fix it???
Well, first thing is because the 757 has been out of production for 16 years now; so, no more new planes, no more improvement, etc.
Then, the 757 is a much heavier aircraft than the A321, and not as efficient.
Lastly, because the A321 (with the neo, LR and XLR) has drastically encroached in the 757 "territory"; which makes the latter no longer a viable option when a newer more efficient model more attractive.

People need to finally realize that the 757 golden years are behind us; no need to dwell on the past and on less efficient aircraft, especially when aviation is attacked worldwide by green movements.

Yes I am saying the same thing as you. The A321Neo and LR are almost a direct replacement to the 757. Thats what I meant by if it isn’t broken why fix it.

Replacing them with 737Max changes everything.