HP/US To Scrap (2) A320's?

starrion · Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:22 pm

Cactuswings reports the following:

A320s N645AW [238] and N646AW [271] ferried MCN-ROW on 30Mar and 31Mar respectively, both are to be scrapped.

Is it already time for the latest generation of planes to be meeting the torch? I had heard of some high time A32* getting cut up, but I didn't expect it to becoming common.

Surely there is a lot of life left in birds like these when scads of 732, 722 and A300 are flying around.

CanadianNorth · Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:38 pm

It does seem odd that A320s are being scrapped while 727s are still flyin around. Is there something wrong with these two aircraft? or is it just they flew all the hours they were designed for? (I highly doubt the second but it could happen)

CanadianNorth

RichardPrice · Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:42 pm

There have been A320 series aircraft scrapped before, so it isnt a new thing. Probably just very high hour aircraft that have become unmaintainable cost wise.

starrion · Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:42 pm

No data.

Perhaps someone in the know at HP/US could clue us in....

desertjets · Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:55 pm

It appears that 645 and 646 are orphan A320s in the USAirways West fleet. Being that they were neither new deliveries nor the ex-Pan Am/Braniff II planes. There are a handful of other orphan buses @ HP, but these two came from the same source.

So these two being leased and potential oddballs could explain why they left and/or why they are to be scrapped.

dazeflight · Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:59 pm

Quoting CanadianNorth (Reply 1):
Is there something wrong with these two aircraft?

No. The sum of the parts is worth more than the plane is worth itself. Pretty simple, isn't it?

ciao
Daniel

EI321 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:00 am

It is possible that these are due for a D check and the value of parts exceeds the current value of the airframe + the cost of a D check. I think thats why the Cyprus A320 was scrapped.

HPRamper · Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:07 am

Correct, these planes just had too many hours. HP flies, I believe, the oldest A320 still in service, this may be one that will be scrapped.

mhodgson · Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:11 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 7):
Correct, these planes just had too many hours. HP flies, I believe, the oldest A320 still in service, this may be one that will be scrapped.

Nope, BA and AF operate the oldest A320's (the A320-100's, with no wingtip fences). The oldest A320-200, maybe?

scxmechanic · Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:15 am

I'm curious to know why they would be sending them from their contract overhaul facility out to be scrapped. Maybe they found severe corrosion of some other defect that wouldn't be cost effective to repair. So they decided to terminate the patient rather that revive.

Any idea how long they were in MCN? That could give an idea of what what I just suspected above.

HPRamper · Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:56 am

Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 8):
Nope, BA and AF operate the oldest A320's (the A320-100's, with no wingtip fences). The oldest A320-200, maybe?

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for not specifying.

Candid76 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:20 am

No, they aren't amongst the oldest A320s at all. If the sum of the parts is greater than the sum of the whole, then this probably applies to most older A320s, 733s, 734s, 735s etc. so why not scrap them all?

EI321 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:29 am

Quoting Candid76 (Reply 11):
why not scrap them all?

Because they are needed for revenue service and new ones cant be aquired immediatly.

EMBQA · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:32 am

Quoting Starrion (Thread starter):
A320s N645AW [238] and N646AW [271] ferried MCN-ROW on 30Mar and 31Mar respectively, both are to be scrapped.

What makes you think they are getting scrapped...??? There is a paint shop in Roswell that USAirways uses.

ca2ohHP · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:42 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 13):
What makes you think they are getting scrapped...??? There is a paint shop in Roswell that USAirways uses.

True, but tail 645 and 646 have already been pulled out of the system. I believe these aircraft were given back to the lessor because the leases have expired on these aircraft.

starrion · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:43 am

Cactuswings reported that they were getting scrapped. They are a fairly reliable source about what's happening at their area airports and the numerous storage yards.

mah584jr · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:47 am

Quoting Starrion (Thread starter):
A320s N645AW [238] and N646AW [271] ferried MCN-ROW on 30Mar and 31Mar respectively, both are to be scrapped.

Both aircraft were leased aircraft. 745 was returned to Orix on 3/12/06 and 746 was returned to Orix on 3/10/06 according to this website.

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/A...%20West%20Airlines-stored-a320.htm

boeingbus · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:50 am

Quoting Candid76 (Reply 11):
If the sum of the parts is greater than the sum of the whole, then this probably applies to most older A320s, 733s, 734s, 735s etc. so why not scrap them all?

These are only two specific examples of where the A320 will be scrapped. This does not necessarily mean all old A320's should be as well. There are so many variables of why a bird is scrapped it would make your head spin.

Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 8):
Nope, BA and AF operate the oldest A320's (the A320-100's, with no wingtip fences).

Also, I am sure flying A320's in North America is more taxing on the bird than in Europe....

MaartenV · Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:53 am

Quoting Candid76 (Reply 11):
No, they aren't amongst the oldest A320s at all. If the sum of the parts is greater than the sum of the whole, then this probably applies to most older A320s, 733s, 734s, 735s etc. so why not scrap them all?

Because then there are less planes which need the parts, which means that the demand for parts will fall and with falling demand comes a falling price.
Thus, in the end you have wharehouse full of parts, just no planes to put them on.

Bizjetslover · Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:23 am

Here is the first A320 that was scrapped, AFAIK:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lucien Schranz

Mike Steffen

andrewuber · Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:31 am

I have a good friend who used to be pretty high up in EADS / Airbus, and I've asked him why the newer busses have such short service lives. He said quite simply that they are not built as tough as a Boeing or a Douglas. They are designed for a somewhat short service life - and there is little or no chance for life after flying with a mainline carrier. The fuselage cannot support the cargo conversion process and so most will simply be scrapped. This is why we don't see old A320's being converted to freighters.

Before anyone attempts a flaming - I am talking about the A320 family here - not the more robust A300. The A300's are more hearty and can carry more weight (floor weight on the 320 is a problem), so that's why you see so many of those.

Drew wave

September11 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:33 am

N645AW & N646NW will not be the first HP/US A320s to be scrapped. Previously N635AW was scrapped due to aircraft damage sustained from an accident.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeremy Irish - Cactus Wings

AirframeAS · Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:38 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 13):
There is a paint shop in Roswell that USAirways uses.

That is what I first thought....going to the paint shop for the new livery. I asked my AMT instructor if he knew anything at work if these planes were being scrapped and he said he doesnt know and thats news to him too.

purplebox · Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:58 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 17):
Also, I am sure flying A320's in North America is more taxing on the bird than in Europe....

Why do you think this? Please tell us.

PurpleBox.

MaartenV · Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:03 am

Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 23):
Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 17):
Also, I am sure flying A320's in North America is more taxing on the bird than in Europe....

Why do you think this? Please tell us.

Would like to know the reason asswell, because apart from import tax, I can't really think of anything else.

desertjets · Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:24 am

Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 23):
Why do you think this? Please tell us.

Quoting MaartenV (Reply 24):
Would like to know the reason asswell, because apart from import tax, I can't really think of anything else.

I dunno... b/c Americans are so fat. Confused

W/o real data on daily aircraft utilization, stage lengths, and cycles per day nobody can say that a Bus sees a more taxing life in the US domestic market vs the European short-haul market.

PlaneHunter · Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:40 am

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 20):
I have a good friend who used to be pretty high up in EADS / Airbus, and I've asked him why the newer busses have such short service lives. He said quite simply that they are not built as tough as a Boeing or a Douglas.

And the old myth lives on. There has never been a reliable source available on that claim and as long as there isn't any evidence it's not more than just a rumor.

AF's A320-100 fleet's average fleet age is 18 years - and the aircraft are not planned to leave anytime soon. Quite a high number for "short service life" aircraft...

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 20):
They are designed for a somewhat short service life - and there is little or no chance for life after flying with a mainline carrier. The fuselage cannot support the cargo conversion process and so most will simply be scrapped.

Numerous early A320s have been placed again with other carriers - and these will continue to fly.

PH

purplebox · Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:27 am

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 25):
I dunno... b/c Americans are so fat.

This was completely uncalled for - especially when you quoted me.

I was simply asking BoeingBus for more information that suports his point of view.

PurpleBox.

boeingbus · Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:40 am

Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 23):

Considering European capitals are closer together than the US I thought that planes in the US would incur more average flight time than an airline in Europe. It was simply an educated guess. BOS to LAX is almost as far as BOS to LHR - so maybe the single aisle jets are up in the air more often in the US but the EU they have more cycles.

Am I wrong saying jets in the US incur more average flight time in one year than in Europe?

If I am... that is OK.. but I thought there was more land mass here.

HPLASOps · Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:42 am

Quoting Starrion (Thread starter):
A320s N645AW [238] and N646AW [271] ferried MCN-ROW on 30Mar and 31Mar respectively, both are to be scrapped.

IIRC, 645/646 both had A1 engines which limited their performance on east coast flights. Sure it's sad to loose a pair of A320s, especially when we have our Boeing fleet earmarked for eventual retirement with no new ones on order. Our eventual goal is to become an all Airbus fleet.

Scorpio · Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:56 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 28):
Considering European capitals are closer together than the US I thought that planes in the US would incur more average flight time than an airline in Europe.

Actually, that would put them through less of a beating iso more: longer flights means less cycles, and cycles are much more important when it comes to how much of a 'beating' an aircraft has had.

[Edited 2006-04-24 21:57:32]

A342 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:56 am

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 26):
AF's A320-100 fleet's average fleet age is 18 years - and the aircraft are not planned to leave anytime soon. Quite a high number for "short service life" aircraft...

Are these aircraft scheduled to go through future D checks ? If they are, maybe these A320-100 aircraft could even get the new style winglets. On the -100 their usefulnes would be higher than on the -200.

Back to the topic, if these 2 aircraft are leased, it is the lessor who decides their fate.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 28):
so maybe the single aisle jets are up in the air more often in the US but the EU they have more cycles.

I think in general more cycles is worse for the aircraft than many hours, especially for crucial parts like engines, landing gear, tyres, brakes and APU.

PlaneHunter · Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:04 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 31):
On the -100 their usefulnes would be higher than on the -200.

I doubt that minor fuel savings on short sectors (where the -100s are mainly used) would justify the expenses for new winglets.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 30):

Actually, that would put them through less of a beating iso more: longer flights means less cycles, and cycles are much more important when it comes to an aircraft's 'age'.

Quoting A342 (Reply 31):
I think in general more cycles is worse for the aircraft than many hours, especially for crucial parts like engines, landing gear, tyres, brakes and APU.

PH

boeingbus · Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:08 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 30):

Actually, that would put them through less of a beating iso more: longer flights means less cycles, and cycles are much more important when it comes to how much of a 'beating' an aircraft has had.

arent checks based on flight time?

A342 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:17 am

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 32):
I doubt that minor fuel savings on short sectors (where the -100s are mainly used) would justify the expenses for new winglets.

Oil price has never been so high before. And look at WN: Their 737-700s also have winglets, but IIRC are mainly used on shorter sectors.

But somehow I agree with you: First those new winglets have to prove their savings potential.

burnsie28 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 7):
Correct, these planes just had too many hours. HP flies, I believe, the oldest A320 still in service, this may be one that will be scrapped.

And seeing how NW still flies the first A320 in the US...

frugalqxnwa · Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 27):
Quoting DesertJets (Reply 25):
I dunno... b/c Americans are so fat.

This was completely uncalled for - especially when you quoted me.

I was simply asking BoeingBus for more information that suports his point of view.

Interesting, as an American myself, I found that to be one of the better one-liners I have seen on a.net in a while. DesertJets was most likely being a smarta$$ and intended to get a laugh out of people.

PlaneHunter · Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:42 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 34):
And look at WN: Their 737-700s also have winglets, but IIRC are mainly used on shorter sectors.

WN's B73Gs are used on trips all around the US, including many transcons. It makes sense for them to add the winglets.

PH

flyabunch · Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:45 am

I find it hard to believe that the 320 family is built any less stout than the 737 family. I think the main reason that we have not seen conversion to freighters is the demand to use them for passengers. Other conversions have only taken place when the need in the passenger market decreases. For example, the MD-11 did not live up to expectations as a passenger plane thus it was in for conversion relatively early.

The 320 family is still very popular and selling well. I think the main reason to break a few up is for their value as parts. Remember that the owner (leasing company) has already fully depreciated these two planes. That makes them very appealing as parts donors.

Mike

N1120A · Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:57 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 17):
Also, I am sure flying A320's in North America is more taxing on the bird than in Europe....

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 28):
Considering European capitals are closer together than the US I thought that planes in the US would incur more average flight time than an airline in Europe

You got that backward. Flying longer hauls is better for an airplane than shorter hops and fewer hours, just like driving your car at high speed on a highway is better for it than stop and go traffic and grocery runs, no matter what the odometer says.

Caspian27 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:13 am

Quoting Ca2ohHP (Reply 14):
What makes you think they are getting scrapped...??? There is a paint shop in Roswell that USAirways uses.

That's true. I was flying the pattern at ROW a few months ago in an A36 while an HP 320 newly painted in the new scheme was flying low approaches on a different runway. There was a few other 320's on the ramp that were recently painted also.

fokkerf28 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:33 am

Quoting Starrion (Thread starter):
A320s N645AW [238] and N646AW [271] ferried MCN-ROW on 30Mar and 31Mar respectively, both are to be scrapped

I find it hard to believe that they are being scrapped. I belive they went to MCN for maintanance and to ROW for painting in the new colors. I will investigate.

bredman1 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:35 am

Actually these aircraft are below midlife. But when you consider the price you can get out of the parts for a relative new aircraft it is a good investment. No they are not due a D check. It is all in the money.
You can buy a brand aircraft and part it out and double your investment.

jmc1975 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:37 am

645 and 646, IIRC, had no adjustable passenger airvents. They became a real customer service albatross for HP.

andrewuber · Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:28 am

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 26):
And the old myth lives on. There has never been a reliable source available on that claim and as long as there isn't any evidence it's not more than just a rumor.

A. It's no myth.

B. You want a reliable source? Direct your browser to the following link, and search for "A320 F" or "A320 Freighter".

https://www.airliners.net/search/index.main

Didn't find any results? That's because there aren't any out there. So let that end the mystery - it's no rumor - it's not heresay.

Quoting Flyabunch (Reply 38):
I find it hard to believe that the 320 family is built any less stout than the 737 family.

One of the main issues is floor strength. Our (Kitty Hawk's) 737-300's have strengthened floor beams which allow us to load pallets that can put a 9,000 pound footprint on one pallet position. An A320 would not be able to handle that kind of weight - period. Even if it could - by the time you re-inforce the floor beams and moments, the extra weight would render the conversion useless (unless you were going to fly ULD's full of down pillows over short distances).

The "Baby Busses" are good airplanes - but they have a very short lifespan. Baby Boeings on the other hand are still going strong - some are 40+ years old and flying heavy freight daily in our system. That says something about Boeing durability and design.

I'm not trying to stoke up an A versus B debate - they are both very good airplanes, and I'm not partial to either one. All I'm saying is the A320 family has a very short service life as compared to Boeing birds. duck

Drew

PurdueAv2003 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:30 am

Quoting Flyabunch (Reply 38):
I find it hard to believe that the 320 family is built any less stout than the 737 family.

Well, believe it. I've worked on my share of 737's and A32S's and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 737 frame, in general, is more damage tolerant and more robust than the A320. There is a good reason for this, though. As aircraft engineering has come of age, we have learned better, lighter ways to handle the loads of pressurization and flight. The 737's and DC-9/MD-80's are carrying around a lot more material that isn't necessarily needed. However, those older fuselages have a longer life. So you have a tradeoff. Use one airframe longer but pay more for fuel, or save on fuel by carrying around less structure but replace the airframe sooner.

bredman1 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:31 am

645 and 646, IIRC, had no adjustable passenger airvents. They became a real customer service albatross for HP.

Bulls*** I had them in my hand today and they are adjustable. the complete interior of 646AW is already removed and for sale.

HPRamper · Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:05 am

Quoting Fokkerf28 (Reply 41):
I find it hard to believe that they are being scrapped. I belive they went to MCN for maintanance and to ROW for painting in the new colors. I will investigate.

http://www.cactuswings.blogspot.com/

And check the third entry. There are indeed aircraft coming into ROW both for painting and for scrapping.

474218 · Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:05 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 31):
I think in general more cycles is worse for the aircraft than many hours, especially for crucial parts like engines, landing gear, tyres, brakes and APU.

All FAA timed requirements are now based on cycles, rather than flight hours, because it is a better gage of airframe life. The A320 is has a Design Life of 48,000 flights.

I would suspect if these were early build A320 there are problems with the wings. Gamco showed me the repairs they were making in the wing planks of some Gulf Air A320's to correct cracking and corrosion problems. The work was quite extensive required oversize fasteners to correct the cracking around fastener holes and counter boring in to the wing skins to remove corrosion.

We're Nuts · Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:35 am

Quoting Jmc1975 (Reply 43):
645 and 646, IIRC, had no adjustable passenger airvents. They became a real customer service albatross for HP.

So swap out the PSU's, duh. Are you of the mindset that the best way to cure the disease is to kill the patient? Silly

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net