Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:34 pm

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 15):
Am I the only one not sad to see an A340 scrapped?

You might very well be. Like the plane or not, it's a part of aviation history, and it's sad to see it (or any other airplane) go to the chopper.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:55 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
The Varig 777 was a strange case, and likely needed so much money to bring to service condition that the scrappers bid ended up being the highest.

And, pray tell, exactly what 'proof' do you have to say that something equally 'strange' isn't going on with this A340? See, this is exactly what I was referring to: whenever a young Boeing goes to the scrapper, there is always an explanation, it's always 'exceptional', etc. Whenever a young Airbus goes the same way, those same people, usually without knowledge of the case itself, are always immediately jumping on the 'it's because of the poor build quality' bandwagon.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
And Scorpio, if its SUCH a myth why are low cycle A320's getting sent to the desert?

Why are equally young 737-300s and 737-400s being sent to the desert as well?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Oates


Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
Pssst dude, your bias is showing...

1) Don't 'psst' me;
2) I think you're the last who needs to be teaching anybody anything about bias.

[Edited 2007-07-25 11:57:10]
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:53 pm

Quoting KBGRbillT (Reply 32):
Quoting N471WN (Thread starter):
According to ATDB, the first A-340 scrapping will take place at Goodyear and is ship #16 registered D-AIEL



Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 4):
And here as D-AEIL the day it was ferried to XFW from MUC.

Which tail number is it? I took a photo of it at BGR the other day when it was on its' way to GYR and I want to upload the photo with the correct tail number. Thanks

???You have already registration D-AIEL and MSN 016. What else do you want???
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:13 pm

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 51):
And, pray tell, exactly what 'proof' do you have to say that something equally 'strange' isn't going on with this A340? See, this is exactly what I was referring to: whenever a young Boeing goes to the scrapper, there is always an explanation, it's always 'exceptional', etc. Whenever a young Airbus goes the same way, those same people, usually without knowledge of the case itself, are always immediately jumping on the 'it's because of the poor build quality' bandwagon.

I didn't say anything to the A340 beign scrapped. I just pointed out that your argument has 0 wieght to disprove OTHERS argument that Airbus builds lower cycle airplanes.

I don't mind you calling me an airbus basher given your realty is so warped that you think that EVERY SINGLE THING one says about airbus has to be postive or one is an airbus basher.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:20 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 53):
I don't mind you calling me an airbus basher given your realty is so warped that you think that EVERY SINGLE THING one says about airbus has to be postive or one is an airbus basher.

I don't know just what discussion you've been following exactly, but if I read back through this one, what I see is me simply asking, without accusing anyone or calling anyone a 'basher', why people are always referring to 'poor build quality' when an Airbus is scrapped, but never when an equally young Boeing is scrapped. The one who made this into a matter of 'bias', and who chose to take that as an attack, my friend, is you, in your first reply.
 
columba
Posts: 5232
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:26 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
Pssst dude, your bias is showing...



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 22):
it means that the "myth" that airbus makes good planes is busted.....

talking of bias  Smile

But back to the topic it is really sad to see the first A340 being scrapped. They are beautiful aircraft and I remeber how amazed I was seeing the first A340 in Airbus house colors at the ILA in Berlin performing a great display. The A340 was also the first aircraft that took me over the Atlantic for the first time and I have flown it several times with LH and Sabena.
It is a special aircraft for me a true successor of my all time favorit the 707.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
EI321
Posts: 5029
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:40 pm

Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 31):
Quoting N471WN (Thread starter):
registered D-AIEL and owned by Lufthansa Technik

Does anybody know why it is now owned by Lufthansa Technik?

They probably bought it to use its parts on other A340s

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 53):
I didn't say anything to the A340 beign scrapped. I just pointed out that your argument has 0 wieght to disprove OTHERS argument that Airbus builds lower cycle airplanes.

Its no good comparing aircraft cycle design hours without also taking into account range. An aircraft with 2500m range and 40000cycle life is broadly the same as an aircraft with 5000m range and 20000cycle life. Look at the below info.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 49):
Some select data from the 2002 census (couldn't find that in the FLIGHT archive).

type EIS cycles hours

DC-8 1959 25.000 50.000
DC-9 1965 40.000 35.000
DC-10 1970 42.000 60.000 (-10/-30, -40 30.000 clycles only)

L1011 1972 115.000 210.000

A300 1974 36.000 60.000
A310 1983 35.000 60.000
A320 1988 48.000 60.000
A330 1994 40.000*
A340 1993 20.000*

B737 1968 75.000 51.000 (Classic)
B747 1970 20.000 60.000 (Classic)
B757 1983 100.000 -
B767 1982 100.000 -
B737 1984 75.000 51.000 (737-3/-4/-5)
B777 1995 40.000*

The aircrafts life can be determined by cycles or hours, whichever comes first.

According to the above a DC9 flying 2 hour sectors will hit its design hour limit after 17500 flights. A 737 flying 2 hour flights will hit the design hour limit after 25500 flights. An A320 flying 2 hour sectors will hit the design hour limit after 30000 flights.


Then we have economic reasons for parting out.

For instance, why is NW parting out some A320's but keeping 40 year old DC9's flying? Simple - their A320s have a high second hand parts value, whereas nobody wants a DC9 these days so NW would end up making Milwawkees Best cans from them, and I doubt beer cans are worth millions to a cash strapped airline.
 
cricket
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:23 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:01 pm

Question - How many beer cans would a plane make???

This aircraft must have undergone serious repairs for the LHR incident with VS so that could have taken a few years off the life of the plane as well. I guess that airlines don't particularly care for the non-E/X versions of the A340, even AF is retiring those planes...
been there, flown that
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:03 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 42):
A320 - 48,000
B737 - 75,000

Looking at the figures this is the only one where there is a significant difference between comparable aircraft. It is surprising since, as mentioned by Rheinbote, the A320 is a short range aircraft likely to see high cycles.

Quoting Moo (Reply 42):
A330 - 40,000
A340 - 20,000

B747 - 20,000
B767 - 50,000
B777 - 44,000

As shown here, there is not an appreciable difference between the aircraft designed for the same missions, except for the 777, which has an abnormally high design life for a long-range aircraft. I suspect the 767 is as high as it is because it was envisioned that it would do a lot of short-range high-density routes, as it was not designed as ETOPS, even though it does have fairly long range. After all, it was intended to compete with the A300 and A310, both of which were short range planes.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 43):
Why make an aircraft too durable? That just means it has to be built heavier and more fuel hungry.

This is exactly the point. The greater the built-in life the heavier the structure has to be. Extra weight means extra fuel consumption. Like everything else in engineering, it is a tradeoff. Why build a plane that will last forever if by doing so it uses more fuel every time it takes off and thus is uneconomic in comparison? There is a balance to be found, and Boeing and Airbus have located the balance at slightly different points. As noted above, the only really wide divergence is between the 737 and A320.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:19 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 56):
Its no good comparing aircraft cycle design hours without also taking into account range. An aircraft with 2500m range and 40000cycle life is broadly the same as an aircraft with 5000m range and 20000cycle life. Look at the below info.

No doubt. In this case I don;t think it matters to much for scorpios lack of an argument, but for general comparison its very important.

It also needs to be said that the care of an airframe is more important than the actual design of said airframe. The super high cycle 737's still flying safely all have one thing in common, a long life in the hands of owners who looked after them. The aloha 737 was very positive for safety in that it made airlines really keep after it, as suddenly they had dramatic evidence that being a little bit lax made problems reach out and bite you. Its one of the reasons despite the AD for the A320 wingbox problem, I don't hesitate to fly on them. Its watched in all the good airlines, and is easy to repair, if not cost effective on some frames.

Also I fully expect most if not all A340 to head to the scrappers due to inservice economics making it the frame to leave when surplus capacity needs dumped, or parts value worth more than continued service value minus the Dcheck cost that just came due. NOT any service life issues. Some of course will be sold to 4th rate airlines in 3rd world nations who will manage to find all kinds of ways to stuff them in the trees so... there is that route to "scrapping" too.

In fact the only airframe I expect to suffer from a policy of low cycle limits (if Airbus actualy has said policy) would be the A320 but I don't expect it to show for a while as so far most airlines have had old 737 classics to dump on the super high cycle routes where fuel burn and the like isn't very important. So lets revisit this argument in 5years when the early 320's have piled on more service and have less protection from the worst routes as 737 classics go away.
 
KBGRbillT
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:15 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:22 pm

Quoting Breiz (Reply 52):
???You have already registration D-AIEL and MSN 016. What else do you want???

If you looked a little closer than your knee jerk glance and then responce you would have noticed that both posts that I quoted contained 2 differenet tail numbers!! So, what else I want is the actual tail number. Is it D-AIEL or is it D-AEIL? Please read the posts carefully before you jump on someones post and look like an a#%!!!
 
RayPettit
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 9:04 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:26 pm

Let's get a bit real here.

Examples of many types have been broken up after 13 years. When I was growing up types like the Bristol Britannia were commonplace to me but then many were scrapped after 13 years as the demand for their further use plummeted.

At least with the A340, A320 and so on, they are still in production and are flying in ample numbers!

Ray
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:30 pm

Quoting KBGRbillT (Reply 60):
Is it D-AIEL or is it D-AEIL?

It's D-AEIL, as I've searched Airlinerlist and that's what is written for MSN 016. Probably just a typo from the thread starter. Here's the same picture with that rego. Cheers

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=613267
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:33 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 56):

L1011 1972 115.000 210.000

This is a clear case of an overbuilt airliner. It was also an unsuccessful one; if it had been built a bit lighter might it have perhaps fared better? Not only because it would have used a little less fuel but also because it would have cost a lot less to build, and Lockheed might have lost less money building it. There certainly were many other factors leading to its demise, but the fact remains that it was way overbuilt. I doubt that a single one has come close to its design life in actual service.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:37 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 63):
This is a clear case of an overbuilt airliner.

Careful, the L1011 made extensive use on bonding instead of riveting, which may be a factor here.
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:42 pm

Quoting Cricket (Reply 57):
Question - How many beer cans would a plane make???

The numbers are right there dude!
Now I understand why most of the Tristars have already disappeared... Big grin

Quoting EI321 (Reply 56):

DC-8 1959 25.000 50.000
DC-9 1965 40.000 35.000
DC-10 1970 42.000 60.000

L1011 1972 115.000 210.000

A300 1974 36.000 60.000
A310 1983 35.000 60.000
A320 1988 48.000 60.000
A330 1994 40.000*
A340 1993 20.000*

B737 1968 75.000 51.000 (Classic)
B747 1970 20.000 60.000 (Classic)
B757 1983 100.000 -
B767 1982 100.000 -
B737 1984 75.000 51.000 (737-3/-4/-5)
B777 1995 40.000*
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
manu
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:22 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:06 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 59):
I don't expect it to show for a while as so far most airlines have had old 737 classics to dump on the super high cycle routes where fuel burn and the like isn't very important.

I think you hit the point here. Two companies have very different design factors, which can be used in different situations. The B737 and A320 have a lot of similarities. But I am sure someone can make a case for each being more economically viable in different situations.

If the companies made the exact same aircraft, how would that be competition? The diversity is what makes the airline choice so important. One frame type will win over the other, but doesn't necessarily mean it is the best for all situations. Hence why airlines like US Airways has kept both A320's and 737's in their fleet.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 63):
This is a clear case of an overbuilt airliner. It was also an unsuccessful one; if it had been built a bit lighter might it have perhaps fared better?

Overbuilt may not be a bad thing. But economics definitely plays an important role. They made a bet and lost. The less-built aircraft have clearly won in the market conditions of today.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:11 pm

Looking at how the aircraft looked 11 years ago ( thanks for the pictures ), add hard days flying for BWIA - I wouldn't trust it any longer. So scrapping it is the right decision - that structure isn't worthy for a second life rebuild.

The A320 number stated above, with 8 cycles per day and 350 days per year, make 17 years as planned life. We know that is the age where the X-Ray people come and tell you "Scrap or convert to freighter"

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 58):
Quoting Moo (Reply 42):
A320 - 48,000
B737 - 75,000

Looking at the figures this is the only one where there is a significant difference between comparable aircraft. It is surprising since, as mentioned by Rheinbote, the A320 is a short range aircraft likely to see high cycles.

Not really. The A320s are optimized for a bit longer flights than the 737s. So look at airlines that have both types and utilzes them wisely, than you will see 737s mainly on below one hour flights, and the A320s on above one hour flights. At least LH does so, and they do not have a reputation to make everything wrong. The 75000 cycles don't make sense to many airlines when the 51000 hours appear first - 48000 cycles @ 60000 hours may be more depending on your missions.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:26 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 64):

Careful, the L1011 made extensive use on bonding instead of riveting, which may be a factor here.

Good point, as the primary place fatigue attacks is rivet holes; but is the bonding not much more expensive? Otherwise why hasn't anyone else used it? While the L-1011 may not weigh more because of it's much longer life expectancy it probably did cost more to build.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:38 pm

Quoting FlyTUITravel (Reply 47):
Would have thought it would be an A342 before an A343.......

That burned out Air France A340 was a -200.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 49):
L1011 1972 115.000 210.000

Wow! That's impressive. Shame about the powerplants, otherwise... damn!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11143
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:25 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
The A340 is too new of an aircraft to have one going off to the scrapper.

No it is not. The used and new A-340 have little to no value to most airlines (except maybe Iran Air). It is a very ineffecent airplane, when compared to other airplanes with similar capabilities and range, like it's sister the A-330, or the B-777.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 15):
Am I the only one not sad to see an A340 scrapped?

No, I'm happy to see the A-340s go to scrap.

Quoting Moo (Reply 42):
Widebody designed in operating cycles:

A330 - 40,000
A340 - 20,000

B747 - 20,000
B767 - 50,000
B777 - 44,000



Quoting Moo (Reply 42):
Narrow bodies:

A320 - 48,000
B737 - 75,000

Even though these are the recommended max cycles for each type, according to the FAA. Almost every type already has a lot of individual airplanes that far esceed these cycle limitations.
 
n710ps
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:09 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:33 pm

Quoting Wsp (Reply 35):
Interesting theory. Do you have any source that would substantiate that?

Would someone who works for Airbus Miami be a suitable source for you? Because that is where that information comes from.
There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
The used and new A-340 have little to no value to most airlines (except maybe Iran Air). It is a very ineffecent airplane, when compared to other airplanes with similar capabilities and range, like it's sister the A-330, or the B-777.

Oh bloody hell, not this again  Yeah sure
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:39 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 42):
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 36):

I've heard the "planned service life" of Airbus aircraft (besides the A300) is 12-15 years. Looking at the recent A320 scrappings that are starting to happen, I'd say this is fairly accurate.

Narrow bodies:

A320 - 48,000
B737 - 75,000

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...ument

What the engineers design and the factory builds are often quite different. We already had several discussions about NW's A320s, of which at least one went to the knacker's yard "early".
RE: NW A320 N302US Is Toast (by Poitin May 23 2007 in Civil Aviation)

This was due to the AD note regarding the lower skin of the center wing box cracking at about 22,000 cycles. Nwa Parking A-320s (by AMFAproud May 6 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 49):
FWIW, go here for a FLIGHT census on ageing airliners with design service goal data in cycles/hours.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

Your chart is the DESIGN cycles and hours, not actual. When one reads the actual article, they also give the average cycles and hours, which are much lower. Here are the entries for the A300 and A310 in part:


    Airbus Industrie A300

    There are 220 A300s older than 15 years in operation. Japan Air System operates the largest single ageing fleet of A300s (17 aircraft over 15 years). BAe Aviation Services and DaimlerChrysler Airbus offer cargo conversion programmes for the A300B4.

    Max weight: (B4) 142,000kg (-600) 165,100kg Accommodation: 220-360 Wingspan: 44.8m length: (B4) 53.6m (-600) 54.1m height: 16.5m Original design life: 36,000 cycles 60,000h 20 years Average fleet cycles: 14,800 Average fleet hours: 26,200 Average fleet age: 13 years

    Airbus Industrie A310

    A short fuselage, 200-seat derivative of the A300, the original -200 version of the A310 was flown in April 1982 and the type entered service a year later. Production of the A310 in the latest -300 form (introduced in 1985) continues in small numbers.

    Two hundred and fifty-five A310s have been delivered, 54 of which are 15 years old or more. FedEx operates the largest A310 fleet, with 31 of its aircraft being at least 15 years old.

    Max weight: (-200) 142,000kg Wingspan: 43.9m length: 46.7m height: 15.8m Original design life: 35,000 cycles 60,000h 20 years Average fleet cycles: 10,800 Average fleet hours: 27,500 Average fleet age: 11 years



Even if these aircraft all have to be retired at 20,000 cycles, they still have plenty of life left in them, which is why there are still so many around.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting N710PS (Reply 71):
Would someone who works for Airbus Miami be a suitable source for you? Because that is where that information comes from.

That would depend on his qualification/expertise. They have 57000 or so employees.

You referred to "composites in the frame" as the reason for the limited life expectancy. This is rather vague, maybe you could explain in more detail how this affects life expectancy. I read recently about another aircraft model (made to a large extend from composites) that its life expectancy is supposedly almost unlimited, so your reference to that material seems far from self-explanatory.

[Edited 2007-07-25 17:24:28]
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:29 am

Any word as to why this plane is being scrapped??
One Nation Under God
 
MX757
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:38 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:17 am

I've read every post in this thread and the one thing nobody has mentioned is that an airliner (A or B) is just a commodity!

I hate to say this, but it's a fact. Aircraft are bought, sold, or scraped for the most money that can be obtained. I've seen the pictures of my favorite airliner (757) being scraped and I can barely look at them. But that is the way it is.

So what do you do? Argue over one A340 or one B777 being scraped? Or enjoy the fact that 99% of these types are still flying?   

A vs B Give me a break already!   

[Edited 2007-07-25 18:40:05]
Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
 
EI321
Posts: 5029
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:18 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 75):
Any word as to why this plane is being scrapped??

Its not being scrapped, its been bought by Lufthansa Tecknik for parts. Probably the usual D check V's Asset Value V's useable condition criteria. Basically thats what happened to the 1995 Varig 777-200A that was parted out in 2006. The fact that a maintance company has bought this aircraft says plenty.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:30 am

Quoting N471WN (Thread starter):
According to ATDB, the first A-340 scrapping will take place at Goodyear and is ship #16 registered D-AIEL and owned by Lufthansa Technik

As far as I can see, ATDB says the plane is stored at GYR. I don't see anything about scrapping.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:30 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 77):
Any word as to why this plane is being scrapped??

Its not being scrapped, its been bought by Lufthansa Tecknik for parts.

Oh, so airplanes that are taken apart are not scraped, particularly if they are Airbuses? I suggest you take a hard look at the many thousands of planes that go the the bone yard. They are stripped of anything valuable and what is left is cut up and sold for scrap metal. This is what will happen at Lufthansa Tecknik, just like all the 747s IA cut up next to their hangar.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
EI321
Posts: 5029
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 79):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 77):
Any word as to why this plane is being scrapped??

Its not being scrapped, its been bought by Lufthansa Tecknik for parts.

Oh, so airplanes that are taken apart are not scraped, particularly if they are Airbuses? I suggest you take a hard look at the many thousands of planes that go the the bone yard

Not sure what way your reading the post, but Ive tried to outline the difference between scrapping a plane (chopping it up for scrap) and parting it out (dismantling it for parts). Lufthansa Technik are not knackers poitin. This A340 will be used as parts. Of course some parts of any aircraft that is parted are not useable at all.
 
purplebox
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:43 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:38 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 77):
Its not being scrapped, its been bought by Lufthansa Tecknik for parts. Probably the usual D check V's Asset Value V's useable condition criteria. Basically thats what happened to the 1995 Varig 777-200A that was parted out in 2006. The fact that a maintance company has bought this aircraft says plenty.

That makes perfect sense... but why ferry it to VCV?

PurpleBox.
Next Flights:LHR-BOG,BOG-GYE,MDE-BOG-PTY,PTY-BOG-CTG,SMR-BOG-LHR - all on AV
 
747727
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:57 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 15):

I'm also not sad.
I hate seeing lovely old aeroplanes like 727's and and dc-9s ect being scraped not new ones like 340's.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11143
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 72):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
The used and new A-340 have little to no value to most airlines (except maybe Iran Air). It is a very ineffecent airplane, when compared to other airplanes with similar capabilities and range, like it's sister the A-330, or the B-777.

Oh bloody hell, not this again

Well, you don't see the A-340 burning up the Airbus order sheets, like the A-330 is. Used A-340s don't seem to be moving to fast, either.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 80):
Not sure what way your reading the post, but Ive tried to outline the difference between scrapping a plane (chopping it up for scrap) and parting it out (dismantling it for parts). Lufthansa Technik are not knackers poitin. This A340 will be used as parts. Of course some parts of any aircraft that is parted are not useable at all.

My point is that there is no difference. All bone yards do the same. They are not going to park the A340 for years and years and years. It may sit in a corner for a couple years but one day it will be gone. This is exactly what happens at all of them.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
EI321
Posts: 5029
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 83):
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 72):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
The used and new A-340 have little to no value to most airlines (except maybe Iran Air). It is a very ineffecent airplane, when compared to other airplanes with similar capabilities and range, like it's sister the A-330, or the B-777.

Oh bloody hell, not this again

Well, you don't see the A-340 burning up the Airbus order sheets, like the A-330 is. Used A-340s don't seem to be moving to fast, either.

The notion that 'used and new A-340 have little to no value to most airlines' is categorically untrue.

How many second hand A340's are sitting around waiting for a buyer?

It certainly is not Airbus's most popular model, and its gone the way of the 747-400 and 767 lately in the face of a better competitor. Only one or two non-operators would be willing to order these aircraft at this stage, and their replacements are on the horizon in the form of the 747-8, 787 and A350 respectively.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:26 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 63):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 56):

L1011 1972 115.000 210.000

This is a clear case of an overbuilt airliner. It was also an unsuccessful one; if it had been built a bit lighter might it have perhaps fared better? Not only because it would have used a little less fuel but also because it would have cost a lot less to build, and Lockheed might have lost less money building it. There certainly were many other factors leading to its demise, but the fact remains that it was way overbuilt. I doubt that a single one has come close to its design life in actual service.



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 64):
Careful, the L1011 made extensive use on bonding instead of riveting, which may be a factor here.



Quoting Irobertson (Reply 69):
Wow! That's impressive. Shame about the powerplants, otherwise... damn!

The numbers about the L-1011 are certainly impressive..... but wrong. The L-1011 fatigue test airframe (s/n 1000) was tested in excess of 72,000 cycles and Lockheed originally stated that its fatigue life was "indefinite", provided the operator continued to accomplished the required maintenance. However, after the Aloha incident the FAA required all manufactures establish a "design life goal" for their aircraft. The "design life goal" is a point where the airframe must be inspected and have all the required life extension modifications incorporated for further operation. The "design life goal" is not a drop dead date but a threshold, at which time something has to be accomplished.

Lockheed being very conservative established a "design life goal" for the L-1011 of 36,000 cycles, with no limit on flight hours. The 36,000 cycles was established as it is one half of the tested cycles.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 86):
The numbers about the L-1011 are certainly impressive..... but wrong.

Thanks 474218, there's no substitue for first-hand information, very interesting.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 73):
Your chart is the DESIGN cycles and hours, not actual.

Congrats, that's exactly what I said.  scratchchin 

Quoting Poitin (Reply 73):
Even if these aircraft all have to be retired at 20,000 cycles, they still have plenty of life left in them

..that's perfectly addressed by this:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 86):
The "design life goal" is a point where the airframe must be inspected and have all the required life extension modifications incorporated for further operation. The "design life goal" is not a drop dead date but a threshold, at which time something has to be accomplished.
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:20 am

One of the reason's I think this particular a/c is being scrapped is because of the permanent deformation it suffered when it had the incident back in 1997.

From what I have been told, the fuselage was ever so slightly bent, and unable to be repaired but Airbus ok'd it for continued service as it was only slightly out of shape. It was the first A340 that VS got rid of, and look who took it up, most likely because it was going cheap because of the damage compared to other A340's.

A few more years down the line, it has probably got to the point where that particular A340 is worth more as spare parts, because who would want to buy and fly a slightly bent a/c ?.

Same with a car, it might have been in an accident, and been repaired ok, but its value is going to suffer as a result.

 Smile
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 85):
How many second hand A340's are sitting around waiting for a buyer?

AFAIK, not a single one. So yes, that statement is a big pile of poopoo.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:34 am

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 88):
One of the reason's I think this particular a/c is being scrapped is because of the permanent deformation it suffered when it had the incident back in 1997.

What incident was that?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 90):
What incident was that?

See reply 36.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 89):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 85):
How many second hand A340's are sitting around waiting for a buyer?

AFAIK, not a single one. So yes, that statement is a big pile of poopoo.

According to GlobalPlaneSearch, there are 7 for sale / lease. Since they use frames, you have to go to

http://www.globalplanesearch.com/search.htm and scroll down the left hand frame.

It didn't take me five minutes to find them. There are others, I am sure. The interesting thing is many of these A340s have been on the market for months Three have been on the block of more than 180 days, while two more for 56 days and the last two for 19 days --- not exactly "Can't keep them in stock, is it?

So, why don't you do a little checking before calling other people's statements "a big pile of poopoo."
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
mham001
Posts: 5677
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:00 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 58):
This is exactly the point. The greater the built-in life the heavier the structure has to be. Extra weight means extra fuel consumption.

That does not explain the disparity between the A320 and the 737 which by all accounts have very similar fuel use.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:12 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 92):
According to GlobalPlaneSearch, there are 7 for sale / lease.

And tell me, Poitin, how many of those are, quote, 'sitting around, waiting for a buyer'? It won't be the two Air Canada 345s, because those are still very much flying. It won't be the aircraft talked about in this thread either, seeing as how it's already been sold (yes, this plane is still listed on your link). The one above it was put there on the same day, also by a Dutch company. There are zero details about it, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually the same frame. For the others, at least one is a VIP configured aircraft, something no airline will be standing in line for, irrespective of the type.

Them being offered for sale does not by any means mean 'sitting around, waiting for a buyer', so my comment still very much stands.

I mean, looking further on that site you linked to, I see no less than 54 (!) 737-800s for sale or lease, as well as 11 777s, one of which has also been on there for over 180 days, and yet, you don't see me concluding from that that they are having problems getting them placed, do you?
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:12 am

Quoting Kangar (Reply 38):
Whoever you heard that from is lying to you.

My source was a senior EADS rep for North America. I think he knows what he's talking about.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 37):
I think you heard wrong. Do you think airlines and, more relevantly, leasing companies would be buying them by the thousands if that were really the case?

Clearly those "morons" at Northwest did, eh?

Quoting Kappel (Reply 39):
I wonder why there are plenty a320's that are 15+ years old are still flying then.

My comment was more general - I did NOT state that all Airbus frames "MUST be broken up before age 15".

Before this thread gets locked for wandering off topic, and turning into an A vs B war (which is NOT my intention), don't you ever wonder why we have 40+ year old 727's and 737's still flying as freighters? Some of these aircraft are purchased by legacy carriers, then handed down from one airline to the next until finally they are picked up and converted by freight companies, and then when they are done with them they go fly fuel tanks around Africa.

How many converted A320 freighters have you seen? Anyone who is an expert will tell you that it has not been done - or at least not without massive re-engineering due to floor strengths and fuselage skin thicknesses.

Am I anti-Airbus? Absolutely not. I find baby busses much more comfortable than baby Boeings (at least here in North America). I have spent many days onboard EK A330's and I think they are fantastic. Quiet, rock-solid and comfortable. Am I anti-Boeing? Nope, I built my business working on their aircraft. I am a fan of both.

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:22:13]
I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:18 am

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 95):
Anyone who is an expert will tell you that it cannot be done

You might want to tell those experts that they should hurry up and inform Airbus, who are happily moving along with the A320 freighter conversion programme http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=5074&print=Y

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:19:13]
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:24 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 96):

I was unaware of this program, this is a fairly recent development - and even then it says it won't be flying until 2011??

I do hope they can extend the life of these aircraft, but as I said - it will be a major project (as it is with any aircraft).

Drew

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:25:01]
I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
 
teva
Posts: 1776
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 12:31 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:46 am

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 95):
Before this thread gets locked for wandering off topic, and turning into an A vs B war (which is NOT my intention), don't you ever wonder why we have 40+ year old 727's and 737's still flying as freighters?

It is difficult to find 40 years old Airbus.... But quite a lot of A300 are approaching their 30s, and are converted as freighters. (and more could be flying, if Airbus had started the process earlier. We had to wait the first purchase of brand new A300-600F in 94 before airlines started to consider Airbus as possible freighters)

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 95):
How many converted A320 freighters have you seen?

None, because Airbus is starting the development of this conversion process....

Teva
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
 
n471wn
Topic Author
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:23 am

RE: First A-340 Scrapping

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:59 am

SCBRINL writes......

"As far as I can see, ATDB says the plane is stored at GYR. I don't see anything about scrapping".

Response:

ATDB had the wrong registrartion number noted in their report (they transposed) but they did say right in their weekly report (which you should all consider subscribing to as it is wonderul) the words "first A-340 to be parted out" I am the thread starter and never intended to create such controversy but it is fascinating nonetheless!!

And someone above said the plane was at Victorville and it is not but at Goodyear (as someone else pointed out and identified where it was--on the West side)

Lastly, being parted out or scrapped is the same thing to me and that is that only the pieces of this a/c will fly again and not this proud bird,,,,

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos