SQ Scraps 11 Year Old 777-300

gdg9 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:02 pm

Skyliner shows 9V-SYK as having been retired and sent to VCV for scrapping. The frame was delivered new to SQ in March 2005, thus being just 11 years old when scrapped. Obviously must be worth more for parts but I'm curious how many hours or cycles, particularly, were on this?

olle · Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:40 pm

with the low prices for new 777W perhaps this is the best for SQ? What can it be sold for?

SonomaFlyer · Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:55 pm

It would be interesting to know if this was an owned or leased frame. Either way though, the owner does the math on how much the frame can fetch sold whole or parted out and scrapped. Not much sentimentality in the accounting department!

scbriml · Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:56 pm

Quoting olle (Reply 1):
with the low prices for new 777W perhaps this is the best for SQ?

This is a non-ER -300.

Quoting olle (Reply 1):
What can it be sold for?

Nothing, since nobody would want it.

SpaceshipDC10 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:00 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):
It would be interesting to know if this was an owned or leased frame.

Apparently it was leased from AerCap since May 2013.

http://www.planespotters.net/airfram...77/33375/9V-SYK-Singapore-Airlines

a380787 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:01 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):

This is a non-ER -300.

Perhaps something to do with Singapore's accelerating depreciation accounting. It's a decent frame for regional trunk routes (e.g. CGK), but I guess the seating config is too premium skewed and SQ figured it's not worth the hassle to reconfigure ?

roseflyer · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:02 pm

These is a 777-300s, not a 777-300ER. SQ has been retiring their 777-300s. These airplanes do not have a particularly attractive resale market. There are only a limited number in operation. Outside of regional operation in Asia, these are not the most attractive airplanes. Someone like Delta could have acquired them in they desired more capacity on shorter transatlantic flights, but in general the range is not enough to make them very attractive.

SQ quickly depreciates the value of their airplanes and don't keep them in their fleet for very long. They usually retire airplanes in about 12 years. The 777-300 doesn't have a very strong aftermarket, so scrapping for parts is more likely. Many of the former SQ 777-200ERs did find other operators and continue flying.

United787 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:07 pm

How many non-ER 773s were delivered? I tried to do a User Defined Report on Boeing's website, but you can only search currently offered model series, not past ones... the 772 and 773 are no longer available...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries

a380787 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:12 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 6):

These is a 777-300s, not a 777-300ER. SQ has been retiring their 777-300s. These airplanes do not have a particularly attractive resale market. There are only a limited number in operation. Outside of regional operation in Asia, these are not the most attractive airplanes. Someone like Delta could have acquired them in they desired more capacity on shorter transatlantic flights, but in general the range is not enough to make them very attractive.

SQ quickly depreciates the value of their airplanes and don't keep them in their fleet for very long. They usually retire airplanes in about 12 years. The 777-300 doesn't have a very strong aftermarket, so scrapping for parts is more likely. Many of the former SQ 777-200ERs did find other operators and continue flying.

The 787-10 can't come soon enough for SQ. They have a decently sized regional network (CGK, KUL, India, BKK etc) that doesn't need a 8000mi plane to perform. SIN-HKG is a special case that SQ is willing to deploy international long-haul product on it despite just a 4 hr flying time.

roseflyer · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:13 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):
Quoting olle (Reply 1):
What can it be sold for?

Nothing, since nobody would want it.

The only airline that I know of picking up used 777-300s was Transaero and they are now gone. Airlines like SQ and EK have high capacity short haul needs. However they also quickly depreciate their airplanes and sell them after about 12 years. There aren't that many airlines interested in these planes because there are not that many airlines flying short to medium haul routes that need 350-450 seat planes. SQ and EK are quick to put these airplanes on the used market, and the other airlines flying 777-300s, don't usually buy used planes. ANA, JAL, Korean, Cathay Pacific & Thai aren't flying any used passenger widebody planes. So who else would want them? Delta could have been interested for the right price since the plane would work flying the same routes they use their 767-400s on, but apparently not.

Polot · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:15 pm

Quoting United787 (Reply 7):
How many non-ER 773s were delivered?

60

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 9):
Delta could have been interested for the right price since the plane would work flying the same routes they use their 767-400s on, but apparently not.

The 773 is much much much larger than the 764- I'm not sure all of DL's 764 routes could support the 773.

KarelXWB · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:18 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 6):
Many of the former SQ 777-200ERs did find other operators and continue flying.

Although other SQ 777-200ERs have been scrapped or are stored.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Szabo Gabor

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yochai Mossi - AirTeamImages

The 777-200ER after market has become quite soft due to A333s and 787s flooding the market.

scbriml · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:22 pm

Quoting United787 (Reply 7):
How many non-ER 773s were delivered? I tried to do a User Defined Report on Boeing's website, but you can only search currently offered model series, not past ones... the 772 and 773 are no longer available...

You can, you just select "All models" = 777 and it will list all 777 variants.

Although SQ operated a fleet of 12 -300s, it looks like only five of those were purchased directly by the airline from Boeing.

TXspotter · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:26 pm

This plane is technically owned by Standard Chartered Aviation Finance Company. It is a seat layout of F8J50Y226 = 284 total seats.

And being stored at VCV doesn't necessarily mean it will be scrapped immediately.

[Edited 2016-03-14 07:28:41]

frigatebird · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:43 pm

Quoting gdg9 (Thread starter):
Skyliner shows 9V-SYK as having been retired and sent to VCV for scrapping. The frame was delivered new to SQ in March 2005, thus being just 11 years old when scrapped.

Interestingly, this 773 was one of the youngest non-ER 773s SQ had. And even one of the latest 773s Boeing ever built, IIRC only CX has younger ones.

Anyway, this news will make member NA feel like being on

!

Quoting a380787 (Reply 8):
The 787-10 can't come soon enough for SQ. They have a decently sized regional network (CGK, KUL, India, BKK etc) that doesn't need a 8000mi plane to perform. SIN-HKG is a special case that SQ is willing to deploy international long-haul product on it despite just a 4 hr flying time.

SQ will get A359 'regionals' for their medium haul needs, I believe starting next year. Not totally sure what SQ's definition is for medium haul, up to 8 hour maximum I believe, but the minimum? 4, maybe 5 hours?
Where will this leave SQ's 787-10 order? Some may very well end up at Scoot, but not more than 10 IMO. With 9 abreast Y I suppose SQ will use them for short haul routes only, not sure how many frames they would need for that and what the maximum hours will be in SQ's short haul definition. Certainly not more than 4 I'd say.

DrColenzo · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:49 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):
Quoting olle (Reply 1):
with the low prices for new 777W perhaps this is the best for SQ?

This is a non-ER -300.

Quoting olle (Reply 1):
What can it be sold for?

Nothing, since nobody would want it.

Agreed, even without using the extra range of the ER it still has a fuel burn advantage over the standard 300 and makes a little more sense on the resale market. However, new 777s are cheap at the moment on most financial models employed and so there is no incentive to purchase a 2nd hand 777 - 300.

Asiaflyer · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:53 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 8):
The 787-10 can't come soon enough for SQ. They have a decently sized regional network (CGK, KUL, India, BKK etc) that doesn't need a 8000mi plane to perform. SIN-HKG is a special case that SQ is willing to deploy international long-haul product on it despite just a 4 hr flying time.

SQs A333 are performing the regional flights excellent and are the main reason why the regional 772 and 773 are leaving the fleet. 787-10 will be useful where larger capacity is needed, but I am not sure they will be much more profitable whit its much higher aqusition cost. TheA359 will anyway be the regional workhorse going forward.
KUL. BKK and some other shorter regional routes are not what they used to be for SQ as LCCs has taken over.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 5):
Perhaps something to do with Singapore's accelerating depreciation accounting.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 6):
SQ quickly depreciates the value of their airplanes and don't keep them in their fleet for very long.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 9):
However they also quickly depreciate their airplanes and sell them after about 12 years.

It seems to be a general misunderstanding that depreciation in the books is related to when SQ sells or retires planes. Quick depreciation just gives the airline lower taxes the first years of ownership of the planes. To me it is more of a subsidy from the government that allows SQ to defer taxes.

na · Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:56 pm

Does this signal the imminent retirement of all of SQs remaining 773? They are all old by SQs standard, and that the second youngest frame is being scrapped first is not a good sign for the older fleet mates. JAL has three 773s in various stages of scrapping. This subtype is clearly unwanted on the secondhand market an I doubt many will be flying into the 2020s. Transaero, the only airline ever to take used 773s, also never enlarged their subfleet and now that they are bankrupt I guess these planes might be heading to Nirvana soon, too.
Worldwide policy is to buy new nowadays especially with regards to 777-sized planes. This means many frames wont fly as long as we are used to from older types.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 9):
Delta could have been interested for the right price since the plane would work flying the same routes they use their 767-400s on, but apparently not.

Why should they? They are reducing the individual aircraft size in the fleet. Since they decided to retire their 744 fleet they will have no VLA anymore in a few years time.

Quoting TXspotter (Reply 13):
And being stored at VCV doesn't necessarily mean it will be scrapped immediately.

No one said so. But its reported that parting out is the reason why its going to VCV.

KarelXWB · Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:06 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 14):
SQ will get A359 'regionals' for their medium haul needs, I believe starting next year. Not totally sure what SQ's definition is for medium haul, up to 8 hour maximum I believe, but the minimum? 4, maybe 5 hours?
Where will this leave SQ's 787-10 order?

Just FYI, the A350 'regional' will replace the A330 regional fleet. I suppose the 787-10 will replace the 777 regional fleet?

SQ Outlines A330 Replacement Plans (by KarelXWB Jan 9 2016 in Civil Aviation)

Francoflier · Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:28 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 9):
. ANA, JAL, Korean, Cathay Pacific & Thai aren't flying any used passenger widebody planes.

CX does. Sometimes.

They bought a few used 744s a few years back when they still had a large jumbo fleet. Most of those used ones came from SQ, in fact.

Had they had the resources, they might have been interested in getting a few of these from SQ, who knows. CX's -300A are configured with close to 400 seats and are real breadwinners on the regional network. A few might have allowed to get rid of the -200A which can't really compete on economics with the A333 for a similar lift.
Problem is, they can hardly crew their current T7 fleet as it is...

frigatebird · Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:44 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 18):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 14):SQ will get A359 'regionals' for their medium haul needs, I believe starting next year. Not totally sure what SQ's definition is for medium haul, up to 8 hour maximum I believe, but the minimum? 4, maybe 5 hours?
Where will this leave SQ's 787-10 order?
Just FYI, the A350 'regional' will replace the A330 regional fleet. I suppose the 787-10 will replace the 777 regional fleet?

SQ Outlines A330 Replacement Plans (by KarelXWB Jan 9 2016 in Civil Aviation)

Yes, that thought crossed my mind too. Wonder how many 777 'regionals' SQ still operates and on what routes?

SonomaFlyer · Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:45 pm

I could see Chinese airlines possibly taking these a/c if they weren't already taking large numbers of other a/c types. Their airports are crowded as it is and a high density non ER -300 would make sense for domestic runs between PKG and regional capitals. However, they'd have to reconfigure the planes and coupled with the other acquisition costs, might not make much sense for them.

na · Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:56 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 21):
I could see Chinese airlines possibly taking these a/c if they weren't already taking large numbers of other a/c types. Their airports are crowded as it is and a high density non ER -300 would make sense for domestic runs between PKG and regional capitals. However, they'd have to reconfigure the planes and coupled with the other acquisition costs, might not make much sense for them.

Chinese airlines are also almost exclusively buying new, and masses of A330s in particular.

coronado · Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:16 pm

Hi several comments above about depreciation.

if the aircraft is leased, what does depreciation have to do with it? There is no depreciation the operator can take on a leased aircraft. Whatever depreciation the owner of the aircraft (i.e. the leasing company) needs to make their model work is built in to the lease payments, as is the cost of money (the financial or interest cost). The airlines is simply making a lease payment (an aircraft rent payment) for the length of the contract. When this aircraft rental contract is over (such as 12 years) the airlines SQ is under no obligation to renew it, unless they can agree to a new agreement that makes sense. If they cannot arrive at a satisfactory new agreement, the airlines has absolutely no say on what happens to that aircraft, where it is sold, parted out, parked, etc. The leasing company makes those calls.

DocLightning · Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:18 pm

Wait, was it scrapped or parted out? Many 773 parts are identical to 772 parts, so there's value there.

na · Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:21 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
Wait, was it scrapped or parted out? Many 773 parts are identical to 772 parts, so there's value there.

Its not been scrapped yet, its going to be. It will be parted-out first and the remains scrapped whenever the owner wants to, like with any still usable type.

Polot · Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:25 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 18):
Just FYI, the A350 'regional' will replace the A330 regional fleet. I suppose the 787-10 will replace the 777 regional fleet?

The opposite would make more sense to me, because lets be honest- the "Regional A350" is just a lower thrust A350 with likely mostly paper derates in the MTOW, just like how SQ's "772As" are just derated 77Es.

But I have no clue what SQ is doing with the A350 Regional vs 787-10, and I am not entirely sure if they truly know either.

jmchevallier · Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:29 pm

I flew twice a SQ B773 between Singapore and Jakarta by end of 2010.
This is a short 80 minutes flight, operated at least 3 times daily, with a high density configuration.
The plane cabin was already in bad shape at the time !

Norcal773 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:32 pm

9V-SYK just landed at VCV, 14.24 hrs later after taking off from SIN. Impressive 'light-weight' range.

Gasman · Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:19 pm

Presumably when an a/c is scrapped all the aluminum is recycled?

scbriml · Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:38 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20):
Wonder how many 777 'regionals' SQ still operates and on what routes?

Just six now - 9V-SYF, G, H, I, J & L. Sorry, no idea of routes.

jfk777 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:31 pm

Sad to see this happen. Surprising airlines with heavy RR 777 fleets do not find them useful. Cathay or BA should have a use for such a plane. Delta could use them over the Atlantic from Atlanta or JFK to Europe or GRU. A niche airplane but they can still do 5,000 miles.

Hagic · Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:33 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 29):
Presumably when an a/c is scrapped all the aluminum is recycled?

It is, but standards say that this aluminum can never be used to manufacture other planes. Perhaps it ends up as aluminum foil (how sad).

boefan · Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:00 pm

http://www.facebook.com/SouthernCali...7/1326196324063142/?type=3&theater

LAX772LR · Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:42 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 6):
Outside of regional operation in Asia, these are not the most attractive airplanes.

Hence not being sold to anyone outside of Asia.

Quoting na (Reply 17):
They are reducing the individual aircraft size in the fleet.

Based on what?

They're getting rid of a few worthless 747s, but the 763ERs transatlantics will eventually be upgauged to A330NEOs, and the A332 TransPacs will go to a combo of A333HGW, A359, and 772ER.

Some 763As will be replaced by 739ER/A321, but also you'll have 763ERs doing more domestic runs as they retire from the intercon fleet as well.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 31):
Surprising airlines with heavy RR 777 fleets do not find them useful.

They've probably got a huge amount of cycles on them already though.

diverted · Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:52 pm

Quoting Hagic (Reply 32):
It is, but standards say that this aluminum can never be used to manufacture other planes. Perhaps it ends up as aluminum foil (how sad).

I'm no metallurgist, but I recall reading somewhere that the alloys used in aircraft construction are often not compatible with food products, ie, beer cans or foil. I'm sure someone knows more though.

AngMoh · Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:20 pm

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 16):
It seems to be a general misunderstanding that depreciation in the books is related to when SQ sells or retires planes. Quick depreciation just gives the airline lower taxes the first years of ownership of the planes. To me it is more of a subsidy from the government that allows SQ to defer taxes.

The reason for the shorter depreciation in Singapore is nothing to do with tax. It is to encourage companies to renew and have the latest equipment and technology to be competitive in the market.
Just look at it: SQ flying 20 year old planes would be absolutely butchered by the ME3.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 14):
SQ will get A359 'regionals' for their medium haul needs, I believe starting next year. Not totally sure what SQ's definition is for medium haul, up to 8 hour maximum I believe, but the minimum? 4, maybe 5 hours?
Where will this leave SQ's 787-10 order? Some may very well end up at Scoot, but not more than 10 IMO. With 9 abreast Y I suppose SQ will use them for short haul routes only, not sure how many frames they would need for that and what the maximum hours will be in SQ's short haul definition. Certainly not more than 4 I'd say.

There is no short haul SQ. There is long haul and there is regional and there is no clear division. The 777-300 in regional config used to go to AKL which is about 10 hours flying. But the same frame could go 1.5 hrs to CGK the next day.
If a wide body does not work but the yield is there, it becomes a Silkair route.
If a wide body works but the yield is poor, it goes to Scoot.
And in the future, if it is low yield narrow body it goes to Tiger.

na · Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:22 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 34):
They're getting rid of a few worthless 747s,

First, they have some very old 744s, in fact the oldest, which indeed are practically worthless. But they also have a few relatively young 744s. 744s still have a better chance to be snapped by some secondhand operator than 773s.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 34):
but the 763ERs transatlantics will eventually be upgauged to A330NEOs, and the A332 TransPacs will go to a combo of A333HGW, A359, and 772ER.

It seems US airlines aren´t competitive enough anymore to operate VLAs, unable or unwilling to offer their passengers the most comfy planes.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 34):
They've probably got a huge amount of cycles on them already though.

I doubt that, its just that this specific type of 777 is totally unwanted on today´s market. After less than 11 years no 777 has clocked a "huge" amount of cycles, nowhere near any technical limit. Even the older 773s JAL is scrapping and which have surely flown even shorter sectors are close to any limits. 773s seem to have become obsolete quicker than any other airplane type beside the A345.

Gasman · Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:34 pm

Quoting na (Reply 37):
After less than 11 years no 777 has clocked a "huge" amount of cycles, nowhere near any technical limit.

This seems to be a modern trend. There's almost no point in building an aircraft like the DC-8 with heavy gauge aluminum, certified for twenty billion cycles. Because of rapid advances in technology and efficiency, aircraft these days need to be thought of as disposable items. Probably only a matter of time before the'll require refrigeration overnight, lest they spontaneously biodegrade.

md11sdf · Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:59 pm

Can anyone tell me why there have not been any Pax-to-Freight conversions on the 773? I would think that it would be a natural. Aux fuel tanks could be installed in the belly, as the majority of "Express" cargo would be on the main deck. Is there some 'technical' reason this hasn't been tried? "Express" cargo bulks-out before you exceed max payload weight...

jfk777 · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:15 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 34):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 31):
Surprising airlines with heavy RR 777 fleets do not find them useful.

They've probably got a huge amount of cycles on them already though.

which could get evened out by only 8 hour flights.

FlyCaledonian · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:16 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 31):
Sad to see this happen. Surprising airlines with heavy RR 777 fleets do not find them useful. Cathay or BA should have a use for such a plane. Delta could use them over the Atlantic from Atlanta or JFK to Europe or GRU. A niche airplane but they can still do 5,000 miles.

I think BA should have looked at the 773 in the late 1990s when it was cancelling 744s for 77Es. It might be ANet heresy but BA might have done better having the 773 in place of some of those late build 744s. When you look at the routes it is keeping the Super Hi-J 744s for, e.g. West Africa, Middle East and NE USA, these would have been good for the 773. But in contrast to SQ, BA tends to operate its longhaul aircraft to the end of their life and in the late 1990s it had the 742 fleet doing the role that the 773 would have been useful for. Adding the 773 now just doesn't make sense when it is committed to its retaining its youngest 744s and extending the life of the 777-200s to 30 years.

LAXintl · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:16 am

Quoting Coronado (Reply 23):
if the aircraft is leased, what does depreciation have to do with it? There is no depreciation the operator can take on a leased aircraft.

Depends on the type of lease. If its a capital or finance leases, then yes certainly there is depreciation to be applied as cost of lease and interest on such leases is long term liability and type of lease approximates ownership. If its a operating lease, then no as such cost is directly tied to direct operating cost of the airline.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 36):
The reason for the shorter depreciation in Singapore is nothing to do with tax. It is to encourage companies to renew and have the latest equipment and technology to be competitive in the market.

Well that "encourage" is via your taxes.

Singapore allows rapid depreciation based on generous investment allowances which are used to offset taxation.

Begining in 1979, SIA standard depreciation was mere 8-years/0%. This was lengthened to 10-years/20% in 1989, and again lengthened to 15 years/10% in 2002.
More recently in 2007 this policy has been further refined by using different schedule on narrow bodies, widebodies and freighters.

FlyCaledonian · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:16 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 31):
Sad to see this happen. Surprising airlines with heavy RR 777 fleets do not find them useful. Cathay or BA should have a use for such a plane. Delta could use them over the Atlantic from Atlanta or JFK to Europe or GRU. A niche airplane but they can still do 5,000 miles.

I think BA should have looked at the 773 in the late 1990s when it was cancelling 744s for 77Es. It might be ANet heresy but BA might have done better having the 773 in place of some of those late build 744s. When you look at the routes it is keeping the Super Hi-J 744s for, e.g. West Africa, Middle East and NE USA, these would have been good for the 773. But in contrast to SQ, BA tends to operate its longhaul aircraft to the end of their life and in the late 1990s it had the 742 fleet doing the role that the 773 would have been useful for. Adding the 773 now just doesn't make sense when it is committed to its retaiyoungest 744s and extending the life of the 777-200s to 30 years.

FlyCaledonian · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:17 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 31):
Sad to see this happen. Surprising airlines with heavy RR 777 fleets do not find them useful. Cathay or BA should have a use for such a plane. Delta could use them over the Atlantic from Atlanta or JFK to Europe or GRU. A niche airplane but they can still do 5,000 miles.

I think BA should have looked at the 773 in the late 1990s when it was cancelling 744s for 77Es. It might be ANet heresy but BA might have done better having the 773 in place of some of those late build 744s. When you look at the routes it is keeping the Super Hi-J 744s for, e.g. West Africa, Middle East and NE USA, these would have been good for the 773. But in contrast to SQ, BA tends to operate its longhaul aircraft to the end of their life and in the late 1990s it had the 742 fleet doing the role that the 773 would have been useful for. Adding the 773 now just doesn't make sense when it is committed to its retaiyoungest 744s and extending the life of the 777-200s to 30 years.

ckfred · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:18 am

Wouldn't the fact that non-ER -300s could come with GE, RR, or P&W engines complicate a resale of aircraft. All -300ERs have GE engines. So, if an airline had -300ERs, buying a used -300 would be problematic, if the aircraft had RR or P&W engines.

AngMoh · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:31 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 42):
Begining in 1979, SIA standard depreciation was mere 8-years/0%. This was lengthened to 10-years/20% in 1989, and again lengthened to 15 years/10% in 2002.
More recently in 2007 this policy has been further refined by using different schedule on narrow bodies, widebodies and freighters.

And they got burned by the 15 years depreciation: a few years ago they had to write off a part of their last 747s because the actual value was less than the book value when they disposed them. QF got the same problem and addressed it last year. It seems that 10-12 years is a sensible depreciation based on the actual life span of wide body aircraft and what they are worth in the second hand market.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 42):
Well that "encourage" is via your taxes.

Singapore allows rapid depreciation based on generous investment allowances which are used to offset taxation.

Our tax is peanuts compared with the US and the government runs at a budget surplus, so I have no problem companies paying less tax and invest more (and provide my kids jobs).

As I said before: SQ not investing in new aircraft would make them as successful as MH.

LAX772LR · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:50 am

Quoting na (Reply 37):
It seems US airlines aren´t competitive enough anymore to operate VLAs, unable or unwilling to offer their passengers the most comfy planes.

Let's step out of fantasy-land and back to reality, shall we?

Show me an airline, any airline, with more than a half-dozen hubs that even bothers with 747s, much less A380s.
I'll wait, give it a shot.

Because when your traffic flows are dispersed by that many different connecting points, you don't need a large aircraft to funnel it. You will be doing nothing but discounting to fill surplus seats, and that's even more ridiculous than the premise of your post.

81819 · Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:06 am

I think we have to look at the economic value in scraping relatively new aircraft. For instance the parts from a eleven year old aircraft can be used to economically maintain aircraft in the 5-20 year old age bracket, whereas parts from a 16-17 year old aircraft can only be used to economically maintain aircraft near the end of their economic lives.

As such, what on the surface looks like a waste of a relatively new aircraft can actually be a very economical means of managing a fleet of aircraft with different ages!

diverted · Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:14 am

Quoting ckfred (Reply 45):
Wouldn't the fact that non-ER -300s could come with GE, RR, or P&W engines complicate a resale of aircraft. All -300ERs have GE engines. So, if an airline had -300ERs, buying a used -300 would be problematic, if the aircraft had RR or P&W engines.

Even if your airline operated 77W's, and you found a 773 with GE's, the GE90-92/94B is significantly different the a GE90-115B1 (over 20,000lbs thrust difference, bigger fan on the -115 etc)

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net