scrapping Boeing 777's

[Kev1n]

Re the comments about scrapping an ex Air India 777, which was originally delivered to United in 1995, I found this info which might explain more about why....it actually refers to the ex BA 777, G-ZZZE, but the basic info is applicable;

This particular aircraft configuration is non-desirable by other carriers. The non-ER version of the 777-200 with GE-90 engines is by far the least economical version of the 777 produced, and only a handful are in operation, hence the inability to place these planes with other operators. BA only operates three non-ER 777-236s (G-ZZZA/B/C). The only other airline operating GE-90-powered non-ER 777-200s (referred to as "A" market or "vanilla" models) is China Southern.

GE-90-powered "Vanilla" 777-200s:

G-ZZZA - in service British Airways

G-ZZZB - in service British Airways

G-ZZZC - in service British Airways

G-ZZZD - (airframe status unknown, last reported stored at SBA in 2007, rumored to be "flying" for Gabonese government)

G-ZZZE - (scrapped at ARG)

B-2051 - in service China Southern

B-2052 - in service China Southern

B-2053 - in service China Southern

B-2054 - in service China Southern

China Southern recently announced their desire to sell their four "A" market planes but, like Cathay Pacific (who operates RR-powered "A" market planes), are having a hard time trying to market the planes to other operators.

a couple of pics of G-ZZZE meeting it's end after it's time with VARIG in Brasil -

Its worth pointing out that in some cases, the parts value is greater than the value of the aircraft intact, especially if it is an early version of a type, like the ex BA aircraft.

....and this might be relevant....

[Kev1n]

btw - the one that was scrapped was VT-AIR not the one above.....

[Michaelvk]

Sigh.. I now feel I'm getting old. I remember when the 777 was just coming into service and we'd get all excited to catch a glimpse of these aircraft.. Now they're being scrapped..

[madaboutmodels]

there were 88 Boeing 777-200s built and theres only 68 left in active airline service around the world.....

its a shame, its the same with the 737ng, there has already been around 15 next generations scrapped

its a shame...

[oggy4624]

I believe that the promised performance was never matched in service.

Omni just bought 2 ex united heaps and are not impressed by the payload/range stats.

Also, the parted out aircraft are worth more than the flying items.

The best reason to scrap them is that they are made by Boeing!.

[Jennings Heilig]

Why is it a shame for old airplanes to be scrapped? What else should be done with them? I'm all for saving historically significant aircraft (which is all too often not done...), but we can't just keep building airplanes and making beer cans forever without recycling them. They're a limited lifespan item, just like your car. They wear out, they get recycled. It's the way of the world.

The best reason to scrap them is that they are made by Boeing!.

Yeah, Boeing sure makes some real duds. Like the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and 787. And don't forget those other big Boeing losers the B-17, B-29, B-50, B-47, B-52, KC-97, and KC-135. For sure, Airbus has it all over Boeing (NOT!).

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jennings Heilig

[stevehnz]

Wot he said especially as many of their componets can be recycled to keep others in the air, it simply makes good sense, there is no room for sentimentality in todays cuthroat airline world.

Steve.

Edited December 31, 2011 by stevehnz

[Dave Fleming]

I too find it strange at the overt sentimentality people express over old aeroplanes being scrapped or abandoned. They are machines like cars and washing machines.

[madaboutmodels]

I too find it strange at the overt sentimentality people express over old aeroplanes being scrapped or abandoned. They are machines like cars and washing machines.

but the 777s aren't that old, there around 15 years and can go on till around 20-25 years old

[Julien]

but the 777s aren't that old, there around 15 years and can go on till around 20-25 years old

Yeah but if no one wants them / cant make them pay then part them out for the money.

The best reason to scrap them is that they are made by Boeing!.

Why even bother to make this coment?? just trolling to start a Boeing / Airbus war?

Yeah, Boeing sure makes some real duds. Like the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and 787. And don't forget those other big Boeing losers the B-17, B-29, B-50, B-47, B-52, KC-97, and KC-135. For sure, Airbus has it all over Boeing (NOT!).

and your just as bad for rising to his bait, shame on you both.

Julien

[Kev1n]

lol ^

Brad - the earliest 777's are old in modern airliner terms; all aircraft are built with a certain life span in the design, usually measured in 'cycles', which means 1 take-off and one landing.

This usually lasts somewhere between 15 and 20 years, depending on aircraft type and it's use. Obviously a short haul aircraft, like the A320 or 737 makes a lot more take-offs and landings than a long haul jet, like the 777.

However, the life span can be extended and by a lot of years. What you will find however, is that any aircraft which reaches 16 years of service (like the 2 777's mentioned here) will have practically nothing of the originally built aircraft left in it. Only the basic shell of the aircraft, fuselage and wings, will be original....no wheels, no instruments, no seats, nothing.

That part of a plane can last forever, more or less, which is why there are still DC3's and spitfires flying.

It's value is not great - the parts inside it are valuable, and can be used to keep other aircraft flying.

So unless there is a market for the aircraft, it is going to be scrapped by the time it gets to 16 years old.

At one time, you could reliably find airlines lower down the chain, like charter carriers, african and south american carriers, that would take such aircraft, as the price of getting them wopuld be low, but these days, even those airlines want new build aircraft and not early builds.

So they will get scrapped.

You might wonder why military aircraft tend to last longer in service than airliners do - the answer is the average military aircraft spends more time sitting on the ground, ie not taking off and landing, so it's life span last more years.

Airliners are not meant to sit around doing nothing, waiting for an enemy to attack, airliners are amazingly hard-working machines and they are made to earn their keep....it costs an airline money to have an aircraft sitting on a ramp somewhere - they need to be flying and earning a living.

Like I said, its easy to think of a 1995 built 777 as 'new'......it's not.

In airliner terms, it's old.....

but the 777s aren't that old, there around 15 years and can go on till around 20-25 years old

[Philbky]

If you go back to the era immediately before jets/turboprops took over almost all scheduled services, i.e. before 1970, you'll find many types did well if they had more than 7 or 8 years in front line service. If at the end of that period work couldn't be found for them on second rank services or buyers couldn't be found, they either lay derelict for years and were then scrapped or were scrapped immediately. Some DC7Cs and Starliners were scrapped before they were 10.

In retrospect many freight haulers had cause to regret the early scrapping of DC6s, Electras and Constellations when cheap airframes were required for stripping out as freighters from the mid 1970s onwards. The longevity of the examples that survived, and are indeed still flying, shows how good the aircraft were and how instant reaction to short lived economic circumstances doesn't always pay.

Boeing built very sound and sturdy passenger jets from the off - based on engineering developed for the B-47/52/C-135. Others such as Douglas, Sud Aviation, BAC and Hawker Siddeley followed suit and airliners built between 1958 and today have generally had long lives. The BAC 1-11 500 series could well have still been flying in numbers today if it hadn't been for the continual rise in fuel prices and ever vigilant noise regulations. The same could be said for vast numbers of 727s and just look at the average age of Northwest's DC9s in the period 2000-2007.

Airbus changed the rules. The A300 wasn't built as a disposable airplane and many survive as freighters well into their 3rd decade but developments of the type saw many withdrawn and replaced after quite short lives. The A320 family has been built for medium life as was the BAe146 family. The A330 early builds are likely not to go on much beyond 20-23 years. For Airbus, with production facilities in many countries to fill it makes sense. By keeping the price down and continually improving the breed they have been able to become joint leading player with Boeing - Douglas, Convair and Lockheed suffering as a result.

As for the 777, Boeing had worked closely with airlines to design the type - maybe too closely, a fault the British made with the VC10 and Trident - and the early A series frames for All Nippon, United and BA could almost be classed as "in service proof of concept aircraft" and were never destined to have long lives as the needs of other airlines brought forward later, longer range and more developed models early enough in the production run so as to make the early production A model examples difficult to sell on. Later A models overcame some of the problems the early frames had but are still short on range and most of the 88 A models built will probably be scrapped when their initial purchasers/lessees are done with them.

Economics has raised its head again - A B737-700 series was broken up at Kemble in June this year at 7 years old. Having ended its lease with easyJet the lessor found the aircraft difficult to quickly place with a new lessee or owner and, given the low life of the parts and the ability to zero life some of them quite cheaply, broke up the aircraft and made more from the parts than they could have done from selling the aircraft or leasing it for another 7 years.

[Kev1n]

As an aside, easyjet might have replaced that 737-700 with another 737-700, either from the same lessor or another lessor on better terms (for easyjet) thus keeping their fleet numbers constant, along with thier routes.

However, easyjet being the airline it is, along with other low-fare airlines, drop routes very quickly if they dont make enough money, so their fleet requirements change more than legacy carriers with established route networks (and even they in today's world will not continue to serve traditional routes if they arent making enough money)

Add to this, easyjet are now an airbus airline, not a boeing one. The reasons for that are not so much to do with the operating economics of airbus v boeing, but more to do with the fact that easyjet operate within europe, so having airbus equipment is more politically desirable.

[Philbky]

As a matter of fact easyJet decided to change to the A319 purely for economic reasons - nothing to do with politics.

Their B737-700s were seated to the maximum acceptable capacity with 149 seats. As with Ryanair and their 737-800s which can seat 189, because of sector lengths, weight and balance and fuel tanking arrangements around the route system the aircraft were rarely flown at capacity, sometimes 6 or more seats being left empty. When Airbus agreed to meet easyJet's request for 156 seats at 29" pitch with the extra overwing exits demanded by the CAA and the leasing costs were cheaper than for the 737, the change to an all Airbus fleet was set in train.

An added advantage to the A319 is it doesn't suffer as many weight and balance and tankage restrictions on certain easyJet sectors as the 737 so can be flown more often with all seats occupied.

[Jennings Heilig]

Yeah but if no one wants them / cant make them pay then part them out for the money.

Why even bother to make this coment?? just trolling to start a Boeing / Airbus war?

and your just as bad for rising to his bait, shame on you both.

Lighten up a little Julien. Life is too short man...

[Julien]

As a matter of fact easyJet decided to change to the A319 purely for economic reasons - nothing to do with politics.

Their B737-700s were seated to the maximum acceptable capacity with 149 seats. As with Ryanair and their 737-800s which can seat 189, because of sector lengths, weight and balance and fuel tanking arrangements around the route system the aircraft were rarely flown at capacity, sometimes 6 or more seats being left empty. When Airbus agreed to meet easyJet's request for 156 seats at 29" pitch with the extra overwing exits demanded by the CAA and the leasing costs were cheaper than for the 737, the change to an all Airbus fleet was set in train.

An added advantage to the A319 is it doesn't suffer as many weight and balance and tankage restrictions on certain easyJet sectors as the 737 so can be flown more often with all seats occupied.

Cheers for that, I wondered why I stopped flying on a 737 to Spain and why they went A319, they certainly do seem to fill them now. The 737 did seem to have more room.

Julien

[Stu_davros]

This really is a sign of the times, aircraft which would easily have sold during the economic boom are not selling now. At work we are in the process of breaking up a Hawker 800XP for parts, the airframe has 5500 hours and half as many landings, but the company that offered the most money for it wanted the parts not a live aircraft. If there wasn't a recession I'm sure someone would have bought the 777's for more than the breakers were offering but no carrier wants anything but the most efficient aircraft at this particular time. Like many things it just boils down to money.

Stuart

[Philbky]

With Boeing and Airbus having full order books for B737 and A320 families until around 2015, with the A330 coming toward the end of its production life making way for the A350 and the 767 tanker going into production there is going to be a great deal of pressure on spares for these types so expect more "early" scrappings as prices rise and banks and leasing companies try to maximise the income from their assets.

It's almost a perfect storm brewing for smaller and medium sized airlines which are strapped for cash, with cheap leases or purchases of new and second hand aircraft becoming a thing of the past due to full order books and mid life aircraft being reduced to spares.

[PHIL B]

I'm glad Continental/United hadn't scrapped the 777-200ER I flew on back from Houston last night. Its a long way to walk. Incidentally, the Continental colour scheme looks so much better to me than United's. Especially on their respective ERJ-145s.

As for Airbus, the Airbus Military NA hangar at Mobile airport looks very lonely since Boeing got the USAF tanker contract.

Phil.

[Philbky]

The ER versions have a long and useful life ahead of them. Agree with you re the CO scheme, but doesn't watching/photography at IAH get tedious. In summer BA use 777-200ERs to IAH (both GE and RR engines), in the winter 747-400s, many of which are getting old, in fact BA have scrapped its first 400 at Cardiff in late 2011.

[PHIL B]

I was at IAH for just a couple of hours on my way from Mobile to Heathrow so it didn't get boring for me. Watching them load food supplies made me want to do a Kev1n and build a truck in 1/144 with a scissors lift for the truck body loading in to the cabin service door.

[Glen]

One of the 'problems ' with the early A market 777s is the lack of a proper centre fuel tank. The later jets have a full centre tank that can take another 50000 litres or so. The BA ones also have smaller (76000lb) engines compared to the later (85000 on GE90 and 96000lb on Trent) aircraft. They will quite happily make the middle east and eastern seaboard but you don't tend to see them further than that. I think the BA jets have a larger first class cabin which is ideal for the Middle Eastern market.

[Philbky]

BA used their A series 777s to the Middle East from the start. They also ventured to the Eastern seaboard - and still do. The GE engines' gear boxes gave trouble at first and over water flights under the 120 minutes ETOPS rule had to be abandoned until GE solved the problem.

Other than being a launch customer and showing support for Boeing at a time when BA was a committed Boeing purchaser, it's difficult to know why they bought the A model as they didn't expand the fleet and it doesn't fit economically into much of the route network.

The follow up order for 200ER series had uprated GE engines (noisier to the passenger than the RR engines on later models ordered) and is much more usable across the network. There isn't too much of an engineering fit between the two GE engined series, making the A models something of an orphan batch.

The cabin fit can be varied on all models but BA retain the larger first class on the A models for the Middle East and also Washington and New York runs on which they regularly appear on a one or two a day basis.

The6 B777-300s BA are placing in service to cover for late A380/B787 deliveries may likewise become orphans in due course although the range and passenger capacity would make them much more saleable if BA don't want to keep them.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Philbky

[Glen]

At least the 300s are pretty standard as far as I know if they were ever to be sold. The other criples all have a non standard cabin fit which makes them much less attractive to sell on. I seem to remember Willie Walsh saying he didn't want to be involved in launch aircraft and that anything we bought would be a standard issue.

[Philbky]

Most aircraft cabins can be re-arranged relatively easily and often are, either when aircraft have a mid life upgrade in service or when sold. The A series 777s are no different in that regard - the difference is the cost would not help with any sale given the lack of range and the lower powered engines.

Willie Walsh has a point. If you are a launch customer you can get a good discount but you also buy a lot of problems.