A300's for scrap

[Groundbased]

Hi all,

On my general trawl through journals and all things aviation related I have recently noticed a few references to A300's that are being scrapped. One parked at the ex-RAF field at Kemble for example.

They struck me as being a bit young for scrap even although I suppose they could be up to 25 years old.

Wondering if perhaps there are just some very high time examples around.

Any thoughts to satisfy my curiosity would be appreciated.

Cheers,
GB.

[evolante]

A300 C4 parked at Filton Bristol, UK sold for part out last week - its currently being dismantled. Lots will depend on the engine LLp's in terms of part out value.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Close to 100 A300-B2s and B4s were built up to the end of 1979, the earliest going back 30-odd years. A quick review of fleet data shows about 57 A300s have been scrapped or broken up (of which 37 were pre-1980 and about 20 were post-1980 built). Of the approximately 57 pre-1980 A300s still in existence only about 14 are in service, with obscure carriers or in the freight role. Many are due for scrapping. Six further pre-1980 ships have been accident hull losses.

It will be interesting to see whether Airbus aircraft as a whole, for all their great qualities, can remain as durable as Boeing and especially McDonnell Douglas airliners.

[knobbygb]

Apparently the first 767 to be scrapped was broken up recently at Victorville. Airframe dated back to 1982 and had around 75,000 hrs 17,000 cycles. This didn't seem particularly high to me - just goes to show where the value lies in oldish airframes in the current climate.

[Willit Run]

I believe the A-300 B-4/B-2, have an airframe time limit of around 63,000 hours and then its off to the beercan factory.

[411A]

VCV has two more 767 types in the scrap process now, more to follow.

Even scrap value for aircraft now is very low, and not likely to improve anytime soon.

Slice and dice is the norm.

[knobbygb]

So 75,000 hrs is apparently quite a lot, but isn't the life of a long-haul aircraft measured more in cycles rather than hours? After all, it's the take-off and landing that put more wear on the airframe. I know there are many more factors to take into account, but I'd of thought it was *generally* cycles first, followed by age in years (corrosion) followed by hours flown.

Many of the 747-100's BA retired a few years ago had done over 100,000 hrs with around 20,000 cycles. For example G-AWNF is still flying with Kabo Air, is 32.5 years old and had done 109,947 hrs/22,488 cycles when retired by BA 2 years ago.