Boeing 777-200 ex-BA to be broken up
 

Now this makes me feel old.
Ex-BA G-ZZZE is to be scrapped, it was latterly with Varig. From FlightInternational:
A Boeing 777 is heading for the breaker’s yard for the first time, just 11 years after the twinjet first entered service.

Memphis-based Universal Asset Management says it has acquired a General Electric GE90-90B-powered 777-200 (MSN 27109) - the nineteenth aircraft off the line - for disassembly.

According to Flight’s Acas database, the aircraft was originally delivered to British Airways (BA) in January 1996 as G-ZZZE, being one of five non-Extended Range variants that the airline operated. The aircraft was a sister ship of G-ZZZA.

It was traded to Boeing in 2002 and after initially being placed with the now defunct Algerian carrier Khalifa Airways in 2003, entered service with Varig of Brazil as PP-VRD in 2004.

The aircraft was returned to Boeing in August and is now registered N703BA.

Universal, which has disassembled over 160 airliners in the past 10 years, says that this marks the first disassembly of a 777 and that component parts will be available for sale in the near future.

I just don't understand some things that happen in the aviation industry!

In comparison to other aircraft out there still in full revenue service the 777 is new, i can't understand how they can scrap a 10/11yr old A/C when others still flying are 25+ years old!:confused: :confused:

What about the 737-200/DC-9/747-200 etc etc.

In March 2005 i flew on Virgins G-VHOL an A343 which was second off of the production line and made its first flight for Airbus on the 3rd of February 1992, the A/C was immaculate and it was twice as old as the BA 777 being scrapped!

When is it that companys decide when an A/C should be scrapped?

Matt:ok:

Do you mean the cabin was immaculate? Amazing what new seat covers/carpet and other interior stuff can do.

The trouble is you can't see what's going on underneath this, that may well be where the problems lie in this particular case. Especially seeing where it has been since leaving BA.

If it was built in 1992 (i.e. 14 years ago) how do you work out that it was twice as old as the 777 (which is 11 years old) ? :confused:

You can see it's history here .....

http://www.planespotters.net/Product...777/27109.html

first flight Dec 1995 and del'y to BA in Jan 1996 so no test flights there I guess .... it did spend 6 months at Boeing in 2002 ?......

There must be something major wrong with it I would have thought.... :confused:

The aircraft as spare parts is worth more than the aircraft intact

If you owned the plane, what would you do?

Aswell, when it was with Varig & with their financial problems & the aircraft was stored for a short time. Possibly it got damaged during this time?

FC

I'll take your word for that ...... :ok:

let's hope the 777 fleet is not decimated by this philosophy .... :p

The GE powered aircraft were not liked by BA, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but they were always planned to be traded in at a later date, hence the zzz reg.

The GE engines were underpowered for BA's requirements, so these original a/c being 14 years old would not good business for any long haul airlines to purchase them, however parting them out would provide a significant return for any purchaser.

This 777 aircraft has been with Varig for the last few years.

A couple of years ago Finnair bought an MD-11 from Varig to supplement their fleet, now that the type is out of production. That was about the same age as this 777 in question. The maintenance work that Finnair had to put into it to bring it back up to spec cost them an absolute fortune, by the time they were finished the opinion was universal that they should never have purchased it. Do I hear it is still the "lemon" of the Finnair fleet ?

It didn't really do much for secondhand values of airframes that are ex-Varig.

This 777 is a low gross weight version that Boeing delivered to make it look like the project was on schedule. I doubt if it is much use to anyone and obviously more valuable as spares.

hence the zzz reg.

I think the reg was more to do with a similarity to 777!:)

True with just about any bit of machinery. :ok:

Wouldn't the best value of a 777 be achieved by keeping it in revenue service for a few more years? Even a LGW T7 would make a better cash cow than many of the alternatives.

Just looked it up....
 

Lease rates for a (flyable :} ) B772:
500K to 800K per month.

There has got to be more to this story.........

Oh this is pure comedy. BA are absolutely strapped for long haul capacity and one would imagine jump at the chance of getting back a frame that they regret parting with in the first place. Because an original B777 isn't up to the spec of a new 200LR means it will still do sterling service on East Coast US routes or the similar routes that G-ZZZA / B / C still fly. I would imagine that VARIG have screwed this frame over quite badly to have it scrapped quite so young.

Gordon, the G-ZZZ sequence was supposed to resemble G-777 but with the first -200IGW version, it became G-VIIA, (7 in Roman numerals see, :) clever )

Incidentally as the first 200IGW, G-VIIA WAS a Boeing test frame for over a year.

I work for a company directly involved with the teardown of this 777. Believe me the major components alone are worth more than the purchase price of the airplane. The airplane, contrary to popular believe, is not incident or accident scarred. If you are familiar with parts you know how low the value would be if it was. You can hardly sell an incident related part. Sometimes the numbers are added and things are worth more dead than alive. There is no room for sentimental in this business as we have received several phone calls saying it is morally wrong to tear down a MECHANICAL MACHINE. Oh well if anybody has any questions I might be able to help

flyguy37 :

Good to have your input here; a point of view one or two others have put forward.

But if components are generally worth more than the complete value of the aircraft, why does this process not happen elsewhere, to all types. Why are we astounded at this almost unique case ?

Why is it for example that the MD-11, much more of a lemon than the 777, and with both production line and manufactuer gone, has still not had one airframe reduced to parts ?

Your statement that the parts on this aircraft alone are worth more than the purchase price can only be true if the price paid for this particular aircraft is way below other comparable ones. So what is wrong with it ? Did Varig not keep up the maintenance ? Or the documentation ? It is generally known that this was exactly what Varig had done to the MD-11 sold to Finnair which cost them a fortune to put right, and which Finnair said retrospectively SHOULD have been reduced to parts (maybe a euphemism for they paid too much for it). We are aware the 777 has not had an accident, but the feeling is that it has just been "let go" somewhere along the line.

[
I don't know all the numbers exactly but after the demise of Varig the aircraft(s) (forgot to mention we bought two of them) did sit for several months and the aircraft is in overall average condition. The owners were very desperate to cut their losses and realized to get the airplane back into service shape would take way too long and too much money. They needed fast cash and that is what they got. The whole deal occured in less than two months start to finish which is amazingly quick considering the world of asset management. All the documentation is there. GE and Boeing are both very upset about the situation due to the effects of the aftermarket caused by a teardown and believe me Universal looked into several lease options (which they do often with aircraft prior to teardown) but none would make the money that a teardown would (the other aircraft is to be leased if I heard correctly) I have heard rumors of purchase price in the low 30 million range USD and the engines, APU and gear have fetched 20ish million alone. The aircraft is to be flown into Arkansas USA in the next month to commence the teardown. As far as the MD-11 I imagine that its compatibility with the DC-10s (which several we have torn down) make the parts a little easier to come by. These 777 are the 200s which are not useful for ocean crossings and can not be converted economically to increase range.

If its still a healthy bird you would think a carrier would take it to replace the likes of an old 757 , particularly BA, they still have 75's coming in and out of EDI, and to replace with a 77 would surely give them more capacity on the popular domestic routes ?

Even a Japanese carrier, crikey they use 74s on domestic routes..


I can understand the parts thing through - no 77s scapped previously so these used parts will be at a premium for sure.

I've just started another thread about the scrapping of a 1995 Austrian Arrows CRJ which is along similar lines to this one.

My opinion is that if a surplus airliner is worth more as spare parts, then as long as it doesn't have any historical signifigance or is rare, then I do not have any problem with it. I don't think that either the 777 or the CRJ it into these categories. After all, the only reason that these aircraft are built in the first place os to make money.

Cheers,
MDLB

Don't forget - the value of the spares thus produced is increased by their immediate availability. Order a spare from Boeing today, with a full production schedule, and you might have to wait many moons for delivery. :uhoh: