Still cant believe its going to be broken up. Its valued at about $50,000,000.
Surely it cant be worth more than that as spares?

I cannot beleive that crashlanding was 10 years ago! I was working in building 521 (the cargo agents buidling) at the time, and we had just lost our unobstructed views of the runway due to the building of the new BA Cargo Centre, we could tell something was going on due to all the activity of the emergency services, but it was only when I went home and saw the a/c sitting on 27l with all the emergency shutes deployed I realised what had happened!

from Flight International today:

"The first scrapping of a new-generation Airbus widebody is looming, with a 13-year-old ex-Virgin Atlantic A340-300 expected to be broken for spares.

"Industry sources say that the aircraft is set to come under the breaker's axe.

"The A340 (MSN 0016), which is managed by lessor AerCap, was ferried from Hamburg to the company's storage facility at Phoenix Goodyear airport in July. Although AerCap says that "the decision hasn't been made" whether to part out the A340, industry sources say that the aircraft is set to come under the breaker's axe.

"According to Flight's ACAS database, MSN 0016 was delivered new to Virgin Atlantic in January 1994 on lease from Airbus, and acquired by AerCap (then called Debis AirFinance) in 2000.

"The aircraft was placed with BWIA West Indies Airways in 2004 and returned off lease in January this year after BWIA closed and was replaced by Caribbean Airlines.

"In 1997 while operating with Virgin, the A340 was involved in a major incident at London Heathrow, when it made an emergency landing with one of its main landing-gear bogies retracted.

"Although the A340 is an early-build example, its utilisation is not among the highest in the A340 fleet. According to ACAS, MSN 0016 has accumulated 55,309h and 7,148 cycles, which is around 10,000h and 6,500 cycles below the A340 fleet leader in each criterion.

"Industry sources say that AerCap is considering breaking the aircraft as it would be uneconomical to reconfigure it for onward lease. Another factor is that there is a strong market currently for the CFM International CFM56-5C engines which power the aircraft.

"While this would be the first A330/A340 to be parted out, last year Universal Asset Management announced that it had acquired an early-build Boeing 777-200 for scrapping. The ex-BA aircraft had been in storage and it was deemed uneconomical to undertake the work to return them to service."

:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{

Ahhh, good old Flight Global (International). :p

Ah yes, I remember the 5th November 1997 ... I was due out to Paris from T4 that evening. The rain was torrential and the roads to the airport gridlocked and then the airport was gridlocked!!

They combined a couple of flights and we left very late, getting to CDG at about midnight. Which was irritating, as I was on the ORY flight. So they drove us from CDG to ORY in a coach at gone midnight, round the Périphérique in the pouring rain ... :eek:

I got about five hours sleep and staggered into the client for 09:00 to be told that they had made a mistake and I was not needed that day ... :hmm: The fact that I was paid for having to wait at T4 for hours (including on the a/c for about 90 mins) and all the rest did not really compensate.

I was glad to hear that all on board G-VSKY had a happy ending to the story and the picture (linked above) is quite something.

Airbus about to win big order?
 

EADS/Airbus beats Boeing....
 

to US tanker contract:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272129.stm

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-contract.html

Or even .....

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense


Good to see the best man won.

I really didn't expect the USA to honour any concept of open/free trade for a military contract but ...........

So who's going to buy the A400M ?

USAF Tanker contract
 

Wow, this is a huge upset!, the fur is going to be flying in the political arena now!!

They just posted this story on the Chicago Tribune website too. Boeing is based in Chicago now, and there is a lot of surprised folks around here apparently. They have been touting this contract as a done deal lately in the local media. They are saying the contract will actually go to Northrop Grumman who will do the work on the planes which will come from EADS.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,5774444.story

Enhances the Aussie Air Force spares availability while away base thats for sure.

And the initiation of an exchange program for tanker drivers will be a lot easier to implement with the yanks choice of the Airbus.

Interesting choice with respect to keeping jobs/money in-country.

Bigger and more capable - so what's wrong with this picture?
 

Boeing had this contract in the bag in 2004, but a woman named Darleen Druyan crossed the line between her job in the Air Force procurement office and the offices at Boeing defense. Mike Sears (then Boeing CFO) and Ms. Druyan were both jailed for their illegal deals. This was a huge embarrassment for the Air Force and did not exactly do wonders for Boeing's reputation either.

The scandal forced (via the US Congress led by Sen. McCain) the USAF to put the contract up for bids once again and the larger and more capable A330 derived tanker has won. It will be interesting to watch the fallout once Congress is tasked with funding the buy. Some Washington insiders have already begun the assault and labor unions from around the US will also be gearing up for protests.

The arguments will be politically motivated - that is to say a US Air Force aircraft should not now nor ever be built by the French. (their words) Silly, but true.

Here are a few choice quotes from a New York Times article available here.



Any official protest from the losing bidder would substantially delay the entry into service of the EADS/Northrop tanker. According to one Air Force general, a Boeing protest won't change the outcome - but American politics being what they are - I wouldn't count out the 'home team' just yet.

It's easy to protest, but difficult to protest successfully if you're pushing an old-generation product that entered service when Ronald Reagan was a brand new president.

The military should not have to put up with a plane that Boeing can't sell in the commercial market (three 767 passenger aircraft sold in 2007) just to keep the line open.

RIP 767, you had a good run.

USAF orders Airbus tankers
 

Good news for Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272272.stm

I wonder if those from the US can explain how US manufacturers have supplied large numbers of aircraft to European forces over the years, and they have been happy to build them, but there is a huge fuss when the decision is made the other way.

Here in the UK the large aircraft component of the Air Force is made up of C-17s (US built), Tristars (US built) and multiple generations of Hercules (US built). US workers apparently felt fine building these for us. Yet if the wings of the new tanker are built in the UK and shipped to the Alabama assembly plant, there's a storm of protest.

The words "one way street", rather than "allies", spring to mind, as so often in US-UK military relations.

Excellent post WHBM, am in total agreement with you. In fact this "one way traffic" seems to apply to everything, not just military matters. Its about time things were done on our terms rather than theirs.

and of course this storm of protest if successful is in no way an unofficial subsidy of Boeing by political pressures.......................Politicians pulling strings to make sure the 'home town boys' get the work regardless of whether it is the right deal for the Air Force just couldn't be seen as an indirect subsidy could it :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Well played the winning team, including Airbus, and I hope that foul play in dark alleys doesn't get a reversal of the decision.

Irrespective of who, what, why and when, I am amazed that the winning consortium have managed to take the currency risk involved. There is almost no way of knowing just how much the Euro and Dollar (let alone the Pound) will fluctuate over the next 15-odd years.

It may be very unfashionable to say so, but hooray for the accountants.

I am pleased as much for the airbus workers in this country, hopefully this will go along way to secure their future (as much as you can secure anything in aviation). Well done all:D