DIJKKIJK wrote:

The reason why this airframe was scrapped is probably because all the testing, breaking, and fixing rendered it unsafe and unreliable for regular pax ops. No reg authority would give it a CoA.

I would expect ZA004 and ZA005 operated under the 787's Type Certificate once it was granted (as opposed to the Experimental Certificate during the testing and certification stage) so getting a CoA should not have been an issue. Boeing was offering them for VIP usage and I imagine that would have required a CoA.

Stitch wrote:

aviationfan12 wrote:

I noticed that that the fifth 787, N787FT is now being scrapped. What is going to happen to the plane once it is scrapped? Will it go to the garbage dump or become something else.

The materials recovered will at least in part be used on other 787s. Boeing turned 787 manufacturing scrap into usable dry fiber product for wing-access doors on the 787 ecoDemonstrator. CFRP scrap from the 777 and 787 programs has also been used to make parts for cars, electronics, kayak paddles and other sports equipment.

F27500 wrote:

Weird to see .. so soon! That one didn't see any airline service, did it ?

No. It would have originally gone to Northwest Airlines (nee Delta), but was NTU and Boeing had subsequently hoped to sell it as a VIP but the GFC nixed that. So they eventually moved it to R&D and wrote-down it's value. Once it had completed it's use as an operational test platform it was tasked to test component and structural recycling (which it is now doing).

What is the"GFC"?

DrPaul wrote:

Slash787 wrote:

They could have given this to Iran Air

Were Dan Air still around, they may well have had it. (That will probably baffle anyone here who was not in Britain during the 1960s.)

LMAO so true.

Stitch wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

On a side note, I am surprised Boeing hasn`t painted over the 787 and "Dreamliner" logo`s before releasing the demolishing crew...20 liters of paint and Joe Average would have been none the wiser.

PAE sees only general aviation traffic so "Joe Average" won't notice it, anyway.

And if any media happened to pick up on the story, it would be reported as a 787 so covering the lettering and logo would not make a difference.

No a reporter would have called it an A300 or DC-10. Have you see stories and boilerplate photo's they have used in stories they get the wrong plane over half the time.

rbavfan wrote:

What is the "GFC"?

The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008

FatCat wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Carbon fiber beer cans!

Carbon fiber pots & pans!

Do not forget the latest trend: luggage tags!

Maybe slightly OT. Boeing seems to be able to sell most of their test fleet while Airbus tends to keep theirs as in house testbed or straight to storage. Are there variations on their test programme that prevent them from selling their test fleet?

leyland1989 wrote:

Maybe slightly OT. Boeing seems to be able to sell most of their test fleet while Airbus tends to keep theirs as in house testbed or straight to storage. Are there variations on their test programme that prevent them from selling their test fleet?

Airbus does refurbish the other test frames in their programs for later customer delivery, so I am guessing it is just policy to keep the first MSN.

Latest pictures on LN5 scrapping



https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/sta ... 1215627265









https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/sta ... 4401257472

Boeing scrapping these 'test frames' may be due to financial and tax reasons. While the costs of scrapping is not cheap, Boeing and others can find out how to do the process of demolition (a cost of business) and determine wear and tear aspects from real use including cycles of compression/decompression and other stress.

Will LN4 still try to be sold as a VIP?

DIJKKIJK wrote:

Slash787 wrote:

They could have given this to Iran Air

The reason why this airframe was scrapped is probably because all the testing, breaking, and fixing rendered it unsafe and unreliable for regular pax ops. No reg authority would give it a CoA.

Why do you think Iranian lives are cheaper or more dispensable than the others?

The plane was not unsafe and unreliable, well that is if you added back all of the parts. The cost that it would take to get this plane back to flying condition would be more than what they could sell to a customer. Once this was realized they decided to scrap.

Stitch wrote:

PAE sees only general aviation traffic so "Joe Average" won't notice it, anyway.

I agreed with that, but then, "Oops":

smithbs wrote:

Aviation Day is coming up in mid-May at PAE. I have my tickets already. The whole southern end of the airport gets devoted to the air show. I wonder if they are hoping to get this airframe out before a couple thousand people start taking pictures of it

I really think they are trying to get it cleared out of the way by then.

rbavfan wrote:

And if any media happened to pick up on the story, it would be reported as a 787 so covering the lettering and logo would not make a difference.

No a reporter would have called it an A300 or DC-10. Have you see stories and boilerplate photos they have used in stories they get the wrong plane over half the time.

Exactly.
Leaving "787" or "Dreamliner" in print on the fuselage leaves it crystal clear for everybody of what is actually lying here in 10.000 pieces.


No Tax On Rotax

Whatever happened to the 787 fatigue frame? Granted, it never flew, so maybe it's not a true scrapping...but surely there were some lessons learned in regards to slicing and dicing a 787?

UA444 wrote:

Will LN4 still try to be sold as a VIP?

The costs for LN 4 has been written down, it is most likely going to be scrapped.

strfyr51 wrote:

UAL747422 wrote:

After 5 years in storage, they couldn't sell it to anyone? I'm surprised, I'm sure a charter airline would love a used 787.

It was a testbed airplane!! The costs to bring it up to production standards would be more than the airplane would be to Build it NEW..

I see. Makes sense.

Stitch wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

On a side note, I am surprised Boeing hasn`t painted over the 787 and "Dreamliner" logo`s before releasing the demolishing crew...20 liters of paint and Joe Average would have been none the wiser.

PAE sees only general aviation traffic so "Joe Average" won't notice it, anyway.

And if any media happened to pick up on the story, it would be reported as a 787 so covering the lettering and logo would not make a difference.

Or as an A380, depending on the media outlet.

Seattle Times must follow a.net.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -or-scrap/

UAL747422 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

UAL747422 wrote:

After 5 years in storage, they couldn't sell it to anyone? I'm surprised, I'm sure a charter airline would love a used 787.

It was a testbed airplane!! The costs to bring it up to production standards would be more than the airplane would be to Build it NEW..

I see. Makes sense.

Small detail: it was never intended to be a testbed airplane . . .

strfyr51 wrote:

It was a testbed airplane!! The costs to bring it up to production standards would be more than the airplane would be to Build it NEW..

PW100 wrote:

Small detail: it was never intended to be a testbed airplane . . .

LN005 was always intended to be part of the testing and certification program and then reconditioned for delivery to an airline customer (originally Northwest Airlines). It was just the amount of change configuration required to bring the airframe to a condition that would make it suitable for airline service was so beyond what Boeing could reasonably expect to recover via sale made it not worth the effort. Hence Boeing trying to shift it as a VIP airframe since the frame would have been heavily reconfigured for a VIP material and the required performance / economics were lower.

Nomadd wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It would have originally gone to Northwest Airlines (nee Delta)

I know I'm being really nit-picky here, but "nee Delta" is not a correct use of the term. "Nee" means formerly known as (often used to reference someone's maiden, or "birth" name). Northwest was not born or founded as Delta. If an airline called Delta later changed their name to Northwest, then this would be correct.

Close. Nee means "originally".

Nope. hOMSaR is right and you are wrong. Née literally means "born" in French.

UA444 wrote:

I thought it was 3 and 4 that were going to NW?

It's been so long I honestly don't remember...

#1 and #2 were to go to ANA, but thought they had #3, as well. So maybe it was ZA001 and ZA002 for ANA, ZA003 and ZA004 for NW and then ZA005 and ZA006 for I believe Royal Air Maroc.

I thought it was 3 and 4 that were going to NW?

PW100 wrote:

UAL747422 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

It was a testbed airplane!! The costs to bring it up to production standards would be more than the airplane would be to Build it NEW..

I see. Makes sense.

Small detail: it was never intended to be a testbed airplane . . .

I can see why. The 787 had quite the growing pains in its testing phase

will this happen with the -10 prototype?

UAL747422 wrote:

will this happen with the -10 prototype?

No. It will be refurbished and delivered to SQ. At this point Boeing has the 787 production and design down pat unlike 10 years ago. The plane will just differ from standard because of any test equipment that can’t easily be removed or alterations made to accommodate test equipment that was installed.

Stitch wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

It was a testbed airplane!! The costs to bring it up to production standards would be more than the airplane would be to Build it NEW..

PW100 wrote:

Small detail: it was never intended to be a testbed airplane . . .

LN005 was always intended to be part of the testing and certification program and then reconditioned for delivery to an airline customer (originally Northwest Airlines). It was just the amount of change configuration required to bring the airframe to a condition that would make it suitable for airline service was so beyond what Boeing could reasonably expect to recover via sale made it not worth the effort. Hence Boeing trying to shift it as a VIP airframe since the frame would have been heavily reconfigured for a VIP material and the required performance / economics were lower.

Fully agree on all accounts. I should have written that differently.

The point I was trying to make is that it was never solely intended as a testbed. Which was suggested by the original poster.

I do wonder why it took Boeing this long to finally write it off. Where there strategic accounting reasons, beyond the cost of refurbishment vs selling revenue? If I understand correctly, as long as it was on the books as production frame, all cost associated with it could be deferred accounting wise. Could there be some motive to keep it in the deferred production cost as long as possible? At least until the program was well cash flow positive?

PW100 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

It was a testbed airplane!! The costs to bring it up to production standards would be more than the airplane would be to Build it NEW..

PW100 wrote:

Small detail: it was never intended to be a testbed airplane . . .

LN005 was always intended to be part of the testing and certification program and then reconditioned for delivery to an airline customer (originally Northwest Airlines). It was just the amount of change configuration required to bring the airframe to a condition that would make it suitable for airline service was so beyond what Boeing could reasonably expect to recover via sale made it not worth the effort. Hence Boeing trying to shift it as a VIP airframe since the frame would have been heavily reconfigured for a VIP material and the required performance / economics were lower.

Fully agree on all accounts. I should have written that differently.

The point I was trying to make is that it was never solely intended as a testbed. Which was suggested by the original poster.

I do wonder why it took Boeing this long to finally write it off. Where there strategic accounting reasons, beyond the cost of refurbishment vs selling revenue? If I understand correctly, as long as it was on the books as production frame, all cost associated with it could be deferred accounting wise. Could there be some motive to keep it in the deferred production cost as long as possible? At least until the program was well cash flow positive?

Boeing wrote off LN5 along with LN4 back in July 2016 (the first three were written off in 2009). In those 7 years they were trying to find a (likely private) buyer for the two frames. They are just now getting around to scrapping it.

PW100 wrote:

I do wonder why it took Boeing this long to finally write it off. Where there strategic accounting reasons, beyond the cost of refurbishment vs selling revenue? If I understand correctly, as long as it was on the books as production frame, all cost associated with it could be deferred accounting wise. Could there be some motive to keep it in the deferred production cost as long as possible?

I am not sure when ZA005 left the active test fleet (it was part of the Battery Re-Certification program in early 2013), but I am guessing by mid-2016 it was clear it (and ZA004) would not find a home with a commercial or private customer so accounting rules may have required them to be moved to the R&D category (especially as ZA004 was still actively supporting that role).

leyland1989 wrote:

Maybe slightly OT. Boeing seems to be able to sell most of their test fleet while Airbus tends to keep theirs as in house testbed or straight to storage. Are there variations on their test programme that prevent them from selling their test fleet?

It's not off topic it's "contrary" to the topic. Can you cite how many test aircraft Airbus has scrapped ? Here we are with Boeing scrapping several 787s !

Latest pictures on scrapping, the 2 pictures below are taken a day apart



https://twitter.com/JenSchuld/status/988887085900689409



https://twitter.com/JenSchuld/status/989244825407897600

All that is left of it now

The photos are too painful to see...

Kinda late to the game but the reason ZA005 could not be sold is because it would be close to impossible to prove to the FAA conformity to Boeing's production certificate. This was because of the production problems Boeing had at the beginning of production.

It's not that the aircraft was built incorrectly, it was that Boeing could not prove to the FAA it was built correctly. Kinda like if you loose the logbook for an engine, the engine has to be dissembled in order to be proven it to be airworthy.
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/p ... _under_tc/

Was it ever unsafe to operate under an experimental airworthiness certificate? No. It met the requirement spelled out by the FAA to be issued an experimental airworthiness certificate. It just couldn't be certified for commercial service without a massive amount of expense to prove conformity to the FAA because of the production problems.

Sure is a shame. Dismantling it with out painting over the name etc is the right thing to do. It's like Boeing saying, hey, this did not worked out as we hoped so in the interest of the flying public we are doing what our conscience requires.

n471wn wrote:

They could have donated it like they did the first 3—a real shame that 4 and 5 met such a sad fate

What "sad fate" has 4 met?

N7874 is currently having a long sleep over at Grant County but to be honest I don't see any further use for it now that the 787 program is complete for all models. It kind of 'unofficially' became a test bed for some 787-10 stuff and was flying most days during the 787-10 certification but once that was complete it was parked up and later ferried to MWH for storage back in November last year.

Nomadd wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It would have originally gone to Northwest Airlines (nee Delta)

I know I'm being really nit-picky here, but "nee Delta" is not a correct use of the term. "Nee" means formerly known as (often used to reference someone's maiden, or "birth" name). Northwest was not born or founded as Delta. If an airline called Delta later changed their name to Northwest, then this would be correct.

Close. Nee means "originally".

Née means born. "Originally" or "formally" are both accepted as English translations but "originally" is more faithful to it's actual meaning.

Have any other 787s been scrapped?

For some reason I recall a post that Air India had some parked for years and robbed continually for parts.

SteelChair wrote:

Have any other 787s been scrapped?

No.

SteelChair wrote:

For some reason I recall a post that Air India had some parked for years and robbed continually for parts.

Yes, they were using some frames as spares donors for operating frames in years past. Not sure if that is still the case.

SteelChair wrote:

Have any other 787s been scrapped?

For some reason I recall a post that Air India had some parked for years and robbed continually for parts.

That was VT-ANI, since resorted now for some time and as of this week designated to one of the LHR-DEL flights.

RobK wrote:

N7874 is currently having a long sleep over at Grant County but to be honest I don't see any further use for it now that the 787 program is complete for all models. It kind of 'unofficially' became a test bed for some 787-10 stuff and was flying most days during the 787-10 certification but once that was complete it was parked up and later ferried to MWH for storage back in November last year.

ZA004's value to Boeing is that it could be kept for R&D and future certification/testing programs so most likely it won't go to a museum or be scrapped any time soon.

One ongoing program that it was used for in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoDemonstrator
From reading the link, there could be more Eco Demonstrator testing for the 787 in 2019.................