So I thought this was an interesting situation and was curious if it has happened before?

Virgin Atlantic sold G-VWIN to a scrap yard in Mississippi and the airplane was flown there last month for scrapping. Well for whatever reason (maybe due to 787 issues?) Virgin has bought the airplane back from them and the airplane is leaving TUP tomorrow. I have personally never seen an airplane survive a trip to Tupelo before. Anyone remember another time an airline has purchased a plane right back from the scrappers?

Interesting, that would be the 2nd A346 brought back to service. G-VNAP was brought back a few months ago.

Is the TUP runway long enough for a take-off?

Man, it feels good to be an A340 fan right now!

If they sold it to the scrapping company, then now they're probably just leasing it back, in the meantime, for capacity shortages. Unfortunately, I'm sure it will go back as soon as the 787s roll back into service.

n471wn wrote:

Is the TUP runway long enough for a take-off?

Easily.

Heck, BA routinely does MSY-LHR with a full pax load, off Rwy02/20.... which is 100ft shorter than TUP's runway, and you're talking about an empty A340. It'd have no trouble whatsoever.

Hard to beat a dependable Airbus Quad when it comes for filling in for unreliable 787s.

neomax wrote:

Man, it feels good to be an A340 fan right now!

It sure does.

juliuswong wrote:

Sad Update:
Airbus A340-642 MSN 736 G-VWIN Virgin Atlantic Ferried 26 March 2018 LGW-ATL-TUP for part-out & scrap ex F-WWCL

"Lady Luck" ran out of luck.......

Looks like she got lucky again!
Live long and prosper A340!

Wait until us yanks wake up in a few hours. The A340 served its purpose admirably, if we want to get into the US vs. THEM mentality, we can blame the ungodly unreliable Rolls Royce engines.

But I won’t go that route.

What's so special about TUP that they sent it there for scrapping instead of the desert?

So is it just standard now to send four-holers straight to scrapping upon retirement? No sitting idle in the desert for years and years like their predecessors? I know some of the recently-retired UA and DL 744s that met that fate were high-time birds, but comparatively speaking the A346s aren’t that old.

Are there components of the A346 that can be utilized on A330s? That may make them worth parting out as there is a large pool of aircraft flying that can use the parts.

DarthLobster wrote:

So is it just standard now to send four-holers straight to scrapping upon retirement? No sitting idle in the desert for years and years like their predecessors? I know some of the recently-retired UA and DL 744s that met that fate were high-time birds, but comparatively speaking the A346s aren’t that old.

It appears to be so...

DarthLobster wrote:

So is it just standard now to send four-holers straight to scrapping upon retirement? No sitting idle in the desert for years and years like their predecessors?

What would be the point?

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

cruiseshipcrew wrote:

So I thought this was an interesting situation and was curious if it has happened before?

Virgin Atlantic sold G-VWIN to a scrap yard in Mississippi and the airplane was flown there last month for scrapping. Well for whatever reason (maybe due to 787 issues?) Virgin has bought the airplane back from them and the airplane is leaving TUP tomorrow. I have personally never seen an airplane survive a trip to Tupelo before. Anyone remember another time an airline has purchased a plane right back from the scrappers?

BA did bring back 3 long-term stored Boeing 747-400s out of storage from Victorville in 2010/2011. G-BNLG/U/V were all stored at Victorville in 2009 before G-BNLV returned to service in 2010, with G-BNLG/U followed in 2011. These 3 Boeing 747-400s have since been withdrawn again however, G-BNLG/U in 2014 back at VCV, G-BNLV lasted longer until being withdrawn in 2016 at TEV.

LAX772LR wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

So is it just standard now to send four-holers straight to scrapping upon retirement? No sitting idle in the desert for years and years like their predecessors?

What would be the point?

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

Interesting topic, why are they not converted into freighters?
There are plans to convert A332 and -3s, A345 and -6s could be some hell of a freighter, or not?

FatCat wrote:

A345 and -6s could be some hell of a freighter, or not?

If by "hell of a freighter" you mean "hell on an airline's finances"... then sure.

First, generally the smallest model of a family is the most useful as a freighter.
Second, the expense of certification is going to be spread over very few remaining units.
Third, both the A345 and A346 are wayyyy too heavy (compared to potential payload) to be useful, and they'd only be heavier as freighters.

Lastly, but most importantly/ubiquitously for the A340: why use 4 engines for a job that could be done equally well by 2?

LAX772LR wrote:

n471wn wrote:

Is the TUP runway long enough for a take-off?

Easily.

Heck, BA routinely does MSY-LHR with a full pax load, off Rwy02/20.... which is 100ft shorter than TUP's runway, and you're talking about an empty A340. It'd have no trouble whatsoever.

Additionally, *if* they had a performance issue departing TUP, I'd imagine they'd take a light fuel load for a ferry to MEM or ATL, but I highly doubt that. I've seen them depart BOS on runway 09 (7001ft)

LAX772LR wrote:

FatCat wrote:

A345 and -6s could be some hell of a freighter, or not?

If by "hell of a freighter" you mean "hell on an airline's finances"... then sure.

First, generally the smallest model of a family is the most useful as a freighter.
Second, the expense of certification is going to be spread over very few remaining units.
Third, both the A345 and A346 are wayyyy too heavy (compared to potential payload) to be useful, and they'd only be heavier as freighters.

Lastly, but most importantly/ubiquitously for the A340: why use 4 engines for a job that could be done equally well by 2?

Thanks for the answer!

I don't know the political state of the 2 huge Airbus and Boeing orders to Iran,but if they are in total limbo one might gave thought cobbling together a fleet of say 10 A346's would not have been a bad idea.
They were not as efficient as the 773er but in every other way they were a good aircraft.get them for peanuts and plenty of places to service them.
Still that's clearly not happening.

With the 787 engine issues, the peak summer demand ramping up, have qualified pilots for the A340 series, already set up for their airline along with a likely a cheap lease price, why not VS pulling them from the brink of death and put them back into service.

LAX772LR wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

So is it just standard now to send four-holers straight to scrapping upon retirement? No sitting idle in the desert for years and years like their predecessors?

What would be the point?

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

W5 would have loved it!

LAX772LR wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

So is it just standard now to send four-holers straight to scrapping upon retirement? No sitting idle in the desert for years and years like their predecessors?

What would be the point?

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

It seems that Virgin buys used A340-600 from its lessors.

Mahan has bought used A340-600 and I think some wet leasing operation are buying a few.

I agree that we will not see a A340-600 freighter.

LAX772LR wrote:

What would be the point?

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

The King of Swaziland. His was just delivered officially last month for his 50th birthday.

Prost wrote:

Are there components of the A346 that can be utilized on A330s? That may make them worth parting out as there is a large pool of aircraft flying that can use the parts.

Conversely, flying these aircraft longer will put more pressure on the A330/340 parts pool as you're both reducing the available spares pool from retired aircraft and increasing demand for them.

We just saw an A343 escape the scrappers in Florida last week, I'm pleased to see another one get a few hundred more hours of use too.

Presumably they'll have to completely kit it out with the interior again as I think these get stripped out at LGW when VS withdraw the 346's. Or was it stored with interior intact just incase this situation arose that a quick service re-entry was needed ?

Spacepope wrote:

Prost wrote:

Are there components of the A346 that can be utilized on A330s? That may make them worth parting out as there is a large pool of aircraft flying that can use the parts.

Conversely, flying these aircraft longer will put more pressure on the A330/340 parts pool as you're both reducing the available spares pool from retired aircraft and increasing demand for them.

We just saw an A343 escape the scrappers in Florida last week, I'm pleased to see another one get a few hundred more hours of use too.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the policy of spare parts.
I actually drive a 19 years old car and still find brand new OEM spare parts.
And there are no OEM spare parts for a 19 years old airplane, that some of the planes needs to be parted out for used spare parts?
Not talking about rare birds like A342 or -5s but for the more "successful" A343 or even for the still-in-production A330family.
Thanks in advance for all kind answers.

Kickert wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What would be the point?

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

The King of Swaziland. His was just delivered officially last month for his 50th birthday.

That was a gift from the Republic Of China (ex China Airlines aircraft), no? Swaziland is one of the few nations that recognises the Republic Of China rather than the PRC.

I've read somewhere that G-VFIZ is also being returned to the fleet, so that'll make 3 ex VS A346's that are returning to active service.

zkojq wrote:

Hard to beat a dependable Airbus Quad when it comes for filling in for unreliable 787s.

neomax wrote:

Man, it feels good to be an A340 fan right now!

It sure does.

I love logging in to read kindergarden comments #myplaneisbetterthanyours

I wonder if she'll get a repaint? Seems odd given the addition of the four second hand A332s as well.

cougar15 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

So is it just standard now to send four-holers straight to scrapping upon retirement? No sitting idle in the desert for years and years like their predecessors?

What would be the point?

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

W5 would have loved it!

Air Belgium are also taking on used A340-300s, with two already in the fleet and at least one more to come. Whether or not they'd ever be interested in A340-600s is another matter.

FatCat wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Prost wrote:

Are there components of the A346 that can be utilized on A330s? That may make them worth parting out as there is a large pool of aircraft flying that can use the parts.

Conversely, flying these aircraft longer will put more pressure on the A330/340 parts pool as you're both reducing the available spares pool from retired aircraft and increasing demand for them.

We just saw an A343 escape the scrappers in Florida last week, I'm pleased to see another one get a few hundred more hours of use too.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the policy of spare parts.
I actually drive a 19 years old car and still find brand new OEM spare parts.
And there are no OEM spare parts for a 19 years old airplane, that some of the planes needs to be parted out for used spare parts?
Not talking about rare birds like A342 or -5s but for the more "successful" A343 or even for the still-in-production A330family.
Thanks in advance for all kind answers.

IMHO, it's basically economics. Any spare part can be ordered and purchased, it really depends on the price and delivery time.
Some items are quite abundant, and second-hand versions compete with first-market parts, and it's about price only.
Some items have longer lead time from the original manufacturer, and second-hand items have some advantage of being readily available.
and so on, and so forth.

Don't forget -- as these are airplane spare parts, they are subject to stringent certification standards, and paper trail has to be thorough. A highly competent machine workshop can have access to proper alloys and other feedstocks, can have original manufacturers drawings, etc. -- and still, whatever they manufacture, will be called "counterfit aircraft part" until a relevant aviation authority says otherwise.

In extreme cases, a part is out of production, and the original equipment to make this part does not exist anymore, or was repurposed, or is otherwise unavailable. In situations like this, it's either harvesting from scrapped airframes, or refurbishing of retired parts (if legal); or a major investment into re-establishing the supply chain.

Phosphorus wrote:

FatCat wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Conversely, flying these aircraft longer will put more pressure on the A330/340 parts pool as you're both reducing the available spares pool from retired aircraft and increasing demand for them.

We just saw an A343 escape the scrappers in Florida last week, I'm pleased to see another one get a few hundred more hours of use too.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the policy of spare parts.
I actually drive a 19 years old car and still find brand new OEM spare parts.
And there are no OEM spare parts for a 19 years old airplane, that some of the planes needs to be parted out for used spare parts?
Not talking about rare birds like A342 or -5s but for the more "successful" A343 or even for the still-in-production A330family.
Thanks in advance for all kind answers.

IMHO, it's basically economics. Any spare part can be ordered and purchased, it really depends on the price and delivery time.
Some items are quite abundant, and second-hand versions compete with first-market parts, and it's about price only.
Some items have longer lead time from the original manufacturer, and second-hand items have some advantage of being readily available.
and so on, and so forth.

Don't forget -- as these are airplane spare parts, they are subject to stringent certification standards, and paper trail has to be thorough. A highly competent machine workshop can have access to proper alloys and other feedstocks, can have original manufacturers drawings, etc. -- and still, whatever they manufacture, will be called "counterfit aircraft part" until a relevant aviation authority says otherwise.

In extreme cases, a part is out of production, and the original equipment to make this part does not exist anymore, or was repurposed, or is otherwise unavailable. In situations like this, it's either harvesting from scrapped airframes, or refurbishing of retired parts (if legal); or a major investment into re-establishing the supply chain.

The economics for parts storage must be different for airliners than it is for cars. For cars, it is not difficult to keep 5,000 of each part on hand after finishing production in order to furnish a profitable parts business. Obviously to re-start a supply chain is a huge expense, and frankly, it is a sign that the parts business totally failed to predict customer needs. It must be possible to forecast the rate parts will be needed. A parts supply can last 40 years.

Of course, car parts are small and easy to store. But I am still puzzled why this is a more common problem for aircraft. They should be good at this.

zkojq wrote:

Hard to beat a dependable Airbus Quad when it comes for filling in for unreliable 787s.

neomax wrote:

Man, it feels good to be an A340 fan right now!

It sure does.

Even though it has nothing to do with the 787’s reliablility... RR can’t sedm to get their act together.

May the 4th be with those A346's. They got an unexpected 2nd wind!

Thanks Phosphorous and Flighty for the answers.
I may imagine that body parts can be more difficult to store - a complete wing or a tail section are not a door or a bonnet - but forms will stay at the manufacturer, or are them being dismantled?
If the forms remain, it would be "easy" to assemble a wing if the form is still available, if it is being dismantled, surely the only way to have a complete tail section or other large part is to take 'em from scrapped planes.
But for small parts - actuators, pumps, avionics, usw, it should be easier to have a decent stock. I'm sure also that third parties contractors have some contracts that obliges them to have the spare part available for a certain number of years - in the automotive industry, if I do remember well, it's 20 years.
Thanks for all your replies.

Very cool, I have never heard of a retired plane leaving TUP, either.

In either 2010 or 2011, several years after the last grey 747 got United's "tulip" scheme, United pulled a grey 747 out of VCV and put it in service on an SFO-ORD-SFO roundtrip for the summer. The aircraft flew this route exclusively for some time, but then eventually rotated on to do HKG and some other flights before being returned at the end of the season.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

What's so special about TUP that they sent it there for scrapping instead of the desert?

I'm wondering too, anyone know the answer to this?

Pleasing to see.

From an enthusiasts point of view, give me an A340 over an A330 any day.

I only ever flew once in an A340 (Virgin). I wish I knew which one.

NYPECO wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

What's so special about TUP that they sent it there for scrapping instead of the desert?

I'm wondering too, anyone know the answer to this?

Nothing is special. The scrapper (and buyer of the aircraft) is in TUP. That is all. Not all scrapping is done in the desert, those are just the most famous because of their size due to the amount of long term storage that also occurs there. There is plenty of pics of the TUP boneyard on the internet, just google image search the airport.

Flighty wrote:

The economics for parts storage must be different for airliners than it is for cars. For cars, it is not difficult to keep 5,000 of each part on hand after finishing production in order to furnish a profitable parts business. Obviously to re-start a supply chain is a huge expense, and frankly, it is a sign that the parts business totally failed to predict customer needs. It must be possible to forecast the rate parts will be needed. A parts supply can last 40 years.

Of course, car parts are small and easy to store. But I am still puzzled why this is a more common problem for aircraft. They should be good at this.

"Quantity has a certain quality of its own".

With cars, you have a large number, more or less distributed among individual users, with some fleet here and there, within organizations, or corporations. Still, nothing too major, and lifetime of individual vehicles can be analyzed statistically.

With airplanes, how do you perform a statistical analysis, if several very large operators of a type dominate? Their decisions to extend, intensify, or cut short operating the type, can have disproportionately profound effect on spare parts demand. Also, regulatory environment can have dramatic consequences for an aircraft type lifespan.

It goes both ways -- while these pages are filled with stories of parts shortages (about to bite) MD-8X fleets, there were cases (AFAIR, L-1011 was one such example) when a type was retired earlier than expected, turning heaps of (yesterday) valuable spare parts into useless junk.

FatCat wrote:

Thanks Phosphorous and Flighty for the answers.
I may imagine that body parts can be more difficult to store - a complete wing or a tail section are not a door or a bonnet - but forms will stay at the manufacturer, or are them being dismantled?
If the forms remain, it would be "easy" to assemble a wing if the form is still available, if it is being dismantled, surely the only way to have a complete tail section or other large part is to take 'em from scrapped planes.
But for small parts - actuators, pumps, avionics, usw, it should be easier to have a decent stock. I'm sure also that third parties contractors have some contracts that obliges them to have the spare part available for a certain number of years - in the automotive industry, if I do remember well, it's 20 years.
Thanks for all your replies.

I cannot fathom a "complete wing" being stored either, but "forms at manufacturer" -- stay where? Manufacturer pays rent and facilities upkeep, plus has to keep personnel current, etc.
Look at Boeing and their 747-8 program: it's a current program, with a steady order flow. Still, a manufacturer of some body parts (was it Triumph? Cannot remember for sure) wiggled out of supply contract, citing too low production numbers, and Boeing had to insource the production. Shows you two things -- a) even current, low-volume production, can be a loss-making operation -- despite the revenue; imagine what's it like to have all the same facilities and personnel to support -- with no revenue. b) industry players recognize this reality, and build it into their contracts.

Many thanks for the excellent explanation!

Speedbird96 wrote:

cruiseshipcrew wrote:

So I thought this was an interesting situation and was curious if it has happened before?

Virgin Atlantic sold G-VWIN to a scrap yard in Mississippi and the airplane was flown there last month for scrapping. Well for whatever reason (maybe due to 787 issues?) Virgin has bought the airplane back from them and the airplane is leaving TUP tomorrow. I have personally never seen an airplane survive a trip to Tupelo before. Anyone remember another time an airline has purchased a plane right back from the scrappers?

BA did bring back 3 long-term stored Boeing 747-400s out of storage from Victorville in 2010/2011. G-BNLG/U/V were all stored at Victorville in 2009 before G-BNLV returned to service in 2010, with G-BNLG/U followed in 2011. These 3 Boeing 747-400s have since been withdrawn again however, G-BNLG/U in 2014 back at VCV, G-BNLV lasted longer until being withdrawn in 2016 at TEV.

That's true however Victorville is more of a long term storage facility and doesn't do that much scrapping anymore. Before this airplane I have never seen a plane survive Tupelo. They are 100% scrappers with no storage facilities. Good going for those BA 747s though. Always nice to see them return to the sky.

QF744ER wrote:

I've read somewhere that G-VFIZ is also being returned to the fleet, so that'll make 3 ex VS A346's that are returning to active service.

G-VFIZ is in Manila since 6 weeks. This sounds more like maintenance than storage or scrapping.

Lufthansa also brought back 4 of their stored A 340-600 back to service recently

icelandair75w wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

n471wn wrote:

Is the TUP runway long enough for a take-off?

Easily.

Heck, BA routinely does MSY-LHR with a full pax load, off Rwy02/20.... which is 100ft shorter than TUP's runway, and you're talking about an empty A340. It'd have no trouble whatsoever.

Additionally, *if* they had a performance issue departing TUP, I'd imagine they'd take a light fuel load for a ferry to MEM or ATL, but I highly doubt that. I've seen them depart BOS on runway 09 (7001ft)

Non-pilots might be amazed at the difference in performance between a lightly loaded aircraft and a fully loaded one. It’s like two different airplanes. I get at least twice the performance such as rate of climb and takeoff distance as when my plane is fully loaded. Flying my T210 alone with half fuel, it climbs like a homesick angel. With 4 adults and 2/3 fuel leaving Vegas at 100d dF, takeoff roll was long and climb rate was pretty slow.

Flighty wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

FatCat wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't understand the policy of spare parts.
I actually drive a 19 years old car and still find brand new OEM spare parts.
And there are no OEM spare parts for a 19 years old airplane, that some of the planes needs to be parted out for used spare parts?
Not talking about rare birds like A342 or -5s but for the more "successful" A343 or even for the still-in-production A330family.
Thanks in advance for all kind answers.

IMHO, it's basically economics. Any spare part can be ordered and purchased, it really depends on the price and delivery time.
Some items are quite abundant, and second-hand versions compete with first-market parts, and it's about price only.
Some items have longer lead time from the original manufacturer, and second-hand items have some advantage of being readily available.
and so on, and so forth.

Don't forget -- as these are airplane spare parts, they are subject to stringent certification standards, and paper trail has to be thorough. A highly competent machine workshop can have access to proper alloys and other feedstocks, can have original manufacturers drawings, etc. -- and still, whatever they manufacture, will be called "counterfit aircraft part" until a relevant aviation authority says otherwise.

In extreme cases, a part is out of production, and the original equipment to make this part does not exist anymore, or was repurposed, or is otherwise unavailable. In situations like this, it's either harvesting from scrapped airframes, or refurbishing of retired parts (if legal); or a major investment into re-establishing the supply chain.

The economics for parts storage must be different for airliners than it is for cars. For cars, it is not difficult to keep 5,000 of each part on hand after finishing production in order to furnish a profitable parts business. Obviously to re-start a supply chain is a huge expense, and frankly, it is a sign that the parts business totally failed to predict customer needs. It must be possible to forecast the rate parts will be needed. A parts supply can last 40 years.

Of course, car parts are small and easy to store. But I am still puzzled why this is a more common problem for aircraft. They should be good at this.

Think of it this way: Between 1994 and 1996, 380 Ferrari F-50s were produced. Imagine getting parts for an out of production car with that limited of a run. Now think that just about half that number MD-11s were produced. And way fewer A345/346... Parts are not going to be produced and stocked, the costs are astronomical. There will be manufacturing runs as needed, and of course o can rob parked aircraft.

Kickert wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

They're not going to be converted into freighters, and who's buying used A340s?

The King of Swaziland. His was just delivered officially last month for his 50th birthday.

Great. Now all we need is a few dozen more kings of Swaziland, and there'll be a market.

parapente wrote:

I don't know the political state of the 2 huge Airbus and Boeing orders to Iran,but if they are in total limbo one might gave thought cobbling together a fleet of say 10 A346's would not have been a bad idea.

Indeed, that's why Mahan did just that.

NYPECO wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

What's so special about TUP that they sent it there for scrapping instead of the desert?

I'm wondering too, anyone know the answer to this?

Nothing. "The desert" is mostly used for storage (due to lack of moisture to avoid corrosion), not scrapping.
Plenty of non-desert scrappers, in fact, I'd say the majority are.

ikolkyo wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Hard to beat a dependable Airbus Quad when it comes for filling in for unreliable 787s.

neomax wrote:

Man, it feels good to be an A340 fan right now!

It sure does.

Even though it has nothing to do with the 787’s reliablility... RR can’t sedm to get their act together.

And the A346s uses Trents...and it may be more reliable engine than the 1000 but still not an easy Trent to maintain either (as compared to 700/800)

They would had been better off with the Americans with the GENx engines than blind European loyalty to Rolls.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Hard to beat a dependable Airbus Quad when it comes for filling in for unreliable 787s.


It sure does.

Even though it has nothing to do with the 787’s reliablility... RR can’t sedm to get their act together.

And the A346s uses Trents...and it may be more reliable engine than the 1000 but still not an easy Trent to maintain either (as compared to 700/800)

They would had been better off with the Americans with the GENx engines than blind European loyalty to Rolls.

What's being American got to do with it? Those American's are sure doing a great job over at Pratt and Whitney. *rolls eyes* And it's not like GE never have problems.

Nice to see another A340-600 escape the scrapper in the meantime.