Ok hot off the presses, my trip images to GWO are up on my flickr account. Unfortunately Group members, I have not at this time written down the tail numbers , if i had waited to do so , you'd all still be talking about it without proper answers. I photographed from every available location my 4x4 would allow me to get to. For those who wish to venture here, be advised, the back gate to the storage area is always open due to the cotton fields that lay between runways and taxiways. This still is not an invitation to walk in , and as ive shown , they now have multiple cameras and mobile security patrolling the airfield in that opened storage area, its almost like a set up.
Enjoy, as i am witting this, i am editing Tupelo, watching the nascar race , and packing to move.
James MCO
In a message dated 7/29/2012 10:18:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barrie.ces@virgin.net writes:
Anyone know why N739A 737-700 of ARAMCO was retired? I shouldn't think
the problems below would apply to that airframe.
Cheers
Jim
>
> As I recall Jet Airways was a pretty early user of the 737-700. In
> fact the first -700 I flew on was on Jet Airways out of IXZ (now
> there is an off the beaten path airport) in 1999.
>
> The decision to part out the aircraft is usually driven more by
> condition than configuration. This is a especially unpleasant
> problem when the carrier returning the aircraft is in
> serious financial difficulty. While the lease agreement generally
> spells out the required conditions at end of lease, as a practical
> matter the contract gets ignored when the carrier is in
> serious financial difficulty. Parts are migrated to the aircraft
> being returned from all over the fleet into airframes that probably
> are close to D-check, the engines will be at operating limits, life
> limited components will generally be at end of life, and non-
> essential bits (galley, APU, lavs etc) will be inoperative.
>
> Basically what gets returned is a pile of junk. The carrier of
> course gets billed for the cost of repair, but those claims are
> unsecured, so unlikely to ever be paid. It just makes more sense
> to part out the aircraft than spend the tens of millions of dollars
> to make it commercially viable again.
>
>
>
> At 08:19 AM 7/29/2012, you wrote:
>> 6 737-700 have so far been parted out: 3 EasyJet, 2 Lauda, 1 ARAMCO
>>
>>
>> Alexandre Avrane.
>> AeroTransport Data Bank
>> http://www.aerotransport.org
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "cactuswings" group.
> To post to this group, send email to cactus-wings@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cactus-wings+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cactus-wings?hl=en
> .
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cactuswings" group.
To post to this group, send email to cactus-wings@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cactus-wings+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cactus-wings?hl=en.
0 comments:
Post a Comment