727-200 Crash

[Joshua949]

U T A

UTA (Union des Transports Africains de Guinee) flight 141, a Boeing 727 (3X-GDM) bound for
Beirut and Dubai, crashed shortly after taking off from Cotonou (Benin) on 25Dec03.
It is possible that the aircraft was overloaded as it has been reported that the 727 never gained altitude ;
the gear struck the roof of a building as well as the airport fence before breaking up on the shoreline.

Pictures below is '3X-GDD' (Foto Exavia.be)

This is an ex. AA plane & what's so sorry about UTA is that they never painted the aircraft. Maybe they didnt get the time to or something.

 

[Acadia]

"This is an ex. AA plane & what's so sorry about UTA is that they never painted the aircraft. Maybe they didnt get the time to or something.

Correct me if I am wrong (seems like I frequently am), but aside from saving the money to paint the aircraft isn’t it also a huge weight benefit to leave most of an airliner fuselage bare?

 

[Joshua949]

[ QUOTE ]
"This is an ex. AA plane & what's so sorry about UTA is that they never painted the aircraft. Maybe they didnt get the time to or something.

Correct me if I am wrong (seems like I frequently am), but aside from saving the money to paint the aircraft isn’t it also a huge weight benefit to leave most of an airliner fuselage bare?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would have been nice to see this aircraft painted in their own livery. If they didnt have the money or something then that's ok. & yeah, it's a weight benefit to leave most of an airliner fuselage bare & the thing is..this weight benefit along with saving costs by leaving the fuselage bare goes a lot deeper..if i can find the topic in a.net...they got in a big fight over their talking about leaving the aircraft bare for some reason...

 

[JEP]

The bare plane is actually a huge $$$ saver. One they don't have to worry about keeping the plaens painted, but if you take the weight of all the paint required to paint each and every plane AA flys, it is a big money saver. Don't start flaming me for any numbers, but I remember discussing this very fact in one of my business classes in college.

 

[Acadia]

I remember seeing some numbers at some point and all I can recall is that it was a whole bunch of money. A whole bunch saved from not paining them and a whole bunch saved on fuel because of lower aircraft weight. I would like to find more specifics for the hec of it (cocktail party facts).

 

[Joshua949]

I know it's a big money saver especially for AA & w/ all the aircraft they have. But I remember hearing something about the heating/cooling system inside the aircraft. Can't remember the specifics about it. Would a painted plane be cooler warm/hot temps than a bare metal plane?

 

[bluelake]

a thought...

if its such a big money saver, AND the airline industry is so competitive and broke and bankrupt.. then why dont we see MOST airliner's with bare paint schemes....

I dont know JACK S**T about this aspect of the industry, but that is the question that comes to my mind....

 

[MQAAord]

Not only does having no paint save $ and weight, but it was also CR Smith's personal preference to have that trademark shiny finish. He was once shown a new 'paint' scheme, and wanted nothing to do with it.

 

[donttouchanything]

I would think that some airlines opt to paint their aircraft because after they do a cost benefit analysis they decide that “brand” recognition offsets any potential extra costs. Think about it how many airlines (past and present) can you name by their distinctive paint schemes?

If everyone flew unpainted aircraft you’d be hard pressed to tell them apart in the air or at the gate. Brand recognition is priceless, just ask Coke.