B744 VH-OED Retirement

[Brad Myer]

Hi all,

Have some questions regarding OEDs retirement...

So this A/C operated a schedule flight to the US and was then flowen straight to "retirement"

What about the A/C interior? It has brand new Y+ seats installed etc do they just go to waste?

I remember when the B742/B743 and B762s were retired from QF the A/C were stripped of any valuable cbin items and then flowen out of SYD for retirement.

Anyone have any details?

[Gerald A]

http://www.400scalehangar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42900

[Mike W]

Interestingly, from the forum link above "744s VH-OEC, OED, OJF, OJK (I deliberately left out the 767s for this discussion) are all up for sale and will be gone from the Qantas fleet by the end of this year/early 2010" so I suppose not surprisingly, the two non-'38 747's (747-4H6s) and the two troubled QF 747-438s involved in 'incidents' over the past few years.

Still leaves OEB (747-48E) and the older OJ series pre OJH and K.

[Anthony J]

What incident did OJF have?

[BradR]

OJH landed in the bunker in BKK not OJF.

I assume retirements of the 2 class RR 744s will be decided by which is next due for heavy maintenance.

[Mike W]

Apologies as per the above. I actually did mean OJH, not OJF and I think I must have had OJH on the brain assuming it would be retired because of the golf course incident. Certainly got my wires crossed.

I guess this destroys that aspect of my point then :o

[Nick Te Mata]

OEC and OED,both -4H6 (ex-MH) frames, have had some serious problems involving corrosion and other structural faults which were discovered during D-check in about 2002 and go back to their service/maintenance life with their original owner. Not to mention that they're not exactly young, but conceivably still have a few years in frontline service in a healthy economic climate. OEB hasn't really had the same issues being an ex-OZ -48E.

OJF and OJK, despite being a touch younger (both '91 builds from memory) than the aircraft with earlier registrations, have more hours and cycles than others. In normal circumstances they wouldn't be retired at this stage and it's really much of a muchness as to which 744s leave the fleet, but some had to go as there is currently way too much capacity with new 388s coming online -- these aircraft headed the list. Had this situation arisen in a different economic climate, we'd probably see 744s drifting into domestic work (SYD-CNS, SYD/MEL-PER) and secondary international routes much as the classic 747s did in the twilight of their service -- ECB, ECC, EBS and EBQ for example lasted to about 25 years old, the 743s 23-24. Right now the loads just can't justify holding onto that capacity.

The original order of 744s consists of OJA-OJR and span late 1989 to early 1993; they were all built at a similar time so the overriding concern will be hours/cycles (as is generally the case with most aircraft retirement). If OJK's incidents lately had played a part in its retirement, the aircraft wouldn't have been repaired at significant cost. It's simply coincidental.

[Tom PER]

OEC 79990 hrs/9733 cycles
OED 79236 hrs/9572 cycles

OJF 86641 hrs/11215 cycles
OJK 81519 hrs/10648 cycles

Is what they were advertised with having on the airframes.

Why are they being stored at VCV and not say Avalon where they could be re-activated at short notice?

[Marty H]

Tom they are now surplus to QF's requirement, two years ago QF were under capacity, now they are way over, its not about a temporary storage they are leaving the fleet for good.

[Steve S... 2]

I would like to see Qantas retire OQA, OQB, OQC and OQD instead... lol.

[danielc]

I flew on OEC earlier this week as QF74 from SFO to SYD. Judging by the shape of the aircraft (seats, paneling, bathrooms, etc), it certainly looked to have a lot of flying years left in it. This was in stark contrast to the UA 767 that I flew on a week earlier from HNL to SFO which was looking very worse for wear.

[Ash W]

Looks are not the sole judge of how much life is left in the a/c. You have also just compared an international configured aircraft with a US domestic configured shuttle bus.

[Fred C]

I assume the retirement schedule is based on cycles flown and proximity to D Checks?
This is the most correct answer. All of the aircraft "parked" will require a major check before going flying again.:D

[Mike W]

I would like to see Qantas retire OQA, OQB, OQC and OQD instead... lol.


Ha ha. It'll be interesting to see how these things are doing in 20 years or so. History is a true judge. They'd have to be pretty special to be up there with the mighty 747 and as of now, I have many doubts.

[Georgie B]

Interestingly, from the forum link above "744s VH-OEC, OED, OJF, OJK (I deliberately left out the 767s for this discussion) are all up for sale and will be gone from the Qantas fleet by the end of this year/early 2010" so I suppose not surprisingly, the two non-'38 747's (747-4H6s) and the two troubled QF 747-438s involved in 'incidents' over the past few years.

Still leaves OEB (747-48E) and the older OJ series pre OJH and K.

*Sigh*
How I wish I was older, so I could have perhaps seen them more when they were still flying. Curse that A380!

[Sarmad Al-Khozaie]

LONG live the mighty A380..... Say good bye to 747 :D

[Grahame Hutchison]

With 1,419 Boeing 747s built, 800 still flying and 30 years of service, the A380 has a long way to go to even scratch the surface of these numbers.

[Erik H. Bakke]

So did the 747, back in 1970.

[Georgie B]

LONG live the mighty A380..... Say good bye to 747 :D

I never will :rolleyes:

[Mike W]

So did the 747, back in 1970.

Erik, in 1970, the 747 had been flying for only a year. The 3fatty has been around significantly longer than that.

[Erik H. Bakke]

Doesn't change the fact that no aircraft becomes a classic overnight.
The 747 is a classic because it has been around for so long, not been around for so long because it is classic.

[Anthony J]

VH-OEC's departure yesterday was her last!

[Sarah C]

Correct AJ - operated the 11 and then off to Victorville to be reunited with its sibling. The third in the trio looks like it will stick around considering the new livery and decal applied to it.

Here are some pictures, I wasn't able to stick around for its departure:

[D Chan]

looks like it still had the thrust reverser cowling on the outer engines with newer logos prior to departure, wonder if that stayed with the aircraft before it left Sydney..

[Jack B]

does anyone know when -OGA is due to operate its last flight?

[Anthony J]

Around the 19th Jack.

[Blair M]

what was the flight number lax-vcv?

[Fred C]

looks like it still had the thrust reverser cowling on the outer engines with newer logos prior to departure, wonder if that stayed with the aircraft before it left Sydney..
Yep it certainly did. Lots of 'high time' parts were transfered onto the aircraft before it left. They probably came off VH-OEB.

[Anthony J]

what was the flight number lax-vcv?
qfa6019.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA6019

[Karl M]

I managed to detour via Victorville on the way back from Vegas to Palmdale last week (19th).
Got some pics taken from the from the fence of the 3 QF aircraft at VCV. Unfortunatly it was getting dark so early (16:30), I could not get them in brighter conditions.

OGD
http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/DPP_0001.jpg

OEC
http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/DPP_0002.jpg

OED
http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/DPP_0003.jpg

Felt very sad on the drive out of VCV

[Sarah C]

Thanks for those pics Karl - those are sad images :(

[Jon Harris]

Great pics Karl! Thanks for sharing...

Have to agree with Sarah - it is sad looking at them like that...:-(

[Jack B]

just a month or so ago, we were spotting those at SYD...quite sad indeed

[Jason H]

It's sad to see the 744s as i was on both OEC and OED just a few weeks before their respective retirements....

[Ash W]

Don't think too many will be too sad to see the back of those two a/c. Flew in both myself in their early days with Qantas and they were shockers.

[Brandon Giacomin]

Great pics Karl!:) Very sad though:(

[Jack B]

Don't think too many will be too sad to see the back of those two a/c. Flew in both myself in their early days with Qantas and they were shockers.

what was the issue with 2? something to do with the cabin, or maintainence or...?

[Ash W]

VH-OEB, OEC and OED were purhcased second hand from Asiana (OEB) and Malaysian (OEC and OED) circa 1998 and were known as the ugly sisters for various reasons. OEC and OED in particular were in a very bad state both inside and out. Cannot recall the exact details but the two ex Malaysian aircraft had some structural issues that needed addressing owing to the manner in which Malaysian stripped paint using the wrong tools.

Inside the cabin when they first arrived Qantas didn't update the cabins to their own standard so were of a less quality than the rest of the 744 fleet. In latter years that changed of course.

[Karl M]

Thanks for the comments all.
As stated, it was a bit of a sad drive form me out of VCV. It's not really nice to see aircraft Ive been on/worked around sitting idle like that.

Now that OGA just arrived, it may have been a bit more.

[Anthony J]

Sad to see OGD like that!
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs100.snc3/16742_203950622384_560942384_3524856_2707183_n.jpg
I'm sure OGA looks like that by now, but we left her looking like she was ready for a CityFlyer!
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs100.snc3/16742_203950422384_560942384_3524854_6614901_n.jpg

[Chris Griffiths]

Looking at those photos, is the care taken with sealing them up, even taping the radome and wrapping the tyres an indication that there may be more life in the old girls yet and not just a date with the breakers blade?

Cheers

[Lee G]

AJ - did you operate the flight to KVDV?

[Anthony J]

Yes mate, the Captain gave me the sector for my birthday!

[Lee G]

..... and of course, the aircraft was hand flown the whole way ..... :D

[chrisb]

Yes mate, the Captain gave me the sector for my birthday!

How much longer do you see yourself on the 767s Anthony? What's next for you?

[Owen H]

So thats how you get a sector? I'll bid for a NRT on my birthday :P

[Fred C]

It would seem at the moment VH-OJF has had a reprieve. Was due to go to Victorville shortly but now is not going.:eek:

[Brad Myer]

Anyone know if OJK is in service still. I have heard she has recently been retired.

[Fred C]

VH-OJK is now in Victorville.

[Mike W]

^ :(

[Craig Lindsay]

LONG live the mighty A380..... Say good bye to 747 :D

i woudnt call it mighty, Obese maybe .Give me the 747 anyday.

[Mike W]

Give me the 747 anyday.


Ditto :cool:

[Dave Powell]

i woudnt call it mighty, Obese maybe .Give me the 747 anyday.

It's mighty in terms of size:D and each to their own:)

[Steve S... 2]

Why did they repair VH-OJK after it had the whole blown in the side of it, then retire it not long later?

[Steve S... 2]

p.s. A380 is one mighty unattractive looking aeroplane...

[Mike W]

chris d;41139 Repairing it prevents it being a write-off,

Chris, you're on to it as with what some refer to that old chestnut "The Bangkok Golf cart" VH-OJH referred at great cost to avoid being an "accident"

[Marty H]

Why did they repair VH-OJK after it had the whole blown in the side of it, then retire it not long later?


To save face of having a aircraft write off next to Qantas's name.

[Mick F]

Marty,
Just wondering, are you a qualified LAME?

I'm not a LAME, so I won't comment on if it was to "save face", but it's not like the aircraft was massively damaged beyond repair was it?

Mick

[Ash W]

Plus isn't it the insurance company that decides if an aircraft is a write off or not?

[Marty H]

Marty,
Just wondering, are you a qualified LAME?

I'm not a LAME, so I won't comment on if it was to "save face", but it's not like the aircraft was massively damaged beyond repair was it?

Mick

From what the damage was it was clearly repairable but at quite a considerable cost considering the age of the airframe and its market value, repairable yes worth the cost to repair it...............perhaps not.

Craig did QF not throw at $100M at OJH to save face??? Did EK not thrown HUGE amounts of $$$ at A6-ERG to save face??? Make it a VB vs QF war if you like but the facts cannot be denied, how about you you engage your brain into gear rather than leaving it in netural and think about the whole senerio rather than bleating crap.

Ash and insurance company can make recomendations, such as if you have a car accident they may say well no it isnt worth fixing the car but you can then come to an agreement to pay out of your own pocket to repair the car at your own cost. I know with the EK incident in MEL last year there was alot of back and fourth between EK and its insurance company over the repair of A6-ERG.

[Ash W]

Marty they are not facts, they are opinion, unless of course you were sitting in the board room of the respective airlines and heard the conversation with the insurance company first hand.

Now getting back to -OJK, the incident happened in July 2008, it took several months to be repaired and has just been retired. So was clearly used for a good 12 months or so in between repair and retirement. Has any 'critic' of Qantas actually stopped and thought about what impact being 1 aircraft down would have had on the Qantas schedule? Clearly Qantas needed the aircraft back in service, and it is only now with the arrival of more new aircraft that Qantas can afford to retire some of their 747's.

PS. I note that Captain John Bartels, who was in command of -OJK is now flying A380's. He was flying my flight out of London earlier in the month on board -OQB.

[Steve Jones]

I have to back Marty H here. Call it saving face or call it managing public image but there is no question that all airlines, be they QF, EK or any other with a strong safety record, will do everything reasonably possible to avoid the negative PR associated with a hull loss. This is especially relevant for Qantas who have the public reputation of never having had an accident (the reality of course is that they have, but won't go there...).

Any smart business would do the same.

[Craig Murray]

facts

Indeed mate, facts indeed. You haven't in fact presented any but have instead made an accusation that the ONLY reason these aircraft were repaired was to "save face". What facts can you provide to substantiate this claim Mr Hanley?

An insurance write off may be undesirable for many reasons, including public relations, however the decision to declare it a hull loss or repair it ultimately rests with the insurer. If they agree, in consultation with their customer, that the aircraft can indeed be repaired then repair they will.

I have flown on OJH twice since it was hit for fore, was I worried? Nope! Did Mr and Mrs Joe Public know the history of the aircraft? Nope! Did we get where we were going as intended sans any major delay? Yep! She's a good ship and at the time of the incident would have taken longer to replace with a new aircraft than to repair. It could be argued that it in hindsight it was probably a sensible commercial decision by all parties involved.

My issue with you Marty is that you are a one eyed pirate trolling this board looking to:

a) Praise or defend any post relating to your employer
b) Vehemently attack any opposition carrier

Your posts here are generally short, sharp and offer poorly thought out arguments and frankly I've had enough and I don't think I'm the only one.

In summary, accidents happen and there is more to making a decision to repair or write off than "saving face".

[Marty H]

Please find all these posts that attack other carriers:confused: Dont I have a right to defend the employer that pays my wages:eek:

It was already posted by someone else before I did that the aircraft was repaired to prevent a hull loss against the Qantas name, I simply put it as save face clearly you have an issue with my wording.

Now if I recall correctly at the time of disposal of Air New Zealand ZK-NBS the value of a B744 was around $5 Million ( I am happy to be corrected on that)

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Air%20New%20Zealand-stored-b747.htm

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Qantas-stored-b747.htm

Both aircraft according to this are about 6 months apart so their value would be very similar.

Now it would be clear to anyone the repair cost would be greater than the value of the airframe.

As you say yourself An insurance write off may be undesirable for many reasons, including public relations

It would have been bad PR for QF to write the aircraft off therefore they saved face and repaired it at whatever cost to prevent bad PR as the result of a hull loss would have generated.

OJH agree with you entirely different situation as at the time the airframe was only around 9 years old and its value would have been significantly higher and therefore throwing $100M at it was well worth it, QF were lucky with that one that the airframe stayed intact.

[Ash W]

Both aircraft according to this are about 6 months apart so their value would be very similar.

Now it would be clear to anyone the repair cost would be greater than the value of the airframe.

You are not taking into account the hidden costs that may make the repair viable, in particular the sourcing of a replacement aircraft and the time frames involved in sourcing said replacement.

For example, lets say an aircraft has a scrap value of $5m, costs $7m to repair, but costs $15m to replace with an equivalent 2nd hand aircraft, provided of course one is available, then you tell me what the most cost effective solution is?

[Kurt A]

For those with personality clashes, please continue your discussions elsewhere.

Back on topic please, or consider this conversation closed!! :cool:

[Marty H]

You are not taking into account the hidden costs that may make the repair viable, in particular the sourcing of a replacement aircraft and the time frames involved in sourcing said replacement.

For example, lets say an aircraft has a scrap value of $5m, costs $7m to repair, but costs $15m to replace with an equivalent 2nd hand aircraft, provided of course one is available, then you tell me what the most cost effective solution is?

The repair to OJK would more be like $20-$30M not $7M, the repair would involve the frame, stringers, skin massive, massive job

QF at the moment have more aircraft than they need at present I can see that by watching their international operations in MEL they currently either have a spare A332 or B744 in MEL everyday.

[Nick Te Mata]

I find the idea of 'good versus bad PR' being thrown about quite extensively here, without thinking about how it all might actually work.

I would argue that by repairing these aircraft and having them fly again actually did Qantas a disservice as far as PR is concerned. For a layperson who doesn't understand the mechanics of repairing a jet aircraft following an accident, I'd wager on their upset at knowing they were/are travelling on the same aircraft that spent time embedded in a Bangkok golf course, or had its guts ripped out over the Phillipines. It's incredibly hard for airlines to capture and maintain public trust where safety issues are involved. No matter which way it's spun, having no hull losses does not equate to a clean record where a consumer market is concerned -- that's not how the public judges an airline. It's what they remember from the media after accidents such as those of OJH and K.

I'm pretty sure that most laypeople would have even expected the retirement of both of these aircraft following their accidents, but in any case, those same laypeople have little or no interest in the fates of either OJH or OJK. I certainly can't recall any media coverage of their re-entry to service, nor do I really ever hear anything of QF's perfect reputation out in the public (quite the contrary, actually). It's an outdated idea, one that has been consistently eroded as market tastes have changed and has no currency for the majority of the public.

QF certainly haven't mentioned their apparent safety record in any PR activity in at least 15 years -- where exactly are they claiming "we have never had a hull loss in the jet age"? I haven't heard it slipped into 'I Still Call Australia Home'. It seems some think QF's marketing strategy is to print its insurance claim sheet in newspapers -- I can't imagine anybody being particularly impressed at seeing millions upon millions of dollars in repair claims. It all looks just as bad as writing-off, even if it did matter in some way.

Bottom line is, nobody in the public even knows that OJH or OJK kept flying. Frankly, nobody cares. The accident is the story, and that's where PR is created. Re-entering OJH and OJK into service was an economic decision for the manifold reasons listed above. The reason it's economic? Because there's no other way an airline can benefit from a situation such as this in any other way. There's never any good PR in repairing a damaged aircraft.



I am a public relations professional who has worked with Qantas (as well as many other airlines, including Virgin Blue!) before.

[Ash W]

Marty, my figures were examples to show the point, not exact figures. You seem to be concerned with repair costs rather than taking into account the costs of replacement that would come with writing an aircraft off.

As for Qantas and spare aircraft, yes NOW they have plenty of spares, due to the arrival of new aircraft and less demand due to the global down turn. But as stated before -OJK had it's incident 18 months ago when there was a major shortage of aircraft, 747's in particular.

[Marty H]

Ash,

Ultimately the insurance company would weigh up aircraft value Vs repair cost when the repair cost is great than the aircraft value its a write off same with a car/boat/caravan etc.

Now as I quoted market value of a near 20yr old B744 is around $5M at present (going on ZK-NBS figures) Vs a $20-$30M repair bill I can assure you QF footed the difference for PR reasons and two quite clear PR reasons:

First the airframe is not a write off, second they have now retired the aircraft because as Nick Te Mata posted people dont want to know they are flying on an aircraft that was involved in a major incident and then repaired, that isnt saying the aircraft isnt safe, but the travelling public will assume so (natural human instinct).

[Craig Murray]

I'm not looking to indulge in a slinging match nor come here with any airline defending agenda but I am just not seeing any facts coming from you on this subject Marty. Facts to substantiate your claims.

I can assure you QF footed the difference for PR reasons and two quite clear PR reasons:

First the airframe is not a write off

As you say, the aircraft was not a write off and thus it was repaired therefore it must have been commercially viable to do so.

At the time of the accident, it was not an incident, the A380 was still experiencing delivery delays. In July 2008 when the accident happened the strength of the market was still sufficient to support the active QF fleet of the day. Furthermore, we can't talk retrospectively about possible market values of a Boeing 747-400 in 2008 vs mid 2009 (when ZK-NBS was disposed of) which was in the middle of the poorly named "Global Financial Crisis". The decision to repair may indeed have been more viable than losing an aircraft from the fleet that could not be replaced short term, as Owen H said in his post which he chose to remove.

The sale of ZK-NBS simply cannot be used as an indicator to determine the viability of the repair bill associated with VH-OJK.

people dont want to know they are flying on an aircraft that was involved in a major incident

Really? If this were even remotely true (which it isn't) why would Qantas have kept VH-OJH in their fleet for the last 9.5 years if it in any way had a negative impact on revenue passengers? And let's be factual, VH-OJH was involved in a major accident, not an incident. Plain and simple, >90% people who fly on the aircraft wouldn't have a solitary clue about it's chequered history. They just don't know..........and they can't care about what they don't know.

I'm happy to engage in robust, and constructive, dialogue but I'm going to need some seriously solid arguments to support the fact that the airline repaired both aircraft solely to "save face".

[Marty H]

Craig I have already stated in another post that I am now saying the OJH accident was not a save face as the aircraft at the time was around 9yrs old. and had a lot higher value, agree with you on that.

No slanging match at all but when you go defensive and call me Mr Hanley as if Im trying to hide who I am, I think its you who is out for a slanging match.

[NickN]

I can assure you QF footed the difference

Marty, in order to make a statement like that, offering someone an "assurance" you would want to hope you were the bloke that brokered the deal on QF's behalf with the insurance company to repair the aircraft in order to make your offer of "assurance" even remotely valid.

Given the fact this wasn't the case..... :confused::eek:

In reality, does it even matter why QF chose to repair the aircraft mentioned in this thread? Would it have mattered if they had been retired immediately after each incident/accident? The world would have kept turning, Qantas would have kept flying. I don't think anybody really cared why, until it became a sticking point for you.

For all we know, QF management could have tossed a coin or played for it over a round of golf (maybe even the same course in Bangkok!). At the end of the day the decision is of little or no consequence to anybody other than those who WANT to make it an issue.

[Karl M]

Here are some updated of the pics I took when I re-visited VCV on Tuesday.
OGC

http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/IMG_1941.jpg

OGD & OGA

http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/IMG_1947.jpg

OEC, OED & OJK in the middle

http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/IMG_4487.jpg


These are some of the pics I took in November last year. Sad to see OGD is still in the same spot.
http://yssyforum.net/board/showpost.php?p=38020&postcount=32


And for the three suprises: (the third is at the bottom of the last picture)

http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/IMG_1955.jpg
http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/IMG_4502.jpg
http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo158/karl_mathews/IMG_4504.jpg

[Oliver Gigacz]

Have any of the Qantas aircraft been sold yet?

[Jarden S]

What's that VA 773 doing there in VCV?

[Sarah C]

Have any of the Qantas aircraft been sold yet?

My understanding that 2 of the 767's have been sold, or are about to be sold, to be converted as freighters.

[Dave Dale]

There was a thread about the sale of three Qantas 767-300's about a month ago. http://yssyforum.net/board/showthread.php?t=5541:

Quote:

"Air Transport Service Group Inc. said Monday it has committed to buy three Boeing 767-300 extended range jets from Qantas Airways Ltd, executing on a letter of intent announced in May.

The Wilmington, Ohio-based air transport services company said it expects to take delivery on the three GE-power jets, with a payload of 120,000 pounds, by this fall. ATSG didn't disclose the purchase price, but said similar 767-300 extended range freighters are valued from $28.5 to $31.5 million.

Joe Hete, ATSG president and CEO, said, "The purchase of these 767-300ERs extends our leading position in the medium wide-body freighter market, and gives us the means to transport greater cargo volumes over longer non-stop routes than our 767-200s can today."

The company said it will finance the purchase from its existing credit agreements."

Source: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100621/BIZ01/6220341/1076/BIZ/ATSG-buys-3-B767s-from-Qantas

Has there been any further rumours about further aircraft leaving Qantas?

[Mark B]

What's that VA 773 doing there in VCV?

IIRC That is where they get fitted out. Perhaps it is getting ready.

[Dave Dale]

For those who maybe interested, VH-OEC, OED and OJK were re-advertised for sale on SpeedNews on 30/01/2011. I had read on another forum that they were slated for freighter conversion, but this may not be the case.

http://www.speednews.com/EquipmentResults.aspx?Search=Aircraft&Aircraft=747

Dave

[Tom PER]

Interesting.

-OEC and -OED were supposedly heading to World and -OJK to Cargolux after freighter conversions.