Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will AF Replace A340/300 Destroyed In Toronto?  
User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6747 times:

Hi all,

As far as I know, Airfrance resume service with a spare A340/300 after the crash in Toronto.

My question is simple : as the insurance will send money back, will AF go and buy a new A340/300 from Airbus ? Will they use the amount another way, for example in fleet renewal with another type ?

Sorry to ask such a bizarre question, but my background regarding this kind of concern is, well, weak Big grin

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6675 times:

Speaking strictly my own opinion here, they won't replace the A-340 with another brand new one. They'll either buy a used one if they need that type capacity, or take the insurance money, pay off the passenger lawsuits that have already started, and perhaps use the rest to buy a different airplane in their fleet.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4763 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6657 times:

given AF is in the process of beginning A340 retirement, I wouldn't expect the a/c to be replaced. more than likely, as DL021 said, they'll use the insurance money to help cover lawsuit costs and the remainder will hit the bottom line.


Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6649 times:

The A343 will not be replaced with another new or used A343 - there are newer and more versatile types available that are already part of the AF fleet. AF, depending upon its fleet planning, will eventually order additional A332s or 773ERs which will indirectly replace the lost A343.

User currently offlineACdreamliner From UK - Scotland, joined May 2005, 520 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6622 times:

You do know that even if they have to pay this rediculace claim they have insurance to pay this ontop of the A340 pay out...


Where are you going?
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12947 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6581 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
take the insurance money, pay off the passenger lawsuits that have already started

I would imagine they have "lawsuite insurance" too, no?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6535 times:

IMO Air France will take their loss and move on. They'll cash in on their insurance, take care of the passengers, and continue to make a name for themselves while still changing the industry. What they'll show is that loosing an aircraft in a highly publisized crash won't stop them from their outstanding loads and fantastic service/product.

My  twocents 

Take care,

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6510 times:

The settlement of the lawsuit is an insurance company one. This is why we rarely hear about the final deal. It´s not Air France´s doings.

User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6417 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
I would imagine they have "lawsuite(sic) insurance" too, no?

Of course. They don´t need to take any insurance money for paying the lawsuits. They have "lawsuit insurance" for such purpose.


User currently offlineMika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2881 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6325 times:

I was wondering how they manage to keep up with the demand now since they are short on one A/C, what A/C is now rostered to the flights that the crashed one would have made originaly?

User currently offlineTGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6222 times:

Quoting Mika (Reply 9):
I was wondering how they manage to keep up with the demand now since they are short on one A/C, what A/C is now rostered to the flights that the crashed one would have made originaly?

Check this thread:
Cancellations As A Result Of Air France Crash?

and especially

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 13):
There won't be any cancellation due to a/c shortage :
AF was operating a fleet of 21 A343 (as 1 a/c, F-GLZB was sold earlier this year) but the summer program was built only for 19 aircraft.



Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
User currently offlineGmidy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6213 times:

Bring Concorde back thats what i say!


Lawrence
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6180 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
I would imagine they have "lawsuite insurance" too, no?

would assume they have a fully comprehensive cover. It pays for the aircraft and for passenger-related damage events of whatever type ...


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6063 times:

Quoting Rpaillard (Thread starter):
will AF go and buy a new A340/300 from Airbus ?

Any replacement would likely be a 777

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
or take the insurance money, pay off the passenger lawsuits that have already started,

There are two different sets of insurance in this case. One is liability insurance, which airlines will carry in order to insure against possible liability to injured passengers. The other is equipment insurance, which is used to cover the loss of the aircraft and equipment aboard. Two different things. Also, given the set liability limits under international law (which governs this crash), that should be predetermined.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6006 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
Also, given the set liability limits under international law (which governs this crash), that should be predetermined.

The liability limits are not necessarily set in this case - the Montreal Convention, which supersedes the Warsaw Convention, eliminates liability caps if the airline is at fault in accident. If the AF pilots (or AF mechanics, if a mechanical problem with the plane existed) are found to be at fault, liability will be governed by the applicable tort laws of Canada, France, or the passenger's country of citizenship, depending upon where plaintiffs opt to file their claims.

[Edited 2005-08-18 03:39:42]


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5692 times:

Well, thanks all for this enlightenment  bigthumbsup 

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

I think it's more likely that AF will NOT replace that A340-300, but instead rearrange their 777-200ER flight assignments so fairly soon we may see AF fly the 777-200ER on the CDG-YYZ route.

In fact, AF likes the 777-200ER and 777-300ER so much I wouldn't be surprised that fairly soon we see additional follow-on orders for the plane; AF likes the fact they can put in larger money-making premium passenger seating areas on the 777's than on the A340.


User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3185 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5370 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 12):
would assume they have a fully comprehensive cover. It pays for the aircraft and for passenger-related damage events of whatever type ...

Would rather assume that they have very specific insurance for all different kinds of risk where they'd need insurance for. And companies decide for all different kind of aspects up to what level they want insurance. It is not the same of asking a quote for your holiday insurance.


User currently offlineUltrapig From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5117 times:

Also remember that the liability insruance probably has a large "retention" or deductible-maybe as much as $5m US. Becuase there were no deaths and because there are no reported serious dehabilitating injuries my guess is that the total loss will not exceed the deductible. Physically uninjured passengers probably will get an unsoliticted offer of $10k or so to execute a waiver-you do the math-Those who have some medical bills and a broken bone will get a bit more.

User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 18):
Becuase there were no deaths and because there are no reported serious dehabilitating injuries my guess is that the total loss will not exceed the deductible.

Granted, no one was critically injured, but generally speaking, 'tis better to be dealing with dead plaintiffs than live ones - the dead ones can't testify to the horrors they experienced.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 19):

Granted, no one was critically injured, but generally speaking, 'tis better to be dealing with dead plaintiffs than live ones - the dead ones can't testify to the horrors they experienced.

So you think it would be more comfortable to deal with plaintiffs who lost friends, relatives and their loved ones?


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4393 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 20):
So you think it would be more comfortable to deal with plaintiffs who lost friends, relatives and their loved ones?

It's not a thought - it's the truth, at least in American tort cases. While a jury is no doubt sympathetic to the tears of a bereaved relative whose loved one is gone, it is FAR more sympathetic to the live testimony of a victim who can relive the horrific events second-by-second and go into infinite detail about the after-effects suffered. It is weird, and contrary to what one might initially think, but it's the reason why legal eagles would generally suggest "burying the survivors" in the often-told aviation joke.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineWdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 20):

He is using sarcasm. And he does have a point, the alive plaintiffs will now try and sue and get as much money as possible and then try and testify and talk about all their emotional trauma they received by the accident and how only a large sum of money will make it go away.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Reply 22):
and then try and testify and talk about all their emotional trauma they received by the accident and how only a large sum of money will make it go away.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 21):
While a jury is no doubt sympathetic to the tears of a bereaved relative whose loved one is gone, it is FAR more sympathetic to the live testimony of a victim who can relive the horrific events second-by-second and go into infinite detail about the after-effects suffered.

There's also the issue of injuries that may manifest themselves years from now - the sprained back that resulted from evacuating the aircraft and that may in a year or two result in a herniated disk requiring surgery, etc.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did AF Replace A340 With 744 In Atl? posted Fri Jun 29 2001 19:38:37 by Delta777-XXX
AF Sending A340-300's To PHL This Summer? posted Wed Jun 8 2005 07:56:37 by USAFHummer
Will AF Buy A340-500? posted Wed Mar 31 2004 01:03:45 by Henpol747
Canada 3000 A340-300 Repainted In Air Tahiti Nui posted Wed Jan 23 2002 21:29:51 by Lufthansa404
First TAP A340-300 In New Colors! posted Thu Apr 6 2006 23:44:31 by AlitaliaMD11
AF A340-300, How Many Seats? posted Wed Aug 3 2005 23:00:09 by KC135TopBoom
EK Emergency Landing Of A340-300 In DXB posted Sat Jun 11 2005 13:17:31 by EK156
First Austrian A340-300 In New Colors posted Tue May 10 2005 16:47:16 by AlitaliaMD11
AC A340-300 In New Colours + Photo Is Here! posted Tue Nov 23 2004 02:22:10 by MartinairYYZ
A340-600 And Boeing 777-300 Spotting In FRA posted Sun Oct 31 2004 01:04:36 by A340roy