N471WN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 372 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 27456 times:
ATDB is reporting that the Emirates A-340 at Melbourne will be scrapped. Seems a shame that an aircraft that successfully flew out of a tail scrape is not economically reapairable. To my knowledge, I do not know of another case where this is the result---certainly we have seen a/c scrapped where they did not fly out of a tail scrape but in this case this new bird did.
This then begs the question as to whether or not a decision to repair or scrap is made with the demand for the aircraft as one of the variables. You will recall the 9 month repair of the WN 737-700 overrrun at MDW which is rumoured to have cost $26 milliion US. The Quito A-340 was also another very close call---the official reason was that the repair would be to hard to do where it was but this is very suspect.....I mean Quito is not some jungle site and this aircraft was new as well.
So it appears to me that the current demand for a particular aircraft type at any particular point in time is a factor. Now please this is not an Airbus versus Boeing issue----only the propensity to more likely srap an aircraft when the demand has waned for that type.
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2171 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 27385 times:
It all depends on where is the damage,and how much it will cost to repair vs getting a new plane. It is all the airline's decision. There have been other incindents where there was damage and the airline fixed the aircraft or had Boeing do it since the airline did not have heavy maintenance itself.
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 2001 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 27274 times:
Quoting N471WN (Thread starter): ATDB is reporting that the Emirates A-340 at Melbourne will be scrapped. Seems a shame that an aircraft that successfully flew out of a tail scrape is not economically reapairable. To my knowledge, I do not know of another case where this is the result---certainly we have seen a/c scrapped where they did not fly out of a tail scrape but in this case this new bird did.
AF Concorde that did the tail-scrape in Dakar had the same fate.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, 200-400 F/4.0, 24-70 F/2.8, 300 F/4.0, TC-14E II, TC-17E II
Brenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 951 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 27254 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 2): Do you think so? If the aircraft was insured I believe it would be the insurance companies decision
It's done in consultation between the insurance company and the airline.
If you've ever been in a car accident where the insurance company has decided to write-off your car, you can still have your car repaired ... but you end up buying the car back from the insurance company and paying the difference yourself.
It's a complicated and time-consuming process, but it is possible to repair a vehicle after the insurance company has decided to write it off. I imagine it's also possible to write off a vehicle that the insurance company has decided is worth fixing -- you just have to eat the difference between what the vehicle is worth, and what the insurance company is willing to pay to repair it.
I love taking off, I love landing -- I'm not wild about the bit in between
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 4811 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 27247 times:
Sure, of course it matters what the market price of the aircraft is. It makes no sense to pay $75 million to repair an aircraft that is only worth $72 million, for a generic example.
We can assume the aircraft must be so damaged, that maybe they feel it cannot be fixed at all. More than being "worthless" or not, what we do know is, this aircraft must be very badly damaged. Emirates may not want it anymore, which does impact the market value of it, given the A345 market is a small and (at this time) troubled one. So they have leverage in that way.
Flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 27150 times:
Interesting bit of news, as just the other day avherald reported:
"Emirates Airlines decided on Apr 21st, that the airplane will be repaired in Melbourne to a point, where it can perform an unpressurized ferry to Airbus Industries in Toulouse, where repairs will be completed."
Trojanclipper From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 27082 times:
I know this sounds silly, but do you think that the airline was considering past repairs of tailstrikes that later proved fatal, a.k.a. China Airlines flight 611 ???
I'm not trying to criticize or be funny, just wonder if airlines ever think about these thinking in making decisions, or is it all financially motivated....Yes, I do know it's the airline industry we're talking about...
Vhqpa From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Jul 2005, 949 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26888 times:
Quoting Smi0006 (Reply 9): I wonder how the EK a345 schedule is fairing one aircraft down? Will there bee a need for any adjustmens or have they already been made?
The most likely thing is they would use 77L capacity to make up for the missing 345
for those of you who don't know aircraft concerned is A340-541 (msn 608) A6-ERG.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 6290 posts, RR: 48 Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26749 times:
Quoting Mal787 (Reply 3): Wonder if I could buy a couple of the 1st class seats for my lounge room ?
I'm sure they'll be keeping many, many parts of that aircraft as spares.
PS: interesting that an E170 in the US got its nose cut off and replaced while this aircraft couldn't get a tail replacement. I'd imagine it has to do with structural damage.
[Edited 2009-04-23 20:10:48]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
MSYPI7185 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 454 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 26496 times:
Quoting N471WN (Thread starter): This then begs the question as to whether or not a decision to repair or scrap is made with the demand for the aircraft as one of the variables.
Most definitely. The higher the demand the more valuable an aircraft becomes. Of course there are many more varibles than this. It is strictly a financial decision, which of course include the cost to replace with a new aircraft, an used aircraft, or do they really need to replace the aircraft at all. Can they operate their network with one less frame, without impacting the operation beyond what they determine to be acceptable.
It is a shame to see it is being scrapped.
MD
Flown: PI, AL, US, EA, PA, MC, WN, CO, DL, LH, BA, HP. Worked at: MSY, CLT, FRA
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 39 posts, RR: 54 Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 26007 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14): PS: interesting that an E170 in the US got its nose cut off and replaced while this aircraft couldn't get a tail replacement. I'd imagine it has to do with structural damage.
The rear fuselage is a more critical area than the nose. There are more complicated load paths due to the empennage and rear pressure bulkhead especially.
Quoting OHLHD (Reply 17): EK can´t be in a good economic situation if true as just for the prestige I expect them to repair it.....
As others have said, it's probably not EK's decision. Even if it was, EK is running a business not a museum. There's no prestige in repairing something that is damaged beyond its value.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 39 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 25954 times:
Quoting Trojanclipper (Reply 11): I know this sounds silly, but do you think that the airline was considering past repairs of tailstrikes that later proved fatal, a.k.a. China Airlines flight 611 ???
That was a case of a repair that was done improperly, no different than the engine detachment that downed an American Airlines DC-10. That is not to say that it could not have been repaired correctly in CI case.
But we are talking an entirely different situation here. It's certainly possible that the damage was more extensive and could not be repaired safely or at reasonable cost.
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 25717 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 5): Wow, the A340NG has had its share of bad luck. IB at Quito, Etihad in Toulouse and now this. Shame. Sad
Quoting Flood (Reply 10):
"Emirates Airlines decided on Apr 21st, that the airplane will be repaired in Melbourne to a point, where it can perform an unpressurized ferry to Airbus Industries in Toulouse, where repairs will be completed."
If they can get the ship to Toulouse, they should be able to mate it with the back half off the Etihad ship that they have in the spare parts bin.
Cgagn From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 332 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 25571 times:
Quoting Trojanclipper (Reply 11): I know this sounds silly, but do you think that the airline was considering past repairs of tailstrikes that later proved fatal, a.k.a. China Airlines flight 611 ???
I'm not trying to criticize or be funny, just wonder if airlines ever think about these thinking in making decisions, or is it all financially motivated....Yes, I do know it's the airline industry we're talking about...
Japan Airlines lost a 747SR in the 1985 due to an improperly repaired rear pressure bulkhead. Still the worst single aircraft crash in terms of loss of life, 520 people died.
Linglesou From Australia, joined Apr 2009, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 25529 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): no different than the engine detachment that downed an American Airlines DC-10
...same with the JL B747-SR JA8119, aircraft involved in flight 123...
In the same topic vane, is it true or merely an urban legend that it was not really economically viable to repair the QF 744 involved in the flight 1 incident at Bangkok but QANTAS went ahead with it so as to not have a jet aircraft hull loss on their record?
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1364 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 25506 times:
Doesn't surprise me considering EK goes through planes like office paper...
Although I have to shed a small because the A345 is my fav. aircraft currently flying.
I do wonder on a related note, how much exactly is an A345 worth on the secondary market? US$75 million or about?
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1827 posts, RR: 8 Reply 25, posted (9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 25242 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 20): If they can get the ship to Toulouse, they should be able to mate it with the back half off the Etihad ship that they have in the spare parts bin.
Haha it could be called the A345.5 half 346 half 345!
Gulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 255 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 27189 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 2): Do you think so? If the aircraft was insured I believe it would be the insurance companies decision.
Exactly, although I obviously am not privy to the insurance contract, I would assume that the insurance company would have the option to either pay for the repairs or the Actual Cash Value of the aircraft. ie replacement value minus depreciation. Then again, I don't know how they insure their planes and I imagine that a great amount of self insurance happens with EK's aircraft.
In this case I would assume that the aircraft now becomes the property of the insurance company and they will consequently assume salvage rights of the aircraft and will then sell parts etc.
I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4318 posts, RR: 54 Reply 28, posted (9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 27067 times:
Quoting Linglesou (Reply 22): In the same topic vane, is it true or merely an urban legend that it was not really economically viable to repair the QF 744 involved in the flight 1 incident at Bangkok but QANTAS went ahead with it so as to not have a jet aircraft hull loss on their record?
I believe it had a lot more to do with the cost of replacing the aircraft, and the wait that would be involved.
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
Pilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2258 posts, RR: 51 Reply 29, posted (9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 26497 times:
Quoting N471WN (Thread starter): I do not know of another case where this is the result---certainly we have seen a/c scrapped where they did not fly out of a tail scrape but in this case this new bird did.
This reminds me of the JAL 747 that tail struck in 1985, and 7 years later, blew the tail cone off along with most of the vertical stab, sending it into a mountain....the repairs after the tail strike we not done properly
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
EK413 From Maldives, joined Nov 2003, 1549 posts, RR: 1 Reply 30, posted (9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 26372 times:
Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 13): I'm guessing if they decided to write it off, if probably suffered damage to the rear
pressure bulkhead.
Ever watch World's Toughest Fixer's on Discovery?
The amount of work which is required to repair such damage is fer nominal... Plus not to mention the life of the frame has been reduced by 5 years?
FlySSC From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 6411 posts, RR: 64 Reply 32, posted (9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 25320 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 6): AF Concorde that did the tail-scrape in Dakar had the same fate.
Wrong.
F-BVFD was flown back to CDG after the incident at DKR in 1977. It was repaired and went back into service until May 1982 when it was withdrawn from service after the closure of the Paris-Dakar-Rio route, leaving the aircraft surplus to Air France requirements. Used for spares.
Partially dismantled in 1994. Some parts of the fuselage are preserved at LBG.
The Aircraft nose assembly was sold to an American collector.
Acabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 445 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 24167 times:
Quoting Linglesou (Reply 22): In the same topic vane, is it true or merely an urban legend that it was not really economically viable to repair the QF 744 involved in the flight 1 incident at Bangkok but QANTAS went ahead with it so as to not have a jet aircraft hull loss on their record?
It's not an urban legend. It cost more than A$100 million to repair (in then dollars, meaning much more than what A$100m is worth now) and it was done only so that QF doesn't have a writeoff.
Marara From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 650 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23758 times:
Quoting Acabgd (Reply 33): It's not an urban legend. It cost more than A$100 million to repair (in then dollars, meaning much more than what A$100m is worth now) and it was done only so that QF doesn't have a writeoff.
QF had the aircraft repaired because it would cost the company more to wait for another 744 - aircraft were extremely hard to come by at that time and QF were on the lookout at the time for more capacity.
I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours. Jerome K Jerome
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 7090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 36, posted (9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23224 times:
Quoting Flood (Reply 10): Interesting bit of news, as just the other day avherald reported:
"Emirates Airlines decided on Apr 21st, that the airplane will be repaired in Melbourne to a point, where it can perform an unpressurized ferry to Airbus Industries in Toulouse, where repairs will be completed."
I would trust avherald´s reports more than the ATDB which is full of inaccuracies.
Acabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 445 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 23173 times:
Quoting Marara (Reply 34): QF had the aircraft repaired because it would cost the company more to wait for another 744 - aircraft were extremely hard to come by at that time and QF were on the lookout at the time for more capacity.
True as well. Actually I think it was a sound decision - yes it did cost a lot of money, but there was no replacement available and waiting for a new delivery would cost even more. Plus the benefit of not having a writeoff in the books.
RonProphet From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 4 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 22940 times:
For what it is worth, the info I have (which admittedly is secondand) is that the plan as at last Wednesday (April 22) was to fly it back to Toulouse unpressurised, and then repair it. The problem as always is to determine fact from rumour!!!
Wouldn't it be nice if the world was honest and up front.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 7090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 40, posted (9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 22821 times:
Quoting Acabgd (Reply 37): Quoting Marara (Reply 34):
QF had the aircraft repaired because it would cost the company more to wait for another 744 - aircraft were extremely hard to come by at that time and QF were on the lookout at the time for more capacity.
True as well. Actually I think it was a sound decision - yes it did cost a lot of money, but there was no replacement available and waiting for a new delivery would cost even more. Plus the benefit of not having a writeoff in the books.
That this aircraft (VH-OJH) was repaired soundly and justfully can be seen by that its flying troublefree since 10 years. The right decision for sure.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 42, posted (9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22095 times:
Another thought, why does the manufacturer who made the a/c not purchase it and repair, refurbish then lease or sell to another operator at a reduced rate as a non-new a/c?
The issue is not the physical a/c itself, but the bean counters who are playing with numbers on the books. Those numbers are relevant to the OEM only from the write off purchase price they may have to pay, but the a/c does have value and if anyone can make an economic repair on the a/c it would be the OEM.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 9542 posts, RR: 7 Reply 44, posted (9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 21743 times:
How much say does an a/c maker, in this case Airbus, have in making the decision as to repairs? While there may be economic variables to be considered, an a/c maker may want to examine the damaged aircraft and take part in that determination as they are still liable for any parts used and work done. That risk of liabilty may in turn affect the decision of the insurance company and the owner of the aircraft. Perhaps in the case of this aircraft, it will be brought to Airbus' main factory, examined by their experts to further determine the viability of repair or scrap/part out.
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3091 posts, RR: 14 Reply 45, posted (9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 21713 times:
Quoting RonProphet (Reply 38): For what it is worth, the info I have (which admittedly is secondand) is that the plan as at last Wednesday (April 22) was to fly it back to Toulouse unpressurised, and then repair it. The problem as always is to determine fact from rumour!!!
Also thought that this is the case so Emirates doesn't have to face a hull loss in statistics.
Reflectiveman From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 4 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 21413 times:
Didn't CO have a tail-strike in Newark some years back with a 777 where basically the whole rear of the aircraft from the wing on back was removed to facilitate repairs?
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 7090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 48, posted (9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 20987 times:
Quoting Reflectiveman (Reply 47): Didn't CO have a tail-strike in Newark some years back with a 777 where basically the whole rear of the aircraft from the wing on back was removed to facilitate repairs?
I cant remember that, but definitely Malaysia Airlines had a serious tailstrike with a 777 which was repaired.
CX777Fan From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20589 times:
Is this the first incident on Australian soil leading to the write off of a civil jet-liner? If so, I'm very surprised the media aren't all over it! (kudos perhaps either to EK's PR machine or the clout of their advertising dollars!)
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2371 posts, RR: 9 Reply 51, posted (9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20382 times:
Quoting CX777Fan (Reply 50): Is this the first incident on Australian soil leading to the write off of a civil jet-liner? If so, I'm very surprised the media aren't all over it! (kudos perhaps either to EK's PR machine or the clout of their advertising dollars!)
Surely not. I remember a hard landing a few years ago somewhere in OZ with a QF Link 717 that resulted in the aircraft being written off.
DZ09 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 441 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 18673 times:
I am sure that this is not an arbitrary decision. Since the insurance company is going to fork out some serious cash, I am sure they had no other choice but the scrap the plane. The study was most likely like this (assuming some numbers)
1- Value of aircraft = 200M
2- cost of repair = 70M
3- value of engines = 80M
4- value of scrap = 40M
Difference = 10M. Repair or Scrap? Scrap and split loss (80M) with EK.
RichM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 630 posts, RR: 5 Reply 53, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 18688 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
What happens to the pilots in these cases? Is it likely that they will lose their jobs? Or do they just go through a re-training period? And would it go against them if they applied for employment at another airline?
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 8 Reply 54, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 18730 times:
I just came back from Dubai and I noticed at least 3 other A345s were parked around the airport at remote/maintenance stands. It was 1830L so it was not during one of Emirates' waves of connections. So at least we know they do have some spares.
CAL764 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 18458 times:
Quoting Reflectiveman (Reply 47): Didn't CO have a tail-strike in Newark some years back with a 777 where basically the whole rear of the aircraft from the wing on back was removed to facilitate repairs?
Yep...Boeing had to haul in a new rear pressure bulkhead on I believe to be an AN-124. Took some months to get completely fixed.
1. Fly to Win 2. Fund Future 3. Reliability 4. Work Together CO: Work Hard, Fly Right...
Masped From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 9 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 17737 times:
Quoting DZ09 (Reply 52): I am sure that this is not an arbitrary decision. Since the insurance company is going to fork out some serious cash, I am sure they had no other choice but the scrap the plane. The study was most likely like this (assuming some numbers)
1- Value of aircraft = 200M
2- cost of repair = 70M
3- value of engines = 80M
4- value of scrap = 40M
Difference = 10M. Repair or Scrap? Scrap and split loss (80M) with EK.
Based on those numbers, the decision would be to make the repair.
Cost to insurance company of making the repair: $70m
Cost to insurance company of writing the plane off: $200m - $80m - $40m = $80m
It's cheaper to make the repair. Either way it would be the insurer who picks up the bill, less any policy excess.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1503 posts, RR: 7 Reply 63, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 17598 times:
Quoting Mal787 (Reply 3): Wonder if I could buy a couple of the 1st class seats for my lounge room ?
These will be used on other aircraft later again for sure.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 20): If they can get the ship to Toulouse, they should be able to mate it with the back half off the Etihad ship that they have in the spare parts bin.
Revelation, you win!!!!!
yet to fly on: ERJ190, 717, 737NG, A340-500/600, 753, 77L, A300/310, DC10, A380
Masped From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 9 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 17299 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 62): Quoting Masped (Reply 60):
Based on those numbers, the decision would be to make the repair.
Cost to insurance company of making the repair: $70m
Cost to insurance company of writing the plane off: $200m - $80m - $40m = $80m
It's cheaper to make the repair. Either way it would be the insurer who picks up the bill, less any policy excess.
You're assuming the value of the repaired plane would be the same as before the damage. That's not the case.
The value of the repaired plane is irrelevant. The insurer will either pay you the insured value of the item in exchange for surrendering the item to the insurance company or it will pay to repair the item so you can carry on using it. Insurers don't pay for any loss in market value as a result of having a damaged and subsequently repaired aircraft as opposed to an undamaged aircraft of the same age.
SQ_EK_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 956 posts, RR: 6 Reply 66, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 17135 times:
Quoting RichM (Reply 53): What happens to the pilots in these cases? Is it likely that they will lose their jobs? Or do they just go through a re-training period? And would it go against them if they applied for employment at another airline?
Well in this case they "resigned". Management said that they "didn't know why" but accepted the resignations...hmm....
RJAF From Jordan, joined Jan 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16470 times:
Quoting Masped (Reply 65): The value of the repaired plane is irrelevant. The insurer will either pay you the insured value of the item in exchange for surrendering the item to the insurance company or it will pay to repair the item so you can carry on using it. Insurers don't pay for any loss in market value as a result of having a damaged and subsequently repaired aircraft as opposed to an undamaged aircraft of the same age.
Aircraft are usually insured on an 'agreed' value basis and not on market value. In most cases, if the cost of repair exceeds 75% of the 'agreed' value of the aircraft, insurers consider it a 'constructive total loss' and will pay the insured the full agreed value without any excess and keep the aircraft as salvage and probably sell it to a third party.
ClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3850 posts, RR: 22 Reply 68, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16523 times:
Quoting Acabgd (Reply 33): It's not an urban legend. It cost more than A$100 million to repair (in then dollars, meaning much more than what A$100m is worth now) and it was done only so that QF doesn't have a writeoff.
The urban legend is the $100m and the fact that it was done so QF wouldn't have a write-off.
Apparently the repair did not cost $100m (these are Australian dollars btw), and it definitely wasn't done to avoid a write off.
There is no source anywhere that says definitively that it cost that much, it was media speculation alone.
I choose to fly oneworld, as a member of Qantas Frequent Flyer.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15757 times:
Quoting Masped (Reply 65): The value of the repaired plane is irrelevant. The insurer will either pay you the insured value of the item in exchange for surrendering the item to the insurance company or it will pay to repair the item so you can carry on using it. Insurers don't pay for any loss in market value as a result of having a damaged and subsequently repaired aircraft as opposed to an undamaged aircraft of the same age.
Insurance policies aren't all the same, but they generally cover the loss. If the repair doesn't return the item to it's previous value, they often cover the difference.
Masped From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 9 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15352 times:
Quoting RJAF (Reply 67): Aircraft are usually insured on an 'agreed' value basis and not on market value. In most cases, if the cost of repair exceeds 75% of the 'agreed' value of the aircraft, insurers consider it a 'constructive total loss' and will pay the insured the full agreed value without any excess and keep the aircraft as salvage and probably sell it to a third party.
Indeed, but the agreed value is generally pretty close to the market value - after all, in the event that you have a total loss, you would expect to replace the aircraft with something similar.
A constructive total loss is generally declared if the cost of repair exceeds the insured value less salvage - an insurer is not going to pay more than it has to. I guess a 75% of value clause could be included in the policy wording, but 75% is certainly not market practice. And there definitely are excesses in place when you have a total loss, constructive or otherwise.
But tell you what, when I get back to work on Monday I'll double check with the underwriters.
RJAF From Jordan, joined Jan 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14581 times:
Quoting Masped (Reply 70): Indeed, but the agreed value is generally pretty close to the market value
Not necessarily.. I currently insure two Boeing 727 VIPs with almost the same manufacturing year, one has an agreed value of USD 1.5M and one has an agreed value of USD 10M! The latter has the auxiliary fuel tanks, fresh out of 'D' check, lavish interior, gold plated faucets and all the works while the former does not. Of course, underwriters requested substantiation of the agreed value of USD 10M (they worry about moral hazard).
On deductibles, partial losses, yes, a deductible is applied but never in the case of total loss, constructive total loss or arranged total loss.
Acabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 445 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 13609 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 68): Apparently the repair did not cost $100m (these are Australian dollars btw), and it definitely wasn't done to avoid a write off.
There is no source anywhere that says definitively that it cost that much, it was media speculation alone.
Maybe it was media speculation, but with the nose gear stuck up in the first class, engine(s) and undercarriage ripped off I think they're not much off the mark.
ClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3850 posts, RR: 22 Reply 73, posted (9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 13514 times:
Quoting Acabgd (Reply 72): Maybe it was media speculation, but with the nose gear stuck up in the first class, engine(s) and undercarriage ripped off I think they're not much off the mark.
Still speculation, and the annual report from that year didn't mention it in any such figure, which they would have had to as they are a publicly listed company... and the nose gear wasn't "stuck up into First Class" - but anyway, we're o/t
I choose to fly oneworld, as a member of Qantas Frequent Flyer.
YWG From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1065 posts, RR: 3 Reply 74, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12722 times:
Quoting RichM (Reply 53): What happens to the pilots in these cases?
Well they screwed up the weight calcs, so I bet they're either:
a)Flying twins in a third world country
b)Retired
Quoting Flood (Reply 10): "Emirates Airlines decided on Apr 21st, that the airplane will be repaired in Melbourne to a point, where it can perform an unpressurized ferry to Airbus Industries in Toulouse, where repairs will be completed.
That's going to be a fun flight with the oxygen masks.
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 921 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12625 times:
Quoting YWG (Reply 74): That's going to be a fun flight with the oxygen masks.
Yeah, MEL-TLS is 10,494 miles, I have a feeling it would get old pretty fast.
When they do that flight, what altitude would they fly at and would they need to make any stops? I know it can go pretty far since it would have no weight on it, and it's still 3000 miles less than the 777-200LR flew on its record flight, but with a lower altitude would they need to make a stop?
AerorobNZ From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 4270 posts, RR: 11 Reply 76, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11857 times:
Have seen the engineering photos of this incident, and it certainly didn't look like a write off from the pictures, but there may be more info to hand since I saw them.
Bravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 283 posts, RR: 1 Reply 78, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11202 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 42): Another thought, why does the manufacturer who made the a/c not purchase it and repair, refurbish then lease or sell to another operator at a reduced rate as a non-new a/c?
Because they need to pay out cash to acquire it and for the repairs and then carry it on their books until sold, all in the hopes that they may be able to sell it for a profit at a later date. Plus they would be competing with themselves (why buy a full price new bird when you can get a discount from the OEM on an old bird?).
The OEM is far more interested in using its cash to get the higher margins on a new aircraft.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 11635 posts, RR: 13 Reply 79, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11143 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 68): Quoting Acabgd (Reply 33):
It's not an urban legend. It cost more than A$100 million to repair (in then dollars, meaning much more than what A$100m is worth now) and it was done only so that QF doesn't have a writeoff.
The urban legend is the $100m and the fact that it was done so QF wouldn't have a write-off.
You probably mean "jet" write-off. QF has had write-offs and accidents (some with fatalities) involving propeller types in their earlier days.The L1049G Super Constellation below (VH-EAC) crashed and burned on takeoff at Mauritius in 1960 (first stop on JNB-SYD flight). Fortunately only some minor injuries. Overran wet runway after aborting takeoff due engine problem.
Vhqpa From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Jul 2005, 949 posts, RR: 1 Reply 80, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10574 times:
Quoting 777STL (Reply 51): Surely not. I remember a hard landing a few years ago somewhere in OZ with a QF Link 717 that resulted in the aircraft being written off.
If your talking about the NC 717 that had the hard Landing in DRW a year ago that wasn't a write off. The aircraft (VH-NXE) was repaired in Darwin by Boeing and went back into service 3 months later.
Come to think of it the only Australian Jet write off (If it counts as one) I can think of was as the Alliance/Air Niugini Fokker 100 in Brisbane in 2005 which had a mercury spill in the cargo hold.
AirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10362 times:
Quoting Rsg85 (Reply 24): The pressure bulkhead is cracked and not just a minor one
Isn't the 340NG bulkhead made from CFRP? So a crack would be almost impossible to repair. I wonder what would happen to a 787 in such a situation. Also a write of, i would presume...
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 401 posts, RR: 1 Reply 82, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10086 times:
Sorry for the question if this has been answered already, but I just have not seen it.
Is there any confirmation besides ATDB that the EK A345 will be scrapped?
It could be a misunderstanding after all
So, EK does not (officially) have a "punitive culture". I suppose we can expect to hear that and the usual 'safety first/prioity' rhetoric. Interesting to note the comments regarding the anonymous complaints about EK from its pilots.
Such a punitive culture was partly responsible for a horrific rail crash 4 years ago today in Japan that killed more than 100 people. One wonders what has changed in the company's mindset since then.
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 85, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9578 times:
Quoting Trent1000 (Reply 83): Further to the near crash investigation:
Interesting part of the article to me was:
Quote: Sources said a report due on Thursday was expected to show the near-catastrophic accident happened after the incorrect weight was typed into the plane's computers, causing it to set an inadequate take-off speed.
The other stuff about blame-culture, sleep deprivation and thrust reduction all seem secondary to a computer that doesn't range-check its inputs.
LongHaul67 From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 198 posts, RR: 1 Reply 88, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8265 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 84): What problem exactly are you suggesting it is 'illustrating'?
When it is not economically feasible to repair the bulkhead of an aircraft as expensive as an A345 I believe that clearly illustrates a profitability problem, when at the same time a B763 and a B772 will undergo such a repair.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 84): However, where/when have they indicated that they are not doing so?
For obvious reasons I think A345s are not the most sought after aircraft these days, even for EK
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3091 posts, RR: 14 Reply 89, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8081 times:
Quoting LongHaul67 (Reply 88): When it is not economically feasible to repair the bulkhead of an aircraft as expensive as an A345 I believe that clearly illustrates a profitability problem, when at the same time a B763 and a B772 will undergo such a repair.
Keep in mind that an expensive repair is better for image than a write-off in yellow press statistics.
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2371 posts, RR: 9 Reply 90, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8046 times:
Quoting Vhqpa (Reply 80): If your talking about the NC 717 that had the hard Landing in DRW a year ago that wasn't a write off. The aircraft (VH-NXE) was repaired in Darwin by Boeing and went back into service 3 months later.
You're right, but it was very nearly a write off. It cost $4 million to repair VH-NXE.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 8 Reply 93, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7037 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 92): True, if the repair is successful and doesn't kill people later.
In both of the aft bulkhead repairs that cause accidents, they repairs were not executed properly or in a way to facilitate inspections. A properly designed, damage tolerant repair, that is properly executed and inspected will not cause a catastrophic failure. Also if you just replace the bulkhead wholesale you don't have to worry about that type of failure.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 7090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 94, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6818 times:
Quoting LongHaul67 (Reply 88): For obvious reasons I think A345s are not the most sought after aircraft these days, even for EK
True. But the opposition from Boeing (772LR) isn´t selling like hot cakes too. Most airlines dont need the (expensive) ultra-longhaul capabilities these niche aircraft provide. And was it Emirates (or SQ?) which said that there are routes the A345 is still better suited than the 772LR?
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 89): Keep in mind that an expensive repair is better for image than a write-off in yellow press statistics.
Yes, and not only in the yellow press. Thats an important imagefactor not to be underestimated. Unless the fuselage is twisted all the way down to the wings it highly likely it will be repaired.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3077 posts, RR: 19 Reply 95, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6333 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): That was a case of a repair that was done improperly, no different than the engine detachment that downed an American Airlines DC-10. That is not to say that it could not have been repaired correctly in CI case.
wasn't the issue more along the lines that no one can show what was exactly done as the original paperwork had been ditched years ago (thanks Taiwan CAA for having such rules!) and then there was less than adequate recent maintenance procedures - how do you let a plane with an increasing stain near a doubler plate go with no alarm bells going off!
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3134 posts, RR: 26 Reply 96, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6214 times:
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 81): Isn't the 340NG bulkhead made from CFRP? So a crack would be almost impossible to repair. I wonder what would happen to a 787 in such a situation. Also a write of, i would presume...
*ANY* more than 'scratch' damage to a rear pressure bulkhead usually means replace it. Aluninum or CFRP. That's one area you don't f*** around. It's just an enormous PITA to replace them, regardless of material of construction. Too many issues in the past with mistaken repairs, no one wants the risk anymore (and frankly I say good idea).
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5424 times:
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 97): Any new infos about scrapping or not? More and more forums reporting the scrapping but nothing I really thrust.
The forums feed off one another spreading both fact and fiction alike. I'm not buying into the scrapping just yet as I imagine AVherald would have picked up on it. Their last update on 4/11 however still points to a ferry to Toulouse, while Flightglobal reported on 4/28 Emirates was yet to decide on the fate of the aircraft. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...er-to-repair-damaged-a340-500.html
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4205 posts, RR: 52 Reply 100, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5321 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 96): That's one area you don't f*** around.
Not an airliner but many years ago when I was in the car audio business I read of a aircraft fitout company in the US that was hired to redo the interior and upholstery of a biz jet after the owner had some custom A/V and entertainment system fitted.
Luckily this aircraft was towed across the field to their hanger rather than flown, seems the "expert" audio installers had cut a pair of 6"x9" holes in the rear pressure bulkhead to mount the speakers.
Cheers
Of course old planes are safe, how do you think they got to be old?
AustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 102, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5354 times:
Quoting EK in Flightglobal: "A final decision on the form of repair of the aircraft is yet to be taken."
That suggests to me that it will be repaired rather than written off. Wouldn't they otherwise have said something like "The final decision if the aircraft will be repaired is yet to be taken." rather than "the form of repair"?
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
DRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 683 posts, RR: 12 Reply 103, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5240 times:
""Sources said a report due on Thursday was expected to show the near-catastrophic accident happened after the incorrect weight was typed into the plane's computers, causing it to set an inadequate take-off speed. ""(http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25387505-5014090,00.html)
I havent heard this before. Can anyone confirm this?
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1364 posts, RR: 2 Reply 104, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4880 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 91): That's interesting, I had not heard about that incident. What puzzles me is that Concorde had a tail wheel to protect it from such damage.
The Concorde incident that happened to F-BVFD in Nov. 1977 @ DKR was during landing. Pitch was too great and the descent rate was apparently about 50% beyond the maximum on touchdown, subsequently the tail wheel was crushed along with the rear of the engines scraped along the runway.
F-BVFD flew until 1982, and wasn't broken up until 1994.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 9542 posts, RR: 7 Reply 106, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4519 times:
I would presume the various recorders, or memory-recording chips in the flight computers especially as this was a relatively newer aircraft, had the info on the weight numbers input. Assuming this is true, no wonder the pilots resigned/were fired as being off by 100 tons is a serious mistake. I wonder if the software needs to be changed to assure a minimum weight is input with other info to reduce a wrong input.
FlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4482 times:
The article in previous posting would indicate that the airline is considering if it will be repaired in Australia or France, not if the plane will be scrapped or not:
Quote: The airline said today it had yet to decide whether the plane would be repaired in Australia or sent back to the manufacturer in France.
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 401 posts, RR: 1 Reply 108, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4280 times:
100 tonnes difference... yep, that will do it...
It looks like the pressure bulkhead was indeed damaged.
That's a major cost driver.
Another point that was not all that clear initially was that the aircraft suffered repeated tail strikes, hitting the runway AND the grass repeatedly.
Regarding the aircraft, it seems the intention is to repair it, not scrap it.
They haven't decided the best way to do it apparently.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4318 posts, RR: 54 Reply 109, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4063 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 106): Assuming this is true, no wonder the pilots resigned/were fired as being off by 100 tons is a serious mistake.
A serious mistake yes, but one as easy as typing a 2 instead of a 3. Resigning the pilots does absolutely nothing to improve safety or prevent this from occurring again. Putting in place systems to prevent the error from being carried through to an incident is what is needed. It looks like some further precautions are now being put in place by the operator.
I'd be interested to know whether Emirates' A340-500 pilots regularly fly the A340-300 as well, or if they are kept as two separate pools. If so, I wonder how much time was on the -300 in the lead up to the accident flight... Why? If they were used to operating aircraft with a ~270,000kg MTOW as well as one with a ~370,000kg MTOW, they may be less likely to notice the error - simple environmental capture.
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1011 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
Given that this was not that severe an impact, I wonder if this will lead to changes in the rules regarding the mounting of the FDR and CVR. Tail strikes are not *that* uncommon, and this one did disable the FDR due to some (apparently minor) damage to the mounting hardware.
Perhaps requiring the FDR to be mounted nearer the top of the rear fuselage would be a good idea, or at least out of the likely zone of damage caused by a survivable tail strike.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 111, posted (9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3471 times:
Most insurance companies will "total" something when salvage value + repair cost > value at time of occurance.
So if you do 15million in damage to a 30 million dollar plane, the real deciding factor is can they get more than 15million for it as it sits. If the parts are worth $20 million its an easy decision since they spend $5million less to pay the full value of $30million than the repair cost of $15 million.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 372 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 2359 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 370 posts, 
From Japan, joined exactly 5 years ago today! 
, 5326 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 951 posts, 
From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Jul 2005, 949 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 6290 posts, 
From Thailand, joined Feb 2009, 117 posts, 
From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3892 posts, 
because the A345 is my fav. aircraft currently flying. 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 255 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2258 posts, 
From Maldives, joined Nov 2003, 1549 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 6411 posts, 
Wrong.
From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 445 posts, 
From India, joined May 2006, 376 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 7090 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 198 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Mar 2001, 4982 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 1988 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 4978 posts, 
From Jordan, joined Jan 2007, 237 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3850 posts, 
From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 4270 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 11635 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 401 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3134 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 593 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 683 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
