is more or less confirmed by the BA Annual Report 2008-09 published a month or so ago. In Note 10 to their financial statement it details the monetary impact of the write-off of the 772ER, G-YMMM, at LHR early last year.
The report says the 'loss' because of the write-off of the book value of the aircraft was £60 million (or US $ 98 million at today's exchange rate). The 'gain' from the insurance payment received is given as £63 million (or US $103 million).
I suspect that the difference between these two figures is not a 'profit' acruing to BA. Rather I think it is likely to be reimbursement of other insured costs (in addition to the loss of the aircraft frame) that have arisen directly as a result of the accident.
CO38 From Norway, joined May 2009, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 20231 times:
A friend of mine who works at a company that lease out aircraft told me that the lease rates (pr year) is roughly 1/7 of its market value. So in the 777 example a couple of posts up, a 777 with a current market value $61mill will have a yearly lease rate of $8714285. ($726 190 pr month)
BCFs are much dependent on their feed stock, and need to earn ROI back on conversion cost but price out around $550-800k/mo while -400F on the other hand are more in the $750k-975k range.
I'm sure the recent depressed cargo market however will put furhter pressure on their pricing.
Quoting CO38 (Reply 9): is roughly 1/7 of its market value.
I would be very cautious to use any such assumptions, as lease cost are very market driven, and at times are not quite linked to the actual cost of the plane. For instance for many years the A320 and 737NG series leases were quite inflated in relationship to their actual acquisition cost due to their popularity and managed to garner rate premium.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California