Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Etihad A340-600 Writeoff - Disposition?  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8638 times:

What ever happened as a result of the Etihad A340-600 writeoff? Obviously Airbus had to make it up to them somehow. With a series of 777-300ERs coming on line, did Etihad decide to just apply the deposit money toward their A350 order?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
Obviously Airbus had to make it up to them somehow.

Why do you say that?

It was Etihad's engineers that had full responsibility for the plane at the time of the incident. It was their failure to follow procedure that directly caused the incident. What would Airbus have to compensate them for?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1920 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8100 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1):
It was Etihad's engineers that had full responsibility for the plane at the time of the incident. It was their failure to follow procedure that directly caused the incident. What would Airbus have to compensate them for?

Yes, it was during reception tests by Etihad. However, two Airbus employees were o/b, with one even in the cockpit if I remember well.
I think both Etihad and Airbus decided to keep it quiet and it will be difficult to know who paid for what in the end.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Breiz (Reply 2):
However, two Airbus employees were o/b, with one even in the cockpit if I remember well.

Yes, but it was an Etihad run test session, so they had responsibility for the plane. They would, I presume, have had to sign paperwork to that effect.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7414 times:

So with the consensus being that we don't know for sure who was at "fault" (with Etihad being more likely), what has Etihad done to make up for the missing airframe?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7373 times:

Don't most airlines like to sell a plane or two currently, in this case to the insurance?

User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7334 times:

This incident has revamped Airbus procedures with MANY Airbus employees losing their jobs over this incident. Unfortunate for Airbus, this was their aircraft for Etihad had not taken delivery/financial closing. A rapport was developed between the two parties thus extending a comfort level negating procedures.

Airbus looked at legal repercussion and too many Airbus procedures were broken that would be futile.


User currently offlineRJAF From Jordan, joined Jan 2007, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7239 times:

Regardless of who was at fault, the aircraft was most probably fully insured and who ever had the title got compensated by the insurers for the agreed value of the aircraft. Once the check has been paid, the aircraft belongs to the insurers as 'salvage' and insurers would sell whatever parts they wish to usually specialised entities. Usually, the insured elects to keep the undamaged parts of the aircraft (such as the expensive brand new engines which were undamaged) and deduct them from the claim proceeds.


Chance favors the prepared mind
User currently offlineBorism From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7197 times:



Quoting RJAF (Reply 7):
Regardless of who was at fault, the aircraft was most probably fully insured and who ever had the title got compensated by the insurers for the agreed value of the aircraft. Once the check has been paid, the aircraft belongs to the insurers as 'salvage' and insurers would sell whatever parts they wish to usually specialised entities. Usually, the insured elects to keep the undamaged parts of the aircraft (such as the expensive brand new engines which were undamaged) and deduct them from the claim proceeds.

I sure don't insure my car when it's still being assembled at the factory. I don't think car manufacturer can insure cars that it haven't delivered yet either? I mean, why would they need to sell them afterwards if they were insured, if they can simply destroy them and claim insurance? Factory and inventory is probably insured, but to what amount? Probably it didn't amount to "fully insured".


User currently offlineRJAF From Jordan, joined Jan 2007, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6987 times:



Quoting Borism (Reply 8):
if they can simply destroy them and claim insurance?

I hope you're not serious! That will be considered willfull misconduct and the claim will never be paid. The loss has to be fortuitous (i.e accidental and unforeseen).

When an aircraft is being assembled, the whole construction operation will be insured under a different coverage. Once the aircraft is built, it is no more under construction and reverts to a coverage called hull insurance under a separate policy and once the aircraft is sold to a customer, it is removed from Airbus policy and is put under the customer's policy and can insure it for an agreed value which will be paid in the event of a loss.



Chance favors the prepared mind
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6671 times:



Quoting Borism (Reply 8):
I sure don't insure my car when it's still being assembled at the factory.

IF you're like 90% of car buyers and purchase what the local dealer has on the lot...

I hear that, for instance, a rabid Ferrari owner who is having a machine custom made for himself might just do precisely that...  Wink



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2342 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6527 times:



Quoting Borism (Reply 8):
I don't think car manufacturer can insure cars that it haven't delivered yet either?

You think Ford or Honda doesn't have insurance covering the vehicles that are under production, just in case the factory burns to the ground? Or if hail damages a parking lot full of cars on the manufacturers property?

Who pays for that?



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6429 times:

Where the car analogy breaks down, though, is the capital expense part. Building an airliner is a huge financial undertaking, not only for its owner, but for its manufacturer as well. Metal typically starts being cut about 18 months before delivery, and many parts you never even think of and might take for granted (custom rivets, anyone  Wink ) have already been purchased through the supply chain well in advance of the aircraft being put together.

Car manufacturers roll out hundreds, even thousands, of the same car, day in and day out, but when an airframe manufacturer only makes ~600 planes a year, each and every one is a specialized machine, made only for its eventual owner. Ask Airbus how easy it is to convert an A380-861 intended for EK into an A380-842 for QF on the assembly line. I can hear the laughter coming from Tolouse all the way in Portland  rotfl 

The loss of one plane in production would be a huge financial setback, not only for Airbus or Boeing, but also for their customer, who has paid a series of deposits to get to that point in the production line  twocents 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6296 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
Quoting Borism (Reply 8):
I sure don't insure my car when it's still being assembled at the factory.

IF you're like 90% of car buyers and purchase what the local dealer has on the lot...

When you factory-order a car (I've done that for every car I've driven to get it exactly the way I want it) you only make a deposit when it's ordered. You don't own it until it's delivered so there's no need to insure it until then.

[Edited 2010-01-13 15:14:52]

User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 724 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6053 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 3):
Yes, but it was an Etihad run test session, so they had responsibility for the plane. They would, I presume, have had to sign paperwork to that effect.

Scbriml, please get your facts right. There were NO Etihad employees on the aircraft at the time of the accident. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

[Edited 2010-01-13 18:39:47]


Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4869 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5984 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ejazz (Reply 14):
There were NO Etihad employees on the aircraft at the time of the accident. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

weren't there ADAT employees who were contracted by Etihad to do the testing in the cockpit?


User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 724 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5824 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1):
It was Etihad's engineers that had full responsibility for the plane at the time of the incident. It was their failure to follow procedure that directly caused the incident. What would Airbus have to compensate them for?

It was this text I was referring to.

There were GAMCO technicians onboard the aircraft. GAMCO was then a separate Company who were contracted by Etihad. The fact remains there were no Etihad Employees in the aircraft and that includes engineers.

If Scbrimi would further check his facts before typing such rubbish he would know from the BEA official report that the test was being conducted by an Airbus Ground Test Technician in the right seat. It was this Airbus technician that during the engine run on being informed the aircraft was moving incorrectly released the parking brake after attempting to use the foot brakes. A Gamco technician was in the left seat and Flight test Engineer in the jump seat with a further 6 onboard. They were there only to observe the test.

As per BEA report;

The ground tests during the customer delivery phase are performed under the responsibility of only one ground test technician, an Airbus employee. He was usually accompanied by one or more persons representing the customer, and sometimes by other Airbus employees.



Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5485 times:



Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
What ever happened as a result of the Etihad A340-600 writeoff?

I suspect that EY would get either another A340 or change the order for an A330. An accident like this does not normally result in any penalty payment from the manufacturer.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1):
It was Etihad's engineers that had full responsibility for the plane at the time of the incident. It was their failure to follow procedure that directly caused the incident. What would Airbus have to compensate them for?

No, until the aircraft is handed over to the customer, the manufacturer is responsible for everything.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5237 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
IF you're like 90% of car buyers and purchase what the local dealer has on the lot...

In the US that may be the case, but over here most cars are 'built to order', i.e. you specify the car you want, and the factory builds it. Only a small percentage are stock cars.


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...
Toulouse Incident, Etihad A340-600 posted Tue Nov 11 2008 20:29:33 by Thai A330
Etihad Airways Has Received A New A340.600 posted Wed Sep 5 2007 14:01:39 by EtihadAirways
Etihad Introduces First A340-600 Aircraft posted Thu Jul 5 2007 13:29:26 by EI321
Luthansa A340-600 In-seat IFE posted Wed Dec 23 2009 16:51:41 by PIAflyer
Last A340 600 Customer - To Be Iberia? posted Mon Oct 5 2009 13:45:27 by Corernagh14
Cathay Pacific And The A340-600 posted Fri Sep 25 2009 10:36:01 by CF-CPI
A340-500 / A340-600 Ever Been In MLA? posted Sun Sep 13 2009 12:33:02 by Dairy
Iberia A340-600 Orders posted Sat Aug 22 2009 01:54:37 by Corernagh14
Inside The A340-600 @ Paris Air Show 2001 posted Sat Jun 6 2009 10:43:47 by AF2323
IB A340-600 Stored At TLS? posted Wed Mar 25 2009 07:07:47 by N14AZ