AA A330-200 Damaged In CLT

flyinryan99 · Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:37 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 51):
Does an Airline like AA self-insure for damage like this? Obviously not for liability, but this kind of thing?

Most likely they have a high deductible program - pobably in the neighborhood of $1M. There's no way they would be able to self insure their entire fleet. This will be expensive, but I highly doubt this will become a constructive total loss.

DarkSnowyNight · Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:19 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 42):

If that Repair is anywhere beyond 30 Million then they spent 15Million in a Casino!!

I don't believe that for a second. But that's a great line.

Quoting william (Reply 44):
The driver that hit that plane..........Teamsters wouldn't be able to save him or her.

Probably true. The sad reality is that that is a very situational thing. For pretty much anything not considered to be skilled labor, something like this will probably get one fired... into the Sun. But had a Mechanic, DX, Flight Crew etc, done this, it's unlikely there would be a termination, although passing a tox screen would be compulsory for continued employment.

Quoting william (Reply 44):

When I used to work for airline catering company (back when airlines used to serve food...........shocking I know), we were told its $10K a minute fine to the company when we delayed an aircraft.

I remember hearing that figure back when I was fueling airplanes for a living too. Long story short, that's not true. There are penalties, but nothing like that. And with the peanuts airlines pay for these services, you'd be out of business in about a week, since everyone takes delays.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 46):
Ive been on catering duty at a major airport... it was like careening around Baghdad, the staff just arent highly trained necesssarily, they are largely footsoldiers. The budgets are razor thin. The staffing can be patchy. You pressure them (and there can be _huge_ pressure) you get uncertain results.

Get what you pay for. I think the real story here is that companies like US, AA, UA, etc, don't see a lot more of this happening. It's easy to forget that these are actually somewhat tedious and complex tasks and asking someone to complete them with the liability included, for say $11/hr is begging for trouble.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 48):
Sounds like the driver was employed by an outside contract company, in a right-to-work state. The brakes and steering could have failed and he'd probably still be canned.

Hate to agree, but that sounds about right.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 49):
Holy cow 30 million!!! Is it better to write it off, sell the parts and keep the $$$ instead of pouring another 30 mil to an already expensive Aircraft....

I don't think so. At that cost, the issue is the liability of a repair failure more than anything else (a la JAL 123). 30 million is fine as a cost goes, since it's a great deal less than the cost of a new Aircraft, to say nothing of the down time waiting for a new aircraft.

I won't say for sure that it will get repaired, but if it doesn't, it will be because the safety cannot be assured, not over cost.

hufftheweevil · Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:33 am

Quoting migair54 (Reply 17):
I don't understand why the driver was passing so close, a catering truck making damage close to the doors or even close to the wing can be understood as a big mistake, but this one is unacceptable.

Quoting theaviator380 (Reply 24):
What's the need going so close to the nose of the aircraft? unless mechanical failure or truck driver was incapacitated suddenly? As investigation point of view, I am sure AA must be looking even into case of sabotage?

As per the flyer above, the driver angled his truck to allow his headlights to shine on the nose gear door to view the aircraft number of each aircraft he rode past. He was searching for a specific aircraft. When 288 was not the aircraft he was looking for, he attempted to move on to the next aircraft. However, it appears he did not steer far enough away from the aircraft.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 12):
How much pressure do catering crews work under to be cutting things this close? They always seem to be the ones bombing around the airport at full speed, passing people in drive lanes, ignoring right of way in taxi lanes, etc. They regularly cut off planes trying to push out. Is it training, or just a general "hurry up" attitude?

It's not just catering trucks. All airport crews tend to receive some sort of pressure from management to get things done on time. In some companies, it's more than others. In my experience, poor performance is sometimes talked about just as much as poor safety. And that creates a sigma that performance is just as important as safety. However, safety should be preached as being most important, hence more important than performance.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 22):
Stupid question of mine: I am watching pictures of airliners for almost four decades but I cannot remember that I ever saw the aircraft's type name below the nose. Is this eventually related to the fact that this is a rather new type for AA and to help ground crews in identifying the type?

All US Airways aircraft have had the type designation under the nose since the current (US Airways) livery was introduced.

Quoting zeke (Reply 35):
It was a mobile set of stairs on a truck, the type they would use for a passenger door, the majority of the damage you see is from the handrail.

Um, no. The damage was created from the railing on the top platform of a catering truck.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 52):
10K a minute fine? That sounds like negative motivation, not truthfulness. We've had delays due to vendors and it generally results in a nastygram and maybe some terse phone calls but not much else.

10K may be the rate for an international flight. Domestics may be closer to 2-4K. Regionals maybe less. It's all in the contract between the airline and the contractor/vendor. The contractor promises to do the job they were hired to do in a timely fashion, or else pay a fine. The reason is simple: It costs the airline money when a flight is delayed. (Although we had an interesting discussion about this in another thread: Delay Made Up In Flight; Waive Contract Penalties? (by Advent8T Dec 9 2014 in Tech Ops) )

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 54):
It's easy to forget that these are actually somewhat tedious and complex tasks and asking someone to complete them with the liability included, for say $11/hr is begging for trouble.

I disagree that these are tedious and complex tasks. Most ground handling tasks are relatively simple and straightforward. And most of these jobs take a week to a month to train properly. However, I believe it is the responsibility that comes with these jobs that deserves higher wages. So I agree that we should be paid more, but for different reasons.

william · Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:14 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 52):
10K a minute fine? That sounds like negative motivation, not truthfulness. We've had delays due to vendors and it generally results in a nastygram and maybe some terse phone calls but not much else.

That was what told to us, though I wandered how would SkyChef make money with those penalties. I do know anytime we made an aircraft late more than 15 minutes, we would always get a new manager (old one fired)................Funny how it worked out that way.

moo · Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:40 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 41):

Has anyone mentioned the Qantas 747 (VH-OJH) that had the entire lower front section replaced after overrunning the runway in Bangkok?

Heres a slide show of the actual repair, its a really good read: http://www.slideshare.net/Art37/qantas-repair

litz · Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:53 pm

There was also the 767 (Air Seychelles, I think) which had a rear pressure dome replaced.

Some exceptionally excellent hi-def footage of that one in an episode of "World's Toughest Fixes"

GARUDAROD · Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:10 pm

I am hearing that the damage is worse than expected and that the aircraft may indeed be written off
because the keel beam was damaged during the collision. This is from someone who has first hand knowledge
of the matter.

CALTECH · Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:14 am

Story is not a catering truck, but a cleaning truck.

Also hearing Airbus is scheduled to come out 20 Jan to look into repair.

KarelXWB · Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:55 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 48):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLd-qw6bCRw

Wow, shocking Wow!

Quoting moo (Reply 54):
Heres a slide show of the actual repair, its a really good read: http://www.slideshare.net/Art37/qantas-repair

Amazing, thanks for sharing.

steeler83 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:43 am

Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 56):
I am hearing that the damage is worse than expected and that the aircraft may indeed be written off because the keel beam was damaged during the collision. This is from someone who has first hand knowledge
of the matter.

I really hope that is not the case. It would be sad to lose an A332 so soon!

KD5MDK · Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:28 am

Presumably that would mean 1 763 retirement delayed a bit.

RDUDDJI · Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:15 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):

Sounds like the driver was employed by an outside contract company, in a right-to-work state. The brakes and steering could have failed and he'd probably still be canned.

A catering truck has no business around the nose of an airplane. Period. Right to work state or not has nothing to do with that.

CV880 · Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:11 am

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 61):
A catering truck has no business around the nose of an airplane. Period. Right to work state or not has nothing to do with that.

Truck in the photo has an AA logo, indicating an airline cleaning/service truck, usually operated by airline personnel. If the driver had no guide directing his movements, he's gonna get canned, union or no union.

Maverick623 · Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:12 pm

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 61):
A catering truck has no business around the nose of an airplane. Period.

Catering trucks pull up to the front doors all the time.

But this wasn't a catering truck. Your attitude is way off base here.

Sooner787 · Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:05 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 54):
Has anyone mentioned the Qantas 747 (VH-OJH) that had the entire lower front section replaced after overrunning the runway in Bangkok?

Thanks for posting that slideshow....amazing amount of work

RDUDDJI · Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:32 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 63):
Catering trucks pull up to the front doors all the time.

But this wasn't a catering truck. Your attitude is way off base here.

Catering/cabin service, whatever, it's essentially the same truck design.

The nose is nowhere near the fwd doors. To most people that's inherently obvious. But if you need a diagram, here you go: http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...330family/a330-200/specifications/

I have a great attitude and I've worked on the ramp. An accident like this is inexcusable. To suggest this guy was trying to service the forward doors (and hit the nose) is just silly.

Moose135 · Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:57 pm

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 65):
To suggest this guy was trying to service the forward doors (and hit the nose) is just silly.

He wasn't trying to service the forward doors when he hit the aircraft. When this first happened, last month, someone posted a page from the internal AA/US employee site with pictures and a description of the accident. He was driving down a line of aircraft, in the dark (0500L) and in keeping with accepted practice, turned the truck to shine the headlights at the aircraft, so as to read the number on the nose gear. When he saw this wasn't the aircraft he was looking for, he continued down the line, however he misjudged his distance, and hit the aircraft.

deltal1011man · Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:33 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 45):

compared to 220 or so million to replace the airplane.........

Quoting litz (Reply 55):

pretty sure Boeing's AOG team did the repair on that one.

ltbewr · Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:39 am

As this involved apparently an AA owned truck and staff, this will likely be paid in party by their self insurance programs, possibly kicking into some of there surplus/reinsurance policies.

I would presume this major work would be done in part on site by and supervision of Airbus engineers and some staff, working with AA/US mx staff. I would presume that Airbus in France will have to make new parts, figure out how to fix it.

I wonder, could the damaged parts be replaced by an older one that has been parted out or is just too sensitive of a part to do that with ?

zeke · Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:22 am

Quoting moo (Reply 54):
Has anyone mentioned the Qantas 747 (VH-OJH) that had the entire lower front section replaced after overrunning the runway in Bangkok?

I heard that was a 100 million dollar repair, and the 747 production line was not exactly going all that fast at the time.

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 36):
Not from the photos in the original link.

My error then, what was sent to me only included head on photos and the damage. The description of the damage said most of the damage was cause by a handrail. I made the assumption they were stairs.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 67):
compared to 220 or so million to replace the airplane.........

No, an A330 does not cost that much. If they used the cabin, engines, APU, and some avionics off this aircraft, they could get a new airframe for under 50 million. The problem is there is a large A330 production backlog.

trex8 · Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:04 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 69):
Quoting moo (Reply 54):
Has anyone mentioned the Qantas 747 (VH-OJH) that had the entire lower front section replaced after overrunning the runway in Bangkok?

I heard that was a 100 million dollar repair, and the 747 production line was not exactly going all that fast at the time.

There were reports that the insurers wanted to write it off but QF didnt want to have a hull loss on their record so paid for it to be repaired. Though people here on anet have denied this.

deltal1011man · Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:07 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 69):

No, an A330 does not cost that much. If they used the cabin, engines, APU, and some avionics off this aircraft, they could get a new airframe for under 50 million. The problem is there is a large A330 production backlog.

I didn't even think about the fact that basically everything (including the big ticket items like engines, APU and gear) could be re-used.

so never mind.

RickNRoll · Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:15 am

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 66):
He wasn't trying to service the forward doors when he hit the aircraft. When this first happened, last month, someone posted a page from the internal AA/US employee site with pictures and a description of the accident. He was driving down a line of aircraft, in the dark (0500L) and in keeping with accepted practice, turned the truck to shine the headlights at the aircraft, so as to read the number on the nose gear. When he saw this wasn't the aircraft he was looking for, he continued down the line, however he misjudged his distance, and hit the aircraft.

Will they be giving drivers a ten dollar torch to look at the numbers from now on?

Moose135 · Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:29 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 71):
Will they be giving drivers a ten dollar torch to look at the numbers from now on?

Now there's an idea!

ssteve · Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:32 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 72):

Will they be giving drivers a ten dollar torch to look at the numbers from now on?

Only if they expect to buy fewer than 5 million flashlights before the next similar incident.

777Jet · Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:34 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 70):
Quoting zeke (Reply 69):
Quoting moo (Reply 54):
Has anyone mentioned the Qantas 747 (VH-OJH) that had the entire lower front section replaced after overrunning the runway in Bangkok?

I heard that was a 100 million dollar repair, and the 747 production line was not exactly going all that fast at the time.

There were reports that the insurers wanted to write it off but QF didnt want to have a hull loss on their record so paid for it to be repaired. Though people here on anet have denied this.

I believe the repair cost was more than the aircraft was worth - or something like that. Nonetheless, it is true that the QF decision to spend $$$ to repair the plane was mostly to maintain their zero jet hull-loss record.

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 66):
He wasn't trying to service the forward doors when he hit the aircraft. When this first happened, last month, someone posted a page from the internal AA/US employee site with pictures and a description of the accident. He was driving down a line of aircraft, in the dark (0500L) and in keeping with accepted practice, turned the truck to shine the headlights at the aircraft, so as to read the number on the nose gear. When he saw this wasn't the aircraft he was looking for, he continued down the line, however he misjudged his distance, and hit the aircraft.

Does anybody know what happened to the driver who caused the damage? Was he fired? Let off the hook? Or just a slap on the wrist?

hufftheweevil · Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:37 am

Quoting CV880 (Reply 62):
Truck in the photo has an AA logo, indicating an airline cleaning/service truck, usually operated by airline personnel.

I don't know about CLT, but in PHL all cleaning is done by a contract company. The trucks may be owned by US/AA, and have the logo on the outside, but they are driven by employees of the contract company. I'm willing to bet this is the same way in CLT, as in most stations.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 75):
Does anybody know what happened to the driver who caused the damage? Was he fired? Let off the hook? Or just a slap on the wrist?

99.9999% sure he's fired. I've seen employees fired for far less damage.

deltal1011man · Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:41 am

Quoting hufftheweevil (Reply 76):

I don't know about CLT, but in PHL all cleaning is done by a contract company. The trucks may be owned by US/AA, and have the logo on the outside, but they are driven by employees of the contract company. I'm willing to bet this is the same way in CLT, as in most stations.

Exactly. AirServ, DGS and GateGourmet all have trucks here (ATL) that are Delta branded but are used by those vendors.

I even think the fuel carts at the gates have Delta stickers on them but again, a vendor does the fueling.

breiz · Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:02 am

This accident took place at night on December 2nd. The truck was a cleaning one, not catering.
American Al, reckoned that the ac would be repaired by mid January.
Here is AA's report:

"At approx. 0500 on 12/2/2014 a Cleaning Lead, driving cleaning truck TR062, entered the hard stand across from the Base Maintenance Hangar with the intent of locating a/c 507 to conduct a schedule RON clean.
As was the station norm diring night operations, the driver angled towards the nose gear as thet approached each aircraft to use the headlights to illuminate the aircraft number.
After identifying aircraft#288, they accelarated towards the next aircraft but failed to clear the aircraft.
The right handrail on the stationary platform cut through the aircraft fuselage aft and the box of the truck struck the radome causing significant structural damageo the aircraft
No employee were injured.
The aircraft is expected to be out of service until mid January 2015."

I bet the cleaning trucks will now be equipped with search lights

.

kalvado · Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:42 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 69):
My error then, what was sent to me only included head on photos and the damage. The description of the damage said most of the damage was cause by a handrail. I made the assumption they were stairs.

Look at the last picture in original set - http://i.imgur.com/vchPVGw.jpg - and it is pretty clear that handrail was involved, and which handrail is that.

zeke · Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:16 pm

Quoting kalvado (Reply 79):
Look at the last picture in original set - http://i.imgur.com/vchPVGw.jpg - and it is pretty clear that handrail was involved, and which handrail is that.

I didn't get my info or photos from this thread, I had not seen that photo before.

Viscount724 · Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:47 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 38):
I've seen FAR worse Damage repaired than that Like the Air China 747sp that went Supersonic in a dive.
The Captain Lowered the Gear to recover and the Gear doors took off 8 ft of each horiziontal Stabilizer .
The Airplane was in the Hangar at SFO being repaired by the Boeing AOG team for 6.5 Months.

China Airlines (Taiwan) not Air China. I don't believe the accident report confirms that it went supersonic.