All,
The person who asked the question whether any parts would be re-used opens a can of worms. There is a movement in the industry to eradicate this practice - and in most major airlines and aviation communities, particularly the USA there is an acceptance that components will be supplied with "trace and a non-incident statement". Trace is defined as a paperwork trail usually to the last operator and sometimes (depending on the life and overhaul intervals of the component) back to birth. A key element of this trace is a step by step log of each company's hands the component has passed through. Along with this each company will certify, either using form ATA106 or by a signed and stamped letter that the part identified by Part Number and Serial number has not been involved in an incident or accident and has not been immersed in salt water or subjected to stress or heat exposure.
Some people even consider that the use of a component on a simulator can expose the component to "stress" and therefore will not complete the ATA106 form.
In the UK the CAA released AWN17 which covered the guidance of how to treat these parts. It has now been replaced by an EASA notice - I'm not sure which one.
The key to all this is what should be considered a reportable incident or accident...This I would suggest is a total write off. However parts from the BA 777 at LHR could well be salvageable
. In this case however I know that BA are adamant that these parts will be destroyed - an honourable position that cost them a great deal.
My company has an absolute policy of not touching incident related parts - I would encourage all airlines to adopt this stance.
Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the issue even more.