neilki posted:
@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...
There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.
I wonder in what sense the word "worth" is being tossed around here. If that 747 was really of lesser value less than the cost to fix it, then another airframe of similar age and condition
could have been acquired. Seems more likely that the airframe was under-insured (i.e. at less than market value or replacement cost - for whatever reason), and QF swallowed the difference to get it repaired.
PR is valuable,but I doubt that the accountable goodwill of "Rainman" thinking would have been affected much by that sort of actuarial nuance in claim adjustment, IF it ever in fact occurred.
Cheers, Nightowl727
p.s. Any decision on the viability of repairs vs. write-off of the LAS T7 will obviously be made by folk with high pay grades at BA, but I do remember they repaired a 747 at BGI (in the open air!) with superficially very similar damage after a refuelling incident that went very pear-shaped - thinking it was around '79..