British Airways Incident at Johannesburg
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. You aren't paying for it. If you were, I suspect you'd have a greater interest decisions beyond "is it technically possible to fix this" The people who are, have to make a decision whether that repair makes economic sense. And given that they are also the ones paying you, it's in your interest for them to make the correct decision for the financial health of the company.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(but would you be willing to forfeit half your salary for the next five years for being able to do so)
A good treasury accountant would be able to make a similar sum on the rise & fall of the $, and/or shopping around for the lowest fuel, rather than just penalising engineers salary, whose job it is to keep the aircraft flying.
A good treasury accountant would be able to make a similar sum on the rise & fall of the $, and/or shopping around for the lowest fuel, rather than just penalising engineers salary, whose job it is to keep the aircraft flying.
Kinda missing the point there. Lets say that all factors considered, repairing the aircraft costs 1 million more than pulling one out of storage and retuning to service, and lets say that you are correct that the bean counters could make that same sum by shopping for chap fuel or some other means.
Which makes more sense:
Repairing the airplane at an overall cost of 1 million (compared to scrapping it) , and the doing whatever financial magic that that recoups that million dollars for a net gain of 0
Or:
Scrapping that airplane and pulling one out of storage, saving a million dollars, plus doing that financial magic which gains a million dollars, for a net gain of 2 million dollars.
At the end of the day, which is better, having 2 million dollars or having zero?
Kinda missing the point there. Lets say that all factors considered, repairing the aircraft costs 1 million more than pulling one out of storage and retuning to service
AFAIK, BA aren't bringing a 747 back from the desert to replace G-BNLL (though they have done so in the past), they are simply deferring the retirement of another aircraft that is currently in service but was due to be parked (albeit at the cost of an additional check).
Flogging the RB211s to someone else or 'rescuing' them for spares on their existing fleet probably wouldn't be a bad idea. They're probably worth substantially more than the airframe.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly tubby, the spares from a 747-4 are worth their weight as scrap. Engines and the new upgraded interior are the only parts of significant use. There maybe some low hours parts that BA may want to save post the recent major, but the rest will eventually be beer cans pretty quickly.
Given that the aircraft isn't going to be flying anywhere, it will clearly be broken up in situ. I would expect most LRUs and rotables to be salvaged, and quite possibly some insurance-type items like doors, control surfaces, fairings, etc.
How valuable they turn out to be to BA, with a gradually shrinking 747 fleet, only time will tell.
How valuable they turn out to be to BA, with a gradually shrinking 747 fleet, only time will tell.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The approximate value of G-BNLL would have been no more than $20 million, possible as low as $10-$15 million. When the surveyors assess an aircraft for repair all labour costs are costed at overtime rates, this is because it is the assumption that the repair will be carried out by engineers on overtime, as no airline or maintenance facility employs engineers only to carry out damage repair work during normal shifts. That doesn't mean repair work isn't carried out on normal shifts. In the case of major repairs to Boeing aircraft then Boeing may send their specialist C130 with engineers, tools and spares to do the job on site, at a price.
It is possible that the hull of BNLL was 'self insured', I have no idea, but the hull policies for BA will, almost certainly, include a deductible or excess and that deductible may well have been more than the insurance value, in which case BA would be paying for the repair themselves anyway. Even if the deductible was much less it may well have been cheaper for BA to go for write-off and salvage than repair.
It is possible that the value of the engines and other spares will greatly reduce the size of the actual financial loss to BA, I doubt the engines, for instance, were twenty years old.
It is possible that the hull of BNLL was 'self insured', I have no idea, but the hull policies for BA will, almost certainly, include a deductible or excess and that deductible may well have been more than the insurance value, in which case BA would be paying for the repair themselves anyway. Even if the deductible was much less it may well have been cheaper for BA to go for write-off and salvage than repair.
It is possible that the value of the engines and other spares will greatly reduce the size of the actual financial loss to BA, I doubt the engines, for instance, were twenty years old.
Last edited by parabellum; 25th Feb 2014 at 00:04.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a fleet of 50+ B744s with similar engines, are the engines swapped around similar age aircraft or might a G-BNL* airframe ever fly with an RB211 delivered on a G-BYG* model?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a fleet of 50+ B744s with similar engines, are the engines swapped around similar age aircraft or might a G-BNL* airframe ever fly with an RB211 delivered on a G-BYG* model?
Over the years there have been sub-variants of the engine type which will restrict the swapping...
Out of interest, are the -524s pooled between BA's B744 and B763 fleets ?
Rolls-Royce would have us believe that they are interchangeable between the two types: RB211-524G/H?T - Rolls-Royce
Rolls-Royce would have us believe that they are interchangeable between the two types: RB211-524G/H?T - Rolls-Royce
Yes - the idea being to equip the 767's with dissimilar houred units as part of the ETOPS operation. i.e neither 2 brand new engines nor 2 old clunkers...
PS Which sometimes meant we got 4 old clunkers on the 74 ....
PS Which sometimes meant we got 4 old clunkers on the 74 ....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Africa
Age: 57
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I saw fleetingly a post from someone that this was an accident not an incident . Wow, it was quickly taken out so fast that I hadn't even finished the sentence " those nigels................ " before it went out of sight! GCHQ super efficiency?