Network F100 bent??
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bent beyond economical repair - sadly this machine is stacking up to be the first offical 'writeoff'
The cost associated to repairing it far outweights anything. Anyway, it would be Network that has the hull loss not Qantas?
The cost associated to repairing it far outweights anything. Anyway, it would be Network that has the hull loss not Qantas?
Nunc est bibendum
There is no way Qantas will stand for a hull loss... They will spend millions if they have to... Just like the 747 they fixed!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Keg,
I always understood QF was self insured.
On the figures you provide what outcome would the scenario
Of breaking it up for parts have had achieved.
Storage and transport Issues obviously a consideration, but at
The time 747-400 was still popular.
It did take a long time to fix and no sure if it ever flew well since?
I always understood QF was self insured.
On the figures you provide what outcome would the scenario
Of breaking it up for parts have had achieved.
Storage and transport Issues obviously a consideration, but at
The time 747-400 was still popular.
It did take a long time to fix and no sure if it ever flew well since?
.........and no sure if it ever flew well since?
Nunc est bibendum
It flew no differently to the other 744's.
rudderless, I hear the bizzo about self insurance from time to time. I'm not sure that's correct. I don't think QF would be allowed to operate were that the case. Certainly those who finance (and often own) the aeroplanes I suspect would require some sort of surety.
Breaking it up for parts? Bugger all. We're parking jumbos in perfect working order in the desert and getting virtually nothing in return. Sure we may have gotten a bit more back in '99 when 744s were more desired but only two engines were good, undercarriage no good, lots of work required, etc.
I don't recall the fix time. I have a friend that was one of the lead engineers on the project (and still has the nose gear door with JH on it in his garage) and he has mentioned it to me but I'd have to go back and check. He's doing the grey nomad thing around Australia at the moment so hard to get hold of.
Anyway, enough of OJH, back to this Network thing.
Thread Starter
Rumour has it there was a CASA Flight Ops Inspector on the Flight Deck.
Anyone care to confirm / deny?
Anyone care to confirm / deny?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
The Qantas Group has an insurance policy with a mob in London.
The insurance details are in the Cert & Docs folder.
It was one if ALAEA's unanswered questions as to who pays for the policy as all group aircraft are listed.
The Qantas Group has an insurance policy with a mob in London.
The insurance details are in the Cert & Docs folder.
It was one if ALAEA's unanswered questions as to who pays for the policy as all group aircraft are listed.
Geez I get sick of killing this BS story time and again. Repair was less than $100 million. Replacement aeroplane was circa $150 million. Aircraft was insured and paid for by insurers.
From memory i think it cost about $96 million.
I was the LAME that did the final sign off and did the push back on that 747 on its first flight back into service. It was a pretty big repair job, but it wasnt as bad as what it looked to be honest.
I have flown on OJH a dozen times since and been on the flightdeck in flight several times and the pilots dont even notice anything different in the way it handles.
There is an article in the west Australian that seems to be the source for "apparent landing gear damage", but I believe they have misinterpreted the photo showing the LH underbelly with RH MLG in the background.
I maintain from the 2 pics I've seen, it is repairable.
I maintain from the 2 pics I've seen, it is repairable.
Nunc est bibendum
I was under the impression that Qantas sold it soon after it was repaired. Or was that the B-707 that ended up inverted?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that the reference to a B707 being upended refers to the "Bahrein bomber"incident which from memory was VH-EAB. That aircraft continued on in the fleet to its normal disposal time so any refence to that as a premature write off is also false.I flew in that one enough to know it flew normally as well.
Wunwing
Wunwing
Sorry to continue the thread drift but according to Gordon Reid's Traffic column in the latest Aviation Australia, OJH departed for Marana on 3 Oct.
The "Bahrain Bomber" was indeed VH-EAB. I believe the date of the incident was 21 Feb 69. EAB operated her last QF flight on 18 Dec 77. She was considered good enough for Gough Whitlam in the interim.
I understand that Qantas did once carry their own insurance but that was when they owned aeroplanes and the "pride of ownership" concept prevailed. Engineers still understand this.
Rgds
The "Bahrain Bomber" was indeed VH-EAB. I believe the date of the incident was 21 Feb 69. EAB operated her last QF flight on 18 Dec 77. She was considered good enough for Gough Whitlam in the interim.
I understand that Qantas did once carry their own insurance but that was when they owned aeroplanes and the "pride of ownership" concept prevailed. Engineers still understand this.
Rgds