25 years ago I watched them, (well technically I watched them re-install, not remove the vertical stab) on the second Air Force One 747 so that it would fit in a hanger in Wichita. They didn't use any fancy tooling - a portable crane and lots of people. I didn't watch the whole thing (it was something like an all-day procedure) but I know it was completed successfully.

When I asked it this was unique, I was told "not particularly" - there are a lot of hangers put there that can take the length and width but not the height of a 747.

tdracer is spot on, we used to back in the 70s routinely swing the Vertical Stab over on B720 & B707 aircraft to get the aircraft into the corner of the hangar.
By the way, l have recently been at a conference held by Boeing on the B787 and someone asked within Boeing if they could info us what is going on with the a/c.
He was told Boeing is not allowed to comment, it is up to the operator to give details.
Guess it lies with the insurers, airline & Boeing to come up with a plan.

I think all the above has now become irrelevant. It looks as if work is underway to repair it where it stands: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWT9ytwIQAEurvq.jpg:large

think that looks more like the white paint going on !

Quick, before anyone twigs what airline it belongs to ! :ugh:

It is not Boeing's aircraft - they sold it. So decisions will be based on the Insurer and the owner Ethiopian, I would not be surprised if Honeywell is not being drawn in by a claim against their insurers due to the ELT being blamed. All this insurer to insurer negotiation takes an inordinate length of time. The only information Boeing could give is costs of various repair options and their expected outcomes.

I would suspect that Boeing would really like to have that fuselage barrel for strength testing by an independent assessor so they could set customer's minds at rest on the effect of an airborne fire (and perhaps quieten the peanut gallery). But it is not Boeing's decision.

For a professional aviation website some of the comments above surprise me, there seems to be a total lack of understanding of just how much you can do in terms of repairing aircraft ( be it composite or metal).

I can only assume that this is a reflection on today's throw away culture and the fact that people no longer fix things. I notice this cultural change most in the young FO's I fly with most are driving almost new cars that are maintained professionally, at their age I was riding old motorcycles that without constant attention from myself simply would not run.

Ian W
 

I know its not Boeing's aircraft and l did not say it was.
You seem to be little naive of Boeing's involvement with regards to the insurer.
The aircraft can only be repaired with repair instructions from Boeing.
The Insurer and Boeing will work out the repair with its costs and then relay that to the owner Ethiopian (if they do own it).
Ethiopian could decide to write it off, but they will only receive the money that the insurer is willing to pay.

In spite of the appearance that posters are sniping at each other, if you merge some of these posts together there are some pretty good assessments here.


:ok:

I understood that some of the bigger MROs/airlines had received design approval for repairs on type. I could be wrong of course.

Rumours are that the repair patch (for want of a better word) arrived at LHR on far eastern airline (SIA?) last week.

For all this talk about insurer's liability for the fire damage, I presume the aircraft is actually still under manufacturers warranty. It was only delivered in November 2012, less than 8 weeks later it was grounded, returned to service in April 2013, and 11 weeks after that a component had a fire. I would have thought it was still very much Boeing's warranty liability at that point.

It may be. On the other hand, look at all the generator sets parked alongside; as if someone is planning to do some serious work. And isn't it ironic, that when you look closely at the right hand edge of the photo, there is another aircraft. Another Ethiopian!

Something else about that photo: the steps to L1 door are from DNATA which makes me think Dubai rather than Heathrow. Mind you I haven't been to Heathrow for five or six years - has DNATA established a foothold at Heathrow?

Dunno about the steps but the control tower is a bit of a giveaway! :)

DNATA are all over Heathrow now. When I first saw them there, I had the same surprise. I had always associated them with Abu Dhabi & Dubai.

If true, that would pretty much rule out replacement of the tail barrel section - there is only one aircraft out there that can carry the 787 barrel sections and that is the Boeing Large Cargo Freighter (LCF - better known outside Boeing as the "Dreamlifter").

I figure Airbus was quite happy that Boeing came up with the LCF - it's the only airplane out there that's more :mad: ugly than the A380 :E.

Parking fees
 

Since we did get the conversation on the insurance aspects who pays the parking fees for the time the aircarft remains at Heathrow? Even with a discount the cost could be pretty high if the airport does not give a discount.

I beg to differ, the A350 with the A380 cockpit section shoehorned onto it looks worse. And painting the window surround black in an effort to make it look as slick as the 787 doesn't cut it! The whole plane looks out of balance.

Another view of the repair from @MPSinthesky

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWig9I1IEAAPWCk.jpg:large

LCF vs 380
 

I heard Mike Carriker say that when they first flew the Dreamlifter into a french airport they had painted a third row of windows on the side. Not sure if it was true, but a great idea!