Insurance question re crash at YYZ
 

Last Sunday a so-called "aviation expert" stated on CTV that insurance premiums will increase for Air France because of the 340 crash at YYZ. Does anyone will know if this will really happen given Air France's good safety record?

I guess that's a matter between the Board of Air France and their Insurers.

Leave that to the experts.

Better for pilots to make sure they land on the touchdown markers in wet & gusty conditions and if they don't remember how to GA from low level.

I wonder what weight the FMC was using for app and landing speeds?

Chok Dee.

Don't forget AF had that dreadful accident with one of their Concordes not so many years ago. The hull value of the Airbus would be considerably in excess of the Concorde though.

The 'rate' applied by underwriters at the next renewal for AF will reflect the overall market trend. If it has been a bad year overall for aviation then a rate increase can be expected, not just for AF but across the board, if it has been a good year then the rate will, at least, remain unchanged and possibly even be reduced.
When establishing the rate the leading underwriters first look to see 'what is in the pot', in other words what has been the premium income over the last, say, ten years, compared to the claims. If you know the fleet value for an airline and then take, say, .4% of that you are looking at their annual premium, in the case of AF they probably have quite a bit in credit with the underwriters, despite Concord, and won't be expecting an increase at their next renewal.

rotornut
I think that since 1988 they have written off a Concorde, A320, B737 and two A340s, plus a B747-200F might have been also.
I think that their annual premium may go up.

The 747F at Delhi was re-built on site by Boeing for around $80million.

Underwriters can't get enough of risks like AF. At renewal it probably 'signs down' by about 400%, in other words over subscribed four times. Have to beg to differ about a rate increase Mr @ Spotty M!;)

Our resident authority on these matters is away at present but very likely he may contribute to this thread when he gets a chance.

Very interesting thread so far. The "aviation expert" I referred to said some obviously dumb things when he was commenting on the crash and so I doubted that he knew what he was talking about when it came to insurance. This guy teaches at a very prestigous business school :confused:

Would be interesting to compare their quotes with say BA (who over the same period have I believe not had a fatality, and just lost a fully-depreciated 747 in the Kuwait invasion - was the hull even insured ?), or even Virgin, who seem never to have had a claim since they started.