BMIBaby Damaged CWL 22 July 04
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMIBaby Damaged CWL 22 July 04
Bmibaby had a very unlucky day yesterday at Cardiff Airport, when just before its outbound flight was due to depart an apron vehicle struck the right hand side of the Aicraft just below the Pitot Tubes!
The aircraft is question was G-OJTW 737-300, it was struck with such velocity that it striped paint and shattered the aircraft exterior, Needless to say that the flight was cancelled and a replacment aircraft was sent down.
This aircraft was moved over to just outside the BAMC hangar and was still there this morning (23 July 04) it is apparently being positioned to East Mids today to undergo some exstensive maintenance!!
The aircraft is question was G-OJTW 737-300, it was struck with such velocity that it striped paint and shattered the aircraft exterior, Needless to say that the flight was cancelled and a replacment aircraft was sent down.
This aircraft was moved over to just outside the BAMC hangar and was still there this morning (23 July 04) it is apparently being positioned to East Mids today to undergo some exstensive maintenance!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oooh, i'll have a look at it today when I go to work! 
hope it aint in the way of G-BYGC cos thats going back to London today an it needs a lot of room, mind you, those little 737's don't take up much space do they?
hope it aint in the way of G-BYGC cos thats going back to London today an it needs a lot of room, mind you, those little 737's don't take up much space do they?
I imagine it will fly back to EMA unpressurised after a licensed engineer has given the say so and appropriate high speed tape applied where necessary.
I recall sitting on a TEA 737-200 at BHX circa 13 years ago when we received a broadside from a loading trolley/truck which did similar damage. We then flew it to an engineering base unpressurised.
The sad thing is that as I understand it the airlines cannot sue the ground handling agencies that cause this damage due to "indemnities" and (apparently) there has never been a test case on this issue, unless others know otherwise.
From my experience it is sometimes the case that drivers of vehicles on the ramp have had pretty minimal training for the task!
I recall sitting on a TEA 737-200 at BHX circa 13 years ago when we received a broadside from a loading trolley/truck which did similar damage. We then flew it to an engineering base unpressurised.
The sad thing is that as I understand it the airlines cannot sue the ground handling agencies that cause this damage due to "indemnities" and (apparently) there has never been a test case on this issue, unless others know otherwise.
From my experience it is sometimes the case that drivers of vehicles on the ramp have had pretty minimal training for the task!
Not strictly so Fireflybob.
Article 8 of the AHM 810 is the 'Hold Harmless' clause you refer to. This absolves the handling agent from costs re genuine accidents. However if the accident is done with 'intent to cause damage, death, delay, injury or loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage, death, delay, injury or loss would probably result' the handling agent will be laible.
I know of several instances when the Handling company has paid up for actual, and liquidated damages, as a result of the actions of their employees.
It rarely goes to court as the Handling Agents would rather preserve their money and not pay for Barristers and their like
All airlines are responsible for auditing their Handling Agents, and that includes auditing the initial and refresher training programmes for ramp staff. If they do not like what they see then they can insist on changes or use another company that does meet their requirements.
There is also the possibility for airlines to have Article 8 excluded from the Handling agreement. The effect of this is that the Handling Agents Insurance company hikes the premiums up and the handling charge reflects this increase. The difference is generally felt to be prohibitive, and the airlines accept Article 8.
Article 8 of the AHM 810 is the 'Hold Harmless' clause you refer to. This absolves the handling agent from costs re genuine accidents. However if the accident is done with 'intent to cause damage, death, delay, injury or loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage, death, delay, injury or loss would probably result' the handling agent will be laible.
I know of several instances when the Handling company has paid up for actual, and liquidated damages, as a result of the actions of their employees.
It rarely goes to court as the Handling Agents would rather preserve their money and not pay for Barristers and their like
All airlines are responsible for auditing their Handling Agents, and that includes auditing the initial and refresher training programmes for ramp staff. If they do not like what they see then they can insist on changes or use another company that does meet their requirements.
There is also the possibility for airlines to have Article 8 excluded from the Handling agreement. The effect of this is that the Handling Agents Insurance company hikes the premiums up and the handling charge reflects this increase. The difference is generally felt to be prohibitive, and the airlines accept Article 8.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will surely not fly back to EMA considering the extensive damage as described???
He we go again, This company has cut more corners than a wembley groundsman. Call me negative, Call me a party pooper and correct me again if I am wrong. Do I have grudge? do I have an agenda? Am I mental ? Every other airline has the same problems!
Agree with one of the above or think carefully!
The Pole
He we go again, This company has cut more corners than a wembley groundsman. Call me negative, Call me a party pooper and correct me again if I am wrong. Do I have grudge? do I have an agenda? Am I mental ? Every other airline has the same problems!
Agree with one of the above or think carefully!
The Pole
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of aircraft stuck in Canada, did you hear about the Virgin A340-600 that was ferried to Montreal for repairs after a nasty tail-strike somewhere in the USA? Apparently, Air Canada will be carrying out repairs...
The sad thing is that as I understand it the airlines cannot sue the ground handling agencies that cause this damage due to "indemnities"
Are handling agents somehow outside this ? Or are they regarded as "agents", to some degree under the control of their airline users, and thus the airline needs to manage their own insurance of anythng such an agent might do ?
Handling agents must still need separate insurance if they strike an aircraft on an adjacent stand from an airline who they are not agents for.
Still Trampin' the Ramp
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Right in the middle of UK
Age: 76
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify the matter of liability, from the 1998 version of the IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement (SGHA) article 8.5 was included which, to precis, states that the handling agent will indemnify the airline against damage for the hull deductable amount, minimum US$3.000, maximum US$1.5M.
The original SGHA did hold the handling company harmless as, in the days it was first negotiated, most handlers were airlines and the idea was 'knock for knock', ie. we know we've damaged your aircraft but also know that, sooner or later you'll damage ours!
With the emergence, and upsurge, of the 'independent' handler, the 'knock for knock' was no longer applicable. Re-negotiation was protracted as the handlers loved that bit (what a surprise!) but was finally resolved resulting in higher handling costs as the agents had to recover the cost of additional insurance. What it has done is make the handlers far more aware of their responsibilities and given a higher focus to safety.
And yes, oh ye of little faith, if the contract is up to date, the airline can claim - I know! In this case, I'm sure bmi baby have a post 1998 contract with the CWL handler and will reclaim at least part of the costs.
RT
The original SGHA did hold the handling company harmless as, in the days it was first negotiated, most handlers were airlines and the idea was 'knock for knock', ie. we know we've damaged your aircraft but also know that, sooner or later you'll damage ours!
With the emergence, and upsurge, of the 'independent' handler, the 'knock for knock' was no longer applicable. Re-negotiation was protracted as the handlers loved that bit (what a surprise!) but was finally resolved resulting in higher handling costs as the agents had to recover the cost of additional insurance. What it has done is make the handlers far more aware of their responsibilities and given a higher focus to safety.
And yes, oh ye of little faith, if the contract is up to date, the airline can claim - I know! In this case, I'm sure bmi baby have a post 1998 contract with the CWL handler and will reclaim at least part of the costs.
RT
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all probability, the handling company's insurance will cover repair costs but this does not include loss of revenue whilst the aircraft is being fixed. Any necessary leases to cover the temporary loss of hull are not included - BMI would have to sue for that.
Wiiloman, may I refer you to my post where I state that I know of instances where handling agents have paid both actual and liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are the add on costs such as Hotac for pax, Sub - charter costs, positioning costs, leasing costs etc. I doubt that the handling agent wishes to upset a major customer and potentially lose the entire contract.
Ramp tramp has also made the point that Handling Agents do pay up when the fault is down to their own negligence, and that the hold harmless clause can be removed if the airline wishes, but it will pay more for the Handling as the handling agents insurance costs will also rise.
I doubt that BMI will have to go anywhere near a court to get satisfaction.
Ramp tramp has also made the point that Handling Agents do pay up when the fault is down to their own negligence, and that the hold harmless clause can be removed if the airline wishes, but it will pay more for the Handling as the handling agents insurance costs will also rise.
I doubt that BMI will have to go anywhere near a court to get satisfaction.
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for info - I understand that the handling agent (per se) is squeaky on this.... apparently, it was the AmbiLift wat done it, M'Lud, and I think that is nothing to do with Aviance....
TA
TA
Airside Insurance
When we were rebuilding Luton we had to carry £45 M in airside cover against the possibility of damaging an aeroplane. We also covered all our subs on our policy as they wouldn't have had a prayer of getting that level of cover. Post 9/11 it got vastly more expensive and it may even be that a)the airport operators want more & b) the insurers will not give that much cover anyway.
I hate to be a pedant but I must correct you once more TwinAisle but it is aviance with a small 'a'. No doubt a PR company got hundreds of thousands of pounds for that gem of originality but there you go, small 'a' it is.
