UPS smoke/fire landing at PHL

[Airbubba]

Here's another UPS non-hull loss:

http://www.aviationpics.de/mish/2001/ups/ups.htm

UPS has never had a hull loss, FedEx is happy when and if they go a couple of years without one. Was the MD-10 at MEM in December 2003 their last one?

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Originally Posted by peterbuckstolemymeds

On the contrary, GCC old chap, apparently so.
While I don't have any personal knowledge of the Louisville incident, nor have I any reason to doubt the veracity of the report you linked to, if - as you state - "the aircraft was repaired" then that would mean it was not a hull loss.
I reiterate that UPS has not had a hull loss incident in 98 years. If the Philly event marks the first hull loss, then it will be the first hull loss for that company. Period.

No, I was saying the SA227 incident was described as a hull loss in the link I attached earlier, that's all, not the MD-11, which was the one repaired (assuming these reports are correct).

[Airbubba]

UPS has never operated SA227's (but what do I know, hey, I thought you could use inflight reverse on a DC-8-71 <g>). I think the incident you mentioned occured before UPS started their airline in 1988.

"...In 1988, UPS received authorisation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate its own aircraft, thereby officially becoming an airline."

From: http://www.ups.com/content/ch/en/abo...tory/1990.html

Both FedEx and UPS have had numerous fatal crashes in their feeder aircraft, operated by contractors, in recent years.

A snapshot of the UPS mainline fleet mix is here:

http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/a...2005030140.htm

[Huck]

Was the MD-10 at MEM in December 2003 their last one?

Yep. And thanks for asking....

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by peterbuckstolemymeds

I reiterate that UPS has not had a hull loss incident in 98 years.

Hmm, bit of umm... license being taken here methinks. "In 1988, UPS received permission from the FAA to operate its own airline (as opposed to leasing), known as UPS Airline." I make that just a little bit short of 98 years
And while we're at it...

UPS has never operated SA227's

So this is a different UPS I presume: http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0078869 ?

[Airbubba]

>>So this is a different UPS I presume

Yep, that's a plane in UPS livery operated by a contractor, Ameriflight, like these operated by Star Air, a Danish (not that there's anything wrong with that <g>) company:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0704105/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0076904/M/

[Biggles Flies Undone]

if - as you state - "the aircraft was repaired" then that would mean it was not a hull loss.

If insurers pay out, it is most certainly a hull loss. I think you mean 'hull total loss'.

[Airbubba]

The DHL A-300B4 hit by a missile in Baghdad has been ferried to Sharjah and is being refurbished. I would have thought that one would certainly be a hull loss.

http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/displa...album=36&pos=0

I have heard other stories of aircraft involved in accidents being repaired enough to make one final ferry flight to the boneyard to avoid a hull loss for insurance purposes.

It'll take a lot of speed tape to fix that DC-8...

[peterbuckstolemymeds]

Originally Posted by Biggles Flies Undone

If insurers pay out, it is most certainly a hull loss. I think you mean 'hull total loss'.

Thank you. That was, indeed, what I intended to convey. I stand corrected and offer my apologies to GCC.

Allow me to restate that UPS, a 98-year-old company, has not previously had a hull total loss in its airline, the world's ninth largest, since the inception of that airline. Not counting contracted feeders. At least until the other night, anyway, if that proves to be a hull total loss.

Once again, apologies.

PB

[Biggles Flies Undone]

Airbubba, the Baghdad incident would be classed as a 'hull war loss' and would not reflect on the airline's 'all risks' record.

PB what parameters are you using to arrive at UPS being 'the world's ninth largest'? (not having a dig - just interested).