Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas

Old 24th Sep 2015, 23:41
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,119
Well the good news is the temps in LAS are trending down. Could be a good gig for some Boeing/BA AOG staff.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 08:11
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 71
Hull Loss

Would it stand to reason the Boeing (and perhaps GE) to offer subsidies to the overall repair cost so to avoid another hull loss?
Although there has only been one 777 loss so far that was squarely on Boeing (Cairo) or two if you count RR engines (London) there still have been three others in a little more than 2 recent years (MH17 assumed), though hardly issues faulting Boeing.
I doubt this would not be the first time a frame has been restored and resumed service with repair cost questionable to its book value.

Last edited by MrDK; 25th Sep 2015 at 10:45.
MrDK is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 08:32
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Is the aircraft owned, outright, by BA or is it leased??

Last edited by wanabee777; 25th Sep 2015 at 11:34.
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 10:38
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 46
Most of BA's 777s are on the balance sheet, ultimately owned by IAG, its parent. But there are a handful that are leased.
oblivia is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 05:19
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by alexb757

Further news from Boeing and BA. Looks like they will repair in LAS and will take from 2-2.5 months to complete. Not sure if that includes the replacement engine or not.

Good luck with that working out!


Well, it's still sitting on the cargo ramp to where it was towed more than two weeks after the incident, and both sides of the aircraft as well as the engine pylon, have been taped off and covered in plastic sheeting.

Word has it that Boeing and BA AOG will be doing the work together. Not likely to start until some time in October since there are some logistics to sort out as well as airport authority authorizations, no doubt.
alexb757 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 06:02
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,648
One often overlooked aspect of the 'repair' or 'scrap' equation is the availability of replacement aircraft. The 777 remains a very popular aircraft, and while a few dozen have been retired or "permanently removed from service", those aircraft are well and truly knackered. Delivery slots of new 777's are pretty much non-existent for the next 3 years.
There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.
tdracer is online now  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 08:39
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
One often overlooked aspect of the 'repair' or 'scrap' equation is the availability of replacement aircraft.
Should not be an issue, as Kenya is trying to sell four, which are in storage and newer (and with RR's which BA already has as well).
http://atwonline.com/airlines/kenya-airways-sell-four-boeing-777-200ers.
procede is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 13:45
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,119
Should not be an issue, as Kenya is trying to sell four, which are in storage and newer (and with RR's which BA already has as well).
Kenya Airways | Boeing | Airlines content from ATWOnline.
procede is offline Report Post

Those have been spoken for already?

Last edited by Spooky 2; 26th Sep 2015 at 15:14.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 14:43
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,201
Malaysian are also trying to off load half their fleet, which includes 4 x 777 200ERs & 6 A380s that are for sale or lease.
Mr A Tis is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 16:28
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Should not be an issue, as Kenya is trying to sell four, which are in storage and newer (and with RR's which BA already has as well).
BA is using GE engines on their T7's as far as I know.

Edit: Mixed GE and RR on T72 and GE only on T73

Last edited by wingview; 26th Sep 2015 at 16:33. Reason: See edit
wingview is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 21:45
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 168
BKK Buggy

@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...

There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.
neilki is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 22:06
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
"Word has it that Boeing and BA AOG will be doing the work together. Not likely to start until some time in October since there are some logistics to sort out as well as airport authority authorizations, no doubt."

Boeing has had an inspection team go over the entire damage. They will make up a series of repair kits, all individually crated so as to allow the work to proceed in a logical order. The repair orders are written as to speed the tear-down and repair.

I saw this first hand when one of out Boeings was involve in a runway collision with another plane .
The aircraft sat in the hanger for 6 weeks, or so, than all these large wooden crates arrived. Every needed part down to the number of hi-loks and tubes of fuel tank sealant were in the proper boxes.

A Boeing repair crew showed up and went about repairing the wing and fuselage damage. About a month later, it was back flying again.
oleostrut is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 23:02
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7
neilki posted:
@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...

There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.
I wonder in what sense the word "worth" is being tossed around here. If that 747 was really of lesser value less than the cost to fix it, then another airframe of similar age and condition could have been acquired. Seems more likely that the airframe was under-insured (i.e. at less than market value or replacement cost - for whatever reason), and QF swallowed the difference to get it repaired. PR is valuable,but I doubt that the accountable goodwill of "Rainman" thinking would have been affected much by that sort of actuarial nuance in claim adjustment, IF it ever in fact occurred.

Cheers, Nightowl727

p.s. Any decision on the viability of repairs vs. write-off of the LAS T7 will obviously be made by folk with high pay grades at BA, but I do remember they repaired a 747 at BGI (in the open air!) with superficially very similar damage after a refuelling incident that went very pear-shaped - thinking it was around '79..

Last edited by nightowl727; 26th Sep 2015 at 23:18. Reason: & by the way ...
nightowl727 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 23:28
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
p.s. Any decision on the viability of repairs vs. write-off of the LAS T7 will obviously be made by folk with high pay grades at BA, but I do remember they repaired a 747 at BGI (in the open air!) with superficially very similar damage after a refuelling incident that went very pear-shaped - thinking it was around '79..

Nightowl: this repair will be done in "the open air" here at LAS. Said aircraft will be relocacted to a slightly different pad (for a variety of reasons) and the aircraft is all prepped, waiting for the AOG folks to arrive and start their round the clock shifts.......

Weatherwise, it's the beginning of fall/autumn here and even today the temps are in the high 90s (~37*C)......best part of the year here is late September and October
alexb757 is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 01:05
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,648
@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...
The short answer is NO, it wasn't QANTAS (and yes I'm familiar with that story as well).


It's been about 30 years (and I didn't find it on a quick Google), but memory says it was Air India, or at least somewhere in India. I mainly remember it because it was such a big deal to the Boeing AOG team - the biggest job they'd ever done - and they were justifiably proud (err, unlike a certain JAL 747 they'd repaired ).
tdracer is online now  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 11:08
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,289
Originally Posted by alexb757 View Post
do remember they repaired a 747 at BGI (in the open air!) with superficially very similar damage after a refuelling incident that went very pear-shaped - thinking it was around '79.
Sounds like the 1983 incident where an incorrectly connected nozzle came off the hose during refuelling, spraying a hot engine with fuel and resulting in fire damage to the engine(s) and wing.

Total repair cost was around $10m in 1983 prices. Must have been a -100 or -200. If the latter, then it would have been at least 10 years younger at the time than the Vegas 777, with a further 18 years of flying for BA ahead of it.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 14:42
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 133
What I said in a previous post, which most people have ignored, is that when calculating the viability and economy of repairs from an insurers perspective, the costs for the engine damage will almost certainly be excluded. There is no coverage for a mechanical failure.

Insurers will only be paying for the airframe and associated repairs. Therefore, now there has been a physical inspection of the damage, the numbers probably add up.

As suggested by some posters, BA nor anyone I know of , do not "self insure" their engines. How could they afford to at $20 or $30 million a piece? Imagine an A380 runoff where all 4 engines damaged!

BA will pay for the engine damage ( they may sue someone after to try and get everything back including insurers proportion) and Insurers will pay for the resultant airframe damage.

Hope that clarifies?
anartificialhorizon is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 15:50
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,190
My memory may be playing tricks but did not BA do some sort of power by the hour deal with GE when they sold GA their engine overhaul business?
A and C is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 16:34
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 323
Aren't the engine costs pretty much a wash anyway? At least I'd assume that the "salvage" value of an undamaged engine is essentially the same as the cost of a replacement engine in similar condition.

Roughly speaking, something is economically repairable if the salvage value plus the repair cost is lower than the value of the item after repair. In other words, if increase in value due to repair is greater than the cost of the repair.

Here, a destroyed engine increases the repair cost of the aircraft, but decreases the salvage value by a similar amount -- so the sum should be about the same. It could matter who's paying for what, but in an efficient market it shouldn't.
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 18:33
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
What I said in a previous post, which most people have ignored, is that when calculating the viability and economy of repairs from an insurers perspective, the costs for the engine damage will almost certainly be excluded. There is no coverage for a mechanical failure.

Insurers will only be paying for the airframe and associated repairs. Therefore, now there has been a physical inspection of the damage, the numbers probably add up.
In general what you're saying is not at all correct, at least not in the aviation industry.

Aviation hull insurance contracts (unlike most types of insurance contracts) are written to a pre-determined "Agreed Value". Any payout resulting from an accident will be in this amount minus deductibles. That's it, no more, no less.

So in aviation hull insurance, the payout value is fixed, and the insurance company doesn't "adjust" the amount based on investigation into engine damage, mechanical failure, etc. The only value to determine is if repairs are economical (that is, under the Agreed Value). If not, the Agreed Value is paid out in full. Period.

In almost all instances, the value of the engines are covered as part of this "Agreed Value" under the aircraft's hull insurance.

The only exceptions relate to things like replacement engines, spare engines, and engines taken off the aircraft for maintenance, storage, shipping, etc.
peekay4 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.