Re Question....where do you want to start?

As BA has both GE and RR engined 777s replacing with a second hand machine with either engine type, preferably of the same sub type, would be presumably cheaper than a repair were there to be one available in reasonbable condition.

Not without an approved modification scheme being devised, which would presumably have to be developed with the cooperation of both engine manufacturers and Boeing, and the resulting airframe would end up as a bastardised one-off.

So, no, it's a non-starter.

Maybe someone else has posted this earlier but I believe the 777 that DAL purchased came from a leasing company that had the aircraft on lease to Malaysian Airlines. It will be parted out.


While technically possible the GE/Trent conversion would be impractical. The last time I saw that done was to a Saudi MD11 that went from GE to P&W and I have since heard it went back to GE's. Go figure that one out.
Keep in mind that just about anything is possible if you throw enough money at the project. Does not mean that its smart, wise or prudent. I doubt that Boeing would ever get behind a sex change like that and would simply withhold engineering and performance data needed to certify the project.

If BA were to buy a second hand airframe would it need a C/D check above the purchase cost?

Depends entirely on where it is in its maintenance cycle. That would of course be a factor in its value.

I don't know anything about this, but could it be they are repairing the aircraft
just so they can claim no hull loss? Could a hull loss effect insurence costs?

BDD

Highly doubtful.

Aircraft insurance payout is based on a pre-agreed value. If the repair cost is less than this agreed value, then the insurance company will opt to repair.

So the most likely explanation is simply that the aircraft was overinsured. This can easily happen because the agreed value remains constant for the length of the insurance contract, while the aircraft's actual value depreciates over time.

Spar Valve Chk.
 

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/201519...S-2015-19-01_1 This AD has escalated the 18,000 FH chk on the engine spar valve to 10D / weekly inspection.

*Speculation*

MAB are (were) flogging a few 777-200's from 2004 with Trent engines, might be them selling low out of desperation.

Speed News shows six or more MAS 777 available. Sounds like they are getting out of the 777 business?

Widely reported:
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/whither-ma...223300377.html

What is the Point?
 

What is the real point of these 35+ pages of chatter? Not a single one of us really knows the end cost for repairs - or the as-is value of this air frame. The ONLY parties able to make that call are those bidding on doing the repairs (Boeing?) and what contributions RR and BA's insurance carrier will make. In the end, the decision will be made by BA. They will either repair it or offer it in the market (at a "Fire Sale" price) and move on. :ugh:

Why would RR be involved? It was a GE engine.

What is the real point of these 35+ pages of chatter? Not a single one of us really knows the end cost for repairs - or the as-is value of this air frame. The ONLY parties able to make that call are those bidding on doing the repairs (Boeing?) and what contributions RR and BA's insurance carrier will make. In the end, the decision will be made by BA. They will either repair it or offer it in the market (at a "Fire Sale" price) and move on.

See past 672. You could have saved yourself some trouble and at the same time looked something other than clueless regarding the engine mfg.

It's going to fly - soon!
 

Can't say anything about costs of repairs but for the past 3 weeks it's being undergoing repairs on the west side of the cargo ramp, being re-skinned by Boeing and its contractor. Quite a project, was under a big white tent with 24 hour round the clock work. That has now been removed.
As of yesterday, the tail has been put back up and I believe they did a gear swing and fueled the aircraft. New GE engine back on.
Also, the work site has had visitors from senior BA officials, one of the FOs from the incident flight and perhaps others.
It is due an engine run sometime next week and if all goes well, a ferry flight out after that.
I expect the media will be in full force for that one :ok:

Qantas took a handful of B767's off of BA in the 90's. These were RRs. The rest of the QF 767's were GE and they never changed the engines to make them common, so not sure if they can do it that easily.

There are sometimes other configuration issues associated with the types of engines making them non-interchangable.

New nacelle/reverser

New Pylon

Modified wing balance

new instruments

While swapping engine types is not "impossible", it is cost prohibitive - aside from nearly everything under the wing being different, much of the interface wiring is different (as just one example, Rolls has a heated inlet probe - roughly 500 watts aircraft power with the associated aircraft wiring, circuit breakers, etc., while GE's inlet probe in unheated).

As you may know, Boeing put two versions of the CF6-80C2 engine on the 767 - "PMC" and "FADEC" (PMC being a hydromechanically controlled engine with a 'supervisory' electronic control). Occasionally an operator has come in and asked to convert a CF6-80C2 767 from PMC to FADEC. Once they heard the cost (several million dollars) they quickly lost interest. Swapping between engine manufactures would be even worse.

Initially Boeing attempted to make the 787 engines 'plug and play' but I don't think it worked out...

Hope they ask Chris to come out of retirement to bring it back.

Just been reading through this again in light of the new posts, and came across this which I recall having thoughts on previously but not mentioning at the time...




I haven't had an RTO yet, (a couple of low-speed discontinued takeoffs aside, due to unhappy ECAMs and whatnot) and hopefully never will for the remainder of my career, but for all I know it could happen on the next flight.

One thing I brief every time at the end of the emergency briefing is that we have a sliding window each and following an RTO and immediate/memory actions have been completed, we can open them to allow us a better view of whats going on outside/behind with regard to the engines, and allows us to make a better decision.



As we saw in this instance, just because an engine is shut down and there are no associated eng fire warnings remaining, it doesn't mean the situation is not very serious indeed. Had there not been a third flight crew member, how long might it have been before they knew they needed to evac?
Possibly only once chatting on 121.6 or whatever the RFF frequency at the airfield is, or if ATC inform them.

Having done numerous RTO drills in the sims though (as well we should, we all need to know it perfectly, inside out, back to front, upside down, so that on the day we do it for real, when the adrenaline is flowing, we perform it "well enough") I have noticed that you are very focussed on the task in hand, so much so that you don't notice any radio chatter unless actively focusing on it. In one sim detail I recalled hearing "ATC" saying something but had no idea what, I imagine it was important/relevant, but it only registered as noise not words, I was too busy crosschecking the memory items and ignoring a continuous cabin call ding (but not the emergency ding ding ding) to shut down one of the engines.


I think it could be quite a bit more time before they realised, had things been slightly different (i.e. no 3rd pilot, higher speed at reject and therefore stopping much further down the rwy)

"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"... unless you're a BA 777??

Well, all the parts that were affected by what happened will most probably stay in Vegas (or on a dump near by...)

Patched up.

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-736x414.jpg

http://news.sky.com/story/1646936/ba...e-to-fly-again

That is one heck of a big piece of speed tape. :) :) :)

Just curious what you mean by this? Was the tail removed during the repair?

Changing engines
 

Sometime back Atlas bought some used B747's and changed the engines to CF6's so that their fleet had all standard engines. However It is not something that you see being done very often.

You should have seen the roll it came off... :ooh:

The tail fin was removed and sitting beside the fuselage when I flew in two weeks ago. The bulk of the fuselage was hidden by the big white tent.

I guess it was removed to help stop any wind effect on the fuselage as they did the repair.

Is that a massive re-skin or just where the paint was removed for inspection?

See post #51

MateloIt looks as if they've managed to re-use the door!

airsound

TURIN

Replacing a fuselage skin panel is no big deal - it actually happens more often than you might think after ground handling mishaps that cause significant skin damage.

It looks like they found a cheap previously owned door...
There are memainders of a livery on the lower end, which are not BA

Unless we're looking at a different photograph those "remainders of a livery" actually is the upper portion of the W from British Airways. It looks incongruous because the rest of the typeface is missing from the fuselage in that location.

Volume I think you'll find, dear thing, that the markings exactly match the top of the 'W' in the lower picture....

airsound

sorry - crossed over with Plastic787

.....looks to be airborne as I write on a test flight out of LAS as BA9172.

Yup, it's true!
 

As someone who was intimately involved, I can confirm that 6 months after the incident and almost 45 days in repair at KLAS/LAS, the aircraft departed the field a little over an hour ago. I saw it depart. No other BA 777 scheduled at that time and the repaired skin patches were clearly visible!
Good job everyone and next time you see G-VIIO in full livery operating a scheduled, revenue flight, just reflect for a moment its history! :ok:

That is one heck of a big piece of speed tape.

You should see the one the other side!!! ;)

.....after a tour of Nevada and Arizona, and a climb to FL430, she now appears to be descending into VCV (which isn't usually a place for aircraft that are about to re-enter service!).

I beg to differ - I'd think the folks in Victorville would have a great deal of experience in preparing an aircraft for return to service.:ok: