not really the same deal, it was not subjected to fire, as well as bing a new plane with a massive value.

Fire causes massive damage, a lot of it can be un-seen...

The QF incident cost $140 million to repair, a considerable proportion of the aircrafts $390 million price tag. The repair took eight months but the aircraft was grounded for eighteen months due to hangar availability. Structural damage was considerable including the forward spar. The incident also led to the wing crack problem being discovered. RR paid $95 million in compensation for schedule disruption.

AIRBUS were keen not to have a write off. Had the aircraft been an old A340 it would probably have been scrapped.

Peekay Quote:

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.

Peekay, you obviously didnt read my post and you are not correct. I said when calculating the repair costs........! As you correctly say, there is an Agreed Value and this is what is used to calculate whether the aircraft is economic to repair or not! So say the Agreed Value is US$30 million. You can exclude the engine (as it will likely not be covered by insurance) so you have approximately US$ 21 milllion to play with (approx 70% level before things are written off). Therefore, if the Hull calculated repair costs fall within US$21 million (there or thereabouts), it will be economic to repair and that number (for repair) will be the numbers that insurers will cough! Therefore there is an adjustment calculated for the repairs. It is not automatically paid at the Agreed Value, as you suggest. Only when the aircraft is clearly a write off is the Agreed Value paid and again you are incorrect in saying nothing more, nothing less. If there are additional costs incurred for recovery, parking, storage, transportaion, Search and Rescue, these are paid in addition to the Agreed Value.

Again this is where your description is not correct. An engine that's attached to the aircraft is part of the aircraft's hull insurance "Agreed Value" and is not deducted from economic repair calculations, even if the cause of the accident/incident is mechanical failure of the engine.

I think you may be misinterpreting the mechanical "breakdown or failure" exclusions that's common in policies. The usual wording for this exclusion is "due and confined to (mechanical or other failure)".

The "confined to" part is important. If an engine fails on taxi and the engine simply shuts down -- this is considered a mechanical issue "confined to" the engine and is not covered by insurance.

But if the same engine fails on taxi and burns down the entire plane -- this is not a confined mechanical issue and insurance will provide full "Agreed Value" coverage.

On turbine aircraft there is usually a similar exclusion for engine hot starts. If you screw up a start and heat damage the engine, vanilla insurance of course won't cover it.

After about 2 days, not a peep out of them. Doubt there will be any more coverage in the local broadcast media.

Boeing Recovery
 

It is amazing what the Boeing Recovery team can achieve!! September 1993,
Air France B747-400 F-GITA ran off the runway in Tahiti (FAAA),front half in the water,back half on dry land,(Ditching or Ground Evac??or both!) The Boeing boys arrived, dragged the aircraft back onto hard stand,built a full canvas hangar around it,replaced most of the front end and other assorted systems and parts and it then flew out!! Top Job!!:ok:

Don't you think the Boeing engineers have done a damage assessment yet?? I'm not a structures engineer but I really didn't see so much damage that it could not be repaired. Now the economics of the repair may be a different story on this older airframe. You have to assume that the pros have looked this over pretty well and if two and one-half months is all it will take it must not be to overwhelming.

Aviation Hull Insurance would normally cover the whole aircraft including the engines. If a spare engine is fitted (ie one that doesn't belong to the aircraft, be that leased in or originally fitted to another aircraft) then usually the agreed value of the aircraft will be increased to take that into account.

Whilst mechanical failure of the engine is unlikely to be covered, that really only makes reference to the component that failed, the resultant damage would be covered. The issue with engines of course is there will always be betterment when rebuilding it, because some items have to be replaced during strip down and rebuild and others it would be silly to rebuild without refurbing. Thus, the return to full hours will result in an uninsured cost probably equivilent to a full overhaul, it may thus be cheaper not to overhaul but to buy a serivceable second hand engine. BA has the advantage that most of their aircraft are owned, so potentially no lossor will need to be involved in that decision.

Either way, with a reported agreed value of $30m, and a customary Constructive Total Loss amount of 60% of the agreed value, there's not much money to play with since the claim will easily get to $18m. There is always the ability to do some negotiating with the loss adjusters and insurers on all of the numbers except the agreed value and deductible. I am sure IAG will do whatever works best for them, remembering to get another aircraft that will most likely be different (not sure how much spec you can change on the 777, but I know for 737 there's differing avionics, brakes, galleys etc) then have to refit entire cabin to work with BA config, all of which will cost BA several $million it might be worth them just footing some of the bill to get this one flying again for another 6 or 7 years rather than accepting a total loss and be one aircraft down

Peekay wrote....

Again this is where your description is not correct. An engine that's attached to the aircraft is part of the aircraft's hull insurance "Agreed Value" and is not deducted from economic repair calculations, even if the cause of the accident/incident is mechanical failure of the engine.

I think you may be misinterpreting the mechanical "breakdown or failure" exclusions that's common in policies. The usual wording for this exclusion is "due and confined to (mechanical or other failure)".

The "confined to" part is important. If an engine fails on taxi and the engine simply shuts down -- this is considered a mechanical issue "confined to" the engine and is not covered by insurance.

But if the same engine fails on taxi and burns down the entire plane -- this is not a confined mechanical issue and insurance will provide full "Agreed Value" coverage.

On turbine aircraft there is usually a similar exclusion for engine hot starts. If you screw up a start and heat damage the engine, vanilla insurance of course won't cover it.



I will try and say it again! If this aircraft is going to be repaired, the calculations will exclude the engine as the engine is likely to be excluded by policy conditions, due to it having suffered a mechanical breakdown! If the resultant damage caused to the aircraft means the costs to repair the aircraft to exceed 60-70%, it will deemed a write off and the claim paid at the Agreed Value.

For example (purely as a projection);

Fuselage repair estimate (parts and labour) - US$10 million
Parking, temporarary hangar etc - US$1 million
Ferry flight back to LHR - US$ 100,000
New pylon and associated wiring - US$2 million
Wing repairs - US$2 million

Total estimated repairs US$15.1 million

Therefore economic to repair at just over 50% of aircraft's agreed value (say value of US$30 million)

Where does the engine come into this? Who is going to pay for the engine to be repaired/ overhauled? Answer please?

However if the above figures added up to say US$25 million, then the claim would be paid as a write off at the Agreed Value (say US$30 million).

If, as you say, the engine costs are covered in this particluar event, it is already clearly a write off as you can add anything up to US$10 million to the above repair number. I say it again, IF THIS AIRCRAFT IS REPAIRED AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING WHETHER IT IS ECONOMIC TO REPAIR, THE ENGINE REPAIR COSTS WILL NOT BE PAID FOR BY INSURERS AS IT HAS SUFFERED A MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN! THE RESULTANT (AIRFRAME) DAMAGE IS COVERED!

With all this talk about engine damage vs aircraft damage in the millions, maybe a definition of what is an engine part not covered is in order.

Just a guess (I didn't write the insurance spec). The part that goes to the GE shop is the engine. The parts that make up the nacelle and pylon that are heat damage are aircraft parts. It might make mucho million dollars difference in the insurance costs.

2 minor updates from the local paper (Las Vegas Review Journal)

$375/ day being charged for tie down.
The area by the cargo terminal where the plane is parked is not approved for MX, it would have to be moved elsewhere to start repairs. :confused:

A little inside info.

Boeing and BA have both NDTed the wing and it has a clean bill of health. There will need to be a major skin repair forward of the wing on the left side, as the hull was breached at that location.
All apparently do-able, but cost yet to be assessed, which will be the deal maker/breaker as to whether it will be financially viable.
The cost of hangar space to do the work will be a major factor, apparently.

Sorry if this has been stated before....
If this scenario occurred with a Boeing 787...Where do the CAC(cabin air compressors) draw in ambient air for pressurisation?????
With the amount of smoke enveloping the fuselage,both CACS would have been affected...with an obvious outcome,unless i have missed something(possibly)!

The CACs are just forward of the wing root. http://image.slidesharecdn.com/b787-...?cb=1324255052

However, on the ground will the pressurization systems actually be running? Even if they were I would think that they are simple to switch off.

I doubt that they would need a hangar for this job regardless it would appear that no hangar on the airport would be capable of handling the 777 other than maybe the Sands hangar which is probably not available at any price. The Boeing teams have worked in much worse conditions so I don't see lack of a hangar being a deal breaker. LAS weather is cooling down and quite nice at this time of the year. Hard to imagine the airport authority denying them permission to do the work on the freight ramp but whatever:}

Ian W,.....I meant to put !!! instead of ????..
Sure you can switch the CACs off, both of them, then you have no air coming in,but may already have a cabin full of smoke...
Point is,on the 787,the CAC intakes are much closer to each other,than with the separation achieved by using engine bleed supplied air.
So smoke entering the cabin via one intake,could also, be more likely to enter via the other,too...as would most certainly have been the case,in Vegas.

Not good!!

In the air the CAC has the advantage that an engine problem will not cause the input cabin air to be contaminated.

If the aircraft is on the ground having just RTO with engine fire, both engines are shut down. So with bleed air all air input stops. With CAC air power down CAC all air input stops.

Sorry I do not see a significant difference apart from advantages in flight and in normal ops of no cabin air contamination.

Both? Four surely?:ok:

Four indeed,with two manual pack switches controlling each pair.( along with auto control of individual CAC)

Once both engines are secured,as in the evacuation checklist,the CACs would shut down,with no APU operating,as would normally be the case...my thoughts were about how much smoke would have been drawn in to the aircraft,in the Vegas scenario...before the CACs shut down...