New 777 & 737 hull write offs

Blue Punto

Caribbean 737-800 9Y-PBM overran runway and broke up into two sections

Egypt Air 777 SU-GBP
See AV report here http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0

Buffman

Good news that everybody got out alive.

Andrew33

Blue Punto wrote: »

Caribbean 737-800 9Y-PBM overran runway and broke up into two sections

Egypt Air 777 SU-GBP
See AV report here http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0

The triple 7 fire could have been really serious in flight! Swiss MD11 anyone?

Delancey

Is that 777 a write-off ?

Run_to_da_hills

Delancey wrote: »

Is that 777 a write-off ?

Maybe not, it could well end up being patched up and working for some Congo based carrier.

Buffman

Delancey wrote: »

Is that 777 a write-off ?

It's up to the insurance company probably.

I'd say while it's mechanically repairable, aircraft SU-GBP 'Nefertiti' is over 14 years old so it may be uneconomical to repair.



Cockpit of SU-GBP before fire.

robertxxx

What's itlike after the fire.

Buffman

robertxxx wrote: »

What's itlike after the fire.

I didn't see any post-fire photos of the interior, but I'd imagine it's not pretty. Cockpit destroyed I'd guess.

Stinicker

It might still have a future in the movies or for training crews and emergency crews. Imagine being able to buy it and have it shipped over! A bit like that lad in England who lives in a Railway carriage!

roundymac

It'll be parted out I'd say, whats left will then be turned into razor blades.

Tenger

roundymac wrote: »

It'll be parted out I'd say, whats left will then be turned into razor blades.

Yep. Probably more cost effective to sell off all the serviceable parts than pay to replace the cockpit/nose section. Why spent $x million to repair an aircraft that may well be due for replacement in a few years when you can get >$xM for the parts??

They did the same with the BA B777 that had ice induced fuel starvation on approach to LHR 2 years ago.

Andrew33

Tenger wrote: »

Yep. Probably more cost effective to sell off all the serviceable parts than pay to replace the cockpit/nose section. Why spent $x million to repair an aircraft that may well be due for replacement in a few years when you can get >$xM for the parts??

They did the same with the BA B777 that ran out of fuel on approach to LHR 2 years ago.

I don't think you can compare the two! that BA triple 7 was pretty fcuked up after the "landing", damage was extensive whereas the damage to the EgyptAir is confined to the nose. You're right though, it most likely will end up parted out.

globemaster1986

Tenger wrote: »

Yep. Probably more cost effective to sell off all the serviceable parts than pay to replace the cockpit/nose section. Why spent $x million to repair an aircraft that may well be due for replacement in a few years when you can get >$xM for the parts??

They did the same with the BA B777 that ran out of fuel on approach to LHR 2 years ago.

It didn't run out of fuel, had plenty fuel, the problem was ice in the fuel lines.

Tenger

Andrew33 wrote: »

I don't think you can compare the two! that BA triple 7 was pretty fcuked up after the "landing", damage was extensive whereas the damage to the EgyptAir is confined to the nose. You're right though, it most likely will end up parted out.

Wasn't really comparing directly, merely giving a precedent for post- incident decisions. Maybe if the Egyptian B777 was quite new it would be worth it to replace the nose/cockpit.
The BA T7 was in a bad way, in this pic taken about 4 -5 days later you can see the crumple damage on the fuselage aft of the wing.......not counting the write-off of the wings as the gear punctured them........and the lower hull damage as it travelling along the grass..........
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tearbringer/2451407331/in/photostream/

I'm still amazed that there were no deaths in this incident.

roundymac

Also the Aer Lingus A330 which was flown to the US latly to be parted out, it was only something like 17 years old.