QF 744 Temporary Storage - Page 2

Arthur Boy · #11 10th July 2009, 05:44 PM

Hey guys, lets not ***** foot around, OJH was a bee's wing away from a write-off. We all know that.

Just that James didnt want a hull write-off on his watch it was repaired.

One owner maybe, but was severely dented!

Sheesh!

Nigel C · #12 10th July 2009, 06:32 PM

And I heard she came back into service better than ever. I'd fly in it anyday.

Grahame Hutchison · #13 10th July 2009, 06:41 PM

I was on the first revenue service of VH-OJH after the repairs, and the only problem I noticed was an intermittent PA system. I spoke to the Captain after the flight and he said it flew truer than when it was delivered originally (that's what $100mio get you).

Fred C · #14 11th July 2009, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Boy

Hey guys, lets not ***** foot around, OJH was a bee's wing away from a write-off. We all know that.

Just that James didnt want a hull write-off on his watch it was repaired.

One owner maybe, but was severely dented!

Sheesh!

If you think about it. If they had written it off how long would they have to wait for a replacement? It was fixable and a quicker option to get it flying again. You don't lose the capacity waiting for a new one. At the time you couldn't roll up to the used car lot and get another, so you fix what you have. If it was a write off they would have written it off, but they didn't.

Arthur Boy · #15 11th July 2009, 07:42 AM

Dear Fred,

I stand by my statement above.

Word for Word.

(if you were a CEO would you want a hull loss on your watch? I know I wouldnt! And do not misunderstand me, James was a terriffic CEO. We could do with a few like him these days when you closely examine some of the rabble that call themselves Managers).

Mike W · #16 11th July 2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

And I don't think the aircraft 'plunged' Mike, more like 'overran'...You're not a media writer are you...

No, I guess not

Well, it was soaking wet and plunging kind of goes with that

Also, I did think it's interesting it was OJH and I am still skeptical it's been the equal of it's sisters in the fleet since then.

Owen H · #17 11th July 2009, 10:21 AM

Not many financial guru's (let alone CEO's) would be happy with your writing off an aircraft when it was cheaper to repair it.

If it happened today, it would definately be written off, as replacement cost is far lower.

Adam.S · #18 11th July 2009, 11:27 AM

Today's (July 11) flight QF127 is being operated by an A330 (QPE) instead of the usual B747. Apparently this flight is now to have A330 aircraft 5/7 days of the week. Does this sound correct?

Has there been any official media releases about either the QF127 situation or the temporary storage of the 747s?

Daniel F · #19 11th July 2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Boy

if you were a CEO would you want a hull loss on your watch? I know I wouldnt!

What a ridiculous statement. A CEO is answerable to shareholders. It is their responsibility to make decisions that have the best financial outcome. They don't make decisions based on pride!

Brad Myer · #20 11th July 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Today's (July 11) flight QF127 is being operated by an A330 (QPE) instead of the usual B747. Apparently this flight is now to have A330 aircraft 5/7 days of the week. Does this sound correct?

Has there been any official media releases about either the QF127 situation or the temporary storage of the 747s?

This is due to the 4th A380 being delayed.

QF127/128 returns to normal daily B744 ops from mid AUG.