Re-Insurance

☆ Lloyd’s of London (LOL) Regulations Seek To Enhance Polar Shipping

News Analysis: World Renowned Insurer Lloyd’s of London (LOL) will be submitting Regulations for Polar Shipping which may supplement any shortcomings in those of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). As an Insurer, the view it takes may be of slightly different perspective than the ‘IMO’. While both are dealing with the Omnipresent Vagaries in the Arctic Environment, the Continuing Dynamics of this Area may present Risks which may be of Inordinate Consequence to all involved: Shipping Company; Freight Owner; Insurance Company; Re-Insurance Company; Government(s); and, the Planet Earth. If a “Negative Event” occurs, the ‘IMO’ does not ‘take the Financial Hit’, the Insurance Company(s) does.

Once Regulations have been decided upon, Shipping Companies will know what Personnel Training, Vessel Improvements or New-Buildings of Vessels will be necessary to traverse the Polar Route safely.

As an example, an improvement to a Vessel or enhancement of a New-Building would be the installation of “Mega-Temp™” Insulation throughout the Interior of the Hull thus keeping it Warmer, Quieter, and certainly Drier. In a New-Building, where temperature sensitivity of Chemicals was important, compartments insulated with “Mega-Temp™” would NOT be affected by the Cold of the Polar Route. Containerized Vessels traversing the Polar Route should have both their Hulls and Containers treated with “Mega-Temp™” Insulation so Electronics being shipped therein are not damaged by the Severe Cold of the Arctic.

Insurance Actuaries will be able to establish rates for coverage once Regulations are decided upon by the “IMO’ and ‘LOL’ pertaining to the Polar Route; much like the Chinese did in 3000 B.C. for traversing treacherous Rivers.

Reality.

Reference: http://arcticjournal.com/business/lloyds-guidelines-complement-polar-code

★ Big Aircraft Sales, Small Passenger Seats Rile Passengers, Etc.

News Analysis: The Two Largest Commercial Aircraft Manufacturers are gleeful of their Sales Performances in 2013. The market for the World’s Largest Airliner has improved. The Smaller Single Aisle Aircraft Sales are performing very well. Their Common Stocks are up measurably as a result.

An area of interest for 2014 in Aviation is: It becomes a blot on the records of  Airlines as to wide-spread Customer Dissatisfaction with the smaller seats on the Single-Aisle Aircraft in particular. The Airlines increasing call for greater profitability (at the cost of passenger discomfort) has the Airframes ordering more of the smaller seats to “Cram Into” the fuselages. “More Passengers, More Revenue” is the Airlines’ Mantra. Since the “Me Too” Management of the Airlines copy what other Airlines Managements are ordering for their airplanes, passengers have little choice in seating. If they do want a little extra space, (which had been ‘normal seating’ for years) they now have to pay extra  for it; Extortion?

The “Fisticuffs” (of passengers against passengers or against flight crews) is due, in part, to “Minimalist Thinking” by Airline Managements regarding “Proper Passenger Environments”.

Discomfort breeds Hostility. Many people think the ‘Airlines Quest For Increased Profitability’ will only have the effect of “Charging More But Getting Less” for Airline Passengers.

The “Cookie Cutter” Mentality of Airlines’ Management some say is evidenced by the fact that the Most Unique Difference of Airline to Airline (Anywhere in the World) is their Aircraft Liveries!

The World’s Airline Passengers Deserve Better.

In 2014, Carbon/Carbon Matrix Composite Aircraft by Both of the Airframes will be Operational around the World. This “Advanced” Technology will bring it own “Advanced Failures” with it. What has been utilized on physically smaller “Shorter Life” Military Aircraft does not necessarily represent what is best for large Commercial Aircraft. A CERTAIN BENEFIT to the Airframes will be the fact that the Composite Planes will have shorter ‘Mean Times Between Failures’ than Metal Aircraft, Structural Engineers say. Airframes will be able to sell more Aircraft as a result some think.

Perhaps, as an example, the recent Ethiopian Airlines ‘Small Battery Fire” caused an alleged TWO MONTHS of “SECRET” Repair by its Airframe. Will this particular airplane have ‘normal life expectancy’; how can one be sure?  That a metal aircraft would be a much simpler fix is certain Maintenance Repair Organizations say.

Investors who have “Gone Long” on the two Airframes might expect Significant Problems to arise with Composite Technology on Commercial Aircraft resulting in a possible very quick diminution of their Common Stock Values.

The Short Term Benefits of flying ‘marginally lighter’ Composite Aircraft” might be upset by the ‘Inherent Frailties” of Composites used in Commercial Aircraft (De-lamination, Fire, and Impact Detonation). One should ask “Aircraft Structural Engineers” about this matter before investing or ask those who have actually bonded Composites. Ask “How does Bonding using Vacuum Bagging in an Autoclave differ from “Cold Bonding” in an Aircraft Hangar? What are the benefits of each process? If there is Landing Gear Failure what will happen to a Composite Fuselage hitting the runway?” The Aircraft/Power Plant Mechanics who presumably worked on the Ethiopian Airlines Aircraft should know.  Investors in Aircraft Insurance (or Re-Insurance Underwriters in particular) should pay attention to this probability. There could be Catastrophic Insurance Losses if a couple of Aircraft Events occurred through Fire or Crash or both.

Reality.

Reference: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/airbus-logs-record-2013-still-behind-boeing