oldchina wrote:
Lessors are known to be very strict when it comes to return conditions. They want it back in at least as good condition as when it went out.
Edit - the following rant is NOT directed at the lessor of this AC - ILFC/Aercap are in my experience one of the better lessors in the business.
AC Lessors are not in the airplane business, they are in the money business. They just happen to get their money from aircraft.
Lessors only want one thing, that their asset is earning revenue for them.
If there will be a gap between end of lease with one customer, and start with another, then indeed they can be very picky over the state of the AC and its records on return. If the Lessor can find fault with the AC or records then it means they are still getting rent and very lucrative penalty payments from the lessee until the aircraft is up to spec.
On the other hand, if the lessee is a bankrupt airline then the lessor wants their asset back, they will just take it. Or if the lessor has a customer waiting for the AC, they will attempt to handle their requirements as quickly and cheaply as possible. They will try to palm off any old
on to the new lessee, to get the asset earning rent again. When leasing out an AC the lessor will indeed only do the absolute bare minimum required, using the cheapest maintenance facilities and cheapest parts. Maintenance standards mean nothing to them, its all about stamps on paper to show legal compliance. If the aircraft does crash, the airline takes the rap, and the lessor gets a big fat insurance cheque for the value of the lost asset and lost future rent.
I personally don't believe in the structural failure hypothesis for this incident (my money is on a small device in the rear cargo hold, setting off the additional centre tank as a fuel/air bomb, ripping apart the fuselage aft of the wing, but lets see what the investigation finds). But please, never allow yourself to believe that an aircraft lessor has a safety oriented mindset anything like we Airline Professionals have.