Flybe-V2
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
All appears to be getting a little more interesting now for the new flybe......
Understand there are some creditors now circling collectively to place a LIEN on the nose of the first aircraft on day one...... especially when creditors totaling £650m such as BRAL Trustees at £90m, NAC who remain owned £60m and Environment Agency £48m and even GE at £17m among the larger.... a LIEN on day one would certainly make those still owed a small fortune including the many thousands of passengers think twice....
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news...-twist-6927831
Looking forward to the launch now....
Understand there are some creditors now circling collectively to place a LIEN on the nose of the first aircraft on day one...... especially when creditors totaling £650m such as BRAL Trustees at £90m, NAC who remain owned £60m and Environment Agency £48m and even GE at £17m among the larger.... a LIEN on day one would certainly make those still owed a small fortune including the many thousands of passengers think twice....
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news...-twist-6927831
Looking forward to the launch now....
Guest
Posts: n/a
All appears to be getting a little more interesting now for the new flybe......
Understand there are some creditors now circling collectively to place a LIEN on the nose of the first aircraft on day one...... especially when creditors totaling £650m such as BRAL Trustees at £90m, NAC who remain owned £60m and Environment Agency £48m and even GE at £17m among the larger.... a LIEN on day one would certainly make those still owed a small fortune including the many thousands of passengers think twice....
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news...-twist-6927831
Looking forward to the launch now....
Understand there are some creditors now circling collectively to place a LIEN on the nose of the first aircraft on day one...... especially when creditors totaling £650m such as BRAL Trustees at £90m, NAC who remain owned £60m and Environment Agency £48m and even GE at £17m among the larger.... a LIEN on day one would certainly make those still owed a small fortune including the many thousands of passengers think twice....
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news...-twist-6927831
Looking forward to the launch now....
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 823
Likes: 129
From: Dorset
I can't see how that can possibly be true. NAC has leased the Q400s to Flybe 2 and so it is hardly likely to seek to detain an aircraft which it has just delivered! It is a standard term of a lease that the lessor confirms that the aircraft is free and clear of all liens anyway.
Of the other creditors from Flybe 1, none has the power to detain an aircraft and if it did seek some form of legal process to do so, I'd expect that to be overturned PDQ.
Of the other creditors from Flybe 1, none has the power to detain an aircraft and if it did seek some form of legal process to do so, I'd expect that to be overturned PDQ.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 10,588
Likes: 805
From: Northumberland
I thought the debt remained with the a/c - sure when I worked for a handling agent there was a list of a/c we had to report to the airport authority because of old debts? Long time ago though!
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 823
Likes: 129
From: Dorset
The aircraft lessors had to do a pretty significant negotiation with the airports when Flybe 1 fell over. They will also have had to guarantee to a new lessee (Flybe 2) that the aircraft are clear of liens.
You do sometimes get a position where the debt is so big that a lessor will agree with a new operator that a certain aircraft can't be flown into a certain country - I remember some BAE146s years ago which had flightdeck placards saying that the aircraft must not be flown into Italy. I can't see that any of this will be relevant here after the mopping up exercise between airports and lessors which led to the Q400s being released from detention about two years ago. I can't see how they would/will have a problem.
You do sometimes get a position where the debt is so big that a lessor will agree with a new operator that a certain aircraft can't be flown into a certain country - I remember some BAE146s years ago which had flightdeck placards saying that the aircraft must not be flown into Italy. I can't see that any of this will be relevant here after the mopping up exercise between airports and lessors which led to the Q400s being released from detention about two years ago. I can't see how they would/will have a problem.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,691
Likes: 24
From: Blighty
Is there anything in Flybe2's argument with the CAA over the LHR slots... or some other piece of corporate communication... which somehow leads to a plausible case around continuity of the company from Flybe1 ?
I'm not a lawyer... but wondering if this is perhaps a bit of a tightrope whereby it is easy for somebody to accidentally say the wrong thing. There's an awful lot of obscure and surprising pieces of case law
Getting things legally watertight is not always easy
I'm not a lawyer... but wondering if this is perhaps a bit of a tightrope whereby it is easy for somebody to accidentally say the wrong thing. There's an awful lot of obscure and surprising pieces of case law
Getting things legally watertight is not always easy
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder if there are legal differences between leased and owned airframes, or the wording of the leases perhaps.
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 31
Likes: 7
From: Glasgow
There is probably more chance of Boris resigning than this shower of charlatans paying their creditors back.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 213
Likes: 1
From: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,005
Likes: 175
From: Not so many places currently
I'm with you, too much of a bad taste from FlyBe #1 for me to give cash to these guys. Myself and friends seriously still out if pocket still and I'm sure this will end the same way whilst directors walk away scot-free again whilst boosting their own pension pots!
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 473
Likes: 2
From: UK
Perhaps your question should be directed at British Airways who left a large hole in this scheme when they transferred BAConnect to Flybe back on 2007.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 867
Likes: 131
From: britain
It was all contained in the Flybe Plc reports and accounts
All this stupid fixation with Flybe is only because of the new airlines choice of that name. If they had maybe called themselves bloggs airways we wouldn't have the umpteenth degenetating Flybe thread in the last nine years
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 134
Likes: 3
From: Dark side of the Moon
But just to humour them for a minute, I'm sure there was a court victory for ex-Monarch pilots against the Govt not too long ago, who had their pension fund put into the PPF. They got back most of what they were owed from what I can recall. Anyway here's the old Flybe company: (now renamed) https://find-and-update.company-info...mpany/02769768
..and here's the thread for people to go and moan in: Flybe-V1
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,264
Likes: 297
From: London
Use the same branding and font.
Use not only the same aircraft type but the same airframes and registrations.
Fly the same routes.
Hire the same staff.
Use the same airports.
State in their own words that they were "returning" and "relaunching".
Use the same IATA and ICAO codes and I believe they're using the same "Jersey" callsign.
The only new thing about this is the legal piece of paper that calls it "new". Anyone with eyes knows when it walks like a duck and makes a quacking sound that it's a duck.
Let's give them a chance and see how they do, but every time you bleat this fiction about an all new airlines, expect the counterpoint.
Guest
Posts: n/a
They chose to call themselves the same name.
Use the same branding and font.
Use not only the same aircraft type but the same airframes and registrations.
Fly the same routes.
Hire the same staff.
Use the same airports.
State in their own words that they were "returning" and "relaunching".
Use the same IATA and ICAO codes and I believe they're using the same "Jersey" callsign.
The only new thing about this is the legal piece of paper that calls it "new". Anyone with eyes knows when it walks like a duck and makes a quacking sound that it's a duck.
Let's give them a chance and see how they do, but every time you bleat this fiction about an all new airlines, expect the counterpoint.
Use the same branding and font.
Use not only the same aircraft type but the same airframes and registrations.
Fly the same routes.
Hire the same staff.
Use the same airports.
State in their own words that they were "returning" and "relaunching".
Use the same IATA and ICAO codes and I believe they're using the same "Jersey" callsign.
The only new thing about this is the legal piece of paper that calls it "new". Anyone with eyes knows when it walks like a duck and makes a quacking sound that it's a duck.
Let's give them a chance and see how they do, but every time you bleat this fiction about an all new airlines, expect the counterpoint.
I appreciate some people have enormous chips on their shoulders, but like remainers smarting from the outcome of a certain referendum keep being told, 'get over it'.