Court Action at Blackpool

[Still Grounded]

I hope this information is useful, or at least interesting. I also hope a discussion can be had without reference to Mr Bateson or Murgy. The following affects all aircraft owners and the results could be devastating.

Blackpool Airport, as you probably are aware, landed themselves with a huge debt of their own making. They allowed Comed Aviation credit facilities for around £700,000 and when Comed failed they then impounded aircraft under Section 88 of the CAA Act 1982. This act says they can impound any aircraft “Operated” by the person “in default”. In our case, the chipmunk which has now been grounded for 14 months, had been “used” by Comed and had £568.75 of landing fees allocated to it. I must stress that if they win court action the aircraft will be sold and then ALL the money used against ALL the debts. It is not just a matter of paying £568.75 for the chipmunk to be released.


We have been served court documents including the following sheet.
Please notice the debts owed on the three aircraft detained and taken to court and the one aircraft engine being taken to court compared to the debts owed on those aircraft not detained.

Analysis of Comed Debt by Aircraft ( Sorry for the bad layout)

Registration - Charge - Detained - Court Action Taken
GBMKK £853.13 Yes - Yes
GAYRG £853.13 Yes
GSFHR £5,875.56 Yes - Yes (only for value of 1 Engine)
GBDWY £3,255.1 0 Yes
GBRPL £2,852.50 Yes
GBBEV £2,196.25 Yes
GBJXA £568.75 Yes - Yes
GBXIA £568.75 Yes - Yes
GBDGM £853.13 Yes
Total £17,876.30

PHFVA £19,012.36 No
GONEW £16,325.60 No
GBBEY £12,757.03 No
GBBEF £583.55 No
PHFVC £45,612.59 No
GBGYT £5,699.10 No
GFLTY £2,390.05 No
GOBPL £98,623.48 No
GODUB £87,252.25 No
GTABS £2,264.91 No
GBSSE £2,958.21 No
GBULH £4,217.82 No
EIBPD £2,132.80 No
EICPR £630.00 No
GBFWE £2,593.67 No
GPLAJ £1,015.00 No
GPLAH £692.50 No
GBBGB £15.00 No
GBMBC £1,972.59 No
GJAJK £3,010.09 No
GRVRD £10.00 No
SEKGV £525.00 No
GCITY £1,331.30 No
GBTHA £30.00 No
GTVIP £70.00 No
GILTS £15.32 No
GREAT £50.02 No
Total £329,666.54
Allocation -£4,652.88
Total £325,013.66

Landing Fees £84,194.52
Pay Load £198,800.20
Out of Hours £42,018.94
Money Received -- £85,000 from released aircraft? (But how much has this cost in legal fees to recover?)
BALANCE = £250,013.66
Fuel £251,998.31
Vat £94,725.90
BALANCE = £596,737.87 YES almost £600,000!

Do you consider it negligent of the airport management to allow these debts to accrue in the first place?

Should the airport be able to use third party assets to cover credit they authorised without the knowledge of the third party?

Your comments please!

[Still Grounded]

I hope this information is useful, or at least interesting. I also hope a discussion can be had without reference to Mr Bateson or Murgy. The following affects all aircraft owners and the results could be devastating.

Blackpool Airport, as you probably are aware, landed themselves with a huge debt of their own making. They allowed Comed Aviation credit facilities for around £700,000 and when Comed failed they then impounded aircraft under Section 88 of the CAA Act 1982. This act says they can impound any aircraft “Operated” by the person “in default”. In our case, the chipmunk which has now been grounded for 14 months, had been “used” by Comed and had £568.75 of landing fees allocated to it. I must stress that if they win court action the aircraft will be sold and then ALL the money used against ALL the debts. It is not just a matter of paying £568.75 for the chipmunk to be released.


We have been served court documents including the following sheet.
Please notice the debts owed on the three aircraft detained and taken to court and the one aircraft engine being taken to court compared to the debts owed on those aircraft not detained.

Analysis of Comed Debt by Aircraft ( Sorry for the bad layout)

Registration - Charge - Detained - Court Action Taken
GBMKK £853.13 Yes - Yes
GAYRG £853.13 Yes
GSFHR £5,875.56 Yes - Yes (only for value of 1 Engine)
GBDWY £3,255.1 0 Yes
GBRPL £2,852.50 Yes
GBBEV £2,196.25 Yes
GBJXA £568.75 Yes - Yes
GBXIA £568.75 Yes - Yes
GBDGM £853.13 Yes
Total £17,876.30

PHFVA £19,012.36 No
GONEW £16,325.60 No
GBBEY £12,757.03 No
GBBEF £583.55 No
PHFVC £45,612.59 No
GBGYT £5,699.10 No
GFLTY £2,390.05 No
GOBPL £98,623.48 No
GODUB £87,252.25 No
GTABS £2,264.91 No
GBSSE £2,958.21 No
GBULH £4,217.82 No
EIBPD £2,132.80 No
EICPR £630.00 No
GBFWE £2,593.67 No
GPLAJ £1,015.00 No
GPLAH £692.50 No
GBBGB £15.00 No
GBMBC £1,972.59 No
GJAJK £3,010.09 No
GRVRD £10.00 No
SEKGV £525.00 No
GCITY £1,331.30 No
GBTHA £30.00 No
GTVIP £70.00 No
GILTS £15.32 No
GREAT £50.02 No
Total £329,666.54
Allocation -£4,652.88
Total £325,013.66

Landing Fees £84,194.52
Pay Load £198,800.20
Out of Hours £42,018.94
Money Received -- £85,000 from released aircraft? (But how much has this cost in legal fees to recover?)
BALANCE = £250,013.66
Fuel £251,998.31
Vat £94,725.90
BALANCE = £596,737.87 YES almost £600,000!

Do you consider it negligent of the airport management to allow these debts to accrue in the first place?

Should the airport be able to use third party assets to cover credit they authorised without the knowledge of the third party?

Your comments please!

[virgin]

This is probably a silly question, but
You have obtained legal advice, haven't you?

[virgin]

This is probably a silly question, but
You have obtained legal advice, haven't you?

[Still Grounded]

We have been advised that we have a good case. It all depends upon the airport proving that Comed was the "operator" of each aircraft. We say we are the operator, they say comed was.

Would you risk your aircraft on going to court to find out the definition of the word "operator" ?????

[Still Grounded]

We have been advised that we have a good case. It all depends upon the airport proving that Comed was the "operator" of each aircraft. We say we are the operator, they say comed was.

Would you risk your aircraft on going to court to find out the definition of the word "operator" ?????

[virgin]

I don't think you have much choice by the sounds of it.
What scandalous behaviour by the airport.
Were Comed operating your a/c when it was grounded?
I can't see how anyone could start seizing an a/c just because it was operated by someone else on a previous occasion who didn't pay a bill. Doesn't sound right.
Unbelievable the airport acting in this way.
I wish you Good luck.

There are a number of lawyers on Prune. Hope one of them spots this and gives a view.
Look out for "Flying Lawyer" in particular.

[virgin]

I don't think you have much choice by the sounds of it.
What scandalous behaviour by the airport.
Were Comed operating your a/c when it was grounded?
I can't see how anyone could start seizing an a/c just because it was operated by someone else on a previous occasion who didn't pay a bill. Doesn't sound right.
Unbelievable the airport acting in this way.
I wish you Good luck.

There are a number of lawyers on Prune. Hope one of them spots this and gives a view.
Look out for "Flying Lawyer" in particular.

[unwiseowl]

Wish you luck - it's obvious that right is on your side.

[unwiseowl]

Wish you luck - it's obvious that right is on your side.

[Still Grounded]

I hope you now see how important this subject is. Section 88 means an airport can impound any aircraft that has been "operated" (read USED) by the person in default of payment. Blackpool airport are, and I Quote " The claimant (Blackpool Airport) herein will rely upon the fact that the aircraft (chipmunk) was landing under Comed's flight numbers assigned under a landing contract between the claimant and Comed, as evidence that Comed was the operator of the aircraft at the time of its lawful detention."

In other simple words because our reg no was listed on comeds landing contract the airport is insisting that comed was the operator. We say Comed did use the aircraft and had a landing contract for when they did use it, but we were the "operators".

Any help or advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[Still Grounded]

I hope you now see how important this subject is. Section 88 means an airport can impound any aircraft that has been "operated" (read USED) by the person in default of payment. Blackpool airport are, and I Quote " The claimant (Blackpool Airport) herein will rely upon the fact that the aircraft (chipmunk) was landing under Comed's flight numbers assigned under a landing contract between the claimant and Comed, as evidence that Comed was the operator of the aircraft at the time of its lawful detention."

In other simple words because our reg no was listed on comeds landing contract the airport is insisting that comed was the operator. We say Comed did use the aircraft and had a landing contract for when they did use it, but we were the "operators".

Any help or advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[IanSeager]

I'm afraid that I can't offer any advice, other than get good legal representation.

The point you make is a very good one, especially for people buying used aircraft. I remember a few years ago someone purchased an R22 that was a couple of years old. When he landed at an airport it was impounded due to unpaid bills that the previous owner had incurred with that airframe.

It may not seem very fair at all, but it seems to be the way the law is written.

Ian

[IanSeager]

I'm afraid that I can't offer any advice, other than get good legal representation.

The point you make is a very good one, especially for people buying used aircraft. I remember a few years ago someone purchased an R22 that was a couple of years old. When he landed at an airport it was impounded due to unpaid bills that the previous owner had incurred with that airframe.

It may not seem very fair at all, but it seems to be the way the law is written.

Ian

[Tinstaafl]

Doesn't help now, but for future: What about an insurance policy for this sort of thing ie the hirer defaulting leading to your a/c being impounded?

Add the cost of it into your operating costs and consider it just one of the many costs of doing business.

Not sure if this insurance is commonly, or even easily, available but I'd be surprised if it couldn't be had.

[Tinstaafl]

Doesn't help now, but for future: What about an insurance policy for this sort of thing ie the hirer defaulting leading to your a/c being impounded?

Add the cost of it into your operating costs and consider it just one of the many costs of doing business.

Not sure if this insurance is commonly, or even easily, available but I'd be surprised if it couldn't be had.

[FNG]

I hope that your lawyers are taking a point on Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights: the operation of section 88 in your case is a disproportionate interference with your property rights. The argument should be that section 88 has to be read down so as to ensure compliance with Article 1. See R v A [2001] 2 WLR 1546 and R v Lambert [2001] 3 WLR 206.

[FNG]

I hope that your lawyers are taking a point on Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights: the operation of section 88 in your case is a disproportionate interference with your property rights. The argument should be that section 88 has to be read down so as to ensure compliance with Article 1. See R v A [2001] 2 WLR 1546 and R v Lambert [2001] 3 WLR 206.

[Alberts Growbag]

As a customer of Comed's who regularly flew 'IA', the chipmunk in question, I have to say that I was checked out on it by a Comed instructor, booked it from Comed and flew it from their dispersal area.

However at no time was I lead to believe that it was Comed's aircraft. It was always made clear to me that the aircraft was privately owned and leased out to Comed. That to me does not make it Comed's aircraft.

I have dearly missed flying IA because of the Chippie's in the North West it is by far the sweetest, and was aware of the impending litigation but not the details. Frankly I am horrified at what the airport is doing.

Most importantly though is the precedent set by this. Quite simply if the airport win, then the available fleet of light aircraft operated by flying schools nationwide will be decimated overnight. No private owner in their right mind is going to let their aircraft out to a school if it is going to be taken off them in the event of the school failing.

I hope your case goes well, but I also hope that in the meantime you get all light aviation societies and private owners to support your position. You also want the GA press to be publishing details of this once it is settled.

[Alberts Growbag]

As a customer of Comed's who regularly flew 'IA', the chipmunk in question, I have to say that I was checked out on it by a Comed instructor, booked it from Comed and flew it from their dispersal area.

However at no time was I lead to believe that it was Comed's aircraft. It was always made clear to me that the aircraft was privately owned and leased out to Comed. That to me does not make it Comed's aircraft.

I have dearly missed flying IA because of the Chippie's in the North West it is by far the sweetest, and was aware of the impending litigation but not the details. Frankly I am horrified at what the airport is doing.

Most importantly though is the precedent set by this. Quite simply if the airport win, then the available fleet of light aircraft operated by flying schools nationwide will be decimated overnight. No private owner in their right mind is going to let their aircraft out to a school if it is going to be taken off them in the event of the school failing.

I hope your case goes well, but I also hope that in the meantime you get all light aviation societies and private owners to support your position. You also want the GA press to be publishing details of this once it is settled.

[poetpilot]

Best way to get "Flyer" to take this up is to post the lead post of this thread into the Flyer GA News Forum.... the editorial staff are so busy, they generally only get to check out their own forums for news.... but this is very newsworthy.

Terrible situation, I flew the Chippie via Comed a couple of times and have to agree it was a cracker.

[jumpseater]

I am unsure of the legal docs or statutory instruments, but the impounding of an aircraft by an airport for unpaid landing fees is not unusual. As I recall the debt lies with the airframe, if I can give a simplified example from my experience, note the size of the aircraft is not an issue here.

Aircraft A registration Y, operated by airline B runs up 20K of landing fees.
Airline B goes bust, the airport still has to recover the 20k debt, it could have been trying to get those fees paid for many months by the operator, who hasn't paid for many and varied reasons. It would be unreasonable to pay each landing fee as it occurs if there is an account for the company, which is how the debt can mount up.

The airport is still a creditor when the airline goes bust. The aircraft, now resold and now registered Z, lands again at the airport, it can be impounded with a lien placed on it until the debt is paid. This has happened in my airport experience and was not an uncommon occurance, the above sounds a similar scenario. The debts as I recall were normally paid by the CURRENT operator/owner of the aircraft. This may not be of help but maybe gives an insight into the airports side.

[Still Grounded]

I think most people know about the debt staying with the airframe, what we want to stress here is the chipmunk had £568 allocated to it, but at the outset the airport's solicitors said the owners of the impounded aircraft had to cough up £667,000 to get our aircraft released.

Within section 88, the airport can sell the chipmunk to pay the landing fees of the bandits etc.

The airport manager then agreed to us individually making an offer of around the full market value of our aircraft, effectively buying back our own plane that had £568 allocated to it's airframe. We would not have minded paying £568 but not £32,000.

FNG - Thanks for the info, we are going to Leeds tonight to collect copies of WLR1546 and WLR206.

For those interested - Human Rights

THE FIRST PROTOCOL
ARTICLE 1
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY says

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Whilst going against the general tone of replys, I think it needs to be said that there are two sides to this.

Its not fair for the airport to ground this airplane, I fly at Blackpool and its pretty shameful that the debts of comed accrued to this level. I think it remains to be said that Comed were on "life support" from the airport for a considerable length of time. Im pretty sure that supporting a company that is insolvent is against the law. The airport needs to be brought to task about this. Is also probable that if the airport was privately owned (not local authority) the management would have been probably sacked by now for alllowing debts of this magnitude to accrue.

Anyway this isn't a comed/ba topic so forgive me.

All the aircraft owners who hired out their plane through comed did so for a gain of some sort. Some of those owners who used the revenue to subsidise their own flying should look a little inwardly and ask themselves did they back the right horse in Comed. You can't have it all your own way. Ask yourself did you ever worry about who was managing the plane, were your cheques ever late? did you have absolutely no warning signs at all????

As far as the operator question is concerned lets look at how it appears.

Who invoiced the flight?

In the "Where to fly guide" in pilot, who advertised the plane the owner or the operator? not a legal issue but its the sort of thing that would be pulled from a lawyers briefcase at a timely moment

how many hours a month did the "owner" fly compared to "operator"?

You can argue about the meaning of the word operator all you like, but get any reasonable judge and a good barrister and common sense will prevail - you can not make an ass out of the law this will probably be the basis of bpl's case.

Having said that I dearly hope you get your Airplane back it pains me every time I turn up at the airport to see the management "Trophies" parked up padlocked to a baggage cart, if its not a bandit its a jetstream.

Im not for bashing Comed but they have acted as nearly as irresponsibly as the airport management. They were happy to create revenue from your aeroplane, they could have perhaps called you in the day before being declared bankrupt and said clear the fuel bill or you'll be impounded.

Sincerely hope to see all the aircraft flying again soon.

Apologies in advance if any of this is based on hearsay and the considerable amount of rumour flying round BPL

[jumpseater]

SG, firstly you have my sympathy for the position you and your group find yourself in through no fault of yours.
Thinking back to my previous life I can recall that if the airport got just one of the aircraft they needed from an airline they would try to cover the complete debt with the lien on one airframe, if they could get more than one, then they were in an even stronger bargaining position. This maybe why an airport may adopt the approach you describe.
You have listed other reg's, do you know if those others have subsequently operated through the airport, if so you may have a case for unfair treatment of your group, if the others have not been forced to pay. Contractural stuff aside, it does however seem unreasonable that if your group is prepared to pay your airframes outstanding debts, even though not accrued by yourselves, that the airport is taking the stance you have described.
rgds js

[Heliport]

G-SPOT's post at least genuinely gives two points of view, although I admit I agree with only one of them. I think the airport is being totally unfair and unreasonable.
Jumpseater's reaction has been ... err ... interesting?
In his first post, he expressed no sympathy for the innocent aircraft owners, and not a hint of criticism of the airport. Instead, he offered an "an insight into the airports side."
Well, I've read and re-read his insight, but I still can't see anything reasonable in the airport's behaviour. :confused:
If Jumpseater meant the airport's entitled to take advantage of a legal technicality, perhaps they are - but it doesn't make it fair or reasonable to do so against a group of private owners.
His second post expressed sympathy, but still wasn't critical of the airport's conduct - except at the very end where he was sort of, maybe, just about critical(ish) of the airport - it "seems unreasonable" of the airport not to take the money the poor owners can afford! :rolleyes:
If that's his attitude to smallscale aviators, Jumpseater shouldn't be surprised if he finds jumpseats hard to come by!

Tinstaafl didn't commit himself either way re the airport's conduct, but suggested how the stable door might possibly, and probably at great expense, be shut after the horse has bolted - in order to safeguard the next one. :D

Still Grounded
Take up the idea of contacting 'Flyer' and 'Pilot'. Ian Seager who publishes Flyer, and Pat Malone who writes superb articles for Pilot, are both active GA pilots.
Other a/c owners need to be warned what some airport owners are like - they could easily be the next victims.
I wish you the best of luck, and hope you win.

[what cessna?]

Not sure if this is any help or whether you've been here already.
I belive Blackpool operates a computer based landing fees system.

On this will be information entered by the ATC unit from their flight strips, when the aircraft is flown.

There usually is a format for data to be entered including the registration and operator.

From experience at other airports, there can be a number of 'operators' on the computer for one aircraft registration as the accounts department uses the 'operator' section to bill the correct club or airline. It may not necessarily be the aircraft owner.

Therefore, as in your case, your registration on the airport system would have your club account, comeds account and accounts of any one else who used it. It doesn't show who owns it - only who to send the bill to for the flight.

Usually the ATC unit initially puts the operator against your registration and accounts verify it. (e.g. British Airways use a Air 2000 aircraft because of tech probs - BA get the bill although it's not their aircraft)

Hope this is some help at least

Good luck

[niknak]

Firstly my sympathies - the legal side of things is a can of worms, and I hope it's sorted soon.

Blackpool are one of the few airport operators who allow (or did allow), aircraft operators to run up such substantial debts, whether they were worried about putting the squeeze on one of their biggest operators or not I don't know.
What I do know is that there are very few other airports in the UK who would tolerate such behaviour from an operator.
The management at our place were one of the first to put the squeeze on Gill (RIP:( ) when things when tits up, and we did actually get all monies owed (ahead of the bank and tax man:D ).


The reallity of this post demonstrates the ease with which the crooks can still get away with things to the detriment of a vast array of other smaller operators.
With a stricter airport accounting regime, they wouldn't. :rolleyes:

[jumpseater]

Heliport,
I was not aware that to contribute to this topic one had to express sympathy with Still Groundeds position. As I made quite clear in my first post it was factual information (based on 20 years experience in aviation), some of which is in airport operations, and about 30 per cent of that time in 'commercial departments'. The post may well have given some pruners who do not operate regularly into the bigger airfields, of why an airport company may take the route described. I had no requirement to critisise any party, merely an intention to provide information which might help the discussion and understanding of the airports position.

An airport is a business and is as accountable to its shareholders (be they the local council or BAA), as any other company is, hence when an operator goes under they have as much right as any creditor, to recover the debt. Unfortunately others may fall foul of the impact of a airline/flying school going out of business, which appears to be the position Still Grounded is in. As I also made clear that debt can lay 'dormant' and an aircraft may be held to pay debts, standard big airport practise, but I suspect many PPL's are unaware of that. I have known aircraft be impounded for not paying ATC route charges, nothing to do with the airport at all, but they still have to apply the lien, and in my recollection the current operator of the aircraft either paid or negotiated a deal to release the airframe, even though the debt was not theirs.
It is not really important how the airport accounts received was run, a debt was run up and it is the duty of the airport to recover the debt. If an airport jumps on an operator every time they are late paying a bill or has a cash flow problem, then many clubs/air taxis/ schools/ airlines would cease to exist and very few would get past those difficult first years. I have seen first hand considerable fexibility given to start ups, some worked, some didnt, such is life in any business. I also made it quite clear I had sympathy for Still Grounded. Their group has made an approach to settle the debt, and I applaud them for that, I have seen many that would not or could not be bothered in a similar position.
Finally my expectation of small-scale aviation is exactly the same as my expectation of commercial aviation, a professional approach assists in a well run and safe operation, so I'm not over worried about which seats I sit on.

[virgin]

Heliport
With you 100%.
You know as well as I do in aviation there are aviators and beancounters. There's no doubt which you are, and no longer any doubt which Jumpseater is.
If he can't see why it's not fair even if it's legal, it doesn't look like anyone will persuade him.
"Finally my expectation of small-scale aviation is exactly the same as my expectation of commercial aviation, a professional approach assists in a well run and safe operation." says it all. :rolleyes:

All the best, Still Grounded.
Hope you beat the ****s.

[Ludwig]

Just a thought, but if the a/c is "chained to a baggage cart" why can't you go up one day, mob handed if necessary and just fly the thing away (after cutting the chains of course) It will then be easier to argue your case with possession of the aircraft.

:D

[RotorHorn]

You all have my utmost sympathy.

If its not enough to be paying a lot of money for your pride and joy, its takes the biscuit that the airport want to nick the lot, because someone else ran up £600 of bills for you and decided not to pay!! :mad: :mad:

What a situation to be in!

I'd be out there with a billboard around the airport managers house every night!

Always seems to be the small cogs in the machine they get mangled first....

Good luck with the fight!

p.s. Ludwig, what is the Vne on a baggage cart then? :D

[Delta Wun-Wun]

Still Grounded,
I was discussing this thread with a mate of mine ,who flys occasionally out of Blackpool with Comed.He seems to believe that they have a Chipmunk still flying, a red one.Is this one and the same?
Sorry for the scant details.

[Still Grounded]

Delta wun-wun - It's a different chippie. Ours is the one that has always been kept in ANT's hangar, G-BXIA has Army logo and WB615 on the sides.

Everybody else - Thanks for all the support, it all helps to keep us going with this battle. We have applied for a 14 day extension to the court hearing, so the next 2 or 3 weeks will be crucial. I'll keep you all posted about the court action. We found some very good case law today that will help blow them out of the sky (hopefully).

Thanks again.

[jumpseater]

Virgin, if being commercially and contractually aware makes me a bean counter, then I am one, so what!. Perhaps you should consider talking to a bean counter now and then, might save you a lawyers bill in the long run!.

And yes I expect any flying machine I go in to be well run and safely operated, it does as you say, 'say it all', whats wrong with that?. If those two criteria cause you trouble, well says it all really :rolleyes:

[Heliport]

Jumpseater
Like Virgin I thought you were inferring that, if the Chipmunk group had been a "well run and safe operation", they would not be in this difficulty.
I thought that was rather harsh, but I apologise if I misunderstood what you meant.
But, if that's not what you meant, why was "well run and safe operation" relevant?
In particular, what has 'safety' got to do with this issue?
You have also moved the goalposts. Your original "well run and safe" comment referred to the operation, not to a "flying machine".

[Delta Wun-Wun]

Still Grounded,
Thanks for that.Have you tried to contact I think he`s called the Flying Lawyer who posts on here from time to time.He is apparently very good on all things aviation.
Good luck.:) DWW

[Fujiflyer]

Flying Lawyer is a Barrister specialising in aviation law.

August 2001 Pilot magazine has a good article in respect of him, it is interesting to read.

Fujiflyer :)

[CessnaEng]

This is obviously a very sad case. I personally have my doubts that you will be successful in your claim that Comed weren't the operators of the aircraft when the debts were incurred. You would have a case if the landing fees and fuel went through your account and you billed Comed but then it would just be you that were owed money then.

However if you have offered to pay off the debts that were incurred against your airframe i.e. the landing fees, fuel put into your aircraft and the VAT but the airport refused I'm not sure how the court will look at it.

Trade creditors / debtors are a normal part of business so I don't think you can claim the moral high ground by saying the airport shouldn't have let the debt mount up. SouthernAir owed a lot to Shoreham when they folded and they were a smaller concern.

I don't think jumpseater made the claims the way they are being interpreted by others.

Despite the fact that now most of you probably hate me I do hope that you get something out of this. You've already lost 18 months and I presume the first thing you will have to do if you win is spend even more money on an annual.

[Still Grounded]

CessnaEng,

In your post you said
"Trade creditors / debtors are a normal part of business so I don't think you can claim the moral high ground by saying the airport shouldn't have let the debt mount up."

Did you know the credit given by the airport to Comed, that you say is a normal part of business, had accrued over a period of 18 Months and reached almost £700,000, that can not be "normal"!

My suppliers say payment by the 28th of the month after the month of invoice or NO more supplies on the 29th. That is normal in the real world, unless there is an hidden agenda!

[Still Grounded]

We have decided to go for it!

A Counter claim against Blackpool Airport and the Borough Council has been posted today.

All fingers crossed for a good result that may help all the little fish out there when the big boys try to boss us about.

[WeatherJinx]

Still Grounded

The very best of luck....

WxJx

[Delta Wun-Wun]

Good Luck...keep us posted.

[Still Grounded]

IT IS FREE !!!
Blackpool airport agreed to release the chipmunk if we cancelled our counter claim and paid the £568.75 that was outstanding on the airframe for landing fees.
It is now in the process of having it’s star annual and should be airworthy shortly.

Again I will say, it is such a shame that all this trouble has been caused by what we consider to be poor management of the airport. Blackpool should be a thriving profitable business, but all we see is one failure after another, Comed, Platinum one and two and now I hear BNWA has ceased. Why?

Any Comments?

[Aussie Andy]

Well done - glad to hear you've got your a/c back again.

Am planning a trip to Blackpool in September to pick-up a friend who lives nearby. The reason for the trip is that I got talking to this guy at a business conference, and he is ever so keen to start learning to fly, but unsure where to start. He lives between Barton and Blackpool, but his preference would be Blackpool as apparently easier traffic-wise from Blackburn. So I said I'll fly up and meet him at Blackpool, go for a local flight (lakes maybe) and then when we return we can take the time to look in on local flight school(s) and see what he thinks of them.

I am a bit concerned from what you've said that there seems to be a history of failures at Blackpool, and I'd hate to see my friend lose out. Are you comfortable to make a recommendation? Is tehre a school you would suggest? Alternatively, if not comfortable to recommend any at Blackpool, would you say that he might be better off dealing with traffic and flying from Barton instead?

Many thanks,

[long final]

Andy,

A history of failures at Blackpool is a little harsh if aimed at the training facilities. True, Comed has had its fair share, but there are a number of long standing and secure schools and groups at Blackpool.

Some commercial operators have gone under due to reasons not connected to Blackpool Airport.

Don't let your friend be put off BPL, just have a good look around and get the training schools history. If in doubt pay lesson by lesson, your friend can always transfer to another school or airfield if not happy.

I would agree totally though that BPL should be maximising it's potential, but appears not to be. Perhaps if it wasn't council owned things would be better.

Regards
LF

[Aussie Andy]

Glad to hear it - its too easy to form a negative impression via PPRUNE, but still interested in any steers I can gte for my mate.

Cheers,