Sky Up flight prohibited from entering Ukrainian airspace

[zerograv]

It seems that the leasing company owning the aircraft (from Ireland) prohibited the lessee, an Ukrainian airline named Sky Up, from operating their aircraft into Ukrainian airspace.

It diverted and landed in Chisinau (hoping it is well spelt), capital of Moldova.

Passengers taken by road to Ukraine.

[FGE319]

The Ukrainian government has offered financial airframe guarantees for leasing companies this afternoon.

The situation is calm in Ukraine, so this appears to be an overreaction by a leasing company following an overreaction by what appears at this stage to be an insurer, following an overreaction by several governments, .

Release from the Ministry of Infrastructure here, the aircraft involved is UR-SQO, which is still at KIV/LUKK at the time of writing.

=AZV3qOLtkCRO_BRI2mVpJpmsf08PrTxRgeNcJdzc5MOwWy7DjmLXjPzABf4 JbigdRm3M4Vc-wOJw6q4VpPYBhRqN8Fnn4bnckBdw7F8tae34HCvZYcP8bUtZq2P444jUDgO-AeHmRwnmR3s8ExhpjFO2jXJ6fOkgLP0kwCMxQxQIajQ7MgzQZcqXvbN4xbmZ 9C3lzSjM1ZOZU8VHLaSSvN5q&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-y-R]https://www.facebook.com/MinInfra.UA/posts/310588391109349?__cft__[0]=AZV3qOLtkCRO_BRI2mVpJpmsf08PrTxRgeNcJdzc5MOwWy7DjmLXjPzABf4 JbigdRm3M4Vc-wOJw6q4VpPYBhRqN8Fnn4bnckBdw7F8tae34HCvZYcP8bUtZq2P444jUDgO-AeHmRwnmR3s8ExhpjFO2jXJ6fOkgLP0kwCMxQxQIajQ7MgzQZcqXvbN4xbmZ 9C3lzSjM1ZOZU8VHLaSSvN5q&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-y-R

[JanetFlight]

Hi all...i have one doubt wich i would kindly to know your wise opinion about it.

In the very case, the plane itself its a Ukr registered one »»» UR-sqo

Having in mind many airlines across the globe used and some still use irish reg planes "EI-" on their fleets (including eastern ones), i wont be doubtful about it...but on this event, besides the fact its a irish owner, we have a UR. registration...So, in this specific "incident" is it really mandatory what owner/lessor mandates, or the reg country has also a word to say and could deviate from the owner orders?

Tks in advance...JF

[andrasz]

JanetFlight Lease contracts are typically 600+ page documents (I know, I once had to sign off on a batch of six on every page...) with provisions for a near infinite number of scenarios, many of which have yet to occur on planet Earth. One set of provisions declare what the lessee may and may not do with the aircraft, and also contain some pretty hefty penalty clauses should the lessee fail to comply. I'm sure in what was a field day for lawyers, the lessor decided that there was a need to protect their asset to the full extent permitted by the contract, and the lessee, after reading the fine print, agreed that this was indeed a great idea. The UR- registration has no bearing, this is entirely a game between the lessor and the lessee.

[FGE319]

Hi all...i have one doubt wich i would kindly to know your wise opinion about.

In the very case, the plane itself its a Ukr registered one »»» UR-sqo

Having in mind many airlines across the globe used and some still use irish reg planes "EI-" on their fleets (including eastern ones), i wont be doubtful about it...but on this event, besides the fact its a irish owner, we have a UR. registration...So, in this specific "incident" is it really mandatory what owner/lessor mandates, or the reg country has also a word to say and could deviate from the owner orders?

Tks in advance...JF

This is not a specialist area of knowledge to me and these documents are far to complex to summarise simply, but in general:

The hull will be insured by the lessor or the lessee (some of ours are both ways), but either way must be adequately insured at all times. A government guarantee may or may not be sufficient in this case, which we likely will find in the next days.

I don't believe the nationality of the owner actually is relevant here, and the country of registration doesn't have to be the same as the country of ownership. I flew an G- reg aircraft this morning which definitely wasn't owned by any party in the UK.

In some cases (such as Russia), EI- reg will be used due to there not being maintenance agreements between Russia and EASA/FAA. We had an EI-reg aircraft 2 airlines ago for a few months due to lessor requirements, before it was transferred onto the local register under a slightly revised agreement. That particular aircraft is currently on a VQ- reg operating for a Russian carrier.

In addition, looking at the situation with Belavia, lessors were able to easily reclaim their aircraft (although to give them credit, Belavia didn't try to hide them). I have heard from those close to the company that on the basis of the IATA initial investigation they may take legal action in Ireland and Lithuania for compensation as a result of the sanctions. (I am not getting into a debate regarding this as my personal views likely won't agree with the majority here).

In short, if contractual requirements can't be met, then it's likely that an aircraft can be taken back. These are B2B contracts, so there won't be consumer protection rights to rely on.

[hec7or]

I would think the decision was made by the insurers, so the lease company had no option.

[Jhieminga]

So, in this specific "incident" is it really mandatory what owner/lessor mandates, or the reg country has also a word to say and could deviate from the owner orders?
Apart from issuing the registration, the state of registration doesn't have much of a say over what happens with an aircraft, if any at all. The operator/owner needs to comply with the regulations linked to said registration, but that's as far as it goes.