Court Action at Blackpool
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Terrible situation, I flew the Chippie via Comed a couple of times and have to agree it was a cracker.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Yorkshire UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Last edited by Heliport; 25th Apr 2002 at 20:31.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ).
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.
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 ).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.
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.
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.
Last edited by jumpseater; 26th Apr 2002 at 23:41.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
says it all.
All the best, Still Grounded.
Hope you beat the ****s.
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."
All the best, Still Grounded.
Hope you beat the ****s.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Blackpool, UK
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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?
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!!
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?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Over here but sometimes over there.
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Yorkshire UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Last edited by Heliport; 27th Apr 2002 at 10:04.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Over here but sometimes over there.
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Some more money for Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ici
Age: 56
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
August 2001 Pilot magazine has a good article in respect of him, it is interesting to read.
Fujiflyer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Yorkshire UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!