Could Leasing Companies be Forced to Write-off 500+ aircraft
The lawyers will have a field day.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they will, see the link above. But they will have anyway, as russian airlines are not returning aircraft and documentation to the leasing companies as required by the Cape Town Convention. So they are already in breach of their contracts and that will just get worse. And yes, big law firms are already calculating their bonuses for the minimum of a decade of litigation following this mess.
Could someone clarify what has to happen if you have an aircraft without its maintenance records, which has happened several times before. Ultimately would it need a 'D' check (or even a 'D' check +) to make it airworthy?
I've actually seen an advert from an organisation that has repossessed an aircraft asking for the log book. I don't know if they were successful.
I've actually seen an advert from an organisation that has repossessed an aircraft asking for the log book. I don't know if they were successful.
The most likely outcome would be aluminium cans. Without records all life limited parts need to be assumed to have zero hours/cycles left, and the cost of re-conditioning and re-certifying all such components are probably akin to buying a new aircraft.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can conform this , in a smaller scale, a few years back the office near a hangar burned in a small airfield and all the Log books and maintenance records of a few gliders and aircraft went up in flames. . . After months of litigation with the local CAA , the aircraft could not be re-registered and were ultimately scrapped.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 76
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could Leasing Companies be Forced to Write-off 500+ aircraft
Delta Tech Ops did a lot of heavy maintenance for Russian airlines, including engine overhaul.
That came to a screeching halt.
It's going to be hard for them to replace that expert maintenance !
Delta doesn't fly any 787's but they overhaul the engines for airlines that do .
https://deltatechops.com/delta-techo...ngine-service/
That came to a screeching halt.
It's going to be hard for them to replace that expert maintenance !
Delta doesn't fly any 787's but they overhaul the engines for airlines that do .
https://deltatechops.com/delta-techo...ngine-service/
Reports that they have been deregistered too. I presume they will shortly be sporting Russian registrations with airworthiness certificates and insurance arranged in record time. The legal ramifications are going to be interesting.
And reasons being that the aircraft are registered in Bermuda for tax reasons are not true - can you imagine working with the Russian authority to remove an aircraft in the current circumstances. But of course the “journalist” who broke this story would know that…
The next few days will show how the Russian authorities respond. I would be surprised if they just stop flying. As I said earlier the legal arguments are yet to be heard. By the way can you explain your comment about tax and registration in Bermuda. I did not quite follow what you were saying.
Can China sell Russia their new narrow-bodied jet or is there enough Western technology that sales could be blocked ?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dannyboy39 my point was primarily about registration. The original reasons for non registration in Russia included punitive taxes on imported foreign aircraft and leasing companies' concerns about remarketing aircraft that had been operated under Russian rules as well ironically as the very issue which is now top of the list recovering their assets (see Capetown agreement).
Last edited by lederhosen; 14th Mar 2022 at 06:48.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not as Lederhosen explained, , in fact I was told certain leasing companied mandated registration in Bermuda as a precondition to a leasing contract mainly to avoid Russia bureaucratic control. Well it did not help much in the end. .
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the end it is about both issues. Registration of a western build aircraft in russia required an import tax of 25% of the value of that aircraft. Which is quite a big incentive not to do it. On the other hand, lessors wanted non-russian registrations as well, so it was a win-win at that point. Now, since russia basically does not allow the return of leased aircraft there will be apparently not a registration tax anymore when and if those aircraft will be put on the russian registry. In an autocratic state laws are basically meaningless anyway, just whatever the Fuhrer wants is important, nothing else.
I am always happy to learn something new. But it would be helpful to understand which bit I got wrong ATC Watcher. Denti who is usually pretty reliable has confirmed that there were taxation implications on the import of foreign aircraft. A short google search will back this up up if anybody remains unconvinced.
My second point was that leasing companies preferred foreign registrations for various reasons. One reason (which I may not have explained particularly well) is that the Russian authorities reputation for oversight of maintenance etc. was not the greatest. One of the big risks in leasing is the state of the aircraft when you get it back. I have had some personal experience of airframes that came back from Africa and South America which were in a shocking state. Fixing them was a big hit to the bottom line. The lessors also hoped that having them registered abroad would help if they needed to get them back. Again as Denti has pointed out that has not worked so well. One aircraft was reportedly flown back from Egypt against the wishes of the lessor and allegedly without insurance.
Someone has started a new thread which confirms my original point that I expected the Russians would in any case continue flying these aircraft. My personal view is that the Russians consider themselves to be in a war situation (in this case economic) and therefore anything goes.
My second point was that leasing companies preferred foreign registrations for various reasons. One reason (which I may not have explained particularly well) is that the Russian authorities reputation for oversight of maintenance etc. was not the greatest. One of the big risks in leasing is the state of the aircraft when you get it back. I have had some personal experience of airframes that came back from Africa and South America which were in a shocking state. Fixing them was a big hit to the bottom line. The lessors also hoped that having them registered abroad would help if they needed to get them back. Again as Denti has pointed out that has not worked so well. One aircraft was reportedly flown back from Egypt against the wishes of the lessor and allegedly without insurance.
Someone has started a new thread which confirms my original point that I expected the Russians would in any case continue flying these aircraft. My personal view is that the Russians consider themselves to be in a war situation (in this case economic) and therefore anything goes.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lederhosen :
Ooops , syntax error , typed too fast. . The comma is missing after "it is not" . I was directly replying to the HKG affirmation that it was absolutely for tax reasons , quoting you as reference... The correct sentence should have read , It is not ( absolutely for that reasons), comma, as lederhosen explained, etc..
You got nothing wrong ,, sorry for the misunderstanding, will better watch my syntax next time!
But it would be helpful to understand which bit I got wrong ATC Watcher.
You got nothing wrong ,, sorry for the misunderstanding, will better watch my syntax next time!