Investigative journalist seeking leads/info on unsafe carriers in developing world

[rinkelly]

Hello PPRuNE,

I'm a reporting fellow at Columbia University's Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism in New York City -- I'm working on a large investigation of the aircraft leasing industry, focusing on American lessors and developing-nation lessees with troublesome safety records. My work is generally a look at whether or not lessors are doing proper due diligence when providing machines to problematic airlines, or whether or not lessors might know about serious problems with training and maintenance programs and/or the conditions of their planes.

Right now I'm just trying to understand what those problems look like in countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and other nations on the EU blacklist. I'm hoping to talk to people within the aviation industry who know about safety concerns from first-hand experience, be they pilots or current/former office staff. I've seen so much knowledgeable discussion of some of these airlines (circa-2006 discussions of Adam Air, for example) that I thought I'd reach out here.

If anyone would be willing to help me out, either on or off the record (or would be interested in connecting me with colleagues and friends who might be interested in talking to me), please feel free to pass on my contact info or message me here.

As I said, I am particularly interested in speaking with people who've worked in Indonesia and the Philippines, simply because these are places where lessors like GECAS, CIT, and ILFC seem to be doing a lot of business with EU-banned carriers. I'd be happy to speak to anyone who might be so generous as to help me out, however, and of course the issue is as global as the industry.

Thanks in advance for your time!

Sincerely,
Rin Kelly
Fellow, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism
[email protected]

[Cruise Zombie]

With all due respect, I don't know why you guys bother. The company I used to work for has all sorts of ' issues '. No-one I spoke to about them (including governments ) were interested. Is it that governments and regulators just wait for the body bag count to mount up until they do anything ?

When a pilot I know raised issues about an increase in near-miss events in areas of no radar cover, he was told that as no collision had actually occurred, there was clearly no problem ! My friend had been trained to have a ' prevention is better than cure attitude ' to safety. But the powers that be seem to take a different approach. Was he wrong to raise such issues ?

When a guy I know tried to raise safety issues directly with his company, the corporate machine he was employed by set about him like a pack of lions and got rid of him.

If you don't get many replies it might be that the culture of fear in this industry is spreading faster than I had previously thought.

Oh and do you have an economics department in your university ? Perhaps you could ask them what they were doing as the Western world was careering towards the financial crash that we now have.

If academics spent less time teaching and more time in the real world, their research might be more useful !

[Wirbelsturm]

Columbia University's Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism

They have a University for investigative Journalism???? I thought it was all done in a smokey pub in Soho, round the back from Fleet street, a blank book of ethics and a phone hacking laptop (my concession to the modern era.).

[rinkelly]

Wirbelsturm, I'm sure said hacks consider themselves investigative journalists, but investigative journalists consider them hacks, in the thoroughly American sense. Pubs definitely enter the equation but they long ago ceased being smokey in New York City, for good or ill.

Cruise Zombie, the econ department at Columbia can answer that question for you, straight from the horse's mouth: the head of the business school features in the film Inside Job, and it's not a flattering portrait. I see your econ-world point, and as someone who was not following aviation terribly closely before I began this work I was as surprised as anyone to learn that an AIG subsidiary was one of the biggest lessors in the world.

As far as why investigative reporters even bother, among the best of them it's often because they see the world the way you see it and seek to be a counterweight working from outside those systems. It's doesn't always come to fruition, but it drives the better muckrakers. My editor/adviser on this project actually sent the former president of the Philippines to prison through her reporting, so the kind of journalism we do can have an impact. Her name is Sheila Coronel if anyone's curious to read up on her.

One of the arguments of the critics of American lessors' business practices is actually that a more stringent Western lessor/more stringent American regulation could encourage safety improvements, and therefore greater "prevention," among some of the bad actors who do, after all, want to get those planes and get them with things like American Ex-Im financing. Whether or not that's true is something I'll be considering, but before all that I want to lay out just how bad it is, with the knowledge of people who know first-hand just how bad it is. And as I said, I'm hoping to determine just how bad it is at companies that are currently flying GECAS, ILFC, and CIT planes.

I'm just getting to know this industry, so you're probably well ahead of me on this, but I can provide a list of the specific carriers I'm looking at because of the owners of their fleets.

On the culture of fear: I can only imagine, and I'm happy to offer complete confidence to anyone who even wants to nudge me slightly in the right direction.

I'm off to catch some sleep before a long day of calling half the world in search of maintenance documents and leases. I will be around later. Thanks for your replies!

-Rin K

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by rinkelly

I'm a reporting fellow -- I'm working on a large investigation of the aircraft leasing industry, focusing on American lessors and developing-nation lessees with troublesome safety records. My work is generally a look at whether or not lessors are doing proper due diligence when providing machines to problematic airlines, or whether or not lessors might know about serious problems with training and maintenance programs and/or the conditions of their planes.

For goodness sake. Why do you stick this on the lessors ? They are effectively a bank, that organises funds for the purchase of machinery. They are not a safety regulatory authority, that is done by the management of the airline itself (although you probably choose not to believe that), and overseen by the relevant national aviation authority, part of the national government.

Why do you go after the financiers ? They generally go along as part of a joint team that includes the aircraft manufacturer, the finance, the insurers, etc. Now the insurers really have their Private Parts on the line, because if the airline writes off their aircraft and/or their passengers, it's the insurers who pay out the big bucks. And they know what they are doing. But financiers ? Why not go after the catering suppliers ?

There are plenty of third-world carriers who have never had an accident. If you want to look a someone with a "troublesome safety record" over many years, why don't you start at home, say at American Airlines? At least 7 aircraft written off over the last 20 years, when there are a number of comparable sized carriers who haven't lost one in that time. A generation back Pan Am used to have the same dismal record, so it's not a chance occurence.

[oldchina]

rinkelly

There's another way of looking at operating lessors: they are aircraft traders. They mostly get very good discounts when they buy new, and they choose their moment to sell, depending on market conditions. Very much like Hertz, Avis etc with cars.

The rental income is not the only focus of the business.

Lessors place great emphasis on being able to get their asset back in prime condition, all maintenance up to date, all necessary mods done.

So where's their interest in leasing to airlines who fall behind with payments or damage/destroy the asset and its resale value?

[rinkelly]

WHBM: Lessors and the developing world because the investigation began with a tip on one such company and its practices in one particular nation with a great deal of corruption, so that's where I started. Investigations grow and shift so it will not likely cover only that in its final, published form, and it might not cover that at all, but for meeting immediate benchmarks it's my current focus--and will ensure further funding if done right. It's probably just a way in, as they say.

I also began the work by using the EU blacklist, so the investigation has so far concentrated on those countries and airlines.

Oldchina, your final question is one of my questions: what is going on in cases like Yemenia 626, in which the asset was deteriorating and the lessor was likely receiving monthly reports on its condition? Are carriers providing false reports? Why not repossess from a company like Yemenia or Adam Air when it becomes obvious that they will not get that asset back in prime condition?

Sometimes journalism begins with a lay person like me asking what sound like dumb questions of people with great knowledge of an industry or subject. It's the only way to know what the right questions are going forward.
-R

[WHBM]

Rinkelly: I think several of us here would be disappointed wth the attitude displayed at the start, which is basically "let's have a go at the leasing companies, now then what can we find", rather than any more professional approach to news.

"Columbia University's Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism". Is your organisation actually called that overlong string ? And that is at a place where people are supposedly leaning how to write succinctly !

Regarding the technical side of things.

The "EU blacklist" is regarded by the various EU national aviation organisations as a joke. Honestly. The vast majority of carriers on it have never had any service to the EU. In a couple of more mainstream cases carriers were placed on it "except aircraft type xxx", or "all airlines except yyy" which was the only aircraft type or airline they would expect to operate to the EU anyway. But the whole approach is an overly bureaucratic one, of complying with EU bureaucratic requirements, and to those technically knowledgeable comes over as a paper-pushing exercise to justify overpaid jobs in Brussels.

In passing I'm on an example of "all airlines except yyy" next week, and have no qualms about so doing.

Regarding Yemenia 626, we doubt the accident was particularly associated with any technical deficiency of the aircraft. You should look elsewhere (not that the Yemen authorities might wish you to do so).

[rinkelly]

WHBM: Thanks for the insight on the EU list. I've been keeping such things in mind as I go about getting a handle on these various issues--as with much of this, it's simply a starting point.

[Shell Management]

It was only last year that USAirways own pilots union called them unsafe. Why not start their.

Why not interview USAirways pilots: US Airways pilots allege safety breaches : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis