Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5732824/

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: comorin
Posted 2013-04-07 22:07:40 and read 22289 times.

Kingfisher's 15 planes are in condition to be returned to lessors, now heavily cannibalized, and only fit for the scrapyard. Is this outrageous or is it common when lessees are going under?


From the Times of India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/b...crapyards/articleshow/19436669.cms

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: B777LRF
Posted 2013-04-08 01:25:01 and read 21516 times.

Don't know about India, but in other parts of the world it could be considered a criminal offence, as in "taken without owners consent". Whomever leased those aircraft to Kingfisher are looking at a long and protracted lawsuit, probably culminating in a massive financial loss. That's why they call it "risk", I suppose.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-08 01:36:57 and read 21437 times.

Going by the article you linked, a more precise description of circumstances would be that, of the 15 Airbuses left, a majority appears unfit to fly, and thus repossess. At least if these reports turn out to be true.

Quoting comorin (Thread starter):
Is this outrageous or is it common when lessees are going under?

If proven true, it's pretty outrageous, I would say - Kingfisher didn't own those planes, so they couldn't just do as they saw fit with them. Cannibalising them to keep other planes flying is definitely not covered by their lease agreements, and I don't think I've heard of any other circumstances where this has happened - never mind at the alleged scale - even with the operator failing.

[Edited 2013-04-08 01:46:24]

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-08 01:45:24 and read 21364 times.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
Don't know about India, but in other parts of the world it could be considered a criminal offence, as in "taken without owners consent". Whomever leased those aircraft to Kingfisher are looking at a long and protracted lawsuit, probably culminating in a massive financial loss. That's why they call it "risk", I suppose.

True - and in the end, it'll probably be insurers that are going to have to carry the bill for this, given that there's not going to be an awful lot left of Kingfisher to get any money from.
The whole Kingfisher affair is not a great boost for the reputation of India as a country to do business in if you're an aircraft lessor; first the protracted process of lessors trying to repossess their planes which had been impounded by the authorities as securities against Kingfisher's debt in taxes, service fees, etc., and now lessors finding some of their planes cannibalised.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: HB-IWC
Posted 2013-04-08 01:50:04 and read 21298 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 2):
I don't think I've heard of any other circumstances where this has happened - never mind at the alleged scale - even with the operator failing.

Batavia Air of Indonesia would be another recent example. Jakarta's Soekarno Hatta airport is currently littered with former Batavia aircraft, all of which are leased, yet none of which is in an airworthy condition because of cannibalizing.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: EagleBoy
Posted 2013-04-08 02:05:53 and read 21210 times.

But on the other hand, the leasing companies surely knew the risk when they agreed to do business with these companies. I'm sure this is not the first time that leased aircraft have been stranded in this manner.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: art
Posted 2013-04-08 02:08:37 and read 21190 times.

Removing parts may render the aircraft unflyable but why should they go to the scrapyard? Why can't the missing parts be replaced?

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: BreninTW
Posted 2013-04-08 02:10:33 and read 21177 times.

Quoting art (Reply 8):
Why can't the missing parts be replaced?

Probably because the leasing company can't know if any parts have been removed and replaced with unserviceable parts from another aircraft.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: art
Posted 2013-04-08 02:43:33 and read 20967 times.

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 9):
Quoting art (Reply 8):
Why can't the missing parts be replaced?


Probably because the leasing company can't know if any parts have been removed and replaced with unserviceable parts from another aircraft.

I see what you are saying.

I can see that Kingfisher management would not want unauthorised removal of parts from aircraft leased to them to be documented. I can well imagine that employees were instructed not to document what they were being ordered to do. It does raise the issue of safety - how could this not have been spotted by the Indian aviation authority responsible for regulating aircraft safety? It sounds like Kingfisher were flying aircraft whose airworthiness could not be demonstrated.

If Kingfisher were not documenting equipment being installed that would be illegal, wouldn't it? Wouldn't mnagement be liable to prosecution? Wouldn't the technicians who failed to follow proper procedures also be subject to action?

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-04-08 04:19:21 and read 20160 times.

These are sitting at airport hangers. Even if some maintenance staff tried to sell these parts, within country AI is the only major Airbus operator, being a Govt. Airline impossible to buy illegal parts. For someone to export those overseas without paperwork is also impossible.

It is possible this is part of creative accounting practice. Why spend money to fix then try to find new homes. Write off and collect whatever ins gives back.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-04-08 04:38:25 and read 19824 times.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 11):
As to the subject matter, doing business the Indian way is risky in itself. It's a very different outlook and culture.

Political Correctness gone too far, since when is corruption, laziness, negligence and downright substandard moral outlook a "culture"?

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 17):
within country AI is the only major Airbus operator

IndiGo have 65 A320s and another 53 on order, don't forget them (source: Wikipedia)

On another note, the Government of India better help the leasing companies get back their losses or the other airlines will suffer, no one will want to lease to India again.

[Edited 2013-04-08 04:45:38]

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-08 04:38:57 and read 19819 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 14):
15 A320s is a write-off of around $2B to the leasing company, I think?

Depending how old they are and with which value they are in the books I'd say around 500 to 750 mio US$ at the most.

Since the airctraft are VT registered they might be likely part of the BK mass and cannot be moved anyhow. For the lessors it is likely a complete write-off with the possibiity that they get some mones back after the case has been through the courts. Meanwhile the a/c will deteriorate further

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-04-08 04:48:35 and read 19617 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
Since the airctraft are VT registered they might be likely part of the BK mass and cannot be moved anyhow.

local Civil Aviation Authority deregistered these a/c on March 26. They went to court to deregister even though Kingfisher owes a lot to Airport Authorities.

If these aircraft are not air worthy because of missing parts, they can definitely sue Airport Authority and recover damages.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-08 05:00:57 and read 19456 times.

de registered or not, the aircraft are likely part of the insolvency mass and will likely be offered by the insolvency court to generate cash from which the creditora will be paid. Which can be one percent of what a creditor is owed.

At least that's the way it works here. An insolvency is a risk a lessor / creditor always has to calculate and usually this means that companies like Kingfisher have to accept higher interest rates than companies with a AAA credit rating.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: dougbr2006
Posted 2013-04-08 05:04:34 and read 19394 times.

Varig did the same before their demise, but virtually all the leased machines had the parts re-installed and they flew out. Even the B777's were used for spares, but all left, though unfortunately one aircraft eventually was the first to be scrapped because after it arrived in the USA it was deemed more economical to break her up for spares than refurbish for future use.

In actual fact all aircraft are cannibalized for parts at some stage in their lives, usually whilst on heavier maintenance. They take the part and then replace it when repaired or with a new item. It would seem Kingfisher had no money to repair the items or replace them. Those aircraft are not that old so I would guess the lessors will send a team and get them airworthy to at least fly them out.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: A36001
Posted 2013-04-08 05:12:02 and read 19297 times.

OMG!! Some of you guys would put Bernard Woolley to shame!   I love it!!

Ahhhh just another day doing business in India! Does a civil aviation authority exist in India? Because obviously one can simply move parts between other peoples aircraft and god knows where with out the care of keeping records and no government department seemingly taking much care either. I think if true it is pretty bloody outrageous!

Do the lessors take interest in what is happening to their aircraft while on lease? Such as inspections of the aircraft and its day to day operation. I mean how could something like this get by without the lessors knowing it was happening?  

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-04-08 05:30:31 and read 18987 times.

The biggest problem I see is part removals without proper write ups and a document trail. If the planes were grounded and mechanics were taking parts off for other planes and not documenting what is on the plane and its configuration, then it is hard to maintain or transfer an airworthiness certificate. They can get a temporary ferry permit, but getting the plane into a serviceable and certifiable condition is extremely expensive. The same situation has happened at airlines like pan am, Olympic, varig and others.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 22):
de registered or not, the aircraft are likely part of the insolvency mass and will likely be offered by the insolvency court to generate cash from which the creditora will be paid. Which can be one percent of what a creditor is owed.

At least that's the way it works here. An insolvency is a risk a lessor / creditor always has to calculate and usually this means that companies like Kingfisher have to accept higher interest rates than companies with a AAA credit rating.

I am a little confused as to how that would happen with leased planes. Kingfisher never owned rhem, but destroyed them. The lessor is just another creditor and unlikely to get much to repay the cost of the removed parts.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-08 05:45:43 and read 18859 times.

When combined with the shambles of Air India, this doesn't paint a very good picture of Indian business practices. Still the IPL is underway now...

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-08 05:53:12 and read 18739 times.

I hope this isn't the case. IT had a few leasing companies and all will now add the costs of the repossession to other leases for Indian airlines. Its best for everyone to have these aircraft flying again ASAP.

Quoting comorin (Thread starter):
Is this outrageous or is it common when lessees are going under?

If those associated with the failing airline wish to remain on good terms with leasing companies (e.g., for future jobs), they do not do this.

Quoting A36001 (Reply 23):
Do the lessors take interest in what is happening to their aircraft while on lease? Such as inspections of the aircraft and its day to day operation. I mean how could something like this get by without the lessors knowing it was happening?

Could they do anything about it? They do not actually inspect every aircraft daily, but not periodically inspection is just lazy.

Quoting dougbr2006 (Reply 22):
Those aircraft are not that old so I would guess the lessors will send a team and get them airworthy to at least fly them out.

  

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 9):
Probably because the leasing company can't know if any parts have been removed and replaced with unserviceable parts from another aircraft.

If the paperwork isn't accurate, that is a criminal offense. Now prosecuting it might be a challenge...


Lightsaber

ps
For the record, I like Arbii.  

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-08 05:53:26 and read 18729 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 24):
I am a little confused as to how that would happen with leased planes. Kingfisher never owned rhem, but destroyed them. The lessor is just another creditor and unlikely to get much to repay the cost of the removed parts.

Administrators collect as many assets as they can. It depends on the local laws if a leased item becomes part of the insolvency mass.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-04-08 06:10:57 and read 18407 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 21):
de registered or not, the aircraft are likely part of the insolvency mass and will likely be offered by the insolvency court to generate cash from which the creditora will be paid. Which can be one percent of what a creditor is owed.

At least that's the way it works here. An insolvency is a risk a lessor / creditor always has to calculate and usually this means that companies like Kingfisher have to accept higher interest rates than companies with a AAA credit rating.

Lending money is one thing, it's pretty obvious that it gets spend right away and the creditor risk is that it can't be paid back. Those planes were never the property of the airline however, and the risk the lessor take is only to not get paid for usage, not to lose the assets.

Topic: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: WesternA318
Posted 2013-04-08 06:21:50 and read 18254 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 16):
Political Correctness gone too far, since when is corruption, laziness, negligence and downright substandard moral outlook a "culture"?

Sounds like my native Greece to me!! LOL jk.

I'd love to moan and whine about the Airbii comments needing to be stricken from this thread and ermoved altogether, but, y'all are providing me with quality entertainment here!

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-04-08 06:41:17 and read 17911 times.

It appears over past several years IT itself used parts from leased aircraft to keep owned planes running. Now they are not airworthy. Now Courts/Civil Aviation Authority(DGCA)/Airports Authority of India(AAI) agreed to release, it is a problem for ILFC.

IT owes close to $46 Million to AAI and thought they can hold the planes, but apparently there is a Cape Town international convention doesn't allow them to hold.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-04-08 06:52:22 and read 17632 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 21):
the aircraft are likely part of the insolvency mass and will likely be offered by the insolvency court to generate cash from which the creditora will be paid. Which can be one percent of what a creditor is owed.

Be careful with that statement. It is the combination of local legislation and leasing contract that decide if it is part of the assets or not. Leasing companies have learned how to write contracts so they remain their assets. It is suppliers who get hosed for having delivered good but not received payment.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2013-04-08 07:21:54 and read 16994 times.

well, I said it depends on the local laws. In other cases, like MA, the leased aircraft where flown out quickly, but those have been on the EI registry. Before I made statements here I checked which registry these a/c have been on and it was Indian. Which explains IMHO why there was no repossetion. Any attempt to fly the a/c out would most likely have failed, even at a time when Kingfisher was still operating. The only chance would have been on an internationals ervice, seizing an aircraft there.

Which, BTW can even happen to states, as Argentina and Tango1 proves.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-08 08:44:07 and read 15728 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
Those planes were never the property of the airline however, and the risk the lessor take is only to not get paid for usage, not to lose the assets.

If there is any question of ownership, then that ends leasing by Indian airlines. For that would change a lease for a very secured loan transaction to an unsecured loan. No one lends that type of money unsecured unless there is a AA (or better) rating.

I hope others besides Aesma get that. Anything else has implications.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: viasa
Posted 2013-04-08 12:07:01 and read 12245 times.

Afaik there were a lot of former Kingfisher Airlines / Kingfisher Red planes still on ground in India:

09x A320-200s (in BLR/BOM/DEL/MAA)
04x A321-200s (all in BOM)
02x ATR42-500s (all in DEL)
20x ATR72-500s (in BLR/BOM/CCU/DEL/MAA)

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: avek00
Posted 2013-04-08 12:23:47 and read 12046 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):

The biggest problem I see is part removals without proper write ups and a document trail.

Exactly. When an airline is under significant financial distress to the point where repossession of aircraft might occur, the aircraft lessor or financier will dispatch a team to the airline's maintenance center(s), in order to copy the airline's maintenance documents so that the planes can be repossessed, re-marketed, and re-used in service by other airlines. In the absence of complete maintenance documentation, the planes cannot be placed with another operator, and furthermore cannot be used on international services.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-08 12:36:10 and read 11747 times.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 22):

It appears over past several years IT itself used parts from leased aircraft to keep owned planes running. Now they are not airworthy. Now Courts/Civil Aviation Authority(DGCA)/Airports Authority of India(AAI) agreed to release, it is a problem for ILFC.

IT owes close to $46 Million to AAI and thought they can hold the planes, but apparently there is a Cape Town international convention doesn't allow them to hold.

It will be a problem for all Indian airlines leasing aircraft if the other thread is true where AI isn't able to put leased aircraft into a returned state:
Air India: $1.7 Billion Bailout Wasted (by LAXintl Apr 7 2013 in Civil Aviation)

That will require a 'change of law' to entice the leasing companies back into India. Am I the only one who thinks there will be long term repercussions?

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: texan
Posted 2013-04-08 13:01:50 and read 11242 times.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 12):
local Civil Aviation Authority deregistered these a/c on March 26. They went to court to deregister even though Kingfisher owes a lot to Airport Authorities.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 13):
de registered or not, the aircraft are likely part of the insolvency mass and will likely be offered by the insolvency court to generate cash from which the creditora will be paid. Which can be one percent of what a creditor is owed.

The Indian CAA deregistered some of the aircraft on 26 March, but the leasing companies requested deregistration more than four months ago. The DGCA of India failed to uphold its obligations under the Cape Town Convention by immediately deregistering the aircraft and allowing the lessors to take possession.

The aircraft would not be part of the general insolvency mass because of the international security interest held by the lessors. Indian domestic legislation gives effect to the Cape Town Convention and codifies the priority right and possession rights of lessor creditors.

Had the Delhi High Court not given an indication that they would find against the DGCA and in favour of the lessors, the DGCA likely would not yet have deregistered the aircraft. As it stands, the decisions and delay by the DGCA in avoiding its obligations to immediately deregister once an IDERA is filed may scare some lessors from leasing aircraft to Indian companies or drive up the prices for the companies who wish to lease aircraft.

As far as the airport fees, those belong to Kingfisher and do not attach to the aircraft. The airport authorities must claim against the estate of the company. If they file an interest against the aircraft, they are unsecured claims that are subordinated to the rights of the lessors under the Cape Town Convention and should not transfer to the lessor once the lessor has taken repossession.

Texan

Edit: The Delhi High Court has ordered the DGCA to deregister two additional aircraft that were stored in Turkey.

Quote:
[T]he court said the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) cannot withhold the deregistration of the aircraft on the ground that the airlines owe money to the government and its agencies.

"It is made clear that if any dues remain payable from the airlines, the respondent (DGCA) can take recourse to appropriate measures against respondent 2 (Kingfisher)," Justice Shakdher said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/182026...-aircraft-leased-out-to-kingfisher

[Edited 2013-04-08 13:16:22]

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: texan
Posted 2013-04-08 13:27:38 and read 10716 times.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
Whomever leased those aircraft to Kingfisher are looking at a long and protracted lawsuit, probably culminating in a massive financial loss.

One clarification is that, when an aircraft is leased in accordance with the Cape Town Convention (and the country where the lessee is based has acceded to it) and the aircraft is properly registered on the international register, the lessee signs an Irrevocable Deregistration Authorisation (IDERA) that allows the lessor or its certified designee to deregister and repossess the aircraft at any time. India has ratified Cape Town and accepted it into domestic law. Upon receiving a valid request from the lessor or certified designee, the aircraft registry body must deregister the aircraft.

Texan

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: LJ
Posted 2013-04-08 13:30:33 and read 10642 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 19):
Administrators collect as many assets as they can. It depends on the local laws if a leased item becomes part of the insolvency mass.

And as a result leasing companies won't lease or finance aircraft to airlines based in these countries.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 28):
Am I the only one who thinks there will be long term repercussions?

No, however, I think the repercussions go beyond the aviation industry. The way this was handled by the Indian government will probably result in more expensive loans to Indian companies making them less competitive.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-04-08 13:58:16 and read 10192 times.

Quoting LJ (Reply 31):
The way this was handled by the Indian government will probably result in more expensive loans to Indian companies making them less competitive.

Not really. With $36 Billion defense capital budget this year and YOY 20% increase, there is no aircraft/defense manufacturer in the world say/do anything bad about Indian government.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: art
Posted 2013-04-08 14:02:23 and read 10109 times.

Quoting texan (Reply 29):
The Indian CAA deregistered some of the aircraft on 26 March, but the leasing companies requested deregistration more than four months ago. The DGCA of India failed to uphold its obligations under the Cape Town Convention by immediately deregistering the aircraft and allowing the lessors to take possession.
Quoting texan (Reply 30):
India has ratified Cape Town and accepted it into domestic law. Upon receiving a valid request from the lessor or certified designee, the aircraft registry body must deregister the aircraft.

If the above is correct, this is a mickey mouse state. That's not good if the state's incompetence screws things up for local companies (who cannot rely on laws created or agreed by the state being observed or enforced by the state). It's worse still if the state's incompetence extends to screwing things up internationally with repercussions detrimental to the local economy.

Indian SNAFU?

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-04-08 14:22:30 and read 9797 times.

Quoting art (Reply 33):

IT owed Airport Authorities of India $43 Million. AAI thought they can hold equipment until they get paid. Germany's DVB Bank filed a lawsuit and on March 26 Indian court ruled AAI to release planes. Based on court ruling DGCA (Civil Aviation Authority) also deregistered leased planes.

Side story, it appears over several years IT was cannibalizing "Leased" planes to run "Owned" planes. Lessors realized planes are not airworthy and AAI forcing them to remove those. Looks like scrapping is easy option.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: texan
Posted 2013-04-08 14:31:32 and read 9626 times.

Quoting art (Reply 33):
If the above is correct, this is a mickey mouse state. That's not good if the state's incompetence screws things up for local companies (who cannot rely on laws created or agreed by the state being observed or enforced by the state). It's worse still if the state's incompetence extends to screwing things up internationally with repercussions detrimental to the local economy.

The good news is that the court basically upheld the validity of Cape Town in at least some cases. We'll know more once a hard copy of the decision is released. The DGCA might have interpreted it differently, but the court got it right in the end. That's more than we can say for Nigeria in the Air Midwest case.

Texan

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2013-04-13 04:13:20 and read 4817 times.

Using spares from the fleet to service the other aircraft in the same airline is not rare,however the record on spare movement needs to be mantained,stored aircraft needs to be following a fixed approved storage plan.this was not done.
This is seriously disapointing.

Future leasing companies will not be keen to lease aircraft to India in future.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: comorin
Posted 2013-04-13 04:35:48 and read 4720 times.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 36):
Future leasing companies will not be keen to lease aircraft to India in future.

MEL, Financial Institutions have short memories. You can be sure all the leasing companies will line up at the next Indian aviation boom to make a killing. They will all say "But this time, it's different!". This scenario has been borne out again and again by bank lending into the sovereign debt markets as well as real estate. Secondary markets also allow for a musical chairs scenario so that the one holding the lease at default is the one who misses the chair.

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2013-04-13 06:28:13 and read 4402 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):
The biggest problem I see is part removals without proper write ups and a document trail. If the planes were grounded and mechanics were taking parts off for other planes and not documenting what is on the plane and its configuration, then it is hard to maintain or transfer an airworthiness certificate. They can get a temporary ferry permit, but getting the plane into a serviceable and certifiable condition is extremely expensive. The same situation has happened at airlines like pan am, Olympic, varig and others.

Back in the late 1990s LH leased some of their Boeing 737-200s, which they were phasing out at this time, to a joint venture under Indian law called ModiLuft. The partner (51% as per Indian law) was an Indian businessman named Modi and wanted to start a lowcost airlne in India. Now this Mr. Modi was a bit of a crook and took loans, offering the aircraft, which didnĀ“t belong to him, as security. When he went bankrupt, Indian courts confiscated the (IIRC 6) aircraft and refused to return them to LH.
In fact LH had those aircraft already written off when there occured a legal breakthrough and they got them returned.
Some crews and technicians were sent to India to ferry them back to SXF, but they discovered that lots of undocumented maintenance has been carried out on these planes, with dodgy parts installed. Generally they were in a terrible condition (I saw them myself after they arrived in SXF), so they had to find an Indian MRO to get them made ready for the ferry flight to SXF. One plane lost parts of the cowling somwhere over the Indian Ocean, which slammed into the horizontal stabilizer, so that they had to divert IIRC to Dubai to get it repaired. Instruments failed during the flight. The aircraft stank inside of urine and faeces and were completely contaminated with cockroaches. LH had them fumigated three times and then left outside during a very cold German winter to kill them. Eventually the planes received a C-check in SXF and were sold. I did the final practical exams of my apprenticeship on one of them.

Jan

Topic: RE: Some Kingfisher's Airbus In No Condition For Repossession
Username: frmrcapcadet
Posted 2013-04-13 07:58:09 and read 4156 times.

Res the complaints about India and predictions as to what happens there in general. I am not expert enough to write a one or two paragraph about Indian law, and several more about Indian law and its relationship to actual life in India. It is complicated, and it does hold back development. But the law and society in their own way are stable, and India is not in danger. Someone more expert than I might give it a try. It would be helpful in understanding issues in this thread.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/