Loan sharks is how you describe lessors who are not getting paid their dues?
While they are obligated to continue paying their financiers, banks etc. for the money they got to buy these 737s from Boeing in the first place?
I truly hope this scam artist's attitude is only representative of yourself and not of the entire country of India...
For starters, I came across the 270 days number on Indian press, not a reliable source. I was looking for a confirmation, hence the question. It could be just human intelligence collected by janitors/busboys and passed on to high-school dropout journalists who have access to Newswire/AP/Reuters. You be the judge based on how information is collected in India.
There are several 737s delivered before 2007, I doubt lessors are still paying anybody on those. 9W shouldn't waste money on MX or lease payments on those. Let them take those back.
Leasors will still be paying off these aircraft, even if they are using the specific aircraft and lease as security to fund other new aircraft acquisitions and leases.
Even the US3 provide lenders with specific and floating charges over aircraft older than 10 years for specific purposes and working capital respectively.
Based on earlier posts from those claiming or purporting to be in the know, it seems likely financial covenants associated with these leases were breached last year. Common practice, where leasors willing, is not to forgive the breaches, but to start the notice period, at the same time trying to work with the leasee.
In most cases, financiers and leasors work very co-operatively together, going to extreme lengths to keep leasees in business, providing directors and senior management are listening, and taking steps to rectify the position (injecting more capital, cost reduction, going concern sale, etc).
I've been involved many times in such actions, on behalf of financiers and leasors, where we walk into a creditors briefing with major exposure, and walk out with even more, as small lenders threaten to take unilateral action, which would prevent the client from re-structuring. The major lenders end up buying out the smaller players, and sometimes bigger ones (US funders often lack the patience to work with foreign clients in distress).