WkndWanderer wrote:

Even without sanctions, unless they're paying cash, I can't imagine any western institutions extending finance or lease terms to Russian carriers for a long time. The risk is too great when your country has a proven track record of just seizing assets and sticking the owners or lienholders with losses.

Not quite and, with respect, you are falling into the trap of "I can't imagine....." as being a definitive reality. There is no 'track record'. It has happened once, and in direct response to western sanctions and virtually any country would have done the same in the circumstances. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant, and a different matter entirely. The same morality could equally be said of unilateral sanctions themselves (is freezing assets/funds by sanctions not a similar thing, just from a different side?). Lessors and lienholders take financial risks with every transaction and are/should be well aware of developments. Indeed, the war did not start overnight....it was clearly brewing for many months, so why did these Lessors etc not have the foresight to pull their assets out? The answer is simple. They were too busy making money from them while they could. But, all that notwithstanding, those aircraft are very valuable assets so are you suggesting those lessors and lienholders just walk away and not realise they can extend those leases to recoup and make even more money. One important thing you are not recognising though, and that is lessors would be leasing to airlines, not the Russian govt......and, by Putin's decree, those airlines have actually a valid legal argument that it prevented them returning the aircraft. At the end of the day, when it suits, morality is noticeably absent from either politics, or economics

I see a cargo 767 of ATI going IAD-RZE, wonder what they are carrying.

https://www.flightradar24.com/ATN207/2bafbe5d

Vicenza wrote:

... There is no 'track record'. It has happened once, and in direct response to western sanctions and virtually any country would have done the same in the circumstances. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant, and a different matter entirely. The same morality could equally be said of unilateral sanctions themselves (is freezing assets/funds by sanctions not a similar thing, just from a different side?).

Your analysis misses the obvious point. This could not have happened to "virtually any country", this could only happen to a country with a leader who does what Putin did. First the invasion which brought the sanctions on; then (much worse) the decree to allow the seizure and operation of the aircraft to save face (and - speculating here - the possibility of significant pressure on the airlines behind closed doors to fall in line with the narrative??). Flouting international norms and disrupting international commerce to this extent is very rare. Until February even Putin pretended that he was playing by the rules, enough so that any business could chose to pretend that all was ok.

I agree with you that the lessors won't care about right and wrong in the long term if there is money to be made, but that's not the point. They care about this level of instability as a stable international order is critical to their making money (more so than just about any other industry). So long term Putin grip on power = long term shunning.

YYZYYT wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

... There is no 'track record'. It has happened once, and in direct response to western sanctions and virtually any country would have done the same in the circumstances. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant, and a different matter entirely. The same morality could equally be said of unilateral sanctions themselves (is freezing assets/funds by sanctions not a similar thing, just from a different side?).

Your analysis misses the obvious point. This could not have happened to "virtually any country", this could only happen to a country with a leader who does what Putin did. First the invasion which brought the sanctions on; then (much worse) the decree to allow the seizure and operation of the aircraft to save face (and - speculating here - the possibility of significant pressure on the airlines behind closed doors to fall in line with the narrative??). Flouting international norms and disrupting international commerce to this extent is very rare. Until February even Putin pretended that he was playing by the rules, enough so that any business could chose to pretend that all was ok.

I agree with you that the lessors won't care about right and wrong in the long term if there is money to be made, but that's not the point. They care about this level of instability as a stable international order is critical to their making money (more so than just about any other industry). So long term Putin grip on power = long term shunning.

I disagree entirely. While certainly rare, any country could have taken the same measures and let us face reality, Putin is not the only authoritarian leader in the world. Indeed, you say that you are speculating (in other words 'guessing') regarding scenarios behind closed doors. Quite possibly true indeed, but still only a guess. It is not correct, or even credible to state facts interspersed with guesses to form a narrative. Of course it was the invasion which correctly produced the sanctions and that is certainly not in question...the point is they produced a retaliation and that is what any country would have done, and which happens on a regular basis in such spats between countries. The other important point is the whole world was almost certain the invasion was going to happen for many months, yet the same aircraft lessors took no steps whatsover to extract their 'risk' from the situation. The whole situation has been brewing since the annexation of Crimea by Putin in 2014 but yet still companies still completely done business with Russia without the slightest hesitation so I can't see any long term 'shunning' happening irrespective of Putin when the situation normalises , considering he has already been in power for the last ten years.

Read today that Aeroflot is resuming service to both Antalya and Istanbul from the SVO hub, twice daily with their A333. Just wondering how they will avoid any potential impounding of those planes... Did they have some A333 they outright owned before the sanctions?

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220502-sumay22mowtr

It appears Christmas came early for Turkish Airlines in the Russia market. Just read the incredible number of charter flights they are operating between the resorts of Antalya and Bodum to different Russian cities in May alone. Moscow Vnukovo is seeing 6 daily charters in addition to regularly scheduled flights.

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220502-tkmay22ru

Is there any Russian brand of aviation tyres? If not that`s going to the a big ( another) problem for them ( the russian).
But I guess there is, I just don't know it`s name.
Does anyone know?

tapairbus370 wrote:

Is there any Russian brand of aviation tyres? If not that`s going to the a big ( another) problem for them ( the russian).
But I guess there is, I just don't know it`s name.
Does anyone know?

Yes there is
https://aviatyres.ru/# (they are actually a subsidiary of these fellas, Barnaul Tyre Plant Nortec: https://nortec-tyres.ru/news/mezhdunaro ... salon-maks )
From memory, there were four places in Russia to build aviation tyres, since USSR:
Yaroslavl
Omsk
Krasnoyarsk
Barnaul

Also, Yaroslavl housed sort of documentation central/repository for all specs. And a research institute sitting on top of that repository, and actually involved in developing new specs, or amending existing ones.
And of course government owned all of these (manufacturers and institutes) via a single holding/ministry.

Then they all became independent competing companies.
Krasnoyarsk and Omsk, AFAIR, quit the game and sold all relevant stuff (tools, machinery, documents) to either Yaroslavl or Barnaul.

And then it was all physically consolidated in Barnaul, AFAIR. But Yaroslavl brand was kept.

Aviation tyres sales there were always a little special -- if you wanted to buy some, you also had to pay military inspector fee (fixed at 1-2%, don't remember exactly, but it was established by law there). Even if a tyre type had no application in military aviation, it still passed military inspection. Or at least a relevant fee was collected.

Sounds silly, but nothing surprises me nowadays: Do those tyres have any western-produced components?
Have russian airlines been purchasing their tyres from them? Do the tyres require a western certification?

And to elaborate a bit on the topic, do China have their own aircraft tyre factories as well?

jmmadrid wrote:

Sounds silly, but nothing surprises me nowadays: Do those tyres have any western-produced components?
Have russian airlines been purchasing their tyres from them? Do the tyres require a western certification?

And to elaborate a bit on the topic, do China have their own aircraft tyre factories as well?

Well, one component that's needed for aircraft tyres, that Russia lacks, is nylon 66 for the tyre cord fabric

They have the capability to weave and dip the fabric itself, but lack capability to spin the filaments, nor can they make the polymer (there is a factory that does polymerise "pharmacy-level" quantities of nylon 6.6 in the Urals, but it's geared towards plastics business).

But China has built up huge capacity to make all and any of those, so Russia will just buy Chinese fabric.

Rubbers and carbon black galore in Russia.
Specific chemicals in the rubber compound -- I don't remember anything they cannot buy from China. Admittedly, it was 20 years ago I literally went through purchase list of those places, and so many items were available from Russian manufacturing -- having said that, again, I have no idea if those manufacturers still even exist.

dcajet wrote:

Read today that Aeroflot is resuming service to both Antalya and Istanbul from the SVO hub, twice daily with their A333. Just wondering how they will avoid any potential impounding of those planes... Did they have some A333 they outright owned before the sanctions?

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220502-sumay22mowtr

Irrelevant if those A333 are "owned" by Aeroflot or not...since the Russian airlines decided to stole hundreds of aircrafts from lessors breaking all the rules of commerce, being partners with a nut job like Putin, their assets should be seized abroad without distinction, no mercy.

Gonzalo wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Read today that Aeroflot is resuming service to both Antalya and Istanbul from the SVO hub, twice daily with their A333. Just wondering how they will avoid any potential impounding of those planes... Did they have some A333 they outright owned before the sanctions?

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220502-sumay22mowtr

Irrelevant if those A333 are "owned" by Aeroflot or not...since the Russian airlines decided to stole hundreds of aircrafts from lessors breaking all the rules of commerce, being partners with a nut job like Putin, their assets should be seized abroad without distinction, no mercy.

If the planes were owned by Aeroflot or any other Russian corporation (meaning they are paid for, title, etc.) BEFORE the conflict and sanctions, there is no legal basis for seizing those assets, unless we were in a state of war with Russia, which we aren't.

Gonzalo wrote:

Irrelevant if those A333 are "owned" by Aeroflot or not...since the Russian airlines decided to stole hundreds of aircrafts from lessors breaking all the rules of commerce, being partners with a nut job like Putin, their assets should be seized abroad without distinction, no mercy.

With respect, that is absolute nonsense. If the Aeroflot aircraft (plural is still aircraft by the way) are already owned by Aeroflot then sanctions are not applicable, and no grounds exist to seize them. Added to that, is the fact that it is highly unlikely that Turkey would impound anyhow. Actually, it was the Russian government which passed the law, the airlines themselves didn't 'steal' anything. If you are going to make wild, foolish statements you should at least get things correct.

Vicenza wrote:

With respect, that is absolute nonsense. If the Aeroflot aircraft (plural is still aircraft by the way) are already owned by Aeroflot then sanctions are not applicable, and no grounds exist to seize them. Added to that, is the fact that it is highly unlikely that Turkey would impound anyhow. Actually, it was the Russian government which passed the law, the airlines themselves didn't 'steal' anything. If you are going to make wild, foolish statements you should at least get things correct.

Dunning–Kruger effect in full swing.

Again, in broad strokes: Aeroflot owes money to foreign lessors. Foreign lessors file for request for repayment in a Turkish court against Aeroflot. Turkish court approves claim and initiates seizure. Aeroflot A333 lands in Antalya. Turkish authorities seize A333. Seized A333 get turned over to foreign lessor.

curlowl wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

With respect, that is absolute nonsense. If the Aeroflot aircraft (plural is still aircraft by the way) are already owned by Aeroflot then sanctions are not applicable, and no grounds exist to seize them. Added to that, is the fact that it is highly unlikely that Turkey would impound anyhow. Actually, it was the Russian government which passed the law, the airlines themselves didn't 'steal' anything. If you are going to make wild, foolish statements you should at least get things correct.

Dunning–Kruger effect in full swing.

Again, in broad strokes: Aeroflot owes money to foreign lessors. Foreign lessors file for request for repayment in a Turkish court against Aeroflot. Turkish court approves claim and initiates seizure. Aeroflot A333 lands in Antalya. Turkish authorities seize A333. Seized A333 get turned over to foreign lessor.

But, in the usual a.net haste, you are forgetting/ignoring a very important aspect. 1. The said A333 has to be leased, otherwise Lessors have no claim and which means no seizure. Turkey has refused to follow, and impose, Western sanctions on Russia. Thus, in the current circumstances with Turkey being non-hostile to Russia, it is very unlikely indeed that a Turkish court will grant claims claim for seizure. It is not automatic and Turkish law applies, not US or EU law. With so much increased tourism currently happening do you seriously think Turkey will impound a Russian aircraft? Even at that, do you think Aeroflot are stupid enough to use a leased aircraft?
So, in broad strokes....it is not as easy or straightforward as you seem to think!

Vicenza wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

Irrelevant if those A333 are "owned" by Aeroflot or not...since the Russian airlines decided to stole hundreds of aircrafts from lessors breaking all the rules of commerce, being partners with a nut job like Putin, their assets should be seized abroad without distinction, no mercy.

With respect, that is absolute nonsense. If the Aeroflot aircraft (plural is still aircraft by the way) are already owned by Aeroflot then sanctions are not applicable, and no grounds exist to seize them. Added to that, is the fact that it is highly unlikely that Turkey would impound anyhow. Actually, it was the Russian government which passed the law, the airlines themselves didn't 'steal' anything. If you are going to make wild, foolish statements you should at least get things correct.

At this point, the Russian government has become an organized crime syndicate. Their associates (i.e. Aeroflot and other Russian airlines), are part of that syndicate. They are receiving and possessing stolen property (i.e. aircraft) which is a criminal act. That is a catastrophically serious mistake. I don't see Russian civil aviation recovering from this for a very, very long time. If, in the distant future, Aeroflot and the others wish to purchase modern aircraft from the West, those transactions will be cash only; no leases, no loans, just hard cash on the table. Engaging in this criminal behavior in the first place seems to me to be the very definition of wild and foolish. Actions have consequences.

Vicenza wrote:

said A333 has to be leased, otherwise Lessors have no claim

That's not true. If you do not pay the bill, then the lessor can request the court to impound anything of value owned by Aeroflot.

For example, let's assume Aeroflot leases plane X for 1 million a month.
Aeroflot has not been paying for two months now.
Even if the lessor is able to get their plane back, they are still short 2 months of payments.

That's why lessors can request permission to impound anything owned by Aeroflot. Otherwise they have no leverage against non-payment.

The only potential problem is that the Turkish court would have to approve this.
If the court is non-political, then this will be a technicality and the lessor can start looking for any Aeroflot assets located in Turkey.
If the court is political, then you are right that Turkey might not be willing to risk the stream of tourists.

Vicenza wrote:

curlowl wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

With respect, that is absolute nonsense. If the Aeroflot aircraft (plural is still aircraft by the way) are already owned by Aeroflot then sanctions are not applicable, and no grounds exist to seize them. Added to that, is the fact that it is highly unlikely that Turkey would impound anyhow. Actually, it was the Russian government which passed the law, the airlines themselves didn't 'steal' anything. If you are going to make wild, foolish statements you should at least get things correct.

Dunning–Kruger effect in full swing.

Again, in broad strokes: Aeroflot owes money to foreign lessors. Foreign lessors file for request for repayment in a Turkish court against Aeroflot. Turkish court approves claim and initiates seizure. Aeroflot A333 lands in Antalya. Turkish authorities seize A333. Seized A333 get turned over to foreign lessor.

But, in the usual a.net haste, you are forgetting/ignoring a very important aspect. 1. The said A333 has to be leased, otherwise Lessors have no claim and which means no seizure. Turkey has refused to follow, and impose, Western sanctions on Russia. Thus, in the current circumstances with Turkey being non-hostile to Russia, it is very unlikely indeed that a Turkish court will grant claims claim for seizure. It is not automatic and Turkish law applies, not US or EU law. With so much increased tourism currently happening do you seriously think Turkey will impound a Russian aircraft? Even at that, do you think Aeroflot are stupid enough to use a leased aircraft?
So, in broad strokes....it is not as easy or straightforward as you seem to think!

Wrong...ish. It is true a leased aircraft can be seized by the lessor / owner, that does not mean that an aircraft (or, frankly any asset) owned by Aeroflot is safe.

Civil courts allow orders for claims that can lead to an order for payment of damages. The lessor has to file a claim in Turkey (it has a civil court process, no doubt).or file a claim elsewhere,/ get a judgment, then file that judgment in Turkey as proof of the debt. Either way, after a few extra steps hte lessor can use the Turkish court process to execute on that order for damages buy seizing assets located in turkey - aircraft, $ in Turkish bank accounts, equipment , receivables... virtually anything.

So, less straightforward, but very possible.

petertenthije wrote:

The only potential problem is that the Turkish court would have to approve this.
If the court is non-political, then this will be a technicality and the lessor can start looking for any Aeroflot assets located in Turkey.
If the court is political, then you are right that Turkey might not be willing to risk the stream of tourists.

And this is exactly what I was stating in response to the poster implying that everything would be so simple and straightforward to do....that, right or wrong, it is entirely a decision for the Turkish courts and indeed nothing of such a nature is ever a mere 'technicality'. The point is, Turkey is not going to issue such an order and this goes way beyond mere tourism streams.

YYZYYT wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

curlowl wrote:

Dunning–Kruger effect in full swing.

Again, in broad strokes: Aeroflot owes money to foreign lessors. Foreign lessors file for request for repayment in a Turkish court against Aeroflot. Turkish court approves claim and initiates seizure. Aeroflot A333 lands in Antalya. Turkish authorities seize A333. Seized A333 get turned over to foreign lessor.

But, in the usual a.net haste, you are forgetting/ignoring a very important aspect. 1. The said A333 has to be leased, otherwise Lessors have no claim and which means no seizure. Turkey has refused to follow, and impose, Western sanctions on Russia. Thus, in the current circumstances with Turkey being non-hostile to Russia, it is very unlikely indeed that a Turkish court will grant claims claim for seizure. It is not automatic and Turkish law applies, not US or EU law. With so much increased tourism currently happening do you seriously think Turkey will impound a Russian aircraft? Even at that, do you think Aeroflot are stupid enough to use a leased aircraft?
So, in broad strokes....it is not as easy or straightforward as you seem to think!

Wrong...ish. It is true a leased aircraft can be seized by the lessor / owner, that does not mean that an aircraft (or, frankly any asset) owned by Aeroflot is safe.

Civil courts allow orders for claims that can lead to an order for payment of damages. The lessor has to file a claim in Turkey (it has a civil court process, no doubt).or file a claim elsewhere,/ get a judgment, then file that judgment in Turkey as proof of the debt. Either way, after a few extra steps hte lessor can use the Turkish court process to execute on that order for damages buy seizing assets located in turkey - aircraft, $ in Turkish bank accounts, equipment , receivables... virtually anything.

So, less straightforward, but very possible.

I never stated that any Aeroflot-owned aircraft is entirely safe, and while one may pose all sorts of theoretical solutions (of which I am fully aware of without an 'explanation') in this current situation we all know they will certainly not happen. Indeed, I would put to you that, if as straightforward as is theoretically claimed, why has no lessor instigated legal steps in various countries to use frozen assets for the purpose? The legal difficulties of trying that are enormous.

Vicenza wrote:

I never stated that any Aeroflot-owned aircraft is entirely safe, and while one may pose all sorts of theoretical solutions (of which I am fully aware of without an 'explanation') in this current situation we all know they will certainly not happen. Indeed, I would put to you that, if as straightforward as is theoretically claimed, why has no lessor instigated legal steps in various countries to use frozen assets for the purpose? The legal difficulties of trying that are enormous.

We can be quite sure their legal teams are on it but such procedures take time and it has only been a few weeks...

RJWNL wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

I never stated that any Aeroflot-owned aircraft is entirely safe, and while one may pose all sorts of theoretical solutions (of which I am fully aware of without an 'explanation') in this current situation we all know they will certainly not happen. Indeed, I would put to you that, if as straightforward as is theoretically claimed, why has no lessor instigated legal steps in various countries to use frozen assets for the purpose? The legal difficulties of trying that are enormous.

We can be quite sure their legal teams are on it but such procedures take time and it has only been a few weeks...

Indeed. The long arm of the creditors never cease the effort to catch something to recover at least something ( if not all ) of their investment. Just to remember a famous case from the not so distant past, in 2012 a group of US based creditors seized an Argentinian Naval ship while they were doing a stopover in Ghana (Africa).

http://www.ft.com/content/edb12a4e-0d92 ... 144feabdc0

After a long time, the ship was able to continue the trip towards Argentina, but the creditors sent a clear message to that country, and after some months the creditors got a very substantial amount of their money back. I have no doubts that similar actions will take place in the near future against any Russian asset, and I'm fully agree with that, I agree with the statement some posts above, Russian government has become a criminal entity, the Russian companies like Aeroflot, which follow its decrees on their own benefit should be considered part of that criminal organization and every asset related or owned by that companies should be subject of legal action worldwide. Simple like that.
G.

The policy of the US and the EU, along with aiding the Ukraine, is to coerce Russia back into some sort of normal relationship. It does not need to add the complications. Sanctions are doing their job. Whatever mutual agreement settles all of this will include just how international trade is restored. Losses will be shared. Russia does not have the resources for injured parties to recover all that high a percentage of damages.

Gonzalo wrote:

RJWNL wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

I never stated that any Aeroflot-owned aircraft is entirely safe, and while one may pose all sorts of theoretical solutions (of which I am fully aware of without an 'explanation') in this current situation we all know they will certainly not happen. Indeed, I would put to you that, if as straightforward as is theoretically claimed, why has no lessor instigated legal steps in various countries to use frozen assets for the purpose? The legal difficulties of trying that are enormous.

We can be quite sure their legal teams are on it but such procedures take time and it has only been a few weeks...

Indeed. The long arm of the creditors never cease the effort to catch something to recover at least something ( if not all ) of their investment. Just to remember a famous case from the not so distant past, in 2012 a group of US based creditors seized an Argentinian Naval ship while they were doing a stopover in Ghana (Africa).

http://www.ft.com/content/edb12a4e-0d92 ... 144feabdc0

After a long time, the ship was able to continue the trip towards Argentina, but the creditors sent a clear message to that country, and after some months the creditors got a very substantial amount of their money back. I have no doubts that similar actions will take place in the near future against any Russian asset, and I'm fully agree with that, I agree with the statement some posts above, Russian government has become a criminal entity, the Russian companies like Aeroflot, which follow its decrees on their own benefit should be considered part of that criminal organization and every asset related or owned by that companies should be subject of legal action worldwide. Simple like that.
G.

Not to get too off topic, but unlike Argentina, Russia has the power and resources to retaliate against any country that tries to pull a stunt like that. Look at Israel and Turkey who haven't imposed severe sanctions against Russia as of yet. Is it because they sympathize with Russia ? Of course not. They simply don't want to pick a fight with Russia because they know it can cause a lot of complications for them. So when it comes to the issue of seizing Russian registered aircraft in Turkey, I just don't think the Turks will cooperate.

alberchico wrote:

Not to get too off topic, but unlike Argentina, Russia has the power and resources to retaliate against any country that tries to pull a stunt like that. Look at Israel and Turkey who haven't imposed severe sanctions against Russia as of yet. Is it because they sympathize with Russia ? Of course not. They simply don't want to pick a fight with Russia because they know it can cause a lot of complications for them. So when it comes to the issue of seizing Russian registered aircraft in Turkey, I just don't think the Turks will cooperate.

If the Turks or any other entity doesn't comply with international law this wouldn't be good for their international reputation and the deals they are able to make themselves might become less favorable because there is more risk involved in doing business with such parties.

RJWNL wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Not to get too off topic, but unlike Argentina, Russia has the power and resources to retaliate against any country that tries to pull a stunt like that. Look at Israel and Turkey who haven't imposed severe sanctions against Russia as of yet. Is it because they sympathize with Russia ? Of course not. They simply don't want to pick a fight with Russia because they know it can cause a lot of complications for them. So when it comes to the issue of seizing Russian registered aircraft in Turkey, I just don't think the Turks will cooperate.

If the Turks or any other entity doesn't comply with international law this wouldn't be good for their international reputation and the deals they are able to make themselves might become less favorable because there is more risk involved in doing business with such parties.

What is the "international law" you are referring to in this case?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The policy of the US and the EU, along with aiding the Ukraine, is to coerce Russia back into some sort of normal relationship. It does not need to add the complications. Sanctions are doing their job. Whatever mutual agreement settles all of this will include just how international trade is restored. Losses will be shared. Russia does not have the resources for injured parties to recover all that high a percentage of damages.

It's not the US or EU governments who make this decision, its the lessor - a private corporation - which will do what it feels is necessary to protect its interest. And when it acts, the case will be decided by an independent judiciary on the basis of legal principals (property law 101 and contracts law 101). In the end, whether or not their government feels that the lawsuits are a "complication" will matter not at all.

MalevTU134 wrote:

RJWNL wrote:

If the Turks or any other entity doesn't comply with international law this wouldn't be good for their international reputation and the deals they are able to make themselves might become less favorable because there is more risk involved in doing business with such parties.

What is the "international law" you are referring to in this case?

Turkish law/courts will have a history of dealing with claims from foreign courts, including enforcement of foreign judgments. While I'm not familiar with the Turkish legal system (watching Midnight Express hardly counts), I do know that Turkey (and Turkish people that I have met over the years) enjoy being part of the global economy, so they have a powerful incentive to play within the system. Refusing to recognize or enforce legitimate foreign judgments would be a bold and disruptive step.

YYZ - your response is needlessly simplistic. First of all, Russia is in the medium term all but bankrupt. Second it is a sovereign country. Third leasers would have to find courts with jurisdiction who would ignore current treaties.

Siemens is going to leave Russia. This may have some negative consequences for United Aircraft Corporation as they use SIemens PLM software for 3D modelling and other design activities. Will be interesting to see if UAC will be impacted by this.

https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-wind-down-russian-business

LJ wrote:

Siemens is going to leave Russia. This may have some negative consequences for United Aircraft Corporation as they use SIemens PLM software for 3D modelling and other design activities. Will be interesting to see if UAC will be impacted by this.

https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-wind-down-russian-business

And RZD's "Sapsan" high speed trains between Moscow Leningradsky and St Petersburg Moskovsky stations are Siemens Velaro units. They may have to source spares from China moving forward.

Aeroflot buys eight stranded Airbuses from foreign leasing firms

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-13/

These are the A333s that have been making the IST run over the past week, including prior reg if that helps someone figure it out:
A333 (RA-73782/VQ-BQX)
A333 (RA-73783/VQ-BQY)
A333 (RA-73785/VQ-BPI)
A333 (RA-73787/VQ-BPK)
A333 (RA-73788/VP-BDD)
A333 (RA-73789/VP-BDE)

I suppose these planes can still be impounded -for different reasons- but at least is one problem less on Aeroflot CEO's desk. It was the right thing to do, but it begs the question: How did Aeroflot pay for them? Rubles? USD? Crypto currencies?

jmmadrid wrote:

I suppose these planes can still be impounded -for different reasons- but at least is one problem less on Aeroflot CEO's desk. It was the right thing to do, but it begs the question: How did Aeroflot pay for them? Rubles? USD? Crypto currencies?

If Aeroflot has satisfied its foreign lessors (thus not the ones which were part of a Russian financial insitution, but were located abroad for tax reasons), they don't have a problem at all. Moreover, despite that Aeroflot is state controlled, one may wonder if a creditor takes the trouble of going after Aeroflot. If they would, we would have seen Aeroflot planes impounded earlier years ago (at least iin the EU).

Russian aerospace industry is beyond saving, I assume? There were various civilian and military projects at varying stages of development.

Sukhoi: SSJ100 (150+ built), Su-57 (6 serial models built, 1 written off), Su-75 (vaporware)
Tupolev: Restarted Tu-214 production, PAK DA strategic bomber
Mikoyan: PAK DP/"MiG-41"
CRAIC CR929 (Russian-Chinese JV)

Am I missing any?

leftcoast8 wrote:

Russian aerospace industry is beyond saving, I assume? There were various civilian and military projects at varying stages of development.

Sukhoi: SSJ100 (150+ built), Su-57 (6 serial models built, 1 written off), Su-75 (vaporware)
Tupolev: Restarted Tu-214 production, PAK DA strategic bomber
Mikoyan: PAK DP/"MiG-41"
CRAIC CR929 (Russian-Chinese JV)

Am I missing any?

The il-114 airliner has been on the backburner for years. A bit of a “Rekkof” project, it might have been great 10 years ago but by now it’s like a zombie project that just won’t die but ain’t quite alive either.

The il-112 is under more serious development, but this has been delayed when their prototype crashed.

petertenthije wrote:

leftcoast8 wrote:

Russian aerospace industry is beyond saving, I assume? There were various civilian and military projects at varying stages of development.

Sukhoi: SSJ100 (150+ built), Su-57 (6 serial models built, 1 written off), Su-75 (vaporware)
Tupolev: Restarted Tu-214 production, PAK DA strategic bomber
Mikoyan: PAK DP/"MiG-41"
CRAIC CR929 (Russian-Chinese JV)

Am I missing any?

The il-114 airliner has been on the backburner for years. A bit of a “Rekkof” project, it might have been great 10 years ago but by now it’s like a zombie project that just won’t die but ain’t quite alive either.

The il-112 is under more serious development, but this has been delayed when their prototype crashed.

Irkut MC-21? was approaching first deliveries pre-sanctions

YYZYYT wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

leftcoast8 wrote:

Russian aerospace industry is beyond saving, I assume? There were various civilian and military projects at varying stages of development.

Sukhoi: SSJ100 (150+ built), Su-57 (6 serial models built, 1 written off), Su-75 (vaporware)
Tupolev: Restarted Tu-214 production, PAK DA strategic bomber
Mikoyan: PAK DP/"MiG-41"
CRAIC CR929 (Russian-Chinese JV)

Am I missing any?

The il-114 airliner has been on the backburner for years. A bit of a “Rekkof” project, it might have been great 10 years ago but by now it’s like a zombie project that just won’t die but ain’t quite alive either.

The il-112 is under more serious development, but this has been delayed when their prototype crashed.

Irkut MC-21? was approaching first deliveries pre-sanctions

Don't forget the crowd that wants to relaunch Tu-334!

Today an SU A333 registration RA-73702 (previously registered VQ-BMY) was repossessed by the lessor at Colombo CMB in Sri Lanka.

https://www.newswire.lk/2022/06/02/russ ... urt-order/

asuflyer wrote:

Today an SU A333 registration RA-73702 (previously registered VQ-BMY) was repossessed by the lessor at Colombo CMB in Sri Lanka.

https://www.newswire.lk/2022/06/02/russ ... urt-order/

I love this
Civilization at work!

asuflyer wrote:

Today an SU A333 registration RA-73702 (previously registered VQ-BMY) was repossessed by the lessor at Colombo CMB in Sri Lanka.

https://www.newswire.lk/2022/06/02/russ ... urt-order/

I thought SU had stopped ALL international flights.
What were they thinking when they sent that plane to Sri Lanka?

On the other hand, is that plane already "tainted" (maintenance records, etc) or is it still worthy?

jmmadrid wrote:

asuflyer wrote:

Today an SU A333 registration RA-73702 (previously registered VQ-BMY) was repossessed by the lessor at Colombo CMB in Sri Lanka.

https://www.newswire.lk/2022/06/02/russ ... urt-order/

I thought SU had stopped ALL international flights.
What were they thinking when they sent that plane to Sri Lanka?

On the other hand, is that plane already "tainted" (maintenance records, etc) or is it still worthy?

Aeroflot bought 8 frames (rest they stole). They thought that's enough to keep serving remaining international schedules.
Now..
Russian forums are screaming "perfidious Sri Lanka was licking our boots, begging to keep sending tourists to that bankrupt nation. They made a solemn promise, a the state level, not to arrest our equipment, no matter what we sent".
Apparently, somebody in Sri Lankan government said something that made Aeroflot believe that the long hand of the law will not reach them in Sri Lanka. So they sent a stolen plane, rather than an owned one.
Courts apparently do not pay heed to government shenanigans, but do their work.
Result -- the plane is impounded, russian internet aviation community is furious.

Of course, they are also furious with the Chinese -- who simply refuse landing rights to stolen equipment. But China is not Sri Lanka, you cannot abuse them with impunity. So there the fuming is less visible, and frothing at the mouth less frothy.

Phosphorus wrote:

https://www.newswire.lk/2022/06/02/russ ... urt-order/

Aeroflot bought 8 frames (rest they stole). They thought that's enough to keep serving remaining international schedules.
Now..
Russian forums are screaming "perfidious Sri Lanka was licking our boots, begging to keep sending tourists to that bankrupt nation. They made a solemn promise, a the state level, not to arrest our equipment, no matter what we sent".
Apparently, somebody in Sri Lankan government said something that made Aeroflot believe that the long hand of the law will not reach them in Sri Lanka. So they sent a stolen plane, rather than an owned one.
Courts apparently do not pay heed to government shenanigans, but do their work.
Result -- the plane is impounded, russian internet aviation community is furious.

OK many thanks for your comment. Makes full sense.

It still begs the question WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Lol
It's a mix of naivete and arrogance.

Well done Sri Lankan Court of Law!

Phosphorus wrote:

russian internet aviation community is furious.

Do *all* those community members really not recognize why all those planes are regarded as stolen and no longer supported by their manufacturers? No one has logically deduced that whatever story propagated by their government to explain all the actions against Russian airlines doesn't add up to what is going on in reality? That's shocking, but not, at the same time I guess.

dennypayne wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

russian internet aviation community is furious.

Do *all* those community members really not recognize why all those planes are regarded as stolen and no longer supported by their manufacturers? No one has logically deduced that whatever story propagated by their government to explain all the actions against Russian airlines doesn't add up to what is going on in reality? That's shocking, but not, at the same time I guess.

Russian psyche:
"We are minding our own business, what's your problem? Yes, we invade Ukraine. We are doing it for 8 years now, no biggie. Yeah, we needed to escalate a bit, but that's our matter. Anything within a perimeter of X (insert your favorite number this week) kilometers from our borders -- is our business and ours alone. So no, we will do as we please, and that's nobody else's business if we murder thousands and displace millions. Shut up stupid foreign pygmies, we buy and sell your ilk wholesale and over-the-counter -- just look at the collection of fellas we own outright (Schroeder, etc.) and folks who will kowtow 'cause our files are full with kompromat on them. Who do you think you are?

But wait, what do you mean you want to take the toys away? Those are our toys, we pay rent for them!! They are ours! Huh, you are sanctioning us?! US!!! It's US, don't you get it? We are the top dog of this universe, we get to decide what's right or wrong.
OK, you sanctioned us. Then we rewrite the rulebook, We prohibit return of airplanes to owners. We enshrine it in the book of law. Russian Law is the mightiest and supremest of all laws ever! (Much better than common law and civil law combined!!).
Now, the toys are ours, what you gonna do? We will nuke anyone who tries to take the toys away! Nukes! We've got nukes, don't you understand? We are ready to use them any moment, 'cause we've got little to lose".

Now, there are slightly more realistic fellas on those forums. They are shutting up rather quickly, or silenced. Because in Russia today, being somewhat reasonable = being very unpatriotic. That's a dangerous thing.

It is misleading to say that airlines 'stole' planes. Russian authorities misappropriated hundreds. My own suspicions is that the airlines were stuck with government actions (as US companies have frequently been unwilling players in US government policies). After things get settled (hoping sooner than later, but not optimistic) it will be interesting to learn the results of leasing companies and airline negotiations.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It is misleading to say that airlines 'stole' planes. Russian authorities misappropriated hundreds. My own suspicions is that the airlines were stuck with government actions (as US companies have frequently been unwilling players in US government policies). After things get settled (hoping sooner than later, but not optimistic) it will be interesting to learn the results of leasing companies and airline negotiations.

Airlines took advantage of a government mandate, that announced
a) all airplanes on Russian airline muster are now on russian registry, even if owners object
b) paying for leases is no longer mandatory
c) operations continue, business as usual

One of the airlines decided to split its leased fleet into two parts:
1) 8 planes they bought, to be able to fly internationally
2) rest of the planes they kept, without trying to buy them, because they will not be flown to places, where the owners can actually impound these

Not a theft, as in "I set out to steal these airplanes, it's THE goal of my life".
Just "there's a way to get hold of a lot of airplanes for free, and my controlling shareholder is also writing laws, so they'll write a law for me and colleagues, to make it all legit".

(for those who don't know, russian govt owns more than half of stock of Aeroflot group).

Does it sound better for you?
(it's the same thing, but in a more nice packaging)

Oppose Putin and you likely will end up dead.

How could you stole something that is legally yours?

Phosphorus wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Not a theft, as in "I set out to steal these airplanes, it's THE goal of my life".
Just "there's a way to get hold of a lot of airplanes for free, and my controlling shareholder is also writing laws, so they'll write a law for me and colleagues, to make it all legit".

Semantics.
They are taking/keeping something that is not theirs, based on a law that violates many international principles and common sense.
Some people steal at gunpoint, some people steal using the internet, some people steal with a law.

ewt340 wrote:

How could you stole something that is legally yours?

Have you finished making payments on it yet?