889091 wrote:

zeke wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Aviation Sources in Russia report that Rosaviatsia fell victim to a hacker attack started on last Saturday (Mar 26th 2022), which wiped out their entire database and files consisting of 65 Terabytes of data including e-mail of 1.5 years, documents, aircraft registration data. No backup of these data exists due to lack of funds allocated by Russia's Ministry of Finance. Rosaviatsia blames the success of the hacker attack (presumably carried out by the Anonymous Hacking Group) onto their contractor hired to maintain their IT-structure. Prosecution office as well as secret service are investigating since Saturday. Official statements like a change of head of the agency are incorrect, the head of the agency is still in office.

Another source suggesting a cyber attack

https://www.aviation24.be/miscellaneous ... r-back-up/

Playing devil's advocate here...

Who's to say they (Russia) didn't just 'conveniently' wipe out the data themselves, then blame Anonymous. They're able to then start again and 'wipe the slate clean', so to speak. Aircraft that were previously due for a heavy maintenance check now get a reprieve/reset and can continue flying for the time being.

I imagine that the airlines operating the aircraft would have all necessary information about when checks are due on each aircraft. No need to go into Rosaviatsia's database for that, I suppose.

Thinking out loud here.
We always talk about the aircraft lessors here - but what about the engines?
There must be power-by-the-hour contracts in Russia, too.
Because of the sanctions they (RR, GE etc) surely aren't allowed to give any maintenance advice etc either.
So would any airline want to keep flying, they might have to build up that part of their operations, too.

alberchico wrote:

slider wrote:

https://jalopnik.com/russia-may-commit-largest-theft-of-aircraft-in-history-1848712419

Things are going to get interesting. 400 A/C with a $10B valuation may be in limbo.

Excerpt:
"“I’m afraid that we are going to witness the largest sort of theft of aircraft in the history of commercial civil aviation,” said Volodymyr Bilotkach, an associate professor of air transport management at Singapore Institute of Technology.

Dual registration is not allowed under international rules, but Russia has already moved more than half of the foreign-owned aircraft to its own registry after passing a law permitting this, Russia’s government said on Wednesday. read more"

Lessors are going to take it in the shorts. But the moment that metal lands in another country, they'll be seized. So this is lacking teeth in a big way.

I've said this here before, the only explanation for this brazen act is that Russia knows that relations with the West are going to be permanently ruptured. Then the nationalization of these aircraft makes sense.
The UK claims that the harsh sanctions will be eased if Russia fully withdraws from Ukraine. But we know the grand plan is to capture huge chunks of territory in the East and along the coast. So therefore, the sanctions will not go away anytime soon. We're basically in a new Cold War, and commercial relations with Russia will not go back to the way they were before Feb 24 for a long time.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... astructure

What about the possibility that he will simply keep them in Russian airspace until they’re nearly used up and unflyable, then fly them to an airport where they could be seized. Then Russia has had full use of them, and “turned them over” when they’re nearly scrap metal? Sort of an interim solution until the Russian aviation industry can start producing large numbers of commercial aircraft.

889091 wrote:

zeke wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Aviation Sources in Russia report that Rosaviatsia fell victim to a hacker attack started on last Saturday (Mar 26th 2022), which wiped out their entire database and files consisting of 65 Terabytes of data including e-mail of 1.5 years, documents, aircraft registration data. ... Rosaviatsia blames the success of the hacker attack (presumably carried out by the Anonymous Hacking Group) ...the head of the agency is still in office.

Another source suggesting a cyber attack

https://www.aviation24.be/miscellaneous ... r-back-up/

Playing devil's advocate here...

Who's to say they (Russia) didn't just 'conveniently' wipe out the data themselves, then blame Anonymous. They're able to then start again and 'wipe the slate clean', so to speak. Aircraft that were previously due for a heavy maintenance check now get a reprieve/reset and can continue flying for the time being.

My turn, to burnish my "pseudo-expert" cred. I am in Software Engineering and Security. So I just did some digging.

1) 889091: Russia most certainly did not destroy the entirety of their regulatory data for the convenience of wiping the slate clean. This did massive damage to their aviation infrastructure. Furthermore, Russia didn't blame Anonymous. The Press assumed that Anonymous did this. I don't think Anonymous did this. Why?

2) Anonymous denied it. An anonymous.. uh.. Anonymous press contact (he/she/they) said: "everyone I know is saying it wasn't us... Anonymous will never endanger the lives of civilians".

3) Me, just looking at the archives: I see some glaring holes just in the security of the Rosaviatsia (the Russian aviation authority)'s website. Which is to say nothing of whatever their database infrastructure was. I have no clue. But so what. It's just a website, right? Having said that, I do have a theory.

4) I think whatever security vulnerability allowed this hack... was leaked to someone, somewhere, from within the Agency. To take it down.

Back to Russian Aviation. Let's talk about something called Nginx. Russia's aviation database, like the plurality of ALL major web applications use this technology. I won't go into the details of what that is. It's a technology like Linux. It was developed by a well-meaning person for nerdy reasons, and ended up changing the world. In case of Linux, by a kid in Finland named Linus Torvalds in 1991.

Nginx? This was created by a well-meaning Russian kid named Igor Sysoev in 2004. It appears that he had been harassed and arrested by the Russian government as recently as late 2019. (Obviously, he's pretty damn valuable to, well... a LOT of companies worldwide, so business intervened in his release). Check out his Wikipedia page.

In any case, the point of all this? I believe the Russian Aviation industry is highly professional. Just MAYBE someone inside may have facilitated this hack, in defiance of Putin (like he'd have any clue anyway), to preserve the safety of their flying public. I'm sure the writing has been all over the walls for months... It's not like Igor had anything at all to do with this.

IMHO: The industry that takes technology more seriously than any other in the world? Commercial aviation. They are responsible for millions of lives each day. And that goes for Russia, too.

I could be (and probably am!) wrong. But that's just my $0.02 as a software security guy.

In today's electronic file systems and data traffic world there seem to always be two parties having it stored. At least the relevant western aircraft files must still be available on western servers. Can things really be "lost" now? Fleets should be well documented, especially leased ones, formerly insured in the west, would have needed proper detailed documentation.

trigged wrote:

until the Russian aviation industry can start producing large numbers of commercial aircraft.

Well, then they'd better make sure that those Boeings and Airbuses fly well into the 2080s...

Great post @rjsampson!! That was very informative and I appreciate your sharing those insights.

That makes sense. And often we forget of the rich aviation heritage in Russia (Sukhoi, Tupolev, Irkut, etc) and they're a punchline but you make good observations.

https://www.aeroflot.ru/ru-en/news/62314

It seems Aeroflop has resumed international flights using the Superjet 100. Why are these planes not confiscated on foreign airports?

Strato2 wrote:

https://www.aeroflot.ru/ru-en/news/62314

It seems Aeroflop has resumed international flights using the Superjet 100. Why are these planes not confiscated on foreign airports?

See lengthy discussion further up in this thread, as well as in the other thread.

Strato2 wrote:

https://www.aeroflot.ru/ru-en/news/62314

It seems Aeroflop has resumed international flights using the Superjet 100. Why are these planes not confiscated on foreign airports?

Aeroflot even!

slider wrote:

Great post @rjsampson!! That was very informative and I appreciate your sharing those insights.

That makes sense. And often we forget of the rich aviation heritage in Russia (Sukhoi, Tupolev, Irkut, etc) and they're a punchline but you make good observations.

Indeed, and well said Slider. and too many here are forgetting (or ignoring) that Russia also put the first satellite in space, the first man in space, the first walk in space and many achievements since......but yet laughingly claim Russia does not have skills or technology!

Vicenza wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

https://www.aeroflot.ru/ru-en/news/62314

It seems Aeroflop has resumed international flights using the Superjet 100. Why are these planes not confiscated on foreign airports?

Aeroflot even!

Aeroflop seems quite appropriate.

I had a quick look at SVO traffic.
Before Covid (2019) it handled 50m passengers a year, slightly more international than domestic.
Int is down to single digit number of flights a day as expected with the European bans.
But domestic is holding up.
Roughly ~170 departures a day , lets say 200 seats a plane (predominantly narrowbody with a few widebodies thrown in), assume a LF of 80% and annualised would mean ~17m passengers a year. Down from 23m in 2019. Obviously complicated by coming out of covid as well.
So a drop but not a terrible one yet. Will be interesting to see if theres a reduction in frequencies over the coming weeks with the boeing/airbus sanctions. I'm not sure there will be as per the news that they will take parts of their international planes. Only time will tell.

Vicenza wrote:

slider wrote:

Great post @rjsampson!! That was very informative and I appreciate your sharing those insights.

That makes sense. And often we forget of the rich aviation heritage in Russia (Sukhoi, Tupolev, Irkut, etc) and they're a punchline but you make good observations.

Indeed, and well said Slider. and too many here are forgetting (or ignoring) that Russia also put the first satellite in space, the first man in space, the first walk in space and many achievements since......but yet laughingly claim Russia does not have skills or technology!

The Soviets, but sure I'll let it slide.

Anyway I don't see anyone here saying that Russia doesn't have skills or technology which they obviously do. However the Russian economy today is very different form the one in the 50's and was before the war much more integrated with the western economy especially in the aviation sector. Suddenly losing this integration will obviously have a negative effect on the economy, and especially the aviation sector no matter the skills and technology.

Unlikely to be false-flag operation, because this is extremely embarrassing for Russia. Where are the Russian air defenses?

Why hasn’t Aeroflot been removed by skyteam? They now bring no value, will not for at least decades, and will be flying unsafe aircraft with knock off parts soon enough. Least forget they ripped off the lessors and are basically flying stolen aircraft.

nine4nine wrote:

Why hasn’t Aeroflot been removed by skyteam? They now bring no value, will not for at least decades, and will be flying unsafe aircraft with knock off parts soon enough. Least forget they ripped off the lessors and are basically flying stolen aircraft.

Probably because they haven't breached any clauses in their membership terms, and SkyTeam would have to pay Aeroflot damages if their membership is terminated without cause. As you say, they are of no value, but as long as Aeroflot planes don't fall out of the sky every now and then, there's not much of a downside in having them either.

I haven't checked lately, but I suppose OneWorld similarly hasn't terminated the membership of S7 Airlines.

MalevTU134 wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

Why hasn’t Aeroflot been removed by skyteam? They now bring no value, will not for at least decades, and will be flying unsafe aircraft with knock off parts soon enough. Least forget they ripped off the lessors and are basically flying stolen aircraft.

Probably because they haven't breached any clauses in their membership terms, and SkyTeam would have to pay Aeroflot damages if their membership is terminated without cause. As you say, they are of no value, but as long as Aeroflot planes don't fall out of the sky every now and then, there's not much of a downside in having them either.

I haven't checked lately, but I suppose OneWorld similarly hasn't terminated the membership of S7 Airlines.

Oneworld are still lising S7.

https://www.oneworld.com/members/s7-airlines

Do member airlines need to pay a monthly/yearly "royalty", "service charge" or "fee" to their respective alliances? If so, defaulting could be a reason for suspension/expulsion.

jmmadrid wrote:

Do member airlines need to pay a monthly/yearly "royalty", "service charge" or "fee" to their respective alliances? If so, defaulting could be a reason for suspension/expulsion.

Eventually, yes. But that will take many months, if not years, before these 2 Russian airlines are deemed to be in default with their respective alliance.

How soon will the Russians start to have trouble flying these stolen aircraft? I mean in technical sense; lack of maintenance/parts and so on.

Most of the US/EU members of Skyteam have suspended mileage earning/redemption/interline with Aeroflot anyway so they are effectively out of Skyteam already from a passenger perspective.

How soon will the Russians start to have trouble flying these stolen aircraft? I mean in technical sense; lack of maintenance/parts and so on.

They can cannibalise parts of the fleet as parts donors. And they can permit this with homemade laws for domestic use. But the more they use these aircraft the earlier they will need more spare parts. So the next aircraft will have to be grounded and so on. It might work for a while but it won't solve the need to get seriously more aircraft. This is what I wonder about: They offend the western financial community and stock investor crowd and burn bridges for a long time for some very limited short time gain. It's not worth it from my view.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Probably because they haven't breached any clauses in their membership terms, and SkyTeam would have to pay Aeroflot damages if their membership is terminated without cause.

Oh okay, so now we're going to enforce legally-binding contracts? Meanwhile billions in aircraft assets are seized by the Russian gov't and this is the hill you wish to argue on?

EightyFour wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

slider wrote:

Great post @rjsampson!! That was very informative and I appreciate your sharing those insights.

That makes sense. And often we forget of the rich aviation heritage in Russia (Sukhoi, Tupolev, Irkut, etc) and they're a punchline but you make good observations.

Indeed, and well said Slider. and too many here are forgetting (or ignoring) that Russia also put the first satellite in space, the first man in space, the first walk in space and many achievements since......but yet laughingly claim Russia does not have skills or technology!

The Soviets, but sure I'll let it slide.

Anyway I don't see anyone here saying that Russia doesn't have skills or technology which they obviously do. However the Russian economy today is very different form the one in the 50's and was before the war much more integrated with the western economy especially in the aviation sector. Suddenly losing this integration will obviously have a negative effect on the economy, and especially the aviation sector no matter the skills and technology.

Also a valid point. The Soviets could put a man in space but had a hard time putting bread on the table back then. Their integration with the western economy is also a complicated matter.

slider wrote:

EightyFour wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Indeed, and well said Slider. and too many here are forgetting (or ignoring) that Russia also put the first satellite in space, the first man in space, the first walk in space and many achievements since......but yet laughingly claim Russia does not have skills or technology!

The Soviets, but sure I'll let it slide.

Anyway I don't see anyone here saying that Russia doesn't have skills or technology which they obviously do. However the Russian economy today is very different form the one in the 50's and was before the war much more integrated with the western economy especially in the aviation sector. Suddenly losing this integration will obviously have a negative effect on the economy, and especially the aviation sector no matter the skills and technology.

Also a valid point. The Soviets could put a man in space but had a hard time putting bread on the table back then. Their integration with the western economy is also a complicated matter.

Yes indeed, and not in question as such. However, that was a facet of communism and not any lack of technological skills, and thus a completely different equation entirely. Equally agreed that their now-integration with the world economy is naturally complicated. My point though was that I find it laughable that many here claim they have no great technological skills. Maybe too young to know/remember such things.

N5301D wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Probably because they haven't breached any clauses in their membership terms, and SkyTeam would have to pay Aeroflot damages if their membership is terminated without cause.

Oh okay, so now we're going to enforce legally-binding contracts? Meanwhile billions in aircraft assets are seized by the Russian gov't and this is the hill you wish to argue on?

Two different aspects entirely, so your hill is a very shaky argument for you. Example for you to think on....how are Lessors going to currently enforce their legally binding contracts?

N5301D wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Probably because they haven't breached any clauses in their membership terms, and SkyTeam would have to pay Aeroflot damages if their membership is terminated without cause.

Oh okay, so now we're going to enforce legally-binding contracts? Meanwhile billions in aircraft assets are seized by the Russian gov't and this is the hill you wish to argue on?

Just because you didn't pay the water bill, the electricity company doesn't have the right to switch off your electricity. Simple as that. Also, the West (and the rest of the World as such) should stick to its moral high ground compared to Russia. Honouring contracts, keeping our promises, when possible, or at least when not counterproductive, is one of those things that sets us apart from Putin and his thugs. This is a clear case of that. Aeroflot and S7 Airlines paid for their alliance memberships, so let's give it to them, up to a point where it's doable. There's no harm or disadvantage in letting them stay, as per the contract. As mentioned, interlining with other airlines, on the other hand, has been terminated, because that would mean that continuous payments to and from these airlines would have to be made. Same with frequent flyer collaborations. But we keep our word, we honour our contracts, short of busting the sanctions, which would be illegal. So, this is one of the things that makes us morally able to say NYET when Putin wants to sell us gas in roubles only. Sorry, Vlad, contract says Euros. Pacta sunt servanda.

It seems that Turkish Airlines will have a bigger fleet of mainly Airbus frames that they own, that is which are lessor-free. These will be more freely used for flights between several Russian towns and Antalya (the Turkish Riviera), much favored by Russian tourists. They may be chartered to Russian tourist operators, who may likely not use the airplanes they have in their fleets (sanctions & lessors). Russian (sanction-free) SSJs can provide some extra muscle but they are in limited numbers and with limited seating capacity. The real question mark is if Putin will willingly send Russians for summer vacation (mainly to Turkey, the Gulf and Egypt) and how many Russians can afford these travels.

You can refer to my post in Turkish Aviation thread. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1471623#p23242951

MalevTU134 wrote:

West (and the rest of the World as such) should stick to its moral high ground compared to Russia. Honouring contracts, keeping our promises, when possible, or at least when not counterproductive, is one of those things that sets us apart from Putin and his thugs. This is a clear case of that. Aeroflot and S7 Airlines paid for their alliance memberships, so let's give it to them, up to a point where it's doable. There's no harm or disadvantage in letting them stay

I think you are wrong. This policy was applied to Russia for last 20 years, and we can see where it got us. Also this is different than "gas company and electrical company". It's more "you stole from friends of the members of the club, so the club can kick you out - even if you paid your membership". And there is harm - to their image. Visitors to the lounge or website can see Aeroflot or S7 logo.

gregpodpl wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

West (and the rest of the World as such) should stick to its moral high ground compared to Russia. Honouring contracts, keeping our promises, when possible, or at least when not counterproductive, is one of those things that sets us apart from Putin and his thugs. This is a clear case of that. Aeroflot and S7 Airlines paid for their alliance memberships, so let's give it to them, up to a point where it's doable. There's no harm or disadvantage in letting them stay

I think you are wrong. This policy was applied to Russia for last 20 years, and we can see where it got us. Also this is different than "gas company and electrical company". It's more "you stole from friends of the members of the club, so the club can kick you out - even if you paid your membership". And there is harm - to their image. Visitors to the lounge or website can see Aeroflot or S7 logo.

Well, SkyTeam and OneWorld lawyers seem to disagree with you, or else these two Russian airlines would have been suspended from their respective alliance, if they had been more of a burden than the cost of dissolving the partnership with them.
Also, I hardly believe that having Aeroflot in SkyTeam is the policy that got us where we are today.
I maintain that keeping to international laws, standards and conventions is what sets us apart from Putin, Kim Jong-Un, Nicolás Maduro and similar thieves and bandits.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Well, SkyTeam and OneWorld lawyers seem to disagree with you, or else these two Russian airlines would have been suspended from their respective alliance

I think they are just slow. We'll see.

mafaky wrote:

It seems that Turkish Airlines will have a bigger fleet of mainly Airbus frames that they own, that is which are lessor-free. These will be more freely used for flights between several Russian towns and Antalya (the Turkish Riviera), much favored by Russian tourists. They may be chartered to Russian tourist operators, who may likely not use the airplanes they have in their fleets (sanctions & lessors). Russian (sanction-free) SSJs can provide some extra muscle but they are in limited numbers and with limited seating capacity. The real question mark is if Putin will willingly send Russians for summer vacation (mainly to Turkey, the Gulf and Egypt) and how many Russians can afford these travels.

You can refer to my post in Turkish Aviation thread. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1471623#p23242951

I wonder what would happen if an aircraft goes tech in Russia - something outside the MEL that they can't fly with. Do they take a few spares with them just in case?
As getting spare parts in Russia might start to get hit and miss.

ReverseFlow wrote:

mafaky wrote:

It seems that Turkish Airlines will have a bigger fleet of mainly Airbus frames that they own, that is which are lessor-free. These will be more freely used for flights between several Russian towns and Antalya (the Turkish Riviera), much favored by Russian tourists. They may be chartered to Russian tourist operators, who may likely not use the airplanes they have in their fleets (sanctions & lessors). Russian (sanction-free) SSJs can provide some extra muscle but they are in limited numbers and with limited seating capacity. The real question mark is if Putin will willingly send Russians for summer vacation (mainly to Turkey, the Gulf and Egypt) and how many Russians can afford these travels.

You can refer to my post in Turkish Aviation thread. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1471623#p23242951

I wonder what would happen if an aircraft goes tech in Russia - something outside the MEL that they can't fly with. Do they take a few spares with them just in case?
As getting spare parts in Russia might start to get hit and miss.

The departure flight is delayed/cancelled, and the next flight brings engineers and parts to fix. Standard practice for any outpost flight for many airlines - just wasn't standard practice for Russia until now.

ArtV wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

mafaky wrote:

It seems that Turkish Airlines will have a bigger fleet of mainly Airbus frames that they own, that is which are lessor-free. These will be more freely used for flights between several Russian towns and Antalya (the Turkish Riviera), much favored by Russian tourists. They may be chartered to Russian tourist operators, who may likely not use the airplanes they have in their fleets (sanctions & lessors). Russian (sanction-free) SSJs can provide some extra muscle but they are in limited numbers and with limited seating capacity. The real question mark is if Putin will willingly send Russians for summer vacation (mainly to Turkey, the Gulf and Egypt) and how many Russians can afford these travels.

You can refer to my post in Turkish Aviation thread. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1471623#p23242951

I wonder what would happen if an aircraft goes tech in Russia - something outside the MEL that they can't fly with. Do they take a few spares with them just in case?
As getting spare parts in Russia might start to get hit and miss.

The departure flight is delayed/cancelled, and the next flight brings engineers and parts to fix. Standard practice for any outpost flight for many airlines - just wasn't standard practice for Russia until now.

Strictly speaking the official Boeing/Airbus manuals wouldn't be allowed to be used in Russia as that would be breaking the sanctions on services?
Or are third counties allowed to use them again as the sanctions aren't from their country (e.g. Turkey)
The airlines like TK would have to use their own work orders (which as a big airline they probably would have) etc?
I guess that is one for lawyers to define what is supplying a service to sanctioned countries.

ReverseFlow wrote:

ArtV wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

I wonder what would happen if an aircraft goes tech in Russia - something outside the MEL that they can't fly with. Do they take a few spares with them just in case?
As getting spare parts in Russia might start to get hit and miss.

The departure flight is delayed/cancelled, and the next flight brings engineers and parts to fix. Standard practice for any outpost flight for many airlines - just wasn't standard practice for Russia until now.

Strictly speaking the official Boeing/Airbus manuals wouldn't be allowed to be used in Russia as that would be breaking the sanctions on services?
Or are third counties allowed to use them again as the sanctions aren't from their country (e.g. Turkey)
The airlines like TK would have to use their own work orders (which as a big airline they probably would have) etc?
I guess that is one for lawyers to define what is supplying a service to sanctioned countries.

If an aircraft belonging to a third party airline breaks in Russia the airline is allowed to fix it as if it broke in a non-sanctioned country. The difference is depending on the parts required the airline may have to get a exemption permit from the US/EU to bring the part into the country to fix the aircraft.

Polot wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

ArtV wrote:

The departure flight is delayed/cancelled, and the next flight brings engineers and parts to fix. Standard practice for any outpost flight for many airlines - just wasn't standard practice for Russia until now.

Strictly speaking the official Boeing/Airbus manuals wouldn't be allowed to be used in Russia as that would be breaking the sanctions on services?
Or are third counties allowed to use them again as the sanctions aren't from their country (e.g. Turkey)
The airlines like TK would have to use their own work orders (which as a big airline they probably would have) etc?
I guess that is one for lawyers to define what is supplying a service to sanctioned countries.

If an aircraft belonging to a third party airline breaks in Russia the airline is allowed to fix it as if it broke in a non-sanctioned country. The difference is depending on the parts required the airline may have to get a exemption permit from the US/EU to bring the part into the country to fix the aircraft.

Other than for humanitarian purposes, the flight might deemed to be sanction busting, in which case an export permit to Russia would not be granted.

Any airline running flights into Russia will need to make sure they are operating 100% owned aircraft, with no finance owed or security given.

smartplane wrote:

Polot wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Strictly speaking the official Boeing/Airbus manuals wouldn't be allowed to be used in Russia as that would be breaking the sanctions on services?
Or are third counties allowed to use them again as the sanctions aren't from their country (e.g. Turkey)
The airlines like TK would have to use their own work orders (which as a big airline they probably would have) etc?
I guess that is one for lawyers to define what is supplying a service to sanctioned countries.

If an aircraft belonging to a third party airline breaks in Russia the airline is allowed to fix it as if it broke in a non-sanctioned country. The difference is depending on the parts required the airline may have to get a exemption permit from the US/EU to bring the part into the country to fix the aircraft.

Other than for humanitarian purposes, the flight might deemed to be sanction busting, in which case an export permit to Russia would not be granted.

Any airline running flights into Russia will need to make sure they are operating 100% owned aircraft, with no finance owed or security given.

Whilst not definitive I would be inclined to disagree, but quite open to be corrected. Many countries are still free to either fly to, or overfly Russia, without breaking any sanctions. In the event of an emergency, or a breakdown, I can't see it being as defined as sanction-busting. Equally, an airline who can still legally fly into Russia, would not need an aircraft to be 100% owned, as there would be reason for it to be impounded.

Vicenza wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Polot wrote:

If an aircraft belonging to a third party airline breaks in Russia the airline is allowed to fix it as if it broke in a non-sanctioned country. The difference is depending on the parts required the airline may have to get a exemption permit from the US/EU to bring the part into the country to fix the aircraft.

Other than for humanitarian purposes, the flight might deemed to be sanction busting, in which case an export permit to Russia would not be granted.

Any airline running flights into Russia will need to make sure they are operating 100% owned aircraft, with no finance owed or security given.

Whilst not definitive I would be inclined to disagree, but quite open to be corrected. Many countries are still free to either fly to, or overfly Russia, without breaking any sanctions. In the event of an emergency, or a breakdown, I can't see it being as defined as sanction-busting. Equally, an airline who can still legally fly into Russia, would not need an aircraft to be 100% owned, as there would be reason for it to be impounded.

As for your first statement: Aircraft parts are on the list of things that are prohibited to be exported to Russia under the current sanctions. If the airline flies them in, what would you call that? It's exported to Russia. For their own use on a non-Russian aircraft, yes...but still. (If it would be allowed to export aircraft parts for non-Russian aircraft, then Russian airlines could dodge the sanctions simply by registering their aircraft elsewhere, right?) When a Norwegian 737 had to divert into Iran a couple of years ago, it took them almost 2 months (taking that time estimate from memory) to get the necessary spare parts in, after applying for exemptions from US sanctions on Iran

Your second point: Yes, leased aircraft could fly into Russia without being impounded... that's not the problem. The problem is that the leasing companies have stipulated in their contracts that their aircraft can't go there, since Russia is under sanctions, and since comprehensive insurance cover cannot be had.

MalevTU134 wrote:

When a Norwegian 737 had to divert into Iran a couple of years ago, it took them almost 2 months (taking that time estimate from memory) to get the necessary spare parts in, after applying for exemptions from US sanctions on Iran

Part of that delay was because of an approximately one month long US government shutdown (from late Dec 2018 to late January 2019) that closed down the office that grants the exemption. Granting exemptions would not be considered critical work to bring federal employees in while furloughed to perform.

According to some sources, Aeroflot, Pobeda and Ural airlines are moving to Russian based Leonardo reservation system made by sirena travel. It's original company which made reservation system for Aeroflot in the 70-80s.

Polot wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

When a Norwegian 737 had to divert into Iran a couple of years ago, it took them almost 2 months (taking that time estimate from memory) to get the necessary spare parts in, after applying for exemptions from US sanctions on Iran

Part of that delay was because of an approximately one month long US government shutdown (from late Dec 2018 to late January 2019) that closed down the office that grants the exemption. Granting exemptions would not be considered critical work to bring federal employees in while furloughed to perform.

Wouldn't have needed an exemption if it hadn't been for the sanctions applying to Iran.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Other than for humanitarian purposes, the flight might deemed to be sanction busting, in which case an export permit to Russia would not be granted.

Any airline running flights into Russia will need to make sure they are operating 100% owned aircraft, with no finance owed or security given.

Whilst not definitive I would be inclined to disagree, but quite open to be corrected. Many countries are still free to either fly to, or overfly Russia, without breaking any sanctions. In the event of an emergency, or a breakdown, I can't see it being as defined as sanction-busting. Equally, an airline who can still legally fly into Russia, would not need an aircraft to be 100% owned, as there would be reason for it to be impounded.

As for your first statement: Aircraft parts are on the list of things that are prohibited to be exported to Russia under the current sanctions. If the airline flies them in, what would you call that? It's exported to Russia. For their own use on a non-Russian aircraft, yes...but still. (If it would be allowed to export aircraft parts for non-Russian aircraft, then Russian airlines could dodge the sanctions simply by registering their aircraft elsewhere, right?) When a Norwegian 737 had to divert into Iran a couple of years ago, it took them almost 2 months (taking that time estimate from memory) to get the necessary spare parts in, after applying for exemptions from US sanctions on Iran

Your second point: Yes, leased aircraft could fly into Russia without being impounded... that's not the problem. The problem is that the leasing companies have stipulated in their contracts that their aircraft can't go there, since Russia is under sanctions, and since comprehensive insurance cover cannot be had.

Correct Malev on both points.

Not only leasing companies prohibit, but also banks and financiers. Financed aircraft, or aircraft used as collateral, shouldn't operate into Russia. Also applies to EXIM and other guarantees.

smartplane wrote:

Polot wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

When a Norwegian 737 had to divert into Iran a couple of years ago, it took them almost 2 months (taking that time estimate from memory) to get the necessary spare parts in, after applying for exemptions from US sanctions on Iran

Part of that delay was because of an approximately one month long US government shutdown (from late Dec 2018 to late January 2019) that closed down the office that grants the exemption. Granting exemptions would not be considered critical work to bring federal employees in while furloughed to perform.

Wouldn't have needed an exemption if it hadn't been for the sanctions applying to Iran.

Well yes. My point was part of the reason for the length of time it took DY to get their Max repaired in Iran was because DY were waiting for the US government to open for business again.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Other than for humanitarian purposes, the flight might deemed to be sanction busting, in which case an export permit to Russia would not be granted.

Any airline running flights into Russia will need to make sure they are operating 100% owned aircraft, with no finance owed or security given.

Whilst not definitive I would be inclined to disagree, but quite open to be corrected. Many countries are still free to either fly to, or overfly Russia, without breaking any sanctions. In the event of an emergency, or a breakdown, I can't see it being as defined as sanction-busting. Equally, an airline who can still legally fly into Russia, would not need an aircraft to be 100% owned, as there would be reason for it to be impounded.

As for your first statement: Aircraft parts are on the list of things that are prohibited to be exported to Russia under the current sanctions. If the airline flies them in, what would you call that? It's exported to Russia. For their own use on a non-Russian aircraft, yes...but still. (If it would be allowed to export aircraft parts for non-Russian aircraft, then Russian airlines could dodge the sanctions simply by registering their aircraft elsewhere, right?) When a Norwegian 737 had to divert into Iran a couple of years ago, it took them almost 2 months (taking that time estimate from memory) to get the necessary spare parts in, after applying for exemptions from US sanctions on Iran

Your second point: Yes, leased aircraft could fly into Russia without being impounded... that's not the problem. The problem is that the leasing companies have stipulated in their contracts that their aircraft can't go there, since Russia is under sanctions, and since comprehensive insurance cover cannot be had.

I would respectively not be inclined with you on both points. Of course aircraft parts are prohibited to be exported to Russia, but if you read carefully the point being made was an aircraft diverting to a Russian airport and needing a part replaced. Such a scenario would not be exporting aircraft parts in violation of sanctions in the accepted definition of exporting. Your comment is nothing but playing with words, but then that is something widespread on a.net to suit a purpose. Indeed, exemptions within sanctions occur frequently depending on specific situations. Your comment would indicate that exemptions cannot ever be granted.
Now, your second point is interesting because you are stating that Lessors are effectively unilaterally changing a contract. That may very well be, but I very much doubt that you have personal knowledge of individual details in particular contracts. Not all leasing contracts are necessarily covered by the current sanctions.

smartplane wrote:

.

Correct Malev on both points.

Not only leasing companies prohibit, but also banks and financiers. Financed aircraft, or aircraft used as collateral, shouldn't operate into Russia. Also applies to EXIM and other guarantees.[/quote]

I do not necessarily agree because you are making a definitive blanket statement which does not necessarily apply to all countries. To help illustrate, the selling of arms to Iran and Nicaragua in the late 1980's was also illegal, and looked what happened with that if you remember. So don't pretend it doesn't happen lol.

smartplane wrote:

Wouldn't have needed an exemption if it hadn't been for the sanctions applying to Iran.

Precisely, and illustrates that export exemptions can and do happen for specific reasons within sanctions.

Vicenza wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Whilst not definitive I would be inclined to disagree, but quite open to be corrected. Many countries are still free to either fly to, or overfly Russia, without breaking any sanctions. In the event of an emergency, or a breakdown, I can't see it being as defined as sanction-busting. Equally, an airline who can still legally fly into Russia, would not need an aircraft to be 100% owned, as there would be reason for it to be impounded.

As for your first statement: Aircraft parts are on the list of things that are prohibited to be exported to Russia under the current sanctions. If the airline flies them in, what would you call that? It's exported to Russia. For their own use on a non-Russian aircraft, yes...but still. (If it would be allowed to export aircraft parts for non-Russian aircraft, then Russian airlines could dodge the sanctions simply by registering their aircraft elsewhere, right?) When a Norwegian 737 had to divert into Iran a couple of years ago, it took them almost 2 months (taking that time estimate from memory) to get the necessary spare parts in, after applying for exemptions from US sanctions on Iran

Your second point: Yes, leased aircraft could fly into Russia without being impounded... that's not the problem. The problem is that the leasing companies have stipulated in their contracts that their aircraft can't go there, since Russia is under sanctions, and since comprehensive insurance cover cannot be had.

I would respectively not be inclined with you on both points. Of course aircraft parts are prohibited to be exported to Russia, but if you read carefully the point being made was an aircraft diverting to a Russian airport and needing a part replaced. Such a scenario would not be exporting aircraft parts in violation of sanctions in the accepted definition of exporting. Your comment is nothing but playing with words, but then that is something widespread on a.net to suit a purpose. Indeed, exemptions within sanctions occur frequently depending on specific situations. Your comment would indicate that exemptions cannot ever be granted.
Now, your second point is interesting because you are stating that Lessors are effectively unilaterally changing a contract. That may very well be, but I very much doubt that you have personal knowledge of individual details in particular contracts. Not all leasing contracts are necessarily covered by the current sanctions.

Yes, of course, I think that after having read many of your posts here, quite a few of us had just been waiting for you to get back and say more or less this. Oh, and repeat that all leasing companies will jump on getting back into leasing planes to Russian airlines as if nothing had happened, as soon as the sanctions are lifted.
Well, if you are "not inclined with me", then why not give Norwegian a call and tell them what idiots they are for not just sending that engine part to their 737 stuck in Iran, since it was just an aircraft that had diverted there, and they would not be breaching any sanctions. I'm sure they will listen with great interest to your theory, and write it down as a plan of action for the next time that happens to them. Also, I'm at a loss at how my comments can be construed as saying that "exemptions cannot ever be granted", when in fact I pointed to a case where they were granted. And you accuse me of playing with words...
On your second point: no, leasing companies have not unilaterally changed contracts. Those lease contracts contain restrictions on where the aircraft in question can and cannot fly. This includes countries or zones of war, conflict, and, also sanctions. No need to change the contract. Obviously, the lawyers of these leasing companies have made sure that their highly valuable assets, or their entire business, are not put at jeopardy by busting sanctions. These companies don't run bike rentals. Every single one of the aircraft they lease out is worth tens of millions of USD...do you really think that sometimes they add the sanctions clause and sometimes, on a bad day, they forget?
How's the weather in Saint Petersburg today?

mxaxai wrote:

Interesting, thanks. I note that several states are not parties of the Cape Town Treaty, including Israel, Thailand, Japan and Korea as major aviation markets. So I assume - from a purely legal perspective - reposessing aircraft in those states would be much more difficult than in others. Of course there could be political repersussions.

The thing with the serial number is that the Russian authorities could easily sign documentation for this serial number as well. So you'd have two sets of conflicting documentation.

I'm a bit late responding, and haven't been able to read all subsequent comments, so apologies if this thought has been posted.

The countries you name are democracies, with deep ties to the modern "western" economy; they are very much part of that system and they owe their prosperity to their participation in it.

From a purely legal viewpoint, there is the "comity principal": courts in countries with mature and independent legal systems recognize and enforce decisions from courts in similar countries; I have no doubt that Japanese or Isreali courts will be quick to recognize rulings in the EU for example (whether or not they are part of that particular treaty).

Any Russian airline which takes advantage of the new decrees and defies lessors will not be able to fly there either, for a very long time.

smartplane wrote:

Polot wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Strictly speaking the official Boeing/Airbus manuals wouldn't be allowed to be used in Russia as that would be breaking the sanctions on services?
Or are third counties allowed to use them again as the sanctions aren't from their country (e.g. Turkey)
The airlines like TK would have to use their own work orders (which as a big airline they probably would have) etc?
I guess that is one for lawyers to define what is supplying a service to sanctioned countries.

If an aircraft belonging to a third party airline breaks in Russia the airline is allowed to fix it as if it broke in a non-sanctioned country. The difference is depending on the parts required the airline may have to get a exemption permit from the US/EU to bring the part into the country to fix the aircraft.

Other than for humanitarian purposes, the flight might deemed to be sanction busting, in which case an export permit to Russia would not be granted.

Any airline running flights into Russia will need to make sure they are operating 100% owned aircraft, with no finance owed or security given.

There will also be the issue of insurance. I know for shipping, insurance companies have declared all Russian waters "high risk." Since technically this is a war, all aircraft insurance must be high risk too.

https://gcaptain.com/london-marine-insu ... high-risk/