Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Andy Onchan

Flybe nosedives on profits warning

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

The crew would have flown in on Logan/BA stayed airside and flown out. No need for quarantine.

Totally agree , if any of the crew had it then it’s spread to the passengers anyway. Kinda shows how dumb the rules are. Air crew are key workers so exposed and at risk all the time as opposed to those who have been hunkered down endlessly and flying in. But that’s just too logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Major Rushen said:

Could also be for Fuel, Handling or Euro control charges.

I left those out.

Fuel. Did they refuel here, and if they did is the fuel supplied by government. It’s much more expensive so the imperative, generally was fuel off island.

Im not sure if that was paid to government or Menzies?

Eurocontrol wouldn’t be billed from IOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I left those out.

Fuel. Did they refuel here, and if they did is the fuel supplied by government. It’s much more expensive so the imperative, generally was fuel off island.

Im not sure if that was paid to government or Menzies?

Eurocontrol wouldn’t be billed from IOM.

Ownership changed on 18th May to NAC Aviation 19 Ltd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irish leasing/aviation company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how did the seized aircraft get released without payment ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mad_manx said:

So how did the seized aircraft get released without payment ?

Because of the ownership Structure. It was leased. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Because of the ownership Structure. It was leased. 

Excuse my ignorance, but how does that work? 

Why can't government dig their heels in and say that the plane will not be given permission to take off until all landing fees from it's operator are settled?

The owners would surely have to claim against the lessor?

Does that mean lessons actually were not learned from the Euromanx situation?

Edited by b4mbi
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Flybe don't own the plane at all then it can't be seized. If you rent a house then it's not your asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GD4ELI said:

If Flybe don't own the plane at all then it can't be seized. If you rent a house then it's not your asset.

Are planes separate 'legal entities' like boats and ships? I've never thought about that.

Ships are indeed 'separate legal entities'  i.e. They can sue and be sued (as well as arrested) - not just the owner, but the ship itself unlike say, a car or house.

Planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Excuse my ignorance, but how does that work? 

Why can't government dig their heels in and say that the plane will not be given permission to take off until all landing fees from it's operator are settled?

The owners would surely have to claim against the lessor?

Does that mean lessons actually were not learned from the Euromanx situation?

The plane belonged to a third party lessor. No doubt they were happy to store it at Ronaldsway foc. When it was sold IoMG had no choice to let it go. There’s no in rem jurisdiction for planes. The lessor had no obligation to pay the debts of Flybe.

Its not a failure to learn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not heard of the concept of a ship being an separate legal entity though.

Usually, it is an asset owned by company (the registered owner). That registered owner will have contracts in place for the vessel's operation with charterers, technical managers, crew managers etc.

The registered owner could lease the asset on a bareboat charter to another company, which would then assume all aspects of the vessel's operation, enjoying the risks and reward of ownership (i.e. income and liabilities) of the ship, without actually being the registered owner of that ship.

If the ship was detained and/or arrested by a nation (say for non payment of port fees which should be analogous to landing fees I would think), then it would be up to the bareboat charterer (lessor) to fix the problem. If they couldn't, the bareboat agreement would be in default, then the ownership would revert back to the registered owner. If they couldn't fix the problem (settle creditors), then the state arresting the vessel could have right to auction the ship in order to recover monies due to creditors.

At least that's my understanding of how it would work in shipping, so just interested as to why that would be different for an aircraft that is owned by a third party lessor (registered owner vs bareboat owner?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Are planes separate 'legal entities' like boats and ships? I've never thought about that.

Ships are indeed 'separate legal entities'  i.e. They can sue and be sued (as well as arrested) - not just the owner, but the ship itself unlike say, a car or house.

Planes?

No. You can’t sue a plane in Rem like you can sue a vessel in Rem in admiralty jurisdiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

I've not heard of the concept of a ship being an separate legal entity though.

Usually, it is an asset owned by company (the registered owner). That registered owner will have contracts in place for the vessel's operation with charterers, technical managers, crew managers etc.

The registered owner could lease the asset on a bareboat charter to another company, which would then assume all aspects of the vessel's operation, enjoying the risks and reward of ownership (i.e. income and liabilities) of the ship, without actually being the registered owner of that ship.

If the ship was detained and/or arrested by a nation (say for non payment of port fees which should be analogous to landing fees I would think), then it would be up to the bareboat charterer (lessor) to fix the problem. If they couldn't, the bareboat agreement would be in default, then the ownership would revert back to the registered owner. If they couldn't fix the problem (settle creditors), then the state arresting the vessel could have right to auction the ship in order to recover monies due to creditors.

At least that's my understanding of how it would work in shipping, so just interested as to why that would be different for an aircraft that is owned by a third party lessor (registered owner vs bareboat owner?)

That’s not how internationally applied admiralty law applies in Rem ( to the thing ). If you’re a supplier of goods, repairs, recovery, fuel, harbour fees, you arrest and sue the ship. Ship owners have protection clubs ( insurers ) and if the ship is chartered out the charterer will be named and have contributed to the policy.

It started out in admiralty law because of the mobility of ships. It never got extended to planes or motor vehicles.  It’s a strange legal jurisdiction. I’ve only ever arrested two boats in 40 years. Clambering on board to nail the arrest to the mast. Aluminium mast. Used sticky tape. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...