Flybe nosedives on profits warning

[asitis]

3 hours 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?

My laughing reaction was based upon your use of the phrase "lessons actually not learned" SNAFU !

[b4mbi]

I had to look up snafu, but it fits!!

I recall earlier in this thread stating that i was impressed that lessons had been learned after  alf saying in tynwald that a lien had been placed on the aircraft to secure monies owing. 

What happened?!  Or did I dream that?

[Roger Mexico]

16 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

I had to look up snafu, but it fits!!

I recall earlier in this thread stating that i was impressed that lessons had been learned after  alf saying in tynwald that a lien had been placed on the aircraft to secure monies owing. 

What happened?!  Or did I dream that?

You weren't dreaming - even if Cannan might have been:

Quote

Miss Costain:  With regard to the outstanding landing fees, is Treasury able to seize an asset or put a lien on anything to secure the outstanding moneys? Has any action similar to that taken place?

The Minister: [...] indeed, the information I have is that the Department of Infrastructure have in fact placed a lien on a Flybe-operated aircraft, in effect arresting it until  outstanding amounts are paid. A Bombardier Dash 8 aircraft, which is the aircraft in question, has a replacement value of around £25 million and a book value of about £4 million; so I hope, Mr Speaker, that we should indeed get our money that is owed.

From previous responses, "£303,245.16 is due and owing to the Department of Infrastructure for the payment of landing fees" plus APD of around £150k plus.  There might well be other things as well.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

6 hours ago, John Wright said:

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. 

Snap, 2 in 40 years!

1. Con-man customer of ours, 3 months work done to his 80' ex - Round the World racer, sponsored by a make-up company to take 20 punters around the world with them paying £15k per head for the privilege (mid 1990's). Cash for fares and sponsorship in bank, he instructed his skipper to leave at 0500 tide having paid a local diver to remove the chain and padlock we had used to secure his propellor to our pontoon. 10 miles downstream for fuelling and photo op with dolly birds from make-up co. Nil funds to us for 3 months work. Raised arrest warrant with Admiralty Court, pinned to mast at fuelling berth, faxed photo to CEO of make-up co (who new nothing about it). Money in bank hours later. When con-man arrived in the pub later, look of shock to discover that the diver, fuelling guy, and me were having beer together - he then realised that they both worked for me.

2. Me commissioned by insurance company to find and collect a small coaster under arrest and believed to be in a river W. Africa. It was. They had tried to disguise it by driving it into a mozzie-infested creek and covering it in hundreds and hundreds of cut down saplings. Didn't help their cause that the tide had gone out, she was sat on the mud,  and we could see a rudder, propellor, and an acre or two of brown antifouling paint as well as the ships name.

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[b4mbi]

23 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

You weren't dreaming - even if Cannan might have been:

From previous responses, "£303,245.16 is due and owing to the Department of Infrastructure for the payment of landing fees" plus APD of around £150k plus.  There might well be other things as well.

So we just go into the unsecured creditors pot in the flybe administration  and will be lucky to get anything back at all.

So, who got this wrong and led alf to believe all money was secured, when it turned out it wasn't and the iom taxpayer takes another £450k hit?

You would have thought after Euromanx, the Government would have passed legislation enabling them to detain aircraft to secure their debts.

Surely that's possible?

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

So we just go into the unsecured creditors pot in the flybe administration  and will be lucky to get anything back at all.

So, who got this wrong and led alf to believe all money was secured, when it turned out it wasn't and the iom taxpayer takes another £450k hit?

You would have thought after Euromanx, the Government would have passed legislation enabling them to detain aircraft to secure their debts.

Surely that's possible?

When they arrested the wouldn’t necessarily know who owned what. Whilst the plane might be leased many leased planes are flown with engines owned by the airline.

There wasn’t anything to learn that they didn’t. They tried, but it didn’t work out. 
 

Any legislation to allow an aircraft belonging to a third party to be arrested and its owner made to pay someone else’s debt would breach ownership rights that are guaranteed by the universal declaration and European Convention on human rights.

Lets try an analogy. Your neighbours house is supplied by water in a pipe going through your garden. The pipe serves you also. They do a flit. Owe a huge water bill. The mortgage is worth more than the value of their house. Water company try and flog your house because of the water pipe. It’s not exact, but it’s near enough. Try it as flats one on top of the other

[mad_manx]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

When they arrested the wouldn’t necessarily know who owned what. Whilst the plane might be leased many leased planes are flown with engines owned by the airline.

There wasn’t anything to learn that they didn’t. They tried, but it didn’t work out. 
 

Any legislation to allow an aircraft belonging to a third party to be arrested and its owner made to pay someone else’s debt would breach ownership rights that are guaranteed by the universal declaration and European Convention on human rights.

Lets try an analogy. Your neighbours house is supplied by water in a pipe going through your garden. The pipe serves you also. They do a flit. Owe a huge water bill. The mortgage is worth more than the value of their house. Water company try and flog your house because of the water pipe. It’s not exact, but it’s near enough. Try it as flats one on top of the other

Might sound daft but couldn't the engines be detained ? 

[b4mbi]

Thanks for response John, but have couple of other queries if I may?

"Any legislation to allow an aircraft belonging to a third party to be arrested and its owner made to pay someone else’s debt would breach ownership rights that are guaranteed by the universal declaration and European Convention on human rights."

Assuming the aircraft was owned by a company, how does the European convention on human rights apply to a company?

Further, isn't your statement in conflict with Admiralty law previously discussed?  Clearly Admiralty Law must take precedence over ownership rights and the European Convention.

Just would be interested if there is a practical solution to stop  taxpayers losing out on revenue due to plane operators going bust?

In theory, could the Isle of Man enact it's own legislation which would be an equivalence of Admiralty Law for aircraft, and then be able to take action in rem against the aircraft?

They should have charged the owner £450k for storing the plane in the hangar, payable prior departure, or put a wheel clamp on it and charged the owners £450,000  release fees....

 

[John Wright]

9 hours ago, b4mbi said:

Thanks for response John, but have couple of other queries if I may?

"Any legislation to allow an aircraft belonging to a third party to be arrested and its owner made to pay someone else’s debt would breach ownership rights that are guaranteed by the universal declaration and European Convention on human rights."

Assuming the aircraft was owned by a company, how does the European convention on human rights apply to a company?

Further, isn't your statement in conflict with Admiralty law previously discussed?  Clearly Admiralty Law must take precedence over ownership rights and the European Convention.

Just would be interested if there is a practical solution to stop  taxpayers losing out on revenue due to plane operators going bust?

In theory, could the Isle of Man enact it's own legislation which would be an equivalence of Admiralty Law for aircraft, and then be able to take action in rem against the aircraft?

They should have charged the owner £450k for storing the plane in the hangar, payable prior departure, or put a wheel clamp on it and charged the owners £450,000  release fees....

 

You’re just being silly and raising non questions 

ECHR applies to natural and legal persons ( humans and companies ). You can’t expropriate without proper compensation.

I explained about the much more complex situation with Admiralty law, including things like charters, indemnities, protection clubs. Things that don’t apply to airframes.

You could demand a deposit but airlines wouldn’t fly to your airport.

In theory we could extend in Rem jurisdiction. It’d be struck down.

Charge parking fees when you are detaining it? I don’t think so.

[John Wright]

8 hours ago, mad_manx said:

Might sound daft but couldn't the engines be detained ? 

If they were separately owned. In this case they weren’t. I was clearly giving it as an example of where an arrest of a leased aircraft would work.

[asitis]

........ and so the ludicrous merry go round of airline operations continues unabated on the IOM with the end user (us taxpayers) getting shafted again !

I am anti Government running anything, but there is now surely a case for an adult discussion about open skies and too small a market to sustain operators.

[Andy Onchan]

For the life of me I don't understand why the airport didn't/don't get payment for the landing and other fees by credit card, same as the fuel suppliers do. No payment, no take-off.

[snowman]

59 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

For the life of me I don't understand why the airport didn't/don't get payment for the landing and other fees by credit card, same as the fuel suppliers do. No payment, no take-off.

you obviously have no idea how major airlines work

[NoTailT]

21 minutes ago, snowman said:

you obviously have no idea how major airlines work

This. It's all based on credit.

The old days of the Airline TV series where pilots used to carry fuel credit cards around is time of old. All the known operators will get 'on invoice' credit at any airport the go in to.

[Andy Onchan]

In which case we really shouldn't moan that we've not been paid. End of.