Leasing Blacklist

You are missing something, or have a cool idea for us ? Tell us here !

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

Post Reply
User avatar
cmdrnmartin
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
Location: CYWG

Leasing Blacklist

Post by cmdrnmartin » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:14 pm

Having just had leased aircraft returned to me at about 67.5% flight status (Thanks Norwegian Air Shuttle :x ) and 75% (Thanks Pacific Aviation) I think we should have an option to blacklist certain airlines from taking leases on our aircraft...

IE, set something up for a general lease, and then choose the airlines that we do not want to see our lease availability.

Any other ideas for implementation?
Image
Image

carthorse
Ticket Agent
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:13 pm
Location: Anchorage
Contact:

Post by carthorse » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:19 pm

Would there be a way of charging the customer for the maintenance if returned less % than what it was obtained for?

Or just raise your lease rate to cover your behind?
Image

User avatar
cmdrnmartin
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
Location: CYWG

Post by cmdrnmartin » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:25 pm

Actually, there might be more to this issue than meets the eye...

Norwegian Air Shuttle doesn't exist anymore...

And Pacific Aviation have never leased my MD-11...

Database hiccup? Or intrusion?
Image
Image

PedroD

Post by PedroD » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:17 am

By simple way, the aircraft most return to the original owner at 100%. And no option here.
I think that blacklist come a tremendus problem after implementation for many reasons...

Or, the airplane must be delivered to the original owner at the same conditions that was taken.

Well if the airplane was leased at 50%, the aircraft can be delivered at 50%, i.e., or better, never less.
The values are the same for both parts.

But, yes I agree that must be done something in this area.

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2293
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Post by joefremont » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:24 am

I would think that requiring the airline that leased an aircraft to repair it at the end of the lease would be a good idea. They would be automatically charged, and if the they don't have enough cash in there budget to pay for that then there airline is dissolved.
Image

User avatar
cmdrnmartin
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
Location: CYWG

Post by cmdrnmartin » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:16 am

joefremont wrote:I would think that requiring the airline that leased an aircraft to repair it at the end of the lease would be a good idea. They would be automatically charged, and if the they don't have enough cash in there budget to pay for that then there airline is dissolved.
Should have managed their money better then. I don't want to be caught paying for someone else's maintenance.
Image
Image

User avatar
Quantum
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: UK

Post by Quantum » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:33 am

Maybe the lease should be underwritten/guaranteed by 'The Federal Bank of FlyNET'. Post lease, if any aircraft is not returned with a maintenance state of 100% the Lessor VA files a complaint/damages throught 'The Bank' against the Lessee VA. If the complaint is upheld, 'The Bank' will sieze goods/cash to the value of amount owed and that amount is forwarded to Lessor. Maybe a further 50% value of the disputed amount is also taken as a 'fine' against the lessee VA.


Rgds

John
CEO - Classic British Flight Services
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
ImageImage

anz102

Post by anz102 » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:49 pm

What also seems an issue is that there are no reminders an aircraft is due to go off lease. I've noted them in my calendar on the wall, but other CEOs might simply miss the fact the aircraft is coming up on it's return date, and forget to go in and maintain them before departure.
The idea of billing them later sounds good though, rather than blacklisting for what might have been a simple error or poor management, rather than neglect :)

Post Reply