|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 8, 2013 12:30:02 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 8, 2013 22:41:25 GMT 1
I suspect that maintenance records are unreliable or missing. In that case, even fitted with new parts, the aircraft cannot be presumed safe.
I don't know if there is a way out of such a situation ... Could a thorough check solve the problem ?
On the other hand, the market value of these dammaged aircraft may not warrant the effort. In that case, they should be scrapped.
This was not supposed to happen. The owner is supposed to repossess the aircraft if the lessee is in default, and he should be immune from the lessee's creditors. If the country's context does not allow this normal process to take place, and if instead leased aircraft are cannibalised (= plundered), the lessors' risks increase dramatically.
If lessors and/or insurance companies incur a huge loss on Kingfisher leases, financial institutions may be extremely reluctant to provide funding to any Indian airline in the near future. At the very least, there should be a jump in lease rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 9, 2013 7:33:09 GMT 1
I suspect that maintenance records are unreliable or missing. In that case, even fitted with new parts, the aircraft cannot be presumed safe. I don't know if there is a way out of such a situation ... Could a thorough check solve the problem ? Which ones cannot be presumed safe? The aircraft which are flying, or the aircraft which are not flying? |
|
seibedom
Final Assembly Line stage 1
Posts: 251
|
Post by seibedom on Apr 9, 2013 20:50:56 GMT 1
I suspect that maintenance records are unreliable or missing. In that case, even fitted with new parts, the aircraft cannot be presumed safe. I don't know if there is a way out of such a situation ... Could a thorough check solve the problem ? Which ones cannot be presumed safe? The aircraft which are flying, or the aircraft which are not flying? The not flying ones, because they got stripped of parts to keep the others flying. |
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 9, 2013 21:28:07 GMT 1
Which ones cannot be presumed safe? The aircraft which are flying, or the aircraft which are not flying? The not flying ones, because they got stripped of parts to keep the others flying. Yes, but the flying ones contain parts stripped from the not flying ones, and it is not known which parts of the flying ones are the known original parts or officially documented spares, which ones are parts secretly stripped from the not flying ones, and which frames specifically. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 9, 2013 21:42:50 GMT 1
No Kingfisher aircraft has been flying since last October, when their flying licence was suspended by the Indian regulator. Cannibalisation likely took place earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 10, 2013 15:15:37 GMT 1
No Kingfisher aircraft has been flying since last October, when their flying licence was suspended by the Indian regulator. Not flown by Kingfisher. Are they all at airports where Kingfisher left them, or have any been flown away by lessors? Cannibalisation likely took place earlier. Yes - and the frames flown away by lessors therefore contain since earlier unknown cannibalized parts from the other frames. |
|
harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on Apr 11, 2013 21:08:26 GMT 1
No Kingfisher aircraft has been flying since last October, when their flying licence was suspended by the Indian regulator. Not flown by Kingfisher. Are they all at airports where Kingfisher left them, or have any been flown away by lessors? Cannibalisation likely took place earlier. Yes - and the frames flown away by lessors therefore contain since earlier unknown cannibalized parts from the other frames. So... perform a D check before letting the aircraft fly again? |
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by someone on Apr 12, 2013 7:29:19 GMT 1
So... perform a D check before letting the aircraft fly again? Which is expensive, so it might be more economical to chop it up, and sell it as parts |
|
harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on Apr 12, 2013 13:19:34 GMT 1
So... perform a D check before letting the aircraft fly again? Which is expensive, so it might be more economical to chop it up, and sell it as parts True but the frames are only 5-8 years old. Perhaps a C check would be a good compromise? I don't know, I get a little out of my depth once economics starts getting involved. |
|
