Legality [of Airports Blocking VA liveried Aircraft]

[Phil888]

I’m certainly no financial or legal expert, but the behaviour of Perth Airport is interesting. Given that Virgin is in the hands of administrators, and that there is a mandated queue for payment of outstanding debts, what then is the point of blocking aircraft as they’ve done. It’s obviously an attempt to move themselves up the payment totem pole, but surely that would not be an effective strategy. Beyond that, I’d expect that the aircraft are actually leased, so they’re really taking action against a third party.

Hi John Detailed email just sent to you

 

[AisleSeat]

I have no idea, but I'd expect some of the tugs would have little trouble moving these obstructions. ATC aren't going to stop you. Not their job.

There's an entire industry based on repossessing aircraft from shonky places around the world. Perth probably wouldn't be terribly difficult.

 

[Isochronous]

From memory there is a statutory right for an airport authority to exercise a possessory lien against aircraft for unpaid landing charges in one of the pieces of civil aviation legislation. There may also be a contractual right to a lien in the contract between the airport authority and Virgin. A lien is a security interest which does indeed place the airport in a stronger position compared to an ordinary unsecured creditor. To the extent that the planes are leased, the lessor's remedy would be against Virgin for allowing the lien to be placed against the aircraft as the airport wouldn't be bound by the terms of Virgin's lease agreements for the planes themselves.

 

[Phil888]

Not every creditor automatically has the right to exercise a lien over assets.
It's a complicated area of law and it has been made more complex by the Personal Property Security Act 2009 (Cth).
The actions of Perth Airport are pure theatre. There are legal avenues such as Mareva injunctions (now called asset freezing orders) available to prevent the movement of assets out of the jurisdiction. There's no need to take such physical measures.
But what would you expect from a property developer which just happens to own an airport.
I'm only surprised they could stop filling in environmentally important wetlands and building more DFOs long enough to spare the earthmoving equipment.

You are correct in part, re the act you quoted. However, parts 6 and S235 may make the whole exercise a "trialable issue" IF the owner (lessor) documentation was signed and title rests offshore and specific waivers by all parties were before agreed to and signed . DEBIS finance found out the hard way on more than several matters. Although your mention of a Marever injunction does you credit.Even if all docs were signed out of C'Wealth jurisdiction (as a LOT of aircraft & maritime and railway rolling stock docs are ) If any one wants to do their head in re this thread just have a look at the case law that may apply down the track if common sense does not prevail https://www.lawtext.com/pdfs/sampleArticles/index16issue6cases489to495.pdf Cheers time to go out to the garden my head now hurts

 

[torks]

I flew through Gatwick aiport in late 2019 after Thomas Cook had collapsed. I don't have any pics but Gatwick's snow ploughs had all been moved to block Thomas Cook's aircraft in.

Disregarding the legalities of this, Perth airport aren't alone in doing it although I don't know how British & Australian law differ in this respect.

 

[Quickstatus]

The respondent could still abscond with the assets despite a court injunction. I guess that’s a reason to block it in.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

From memory there is a statutory right for an airport authority to exercise a possessory lien against aircraft for unpaid landing charges in one of the pieces of civil aviation legislation. There may also be a contractual right to a lien in the contract between the airport authority and Virgin. A lien is a security interest which does indeed place the airport in a stronger position compared to an ordinary unsecured creditor. To the extent that the planes are leased, the lessor's remedy would be against Virgin for allowing the lien to be placed against the aircraft as the airport wouldn't be bound by the terms of Virgin's lease agreements for the planes themselves.

There's also the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (2001) and the Protocol specific to aircraft equipment. Not sure if that has any implications for Perth Airport vs lessor?

 

[jase05]

Don’t take this as gospel as it’s only one side of the story but in regards to ADL I’ve been told that the 7 aircraft the airport has taken possession of are all owned by VA and not leased.

 

[DC3]

Blocking in aircraft with bulldozers has a bit of a "3rd world dictatorship" feel about it.

Stay classy Perth airport...

The horse named Class has long bolted from PER, I feel. ☹

 

[smeacs]

I beleive there are still aircraft being flowin to and from Perth by VA, So if this was anything more symbolic id assume you would block the planes actually doing the flying.

 

[Borisdog]

I can't actually believe that people are classing PER airport as the bad guys here.

Rudimentary cause /effect analysis would say that this, symbolically, wouldn't have happened if VA paid for what they got!

 

[Quickstatus]

Remember the airport charges were collected from passengers. VA kept the $$$ without handing it over.

Anyone know the rego numbers of the impounded VA aircraft. I heard 1x 737, 1xA330???

 

[woodborer]

I can't actually believe that people are classing PER airport as the bad guys here.

Rudimentary cause /effect analysis would say that this, symbolically, wouldn't have happened if VA paid for what they got!

Depends on whether they had been paid within payment terms or not.

 

[Franky]

I can't actually believe that people are classing PER airport as the bad guys here.

Rudimentary cause /effect analysis would say that this, symbolically, wouldn't have happened if VA paid for what they got!

QF are playing the same game as VA in collecting the fees and taxes, and not passing them on to PER.

 

[muppet]

QF are playing the same game as VA in collecting the fees and taxes, and not passing them on to PER.

True although VAH is in administration so somewhat protected.

In QF’s defence, PER haven’t paid QF for transferring ownership of its terminal ... hard to know who is guilty.

EDIT: And to counter QF’s defence, i think it is refusing to pay any airport so .... probably QF is the bully.

 

[Franky]

True although VAH is in administration so somewhat protected.
In QF’s defence, PER haven’t paid QF for transferring ownership of its terminal ... hard to know who is guilty.

I reckon somone could write a PhD thesis on what the true story is between PER airport and QF, it could become a best-seller perhaps?

 

[OZDUCK]

I reckon somone could write a PhD thesis on what the true story is between PER airport and QF, it could become a best-seller perhaps?

The only trouble is that it would end up being be like the screenplay for the 1950 Japanese movie "Rashomon". What is truth?

"Brimming with action while incisively examining the nature of truth, "Rashomon" is perhaps the finest film ever to investigate the philosophy of justice. Through an ingenious use of camera and flashbacks, Kurosawa reveals the complexities of human nature as four people recount different versions of the story of a man's murder and the rape of his wife."

 

[Franky]

The only trouble is that it would end up being be like the screenplay for the 1950 Japanese movie "Rashomon". What is truth?

"Brimming with action while incisively examining the nature of truth, "Rashomon" is perhaps the finest film ever to investigate the philosophy of justice. Through an ingenious use of camera and flashbacks, Kurosawa reveals the complexities of human nature as four people recount different versions of the story of a man's murder and the rape of his wife."

Yes - that seems to fit the story here...

 

[jakeseven7]

I can't actually believe that people are classing PER airport as the bad guys here.

Rudimentary cause /effect analysis would say that this, symbolically, wouldn't have happened if VA paid for what they got!

PER are being judged also in their appalling lack of commercial sense and judgement for past decisions and actions as well, blocking VA1 planes is just another one of those.

 

[Borisdog]

PER are being judged also in their appalling lack of commercial sense and judgement for past decisions and actions as well, blocking VA1 planes is just another one of those.

Maybe, but would PER have done what they did if VA paid their bill?

What's PER's "commercial sense and judgement" got to do with VA being a poor payer?

If you buy a service you should pay for it, or you run the risk of that provider withdrawing their service. Or taking other measures. I doubt PER expect a result here, but I'd say they've drawn a bit of attention to VA's "commercial sense and judgement". I doubt PER is the only debtor annoyed with VA.