Who has to pay for the consequences of the two aircraft turbine?
Within less than five months, the now fully nationalized airline Malaysia Airline System (MAS) has lost two fully occupied aircraft. The company now sees itself in addition to the decline in the booking numbers also confronted with first securities claims of the passengers affected by the abandops and must cope with the loss of the two aircraft. Where the last point obviously was allowed to represent the slightest problem.
Due to the hard competition with the Malaysian Billigairline Air Asia, Mas had already recorded a significant rint of passenger numbers in recent years and flew since 2011 in the red numbers.
After not even clustered crash from flight MH370 on the way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing (Beijing), the number of bookings continued to reduce the number of bookings and after the also largely unclear launch of flight MH17 over the Ostukraine and the burglary of the share price to 8 Cent, the state had to step in Malaysia and take over the 30% of the company shares in the hands of private investors so far.
In addition, 6 should.000 places can be painted. This is about one third of the workforce at the beginning of 2014. Thus, part of the non-insured consequences is milled on the state and the employees.
With regard to the costs due to the loss of aircraft, the airline over the existing insurances seems to be secured. According to the available information, it can be amed that the two Boeing machines of the type 777-200 were owned by MAS. Although there is occasional evidence that it could have traded leased machines, but these information do not love to be subject to no doubt.
Neither MAS nor in the mentioned leasing companies could be found appropriate confirmations. If airlines buy aircraft, transfer to leasing companies in the sale-and-lease-back procedure and then lease again to buy them later, but is not exercise.
Which aircraft is and who has insured them?
The MH370 flight was carried out with the type Boeing 777-200er with the identifier 9M-MRO, which was built in 2002 and the Construction Number (C / N) carried 28420. In the case of MH17 flight, a machine of the type Boeing 777-200er is also called, which carried the identifier 9m-billion and built in 1997 with the Construction Number (C / N) 28411, so about five years old age.
The insurance of aircraft is represented by rare damage trap and comparatively high levels of damage in individual cases. The risk is distributed according to different models on insurers, back insurers and possibly partial deductible and other options. The procedures in the event of damage are largely committed to contractually and is therefore to be expected that the loss of aircraft can be regulated in both cases and in MH17, taking into account a valuation of the specific war risk relatively quickly.
The Allianz Global Corporate Specialty SE (AGCS), a 100% subsidiary of Allianz SE, has not informed about both crimes in each case that they are the leading back insurers of Malaysia Airlines both with regard to the cascos and liability insurance. It is estimated that about 15% of the total risk attracts to the Alliance.
AGCS was incurred in 2006 from the merger of various insurance holes of the Allianz Group in the field of industry, sea and aviation and specializes in the insurance coarse customer.
The AGCs goes into parts back to the rounded on July 28, 1885 "Hanseatic Sea Insurance Society". As an insurance broker is obviously the Willis Group or its Malaysian participation in board. As a local insurer of Mas in Malaysia is also the ETIQA Insurance Takaful be commagaged, which in turn pays to the Maybank Group.
The risk of war, which was particularly relevant in the case of the FLUGES MH17, should be ared of the British Atrium Underwriting Group Ltd. At least the news agency Reuters quoted the Agency Bloomberg, which in turn relate to a statement of the London insurance broker AON PLC.
AON is also quoted in this context with the statement that the value of the on 17. July on the East Ukraine stitched machine at about $ 97.3 million lying. This value is obviously recognized the full depreciation of the aircraft.
In practice, however, no airline will are their machines for the book or fair value, but rather to the recovery price, which is currently $ 269.5 million after the price list of Boeing, attributable to a deductible of about 10%. Thus, Mas for the self-retention of 10% each has received a non-factory-new machine, which is, of course, on the one hand is questionable whether machines of this type are quickly available and on the other hand is not sure if Mas is urgently needed in the present downturn of the company. ≈
As total damage for the machine and passengers in the case of the MH17 flight, a total of 100 million euros ($ 139.1 million) is mentioned, which seems to be oriented at the time value of the machine and the reductions for the relevant the falloff victims comparatively slightly rated.
However, there are therefore not what is not really surprised, as not all claims against insurers have been planned. That one does not give any statements of the participating parties to two causes. On the one hand, you certainly want to avoid any impression that the airline has ultimately achieved a profit with the loss of the machines after completion of the regulation and the refancement may also be due to the fact that the securities of the relief of the passengers probably still takes.
Passenger lists and seclusions
So the passenger lists of the two flights were at least in parts to print it carefully, something inaccurate. With flight MH370, at least two passengers flew among foreign names and with strange papers, which clearly cleares that the original passports were still living and asserted a document loss.
The fact that no trace can be found by the machine crashed in March, makes a quick regulation of the demands of the relief. With the passenger lists you seem to have your problems at MAS. Also in the case of flight MH17, the creation of the passenger list lasted much long ago, as expected.
Obviously, at least the Malaysian insurers now want to recognize the passenger lists as a confirmation of the loss on the one hand, on the one hand, on the other hand, the deadlines applicable for compensation.
The securities claims of the relief will also play a role where the place of jurisdiction is based on the respective receivables. Anyone who can strain a process in the United States will be able to assert significantly higher compensation claims than in Malaysia or China.
In the case of MH17, Mas has at least the survivors in the Netherlands a dechipement of around 38 each.000 Euro offers, which is significantly less than the 1999 Montreal Agency with about 132.000 Euro specified sum.
Currently no topic for the damage regulation are probably the damage to the crash place in the Ostukraine. Parts of the Malaysian airlines machine obviously roamed roofs of homes or barns in a nearby village. There is currently a lot of Dafur that this group of people is not considered in the damage regulation.