Aircraft Lease Agreements – Negotiation and implications.

Understanding and navigating aircraft lease agreements is a key and often under recognised specialist task. Negotiation and implications are complex in an aircraft lease agreement and require a deep understanding of the terms and conditions that govern these contracts, and it is important to remember these are contracts.

They will define words or phrases to remove ambiguity, they will state where they are based legally and how disputes will be resolved. The documents are not airworthiness considerations and it is a key aspect to remember always that airworthiness, while crucial for operation, does not guarantee lease compliance.

The Wells Fargo v. U.S. Airways case underscores this point, the dispute centred around the return of three aircraft with a lower maximum take-off weight (MTOW) than what was specified in their lease agreements. Originally leased with an MTOW of 138,500 pounds, the aircraft were returned with an MTOW of 124,000 pounds, leading to a breach of contract claim by Wells Fargo. This case illustrates the importance of aligning aircraft conditions with lease stipulations, beyond mere airworthiness.

Lease return conditions often become contentious at the end of the lease term, potentially leading to significant time and financial implications. The BCC Equip. Leasing v. Lilac Wing Ltd. dispute exemplifies this, where failure to meet lease return conditions, such as maintaining required insurance and returning the aircraft and engines as stipulated, resulted in legal action and the lessor being granted immediate possession of the aircraft components. This highlights the critical need for lessees to thoroughly understand and prepare for lease return conditions to avoid costly disputes.

Lease agreements are predominantly designed to safeguard the lessor’s interests, ensuring the protection of the asset’s value throughout the lease term. This is evident in the Wells Fargo v. Synergy Group Corp. case; the court addressed the enforceability of future rent damages provisions in a lease agreement. Synergy argued that these provisions were unfairly beneficial to Wells Fargo. However, the court dismissed this argument, upholding the provisions to ensure Wells Fargo received the anticipated value from the lease, aligning with the principle that lease agreements are often structured to protect the lessor’s asset value. This decision reinforces the notion that lease agreements are structured to maintain the asset’s value, often resulting in terms more favourable to the lessor.

These cases collectively emphasize the importance of diligent negotiations at the outset of lease agreements. Lease negotiation should not be underestimated and needs diligence at all times for considerations of the implications in the future and how we can meet these conditions best to reduce cost exposure during a return.

If you are interested in learning more why not consider our Lease Transition Awareness Course and follow us on LinkedIn.