DO REFORMED DEFAULTERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE COMPLETELY OBLIVIONED? PLEASE VOTE!
Dear BLACKLIST.AERO followers! It is extremely important for us to hear your opinion on one of the most important issues of our site. As you well know, we never delete articles from our site. For all three years, no one has managed to intimidate or bribe us. I told them every time - even if you bang your head against the brick wall, hire lawyers, bandits, killers, anyone, throw mud at us (and at me personally) in the form of various, the most idiotic fakes - it will not help! It also never came to discussing specific amounts for removing an article, because such proposals were nipped in the bud.
In the same way, no one can pay us for “posting” an article. I write articles solely at my own discretion. And only when the case is either interesting or causes outrage with blatant facts of fraud, corruption, or ordinary human stupidity.
At the same time, sometimes we hear the rebuke: “If according to the rules of BLACKLIST.AERO, a case is removed from the Registry 90 days after the defaulter has closed the debt, then why don’t you also remove the articles related to this case?”
Of course, there is some logic in such a formulation of the question. And the claimants themselves, who have filed cases in BLACKLIST.AERO, admit to us that their defaulters often approach them with a proposal to resolve the debt issue only if BLACKLIST.AERO removes the article about them. Since we do not agree to this, the debt hangs, and we continue to fight with the defaulter.
We have always had a fear that the very fact of removing any articles may be perceived by the aviation community as non-transparency on our part. And the trust of aviation market professionals is the only thing we are afraid of losing.
In addition, quite often the disclosure of the facts themselves, related to a particular case, is of much greater social and professional significance than a banal debt repayment. And in this case, we are faced with a dilemma - either to pursue a higher goal and inform aviation market participants about such facts, or to seek, first of all, the return of debts to our claimants.
However, now we feel that the time has come to discuss this issue with you - aviation market professionals. The last straw was one of the last episodes, when at first the defaulter tried to threaten us, then promised money for removing the article. When all this did not help, then they laid all their cards on the table and explained how destructive an article on the BLACKLIST.AERO website could be for them and why it could be so destructive for the defaulter company. Instead of threats and generous promises, they began to ask, to beg. All I could do was promise to put this issue to a voting. Which I am doing, fulfilling this promise.
We do not consider ourselves entitled to decide on our own - about which company it is worth deleting articles, and about which not. The rule should be the same for everyone, and it should apply regardless of our tastes and preferences.
And this means that even in relation to people who were involved in scams, people who fight BLACKLIST.AERO with the dirtiest and meanest methods, we will be forced to remove articles from the site and forget about all the insults inflicted if they close their debts to the claimants in the Registry. Can we decide on such a responsible step without receiving feedback from the aviation community? Absolutely not.
Therefore, I ask everyone who cares about the issue posed to the aviation community to vote: Should the BLACKLIST.AERO remove articles about defaulters and scammers who closed their debts on their cases?
I thank everyone in advance for your position on this issue, whatever it may be. Voting takes place on the BLACKLIST.AERO LinkedIn page at this link
Can one company become a 39-Cases Defaulter? As the situation with the Nigerian operator ARIK AIR shows - it can if lawlessness is carried out and patronized at the state level.
This was not a voting with any outcome we knew we wanted. Both options have their advantages and challenges for us. But it was important for us to understand the real sentiments among active participants of the aviation market. Because for us these are the people who are called policy makers.
Stories about how scammers, having earned money by deceiving counterparties, invest part of the loot in raising their status are not uncommon. The calculation is quite simple: firstly, they need to whitewash their reputation. Secondly, the new status allows them to penetrate the circle of fatter wallets, which means they can rob at a new, higher level. So such investments are usually justified and there is nothing surprising here.
The problems of Panorama Airways (Uzbekistan) began almost from the very beginning. In fact, it was a financial pyramid - tickets were sold at a loss, the company existed at the expense of loans from suppliers of fuel, ground handling and catering services. This could not work for so long and one fine day the pyramid collapsed in the most catastrophic way - the airline was unable to take back passengers who flew in January 2024 for Umrah (minor Hajj) to Saudi Arabia.
