Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mesa Air Group Files For Chapter 11 - Part II  
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11368 posts, RR: 59
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5288 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Continuation of part 1 , which become too long:

For more info:

Press Release:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mesa-A...mences-bw-3392665865.html?x=0&.v=1

Mesa's own central info regarding the filing:
http://www.mesa-air.com/restructuring/

Link to part 1
Mesa Air Group Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (by Mainland Jan 5 2010 in Civil Aviation)


New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5187 times:

Here is the most recent news regarding the B-1900Ds that Mesa wants to dump. Raytheon claims the default clause requires Mesa to return the aircraft in an airworthy condition.

From the article:
Terms of the loan agreement require that, in the event of default, the planes are returned in “airworthy condition.” In court papers, Raytheon said that the Beechcraft don’t meet that stipulation because several of the planes are “missing one or both of their engines.”

From what I've heard these aircraft were cannibalized for parts and parked right as major maintenance came due like a hot section. I wonder what condition the other aircraft Mesa has parked are in?

To the legal folks out there; can Mesa essentially dump these aircraft with impunity or does Raytheon have a case? Is this kind of similar to DL not being able to exercise the BK clause of their contract?

http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2010...demands-mesa-return-planes-intact/


User currently offlineJA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 5152 times:

Mesa will be allowed to dump them, but they would have to pay to make them airworthy. Chances are good that RACC will do that in-house instead of have Mesa do it. If they were in better condition, RACC would be able to move them faster,

User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 5136 times:



Quoting JA (Reply 2):
Mesa will be allowed to dump them, but they would have to pay to make them airworthy. Chances are good that RACC will do that in-house instead of have Mesa do it. If they were in better condition, RACC would be able to move them faster,

It sounds like it won't be cheap to get these aircraft airworthy again. RACC has a bunch of gliders on their hands at the moment.  Silly

How much cash did Mesa have left before the entered chapter 11?

I wonder what their other parked aircraft are like and if the owners of these aircraft have requirements to be returned airworthy as well?


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6582 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 5093 times:



Quote:
These 2 groups of survivors and casualties, actually, can give some idea about the chances of Mesa.
UA, US, DL, NW survived their bankruptcies because they were too big to fail. It would be too painful for the national transportation system to absorb their liquidation. Can you imagine if some day UA, US, DL or NW all of a sudden would shut their doors.

I don't really think that's true at all. Eastern and Pan Am both failed two decades ago, and both were arguably as important to the national transportation system as the majors that went into bankruptcy in the past decade.

The bigger picture is that UA, US, DL, and NW all found investors/banks who were willing to risk money on their reorganizations. It did not hurt matters that both Airbus and Boeing wanted to make sure that hundreds of relatively new aircraft would stay off the market. In the case of US Airways and its second reorganization, the airline found regional partners who were willing to invest cash in the airline in exchange for long-term capacity purchase agreements. In the cases of UA, DL and NW, the businesses were, for the most part, fundamentally sound once their debt and labor cost issues were resolved.

In the examples of AQ, TZ, SX, DH, E0, etc. management couldn't make a case for investors/creditors to back a reorganization. TZ wasn't viable without the DoD charter contracts. SX's business model wasn't working, especially with 2008's fuel prices. Saving DH would have cost more than just starting over.

Frontier certainly was not too big to fail -- management turned the business around (aided in no small part by the decline in fuel prices) and found investors willing to back emergence from bankruptcy.

Quote:
the chance of Mesa going away (now that they are in trouble) is indeed quite strong.
YV, for the most part, is just a regional feeder. Their business heavily depends on the contracts from major airlines.

That's true, but the fate of Mesa is tied to how interested its two key customers -- UA and US -- are in Mesa continuing to fly. That, and how interested Bombardier is in not having Mesa's CR7's and CR9's parked and depressing the demand for new aircraft.

Quoting JA (Reply 2):
Mesa will be allowed to dump them, but they would have to pay to make them airworthy. Chances are good that RACC will do that in-house instead of have Mesa do it. If they were in better condition, RACC would be able to move them faster,

Mesa may not even have to pay cash if they can argue that it would impede a successful reorganization; Raytheon may have to settle for a larger claim against the bankruptcy estate instead.


User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 5034 times:



Quoting NorCal (Reply 1):
To the legal folks out there; can Mesa essentially dump these aircraft with impunity or does Raytheon have a case?

Some disclaimers before I say anything. First, I have not seen the contract and do not know any details, so my opinion is limited by that. Second, I am not a bankruptcy lawyer. Third, take this as gospel at your own risk! With that out of the way . . .

Raytheon will of course make the case that Mesa must repair the aircraft because of the terms of the contract. Mesa, however, will argue that the Automatic Stay provision of Chapter 11 prevents Raytheon from enforcing this contractual obligation. Part of the issue will be when the default on the airplanes occurred. If default occurred prior to Mesa's bankruptcy filing, and Raytheon filed a claim before Mesa's bankruptcy filing, then Mesa may be exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1), (3), or (4).

If default did not occur until after Mesa's bankruptcy filing, then Raytheon might be barred by 11 U.S.C. § 362 (7):

Quote:
under subsection (a) of this section, of the exercise by a repo participant or financial participant of any contractual right (as defined in section 559) under any security agreement or arrangement or other credit enhancement forming a part of or related to any repurchase agreement, or of any contractual right (as defined in section 559) to offset or net out any termination value, payment amount, or other transfer obligation arising under or in connection with 1 or more such agreements, including any master agreement for such agreements.

A quick simplification of this quote: "A creditor's attempt to enforce a contractual right as part of a security agreement related to a repurchase agreement or of any contractual right about termination value, payment amounts, or transfer obligations, are automatically stayed by this section."

Since Raytheon is likely trying to enforce a contractual right through a security agreement about transfer obligations, it is unlikely that Mesa will have to abide by this agreement.

Again, take this analysis for what it is: incomplete and lacking all the facts. I made a couple of assumptions in there that may turn out to be untrue. There is still a chance a judge will not agree that this falls under 11 U.S.C. § 362, which is the automatic stay provision.

Hope that helps.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 5034 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 4):
That, and how interested Bombardier is in not having Mesa's CR7's and CR9's parked and depressing the demand for new aircraft.

Those wouldn't stay parked for long or at all. Other carriers will gobble them up and throw all kinds of incentives at UA and US to fly them.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 4):
Mesa may not even have to pay cash if they can argue that it would impede a successful reorganization;

Personally I find that outrageous that Mesa can just trash these planes and get away with it but I guess the counter argument is that Raytheon took a risk leasing these aircraft to Mesa.

If Mesa does emerge from chapter 11 I wonder how their actions taken now will affect their ability to lease future aircraft at good rates. I doubt Bombardier and Embraer will be happy if their aircraft are forced back on them in unairworthy conditions too. If I were them I'd charge a premium to lease aircraft to Mesa given their past behavior.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 4968 times:



Quoting Texan (Reply 5):
There is still a chance a judge will not agree that this falls under 11 U.S.C. § 362, which is the automatic stay provision.

It does and it doesn't. YV can clearly dump the leases and quit paying for the airplanes, meaning that Raytheon gets possession of them and title to them. That doesn't settle the question of whether YV needs to pay to make them airworthy, however. That question largely turns on Section 362 while YV is in bankruptcy, but remember that 362 only applies until YV emerges, and then there is a whole different set of questions.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5222 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 4944 times:



Quoting NorCal (Reply 3):
It sounds like it won't be cheap to get these aircraft airworthy again. RACC has a bunch of gliders on their hands at the moment.

Ouch. Is there any possibility that removing the engines could constitute a criminal act? Willful destruction?



Consilivm: Cave ne nothi te vexant
User currently offlineJeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 588 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4926 times:

Also, in a lot of these contracts the specific engines that originally came with the aircraft must be returned on that particular airframe. Only in the event of the complete loss of an engine may it be replaced with a suitable replacement.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4916 times:



Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 8):
Ouch. Is there any possibility that removing the engines could constitute a criminal act? Willful destruction?

I don't think so. The link in Reply 1 makes it sound like YV was allowed to part out the airplanes provided they didn't default, and if that's the case, they would have been entitled to part them out. Had they parted them out after they had decided to get rid of them, that's a trickier question.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineToltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3277 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 4832 times:



Quoting NorCal (Reply 3):
How much cash did Mesa have left before the entered chapter 11?

Seems to me that I heard the number $60 million. At the time they filed, they felt this would be enough to get thru the CH11 process without the need for DIP financing.


User currently offlinePI731 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

Personally I would love to see US and UAL dump Mesa. I have never had a good experience flying with them. Either the aircraft is beat up with maker on the seats and walls, to employees being well I’ll just say not the friendliest. More I though about it, it wouldn’t surprise me if we see Mesa continue to fly for US. From what I understand for reading on here, US can’t replace the CR9 flying with anyone due to not being able to fly more than 70, 70+ RJs. So, I would think US would do anything to keep that flying

User currently offlineBeryllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 4607 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 4):
I don't really think that's true at all. Eastern and Pan Am both failed two decades ago, and both were arguably as important to the national transportation system as the majors that went into bankruptcy in the past decade.

The bigger picture is that UA, US, DL, and NW all found investors/banks who were willing to risk money on their reorganizations.



Quoting ScottB (Reply 4):
In the examples of AQ, TZ, SX, DH, E0, etc. management couldn't make a case for investors/creditors to back a reorganization.

Yes, Eastern and Pan Am were very important to the national transportation system... and the system learned the lesson pretty well to make sure something like that does not happen yet another time... Let's try to think why UA/US/DL/NW were able to find those investors, while AQ/TZ/SX/DH/E0 were not... You may disagree but it was exactly because the former were important to the system, while the latter were not... Because the former were "too big to fail" and were essential, while the latter did not have the necessary critical mass and could easily be disposed of... Because the disappearance of any of the former would create a major disruption in the operation of the national air transportation system, while the disappearance of any of the latter was barely noticeable...


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6582 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 4543 times:



Quoting Beryllium (Reply 13):
Yes, Eastern and Pan Am were very important to the national transportation system... and the system learned the lesson pretty well to make sure something like that does not happen yet another time... Let's try to think why UA/US/DL/NW were able to find those investors, while AQ/TZ/SX/DH/E0 were not... You may disagree but it was exactly because the former were important to the system, while the latter were not... Because the former were "too big to fail" and were essential, while the latter did not have the necessary critical mass and could easily be disposed of...

I do disagree, completely. There is no evidence to support your supposition of government intervention to save the four legacy carriers which declared bankruptcy between 2002 and 2005. United failed to qualify for the ATSB loan guarantee for which it applied, while failed carriers AQ and TZ were both granted ATSB loan guarantees.

Investors don't step in to rescue a company because it is "too big to fail." They do it when they feel that the company is worth more reorganized than liquidated. In the case of US, for example, there was ample capacity in the system to handle displaced passengers, and it's likely that Delta could have avoided bankruptcy due to the boost in traffic and reduction in competition in their core markets. Even a failure of United would not have crippled the national system, given the availability of alternate carriers in all of their hub city markets and in most of their spoke cities as well. American and Southwest would have been bolstered in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, while Frontier would have benefited in Denver. Delta would have seen improvements in its spokes from SLC and CVG, while Northwest would have also seen gains in smaller cities in the Midwest.

If any of the network carriers had truly been "too big to fail," we would have seen more direct intervention by the government -- possibly even forced consolidation.


User currently offlineBeryllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 4500 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 14):
Even a failure of United would not have crippled the national system, given the availability of alternate carriers in all of their hub city markets and in most of their spoke cities as well.

Now, let's imagine for a second that tomorrow there is no UA. It's gone. It has shut its doors. What would you do with all the passengers, who have confirmed bookings?
Let's take ORD as an example. You would put them all on AA? AA has that many spare aircarft to accomodate all those folks? Somehow I don't think so. That's when the national system becomes crippled in an instant, and the consequences would be so severe, that it would take a lot of time and resources to fix that. It is not just about investors, as you are trying to describe. Failure of such airline as UA (i.e. its disappearance from the scene overnight) would be about much more than that - it would be about the functionality of the entire economy of the country. And yes, politicians (federal, state, local) would never allow UA to disappear.
As for investors - yes, they naturally would always step in where they see a potential to get a decent return on their investment.
So, here comes the question: why UA was a decent investment and AQ/TZ/SX/E0 were not?
The answer: It's the size. (Of course, not only that, but the importance of the size of the business entity is enormous). Investors knew that because of its size and importance in the national transportation system UA would survive - one way or another, as a stand-alone company or thru a merger/acquisition, but it will not go away overnight like AQ or TZ.
Because it is "too big to fail". Because unlike AQ or TZ, it will be there no matter what - either as UA, or as a combined entity with CO or anyone else.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 14):
If any of the network carriers had truly been "too big to fail," we would have seen more direct intervention by the government -- possibly even forced consolidation.

This one is strange looking... Why would government force consolidation? I thought, that government should do quite the opposite - namely, encourage competition, because it is supposed to be for the benefit of the population...


User currently offlineRidgid727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 4456 times:



Quoting Beryllium (Reply 15):
Now, let's imagine for a second that tomorrow there is no UA. It's gone. It has shut its doors. What would you do with all the passengers, who have confirmed bookings?

Which also begs the question..Why do the FEDS permit the mega mergers to happen? What would happen if the Delta of today were to stumble?


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

There is enough capacity or potential capacity to absorb the loss of any US carrier pretty quickly. Even Delta, which is not going to happen of course.

But if United went under today, other carriers would offer to honor many of the tickets in order to create good will and enable new bookings.

Airlines come and go and it's not the end of the world when it happens.

There is no airline that is 'Too big to fail' and while there should be pragmatism with regards to jobs lost and restructuring allowances under Ch. 11, there should be very, very few handouts to airlines IMHO.

Post 9/11 was one thing. It was a unique event but bad management or even just market forces do not constitute a unique event and should not subsidized.

Just my opinion...



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineBeryllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 4387 times:



Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 17):
There is no airline that is 'Too big to fail' and while there should be pragmatism with regards to jobs lost

I would name six such airlines in the United States: DL, AA, UA, WN, CO, US.
How much money these airlines lost since year 2001? (WN is the exception here, of course).
Tons and tons.
However, they are still around, and no matter how much money they are destined to lose in the future, they will still be around in many years to come.
Why?
Because of their size and importance in the national transportation system.
One of them might merge with another one (UA+CO), but all of them will be present in one way or another - either as a stand-alone or as a combined entity.
They will always be able to find investors.
They will always get significant support from politicians.

"Pragmatism with regards to jobs lost", by the way, is also one of the important reasons why they are sort of "unsinkable ships".

Speaking of Mesa (this is the topic of the thread)... These guys do not belong to that circle of those who are "too big to fail". Their chance of survival is, therefore, slimmer... But, not impossible...


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 4385 times:

While it is certainly debatable whether or not any of the above mentioned carriers should or should not fail or what the role of the government should be with regards to that failure, it is quite clear that no "fee for departure" carrier like Mesa falls into that category.

On that point we are in agreement.

They have run a ragged business for years and are not deserving of any special treatment in my opinion.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4321 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
That question largely turns on Section 362 while YV is in bankruptcy, but remember that 362 only applies until YV emerges, and then there is a whole different set of questions.

True. I haven't seen any cases extremely close to this, so ho knows what will happen if or when Mesa emerges from bk.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6582 posts, RR: 32
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4278 times:



Quoting Beryllium (Reply 15):
Let's take ORD as an example. You would put them all on AA? AA has that many spare aircarft to accomodate all those folks? Somehow I don't think so. That's when the national system becomes crippled in an instant, and the consequences would be so severe, that it would take a lot of time and resources to fix that.

A United failure simply wouldn't have crippled the system at ORD any more than a multi-day blizzard would have. The connecting passengers could have been sent via any of a half-dozen or more competitor hubs. The O&D passengers would end up on AA or WN at MDW. It's like saying that the national air transportation system melted down because CO's hub at IAH and WN's operation at HOU shut down for several days due to Hurricane Ike. Connecting passengers find alternatives and the airlines serving the failed airline's hub add service and capacity.

Would it be inconvenient? Absolutely, especially for United's passengers! Crippling? No way. Especially so in the case of United, where its hub cities have ample service on other airlines at the same or alternate airports.

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 15):
Why would government force consolidation? I thought, that government should do quite the opposite - namely, encourage competition, because it is supposed to be for the benefit of the population...

The government might force consolidation if the goal were to save a failing company -- as we saw in the financial industry or even the auto industry with the Chrysler-Fiat Deal. But this happens very, very infrequently.

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 18):
How much money these airlines lost since year 2001? (WN is the exception here, of course).
Tons and tons.
However, they are still around, and no matter how much money they are destined to lose in the future, they will still be around in many years to come.
Why?
Because of their size and importance in the national transportation system.

The four legacy carriers which went through bankruptcy managed to reorganize because they found investors and/or banks willing to loan them money! Their route systems did have value if the costs and debt could be brought under control. I don't agree that they will all be around for years to come -- witness the speculation that US Airways could be a candidate for breakup.


User currently offlineBeryllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4218 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 21):
Would it be inconvenient? Absolutely, especially for United's passengers! Crippling? No way. Especially so in the case of United, where its hub cities have ample service on other airlines at the same or alternate airports.

If UA shut down, it would be very interesting to see how all those UA pax would find that "ample service" on other airlines. It's like saying that all other airlines have that many aircraft standing by to immediately pick up that traffic in case UA disappears...
If UA all of a sudden shut its doors today, it would not be just an "inconvenience". It would be much more than that...

Quoting ScottB (Reply 21):
The four legacy carriers which went through bankruptcy managed to reorganize because they found investors and/or banks willing to loan them money! Their route systems did have value if the costs and debt could be brought under control. I don't agree that they will all be around for years to come -- witness the speculation that US Airways could be a candidate for breakup.

Yes, their route systems have enormous value... because, unlike route systems of AQ or TZ, those network are really huge... size does matter.
As for US, I think they will be fine - and even if they get absorbed by AA, or whoever else, they will still continue in that form or the other. It's not like all of US will suddenly stop flying, as was the case with AQ or TZ.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6582 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4154 times:



Quoting Beryllium (Reply 22):
If UA shut down, it would be very interesting to see how all those UA pax would find that "ample service" on other airlines. It's like saying that all other airlines have that many aircraft standing by to immediately pick up that traffic in case UA disappears...
If UA all of a sudden shut its doors today, it would not be just an "inconvenience". It would be much more than that...

No, it would not be much more than that. The other airlines aren't running 100% load factors, so there is clearly some room to accommodate a portion of a failed airline's traffic. Fares would certainly be higher in the short term, but there would also be potential opportunities for new entrants -- just as EA's failure created an opportunity for Valujet at ATL. A United failure might allow an airline like JetBlue or Virgin America create a hub at ORD. It might give room for Southwest to expand at LAX.

United only represents a bit over 10% of the domestic market. Pre-merger Delta is about the same. The industry would have enough capacity to absorb the traffic. There's a huge difference between many inconvenienced passengers and total collapse of the system.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24655 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4150 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Beryllium (Reply 18):
However, they are still around, and no matter how much money they are destined to lose in the future, they will still be around in many years to come.
Why?
Because of their size and importance in the national transportation system.

I believe they are mostly still around because they represent a perpetual piggy bank to the credit markets.

United, for example, had to pay an effective 17% on a recent money raising venture and right now, in these "improved" times, they're offering 11% on some bonds.

mariner

[Edited 2010-01-25 12:00:31 by mariner]


aeternum nauta
25 Post contains links Lightsaber : I'm in 100% agreement. I've avoided posting much on these Mesa threads as I've run out of things to contribute, but I keep reading them. What strikes
26 Beryllium : To accommodate the traffic (even a portion) of someone like UA on the load factor leftovers of others? Good luck with that. I was not talking about t
27 Lightsaber : Agreed. So there will be a disruption. As there was when EA and PA shut down. I do. But there were once upon a time tens of thousands of employees ma
28 ScottB : Your claim was that several carriers were "too big to fail." But we've seen plenty of acts of nature that caused a "major disruption" in the system -
29 Beryllium : The fact still remains that six of them are (DL, AA, UA, WN, CO, US). As I mentioned, they (with the exception of WN) have lost tons of $$$ over the
30 Cubsrule : What you have said about investors is correct, but what evidence do you have for this assertion?
31 NorCal : New motions from Mesa: Mesa filed a motion today to "reject, abandon, transfer title, or surrender and return excess equipment" Hearing scheduled Feb.
32 Cubsrule : Yes, and it's probably a smart move. That way, he doesn't have to go back to court (or, if he does have to go back, he has an easier path). Of course
33 ScottB : I think it's largely procedural in that filing to reject the leases and mortgages on owned aircraft opens the door for Mesa to renegotiate leases and
34 Lightsaber : My jaw just hit the floor. I realize this is a negotiation ploy, but wow. Talk about the nuclear option. My count is 118 RJ leases to be rejected (I'
35 ScottB : We know that the CR2 flying for United is done. US Airways clearly intends to continue to reduce Mesa's CR2 flying as well; they're down to 8 now. As
36 NorCal : It isn't but if this is brinksmanship on JO's part he should be careful because there are other airlines out there that are eyeing his large RJs. Tha
37 NorCal : Apparently Mesa and Raytheon settled the issue over the un-airworthy aircraft. Looks like it'll cost them $14 million. Mesa has a lot of other aircraf
38 Lightsaber : That I am not certain of. But if there is *any* CR2 flying left on the mainland, they Go continues to be viable. If US decides to unwind all CR2 flyi
39 NorCal : I agree, I figure replacing the engines alone on those B-1900Ds would cost more than that. You're the engine expert though so I defer to your opinion
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Tower Air Files For Chapter 11 posted Wed Mar 1 2000 00:44:01 by B717
Eclipse Aviation Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy posted Tue Nov 25 2008 14:53:23 by Boeing4ever
EOS Files For Chapter 11 Will Cease Operations posted Sat Apr 26 2008 19:20:47 by UnitedTristar
Bankruptcy: Frontier Files For Chapter 11 posted Thu Apr 10 2008 22:55:26 by F9Mechanic
Northwest Files For Chapter 11! posted Wed Sep 14 2005 23:12:18 by Pilot21
Midway Files For Chapter 11 posted Tue Aug 14 2001 14:45:44 by MCOtoATL
CityBird Files For Chapter 11 posted Mon Jul 2 2001 13:58:30 by Aerokid
National Airlines Files For Chapter 11 posted Thu Dec 7 2000 04:23:11 by ContinentalEWR
National Files For Chapter 11(!) posted Thu Dec 7 2000 01:03:41 by Corona
Delta Air Lines To File For Chapter 11 Protection posted Wed Sep 14 2005 22:05:41 by Positiverate