mustache ride

The 2 subleased EMB145's are at TSA and are 'scheduled' to be returned this year. Anywhere from the Spring to the Fall depending on who you talk to. Not sure what the implications are for the lease terms with TSA and Mesa. Best wishes to the Mesa folks, if it were up to me, you could have your 2 EMB's back....not sure you're going to want them back though!

winglet

Mesa claims that DIP Financing is unnessesary. Don't forget that Mesa still has very profitable contracts remaining in place not counting the leases on the parked aircraft. The burden is on Mesa to prove that they can be viable if the lease payments are renegotiated or forgiven. They also feel confident that the Delta/Freedom contract is worth $70 million. I'm guessing that this is the price Delta would pay over the life of the Freedom contract that is under injunction. Anything is possible at this point and there are all sorts of scenarios that could come into play including management changes, buyout offers, parcelling, etc. Many companies have come back from the brink that were in a worse state than Mesa. It's a little too early in the game to start eating the carcass. If nothing else it's going to get interesting.

winglet

PSACFI

I know Mesa is hoping for the $70 million for the ERJ contract but isn't that kind of a moot point now since Delta can eventually exercise their BK clause of the contract? (either upon the courts permission or Mesa exiting BK).

Mesa has the injunction against DL currently so they are getting paid every month for the flying. Again I'm not a lawyer but to me it doesn't seem like Mesa is owed an damages (maybe legal fees).

Mesa is either in violation from either a performance stand point or the BK clause, so I don't see how this contract is safe or that they are owed that money.

I think JO is putting on a show and that there is very little chance they'll see that $70 million.

iPilot

Indeed it's all a big show. At this point he has to impress upon the judge and his creditors to keep Mesa going. That means making every impression that the sun will come out tomorrow for the company by any means necessary. Much like the opening arguments in a trial he can basically tell them whatever he wants in the filing statements. It will be up to the court to figure out the real story and make the decision on how to restructure or simply liquidate Mesa.

mesasurvivor

Don't think that idea is going to work so well. Larry Risley passed away about five years ago. J.O. started putting the "LR" tail numbers on all the Mesa jets after he passed. Had to honor the man whose company he was preparing to run into the ground.

bradeku1008

I'm just curious in how long it last for the courts to decide things.

wrenchspinner

I still have alot of friends that are MX at mesa and they are quick to ground a plane if something is not airworthy.

AirWillie

That's because they were worth something, but I do see a buy out in the horizon for Mesa. Or a more likely garage sale for the CRJ900s.

Now that Mesa has filed, which is not the fault of Delta and the judge knows this, they can get out completely. So there is no way Delta is going to pay whatever number JO is coming up with. Maybe a small percentage of that. After that they still have to account for 50+ airplanes. And the wild card is the possibility of UA or US getting out of Mesa although the only real possibility of that would be for UA.

winglet

If only it were that simple. Sorry but bankruptcy law is much more complex than that. These "contract termination" clauses were made unenforceable by the rewriting of the Bankruptcy Code in 1979. They are still commonly placed automatically in contracts to provide protection in the off chance the Bankruptcy Code changes within the lifespan of the contracts.

These unenforceable ipso facto provisions are covered by U.S. Bankruptcy Code:

11 U.S.C. §541(c)

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, an interest of the debtor in property becomes property of the estate under subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) of this section notwithstanding any provision in an agreement, transfer instrument, or applicable nonbankruptcy law -
(A) that restricts or conditions transfer of such interest by the debtor; or
(B) that is conditioned on the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor, on the commencement of a case under this title, or on the appointment of or taking possession by a trustee in a case under this title or a custodian before such commencement, and that effects or gives an option to effect a forfeiture, modification, or termination of the debtor's interest in property.
(2) A restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title.


11 U.S.C. §365(e)(1)

(e)
(1) Notwithstanding a provision in an executory contract or unexpired lease, or in applicable law, an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor may not be terminated or modified, and any right or obligation under such contract or lease may not be terminated or modified, at any time after the commencement of the case solely because of a provision in such contract or lease that is conditioned on—
(A) the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor at any time before the closing of the case;
(B) the commencement of a case under this title; or
(C) the appointment of or taking possession by a trustee in a case under this title or a custodian before such commencement.

Don't worry, it will all come out in the wash.

winglet

winglet

Barring extensions, Mesa has until May 5th to get a reorganization plan approved. If unsuccessful the creditor committee gets to come up with their plan.

winglet