darrenf
resident denizen
I was simply making a comparison that unless you have all of the evidence, saying "I can't understand how" makes you seem close minded.
What "evidence" am I missing?
I was simply making a comparison that unless you have all of the evidence, saying "I can't understand how" makes you seem close minded.
I simply do not have much sympathy for some banks. They allowed someone who was not credit worthy enough to own a 8 million dollar airplane, but the times were good and they lent the money anyway. Bank gets the money back, and the little guy is left footing the bill. Sound familiar?
What "evidence" am I missing?
People used to say similar things when the earth was believed to be flat. The banks are owed money as are others. The FBO could hold onto the airplane to use as leverage against the owner for monies owed. If he tried to sell, they could get their money back. When the bank repossesses the airplane, no matter what they do with the aircraft, the FBO is left high and dry. Is it so hard to understand that the banks are not the only ones who are owed money?
I simply do not have much sympathy for some banks. They allowed someone who was not credit worthy enough to own a 8 million dollar airplane, but the times were good and they lent the money anyway. Bank gets the money back, and the little guy is left footing the bill. Sound familiar?
First off, you have no idea what the arrangements that the bank had with the owner nor secondary agreements the owner had with the charter company. If the bank hold the lien on the airplane, then why is it so hard to understand that money is owed to the business that kept that asset airworthy. Without the expenditures that the FBO invested into the airplane, the bank would not have an asset that still retains its market value.
First off, you have no idea what the arrangements that the bank had with the owner nor secondary agreements the owner had with the charter company. If the bank hold the lien on the airplane, then why is it so hard to understand that money is owed to the business that kept that asset airworthy. Without the expenditures that the FBO invested into the airplane, the bank would not have an asset that still retains its market value.
The only emotion I am experiencing about this while situation is regret that I won't get to fly that airplane again.
Thanks for the debate however, it reminds me of why I joined this board 8 years ago...
Can we call it " Go for Broke Aviation " ?? :nana2:Sorry you got screwed by someone with no scruples.....
If I had the cash I'd start a 135 op and I already have a list of pilots.....
Can we call it " Go for Broke Aviation " ?? :nana2:
The issues here are self evident. Bank had lien, they get airplane. Agreements between the owner and the FBO do not concern the bank. Very simple.
I think you are too emotionally wrapped up in this to see it clearly.
I have repo'd three airplanes - all for a now defunct S&L in Houston. One Mooney M20F, a Cessna 150, and a Warrior.
So....what happened to those planes and where can I look for one that might be for sale from the bank at this point?
It was in the 1989-1991 time frame. I doubt they are still for sale!
In these economic times, they may be for sale again!