Aviation Repo Man

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?
 
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?

I would be willing to bet the bank lost more on the transaction than "the little guy".

You don't have sympathy for the bank but want the bank to take pity on the FBO?? :confused:
 
What "evidence" am I missing?

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.
 
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?

The key point here is that the FBO made some mistakes. They need to take care of their accounts receivable in a more efficient manner. Probably also need to think about letting a guys bill get that high with no repayment.

I was given an opportunity to manage a hanger when I was real young (18 years old). Sold hanger space to various planes based on the field. We had a guy that had a P-Baron that leased from us. He got behind and I let it go a couple months, thinking he would turn it around (energy trader). After the second month and approaching the third, and after his fourth "check is in the mail" lie, he called one day and told the receptionist to have the airplane ramped. Instead, I restacked the hanger putting the Baron behind a Queen Air, a 421 and a 414. He arrived and expressed his frustration that the plane wasn't ramped and fueled. I said, you are welcome to ramp the airplane yourself...but we are ala-cart now. You want me to ramp it, I need a fee. You want to ramp it yourself using the tug, I need a fee, or you can use this universal tow-bar to hand-pull the airplanes out of the way and then get yours. He asked what the fee was and I replied "$850 for me to do it. $850 for tug rental." He was pissed but showed up the next day with the money for the back rent and then I evicted him. Point is - I took care of my A/R. The FBO should have done the same - the bank did the right thing and there is no reason to notify the FBO before hand...in fact, there are probably many reasons not to. The FBO blew it - it is sad, but that is the case.
 
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?

Sounds like the FBO was bamboozled by the same guy, the bank was just smart enough to have the first lien and ability to take possesion of the machine. Again, sounds like the FBO needs to revamp how they do business rather than rail against "the man".
 
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 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.
 
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...
 
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.

A market value that has probably plumetted with the recession. The bank will perform the necessary repairs themselves if the airplane is not airworthy. They may even use an FBO for these repairs that is a bank customer (banks try to patronize customers if they can). The Mooney I repo'd was out of annual but based on our field. I hooked up the tug and towed it to our hanger. We examined the airplane for another fee, did the annual (more bank fees) and then the bank let us sell the airplane and I recieved 6% of the sale price. That was the first airplane I ever sold - got $2,700 commision! Man, I thought I was rich.
 
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...


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::D

Uh no.....

There are underserved niche markets that would do quite well.

It seems to be the over eagerness of expansion that causes lack of adherence to business plans that screws them up.
 
Guys, I didn't want to start a fight over whether it's cool for the banks to call in this repo man. I just thought it was a cool story.

I especially liked the part about what happened to him in Haiti. You may not like what he does, but you've got to give him credit for having some guts to deal with that situation.
 
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.

Actually, it's not so simple, in some states mechanics liens(in some circumstances) have priority over a lender's lien.

I'm not a lawyer, but this varies considerably from state to state and with out knowing all the details it would be impossible to know.

As far as what is fair, that's a whole 'nother matter, both have an interest and deserve to be paid, but neither will come out whole.
 
The same could be said of the FBO, they allowed someone not-credit worthy to rack up 80 grand in credit. Poo on them.
 
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?
 
In these economic times, they may be for sale again!

Very true...but those planes were really tired then...I would imagine that they are completely clapped out now. We did pick up an Aztec from that same bank and it was a great deal.
 
Back
Top