Aviation Repo Man

Pretty cool for the banks that own those airplanes, but often when a bank repos an airplane they end up stiffing the local FBO that has unpaid Mx bills, fuel orders, hangar fees and other delinquent expenses.

From reading this article, it seems this guy makes a living our of "careless and reckless operation" of airplanes just to make a profit. I was not really impressed.
 
I have repo'd three airplanes - all for a now defunct S&L in Houston. One Mooney M20F, a Cessna 150, and a Warrior.

I didn't get paid well, didn't face any danger or excitement, and didn't get any chicks. They were referred to me by a friend that repo'd bigger stuff - turbo-props and biz jets because he didn't want to screw with them.
 
Pretty cool for the banks that own those airplanes, but often when a bank repos an airplane they end up stiffing the local FBO that has unpaid Mx bills, fuel orders, hangar fees and other delinquent expenses.

From reading this article, it seems this guy makes a living our of "careless and reckless operation" of airplanes just to make a profit. I was not really impressed.


How do you figure "the Bank" stiffed the FBO? Did "the bank" enter a contract with, or request service from the FBO? :confused:
 
How do you figure "the Bank" stiffed the FBO? Did "the bank" enter a contract with, or request service from the FBO? :confused:

I know from an experience I was recently privy to. The owner of an airplane stopped paying the payments on his Lear. The owner owed the FBO close to 80,000 in MX inspections and close to 5,000 in Fuel and hangar costs. Bank takes airplane, FBO is told to recoup costs from owner. Owner is bankrupt and FBO has to get in line for monies owed. I understand the bank did not owe the FBO the money, but when the bank arranges for someone to covertly reclaim the airplane, the FBO lost the one thing that gave them leverage...the plane.
 
I know from an experience I was recently privy to. The owner of an airplane stopped paying the payments on his Lear. The owner owed the FBO close to 80,000 in MX inspections and close to 5,000 in Fuel and hangar costs. Bank takes airplane, FBO is told to recoup costs from owner. Owner is bankrupt and FBO has to get in line for monies owed. I understand the bank did not owe the FBO the money, but when the bank arranges for someone to covertly reclaim the airplane, the FBO lost the one thing that gave them leverage...the plane.
Umm...so you think the BK judge would have given anything to the MX facility simply because the plane was sitting on their ramp?

They were screwed by the BK plane owner, no one else.
 
Interesting story, but...

"One time, Lipke needed a plane repo-ed from Michigan and flown to Chicago. "All the electrical went out on the plane and Nick was flying at night," he says. "He flew that plane back with zero electricity -- no lights, nothing. There aren't many guys that would be able to do that."

Maybe thats not the whole story, but how did he pull that one off?
 
:yeahthat:

I can't understand how anyone would think the bank should be held liable. :confused:

I think the FBO would of preferred that the Bank coordinate with them the repossession, so that they at least had an opportunity to try to work something out...I understand it is the fault of the owner, but lets say the FBO were to remove an engine. Do you think that in that scenario the bank may be more willing to negotiate in order for the airplane to be airworthy?
 
I think the FBO would of preferred that the Bank coordinate with them the repossession, so that they at least had an opportunity to try to work something out...I understand it is the fault of the owner, but lets say the FBO were to remove an engine. Do you think that in that scenario the bank may be more willing to negotiate in order for the airplane to be airworthy?

Not at all, the FBO would then be facing a suit, as they have no rights to the aircraft. The Bank holder would be the primary lean holder. And why would the bank let anyone know the aircraft is to be repoed, that would lesson their chances of a retrieval.
 
I think the FBO would of preferred that the Bank coordinate with them the repossession, so that they at least had an opportunity to try to work something out...I understand it is the fault of the owner, but lets say the FBO were to remove an engine. Do you think that in that scenario the bank may be more willing to negotiate in order for the airplane to be airworthy?

How can removing an engine and making an aircraft unairworthy be an "opportunity to try to work something out"?

Sounds like extortion to me.

The FBO needs to get theirs, and I understand this. However, if you let a buddy use a car, he's broke and someone is keeping your car would you be mad?
 
:yeahthat:

I can't understand how anyone would think the bank should be held liable. :confused:

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?
 
Not at all, the FBO would then be facing a suit, as they have no rights to the aircraft. The Bank holder would be the primary lean holder. And why would the bank let anyone know the aircraft is to be repoed, that would lesson their chances of a retrieval.

Actually in this scenario, the FBO had rights to the aircraft to continue to charter the aircraft. It was in the lease agreement the owner signed with the FBO when they added it to the 135 certificate. Whatever his arrangement with the bank was, if he stopped paying his bills, they were able to recoup costs by chartering the aircraft.
 
People used to say similar things when the earth was believed to be flat.

Uhh, What? :confused:


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?

Not hard to understand at all, but what you don't understand is as the primary lien holder, the bank has the rights to the aircraft, no one else, including the FBO.
 
The FBO could hold onto the airplane to use as leverage against the owner for monies owed.

How is that possible? The bank already has paper possession of the asset, they just lack physical possession.

At that point the person who took out the loan has nothing to do with the asset, so how could the asset be leveraged against the owner?

I'm no lawyer, so I can be very wrong.
 
Actually in this scenario, the FBO had rights to the aircraft to continue to charter the aircraft. It was in the lease agreement the owner signed with the FBO when they added it to the 135 certificate. Whatever his arrangement with the bank was, if he stopped paying his bills, they were able to recoup costs by chartering the aircraft.

Which is superseded by the bank's rights as primary lien holder. Very simple. Sorry FBO, the bank has no responsibility to you.
 
Back
Top