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?
Umm...so you think the BK judge would have given anything to the MX facility simply because the plane was sitting on their ramp?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.
They were screwed by the BK plane owner, no one else.
:yeahthat:
I can't understand how anyone would think the bank should be held liable.
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?
:yeahthat:
I can't understand how anyone would think the bank should be held liable.
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.
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 FBO could hold onto the airplane to use as leverage against the owner for monies owed.
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.
Uhh, What?