Mesa Air Group Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Thread starter JaceTheAce
- Start date
meyers9163
Well-Known Member
From the HUB at USairways
Mesa Files for Ch. 11 Protection to Reorganize
January 5, 2010 - This morning one of our regional airline partners, Mesa, filed for bankruptcy protection. For US Airways’ customers, Mesa has committed they will continue to operate their full schedule. US Airways customers should not see any disruption to their travel plans as a result of Mesa’s reorganization.
Mesa currently operates 53 CRJ900, CRJ200 and Dash 8-200 aircraft for US Airways and complements larger jet service in approximately 70 markets.
We will keep employees and customers updated on any changes to US Airways’ service throughout Mesa’s reorganization.
Mesa Files for Ch. 11 Protection to Reorganize
January 5, 2010 - This morning one of our regional airline partners, Mesa, filed for bankruptcy protection. For US Airways’ customers, Mesa has committed they will continue to operate their full schedule. US Airways customers should not see any disruption to their travel plans as a result of Mesa’s reorganization.
Mesa currently operates 53 CRJ900, CRJ200 and Dash 8-200 aircraft for US Airways and complements larger jet service in approximately 70 markets.
We will keep employees and customers updated on any changes to US Airways’ service throughout Mesa’s reorganization.
TheOneMarine
Well-Known Member
So airways is keeping them or just saying service will continue undisrupted until we can find a relacement? Because it sounds like airways is sticking with Mesa
Hootie
Old Skool
Well nevermind.
Then I'll just come to my own conclusion that a bk judge is not going to let mesa's partners drop them just because of chapter 11 restructuring.
Clocks
Well-Known Member
There's more reasons than that.
RightSeatGirl
KA'PLAH BITCHES!
Absolutely incorrect. If there is black and white contract language between Mesa and any customer regarding contract termination due to a bankruptcy a Judge cannot stop it. This depends on the language of the contract of course. A BK judge cannot override a contractual clause just because MAG is in CH 11. I.e. If DAL's contract with MAG specifies DAL may cancel if MAG files CH 11, what would a judge's justification be for such an injunction?
Sounds to me like Airways is just stating there will be no service interruption. Airways has had a MAG goes bye bye contingency plan for some time now.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
A lot more. Do a poll of people who have been/are currently at Mesa and see how many of them are glad they went.
Ornstein is pretty much Satan incarnate. Yes, it sucks for the guys who work there, but, you know, anyone who ever built an empire or changed the world has sat right where you're sitting right now...
meyers9163
Well-Known Member
All of the facts above can be seen on the Mesa Airlines website under, financial information.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-reportsAnnual
1. Direct quote from the 2008 annual report:
Airways:
"The code-share agreement is subject to termination prior to that date in various circumstances including: If either US Airways or we become insolvent, file for bankruptcy or fail to pay our debts as they become due, the non-defaulting party may terminate the agreement;"
UA:
The code-share agreement is subject to termination prior to these dates under various circumstances including: If either United or we become insolvent, file bankruptcy or fail to pay debts when due, the non-defaulting party may terminate the agreement;"
DL:
The agreements may be subject to early termination under various circumstances including: If either Delta or we file for bankruptcy, reorganization or similar action or if either Delta or we make an assignment for the benefit of creditors;"
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-reportsAnnual
1. Direct quote from the 2008 annual report:
Airways:
"The code-share agreement is subject to termination prior to that date in various circumstances including: If either US Airways or we become insolvent, file for bankruptcy or fail to pay our debts as they become due, the non-defaulting party may terminate the agreement;"
UA:
The code-share agreement is subject to termination prior to these dates under various circumstances including: If either United or we become insolvent, file bankruptcy or fail to pay debts when due, the non-defaulting party may terminate the agreement;"
DL:
The agreements may be subject to early termination under various circumstances including: If either Delta or we file for bankruptcy, reorganization or similar action or if either Delta or we make an assignment for the benefit of creditors;"
WacoFan
Bigly
I'm so proud...you took two paragraphs and used a hypothetical when a simply "no thanks, don't want to comment" would have sufficed. You really ARE going to be a lawyer!!!
RightSeatGirl
KA'PLAH BITCHES!
Thanks Meyers, I couldn't remember for the life of me where I had seen that....
Clocks
Well-Known Member
I'm so proud...you took two paragraphs and used a hypothetical when a simply "no thanks, don't want to comment" would have sufficed. You really ARE going to be a lawyer!!!
He also sent him a bill for 3 hours of work.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
There you have it folks! I do believe its a wrap!
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
If what you were saying was true, then BK judges would not have gotten rid of US Airways pilots pension and a whole lot of other union contracts.
BK judges have a lot of power to abrogate contracts.
BK judges have a lot of power to abrogate contracts.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I'm so proud...you took two paragraphs and used a hypothetical when a simply "no thanks, don't want to comment" would have sufficed. You really ARE going to be a lawyer!!!
I've never been one to say six words when six paragraphs would suffice
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Guess my fall of 2008 prediction was late.
I've never been one to say six words when six paragraphs would suffice
Why are you still here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
True, but based on what I have seen in airline BK cases, judges are more than happy to abrogate LABOR contracts, but are loath to touch any that are between the petitioner and any vendor/contractor/ other company.
