Originally Posted by
minimwage4
* Lotz's affidavit said that many of the aircraft were leased for periods longer than the code-sharing agreements with the larger airlines, opening up Mesa to risks that it could lose a partner or its partner wanted fewer or different airplanes on renewal.
"These risks were recognized at the time these aircraft were leased but given the fundamental changes to the aviation industry and the more recent downturn in the credit markets during the past year, it was not foreseeable that demand for certain regional aircraft would literally evaporate in less than three years," the affidavit said.
That sums it up right there. Poor management, greed and bottom feeding to the point where UA didn't need to dump their RJs but did anyways.
Originally Posted by
SpiraMirabilis
I don't like to defend Mesa but they're not the only company who did is doing or has done that (get leases longer than a CPA was for.)
I have no sympathy for Mesa. They took on longer leases, probably so they could get lower rates than others bidding on the flying. No sympathy for that choice.
I just have this funny recollection of a company called ACA that Mesa bid against to secure this UAL flying and help drive ACA out of business. I wouldn't be surprised that part of the reason Mesa was able to underbid ACA was cheaper lease rates they secured for having those airplanes beyond the CPA with UAL.