winglet

UAL has taken Mesa to court in Chicago in an attempt to avoid Mesa's placement of the 10 CRJ 700's in service for United Express. Mesa had the option of putting the 10 700's in service by April 30th.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

United Air Lines, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Mesa Air Group, Inc., Defendant.

Case 1:09-cv-07352
Document 1 Filed 11/23/2009

Purpleanga

Why do I believe you even with no source?

Phuz

Very interesting, you must have a good source to beat all the major outlets on that news.

UAUA and DAL have both been trying to rid themselves of mesa it seems, which I think might actually be less a result of poor performance (although certainly a factor) but perhaps it is more so to create problems with one of their major competitors; LCC.

Its no secret that Airway's cash position is the weakest of the "Big 5" and no two carriers stand to benefit more from the demise of LCC than UAUA and DAL. LCC (which is incredibly reliant on mesa for rj hub feed) in its current financial position would be very hard pressed to replace the capacity loss resulting from a catastrophic collapse at mesa, perhaps UAUA and DAL see a mesa demise as a catalyst for an LCC collapse as well.

rickair7777

Sounds like OJ is trying to exercise his option on those 700's. Probably too late though, I tend to agree with UAL that a one-for-one replacement can't happen AFTER the termination of the original contract...that would have to be a new contract.

BSOuthisplace

You don't think there are several regionals out there dying to replace MESA's feed for airways? With PDT, PSA, AWAC, and mainline all operating on reduced schedules, I'm sure airways will find a way to replace most of the flying in house. I've heard they are hunting for cheap leases on some dash 8 200s and maybe they could pick up some of the rj900s for cheap in a MESA liquidation. Besides, DP has said several times that he wished he could reduce capacity in the express market, but could not because of contractual obligations.

This is yet another piece of bad news for the guys and gals at MESA (if true) and I truly wish them the best. I'm just saying if it does happen that the MESA flying needs replacing, I hope airways thinks of expanding the mainline and wholly owned flying instead of farming it out to a contract carrier. A contact carrier might look good on the books short term, but in the long run it comes back to bite, especially in a recession when flexibility with capacity is key.

The Stig

This thread delivers with real evidence.

Killer51883

although you are right that there are plenty of airplanes and crews that could help pick up the slack if something were to happen to mesa, the short term effects of all the canceled passengers would most likely destroy Airways cash flow. If that were to happen they could very likely be forced into bankruptcy and good luck finding some one who wants to sponsor an airline out of bankruptcy. RAH did it to recover their privous investment and South west wanted to buy up a compettitor (all regarding Frontier). In airways case, it would be more beneficial for Delta and United (and american and Continental for that matter) to just let them die and buy up any thing thats left over and usefull at the bankruptcy auction.

The Stig

Your brain has been warped by all the Republic acid you've been on.

Aquapilot

Docket Search: "united air lines inc" - Justia Federal District Court Filings and Dockets


Re: UAL vs. MESA filed 11/23/09 24-Nov-09 11:46 am
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
United Air Lines, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mesa Air Group, Inc.,
Defendant.
)))))))))
Case No.
Judge
Magistrate Judge
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”), by its undersigned counsel, complains against
Defendant Mesa Air Group, Inc. (“Mesa”) as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Pursuant to a contract between the parties, Mesa flies aircraft as a “United
Express” carrier. The parties’ contract provides that the term for Mesa’s United Express
operation of a number of fifty-seat regional jets (“RJ-50s”) expires no later than April 30, 2010.
The contract also provided Mesa with a right, on timely notice and compliance with the other
relevant contract provisions, to have replaced up to 15 of those RJ-50’s with seventy-seat
regional jets (“RJ-70s” ). The contract provides that Mesa’s delivery of a replacement RJ-70 for
United Express service must correspond on a one for one basis with the retirement of the RJ-50
that the RJ-70 was to have replaced. Where Mesa properly elects replacement in this fashion, the
term of each replacement RJ-70 ends on the earlier of ten years from the date of delivery or
October 31, 2018. Where Mesa has not properly made such an election, the contract provides
that United may decline the replacement RJ-70

The Stig

http://207.41.16.133/rfcViewFile/09cv7352.pdf is the entire filing

already linked in the first post.

Enjoy