Objection 2 Delta's DIP financing 4 Pinnacle
04-25-2012 | 02:06 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 0
From: CRJ
Not over 150 A/C all at once. Even if you spread it around there would still be a huge lag as every other carrier would have to ramp up hiring and upgrading to absorb the new airframes they would be receiving. If they did a longer wind down, then it would be possible. But if we go Ch 7 then there would be no orderly wind down.
04-25-2012 | 02:13 PM
#42
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 433
Likes: 10
From: Zee Airboos
Pinnacle is a cockroach of a company. Barring nuclear disaster, they will be around in one form or fashion. Hell will freeze over before this place liquidates overnight. It is in nobody's best interest that this place shuts the door because of Ch. 7
Airsupport is correct, we are a crew leasing company, not an airline. We dont own much of value.
Airsupport is correct, we are a crew leasing company, not an airline. We dont own much of value.
Last edited by Windsor; 04-25-2012 at 02:15 PM. Reason: More to add
04-25-2012 | 02:57 PM
#44
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
04-25-2012 | 03:35 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
While you all strike good points, from what I gathered from reading the filing, the equity holders—though they oppose the DIP Facility for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread (hence the objection filing)—also oppose it for the closed-door arrangements that Delta made with Pinnacle (sub rosa plan as they state).
Towards the end of the "argument" section in that document, it states, "...the requirement required thereby essentially constitute a sub rosa plan that cannot be approved in its current form."
I'd be interested to see if the judge, instead, requires the terms of the DIP Facility to change in one way or another to keep everyone happy as a way to avoid Ch. 7.
Towards the end of the "argument" section in that document, it states, "...the requirement required thereby essentially constitute a sub rosa plan that cannot be approved in its current form."
I'd be interested to see if the judge, instead, requires the terms of the DIP Facility to change in one way or another to keep everyone happy as a way to avoid Ch. 7.
04-25-2012 | 03:46 PM
#48
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
04-25-2012 | 03:50 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,485
Likes: 0
From: Taco Rocket Operator
I would find it very hard to believe a bankruptcy judge would dismiss Delta's DIP knowing it would likely mean Chapter 7 for Pinnacle. Like it or not, federal judges make political rulings all of the time. Just look at what happened to GM bond holders in late 2008 and 2009. Their rights were evicerated by federal judges. Chapter 7 would not only be a disaster for Pinnacle, but it would also hamper Delta's route structure greatly. I just can't see it happening even though I agree Delta has positioned itself ahead of other creditors. Who knows though. We live in unusual times.
04-25-2012 | 03:53 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,485
Likes: 0
From: Taco Rocket Operator
Go back and look at what happened during the Comair strike in 2001. Comair's planes were parked for months and Delta just moved people around through other hubs in the system. Actually they are better positioned for something like this now, because no Connection carrier is allowed to dominate a hub anymore the way Comair dominated CVG and MCO in 2001.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
