Wasn't the whole Independence Air an experiment in trying to run an airline by selling tickets at prices that were less than what it cost to run the flights?
Don't know. I don't see how they based a business plan on selling tickets for a loss. Show me where they bragged about being able to lose money for five years straight (great bargaining power in 07 for you guys).
Except Mesa IS profitable. VERY profitable, actually. Been making $$$ for something like 16 quarters in a row (not that I'll ever see one penny of it). So you could very easily make the argument that you have to judge the whole operation (i.e., MAG), not just pick and choose a couple of flights to focus on.
This is on the fee for departure basis, while Hawaii is the standalone, non-subsidized operation. Apples and oranges.
Hell, YOU CAN"T tell if "Go" is profitable or not . . . that info is NEVER going to be broken down in our SEC filings . . . anymore than Hawaiian would break down a HNL-LAS unprofitable flight vs a profiable KOA-LIH flight in theirs.
JO has himself said that Go! is in fact losing money.
Actually, I'd think the fact that Mesa made an $$$ offer after reviewing that info would strongly suggest they made a good faith effort to use that info as part of a bankruptcy bailout deal. If they DID keep it and use it after the fact, well. . . that's wrong, of course. But good luck proving it in a court of law. If that info was available ANYWHERE else (probably not Aloha, which is private, but I suspect Hawaiian will have lots of publicly available info), this lawsuit is pretty much doomed.
Don't know anything about the AQ suit, but the HAL suit will most likely end in substantial damages awarded come april. Mesa plagarized HAL documents (and used them to lure investres to Go!) after claiming that they had destroyed it all months earlier. Here's some of what the BK judge at the injunction hearing said...
But U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Faris also lashed Mesa with criticism, saying "the evidence raises real doubts about the propriety of Mesa's conduct." Faris levied particularly harsh comments against Mesa's executive vice president and chief financial officer, George Murnane III, calling his "self-contradictory testimony ... profoundly troubling."
Although Faris said Hawaiian failed to meet the onerous requirements needed to get the court order against Mesa, the judge said Hawaiian can pursue the injunction as part of a final judgment in the litigation. Faris also said Mesa likely will be found to have violated a confidentiality agreement at the center of the dispute.
Not only did Faris determine that there was a likelihood that Mesa had violated the nondisclosure agreement, as Hawaiian alleged, the judge also expressed skepticism about Mesa's management, Bennett said.
"Mesa's credibility is clearly found to be wanting by a judge who has seen all sides of this dispute," Bennett said.
In a memo accompanying his order, Faris criticized Mesa executives for misleading statements concerning their use of Hawaiian's information. The judge singled out Murnane in particular.
In one instance, Faris pointed to testimony in which Murnane stated, "At no time was the information I obtained (from Hawaiian) used in any fashion whatsoever in evaluating or considering whether Mesa would enter the Hawaiian interisland air service market or in formulating its plan to do so."
But Faris said Murnane later was "forced to admit that his initial testimony was incorrect in some respects." For instance, the judge said that Murnane eventually acknowledged that Mesa had used the information provided by Hawaiian repeatedly, in a memo sent to potential Mesa investors and in information sent to Mesa's board of directors.
"Mr. Murnane now testifies that although he does not remember doing any of these things, he must have done all of them," Faris wrote.
Another discrepancy Faris pointed to involves Mesa's internal discussions about the benefits of killing off an established Hawaii airline.
Faris pointed out that Murnane stated in a declaration that at "no time did Mesa base its business plan or decision to enter the Hawaiian market on (Aloha Airlines) or (Hawaiian Airlines) exiting the market." Furthermore, Faris wrote, Murnane testified that Mesa had not even analyzed what would happen to Mesa's business if a competitor were to fold.
"Both statements," Faris wrote, "are false."
As evidence, Faris pointed to the following language from a memo written by Murnane to a consultant one week before Mesa announced its plans to enter the interisland market: "I agree that if we assume (Aloha) stays in market and in business forever, this project makes no sense," Murnane wrote. "We definitely don't want to wait for them to die, rather we should be the ones who give them the last push. ... Clearly, if we can get (Aloha) out of the market without anyone else stepping in this is a home run."
Was it introductory on day 1, then predatory on day 2? Or was it day 5 the wolf showed it's teeth?
How long does an introductory fare go on? How about lowering fares back to the 19 dollar level and naming them HERO fares.
=====
Anyhoo, hope both Aloha and Hawaiian come out on top. I really do. Seem like they're good places to fly, and they actually make it worth your while to fly there. Mesa is the only airline in the world that could make its flight crews dread being based in paradise (cuz it costs so g-danged much).
