dlredline
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Posts
- 310
One of the arguments made by the aircraft lessors in the UAL case was that the assets they loaned to UAL, their aircraft, where continued to be used by the lessee, UAL, without making the required loan payments (with help from the BK judge). The continued use of these assets depreciated future resale/loan values on these assets. This is why you saw GECAS demand the return of about a dozen USAirways aircraft over the next year in return for restructuring their loan agreement, and subsequently demand a Ch. 11 exit by June '05, or else they'd repossess all their aircraft. At USAirways, if certain ATSB covenants aren't met in late January, early February, their recent agreement for cash access to the remaining $750 million loan agreement (please keep in mind that this taxpayer-backed money) allows them to take possession of aircraft as well.Propsync said:I liken this to the roulette wheel. You put your money on a number(s). If you don't win, you need to put more down to cover previous bets. How many creditors are going to line up and help bring them out? Taking what they can now is easier than putting more in and getting screwed. The people that wanted to repo the 76's have the right idea. They see this won't work, like a previous post said, the numbers don't add up. Get your airplanes out and back on the market before you have U and/or UA's fleet all sitting around looking for another carrier.
A snowball rolling downhill gathers it's own momentum as it gets larger.
Red