Case 20-11007-CSS Doc 297 Filed 12/29/20 Page 1 of 15

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Case 20-11007-CSS Doc 297 Filed 12/29/20 Page 1 of 15 Case 20-11007-CSS Doc 297 Filed 12/29/20 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re Chapter 11 SUPERIOR AIR CHARTER, LLC,1 Case No. 20-11007 (CSS) Debtor. Hr’g Date: Jan. 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (ET) Obj. Deadline: Jan. 5, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. (ET) MOTION OF COLIN W. YATES AND HIS COUNSEL FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND PLAN AND DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS Colin W. Yates (“Mr. Yates”) and his counsel, Gilbert Employment Law, P.C. (“Gilbert Law”) and the Law Offices of George A. Shohet (“Shohet Law” and together with Mr. Yates and Gilbert Law, the “Claimant”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move (this “Motion”), pursuant to sections 105(a), 362(d)(1), 524 and 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 3020(d), 4001(a) and 9014, and Local Rules 4001-1 and 9013-1, for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Proposed Order”), modifying the automatic stay imposed by section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the discharge injunction provided by section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Plan Injunction (as defined below) for the purposes of (i) permitting liquidation of claims against Superior Air Charter, LLC (the “Debtor”) asserted in the Claimant’s Proof of Claim (as defined below), and (ii) seeking satisfaction of any judgment or settlement solely from the proceeds of any available Insurance Policies (as defined below). In support of this Motion, the Claimant respectfully represents as follows: 1 The Debtor in this chapter 11 case, together with the last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number, is as follows: Superior Air Charter, LLC (2081). The mailing address for the Debtor, solely for purposes of notices and communications, is: 1341 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 600E, Dallas, Texas. RLF1 24445949v.1 Case 20-11007-CSS Doc 297 Filed 12/29/20 Page 2 of 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, the Amended Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dated as of February 29, 2012, and paragraph 34 of the Confirmation Order (as defined below). This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). The Claimant consents to the entry of a final order by the Court in connection with this Motion to the extent that it is later determined that the Court, absent consent of the parties, cannot enter final orders or judgments in connection herewith consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution. Venue of this chapter 11 case and this Motion in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory and legal predicate for the relief requested herein are sections 105(a), 362(d)(1), 524 and 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 3020(a), 4001(a) and 9014, and Local Rules 4001-1 and 9013-1. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background 2. On April 28, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor commenced the above- captioned chapter 11 case. 3. On May 12, 2020, the Office of the United States Trustee for the District of Delaware (the “U.S. Trustee”) appointed the official committee of unsecured creditors (the “Committee”) in this chapter 11 case. 4. On June 24, 2020, this Court entered the Order Establishing Deadlines for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving the Form and Manner of Notice Thereof [Docket No. 125] (the “Bar Date Order”). The Bar Date Order established July 27, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET) as the General Bar Date (as defined therein). 2 RLF1 24445949v.1 Case 20-11007-CSS Doc 297 Filed 12/29/20 Page 3 of 15 5. On July 23, 2020, the Claimant timely and properly filed proof of claim number 287, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Proof of Claim”). 6. On September 4, 2020, this Court held a hearing to consider confirmation of The Debtor and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ First Amended Joint Combined Disclosure Statement and Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Docket No. 168] (the “Plan”). 7. That same day, the Court entered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Approving and Confirming Debtor and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ First Amended Joint Combined Disclosure Statement and Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Docket No. 212] (the “Confirmation Order”). 8. Section XI.D.4 of the Plan provides for a discharge of Claims and Causes of Action (each as defined in the Plan) against the Debtor; Section XII.E of the Plan enjoins holders of Claims or Causes of Actions from commencing or continuing Causes of Action against the Debtor or the Debtors’ property (the “Plan Injunction”); and Section XVI.B of the Plan provides that the automatic stay under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code remains in full force and effect. 9. In addition, paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Confirmation Order and Section IX of the Plan establish the GUC Trust (as defined in the Plan) and appointed the GUC Trustee (as defined in the Plan) to reconcile General Unsecured Claims (as defined in the Plan) and make distributions to beneficiaries of the GUC Trust. B. Factual Background 10. In March 2011, the Debtor hired Mr. Yates as a pilot. On May 25, 2011, Mr. Yates was working as second-in-command (i.e., first officer) under the command of another pilot (i.e., captain) on an aircraft when it crash landed at the airport in Sedona, Arizona. The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) opened an investigation into the accident immediately after 3 RLF1 24445949v.1 Case 20-11007-CSS Doc 297 Filed 12/29/20 Page 4 of 15 it occurred. 11. On June 24, 2013, the NTSB issued a report concluding that Mr. Yates and the captain were responsible for the crash landing. On June 26, 2013, Mr. Yates separately emailed the NTSB investigator (the “June 26 Email”) and the Debtor’s CEO, Alex Wilcox, describing Mr. Yates’ issues with the report. Mr. Yates alleged in the June 26 Email that there were serious miscalculations in the aircraft manuals he had been provided, and that the aircraft had a deficient braking system such that it should not land at airports like the one in Sedona, Arizona. 12. Shortly thereafter, the Debtor suspended Mr. Yates’ employment, and after a meeting between Mr. Yates, Mr. Wilcox, and another senior manager, wrongfully terminated Mr. Yates’ employment. 13. On September 24, 2014, Mr. Yates filed complaints of retaliation with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (the “Act”), which includes a whistleblower protection provision. 14. During that time, on April 8, 2015, Mr. Yates filed a companion California state court action in the Superior Court for the County of Orange, captioned, Yates v. Superior Air Charter LLC, d/b/a JetSuite Air, Case No. 30-2015-00781592-CU-WT-CJC (“State Court Action” and, collectively with the ALJ Action and ARB Appeal (as defined below) the “Prepetition Actions”). The State Court Action arises out of the same operative facts as the ALJ Action and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, Business & Professions Code, and common law. Unlike the remedies available in the ALJ Action, the State Court Action includes a punitive damages claim. The State Court Action is pending and no trial date is set. 15. On May 18, 2015, OSHA dismissed Mr. Yates’ complaint. 4 RLF1 24445949v.1 Case 20-11007-CSS Doc 297 Filed 12/29/20 Page 5 of 15 16. On June 15, 2015, Mr. Yates objected to OSHA’s dismissal, and on July 14, 2015, that matter was assigned to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (the “ALJ”) under Case No. 2015-AIR-00028 (the “ALJ Action”). 17. On July 7, 2017, the ALJ issued the Decision and Order Granting Relief (the “ALJ Order”)2 concluding that Mr. Yates’ termination was based on discriminatory and retaliatory grounds and ordering the Debtor to, among other things, (a) provide Mr. Yates with damages of not less than $143,834.55 (the “Damages Claims”) and (b) expunge Mr. Yates’ employment record. See ALJ Order p. 76, 101. The ALJ Order also provided that, within thirty days of such order, Mr. Yates may submit a fee petition detailing the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses that were reasonably incurred in the ALJ Action. See id. 18. The Debtor appealed the ALJ Order to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (the “ARB”), ARB Case No. 2017-0061 (the “ARB Appeal”). On September 26, 2019, the ARB issued its Final Decision and Order (the “ARB Order”)3 affirming the ALJ Order, with only one modification to the ALJ’s damages award – that the Debtor need not email copies of the ALJ Order to all of the Debtor’s employees, officers, and directors. No other aspect of the ALJ Order was disturbed. See ARB Order p. 10. 19. Thereafter, and pursuant to the ALJ Order, Mr. Yates filed in the ALJ Action the Complainant’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Pending Attorneys’ Fees Request”)4 seeking reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in the aggregate amount of not less than $1,061,682.03.5 In addition, the Claimant is entitled to seek fees and costs for 2 A copy of the ALJ Order is attached to the Proof of Claim.
Recommended publications
  • (AOSP) Newsletter, Q4, Jul-Sep 2015
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration AOSP Newsletter Airspace Operations and Safety Program (AOSP) JUL–SEP 2015 | Quarter 4 NASA Participates in 4 UTM Convention NRA First Year Review 14 www.nasa.gov 2 AOSP NEWSLETTER // JUL-SEP 2015 // Q4 AOSP IN THE NEWS NASA Tech Transfer NASA to Test UAV Air NASA Sleep Research Helps the FAA Improve Traffic Control System Shows Benefits of Naps Air Traffic Efficiency On August 10, the Associated Press Eric Barker wrote at TIME on In the June 30 issue of NextGov reported that a project managed by July 1 about sleep, citing NASA Hallie Golden reports that when NASA Ames Research Center will research finding that “pilots who NASA handed over Terminal have 12 groups test unmanned aerial take a 25 minute nap in the cockpit Sequencing and Spacing (TSAS) vehicle (UAV) software at the agency’s – hopefully with a co-pilot taking software to the Federal Aviation Crows Landing Airport as part of over the controls – are subsequently Administration (FAA), it was the testing “an air traffic control system 35% more alert, and twice as fourth time NASA helped the for drones.” Richard Kelley, chief focused, than their non-napping agency improve its air traffic engineer at the University of Nevada- colleagues.” He sums up the efficiency. By better controlling Reno’s (UNR) Nevada Advanced findings: “NASA found that naps spaces between planes, the software Autonomous Systems Innovation made you smarter — even in the should allow aircraft to follow Center, said the goals would be “to absence of a good night’s sleep.” fuel-efficient, continuous-descent create a system the Federal Aviation arrival procedures while passing Administration (FAA) can use to through airspace surrounding an monitor fast-flying manned and airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Certified for Publication in the Court of Appeal of The
    Filed 10/10/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JETSUITE, INC., B279273 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC559245) v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Ajalat, Polley, Ayoob & Matarese, Richard J. Ayoob, Gregory R. Broege and Sevanna Hartonians for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Albert Ramseyer, Principal Deputy County Counsel and Richard Girgado, Senior Deputy County Counsel; Lamb & Kawakami, Michael K. Slattery and Shane W. Tseng for Defendant and Respondent. * * * * * * Due process prohibits a state from imposing a tax on the full value of personal property if other states also have the right to tax that property, and whether those states have that right turns on whether that property has “situs” in those other states. (Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania (1962) 370 U.S. 607, 611-614 (Central); Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1958) 51 Cal.2d 314, 318 (Flying Tiger).) The taxing authority in this case sought to impose property tax on the full value of six jets used to operate an on-demand “air taxi” service. During the pertinent timeframe, one of those jets flew to 309 different airports in 42 different states and six different countries. This case accordingly presents the question: Does the fact that an aircraft touches down in another state, without more, mean that the other state has acquired situs over the aircraft under the traditional due process test for situs, such that California may no longer tax the full value of the aircraft? We conclude that the answer is “no,” and affirm the judgment below.
    [Show full text]
  • WASHINGTON AVIATION SUMMARY March 2009 EDITION
    WASHINGTON AVIATION SUMMARY March 2009 EDITION CONTENTS I. REGULATORY NEWS................................................................................................ 1 II. AIRPORTS.................................................................................................................. 5 III. SECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY ……………………… ……………………….……...7 IV. E-COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGY......................................................................... 9 V. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT............................................................................... 10 VI. U.S. CONGRESS...................................................................................................... 13 VII. BILATERAL AND STATE DEPARTMENT NEWS .................................................... 15 VIII. EUROPE/AFRICA..................................................................................................... 16 IX. ASIA/PACIFIC/MIDDLE EAST .................................................................................18 X. AMERICAS ............................................................................................................... 19 For further information, including documents referenced, contact: Joanne W. Young Kirstein & Young PLLC 1750 K Street NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 331-3348 Fax: (202) 331-3933 Email: [email protected] http://www.yklaw.com The Kirstein & Young law firm specializes in representing U.S. and foreign airlines, airports, leasing companies, financial institutions and aviation-related
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Report - 2019 Prospectuses
    CHARTER REPORT - 2019 PROSPECTUSES Beginning Number of Type of Aircraft Charter Operator Carrier Origin Destination Date Ending Date Remarks/Indirect Carrier Flights & No. of Seats Embraer 135 19-001 Resort Air Services RVR Aviation (air taxi) DAL-89TE LAJ-DAL-89TE 2/22/2019 12/15/2019 94 w/30 sts New England Air Transport Inc. PILATUS PC-12 19-002 JetSmarter Inc. (air taxi) FLL MYN 2/8/2019 2/8/2019 1 w/6 guests Hawker 800 w/8 19-003 JetSmarter Inc. Jet-Air, LLC (air taxi) FLL HPN 3/3/2019 3/3/2019 1 guests Gulfstream G200 w/10 19-004 JetSmarter Inc. Chartright Air Inc. (air taxi) FLL YYZ 3/7/2019 3/7/2019 1 guests Domier 328 Jet Ultimate Jetcharters, LLC dba w/30sts/ Ultimate Jet Shuttle Public Ultimate JETCHARTERS, LLC Embraer 135 Jet 19-005 Charters Inc.(co-charterer) dba Ultimate Air Shuttle CLT PDK 2/25/2019 2/24/2020 401 w/30 sts Citation C J2 19-006 JetSmarter Inc. Flyexclusive, Inc. (air taxi) ORL TEB 3/30/2019 3/30/2019 1 w/6 guests Phenom 300 19-007 JetSmarter Inc. GrandView Aviation (air taxi) JAX MTN 3/24/2019 3/24/2019 1 w/7 guests Aviation Advantage/E-Vacations Corp Boeing 737-400 19-008 (co-charterer) Swift Air SJU-PUJ-POP-etc PUJ-SJU-CUN-etc 6/3/2019 8/3/2019 50 w/150 sts Boeing 737-400 19-009 PrimeSport Southwest Airlines BOS ATL 2/1/2019 2/4/2019 50 w/150 sts CHARTER REPORT - 2019 PROSPECTUSES Delux Public Charter, LLC EMB-135 w/30 19-010 JetBlue Airways Corporation dba JetSuite X (commuter) KBUR-KLAS-KCCR-etc KLAS-KBUR-KCCR-etc 4/1/2019 7/1/2019 34,220 sts Glulfstream IV- 19-011 MemberJets, LLC Prine Jet, LLC (air taxi) OPF-TEB-MDW--etc TEB-OPF-PBI-etc 2/14/2019 12/7/2019 62.5 SP w/10 sts Phenom 300 19-012 JetSmarter Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2018 Editor C
    WE FLY WITH Teaching the world CARE… to fly! Now With all the aircraft you more need from the first flight than 2631 E. Spring Street / Long Beach, CA 90806 / 562-290-0321 hour to an airline job and eve visit us: at www.Lbflying.com email: [email protected] everything in between! FEBRUARY 2018 EDITOR C. ROBINSON WHAT’S UP — LOTS AT LGB AOA REBADGE INFORMATION Last month, Hawaiian Airlines announced that it ALL AOA badge holders will launch service from Long Beach Airport to Honolulu International Airport on June 1. The daily Your current AOA badge will no longer be valid after flights will depart Long Beach at 8:30 am and arrive in February 16, 2018. Honolulu at 11:40 am. The return service will leave Honolulu at 12:30 pm with a 9 pm arrival in Long Beach. Hawaiian's You may NOT enter the AOA access area unless you website lists round-trip flights starting at $557 for travel Mondays have a new badge issued with the new LGB logo on it. through Thursdays during the first three weeks of June. Old badges will be confiscated and you will be escorted off the airfield by the airport authorities if you are on Long Beach Airport Exploring Fine Increases For Noise Violations the AOA with an old badge after February 16, 2018. — from Long Beach Business Journal Please get your rebadge paperwork at the Dispatch desk. On January 18, the city’s airport advisory commission held the first When completed please turn it in for a signature.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Jetsuite
    JetSuite’s vision to provide the freedom and exhilaration of private air travel to more people than ever is realized through efficient operations, acute attention to detail, acclaimed customer service, and industry-leading safety practices. And JetSuite continues to be the only jet charter company to guarantee its instant, online quotes for its fleet of WiFi-equipped JetSuite Edition CJ3 and Phenom 100 aircraft. Refreshingly transparent! ©©2013 2014 JetSuiteJetSuite || jetsuite.com JetSuite.com THE EXECUTIVE TEAM ALEX WILCOX, CEO With over two decades of experience in creating highly innovative air carriers in ways that have improved air travel for millions, Alex Wilcox now serves as CEO of JetSuite – a private jet airline which launched operations in 2009. In co-founding JetSuite in 2006, Alex brought new technology and unprecedented value to an industry in dire need of it. JetSuite is a launch customer for the Embraer Phenom 100, an airplane twice as efficient and more comfortable than other jets performing its missions, as well as the JetSuite Edition CJ3 from Cessna. Also a founder of JetBlue, Alex was a driving force behind many airline industry changing innovations, including the implementation of live TV on board and all-leather coach seating. Alex was also named a Henry Crown Fellow by the Aspen Institute. KEITH RABIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER With a background that spans over a decade in the financial services and management consulting industries, Keith Rabin has served as President of JetSuite since 2009. Prior to co-founding JetSuite, Keith was a Partner at New York based hedge fund Verity Capital, where he was responsible for portfolio management and the development of Verity’s sector shorting strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Airline Distribution, 2016 - 2021
    The Future of Airline Distribution, 2016 - 2021 By Henry H. Harteveldt, Atmosphere Research Group CONTENTS 3 INTRODUCTION 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 HOW SHOULD AIRLINES PREPARE TO SERVE THE AIRLINE TRAVELER OF 2021? 26 TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND THE EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY LANDSCAPE 29 AIRLINE DISTRIBUTION IN 2021 70 CONCLUSION 72 ENDNOTES © 2016 International Air Transport Association. All rights reserved. 2 INTRODUCTION Introduction from Atmosphere Research Atmosphere Research Group is honored to have Airlines that want to become true retailers are once again been selected by IATA to prepare this well-positioned to do so. Carriers have an abun- report on the future of airline distribution. We dance of technologies, including cloud comput- believe that the five-year timeframe this report ing, artificial intelligence, and mobility, that they covers – 2016 to 2021 – will see the successful can use to help them bring their products to mar- introduction of true retailing among the world’s ket in more meaningful ways. IATA’s NDC, One airlines and their distribution partners. Order, and NGISS initiatives are being brought to market to help airlines be more successful busi- This report reflects Atmosphere Research’s in- nesses. As each airline independently contem- dependent and objective analysis based on our plates its distribution strategies and tactics, we extensive industry and consumer research (for hope this report will serve as a helpful resource. more information about how the research was conducted, please refer to the “Research Method- ology” section). © 2016 International Air Transport Association. All rights reserved. 3 Future of Distribution Report 2016-2021 Introduction from IATA In 2012 IATA commissioned Atmosphere Research Game changes are prompted by consumer needs, to conduct a survey on the Future of Airline Dis- or by the ability to offer new solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Signatory Visa Waiver Program (VWP) Carriers
    Visa Waiver Program (VWP) Signatory Carriers As of May 1, 2019 Carriers that are highlighted in yellow hold expired Visa Waiver Program Agreements and therefore are no longer authorized to transport VWP eligible passengers to the United States pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program Agreement Paragraph 14. When encountered, please remind them of the need to re-apply. # 21st Century Fox America, Inc. (04/07/2015) 245 Pilot Services Company, Inc. (01/14/2015) 258131 Aviation LLC (09/18/2013) 26 North Aviation Inc. 4770RR, LLC (12/06/2016) 51 CL Corp. (06/23/2017) 51 LJ Corporation (02/01/2016) 620, Inc. 650534 Alberta, Inc. d/b/a Latitude Air Ambulance (01/09/2017) 711 CODY, Inc. (02/09/2018) A A OK Jets A&M Global Solutions, Inc. (09/03/2014) A.J. Walter Aviation, Inc. (01/17/2014) A.R. Aviation, Corp. (12/30/2015) Abbott Laboratories Inc. (09/26/2012) ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V. (d/b/a Interjet) (08/24/2011) Abelag Aviation NV d/b/a Luxaviation Belgium (02/27/2019) ABS Jets A.S. (05/07/2018) ACASS Canada Ltd. (02/27/2019) Accent Airways LLC (01/12/2015) Ace Aviation Services Corporation (08/24/2011) Ace Flight Center Inc. (07/30/2012) ACE Flight Operations a/k/a ACE Group (09/20/2015) Ace Flight Support ACG Air Cargo Germany GmbH (03/28/2011) ACG Logistics LLC (02/25/2019) ACL ACM Air Charter Luftfahrtgesellschaft GmbH (02/22/2018) ACM Aviation, Inc. (09/16/2011) ACP Jet Charter, Inc. (09/12/2013) Acromas Shipping Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Virgin America Problem How Does an Airline Company Share Its In-Flight Experience with People on the Ground?
    OOH Case Study Virgin America Problem How does an airline company share its in-flight experience with people on the ground? Solution Use a landmark OOH location to amplify a social media cam- paign. Background Virgin America attracts an especially social group of flyers. We call them the creative class: people who live a curated, enter- tainment-rich, trend-forward lifestyle and like to broadcast it to all of their followers. So when they fly Virgin America (complete with moodlighting, WiFi, and live sports and food on demand), they can’t help but share. In fact, on almost every flight, Virgin America flyers post about their experiences so their friends can see how they fly. The challenge was getting the word out to a broader audience about how amazing the flying experience is. Virgin America had always used OOH to spread the word, but we wanted to do something bigger: we wanted to consolidate our social flyers on a highly visible platform to bring the Virgin America experience to the masses. Objective The objective was, simply, to build brand and product awareness with the creative class, our unique breed of flyers who find the likes of United and American a little tired. We focus more on behavioral and attitudinal characteristics of our prospects than demographics; but in general, this audience falls within the standard demographic segment of adults 25–54. Strategy Once people fly Virgin America, they don’t go back. Customer satisfaction is high, with more than 80 percent planning to book again in the next six months. The problem is that those who haven’t flown us believe every airline is the same; they don’t know what they are missing out on when they don’t fly Virgin America.
    [Show full text]
  • Virgin America Inc
    Virgin America Inc. CLIENT REPORT SONTAG SOLUTIONS Javier Garcia Xiaoyin Qu Jamie Li Professor Likens' Senior Seminar Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 3 Company Background.................................................................................................................4 Financial Analysis.......................................................................................................................6 Key Statistics...............................................................................................................................6 Income Statements......................................................................................................................8 Balance Sheets............................................................................................................................9 Cash Flow ..................................................................................................................................10 Competitive Analysis (Five Forces Framework).......................................................................11 Internal Rivalry ......................................................................................................................... 11 Supplier Power.......................................................................................................................... 12 Buyer Power ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • November 2017 Newsletter
    PilotsPROUDLY For C ELEBRATINGKids Organization 34 YEARS! Pilots For KidsSM ORGANIZATION Helping Hospitalized Children Since 1983 Want to join in this year’s holiday visits? Newsletter November 2017 See pages 8-9 to contact the coordinator in your area! PFK volunteers have been visiting youngsters at Texas Children’s Hospital for 23 years. Thirteen volunteers representing United, Delta and Jet Blue joined together and had another very successful visit on June 13th. Sign up for holiday visits in your area by contacting your coordinator! “100% of our donations go to the kids” visit us at: pilotsforkids.org (2) Pilots For Kids Organization CITY: LAX/Los Angeles, CA President’s Corner... COORDINATOR: Vasco Rodriques PARTICIPANTS: Alaska Airlines Dear Members, The volunteers from the LAX Alaska Airlines Pilots Progress is a word everyone likes. The definition for Kids Chapter visited with 400 kids at the Miller of progress can be described as growth, develop- Children’s Hospital in Long Beach. This was during ment, or some form of improvement. their 2-day “Beach Carnival Day”. During the last year we experienced continual growth in membership and also added more loca- The crews made and flew paper airplanes with the tions where our visits take place. Another sign kids. When the kids landed their creations on “Run- of our growth has been our need to add a second way 25L”, they got rewarded with some cool wings! “Captain Baldy” mascot due to his popularity. Along with growth comes workload. To solve this challenge we have continually looked for ways to reduce our workload and cost through increased automation.
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Compliance List of Aircraft Operators Specifying the Administering Member State for Each Aircraft Operator – June 2014
    Prior compliance list of aircraft operators specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator – June 2014 Inclusion in the prior compliance list allows aircraft operators to know which Member State will most likely be attributed to them as their administering Member State so they can get in contact with the competent authority of that Member State to discuss the requirements and the next steps. Due to a number of reasons, and especially because a number of aircraft operators use services of management companies, some of those operators have not been identified in the latest update of the EEA- wide list of aircraft operators adopted on 5 February 2014. The present version of the prior compliance list includes those aircraft operators, which have submitted their fleet lists between December 2013 and January 2014. BELGIUM CRCO Identification no. Operator Name State of the Operator 31102 ACT AIRLINES TURKEY 7649 AIRBORNE EXPRESS UNITED STATES 33612 ALLIED AIR LIMITED NIGERIA 29424 ASTRAL AVIATION LTD KENYA 31416 AVIA TRAFFIC COMPANY TAJIKISTAN 30020 AVIASTAR-TU CO. RUSSIAN FEDERATION 40259 BRAVO CARGO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 908 BRUSSELS AIRLINES BELGIUM 25996 CAIRO AVIATION EGYPT 4369 CAL CARGO AIRLINES ISRAEL 29517 CAPITAL AVTN SRVCS NETHERLANDS 39758 CHALLENGER AERO PHILIPPINES f11336 CORPORATE WINGS LLC UNITED STATES 32909 CRESAIR INC UNITED STATES 32432 EGYPTAIR CARGO EGYPT f12977 EXCELLENT INVESTMENT UNITED STATES LLC 32486 FAYARD ENTERPRISES UNITED STATES f11102 FedEx Express Corporate UNITED STATES Aviation 13457 Flying
    [Show full text]