MESA AIR GROUP INC - Annual Report: 2004 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2004

Commission File Number 0-15495

Mesa Air Group, Inc.

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, No Par Value

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes þ          No o

      Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.     o

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).     Yes þ          No o

      The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of December 1, 2004: Common Stock, no par value: $226.0 million.

      On December 1, 2004, the Registrant had outstanding 30,794,571 shares of Common Stock.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement for the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders

Table of Contents

MESA AIR GROUP, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Table of Contents

PART I

Forward-Looking Statements

      This Form 10-K Report contains certain statements including, but not limited to, information regarding the replacement, deployment, and acquisition of certain numbers and types of aircraft, and projected expenses associated therewith; costs of compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations and other rules and acts of Congress; the passing of taxes, fuel costs, inflation, and various expenses to the consumer; the relocation of certain operations of Mesa; the resolution of litigation in a favorable manner and certain projected financial obligations. These statements, in addition to statements made in conjunction with the words “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “seek,” “estimate,” and similar expressions, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provision of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements relate to future events or the future financial performance of Mesa and only reflect management’s expectations and estimates. The following is a list of factors, among others, that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements: changing business conditions in certain market segments and industries; changes in Mesa’s code-sharing relationships; the inability of America West, US Airways or United Airlines to pay their obligations under the code-share agreements; the inability of United Airlines and/or US Airways to successfully restructure and emerge from bankruptcy; the ability of US Airways to reject our code-share agreements in bankruptcy; an increase in competition along the routes Mesa operates or plans to operate; material delays in completion by the manufacturer of the ordered and yet-to-be delivered aircraft; availability and cost of funds for financing new aircraft; changes in general economic conditions; changes in fuel price; changes in regional economic conditions; Mesa’s relationship with employees and the terms of future collective bargaining agreements; the impact of current and future laws, additional terrorist attacks; Congressional investigations, and governmental regulations affecting the airline industry and Mesa’s operations; bureaucratic delays; amendments to existing legislation; consumers unwilling to incur greater costs for flights; unfavorable resolution of negotiations with municipalities for the leasing of facilities; and risks associated with litigation outcomes. One or more of these or other factors may cause Mesa’s actual results to differ materially from any forward-looking statement. Mesa is not undertaking any obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K.

      All references to “we,” “our,” “us,” or “Mesa” refer to Mesa Air Group, Inc. and its predecessors, direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliates.

General

      Mesa Air Group, Inc. (“Mesa” or the “Company”) is a holding company whose principle subsidiaries operate as regional air carriers providing scheduled passenger and airfreight service. The Company serves 181 cities in 43 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. At September 30, 2004, the Company operated a fleet of 180 aircraft and had approximately 1,000 daily departures.

      Approximately 99% of our consolidated passenger revenues for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 were derived from operations associated with code-share agreements. Our subsidiaries have code-share agreements with America West Airlines, Inc. (“America West”), Midwest Airlines, Inc. (“Midwest Airlines”), United Airlines, Inc. (“United Airlines” or “United”) and US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”). These code-share agreements allow use of the code-share partners’ flight designator code to identify flights and fares in computer reservation systems, permit use of logos, service marks, aircraft paint schemes and uniforms similar to the code-share partner and provide coordinated schedules and joint advertising. The remaining passenger revenues are derived from our independent operations.

      In addition to carrying passengers, we carry freight and express packages on our passenger flights and have interline small cargo freight agreements with many other carriers. We also have contracts with the U.S. Postal Service for carriage of mail to the cities we serve and occasionally operate charter flights when our aircraft are not otherwise used for scheduled service.

2

Table of Contents

      Our airline operations are conducted by the following airline subsidiaries:

      Unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms “Mesa,” “the Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our,” refer to Mesa Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Corporate Structure

      Mesa is a Nevada corporation with its principal executive office in Phoenix, Arizona.

      In addition to operating the airline subsidiaries listed above, we also have the following other subsidiaries:

3

Table of Contents

Aircraft in Operation

      The following table sets forth our aircraft fleet (owned and leased) in operation by aircraft type as of September 30, 2004:

Code-Share Agreements

      Our airline subsidiaries have agreements with America West, US Airways, United Airlines and Midwest Airlines to use those carriers’ designation codes (commonly referred to as a “code-share agreements”). These code-share agreements allow use of the code-share partner’s flight designator code to identify flights and fares in computer reservation systems, permit use of logos, service marks, aircraft paint schemes and uniforms similar to the code-share partner’s and provide coordinated schedules and joint advertising. Our passengers traveling on flights operated pursuant to code-share agreements receive mileage credits in the respective frequent flyer programs of our code-share partners, and credits in those programs can be used on flights operated by the Company.

      The financial arrangement with our code-share partners involves either a revenue-guarantee or pro-rate arrangement. The America West (regional jet and Dash-8), United (regional jet and Dash-8), and US Airways (regional jet) code-share agreements are revenue-guarantee flying agreements. Under the terms of these flying agreements, the major carrier controls marketing, scheduling, ticketing, pricing and seat inventories. The Company receives a guaranteed payment based upon a fixed minimum monthly amount plus amounts related to departures and block hours flown in addition to direct reimbursement of expenses such as fuel, landing fees and insurance. Among other advantages, revenue-guarantee arrangements reduce the Company’s exposure to fluctuations in passenger traffic and fare levels, as well as fuel prices. The US Airways, Midwest Airlines and America West Beechcraft 1900D turboprop code-share agreements are pro-rate agreements, for which the Company receives an allocated portion of each passenger’s fare and pays all of the costs of transporting the passenger.

      The following table summarizes our available seat miles (“ASMs”) flown and revenue recognized under our code-share agreements for the years ended September 30, 2004 and 2003:

4

Table of Contents

      As of September 30, 2004, we operated 24 CRJ-900, 18 CRJ-200, and six Dash-8 aircraft for America West under a revenue-guarantee code-share agreement. The code-share agreement provides for the Company to increase its aircraft fleet up to 38 CRJ-900s. In addition, America West has an option to increase its CRJ-900 fleet size to 58 aircraft. In exchange for providing flights and all other services under the agreement, we receive a fixed monthly minimum amount plus certain additional amounts based upon the number of flights flown and block hours performed during the month. America West also reimburses us for certain costs on an actual basis, including fuel costs, aircraft ownership and financing costs, landing fees, passenger liability and hull insurance, and aircraft property taxes, all as defined in the agreement. In addition, America West also provides, at no cost to Mesa, certain ground handling and customer service functions, as well as airport-related facilities and gates at America West hubs and cities where both carriers operate. We also receive a monthly payment from America West based on a percentage of revenue from flights that we operate under the code-share agreement. Under the amended code-share agreement, America West has the right to reduce the combined CRJ fleets utilized under the code-share agreement by one aircraft in any six-month period commencing in January 2007. In addition, beginning in February 2007, America West may eliminate the Dash-8 aircraft upon 180 days prior written notice. The code-share agreement terminates on June 30, 2012 unless America West elects to extend the contract for two years or exercises options to increase fleet size. The code-share agreement is subject to termination prior to that date in various circumstances including:

      Pursuant to a turboprop code-share agreement with America West, we operated four Beechcraft 1900D turboprop aircraft in the Phoenix hub under a pro-rate revenue-sharing arrangement as of September 30, 2004. We control scheduling, inventory and pricing. We are allocated a portion of each passenger’s fare based on a standard industry formula and are required to pay all costs of transporting the passenger. The pro-rate agreement terminates on March 31, 2012 unless America West elects to extend the contract for successive one-year periods. The pro-rate agreement could also be terminated prior to the termination under similar circumstances as the revenue-guarantee agreement.

      As of September 30, 2004, we operated 57 50-seat regional jets for US Airways under a code-sharing agreement. Under the jet code-share agreement, we provide US Airways Express service between US Airways hubs and cities designated by US Airways. In exchange for performing the flight services under the agreement, we receive from US Airways a fixed monthly minimum amount, plus certain additional amounts based upon the number of flights flown and block hours performed during the month. Additionally, certain costs incurred by Mesa in performing the flight services are “pass-through” costs, whereby US Airways agrees to reimburse

5

Table of Contents

      Notwithstanding the foregoing, US Airways may terminate the code-share agreement at any time for cause upon 90 days notice and subject to our right to cure under any of the following conditions:

      Pursuant to a turboprop code-sharing agreement with US Airways, we operated 22 Beechcraft 1900D turboprop aircraft under a pro-rate revenue-sharing arrangement as of September 30, 2004. We control scheduling, inventory and pricing subject to US Airways’ concurrence that such service does not adversely affect its other operations in the region. We are allocated a portion of each passenger’s fare based on a standard industry formula and are required to pay all the costs of transporting the passenger. Additionally, we are required to pay certain franchise, marketing and reservation fees to US Airways.

      US Airways may terminate the turboprop agreement at any time for cause upon not less than five days notice under any of the following conditions:

      The turboprop code-share agreement terminates in October 2006, provided, however, most of the turboprop flying hub markets can be terminated by US Airways for any reason upon 180 days prior advance written notice.

6

Table of Contents

      As of September 30, 2004, we operated 15 CRJ-200, 15 CRJ-700 and 10 Dash-8 aircraft for United under a code-sharing arrangement. The code-share agreement provides for the Company to increase its fleet to 30 70-seat regional aircraft (15 of which would be replacements for 15 CRJ-200s). In exchange for performing the flight services under the agreement, we receive from United a fixed monthly minimum amount, plus certain additional amounts based upon the number of flights flown and block hours performed during the month. Additionally, certain costs incurred by Mesa in performing the flight services are “pass-through” costs, whereby United agrees to reimburse us for the actual amounts incurred for these items: insurance, property tax per aircraft, fuel cost, oil cost, catering cost and landing fees. We also receive a profit margin based upon certain reimbursable costs under the agreement as well as our operational performance. The code-share agreement for (i) the ten Dash-8 aircraft terminates in July 2013 unless terminated by United Airlines by giving notice six months prior to the fifth anniversary, (ii) the 15 50-seat CRJ-200s terminates in July 2008, which can be accelerated up to two years at Mesa’s discretion, (iii) the 15 70-seat regional jets (to be delivered upon the withdrawal of the 50-seat regional jets) terminates ten years from delivery date, and (iv) the remaining 15 70-seat regional jets terminates in three tranches between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2013. The code-share agreement is subject to termination prior to these dates in various circumstances including:

Fleet Plans and Aircraft Manufacturer Relationships

      Upon delivery of an aircraft from the manufacturer it is our customary business practice to enter into an interim financing arrangement with the manufacturer until such time as permanent financing as an operating lease or debt can be arranged. The interim financing period can be for up to six months after delivery of the aircraft. This practice allows us to take delivery of aircraft quicker while arranging permanent financing or structuring a sale of the aircraft through a sale-leaseback transaction with an independent third party.

      At September 30, 2004, we had $231.0 million in notes payable to an aircraft manufacturer for aircraft on interim financing. We had nine aircraft on interim financing with the manufacturer at September 30, 2004. These interim financing agreements are six months in length and provide for monthly interest only payments at LIBOR plus three percent. The current interim financing agreement with the manufacturer provides for the Company to have a maximum of 15 aircraft on interim financing at a given time. Subsequent to year end, we placed five of these aircraft on permanent financing as debt with a bank.

      In June 1999, we entered into an agreement with Empresa Brasiliera de Aeronautica SA (“Embraer”) to acquire 36 Embraer ERJ-145 50-passenger regional jets. Mesa introduced the ERJ-145 aircraft into revenue service in the third quarter of fiscal 2000 as US Airways Express. As of September 30, 2004, we have taken delivery of all 36 ERJ-145s, which have been financed as operating leases with initial terms of 16.5 to 18 years. We also have options for 45 additional aircraft. In November 2004, our contract with Embraer was amended to extend the option exercise date to May 2005 for deliveries beginning in November 2006.

7

Table of Contents

      In August 1996, we entered into an agreement (the “1996 BRAD Agreement”) with Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division (“BRAD”) to acquire 32 CRJ-200 50-passenger regional jet aircraft. The 32 aircraft have been delivered and are currently under permanent financing as operating leases with initial terms of 16.5 to 18.5 years.

      In May 2001, we entered into a second agreement with BRAD (the “2001 BRAD Agreement”) under which we committed to purchase a total of 15 CRJ-700s and 25 CRJ-900s. In January 2004, the Company exercised options to purchase 20 CRJ-900 aircraft (seven of which can be converted to CRJ-700 aircraft) reserved under the option provision of the 2001 BRAD Agreement. The transaction includes standard product support provisions, including training, preferred pricing on initial inventory provisioning, maintenance and technical publications. We have accepted delivery of 15 CRJ-700s under the 2001 BRAD Agreement. We are the launch customer of the CRJ-900 and as of September 30, 2004, have taken delivery of 24 CRJ-900 aircraft. In addition to the firm orders, we have an option to acquire an additional 60 CRJ-700 or CRJ-900 regional jets. In conjunction with the 2001 BRAD Agreement, we had $15.0 million on deposit with BRAD, which was included with lease and equipment deposits at September 30, 2004.

      In 2004, we leased nine used CRJ-200 and CRJ-100 aircraft in order to meet required deliveries under our code-share agreements. The aircraft are financed as operating leases.

      The following table summarizes our jet fleet status and fleet expansion plans currently under contract with aircraft manufacturers for the periods indicated:

      As of September 30, 2004, we owned 35 Beechcraft 1900D aircraft. Subsequent to September 30, 2004, we executed an agreement to lease four of these aircraft to Gulfstream International Airlines, Inc. for a five-year term.

      As of September 30, 2004, we operated 16 leased Dash-8 aircraft.

Marketing

      Our flight schedules are structured to facilitate the connection of our passengers with the flights of our code-share partners at their hub airports and to maximize local and connecting service to other carriers.

8

Table of Contents

      Under the America West, US Airways and United revenue-guarantee code-share agreements, market selection, pricing and yield management functions are performed by our respective partners. Our role is simply to operate our fleet in the safest and most reliable manner in exchange for fees paid under a generally fixed payment schedule. We intend to expand our operations performed pursuant to these revenue-guarantee agreements.

      The Company’s market selection process for its B1900 turboprop operations, outside the Essential Air Service program flights, follows an in-depth analysis on a route-by-route basis and is followed by a review and approval process in a joint effort with US Airways or America West, as the case may be, regarding the level of service and fares. We believe that this selection process enhances the likelihood of profitability in a given market.

      Under our code-share agreements, the code-share partner coordinates advertising and public relations within their respective systems. In addition, our traffic is impacted by the major airline partners’ advertising programs in regions outside those served by us, with the major partners’ customers becoming our customers as a result of through fares. Under pro-rate code-share arrangements, our passengers also benefit from through fare ticketing with the major airline partners and greater accessibility to our flights on computer reservation systems and in the Official Airline Guide.

      Our pro-rate agreements and independent flights are promoted through, and our revenues are generally believed to benefit from, listings in computer reservation systems, the Official Airline Guide and through direct contact with travel agencies and corporate travel departments. Our independent operations utilize SABRE, a computerized reservation system widely used by travel agents, corporate travel offices and other airlines. The reservation systems of our code-share partners are also utilized in each of our other operations through their respective code-share agreements. We also pay booking fees to owners of other computerized reservation systems based on the number of independent and pro-rate passengers booked by travel agents using such systems. We believe that we have good relationships with the travel agents serving our passengers.

Competition

      The airline industry is highly competitive and volatile. Airlines compete in the areas of pricing, scheduling (frequency and timing of flights), on-time performance, type of equipment, cabin configuration, amenities provided to passengers, frequent flyer plans, and the automation of travel agent reservation systems. Further, because of the Airline Deregulation Act, airlines are currently free to set prices and establish new routes without the necessity of seeking governmental approval. At the same time, deregulation has allowed airlines to abandon unprofitable routes where the affected communities may be left without air service.

      We believe that the Airline Deregulation Act facilitated our entry into scheduled air service markets and allows us to compete on the basis of service and fares, thus causing major carriers to seek out further contractual agreements with carriers like us as a way of expanding their respective networks. However, the Airline Deregulation Act makes the entry of other competitors possible, some of which may have substantial financial resources and experience, creating the potential for intense competition among regional air carriers in our markets.

      We believe our code-share agreements provide a significant competitive advantage in hub airports where our major partner has a predominant share of the market. The ability to control connecting passenger traffic by offering superior service creates difficulty for other regional airlines wishing to compete at such hubs. In addition to enhanced competitiveness offered by the code-share agreements, we compete with other airlines by offering frequent flights, flexible schedules and numerous fare levels.

Fuel

      Historically, we have not experienced problems with the availability of fuel, and believe that we will be able to obtain fuel in quantities sufficient to meet our existing and anticipated future requirements at competitive prices. Standard industry contracts generally do not provide protection against fuel price increases, nor do they ensure availability of supply. However, our revenue-guarantee code-share agreements with

9

Table of Contents

Maintenance of Aircraft and Training

      All mechanics and avionics specialists employed by us have the appropriate training and experience and hold the required licenses issued by the FAA. Using a combination of FAA-certified maintenance vendors and our own personnel and facilities, the Company maintains its aircraft on a scheduled and “as-needed” basis. We emphasize preventive maintenance and inspect our aircraft engines and airframes as required. We also maintain an inventory of spare parts specific to the aircraft types we fly. We provide periodic in-house and outside training for our maintenance and flight personnel and also take advantage of factory training programs that are offered when acquiring new aircraft.

Insurance

      We carry types and amounts of insurance customary in the regional airline industry, including coverage for public liability, passenger liability, property damage, product liability, aircraft loss or damage, baggage and cargo liability and workers’ compensation.

      As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, aviation insurers have significantly reduced the maximum amount of insurance coverage available to commercial air carriers for war-risk coverage, while at the same time, significantly increasing the premiums for this coverage as well as for aviation insurance in general. Given the significant increase in insurance costs, the federal government is currently providing insurance assistance under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. In addition, the federal government has issued war-risk coverage to U.S. air carriers that is generally renewable for 60-day periods. However, the availability of aviation insurance is not guaranteed and our inability to obtain such coverage at affordable rates may result in the grounding of our aircraft. Insurance costs are reimbursed under the terms of our code-share agreement with America West, United Airlines and our regional jet service agreement with US Airways.

Employees

      As of September 30, 2004, we employed approximately 5,000 employees. Approximately 2,700 of our employees are represented by various labor organizations. Our continued success is partly dependent on our ability to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel. Historically, we have had no difficulty attracting qualified personnel to meet our requirements.

      Mesa Airline’s flight attendants are represented by the Association of Flight Attendants (“AFA”). Mesa Airline’s contract with the AFA becomes amendable in June 2006. Our pilots are represented by the Air Line Pilot Association (“ALPA”). Our contract with ALPA becomes amendable in September 2007.

      Although not currently observing high turnover, pilot turnover at times is a significant issue among regional carriers when major carriers are hiring experienced commercial pilots away from regional carriers. The addition of aircraft, especially new aircraft types, can result in pilots upgrading between aircraft types and becoming unavailable for duty during the extensive training periods required. No assurances can be made that pilot turnover and unavailability will not be a significant problem in the future, particularly if major carriers expand their operations. Similarly, there can be no assurance that sufficient numbers of new pilots will be available to support any future growth.

      No other Mesa subsidiaries are parties to any other collective bargaining agreement or union contracts.

10

Table of Contents

Essential Air Service Program

      The Essential Air Service (“EAS”) program administered by the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) guarantees a minimum level of air service in certain communities, predicated on predetermined guidelines set forth by Congress. Based on these guidelines, the DOT subsidizes air service to communities that might not otherwise have air service. At September 30, 2004, we provided service to 30 such cities for an annualized subsidy of approximately $21.3 million. EAS rates are normally set for two-year contract periods for each city. There is no guarantee that we will continue to receive subsidies for the cities we serve. The DOT may request competitive proposals from other airlines at the end of the contract period for EAS service to a particular city. Proposals, when requested, are evaluated on, among other things, level of service provided, subsidy requested, fitness of the applicant and comments from the communities served. If the funding under this program is terminated for any of the cities served by the Company, in all likelihood we would not continue to fly in these markets, and as a result, we would be forced to find alternative uses for the Beechcraft 1900D 19-seat turboprop aircraft affected.

Regulation

      As an interstate air carrier, we are subject to the economic jurisdiction, regulation and continuing air carrier fitness requirements of the DOT. Such requirements include minimum levels of financial, managerial and regulatory fitness. The DOT is authorized to establish consumer protection regulations to prevent unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices, to prohibit certain pricing practices, to inspect a carrier’s books, properties and records, and to mandate conditions of carriage. The DOT also has the power to bring proceedings for the enforcement of air carrier economic regulations, including the assessment of civil penalties, and to seek criminal sanctions.

      We are subject to the jurisdiction of the FAA with respect to its aircraft maintenance and operations, including equipment, ground facilities, dispatch, communication, training, weather observation, flight personnel and other matters affecting air safety. To ensure compliance with its regulations, the FAA requires airlines to obtain an operating certificate, which is subject to suspension or revocation for cause, and provides for regular inspections.

      Effective March 1997, the FAA required that regional airlines with aircraft of ten or more passenger seats operating under FAR Part 135 rules to begin operating those aircraft under FAR Part 121 regulations. The Company, which at one time was one of the largest regional airlines operating under FAR Part 135 regulations, completed the transition to Part 121 within the FAA’s deadline. These requirements have resulted in a significant increase in Air Midwest’s costs, adversely affecting our ability to profitably serve certain markets. Such increased costs are primarily related to additional training, dispatch and maintenance procedures. We continue to work to minimize the cost of these new operating procedures while fully complying with FAR Part 121 operating requirements.

      We are subject to various federal and local laws and regulations pertaining to other issues of environmental protocol. We believe we are in compliance with all governmental laws and regulations regarding environmental protection.

      We are also subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission with respect to the use of its radio facilities and the United States Postal Service with respect to carriage of United States mail.

      Local governments in certain markets have adopted regulations governing various aspects of aircraft operations, including noise abatement and curfews.

Available Information

      We maintain a website where additional information concerning our business can be found. The address of that website is www.mesa-air.com. We make available free of charge on our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such materials to the SEC.

11

Table of Contents

Risk Factors

      The following risk factors, in addition to the information discussed elsewhere herein, should be carefully considered in evaluating us and our business:

     Risks Related to Our Business

      The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were highly publicized. The impacts that these events will continue to have on the airline industry in general, and on us in particular, is not known at this time, but is expected to include a substantial impact on our operations due to:

      In addition, we expect that the general increase in hostilities relating to reprisals against terrorist organizations and the continued threat of further terrorist attacks will continue to negatively impact our revenues and costs in the near and mid-term. The extent of the impact that the terrorist attacks and their aftermath will have on our operations, and the sufficiency of our financial resources to absorb this impact, will depend on a number of factors, including:

      We depend on relationships created by our code-share agreements. We derive a significant portion of our consolidated passenger revenues from our revenue guarantee code-share agreements with America West, United Airlines, and US Airways. Our code-share partners have certain rights to cancel the applicable code-share agreement upon the occurrence of certain events or the giving of appropriate notice, subject to certain conditions. Although no notice has been given to date that any party intends to cancel these contracts, there can be no assurance that they will not serve notice at a later date of their intention to cancel, forcing us to stop

12

Table of Contents

      In addition, because a majority of our operating revenues are currently generated under revenue-guarantee code-share agreements, if any one of them is terminated, our operating revenues and net income could be materially adversely affected unless we are able to enter into satisfactory substitute arrangements or, alternatively, fly under our own flight designator code, including obtaining the airport facilities and gates necessary to do so. For the year ended September 30, 2004, our America West code-share agreement accounted for 38% of our consolidated passenger revenues, our US Airways code-share agreement accounted for 40% of our consolidated passenger revenues and our United code-share agreement accounted for 20% of our consolidated passenger revenues. Any material modification to, or termination of, our code-share agreements with any of these partners could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, the results of our operations and the price of our common stock. Should any of our revenue-guarantee code-share agreements be terminated, we cannot assure you that we would be able to enter into substitute code-share arrangements, that any such arrangements would be as favorable to us as the current code-share agreements or that we could successfully fly under our own flight designator code.

      We are directly affected by the financial and operating strength of our code-share partners. Any events that negatively impact the financial strength of our code-share partners or have a long-term effect on the use of our code-share partners by airline travelers would likely have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In the event of a decrease in the financial or operational strength of any of our code-share partners, such partner may seek to reduce, or be unable to make, the payments due to us under their code-share agreement. In addition, they may reduce utilization of our aircraft. Although there are certain monthly guaranteed payment amounts, there are no minimum levels of utilization specified in the code-share agreements. UAL Corp., the parent of our code-share partner United Airlines, has not emerged from reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, US Airways, which accounted for 40% of our consolidated passenger revenue for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, has filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The financial performance of US Airways and United could directly affect their ability to perform under our code-share agreements with them. Additionally, US Airways has not yet assumed our code-share agreement in its bankruptcy proceeding and could choose to terminate this agreement. If any of our other current or future code-share partners become bankrupt, our code-share agreement with such partner may not be assumed in bankruptcy and would be terminated. This and other such events could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any negative events that occur to other regional carriers and that affect public perception of such carriers generally could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      We depend on major airlines like America West, United Airlines and US Airways electing to contract with us instead of purchasing and operating their own regional jets. However, these major airlines possess the resources to acquire and operate their own regional jets instead of entering into contracts with us or other regional carriers. We have no guarantee that in the future our code-share partners will choose to enter into contracts with us instead of purchasing their own regional jets or entering into relationships with competing regional airlines. A decision by America West, United Airlines, or US Airways to phase out our

13

Table of Contents

      The operation of our business is significantly dependent on the availability of qualified employees, including, specifically, flight crews, mechanics and avionics specialists. Historically, regional airlines have experienced high pilot turnover from time to time as a result of air carriers operating larger aircraft hiring their commercial pilots. Further, the addition of aircraft, especially new aircraft types, can result in pilots upgrading between aircraft types and becoming unavailable for duty during the required extensive training periods. There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain an adequate supply of qualified personnel or that labor expenses will not increase.

      At September 30, 2004, we had approximately 5,000 employees, a significant number of whom are members of labor unions, including ALPA and the AFA. Our collective bargaining agreement with ALPA becomes amendable in September 2007 and our collective bargaining agreement with the AFA becomes amendable in June 2006. The inability to negotiate acceptable contracts with existing unions as agreements expire or with new unions could result in work stoppages by the affected workers, lost revenues resulting from the cancellation of flights and increased operating costs as a result of higher wages or benefits paid to union members. We cannot predict which, if any, other employee groups may seek union representation or the outcome or the terms of any future collective bargaining agreement and therefore the effect, if any, on our financial condition and results of operations. If negotiations with unions over collective bargaining agreements prove to be unsuccessful, following specified “cooling off” periods, the unions may initiate a work action, including a strike, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      Labor costs constitute a significant percentage of our total operating costs, and we have experienced pressure to increase wages and benefits for our employees. Under our code-share agreements, our reimbursement rates contemplate labor costs that increase on a set schedule generally tied to an increase in the consumer price index or the actual increase in the contract. We are responsible for our labor costs, and we may not be entitled to receive increased payments under our code-share agreements if our labor costs increase above the assumed costs included in the reimbursement rates. As a result, a significant increase in our labor costs above the levels assumed in our reimbursement rates could result in a material reduction in our earnings.

      Laws and regulations, such as those described below, have been proposed from time to time that could significantly increase the cost of our operations by imposing additional requirements or restrictions on our operations. We cannot predict what laws and regulations will be adopted or what changes to air transportation agreements will be effected, if any, or how they will affect us, and there can be no assurance that laws or regulations currently proposed or enacted in the future will not increase our operating expenses and therefore adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

      As an interstate air carrier, we are subject to the economic jurisdiction, regulation and continuing air carrier fitness requirements of the Department of Transportation, which include required levels of financial, managerial and regulatory fitness. The Department of Transportation is authorized to establish consumer protection regulations to prevent unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices, to prohibit certain pricing practices, to inspect a carrier’s books, properties and records, to mandate conditions of carriage and to

14

Table of Contents

      We are also subject to the jurisdiction of the FAA with respect to our aircraft maintenance and operations, including equipment, ground facilities, dispatch, communication, training, weather observation, flight personnel and other matters affecting air safety. To ensure compliance with its regulations, the FAA requires airlines to obtain an operating certificate, which is subject to suspension or revocation for cause, and provides for regular inspections.

      We incur substantial costs in maintaining our current certifications and otherwise complying with the laws, rules and regulations to which we are subject. We cannot predict whether we will be able to comply with all present and future laws, rules, regulations and certification requirements or that the cost of continued compliance will not significantly increase our costs of doing business.

      The FAA has the authority to issue mandatory orders relating to, among other things, the grounding of aircraft, inspection of aircraft, installation of new safety-related items and removal and replacement of aircraft parts that have failed or may fail in the future. A decision by the FAA to ground, or require time-consuming inspections of, or maintenance on, all or any of our turboprops or regional jets, for any reason, could negatively impact our results of operations.

      In addition to state and federal regulation, airports and municipalities enact rules and regulations that affect our operations. From time to time, various airports throughout the country have considered limiting the use of smaller aircraft, such as Embraer or Canadair regional jets, at such airports. The imposition of any limits on the use of our regional jets at any airport at which we operate could interfere with our obligations under our code-share agreements and severely interrupt our business operations.

      The price and supply of jet fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. Although approximately 92% of our fuel costs for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 was reimbursed by our code-share partners, price escalations or reductions in the supply of jet fuel will increase our operating expenses and, to the extent such fuel costs are not reimbursed by our code-share partners, could cause our operating results and net income to decline.

      Congress recently adopted increased safety and security measures designed to increase airline passenger security and protect against terrorist acts. Such measures have resulted in additional operating costs to the airline industry. The Aviation Safety Commission’s report recommends the adoption of further measures aimed at improving the safety and security of air travel. We cannot forecast what additional security and safety requirements may be imposed on our operations in the future or the costs or revenue impact that would be associated with complying with such requirements, although such costs and revenue impact could be significant. To the extent that the costs of complying with any additional safety and security measures are not reimbursed by our code-share partners, our operating results and net income could be adversely affected.

      As our fleet of aircraft age, the cost of maintaining such aircraft, if not replaced, will likely increase. There can be no assurance that costs of maintenance, including costs to comply with aging aircraft requirements, will not materially increase in the future. Any material increase in such costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Because many aircraft components are required to be replaced after specified numbers of flight hours or take-off and landing cycles,

15

Table of Contents

      We believe that our aircraft are mechanically reliable based on the percentage of scheduled flights completed and as of September 30, 2004 the average age of our regional jet fleet is 4.0 years. However, there can be no assurance that such aircraft will continue to be sufficiently reliable over longer periods of time. Furthermore, any public perception that our aircraft are less than completely reliable could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      The airline business is very capital intensive and, as a result, many airline companies are highly leveraged. For the year ended September 30, 2004, our debt service payments totaled $41.0 million and our lease payments totaled $179.4 million. We have significant lease obligations with respect to our aircraft and ground facilities, which aggregated approximately $2.0 billion at September 30, 2004. As of September 30, 2004, our growth strategy involves the acquisition of 14 more Bombardier regional jets during fiscal 2005. As of September 30, 2004, we had permanently financed 30 of the 39 CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 aircraft delivered under the 2001 BRAD agreement; the remaining aircraft are subject to interim financing. We may utilize interim financing provided by the manufacturer and have the ability to fund up to 15 aircraft at any one time under this facility. Our ability to obtain additional interim financing is contingent upon obtaining permanent financing for the aircraft already delivered. There are no assurances that we will be able to obtain permanent financing for future aircraft deliveries.

      There can be no assurance that our operations will generate sufficient cash flow to make such payments or that we will be able to obtain financing to acquire the additional aircraft necessary for our expansion. If we default under our loan or lease agreements, the lender/lessor has available extensive remedies, including, without limitation, repossession of the respective aircraft and, in the case of large creditors, the effective ability to exert control over how we allocate a significant portion of our revenues. Even if we are able to timely service our debt, the size of our long-term debt and lease obligations could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations and the price of our common stock in many ways, including:

      If we need funds and cannot raise them on acceptable terms, we may be unable to realize our current plans or take advantage of unanticipated opportunities and could be required to slow our growth.

      As of September 30, 2004, we are obligated under our code-share agreements to place an additional 14 CRJ 900 regional jets over the next 12 months. As of September 30, 2004, we have firm orders with Bombardier for an additional 21 regional jets. We also have options to acquire an additional 20 regional jets that are exercisable through 2007 and 40 regional jets that are exercisable in 2010 and beyond.

      We are dependent on Bombardier as manufacturer of these jets and certain factors may limit or preclude our ability to obtain these regional jets, including:

16

Table of Contents

      Any disruption or change in the delivery schedule of these regional jets would affect our overall operations and our ability to fulfill our obligations under our code-share agreements.

      Our operations could be materially adversely affected by the failure or inability of Bombardier or any key component manufacturers to provide sufficient parts or related support services on a timely basis or by an interruption of fleet service as a result of unscheduled or unanticipated maintenance requirements for our aircraft.

      Even though our revenue-guarantee agreements require a fixed amount per month to compensate us for our fixed costs, if our aircraft are underutilized (including taking into account the stage length and frequency of our scheduled flights) we will lose the opportunity to receive a margin on the variable costs of flights that would have been flown if our aircraft were more fully utilized.

      Our reliance upon others to provide essential services on behalf of our operations may result in the relative inability to control the efficiency and timeliness of contract services. We have entered into agreements with contractors to provide various facilities and services required for our operations, including aircraft maintenance, ground facilities, baggage handling and personnel training. It is likely that similar agreements will be entered into in any new markets we decide to serve. All of these agreements are subject to termination after notice. Any material problems with the efficiency and timeliness of contract services could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      If one of our aircraft were to crash or be involved in an accident, we could be exposed to significant tort liability.

      On January 8, 2003, US Airways Express Flight 5481, operated by Air Midwest, crashed shortly after takeoff from Charlotte Douglas International Airport en route to Greenville/ Spartanburg, S.C. The estates of the passengers from Flight 5481, or the passengers, or their estates, of any other future aircraft accident may seek to recover damages for death or injury. Although we believe our present insurance coverage is sufficient to cover any claims arising from the crash of Flight 5481, there can be no assurance that the insurance we carry to cover damages arising from these or any future accidents will be adequate. Accidents could also result in unforeseen mechanical and maintenance costs. In addition, any accident involving an aircraft that we operate could create a public perception that our aircraft are not safe, which could result in air travelers being reluctant to fly on our aircraft. To the extent a decrease is associated with our operations not covered by our code-share agreements, such a decrease could have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

      We are, from time to time, subject to various legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted. Any such claims, whether with or without merit, could be time-consuming and expensive to defend and could divert management’s attention and resources. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of current or future litigation.

17

Table of Contents

      Our success depends to a large extent on the continued service of our executive management team. We have employment agreements with certain executive officers, but it is possible that members of executive management may leave us. Departures by our executive officers could have a negative impact on our business, as we may not be able to find suitable management personnel to replace departing executives on a timely basis. We do not maintain key-man life insurance on any of our executive officers.

      Our business is labor-intensive, we require large numbers of pilots, flight attendants, maintenance technicians and other personnel and we anticipate that our expansion plans will require us to recruit, train and retain a significant number of new employees over the next several years.

      The airline industry has from time to time experienced a shortage of qualified personnel, specifically pilots and maintenance technicians. In addition, as is common with most of our competitors, we have faced considerable turnover of our employees. Although our employee turnover has decreased significantly since September 11, 2001, our pilots, flight attendants and maintenance technicians often leave to work for larger airlines, which generally offer higher salaries and better benefit programs than regional airlines are financially able to offer. Should the turnover of employees, particularly pilots and maintenance technicians, sharply increase, the result will be significantly higher training costs than otherwise would be necessary. We cannot assure you that we will be able to recruit, train and retain the qualified employees that we need to carry out our expansion plans or replace departing employees. If we are unable to hire and retain qualified employees at a reasonable cost, we may be unable to complete our expansion plans, which could have a material adverse affect our financial condition, results of operations and the price of our common stock.

     Risks Related to Our Industry

      Increased competition in the airline industry as well as competitive pressure on our code-share partners or in our markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation. The airline industry is highly competitive. The earnings of many of the airlines have historically been volatile. The airline industry is susceptible to price discounting, which involves the offering of discount or promotional fares to passengers. Any such fares offered by one airline are normally matched by competing airlines, which may result in lower revenue per passenger, i.e., lower yields, without a corresponding increase in traffic levels. Also, in recent years several new carriers have entered the industry, typically with low cost structures. In some cases, new entrants have initiated or triggered price discounting. The entry of additional new major or regional carriers in any of our markets, as well as increased competition from or the introduction of new services by established carriers, could negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

      Our reliance on our code-share agreements with our major airline partners for the majority of our revenue means that we must rely on the ability of our code-share partners to adequately promote their respective services and to maintain their respective market share. Competitive pressures by low-fare carriers and price discounting among major airlines could have a material adverse effect on our code-share partners and therefore adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      The results of operations in the air travel business historically fluctuate in response to general economic conditions. The airline industry is sensitive to changes in economic conditions that affect business and leisure travel and is highly susceptible to unforeseen events, such as political instability, regional hostilities, economic recession, fuel price increases, inflation, adverse weather conditions or other adverse occurrences that result in a decline in air travel. Any event that results in decreased travel or increased competition among airlines could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

18

Table of Contents

      In addition to traditional competition among airlines, the industry faces competition from ground and sea transportation alternatives. Video teleconferencing and other methods of electronic communication may add a new dimension of competition to the industry as business travelers seek lower-cost substitutes for air travel.

      Airlines are subject to extensive regulatory and legal compliance requirements, both domestically and internationally, that involve significant costs. In the last several years, the FAA has issued a number of directives and other regulations relating to the maintenance and operation of aircraft that have required us to make significant expenditures. FAA requirements cover, among other things, retirement of older aircraft, security measures, collision avoidance systems, airborne wind shear avoidance systems, noise abatement, commuter aircraft safety and increased inspection and maintenance procedures to be conducted on older aircraft.

      We incur substantial costs in maintaining our current certifications and otherwise complying with the laws, rules and regulations to which we are subject. We cannot predict whether we will be able to comply with all present and future laws, rules, regulations and certification requirements or that the cost of continued compliance will not significantly increase our costs of doing business, to the extent such costs are not reimbursed by our code-share partners.

      The FAA has the authority to issue mandatory orders relating to, among other things, the grounding of aircraft, inspection of aircraft, installation of new safety-related items and removal and replacement of aircraft parts that have failed or may fail in the future. A decision by the FAA to ground, or require time consuming inspections of or maintenance on, all or any of our aircraft, for any reason, could negatively impact our results of operations.

      In addition to state and federal regulation, airports and municipalities enact rules and regulations that affect our operations. From time to time, various airports throughout the country have considered limiting the use of smaller aircraft at such airports. The imposition of any limits on the use of our aircraft at any airport at which we operate could interfere with our obligations under our code-share agreements and severely interrupt our business operations.

      Additional laws, regulations, taxes and airport rates and charges have been proposed from time to time that could significantly increase the cost of airline operations or reduce revenues. For instance, “passenger bill of rights” legislation was introduced in Congress in 2001 which would have, among other things, required the payment of compensation to passengers as a result of certain delays and limited the ability of carriers to prohibit or restrict usage of certain tickets. If adopted, these measures could have had the effect of raising ticket prices, reducing revenue and increasing costs. Restrictions on the ownership and transfer of airline routes and takeoff and landing slots have also been proposed. In addition, as a result of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. in September 2001, the FAA has imposed more stringent security procedures on airlines. We cannot predict what other new regulations may be imposed on airlines and we cannot assure you that laws or regulations enacted in the future will not materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and the price of our common stock.

      The airline industry has been negatively impacted by a number of labor strikes. Any new collective bargaining agreement entered into by other regional carriers may result in higher industry wages and add increased pressure on us to increase the wages and benefits of our employees. Furthermore, since each of our code-share partners is a significant source of revenue, any labor disruption or labor strike by the employees of any one of our code-share partners could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and the price of our common stock.

19

Table of Contents

     Risks Related to Our Common Stock

      Our articles of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that, among other things:

      In addition, Section 78.438 of the Nevada general corporation law prohibits us from entering into some business combinations with interested stockholders without the approval of our board of directors. These provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders.

      The stock market has, from time to time, experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. Many factors may cause the market price for our common stock to decline following this Form 10-K, including:

      Our primary property consists of the aircraft used in the operation of our flights. The following table lists the aircraft owned and leased by the Company as of September 30, 2004.

20

Table of Contents

      See “Business — Airline Operations” and “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a discussion regarding the Company’s aircraft fleet commitments.

      In addition to aircraft, we have office and maintenance facilities to support our operations. Our facilities are summarized in the following table:

      We lease ticket counters, check-in and boarding and other facilities in the passenger terminal areas in the majority of the airports we serve and staff those facilities with our personnel. America West, US Airways and United also provide facilities, ticket handling and ground support services for the Company at certain airports.

      Our corporate headquarters and Training/ Administrative facilities in Phoenix, Arizona are subject to long-term leases expiring on August 31, 2012 and November 1, 2012, respectively.

      We believe our facilities are suitable and adequate for our current and anticipated needs.

      We are involved in various legal proceedings and FAA civil action proceedings that the Company does not believe will have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations, although no assurance can be given to the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings.

      None.

21

Table of Contents

Executive Officers of the Registrant

      The following table sets forth the names and ages of the executive officers of the Company and certain additional information:

      Jonathan G. Ornstein was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of Mesa Air Group, Inc. effective May 1, 1998. Mr. Ornstein relinquished his position as President of the Company in June 2000. From April 1996 to his joining the Company as Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Ornstein served as President and Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Virgin Express S.A./ N.V., a European airline. From 1995 to April 1996, Mr. Ornstein served as Chief Executive Officer of Virgin Express Holdings, Inc. Mr. Ornstein joined Continental Express Airlines, Inc., as President and Chief Executive Officer in July 1994 and, in November 1994, was named Senior Vice President, Airport Services at Continental Airlines, Inc. Mr. Ornstein was previously employed by the Company from 1988 to 1994, as Executive Vice President and as President of the Company’s WestAir Holding, Inc. subsidiary.

      Michael J. Lotz, President and Chief Operating Officer, joined the Company in July 1998. In January 1999, Mr. Lotz became Chief Operating Officer. In August 1999, Mr. Lotz became the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and in January 2000 returned to the position of Chief Operating Officer. On June 22, 2000, Mr. Lotz was appointed President of the Company. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Lotz served as Chief Operating Officer of Virgin Express, S.A./ N.V., a position he held from October 1996 to June 1998. Previously, Mr. Lotz was employed by Continental Airlines, Inc., most recently as Vice President of Airport Operations, Properties and Facilities at Continental Express.

      George Murnane III, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, was appointed Executive Vice President of the Company effective December 2001 and Chief Financial Officer in January 2003. Mr. Murnane served as a director of the Company from June 1999 until October 2003. Mr. Murnane has served as the President of Barlow Management, Inc. from 1998 until October 2003. From 1996 to December 2001, Mr. Murnane was a Director and Executive Vice President of International Airline Support Group, Inc., a redistributor of aftermarket commercial aircraft spare parts and lessor and trader of commercial aircraft and engines, most recently as its Chief Operating Officer. From 1995 to 1996, Mr. Murnane served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Atlas Air, Inc., an air cargo company. From 1986 to 1996, he was an investment banker with the New York investment banking firm of Merrill Lynch & Co., most recently as a Director in the firm’s Transportation Group.

      Michael Ferverda, Senior Vice President — West Coast Operations joined the Company in 1990. He was appointed President of Freedom Airlines in May 2002 and Senior Vice President — West Coast Operations in February 2003. Prior to the appointments, Mr. Ferverda served as the Senior Vice President of Operations for Mesa Airlines, Inc. Mr. Ferverda has served the Company in various capacities including pilot, Flight Instructor/ Check Airman, Assistant Chief Pilot, FAA Designated Examiner, FAA Director of Operations and Divisional Vice President. Mr. Ferverda was a pilot with Eastern Airlines from 1973 to 1989. Prior to joining Eastern Airlines, Mr. Ferverda served as an Aviator in the United States Navy. Mr. Ferverda is a graduate of Indiana University.

      Brian S. Gillman, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, joined the Company in February 2001. From July 1996 to February 2001, he served as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Vanguard

22

Table of Contents

      F. Carter Leake, Senior Vice President — East Coast Operations, joined the Company in 2001. Mr. Leake served as Executive Vice-President of CCAir, Inc., a former wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company in January 2001 and was promoted to President of CCAir in October 2001. In February 2003, Mr. Leake was appointed to Senior Vice President — East Coast Operations. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Leake served as a Director of Sales for Bombardier Regional Aircraft from November 1996 to January 2001. Previously, Mr. Leake was an analyst with SH&E, an aviation consulting firm in New York, and a US Air Force military pilot.

      Edward J. Wegel, Senior Vice President, Corporate Planning, joined the Company in February 2004. From 1999 to February 2004, he was a consultant to the airline industry. From 1997 to 1999, he served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Chautauqua Airlines, a US Airways Express carrier. From 1994 to 1996, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer of BWIA, the national airline of Trinidad. Mr. Wegel participated as a co-founder in the start-up of Atlantic Coast Airlines, served on the Atlantic Coast Board of Directors from 1991 to 1996 and also as Senior Vice President — Corporate Finance from 1991 to 1995. From 1987 to 1991, Mr. Wegel worked at Shearson Lehman Brothers where he specialized in aircraft finance. Prior to joining Shearson Lehman, he worked on the finance, operations and marketing staff of Eastern Airlines. Mr. Wegel graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and from the University of Northern Colorado with an MBA in Finance.

23

Table of Contents

PART II

Market Price of Common Stock

      The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low price per share of Mesa common stock for the two most recent fiscal years, as reported by NASDAQ. Mesa’s common stock is traded on the NASDAQ National Market System under the symbol “MESA.”

      On December 1, 2004, we had approximately 1,137 shareholders of record. We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock. The payment of future dividends is within the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon our future earnings, if any, our capital requirements, bank financing, financial condition and other relevant factors.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

      On February 7, 2002, in connection with an agreement entered into with Raytheon Aircraft Company (“Raytheon”), we granted Raytheon a warrant to purchase up to 233,068 shares of our common stock at a per share exercise price of $10. Raytheon must pay a purchase price of $1.50 per share underlying the warrant. The warrant is exercisable at any time over a three-year period following its date of issuance. Absent a default by us under the agreement with Raytheon in which case vesting is accelerated, the shares underlying the warrant vest (and are therefore purchasable by Raytheon) according to the following schedule: 13,401 shares in fiscal year 2001; 116,534 shares in fiscal year 2002; 58,267 shares in fiscal year 2003 and 44,866 shares in fiscal year 2004. As of December 1, 2004, Raytheon has exercised its option to purchase the 2001, 2002 and 2003 components of the warrant, but has not yet exercised its option to purchase the 2004 component of the warrant. In addition, Raytheon has not exercised any component of the warrant. The sale of the warrant and the shares underlying the warrant were made pursuant to an exemption from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

      In June 2003, the Company completed the private placement of senior convertible notes due 2023, raising approximately $97.1 million net proceeds. At maturity, the principal amount of each note will be $1,000 and the aggregate amount due will be $252 million. These notes are convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion rate of 39.727 shares per $1,000 in principal amount at maturity of the notes, which equals an initial conversion price of approximately $10.00 per share. This conversion rate is subject to adjustment in certain circumstances. Holders of these notes may convert their notes only if: (i) the sale price of our common stock exceeds 110% of the accreted conversion price for at least 20 trading days in the 30 consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day of the preceding quarter; (ii) prior to June 16, 2018, the trading price for these notes falls below certain thresholds; (iii) these notes have been called for redemption; or (iv) specified corporate transactions occur. The Company may redeem these notes, in whole or in part, beginning on June 16, 2008, at a redemption price equal to the issue price, plus accrued original issue discount, plus any accrued and unpaid cash interest. The holders of these notes may require the Company to repurchase the notes on June 16, 2008 at a price of $397.27 per note plus accrued and unpaid cash interest, if any, on June 16, 2013 at a price of $540.41 per note plus accrued and unpaid cash interest, if any, and on June 16, 2018 at a price of $735.13 per note plus accrued and unpaid cash interest, if any.

      In February 2004, the Company completed the private placement of senior convertible notes due 2024, raising approximately $97.0 million net proceeds. At maturity, the principal amount of each note will be $1,000 and the aggregate amount due will be $171.4 million. These notes are convertible into shares of the

24

Table of Contents

      The following table sets forth information required regarding repurchases of common stock that we made during the three moths ended September 30, 2004:

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Selected Financial Data and Operating Statistics

      The selected financial data as of and for each of the five years ended September 30, 2004, are derived from the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company and its subsidiaries and should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K and the related notes thereto and “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.”

25

Table of Contents

      In thousands of dollars except per share data and average fare amounts and as otherwise indicated.