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 our customers; 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; an increase in competition along the routes Mesa operates or plans to operate; availability and cost of funds for financing new aircraft; changes in general and/or regional economic conditions; changes in fuel prices; Mesa's relationship with its 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; our ability to operate our Hawaiian airline service profitably; Mokulele Airlines regarding our Hawaiian operation, and Delta Air Lines regarding our code share agreement; unfavorable resolution of negotiations with municipalities for the leasing of facilities; failure of our joint venture in China or changes in Chinese laws or regulations that have an adverse effect on Kunpeng's operations. 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," the "Company" or "Mesa" refer to Mesa Air Group, Inc. and its predecessors, direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliates.

Mesa Air Group, Inc. ("Mesa" or the "Company") is a holding company whose principal subsidiaries operate as regional air carriers providing scheduled passenger and airfreight service. As of September 30, 2008, the Company served 124 cities in 38 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, and Mexico and operated a fleet of 159 aircraft with approximately 800 daily departures.

Approximately 96% of our consolidated passenger revenues from continuing operations for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 were derived from operations associated with code-share agreements. Our subsidiaries have code-share agreements with Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta"), United Airlines, Inc. ("United Airlines" or "United") and America West Airlines, Inc. ("America West") which currently operates as US Airways and is referred to herein as "US Airways." The current US Airways is the result of a merger between America West and US Airways, Inc. 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. Our remaining passenger revenues from continuing operations are derived from our independent go! operations in Hawaii.

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.

3

Our airline operations are conducted by the following airline subsidiaries:

•   Mesa Airlines, Inc. ("Mesa Airlines"), a Nevada corporation, flies regional jet and turboprop aircraft and operates as US Airways Express under code-share agreements with US Airways, as United Express under a code-share agreement with United Airlines and independently in Hawaii as go! The go! flights are "Independent Operations" and are not subject to a code-sharing agreement with a major carrier.

•   Freedom Airlines, Inc. ("Freedom"), a Nevada corporation, flies ERJ-145 50-seat regional jet aircraft and operates as Delta Connection under code-share agreements with Delta.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007, the Company committed to a plan to sell Air Midwest or certain of its assets. Air Midwest consisted of Beechcraft 1900D turboprop operations, which included our independent Mesa operations and Midwest Airlines and US Airways code-share operations. As a result, the Company began soliciting bids for the sale of the twenty Beechcraft 1900D aircraft in operation and exited all of its Essential Air Service ("EAS") markets on or before June 30, 2008. All assets and liabilities, results of operations, and other financial and operational data associated with these assets have been presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as discontinued operations separate from continuing operations, unless otherwise noted.

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:

•   MPD, Inc., a Nevada corporation, doing business as Mesa Pilot Development and MPD, operates training programs for student pilots in conjunction with San Juan College in Farmington, New Mexico and Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.

•   Regional Aircraft Services, Inc. ("RAS"), a California corporation, performs aircraft component repair, certain overhaul services, and ground handling services, primarily to Mesa subsidiaries.

•   MAGI Insurance, Ltd., a Barbados, West Indies based captive insurance company, was established for the purpose of obtaining more favorable aircraft liability insurance rates.

•   Ritz Hotel Management Corp., a Nevada corporation, was established to facilitate the Company's acquisition and management of a Phoenix area hotel property used for crew-in-training accommodations.

•   Mesa Air Group -Airline Inventory Management, LLC ("MAG-AIM"), an Arizona limited liability company, was established to purchase, distribute and manage Mesa's inventory of spare rotable and expendable parts.

•   Nilchii, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Nilchii"), was established to invest in certain airline related businesses.

•   Mesa In-Flight, Inc., a Colorado corporation, was established to hold liquor licenses services for airline operations.

•   Regional Aviation Advisors, Inc., a Nevada corporation, was established to provide aircraft financing advisory services.

•   Patar, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Patar"), was established to invest in certain foreign businesses.

•   Mesa Air New York, Inc., a New York corporation, was established to hold and own aircraft parts and equipment to support the Company's New York flight operations.

•   Ping Shan, SRL, a Barbados society with restricted liability, was established for the purpose of being a holding company of our interest in Kunpeng Airlines, a regional airline based in the People's Republic of China.

4

Aircraft

The following table sets forth our aircraft fleet (owned and leased) by aircraft type and code-share service as of September 30, 2008:

Our airline subsidiaries have agreements with Delta, US Airways and United Airlines to use those carriers' designation codes (commonly referred to as "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 us.

The financial arrangement with our code-share partners involves a revenue-guarantee arrangement. The US Airways (regional jet and Dash-8), Delta (regional jet) and United (regional jet and Dash-8) code-share agreements are revenue-guarantee code-share agreements. Under the terms of these code-share agreements, the major carrier controls marketing, scheduling, ticketing, pricing and seat inventories. We receive 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 our exposure to fluctuations in passenger traffic and fare levels, as well as fuel prices.

5

The following table summarizes our available seat miles ("ASMs") flown and passenger revenue recognized under our code-share agreements and independent operations for the years ended September 30, 2008 and 2007:

As of September 30, 2008, we operated 38 CRJ-900, 11 CRJ-200, and 6 Dash-8 aircraft for US Airways under a revenue-guarantee code-share agreement. In exchange for providing flights and all other services under such 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. US Airways also reimburses us for certain costs on an actual basis, including fuel costs, aircraft ownership and financing costs, landing fees, passenger liability, hull insurance and aircraft property taxes, all as defined in the agreement. In addition, US Airways also provides, at no cost to Mesa, certain ground handling and customer service functions, as well as airport-related facilities and gates at US Airways hubs and cities where both carriers operate. We also receive a monthly payment from US Airways based on a percentage of revenue from flights that we operate under the code-share agreement. Under our code-share agreement, US Airways has the right to reduce the combined CRJ fleets utilized under the code-share agreement by one aircraft in any six-month period. The Company has received notice of US Airways' intent to reduce one CRJ-200 in January 2009, one in July 2009 and one CRJ-200 in January 2010. We anticipate US Airways will continue to further reduce the number of covered aircraft in accordance with the agreement. In addition, US Airways may eliminate the Dash-8 aircraft upon 180 days prior written notice. The code-share agreement terminates on June 30, 2012 unless US Airways 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:

•   If our flight completion factor or arrival performance in our Phoenix hub falls below certain levels for a specified period of time, subject to notice and cure rights;

•   If either US Airways or we become insolvent, file for bankruptcy or fail to pay our debts as they become due, the non-defaulting party may terminate the agreement;

•   Failure by us or US Airways to perform the covenants, conditions or provisions of the code-share agreement, subject to 15 days notice and cure rights;

•   If we or US Airways fail to make a payment when due, subject to ten business days notice and cure rights;

•   If we are required by the FAA or the U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") to suspend operations and we have not resumed operations within three business days, except as a result of an emergency airworthiness directive from the FAA affecting all similarly equipped aircraft, US Airways may terminate the agreement;

•   Upon a change in our ownership or control without the written approval of US Airways.

As of September 30, 2008, we operated 26 CRJ-200, 20 CRJ-700 and 10 Dash-8 aircraft for United under a code-sharing arrangement. Additionally, the code-share agreement allows us to swap up to 10 CRJ-200s for 10 CRJ-700s upon providing at least 180 days notice prior to October 31, 2009. 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 us in performing the flight services are "pass-through" costs, whereby United agrees to reimburse us for the actual amounts incurred for these items: aircraft ownership costs, property tax per aircraft, fuel costs, and landing fees. We also receive a profit margin based upon certain reimbursable costs under the agreement as well as our

6

operational performance. The code-share agreement for (i) the 10 Dash-8 aircraft terminates in July 2013 unless terminated by United by giving notice six months prior to April 30, 2010, (ii) 10 50-seat CRJ-200's terminates no later than April 30, 2010, which can be accelerated up to two years at our discretion and can be swapped for CRJ-700's for a term of up to 10 years but not beyond October 2018, (iii) 20 50-seat regional jets terminate in April 2010, (iv) the 5 CRJ-700's delivered in fiscal 2007 (the 12 to be delivered upon the withdrawal of the 50-seat regional jets) terminates ten years from delivery date, but no later than October 31, 2018, and (v) the remaining 15 CRJ-700's terminates in three traunches of five aircraft between December 31, 2011, December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013.

The code-share agreement is subject to termination prior to these dates under various circumstances including:

As of September 30, 2008, we operated 7 CRJ-900 and 30 ERJ-145 aircraft for Delta pursuant to a code-sharing agreement. Flight operations for Delta are performed by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Freedom Airlines. During the second quarter 2007, as part of Delta's bankruptcy, we reached an agreement with Delta for an amendment to and assumption of our existing code-sharing agreement ("Amended DCA"), as well as for a new code-sharing agreement ("Expansion DCA"). The Amended DCA provided for the addition of six ERJ aircraft for an initial term of two years. These aircraft are scheduled to be removed from service in March 2009. The parties currently have a disagreement regarding the effectiveness of a notice issued by Mesa to extend the term for these aircraft for an additional one year term at reduced compensation in accordance with the terms of the Amended DCA. Also, pursuant to the Amended DCA, commencing in August 2008, the parties agreed to remove eight ERJ aircraft at a rate of three aircraft per month. Six of the eight aircraft had been removed as of September 30, 2008. Under the Amended DCA, in exchange for performing the flight services and our other obligations under the agreement, we receive from Delta monthly compensation made up of a fixed monthly amount, plus certain additional amounts based upon number of block hours flown and departures during the month. Additionally, certain costs incurred by Freedom are pass-through costs, whereby Delta agrees to reimburse us for the actual amounts incurred for these items: landing fees, hull insurance, passenger liability costs, fuel costs, catering costs and property taxes. Aircraft rent/ownership expenses are also considered a pass-through cost, but are limited to a specified amount for each type of aircraft. We are eligible to receive additional compensation based upon our completion rate and on-time arrival rate each month. Further, for each semi-annual period during the term of the agreement, we are eligible to receive additional compensation from Delta based upon performance. The fixed rates payable to us by Delta under the Amended DCA have been determined through the term of such agreement and are subject to annual revision.

The compensation structure for the Expansion DCA is similar to the structure in the Amended DCA, except that the CRJ-900 aircraft will be owned by Delta and leased to us for a nominal amount and no mark-up or incentive compensation will be paid on fuel costs above a certain level or on fuel provided by Delta. Additionally, certain major maintenance expense items (engine and airframe) will be reimbursed based on actual expenses incurred. As a result, our revenue and expenses attributable to flying the CRJ-900's will be substantially less than if we provided the aircraft.

At the end of the term of the Amended DCA, Delta has the right to extend the agreement for additional one year successive terms on the same terms and conditions. Delta may terminate the Amended DCA at any time, with or without cause, upon twelve months prior written notice, provided such notice shall not be given prior to the earlier of (i) the sixth anniversary of the in-service date of the 30th aircraft added to the Delta Connection fleet by the Company, or (ii) November 2012. The Expansion DCA terminates on the tenth anniversary of the in-service date of the first aircraft. At the end of the term, the Expansion DCA will automatically renew for successive one-year terms on the same terms and conditions unless Delta provides us 180 days prior written notice of its intention to not renew such agreement.

7

The agreements may be subject to early termination under various circumstances including:

In addition, Delta may immediately terminate the agreements upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events:

On March 28, 2008, Delta notified the Company of its intent to terminate the Delta Connection Agreement among Delta, the Company and the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Freedom Airlines, Inc. alleging failure to maintain a specified completion rate with respect to its ERJ-145 Delta Connection flights during three months of the six-month period ended February, 2008. Following Delta's termination notification, the Company filed a Complaint on April 7, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ("the Court") seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on May 27 through May 29, 2008. Following the hearing, the Court ruled in the Company's favor and issued a preliminary injunction against Delta.

The effect of this ruling is to prohibit Delta from terminating the Delta Connection Agreement covering the ERJ-145 aircraft operated by Freedom, based on Freedom's completion rate prior to April 2008, pending a final trial at a date to be determined by the Court. Following the Court's decision, the Company and Delta reached an interim financial understanding (subject to the mutual reservation of rights) in which Delta will reimburse the Company for certain costs (such as lease payments, insurance, maintenance, pilots/flight attendants wage minimums and a normal profit) and the majority of the ERJ-145 aircraft will remain out of service until October 2008. On June 27, 2008, Delta filed a Notice of Appeal and on July 15, 2008, Delta filed a motion requesting that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis. The Company has responded to Delta's motion in accordance with the applicable rules and the Court of Appeals, after reviewing the filings, denied Delta's request. Delta and the Company have fully briefed the issue on appeal and oral argument in the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals have been scheduled for January 30, 2009.

On August 1, 2008, Delta notified the Company of the termination of the CRJ-900 Delta Connection Agreement citing an alleged failure to meet certain contractual benchmarks in the CRJ-900 Delta Connection Agreement. Specifically, the notice states that Delta is terminating the CRJ-900 Connection Agreement as a result of Freedom's alleged failure to maintain a specified on-time arrival rate with respect to its CRJ-900 Delta Connection Flights during each of the four months of March, April, May, and June 2008, as well as Freedom's alleged failure, during the months of March, April and June 2008 to maintain a specified completion rate. On October 1, 2008, Mesa removed three CRJ-900 aircraft from Delta Connection service. The remaining four CRJ-900 aircraft were removed from Delta Connection service on November 1, 2008. Upon their removal from Delta Connection service, those aircraft were returned to Delta. Mesa has placed Delta on notice that it disputes the basis for Delta's actions and that it intends to seek all remedies available at law to challenge Delta's decision.

On December 22, 2006, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Ping Shan, SRL "(Ping Shan") entered into a joint venture agreement (the "Joint Venture Agreement") with Shan Yue SRL ("Shan Yue") and Shenzhen Airlines, pursuant to which the parties agreed to form Kunpeng Airlines ("Kunpeng"), an equity joint venture company organized under the laws of China. Ping Shan holds a 25% share of the registered capital of Kunpeng. Additionally, Shan Yue, a Barbados Society with restricted liability, holds 24% of the registered capital of Kunpeng. Shan Yue holds 5% of the 24% interest in Kunpeng for the exclusive benefit of an unaffiliated third party. Wilmington Trust Company holds 100% of the outstanding equity of Shan Yue as trustee of Shan Yue Trust, a Delaware statutory trust. We are the sole beneficiary of Shan Yue Trust. Through Ping Shan and our beneficial interest in Shan Yue Trust, we effectively own 49% of Kunpeng. After taking into consideration the 5% interest in Kunpeng held for the exclusive benefit of an unaffiliated third party, our net ownership interest in Kunpeng is reduced to 44%. Kunpeng commenced common carrier passenger service on September 28, 2007. As of September 30, 2008, Kunpeng operated five 50-seat CRJ 200 aircraft on regional routes

8

between the Chinese cities Xian, Yulin, Yantai, Changchun, Zhengzhou, Nanning, Wuzhou, Changsha, Hefei, Baise, Shijiazhuang, Beihai, and Guangzhou.

Under the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, Ping Shan and Shan Yue agreed to assist Kunpeng in securing aircraft and spare part supplies from foreign suppliers and to provide high level executives for the management of Kunpeng and technical support, including pilot, maintenance and operations support and training for employees of Kunpeng. Kunpeng's fiscal year ends on December 31st. Pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement, Ping Shan and Shan Yue will receive 25% and 24%, respectively, of the after-tax net profit of Kunpeng, if any, at the end of each fiscal year unless Kunpeng's board of directors determines that such profits should be reinvested. In general, the Company records 44% of the income or loss of Kunpeng, except that the parties to the Joint Venture Agreement have agreed to share losses according to their respective percentage ownership, with Mesa's exposure capped at a percentage of the gross revenues of Kunpeng that is materially below its percentage ownership interest. Additionally, the amount of profit available for distribution is reduced by an amount equal to allocations to a reserve fund and expansion fund of Kunpeng and a bonus and welfare fund for Kunpeng's employees, as determined by Kunpeng's board of directors. No profit is distributed unless any cumulative deficit carried forward for previous years is recovered. Kunpeng's board consists of seven members, four of whom are appointed by Shenzhen Airlines, two of whom are appointed by Ping Shan and one of whom is appointed by Shan Yue.

As of September 30, 2008, we had contributed $6.5 million in capital contributions to the joint venture in accordance with the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. Under the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, Shenzhen Airlines and the Company are obligated to contribute an additional RMB 204,000,000 and RMB 196,000,000, respectively (approximately $29.8million and $28.6 million, respectively), at September 30, 2008 to Kunpeng in accordance with Kunpeng's operational requirements as determined by Kunpeng's board of directors, but in any event, prior to May 16, 2009.

In June 2008, the Company entered into a Letter of Intent ("LOI") to sell its interest in Kunpeng to Shenzhen for $4.8 million. Negotiations aimed at consummating the sale of the interest have been ongoing since such time, and Shenzhen and we have exchanged numerous drafts of a proposed agreement. However, no assurance can be given that the LOI will result in a sale of our equity interest in Kunpeng to Shenzhen, or that, if such a sale were to occur, that it will be on terms acceptable to the Company.

As a result of the negotiated valuation of the interest by the parties set forth in the LOI, the Company has recorded a loss on its investment in Kunpeng of $1.3 million at September 30, 2008. This loss reflects the expected proceeds from the sale of $4.8 million less the Company's investment at September 30, 2008 of $5.8 million and estimated transaction costs of $300,000. The loss has been recorded in the gain (loss) from equity method investment in the consolidated statements of operations.

The Company also subleases five regional jets to Kunpeng. These leases are not affected by the LOI. Total sublease revenue for the year ended September 30, 2008 was $4.4 million. At September 30, 2008, the Company had gross receivables from Kunpeng of approximately $2.9 million.

As of September 30, 2008, we operated 109 Canadair Regional Jets (44 CRJ- 200/100, 20 CRJ-700 and 45 CRJ-900's).

In January 2004, we exercised options to purchase twenty CRJ-900 aircraft (seven of which can be converted to CRJ-700 aircraft). As of September 30, 2007, we have taken delivery of thirteen CRJ-900 aircraft and five CRJ-700 aircraft. The obligation to purchase the remaining two CRJ-900's (which can be converted to CRJ-700's) was terminated in June 2007 in connection with our agreement to purchase 10 new CRJ-700 NextGen aircraft. In conjunction with this purchase agreement, Mesa has $500,000 on deposit with Bombardier that was included in lease and equipment deposits on September 30, 2008. The deposit amount is expected to be returned upon completion of permanent financing on each of the ten aircraft. On September 26, 2008, the Company and Bombardier amended the purchase agreement to return $6.0 million of the $6.5 million previously held on deposit, delayed deliveries of the 10 CRJ-700 aircraft and advanced rebates related to Bombardier's heavy maintenance service agreement.

On August 1, 2008, Delta notified the Company of its election to immediately terminate the Delta Connection Agreement among Delta, the Company and Freedom, dated March 13, 2007 (as thereafter amended, the "CRJ-900 Connection Agreement"). The notice states that Delta is terminating the CRJ-900 Connection Agreement as a result of Freedom's alleged failure to maintain a specified on-time arrival rate with respect to its CRJ-900 Delta Connection Flights during each of the four months of March, April, May and June 2008, as well as Freedom's alleged failure, during the months of March, April, and June 2008 to maintain a specified completion rate. As of September 30, 2008 the Company operated 7 CRJ-900 aircraft for Delta. The Company ceased operating these aircraft as of

9

November 2, 2008. The CRJ-900 Connection Agreement contributed 3.1% and 0% to the Company's revenue for the year ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

As of September 30, 2008, we operated 34 ERJ-145 aircraft and subleased 2 ERJ-145 to a third party. We acquired 36 ERJ-145s through a June 1999 agreement with Empresa Brasiliera de Aeronautica S.A. ("Embraer").

As of September 30, 2008, we owned 20 Beechcraft 1900D aircraft. The net book value of these aircraft are included within "Assets of Discontinued Operations" on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On May 16, 2008, the Company sold all 14 of its previously leased Beechcraft 1900D aircraft. All 14 were sold to Raytheon Aircraft Company and Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation (collectively "Raytheon") pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties regarding such planes. The Company sold the aircraft "as is," made a payment of $500,000, and in return Raytheon eliminated approximately $28 million of long-term debt due to Raytheon associated with such aircraft. This transaction resulted in a net gain of $5.8 million, which amount is recorded in extinguishment of debt in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

As of September 30, 2008, we had 16 Dash-8 aircraft in operation: 6 with US Airways Express and 10 with United Express. The Company leases all 16 Dash-8 aircraft with four of the leases ending in 2009 and the remaining 12 ending in 2013.

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.

Under the Delta, United and US Airways revenue-guarantee code-share agreements, market selection, pricing and yield management functions are performed by our respective partners. For our go! operations in Hawaii, we make all decisions on market selection, pricing and yield management functions.

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 independent flights are promoted through, and our revenues are generally believed to benefit from, newspaper and radio promotions and advertisements, promotions on our website www.iflygo.com, 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 passengers booked by travel agents using such systems.

Pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement, Kunpeng's general manager and chief deputy general manager, who are the highest officers of Kunpeng, perform all management functions, including route selection and pricing. Our Chinese partner to the Joint Venture Agreement, Shenzhen Airlines, handles all public relations, branding and marketing on behalf of Kunpeng.

10

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.

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 Delta, United and US Airways (regional jet and Dash-8) allow fuel used in the performance of the agreements to be reimbursed by our code-share partner, thereby reducing our exposure to fuel price fluctuations. In fiscal 2008, approximately 95.5% of our fuel purchases were associated with our Delta, United and US Airways (regional jet and Dash-8) revenue-guarantee code-share agreements. A substantial increase in the price of jet fuel, to the extent our fuel costs are not reimbursed, or the lack of adequate fuel supplies in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

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, we maintain our 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.

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 (terrorism) 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 revenue-guarantee code-share agreements.

As of September 30, 2008, we employed approximately 4,113 employees. Approximately 2,485 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.

11

Relations between air carriers and labor unions in the United States are governed by the Railway Labor Act or RLA. Under the RLA, collective bargaining agreements generally contain "amendable dates" rather than expiration dates, and the RLA requires that a carrier maintain the existing terms and conditions of employment following the amendable date through a multi-stage and usually lengthy series of bargaining processes often overseen by the National Mediation Board. Mesa Airline's and Freedom Airline's flight attendants are represented by the Association of Flight Attendants ("AFA"). Both contracts covering flight attendants became amendable in June 2006 and we are in the mediated negotiations with our flight attendants. The pilots of Mesa Airlines, Freedom Airlines and Air Midwest are collectively represented under a single contract by the Air Line Pilot Association ("ALPA"). Our contract with ALPA became amendable in September 2007. We recently reached a tentative agreement with our pilots, which is subject to a ratification vote by our pilots.

As of September 30, 2008, Kunpeng employed approximately 160 employees. The laws of China presently require a trade union to be established if requested by any 25 or more employees, but because no such request has been received, no such trade union has been established for Kunpeng. Each of Kunpeng's employees independently entered into an employment contract with Kunpeng in accordance with Chinese Law. Kunpeng has hired pilots from outside China as well as from flight training schools in China. However, hiring and retaining qualified pilots is one of the risks that could hinder the growth of Kunpeng.

Pilot turnover at times is a significant issue among regional carriers, particularly when major carriers are hiring experienced commercial pilots away from regional carriers. During the first and second quarters of fiscal 2008, the Company experienced higher than average turnover as a result of hirings by major carriers. In addition, changes to the aircraft fleet, especially the addition of new aircraft types, or transitions from one operating entity to another, can result in pilots upgrading between aircraft types and as a result, becoming unavailable for duty during the extensive training periods required. No assurances can be made that pilot turnover will not become a significant problem in the future, particularly if major carriers expand their operations. Similarly, there can be no assurance that a sufficient number of new pilots will be available to support any future growth of the Company.

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

On December 22, 2006, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Ping Shan, entered into the Joint Venture Agreement with Shan Yue and Shenzhen Airlines ("Shenzhen"), pursuant to which the parties formed Kunpeng, an equity joint venture company organized under the laws of the Peoples Republic of China. As of September 30, 2008, we had contributed $6.5 million in capital contributions to the joint venture in accordance with the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. Under the terms of such Agreement, the Company is required to contribute an additional RMB 196,000,000 (approximately $28.6 million at September 30, 2008) prior to May 16, 2009.

During the third quarter the Company entered into a Letter of Intent ("LOI") to sell its interest in Kunpeng to Shenzhen. Negotiations aimed at consummating the sale of the interest have been ongoing since June 2008, and Shenzhen and we have exchanged numerous drafts of a proposed agreement, However, no assurance can be given that the LOI will result in a sale of our equity interest in Kunpeng to Shenzhen, or that, if such a sale were to occur, that it will be on terms acceptable to the Company.

As a result of the negotiated valuation of the interest by the parties set forth in the LOI, the Company has recorded a loss on its investment in Kunpeng of $1.3 million at September 30, 2008. This loss reflects the expected proceeds from the sale of $4.8 million less the Company's investment at September 30, 2008 of $5.8 million and estimated transaction costs of $300,000. The loss has been recorded in the gain (loss) from equity method investments in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

The Company also subleases five CRJ-200 regional jets to Kunpeng. These leases are not affected by the LOI. Total sublease revenue for the year ended September 30, 2008 was $4.4 million. At September 30, 2008, the Company had gross receivables from Kunpeng of approximately $2.9 million.

In fiscal 2007, we participated with a private equity fund in making an investment, through a limited liability limited partnership, in the preferred shares of a closely held emerging markets payment processing related business (the "2007 Investee"). Through our subsidiary Patar, Inc., we invested $1.3 million, which represents approximately 19.6% of the 2007 Investee's preferred stock. In fiscal 2008, due to the improbability of recovering our investment, we wrote-off the remaining $0.8 million of the investment.

In fiscal 2006, the Company participated with a private equity fund in making an investment in the common stock and notes of a closely held airline related business (the "2006 Investee"). The Company, through its subsidiary Nilchii, invested $15.0 million, which represents approximately 20% and 11.8% of the 2006 Investee's common stock and notes, respectively. On December 17, 2008, the

12

Company received a letter from the 2006 Investee requesting that, pursuant to the terms of the governing limited liability company agreement, the Company purchase from the 2006 Investee $3.0 million in aggregate principal amount of notes by December 31, 2008. As of January 12, 2009, the Company has not determined whether or not it will meet these obligations. In the event Company does not do so, it will suffer dilution of its equity interest in the 2006 Investee.

Each of these investments are being accounted for under the equity method of accounting.

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 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. The FAA also has the power to bring proceedings for the enforcement of Federal Aviation Regulations including the assessment of civil penalties and to seek criminal sanctions.

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 our radio facilities and the United States Postal Service with respect to carriage of United States mail. We believe we are in compliance with any such governmental laws and regulations.

Local governments in certain markets have adopted regulations governing various aspects of aircraft operations, including noise abatement and curfews. We believe we are in compliance with any such governmental laws and regulations.

Kunpeng is subject to the laws and regulations of China applicable to domestic commercial regional air carriers, including the regulations of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (the "CAAC"). In order to operate as a commercial carrier, Kunpeng is required to apply for various approvals and permits and is subject to the examination and inspection of the CAAC. The CAAC has the authority to establish consumer protection regulations to prevent unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices, to prohibit certain pricing practices, to inspect Kunpeng's books, properties and records, and to mandate conditions of carriage. The CAAC 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.

Kunpeng is also subject to the jurisdiction of the Administration of Industry and Commerce (the "AIC") with respect to corporate document filing and general business activities. The AIC has the authority to inspect the business activities and the business records of Kunpeng and has the power to initiate proceedings for sanctions on Kunpeng's corporate activities for any violation of laws and/or regulations.

In addition, Kunpeng is subject to various national and local laws and regulations of China, including those regarding safety, security, environmental protection and noise.

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. You may also read and copy any materials we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") at the SEC's Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. A copy of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as other Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to

13

those reports are accessible free of charge at www.mesa-air.com and at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov as soon as reasonably possible after the report is filed with or furnished to the SEC.

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 Delta Air Lines, 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. No assurance can be given that one or more of our code-share partners will not serve notice at a later date of their intention to cancel our code-share agreement and potentially reducing our traffic and revenue.

The US Airways Code-Share Agreement allows US Airways, subject to certain restrictions, to reduce the combined CRJ fleets utilized under the code-share agreement by one aircraft in any six-month period. The Company has received notice of US Airways' intent to reduce one CRJ-200 in January 2009, one CRJ-200 in July 2009 and one CRJ-200 in January 2010. We anticipate that US Airways will continue to further reduce the number of covered aircraft in accordance with the agreement. In addition, US Airways may eliminate the Dash-8 aircraft upon 180 days prior written notice.

Because a majority of our operating revenues from continuing operations 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, 2008, the US Airways Code-Share Agreement accounted for 48% of our consolidated passenger revenues, the Amended DCA and Expansion DCS with Delta together accounted for 19% of our consolidated passenger revenue and the United Code-Share Agreement accounted for 29% of our consolidated passenger revenues.

As of September 30, 2008, we operated 30 ERJ-145 aircraft and seven CRJ-900 aircraft for Delta pursuant to the Amended DCA and Expansion DCS, respectively. Flight operations for Delta are performed by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Freedom Airlines. The Amended DCA provided for the addition of six ERJ-145 aircraft for an initial term of two years. These aircraft are scheduled to be removed from service in March 2009. The parties are currently in disagreement regarding the effectiveness of a notice issued by Mesa to extend the term of these aircraft for an additional one year term at reduced compensation in accordance with the terms of the amendment. Also, pursuant to the Amended DCA, commencing in August 2008, the parties agreed to remove eight ERJ-145 aircraft at a rate of three aircraft per month. The remaining aircraft will be removed from service in May 2017 when the Amended DCA terminates. As discussed below, the Company is currently involved in litigation with Delta regarding the Amended DCA is likely to become involved in litigation with Delta regarding the Expansion DCA.

If our code-share partners or other regional carriers experience events that negatively impact their financial strength or operations, our operations also may be negatively impacted.

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, in some cases, they may reduce utilization of our aircraft. Although there are certain monthly guaranteed payment amounts, there are no fixed levels of utilization specified in the code-share agreements. 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 could be terminated. This and other such events could have a material 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.

Our code-share partners may expand their direct operation of regional jets thus limiting the expansion of our relationships with them.

We depend on major airlines like Delta, 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 financial and other 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-

14

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 Delta, United Airlines, or US Airways to phase out our contract-based code-share relationships or to enter into similar agreements with competitors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition to Mesa, our partners have similar code-share agreements with other competing regional airlines.

Amended DCA

On March 28, 2008, Delta notified us of its intent to terminate the Amended DCA among Delta, the Company, and the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Freedom Airlines alleging failure to maintain a specified completion rate with respect to its ERJ-145 Delta Connection flights during three months of the six-month period ended February 2008. The Amended DCA includes, among other arrangements, our agreement to operate up to 34 model ERJ-145 regional jets leased by us and operated utilizing Delta's name. During the second quarter 2007, we reached an agreement with Delta to add six ERJ aircraft for an initial term of two years. These aircraft are scheduled to be removed in March 2009. The parties currently have a disagreement regarding the effectiveness of a notice issued by Mesa to extend the terms of these aircraft for an additional one year term at reduced compensation in accordance with the terms of the amendment. Failure to resolve this issue in the Company's favor could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operation.

In fiscal 2008, the Amended DCA accounted for approximately 15.0% of our total revenues for fiscal 2008. Delta seeks to terminate the Amended DCA as a result of Freedom Airlines' alleged failure to maintain a specified completion rate with respect to its ERJ-145 Delta Connection flights prior to April 2008.

On April 7, 2008, we filed a complaint against Delta seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and specific performance by Delta of its obligations under the Amended DCA. On May 9, 2008, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "District Court") against Delta to enjoin its attempted termination of the Amended DCA. A three day evidentiary hearing was concluded on May 29, 2008 with the District Court ruling in our favor and issuing a preliminary injunction against Delta. The preliminary injunction prohibits Delta from terminating the Amended DCA based on Freedom Airlines' completion rate prior to April 2008, pending a final trial at a date to be determined by the District Court.

The effect of this ruling is to prohibit Delta from terminating the Amended DCA covering the ERJ-145 aircraft operated by Freedom Airlines, based on Freedom Airlines' completion rate prior to April 2008, pending a final trial at a date to be determined by the District Court.

On June 27, 2008, Delta filed a notice of appeal with the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Court of Appeals") and on July 15, 2008, Delta filed a motion requesting that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis. The Company responded to Delta's motion in accordance with the applicable rules and the Court of Appeals., after reviewing the filings, denied Delta's request. Delta and the Company have fully briefed the issue on appeal and oral arguments in the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals have been scheduled for January 30, 2009

If the District Court or Court of Appeals ultimately rules in favor of Delta and allows the termination of the Amended DCA we believe we will be unable to redeploy the ERJ-145s in a timely manner, or at the lease rates we receive under the Amended DCA in the event of any redeployment of such aircraft. In addition to losing approximately $20 million per month in revenue or approximately $960 million over the next four years), we estimate that we will incur leasing costs, labor and other costs totaling approximately $250 to $300 million over the next four years. As a result, our cash flows from operations and our available working capital will be insufficient to meet these cash requirements. In the absence of obtaining additional capital through equity or debt financings, asset sales, consensual restructuring of debt and lease terms and /or similar measure, we will be unable to meet our financial obligations and may need to seek protection under applicable United States reorganization laws in order to avoid or delay actions by our lessors, creditors and code-share partners, which will have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue as a going concern.

Expansion DCA

On August 1, 2008 Delta notified the Company of the termination of the Expansion DCA citing an alleged failure to meet certain contractual benchmarks contained in the Expansion DCA. Mesa strongly denies having violated the Expansion DCA and intends to challenge Delta's decision. We believe the airport hub in which the CRJ-900 aircraft are operated and the schedules created by Delta

15

significantly impact our ability to meet the contract performance benchmarks. In particular, we believe the operating environment at New York's JFK airport presents significant challenges to meet the performance requirements. The Company subleased the CRJ-900 aircraft operated pursuant to the Amended DCA from Delta for $1 per month per aircraft and these aircraft have been returned to Delta in connection with this termination with no further financial obligation to Mesa. In the event litigation is filed and Delta ultimately prevails in that litigation, the Company's financial condition may be materially negatively effected.

On August 6, 2008, Mesa filed a complaint against Delta seeking the return of seven aircraft engines that Delta improperly retained possession of following the termination of an engine maintenance memorandum of understating executed between Mesa and Delta. Delta has claimed its retention of these engines was justified as a means to secure recovery of certain disputed amounts related to the memorandum of understating. The memorandum of understanding does not contain provisions regarding Delta's claims and does not permit Delta's retention of the engines. Delta did not have a legal basis upon which to retain continued unauthorized possession of the engines. On or about August 13, 2008, Delta returned possession of the engines at issue. On August 22, 2008, Delta recorded mechanics' liens on the engines and filed a counterclaim seeking to foreclose on the liens as well as seeking certain payments allegedly related to the memorandum of understanding. Mesa's action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona sought the immediate return of all engines currently in Delta's possession and/or control, forfeiture of all claimed liens, as well as damages related to Delta's improper retention of the engines. On November 12, 2008, the court heard oral arguments on Mesa's motion to dismiss Delta's purported liens and Delta's motion to foreclose on the liens. On November 14, 2008, the court ruled that Delta forfeited its lien claims as a result of its failure to comply with the timelines set out in the Georgia lien statute. The parties' competing claims for money damages are still pending before the court. A judgment in Delta's favor for damages related to its counterclaim could have a material negative impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

In June 2006, we launched our independent inter-island Hawaiian airline operation named go! and have incurred operating losses since inception. Providing service in Hawaii will require ongoing investment of working capital by Mesa and management attention and focus. Our operating results are significantly impacted by changes in the availability or price of aircraft fuel, which in turn are often affected by global events. Fuel prices have increased substantially over the past several years and sharply in the last year, reaching a level in mid-2008 that fundamentally challenges the economics of the airline industry. A relatively small increase in the price of fuel can have a significant aggregate effect on the costs of our go! operations. Due to the competitive nature of the airline industry and market forces, no assurance can be made that we may be able to increase our fares or otherwise increase revenues sufficiently to offset fuel prices.

As a result of fluctuating fuel prices, Mesa started a jet fuel swap program in fiscal 2009.

We currently operate primarily through hubs in Chicago, Washington DC, Denver, Phoenix, Charlotte, New York, Cincinnati, and Honolulu. Nearly all of our flights will either originate or fly into one of these hubs. Our revenues depend primarily on our completion of flights and secondarily on service factors such as timeliness of departure and arrival. Any interruptions or disruptions could, therefore, severely and adversely affect us. Extreme weather can cause flight disruptions, and during periods of storms or adverse weather, fog, low temperatures, etc., our flights may be cancelled or significantly delayed. We operate a significant number of flights to and from airports with particular weather difficulties, including Chicago, Denver, New York/JFK, and Washington, DC. A significant interruption or disruption in service at one of our hubs, due to adverse weather or otherwise, could result in the cancellation or delay of a significant portion of our flights and, as a result, could have a severe impact on our business, operations and financial performance.

The airline industry has undergone substantial consolidation and it may in the future undergo additional consolidation. Any additional consolidation or significant alliance activity within the airline industry could limit the number of potential code-share partners available and may adversely affect our relationships with current code-share partners. There is no assurance that our relationships with our code-share partners will survive in the event that any such code-share partner merges with another airline.

16

If we are unable to successfully restructure certain of our contractual obligations and commitments as described below, our cash flow from operations and available capital will not be sufficient to meet these obligations, which may require that the Company seek protection under applicable reorganization laws.

While the Company's cash flows from operations and its available capital have been sufficient to meet its current operating expenses, lease obligations and debt service requirements to date, the Company's future cash flow from operations and available capital may be negatively impacted by: (i) our ability to secure more flexible credit terms from certain of the Company's other key vendors; (ii) reduced cash payments from our code share partners related to disputed items under our agreements; (iii) the $23.2 million in aggregate remaining principal amount of senior convertible notes due 2023, which the Company may be required to repurchase on January 31, 2009 in accordance with the forbearance agreements described below; (iv) the $77.8 million in aggregate principal amount of senior convertible notes due 2024, which the Company may be required to repurchase on February 10, 2009; (v) the Company's ability to restructure certain of its aircraft lease obligations and key vendor obligations, which are in turn impacted by the Company's obligations with respect to its 2023 and 2024 notes; and (vi) the results of the Company's ongoing litigation with Delta. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in effecting amended lease terms for its existing aircraft lease obligations and obtaining flexible credit terms from existing vendors and suppliers. Unfavorable events arising with respect to negotiations with key lessors and vendors, the Delta litigation, or the 2023 and/or 2024 notes, could give rise to covenant and payment defaults under the terms of the Company's material operating leases and indebtedness. In the absence of obtaining additional capital through asset sales, consensual restructuring of debt and lease terms and/or similar measures, the Company may be unable to remedy such defaults and may experience additional defaults in the future. The Company's operating leases are subject to termination in the event of default, and the Company's indebtedness may be accelerated in the event of continuing default. Certain lenders could foreclose on Company assets securing their indebtedness. Accordingly, the Company's financial condition could require that the Company seek additional protection under applicable reorganization laws in order to avoid or delay actions by its creditors and lessors which could materially adversely affect the Company's operations and ability to operate as a going concern.

If the holders of our 6.25% Senior Convertible Notes Due 2023 exercise their right to require the Company to redeem their notes, our liquidity could be adversely affected or we may issue additional stock, which would dilute existing shareholders.

In June 2003, we completed the private placement of senior convertible notes due 2023 (the "2023 Notes"), which resulted in gross proceeds of $100.1 million ($96.9 million net). The 2023 Notes were sold at an issue price of $397.27 per note and are convertible into shares of our common stock at a conversion rate of 39.727 shares per note, which equals a conversion price of $10 per share. Holders of the 2023 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 the notes falls below certain thresholds; (iii) the 2023 Notes have been called for redemption; or (iv) specified corporate transactions occur.

On May 20, 2008, the Company's board of directors approved separate agreements (referred to as "Forbearance Agreements") reached by the Company with certain of the holders of the 2023 Notes. As previously disclosed in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, holders of the 2023 Notes had the right to require the Company to repurchase such 2023 Notes on June 16, 2008 (the "Put") at a price of $397.27 per $1,000 note (the "Put Price") plus any accrued and unpaid cash interest. If all of the holders of the 2023 Notes had exercised this right, the Company would have been required to repurchase the 2023 Notes for approximately $37.8 million in cash, common stock, or a combination thereof.

Under the terms of these separate Forbearance Agreements, holders holding approximately $77.8 million in aggregate face amount of the 2023 Notes (representing approximately 82% of the aggregate face amount of Notes outstanding) have agreed to forbear from exercising their Put right with respect to 75% in aggregate face amount of 2023 Notes owned by such holders (i.e., $23.2 million of the $37.8 million subject to the Put). In consideration for such agreement, the Company agreed to purchase 25% in aggregate face amount of such holder's Notes at a purchase price equal to 75% of the Put Price and the additional right to require the Company to repurchase such 2023 Notes on January 31, 2009. The put price payable on January 31, 2009 will also be payable in cash, common stock, or a combination thereof, at the Company's election. The Company's aggregate payment obligation with respect to such purchased 2023 Notes was approximately $5.8 million, which was paid on or before May 27, 2008. In consideration for such forbearance, the Company also agreed to issue to such holders two-year warrants to purchase 25,000 shares of common stock for each $1 million in aggregate face amount of 2023 Notes deferred (or an aggregate of approximately 1.46 million shares of common stock). The warrants were valued at $0.26 per share using the Black-Scholes model for an aggregate amount of $0.4 million. The warrants have a per share exercise price of $1.00, contain anti-dilution protection for major corporate events, such as stock splits and stock dividends, and are not exercisable to the extent the exercise thereof would cause the holder to beneficially own greater than 4.99% of the Company's outstanding capital stock. The Company recognized a gain in the third fiscal quarter on the repurchase of the 2023 Notes of $1.5 million, which is included in gain on extinguishment of debt in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. In addition, the Company purchased approximately $7.0 million of the 2023 Notes at no gain or loss.

17

As a result of prior conversions of the 2023 Notes by noteholders, at September 30, 2008, there were approximately $23.2 million in 2023 Notes outstanding. If the holders of these 2023 Notes exercise their right to require the Company to repurchase all of their 2023 Notes on January 31, 2009, the Company will be required to repurchase such 2023 Notes for approximately $23.2 million in cash, common stock, or a combination thereof. If Mesa elects to issue shares of its common stock in lieu of cash, it must have sufficient authorized shares to meet such obligation. No assurance can be given that the Company will have sufficient shares of common stock. In addition, if Mesa elects to issue additional stock to meet this purchase obligation, this issuance would dilute existing shareholders.

If the holders of our 3.625% Senior Convertible Notes Due 2024 exercise their right to require the Company to redeem their notes, our liquidity could be materially adversely affected or we may issue additional stock, which would dilute existing shareholders.

In February 2004, the Company completed the private placement of senior convertible notes due 2024 (the "2024 Notes"), which resulted in gross proceeds of $100.0 million ($97.0 million net). Cash interest is payable on the 2024 Notes at the rate of 2.115% per year on the aggregate amount due at maturity, payable semiannually until February 10, 2009. After that date, the Company will not pay cash interest on the 2024 Notes prior to maturity, and they will begin accruing original issue discount at a rate of 3.625% until maturity. On February 10, 2024, the maturity date of the 2024 Notes, the principal amount of each note will be $1,000. The aggregate amount due at maturity, including interest accrued from February 10, 2009, will be $171.4 million.

On February 10, 2009, the holders of the 2024 Notes may require the Company to repurchase their 2024 Notes ("2024 Put Right") at a price of $583.40 per $1,000 note (the "2024 Put Price") plus accrued and unpaid cash interest, resulting in an aggregate principal amount due of approximately $77.8 million. The Company may pay the 2024 Put Price of the 2024 Notes in cash, common stock, or a combination thereof. The Company may not have sufficient cash reserves to pay the holders of the 2024 Notes that exercise their 2024 Put Right on February 10, 2009. If the Company elects to issue additional shares of common stock to meet its repurchase obligations, this issuance would result in substantial dilution to existing shareholders.

Our Common Stock is currently traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and may be delisted, which could adversely affect our business and relations with employees, customers, and others. Previously, we have received notice from the NASDAQ Stock Market that our stock price (technically, the closing bid price) has failed to maintain the minimum $1.00 per share requirement for the 30 consecutive business days preceding such notice. Previously, we have been given until March 23, 2009 to achieve compliance with that rule by having the bid price of our stock close at $1.00 or more for at least ten consecutive trading days. If compliance with that rule was not demonstrated by March 23, 2009, we could appeal NASDAQ's determination to delist our securities to a NASDAQ panel or we may apply to transfer our securities to the NASDAQ Global Market or the NASDAQ Capital Market. If our application is approved, we will be afforded an additional 180 day compliance period. Recently, NASDAQ has further extended this compliance date to late June 2009. There can be no assurance that we will be able to achieve compliance with this minimum bid price rule by NASDAQ's required deadline; that we would be granted an additional 180 day compliance period; or that we would be able to achieve compliance with the minimum bid price rule even if granted the additional compliance period.

While there are many actions that may be taken to attempt to increase the price of our stock, two of the possibilities are a reverse stock split and a stock repurchase. At this time, we have limited capital resources available for any stock repurchase. Any such actions (even if successful) may have adverse effects on us, such as adverse reaction from employees, investors and financial markets in general, adverse publicity, and adverse reactions from customers. There are other continued listing requirements for listing on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. There can be no assurance that we will continue to meet these listing requirements.

Should our stock be delisted from the NASDAQ Global Select Market, we may apply to have our stock traded on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board. There can be no assurance that our common stock would be timely admitted for trading on that market. This alternative may result in a less liquid market available for existing and potential shareholders to buy and sell shares of our stock and could further depress the price of our stock.

If we experience a lack of labor availability or strikes, it could result in a decrease of revenues due to the cancellation of flights.

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 periodically experienced high pilot turnover as a result of air carriers operating larger aircraft hiring their commercial pilots. Further, the addition of aircraft, especially new aircraft types, or transferring of aircraft between operating entities can result in pilots upgrading or transitioning between aircraft types and becoming unavailable for duty during the required extensive training periods. During the first and second quarters of fiscal 2008, the Company

18

experienced higher than average turnover as a result of hirings by major carriers. 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, 2008, we had approximately 4,113 employees, approximately 2,485 of whom are members of two labor unions, including the Air Line Pilots Association, International ("ALPA") and the Association of Flight Attendants ("AFA"). Our collective bargaining agreement with the ALPA became amendable in September 2007 and we recently reached a tentative agreement that is subject to a ratification vote by our pilots. Our collective bargaining agreement with the AFA became amendable in June 2006 and we are in mediated negotiations. The inability to negotiate acceptable contracts with existing unions as agreements become amendable 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 business, 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.

Increases in our labor costs, which constitute a substantial portion of our total operating costs, will cause our earnings to decrease.

Labor costs constitute a significant percentage of our total operating costs. Under our code-share agreements, our reimbursement rates contemplate labor costs that increase on a set schedule generally tied to fixed percentages, 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.

If new airline regulations are passed or are imposed upon our operations, we may incur increased operating costs and experience a decrease in 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 ("DOT"), which include required 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, to mandate conditions of carriage and to suspend an air carrier's fitness to operate. 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 also subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration ("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. The FAA also has the power to bring proceedings for the enforcement of federal aviation regulations including the assessment of civil penalties and to seek criminal sanctions.

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.

19

Future regulatory action concerning climate change and aircraft emissions could have a significant effect on the airline industry. For example, the European Commission is seeking to impose an emissions trading scheme applicable to all flights operating in the European Union. Although we do not operate in the European Union, future laws or regulations such as this emissions trading scheme or other United States or foreign governmental actions applicable to our areas of operation may adversely affect our operations and financial results.

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.

lf additional security and safety measures regulations are adopted, we may incur increased operating costs and experience a decrease in earnings.

Congress has 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. In addition, a report by the Aviation Safety Commission, a body established by Congress, 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 business, financial condition, and results of operations could be adversely affected.

If our operating costs increase as our aircraft fleet ages and we are unable to pass along such costs, our earnings will decrease.

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, and because new aviation technology may be required to be retrofitted, the cost to maintain aging aircraft will generally exceed the cost to maintain newer aircraft. We believe that the cost to maintain our aircraft in the long-term will be consistent with industry experience for these aircraft types and ages used by comparable airlines.

We believe that our aircraft are mechanically reliable based on the percentage of scheduled flights completed and as of September 30, 2008 the average age of our fleet, excluding Beechcraft 1900D's, is 6.6 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 we are highly leveraged. For the year ended September 30, 2008, our debt service payments, including principal and interest, totaled $97.0 million and our aircraft lease payments totaled $227.0 million. We have significant lease obligations with respect to our aircraft and ground facilities, which aggregated approximately $1.9 billion  at September 30, 2008. As of September 30, 2008, our potential growth strategy involves the acquisition of ten more CRJ-700 regional jets. As of September 30, 2008, we had permanently financed all aircraft delivered under our agreement with Bombardier. There are no assurances that we will be able to obtain financing for the ten CRJ-700 future aircraft deliveries or find suitable used CRJ-700.

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.

If we incur problems with any of our third-party service providers, our operations could be adversely affected by a resulting decline in revenue or negative public perception about our services.

Our reliance upon others to provide essential services to facilitate 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

20

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.

We are at risk of loss and adverse publicity stemming from any accident involving any of our aircraft.

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

There can be no assurance that the insurance we carry to cover damages arising from 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 in air travelers 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 and results of operations.

If we become involved in any material litigation or any existing litigation is concluded in a manner adverse to us, our earnings may decline.

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 time, attention and resources. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of current or future litigation.

On March 28, 2008 Delta notified the Company of its intent to terminate the Amended DCA among Delta, the Company, and the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Freedom Airlines, alleging failure to maintain a specified completion rate with respect to its ERJ-145 Delta Connection flights during three months of the six-month period ended February 2008. Following Delta's termination notification, the Company filed a complaint on April 7, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "District Court") seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. An evidentiary hearing was conducted during the three day period ended May 29, 2008. Following the hearing, the District Court ruled in the Company's favor and issued a preliminary injunction against Delta.

The effect of this ruling is to prohibit Delta from terminating the Amended DCA covering the ERJ-145 aircraft operated by Freedom Airlines, based on Freedom Airlines' completion rate prior to April 2008, pending a final trial at a date to be determined by the District Court. On June 27, 2008, Delta filed a notice of appeal with the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Court of Appeals") and on July 15, 2008 Delta filed a motion requesting that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis. The Company has responded to Delta's motion in accordance with the applicable rules and the Court of Appeals, after reviewing the filings, denied Delta's request. Delta and the Company have fully briefed the issues on appeal and oral arguments in the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals have been scheduled for January 26, 2009.

On August 1, 2008, Delta notified the Company of the termination of the Expansion DCA citing an alleged failure to meet certain contractual benchmarks contained in the Expansion DCA. Mesa has placed Delta on notice that it disputes the basis for Delta's actions and that it intends to seek all remedies available at law to challenge Delta's decision.

On August 6, 2008, Mesa filed a complaint against Delta seeking the return of seven aircraft engines that Delta improperly retained possession of following the termination of an engine maintenance memorandum of understating executed between Mesa and Delta. Delta claimed its retention of these engines was justified as a means to secure recovery of certain disputed amounts related to the memorandum of understating. The memorandum of understanding does not contain provisions regarding Delta's claims and does not permit Delta's retention of the engines. Delta did not have a legal basis upon which to retain continued unauthorized possession of the engines. On or about August 13, 2008, Delta returned possession of the engines at issue. On August 22, 2008, Delta recorded mechanics' liens on the engines and filed a counterclaim seeking to foreclose on the liens as well as seeking certain payments allegedly related to the memorandum of understanding. Mesa's action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona sought the immediate return of all engines currently in Delta's possession and/or control, forfeiture of all claimed liens, as well as damages related to Delta's improper retention of the engines. On November 12, 2008, the court heard oral arguments on Mesa's motion to dismiss Delta's purported liens and Delta's motion to foreclose on the liens. On November 14, 2008, the court ruled that Delta forfeited its lien claims as a result of its failure to comply with the timelines set out in the Georgia lien statute. The parties' competing claims for money damages are still pending before the court. A judgment in Delta's favor for damages related to its counterclaim could have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.

On October 20, 2008, Mesa filed a complaint against Mokulele Air Group, Inc. ("Mokulele") alleging claims for breach of contract related to certain amounts owed to the Company by Mokulele under the code-share agreement dated February 7, 2007.

21

Mesa's complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On November 4, 2008, Mokulele filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii alleging claims for breach of the code-share agreement, attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and unfair competition under Hawaii statutes. On November 7, 2008, Mesa amended its complaint filed in the District Court of Arizona to add claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of an open account, unjust enrichment, coercion, trademark infringement in violation of the Hawaii and Arizona statutes and the federal Lanham Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, deceptive trade practices and unfair competition. This litigation is in the initial stages and the Company strongly denies having violated any statutory or common law duties owed to Mokulele.

We are also 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.

Adverse rulings in any of these matters could have a negative impact on our financial performance and in some cases could have a material adverse impact on our business financial condition, results of operations and the price of our common stock.

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. The airline industry has from time to time experienced a shortage of qualified personnel, particularly with respect to pilots and maintenance technicians. In addition, as is common with most of our competitors, we have faced considerable turnover of our employees. Regional airline 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 effect on our financial condition, results of operations and the price of our common stock.

We may be unable to profitably operate our Hawaiian airline, which could negatively impact our business and operations.

In June 2006, we launched our independent inter-island Hawaiian airline operation named go! and have incurred operating losses since inception. Providing service in Hawaii will require ongoing investment of working capital by Mesa and management attention and focus.

Further, in light of the costs and risks associated with operating an independent low fare regional jet airline, we may be unable to operate the Hawaiian airline profitably, which would negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, our results under our revenue-guarantee contracts offer no meaningful guidance with respect to our future performance in running an independent airline because we have not previously operated as an independent regional jet carrier in Hawaii. We are operating under a relatively new brand that initially has limited market recognition. Future performance will depend on a number of factors, including our ability to:

•   establish a brand that is attractive to our target customers;

•   maintain adequate controls over our expenses;

•   monitor and manage operational and financial risks;

•   secure favorable terms with airports, suppliers and other contractors;

22

•   maintain the safety and security of our operations;

•   attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel; and

•   react to responses from competitors who are more established in the Hawaiian markets.

We depend on our code-share partners and on the success of our other ventures to maintain our aircraft in revenue-generating operations. Currently, our excess aircraft include 4 ERJ-145s as a result of scheduled reductions under the Amended DCA and 20 Beech 1900D aircraft as a result of the Air Midwest shut down.

There are several scenarios that could result in an increase in number of excess aircraft. If our code-share partners terminate their code-share agreements, or exercise early termination provisions contained in certain code-share agreements, then the Company would face the challenge of generating ongoing revenue for these excess aircraft. If the aircraft subleased to Kunpeng Airlines or operated by go! in Hawaii are returned for any reason, then it would also cause an increase in the number of excess aircraft. In addition, the Company is currently involved in a dispute with Delta over the effectiveness of a notice issued by the Company extending the term covering 6 ERJ-145 aircraft; without the 12-month extension these aircraft are set to exit Delta Connection service in March of 2009. An increase in excess aircraft could result in our operating revenues and net income being materially adversely affected unless we are able to enter into satisfactory substitute arrangements.

The ongoing losses of Kunpeng and our inability to timely sell our interests in this joint venture could negatively impact our operations and profitability.

On December 22, 2006, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Ping Shan, entered into a joint venture agreement (the "Joint Venture Agreement") with Shan Yue SRL ("Shan Yue") and Shenzhen Airlines ("Shenzhen"), pursuant to which the parties agreed to form Kunpeng, an equity joint venture company organized under the laws of China. Ping Shan holds a 25% share of the registered capital of Kunpeng. Additionally, Shan Yue, a Barbados society with restricted liability, holds 24% of the registered capital of Kunpeng. Shan Yue holds 5% of the 24% interest in Kunpeng for the exclusive benefit of an unaffiliated third party. Wilmington Trust Company holds 100% of the outstanding equity of Shan Yue as trustee of Shan Yue Trust, a Delaware statutory trust. We are the sole beneficiary of Shan Yue Trust. Our net ownership interest in Kunpeng is 44%. On September 28, 2007, Kunpeng commenced common carrier passenger service. As of September 30, 2008, Kunpeng operated five 50-seat CRJ 200 aircraft on regional routes flying out of a hub in Xian, China.

Kunpeng has incurred losses since its inception and is expected to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. As a result, on June 25, 2008, we entered into a letter of intent ("LOI") with Shenzhen to sell all of our equity interest in Kunpeng to Shenzhen. Negotiations with Shenzhen are ongoing and no assurance can be given that the LOI will result in a sale of our equity interest in Kunpeng to Shenzhen, or that, if such a sale were to occur, that it will be on terms acceptable to the Company. Under the proposed terms of the LOI, Mesa will receive net proceeds of approximately $4.8 million for our equity interest in Kunpeng. In addition, Shenzhen will cause Kunpeng to pay certain amounts for back due aircraft rental payments.

In addition, under the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, Ping Shan and Shan Yue agreed to, among other things, assist Kunpeng in securing aircraft from foreign suppliers and, as of the date of this report, the Company has the contractual right to deliver up to 20 CRJ-200s to the joint venture. Kunpeng has informed the Company that it no longer plans to accept deliveries of additional 50-seat regional jets from Mesa.

If we became involved in a dispute with Shenzhen Airlines related to the Joint Venture Agreement, we could experience difficulties in initiating litigation in a United States court, enforcing judgments of a United States court or bringing original actions in China.

The Joint Venture Agreement is governed by the laws of China. As a result, it may not be possible to enforce our rights under the Joint Venture Agreement through litigation in a United States court in the event of a dispute arising under the Joint Venture Agreement. Moreover, even if we were able to bring litigation in a United States court, uncertainty exists as to whether the courts of China would recognize or enforce judgments of United States courts. Additionally, although China's legal system is continually

23

evolving, we can give no assurance that we would be able to bring an original action before a court in China, or, if we were able to do so, that a court in China would render a fair and impartial verdict.

We face significant risks if the Chinese government changes its policies, laws, regulations, tax structure or its current interpretations of its laws, rules and regulations relating to Kunpeng's operations in China.

The Joint Venture Agreement is governed by the laws of China and Kunpeng's operations are located solely in China. Consequently, Kunpeng's results of operations, financial state of affairs and future growth are, to a significant degree, subject to China's economic, political and legal development and related uncertainties. Kunpeng's operations and results could be materially affected by a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

•   changes in policies by the Chinese government resulting in changes in laws or regulations or the interpretation of laws or regulations;

•   confiscatory taxation;

•   changes in employment restrictions;

•   restrictions on imports and sources of supply;

•   import duties;

•   corruption;

•   currency revaluation; and

•   the expropriation of private enterprise.

Over the past several years, the Chinese government has pursued economic reform policies including the encouragement of private economic activities and greater economic decentralization. If the Chinese government does not continue to pursue its present policies that encourage foreign investment and operations in China, or if these policies are either not successful or are significantly altered in the future, then Kunpeng's business could be adversely affected. Kunpeng could even be subject to the risk of nationalization, which could result in the total loss of our investment in Kunpeng. Following the Chinese government's policy of privatizing many state-owned enterprises, the Chinese government has attempted to augment its revenues through increased tax collection. Continued efforts to increase tax revenues could result in increased taxation expenses being incurred by Kunpeng. Economic development may be limited as well by the imposition of austerity measures intended to reduce inflation, the inadequate development of infrastructure and the potential unavailability of adequate power and water supplies, transportation and communications. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on Kunpeng's business results of operations and the return we could derive from this investment.

Chinese laws and regulations governing Kunpeng's current business operations are sometimes vague and uncertain. Any changes in such Chinese laws and regulations may have a material and adverse effect on Kunpeng's business.

China's legal system is a civil law system based on written statutes, in which system decided legal cases have little value as precedents unlike the common law system prevalent in the United States. There are substantial uncertainties regarding the interpretation and application of Chinese laws and regulations, including but not limited to the laws and regulations governing Kunpeng's business, equity ownership, or the enforcement and performance of Kunpeng's arrangements with customers in the event of the imposition of statutory liens, death, bankruptcy and criminal proceedings. The Chinese government has been developing a comprehensive system of commercial laws, and considerable progress has been made in introducing laws and regulations dealing with economic matters such as foreign investment, corporate organization and governance, commerce, taxation and trade. However, because these laws and regulations are relatively new, and because of the limited volume of published cases and judicial interpretation and their lack of force as precedents, interpretation and enforcement of these laws and regulations involve significant uncertainties. New laws and regulations that affect existing and proposed future businesses may also be applied retroactively. We cannot predict what effect the interpretation of existing or new Chinese laws or regulations may have on Kunpeng's business. If the relevant authorities find Kunpeng in violation of Chinese laws or regulations, they would have broad discretion in dealing with such a violation, including, without limitation:

•   levying fines;

24

•   revoking Kunpeng's business and other licenses;

•   requiring that Kunpeng restructure its ownership or operations; and

•   requiring that Kunpeng discontinue any portion or all of its business.

Kunpeng's labor costs are likely to increase as a result of changes in Chinese labor laws.

The Chinese labor market recently experienced an increase in the cost of labor. Recent changes in Chinese labor laws that became effective January 1, 2008 are likely to increase costs further and impose restrictions on Kunpeng's relationship with its employees. There can be no assurance that the labor laws will not change further or that their interpretation and implementation will vary, which may have a material adverse effect upon Kunpeng's business, financial condition and results of operations.

Whether Kunpeng will receive preferential tax treatment under Chinese law is currently unclear. If Kunpeng does not receive such preferential tax treatment, its profitability may be negatively impacted.

Prior to the adoption of the Chinese Enterprise Income Tax Law on March 16, 2007 (the "EIT Law"), Chinese income tax law provided that enterprises such as Kunpeng were entitled to receive an exemption from the entire central government income tax for the two years beginning with its first profitable year and receive a 50% reduced income tax in the third through fifth years. Kunpeng's business license was issued after adoption of the EIT Law. Accordingly, Chinese tax authorities may conclude that Kunpeng is not entitled to such preferential tax treatment.

The full tax exemption for the enterprise income tax expired on December 31, 2005 and the one-half reduction on the enterprise profit tax to 13.5% will expire on December 31, 2008. Regardless of whether Kunpeng is granted preferential tax treatment by China's tax authorities, after such tax holidays, Kunpeng's profits will be subject to the full tax rate of 25%, effective as of January 1, 2008 in accordance with the EIT Law passed in 2007.

Under the EIT Law, a uniform tax rate of 25% has been adopted for all enterprises (including foreign-invested enterprises) and several tax incentives enjoyed by foreign-invested enterprises have been cancelled. However, for foreign-invested enterprises established before the promulgation of the EIT Law, a five-year transition period is provided during which reduced rates will apply but gradually be phased out. Since the Chinese government has not announced implementation measures for the transitional policy with regards to such preferential tax rates, we cannot reasonably estimate the financial impact of the new tax law to Kunpeng at this time. Moreover, because Kunpeng's business license was issued after promulgation of the EIT Law, we can give no assurance that Chinese tax authorities will grant Kunpeng preferential tax treatment. Further, any future increase in the enterprise income tax rate applicable to Kunpeng or other adverse tax treatments would have a material adverse effect on Kunpeng's results of operations and financial condition.

Fluctuations in exchange rates of the Renminbi, or RMB, could adversely affect the value of and dividends, if any, payable on shares of Kunpeng's registered capital or otherwise impact our operations and profitability.

Since (i) Kunpeng's income and profit are mainly denominated in the Chinese Renminbi, and (ii) the payment of dividends, if any, by Kunpeng will be in Renminbi, any exchange fluctuation of the Renminbi against other foreign currencies would adversely affect the value of our equity investment in Kunpeng and dividends payable to us by Kunpeng, in foreign currency terms. For example, to the extent that we need to convert Renminbi we receive as a profit distribution from Kunpeng, if the United States Dollar appreciates against the Renminbi, the United States Dollar equivalent of the Renminbi we convert would be reduced. Conversely, if we decide to convert our United States. Dollars into Renminbi for the purpose of making additional investment in Kunpeng and the Renminbi appreciates against the United States Dollar, the Renminbi equivalent of the United States Dollar we convert would be reduced.

As of September 30, 2008, our outstanding obligation to make additional capital contributions to Kunpeng under the Joint Venture Agreement had an aggregate fair value of approximately $28.6 million (or approximately 196,000,000 Renminibi). The potential increase in the fair value of this obligation resulting from a 10% adverse change in quoted foreign currency exchange rates would be approximately $2.87 million at September 30, 2008.

Failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act could subject us to penalties and other adverse consequences.

We are subject to the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which generally prohibits United States companies from engaging in bribery or other prohibited payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. In addition, we are required to maintain records that accurately and fairly represent our transactions and have an adequate system of internal

25

accounting controls. Foreign companies, including some that may compete with us, are not subject to these prohibitions, and therefore may have a competitive advantage over us. Corruption, extortion, bribery, pay-offs, theft and other fraudulent practices occur from time-to-time in China. If our employees or other agents are found to have engaged in such practices, we could suffer severe penalties and other consequences that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If competition in the airline industry increases, we may experience a decline in revenue.

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.

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.

26

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. If adopted, these measures could have had the effect of raising ticket prices, reducing revenue and increasing costs. 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 and imposed security taxes on each ticket sold. 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 subject to a number of strikes which could affect our business.

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.

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

•   authorize our board of directors to issue preferred stock ranking senior to our common stock without any action on the part of the shareholders;

•   establish advance notice procedures for shareholder proposals, including nominations of directors, to be considered at shareholders' meetings;

•   authorize a majority of our board of directors, in certain circumstances, to fill vacancies on the board resulting from an increase in the authorized number of directors or from vacancies;

•   restrict the ability of shareholders to modify the number of authorized directors; and

•   restrict the ability of shareholders to call special meetings of shareholders.

In addition, Section 78.438 of the Nevada general corporation law prohibits us from entering into some business combinations with interested shareholders 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 shareholders.

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 fluctuate, including:

•   our operating results failing to meet the expectations of securities analysts or investors in any quarter;

•   downward revisions in securities analysts' estimates;

•   material announcements by us or our competitors;

•   public sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock following the date of this report;

•   governmental regulatory action; or

•   adverse changes in general market conditions or economic trends.

The price of our common stock could be negatively impacted if we use shares of our common stock to satisfy our obligation to repurchase our 2023 Notes on January 31, 2009 and our 2024 Notes on February 10, 2009.

27

Pursuant to agreements with certain holders (the "2023 Holders") of our 2023 Notes, the 2023 Holders have the right to require us to repurchase their 2023 Notes on January 31, 2009 at a price of $397.27 per $1,000 in principal amount of 2023 Notes plus any accrued and unpaid interest. If the 2023 Holders exercise their put rights with respect to all of their 2023 Notes, the Company will be required to repurchase such 2023 Notes for approximately $23.2 million in cash, common stock, or a combination thereof.

Pursuant to the indenture governing our 2024 Notes, the holders of our 2024 Notes have the right to require us to repurchase their 2024 Notes on February 10, 2009 at a price of $583.40 per $1,000 in principal amount of 2024 Notes plus any accrued and unpaid interest. If the holders of our 2024 Notes exercise their put rights with respect to all of their 2024 Notes, the Company will be required to repurchase such 2024 Notes for approximately $77.8 million in cash, common stock, or a combination thereof.

We intend to use shares of common stock to satisfy our repurchase obligations related to the 2023 Notes and 2024 Notes.

As of September 30, 2008, we had 26,773,479 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding. Assuming we satisfy the conditions to using common stock to repurchase the 2023 Notes and 2024 Notes, and that the repurchase price is $0.26 per share of common stock, if all of the holders of 2023 Notes and 2024 Notes tender all of their notes for repurchase, we will issue approximately 89,820,769 and 299,230,769 shares of common stock to satisfy our repurchase obligations related to the 2023 Notes and 2024 Notes, respectively. Sales in the public market of the common stock issuable in satisfaction of our repurchase obligations related to the 2023 Notes and/or 2024 Notes could negatively impact the market price of our common stock.

Periodically the Company conducts a valuation of the net deferred tax assets arising principally from NOL carry forwards. As a result of the valuation, the Company maintains an allowance against the net deferred tax asset of $12.2 million at September 30, 2008.

Internal Revenue Code Section 382 rules apply to limit a corporation's ability to utilize existing net operating loss carryforwards once the corporation experiences an ownership change as defined in the rules of Section 382.  Generally, an ownership change occurs when, within a span of 36 months there is an increase in the stock ownership by one or more shareholders of more than 50 percentage points.  If the Company should incur a future ownership change or significant equity event in the future, the Company may be limited to an annual limitation on the use of its net operating loss carryforwards.

None.

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, 2008:

28

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. Delta, United and US Airways also provide facilities, ticket handling and ground support services for us at certain airports.

Our corporate headquarters, administration and training/administrative facilities in Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona are subject to long-term leases expiring on August 31, 2012, January 1, 2014 and August 8, 2012, respectively.

In March 2008, the Company signed a lease agreement to rent approximately 24,000 square feet for administrative purposes. The lease commenced April 1, 2008 with monthly rental in the amount of $41,744 until February 2010, in which the annual rent will increase by 3% each March 1 during the remainder of the lease term.

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

On January 9, 2007, Aloha Airlines filed suit against Mesa Air Group in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. Aloha alleges that Mesa's inter-island air fares are below cost and that Mesa is, therefore, violating specific provisions of the Sherman Act. Aloha also alleges breach of contract and fraud by Mesa in connection with two confidentiality agreements, one entered into in 2005 and the other in 2006. Mesa denies any attempt at monopolization of the inter-island market and further denies any improper use of the data furnished by Aloha while Mesa was considering a bid for Aloha during its bankruptcy proceedings. On November 28, 2008, Mesa Air Group, Inc. ("Mesa") entered into a settlement and release agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), effective as of November 28, 2008, with certain affiliates of the Yucaipa Companies LLC (collectively, "Yucaipa"), which purchased Aloha suit in the bankruptcy case, relating to the action entitled Aloha Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Mesa Air Group, Inc. before the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 07-00007 DAE/BMK) (the "Action"). The Settlement Agreement fully and finally settles all issues and disputes that were raised, or could have been raised, by Yucaipa, Mesa, or Aloha Airlines, Inc. and Aloha Air Group Inc. (collectively, "Aloha") in connection with the Action.

29

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Yucaipa will fully and finally released Mesa and its affiliates, and Mesa will fully and finally released Yucaipa and its affiliates, from all past, present or future claims related to the Action, including all claims unknown at the time of execution of the Settlement Agreement, and/or arising out of certain non-disclosure agreements and Mesa's introduction of flight service into the Hawaiian inter-island market. Yucaipa's release, which will be effective February 29, 2009, includes the release of any claims relating to the Action that were or could have been brought by Aloha because Yucaipa previously acquired all of Aloha's interests and rights in the Action.

In consideration for Yucaipa's release, Mesa has agreed to issue approximately 2.7 million shares of its common stock to Yucaipa and make a cash payment of $2 million to Yucaipa. Mesa has also agreed to register the shares of common stock it issues to Yucaipa with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, Mesa and Yucaipa agreed to establish a licensing and profit sharing arrangement whereby, in the event that Yucaipa is able to acquire from Aloha in an upcoming bankruptcy court auction the rights to the names "Aloha" and "Aloha Airlines," Yucaipa will enter into a license agreement with Mesa to license such names to Mesa for ten years (the "Term") in exchange for royalty payments by Mesa and Mesa will pay to Yucaipa a set percentage of the pre-tax operating profits from Mesa's operations in the Hawaiian inter-island market. Specifically, for each year during the Term, Mesa will pay Yucaipa 1% of the passenger ticket revenue generated from all Hawaiian inter-island flight operations, subject to a minimum annual revenue payment of $600,000 (the "Revenue Payments"), and will also pay Yucaipa 30% of the pre-tax operating profits from Mesa's operations in the Hawaiian inter-island market less the Revenue Payments.

If Mesa ceases inter-island flight operations in Hawaii, Mesa has the right to terminate the licensing and profit sharing arrangement.  Mesa will provide Yucaipa with a $5 million promissory note payable over five years, at LIBOR +350 basis points interest, reset quarterly, that will become payable if Mesa ceases operations in the Hawaiian inter-island market or breaches the Settlement Agreement. If, at the end of the first five years of the Term, the note has not become payable as a result of Mesa's cessation of operations or breach, the principal owing on the note will decrease automatically on a straight-line basis over the remaining five years of the Term. If Mesa ceases operations in Hawaii or breaches the Settlement Agreement during the final five years of the Term, the amount payable on the note would be the principal remaining at the time of such cessation or breach. The note will be secured by a first priority lien on certain Mesa assets with a fair market value equal to 125% of the principal amount of the note.

The Settlement Agreement also provides that the parties will take certain further actions to seek the dismissal, with prejudice, of the entire Action.

On March 28, 2008, Delta notified the Company of its intent to terminate the Delta Connection Agreement among Delta, the Company, and the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Freedom Airlines, Inc., alleging failure to maintain a specified completion rate with respect to its ERJ-145 Delta Connection flights during three months of the six-month period ended February 2008. Following Delta's termination notification, the Company filed a complaint on April 7, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "District Court") seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on May 27 through May 29, 2008. Following the hearing, the Court ruled in the Company's favor and issued a preliminary injunction against Delta.

The effect of this ruling is to prohibit Delta from terminating the Delta Connection Agreement covering the ERJ-145 aircraft operated by Freedom Airlines, based on Freedom Airlines' completion rate prior to April 2008, pending a final trial at a date to be determined by the District Court. On June 27, 2008, Delta filed a notice of appeal with the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Court of Appeals") and on July 15, 2008, Delta filed a motion requesting that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis. The Company has responded to Delta's motion in accordance with the applicable rules and the Court of Appeals, after reviewing the filings, denied Delta's request. Delta and the Company have fully briefed the issues on appeal and oral arguments in the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals have been scheduled for January 26, 2009.

Prior to the Court's ruling, Delta planned to remove from service a significant portion of the aircraft in early June 2008 and all aircraft in July 2008 and forward. Delta did not immediately reverse its plans based upon the Court's ruling. Following the court's ruling, the Company and Delta reached an interim financial understanding (subject to the mutual reservation of rights) in which Delta will reimburse the Company for certain costs and the majority of the ERJ-145 aircraft will remain out of service until October 2008.

On August 1, 2008, Delta notified the Company of the termination of the CRJ-900 Delta Connection Agreement citing an alleged failure to meet certain contractual benchmarks contained in the CRJ-900 Delta Connection Agreement. Mesa strongly denies having violated the Delta Connection Agreement and intends to challenge Delta's decision. We believe the airport hub in which the CRJ-900 aircraft are operated and the schedules created by Delta, significantly impact our ability to meet the contract performance benchmarks.

30

In particular, we believe the operating environment at New York's JFK airport presents significant challenges to meet the performance requirements.

On August 6, 2008 Mesa filed a complaint against Delta Air Lines seeking the return of seven aircraft engines that Delta improperly retained possession of following the termination of an engine maintenance memorandum of understating executed between Mesa and Delta. Delta has claimed its retention of these engines was justified as a means to secure recovery of certain disputed amounts related to the memorandum of understating. The memorandum of understanding does not contain provisions regarding Delta's claims and does not permit Delta's retention of the engines. Delta did not have a legal basis upon which to retain continued unauthorized possession of the engines. On or about August 13, 2008, Delta returned possession of the engines at issue. On August 22, 2008, Delta recorded mechanics' liens on the engines and filed a counterclaim seeking to foreclose on the liens as well as seeking certain payments allegedly related to the memorandum of understanding. Mesa's action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona sought the immediate return of all engines currently in Delta's possession and/or control, forfeiture of all claimed liens, as well as damages related to Delta's improper retention of the engines. On November 12, 2008, the Court heard oral arguments on Mesa's motion to dismiss Delta's purported liens and Delta's motion to foreclose on the liens. On November 14, 2008, the Court ruled that Delta forfeited its lien claims as a result of its failure to comply with the timelines set out in the Georgia Lien Statute. The parties' competing claims for money damages are still pending before the Court. A judgment in Delta's favor for damages related to its counterclaim could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

On October 20, 2008, Mesa filed a complaint against Mokulele alleging claims for breach of contract related to certain amounts owed to the Company by Mokulele under the code-share agreement dated February 7, 2007. Mesa's complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On November 4, 2008, Mokulele filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii alleging claims for breach of the code-share agreement, attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and unfair competition under Hawaii statutes. On November 7, 2008, Mesa amended its complaint filed in the District Court of Arizona to add claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of an open account, unjust enrichment, coercion, trademark infringement in violation of the Hawaii and Arizona statutes and the federal Lanham Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, deceptive trade practices and unfair competition. This litigation is in the initial stages and the Company strongly denies having violated any statutory or common law duties owed to Mokulele.

We are also 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.

31

PART II