I'm not Skipness, but from what I can see, this is my take on the story so far assuming it really is about being able to raise funds when times are tough.
It sounds like they're putting all the valuable assets (i.e. aircraft) which can be mortgaged into a a separate company from the one that actually takes commercial responsibility for the day-to-day flying of passengers.
The company holding the aircraft becomes essentially a leasing company with a customer who is very unlikely to go elsewhere. In the event of a 9/11 scenario, the aircraft can be put up as collateral - essentially mortgaged to raise emergency cash. Because the lease company is legally separate from the core airline, creditors of the core airline cannot come after the lease company to pursue any debts and thus lenders are happier about lending money to the leasing company.
This all works, as long as the core airline can show that they sold the aircraft to the leasing company at fair market value - i.e. they did not sell the aircraft for a nominal £1 which bankruptcy courts don't like. How the leasing company managed to raise the cash and how much they raised is likely to be rather sensitive.
I'm not familiar with the details, but it all rather gives the impression of an airline that is financially stressed, is taking on various legal constraints that will make day-to-day operations more fiddly, and expects to struggle to raise cash at some point in the future. Secures the airline against the immediate after-effects of 9/11 type events but doesn't say much for the long-term growth prospects of the airline. When the time comes in five or ten years for the airline group to raise cash to renew an ageing fleet of aircraft, banks are likely to be rather more nervous than they would be otherwise.