Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ASA to retire the ATR-72.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Right....exactly what I said. I never said they bid for a loss, only that they will probably underbid ASA, because they are willing to take flying at thin margins whereas Skywest is not. You reaffirmed my point.

Well of course they'll underbid ASA, because their block-hour costs are several hundred dollars an hour less than ASA's. The margin is the same or similar, but the bid is less due to the lower block-hour costs.
 
FWIW, I doubt Mesa will be bidding on anything. And even if SkyWest Inc "wins" the bid, it probably won't go to ASA. The SkyWest pilots with no contract are much more likely to fly it cheaper than our ATR rate (locked to the CRJ-200 rate).

John,

So, what are you going to do now? Finally gonna give in and go get those RJ books? Maybe those new guys at Lynx will come in and do Dash-8-400 flying. Are they ALPA?

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
Isn't there a clause somewhere about the % of flying that must be done by ASA in ATL? Would loosing the ATR's push ASA below that percentage?

That clause is in the sales contract of ASA between Delta and SkyWest Inc. If ASA's flying % out of ATL goes below the limit, the only party that has legal standing to object would be SkyWest Inc. If the flying goes to SkyWest, SkyWest Inc would probably not raise the issue.
 
Good question. A fleet reduction without an announcement of new aircraft doesn't sound like good news to me.

Sure doesn't. Although, if -500s came along it wouldn't require a new program to be developed (I don't think...), so they could be brought on line as quickly as ASA could get them on the certificate. Now, if it's something like a Q-400, i believe getting an aircraft program up and running takes a couple of years. Either way, you're right. Announcing retirements without announcing replacements isn't good.
 
Oh but now the 300 hour wonder pilots don't have to worry about flying a tprop if they come to ASA. Thats GREAT news!
 
John,

So, what are you going to do now? Finally gonna give in and go get those RJ books? Maybe those new guys at Lynx will come in and do Dash-8-400 flying. Are they ALPA?

Bye Bye--General Lee

Well I flew the jet for 3 years prior to the ATR, so I guess I'll survive. Maybe I'll just bid the -700 and fly around the pax that used to ride on Delta Mad Dogs.
 
Just finished my procheck yesterday. No one at FSI from the ATR side of the house sounded optimistic at all that the A/C were staying.

In fact, the ATR program manager was in and out of the RJ sim, working on his type in the RJ. It doesn't look good for the ATR at ASA.

If so, this would truly be the end of an era: Crews that are actually fun coming and going out of Atlanta.
 
It does seem as though the writing is on the wall for the ATR. Of course Delta will put out a proposal for "new" TP flying out of Atlanta. Of course our pilot group will be asked to fly it for less. (No raise for the Bro pilots sound familiar?) Of course we will not.

I think I'm gonna puke when I see some MESA scumbag wasting oxygen in the Badda Bing... :puke:
 
Last edited:
Bedford and JO are famous for doing so

Bedford is NOT famous for bidding at a loss. Unprofitable flying is right up there with birth control in his book. He may be a lot of things, but he and RAH are not interested in bidding for unprofitable flying.
 
Maybe I'll just bid the -700 and fly around the pax that used to ride on Delta Mad Dogs.
Get used to hearing them complain. Passengers really do love the 88's.

It seems like the really short flying - CSG, MCN, CHA, VLD is simply going away. It is not just the cost of flying, but also the facility costs of all the fancy schmancy airports the locals build and administrative costs, as well as a slot in the que at the world's busiest airport.

I am surprised BQK service exists. There has to be some sort of subsidy involved.

In a little win / win, I wonder if Delta would codeshare with ASA / SkyWest while allowing the small jet provider to develop and maintain their own routes? The way it used to be might be better than the current fee for departure way of doing business.

Rather than a seamless passenger experience, just the opposite. Let ASA / SkyWest take pride in their routes on ASA/SkyWest aircraft.

Just a thought because candidly, I think Delta is looking at 777's and China a lot more than they are ASA / SkyWest flying. Part of the problems that exist on the small equipment is likely the result of human nature - focusing the new, big, shiny stuff.

Passengers like the ATR if it is operated & supported correctly. It has a big comfortable cabin, is relatively fast and very fuel efficient. The ATR seems more like the future than the RJ, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Bedford is NOT famous for bidding at a loss. Unprofitable flying is right up there with birth control in his book. He may be a lot of things, but he and RAH are not interested in bidding for unprofitable flying.
Good joke, but yes - he will bid at break even, or a slight loss and try to make it profitable through growth (reduced average longevity of crews and aircraft) and performance bonus money.

And - you are forgetting the $125,000,000.00 Bedford gave US Air, plus the $110,000,000.00 offered to fund reorganization costs.

You can call that an investment, but it sure wasn't profit.

After seeing some of RAH's numbers in the early days, I thought they bid too tight to make it and would grow until they went bankrupt. Obviously RAH was right in their calculated risk.
 
Last edited:
Good joke, but yes - he will bid at break even, or a slight loss and try to make it profitable through growth (reduced average longevity of crews and aircraft) and performance bonus money.

And - you are forgetting the $125,000,000.00 Bedford gave US Air, plus the $110,000,000.00 offered to fund reorganization costs.

You can call that an investment, but it sure wasn't profit.

After seeing some of RAH's numbers in the early days, I thought they bid too tight to make it and would grow until they went bankrupt. Obviously RAH was right in their calculated risk.

Not a joke. They won't bid for the unprofitable flying-- performance payments are part of the their calculations, but they don't/won't bid for negative margins.

The US $$ were for an ownership interest to protect an existing codeshare (mitigate a potential loss-- not bidding at a loss) as well as to purchase slots at LGA/DCA and terminal facilities at LGA. The contract provided that US would buy them back at a later date for a set price and if they didn't, RAH would own very valuable assets at the airports. Turned out to be a smart move!

Not defending the reverend, just don't like to see anyone compared to Ornstein!
 
Well I flew the jet for 3 years prior to the ATR, so I guess I'll survive. Maybe I'll just bid the -700 and fly around the pax that used to ride on Delta Mad Dogs.


Well, if you can pass the RJ checkride you may fly some of the old MD88 routes, like Knoxville and Memphis. Most of our MD88s are now doing old Song routes up and down the East Coast, mostly 2 legs a day. Too bad HHH and the Tiki Hut will be left to Wsurf and PDT, or Lynx if it comes in and does it.

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
Not a joke. They won't bid for the unprofitable flying
I'm sure that's what he likes to claim when he sends out his "sermons," but the facts don't back it up. Bedford has most certainly bid at a loss, whether he wants to admit it or not.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top