ATA faces trouble on bailout loan

[lowecur]

This could be a difficult hurdle as ATSB could shut the airline down. UAIR renegotiated, but had to come up with Cash to do so. ATA doesn't have the dough, so it will be interesting to see what the ATSB does.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/162405-1805-092.html

 

[General Lee]

I thought ATA was doing well again?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[InclusiveScope]

I thought ATA was doing well again?


Bye Bye--General Lee

I rest my case!

General, the article says:

"They have very low costs but they have to get their revenues up,"

Should they use larger planes General? This is a Revenue problem.

 

[lowecur]

I thought ATA was doing well again?


Bye Bye--General Lee

Unfortunately, they are not doing well. I'm sure most of the employees are holding their breath.

I feel bad for the employees, but the FAA needs to reduce congestion in the sky's, and they are not getting much help at ORD from UAL or AMR. The ATSB may be getting an earful from the FAA, and could request immediate full payment of the loan, effectively shutting down ATA.

BA may still lease them the 717's at a decent rate, but if their future doesn't look bright, even that could be pulled from the table. Hard to see them getting their RASM up in this cut-throat environment.

 

[On Your Six]

I rest my case!

How is that a good response? Some people are complete jacka$$es on this board.... Very clever.

I thought ATA was reorganizing itself too given the frequent positive comments on this board. Didn't realize the situation was this dire... Good luck to all involved.

 

[InclusiveScope]

How is that a good response? Some people are complete jacka$$es on this board.... Very clever.

I thought ATA was reorganizing itself too given the frequent positive comments on this board. Didn't realize the situation was this dire... Good luck to all involved.

Because you and General are wrong again. Sorry but the truth hurts. Using the General's logic, they should use larger airplanes.

"They have very low costs but they have to get their revenues up,"


"They have very low costs but they have to get their revenues up,"

Simply put, there are too many seats chasing too few customers. Supply and demand folks.

 

[General Lee]

on your six,

Inclusivescope is trying to throw things at me---primarily because I smack him on every other subject. He tries hard....

The apparent problem at ATA is they are up against a very strong LCC (SW) at their main hub, and the advantage they once had serving all of the larger cities nonstop (SEA, PHX, LAX, LAS, MCO, FLL, etc) is gone since SW added more 737-700s that now can reach them. That put ATA at an economic disadvantage on every route that they both flew. There is little room to expand at MDW, and IND is not an established hub. They said they might expand into the INTL arena next year--which might be a better idea due to the lack of LCCs flying transatlantic routes...


Inclusivescope,

If you are going to "move" people domestically with all of the low fares--you need larger planes to spread out the costs. If you have a route that cannot support those larger planes, then put something else on it. Just think, the difference between a 767-300 and a 738 is close to 100 seats---or an extra two flight attendants. You will have to pay for a couple more stews, but you can make up the crew costs with a few extra passengers, and you can carry more cargo---that will probably make up for the extra gas. You will learn eventually, my son.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Dizel8]

General,

But then all domestic travel should be on 747 or the A-380, obviously it is not. The right size airplane for the route and frequency plays a larger role, other wise, why would DAL operate so many different types? Why use RJs?

Flying short haul with a 747 is prohibitively expensive and the only place I know that have been doing it, is Japan, due to the sheer amount of people and limited space.

Yes, I do believe ATA is facing increased pressure from SWA, but they are facing increased pressure in general, as we all are, because fare levels are so low. In Chicago, to get the lowest fare one either flew ATA or SWA, now Ted is out of ORD, along with the fact, that cheap airfares can now be had on all airlines.

 

[Pickle]

Lowecur, ATA only carries something like 2 or 3 percent of the total traffic in the US, the FAA won't press the ATSB to make ATA go away to releive congestion in Chicago. That has to be one of the more ridiculous things I have heard.


General Lee: on every route we fly head to head against SWA out of MDW we have a fare premium (that is to say, we command a higher price per seat than they do) except for MCO, where they have a higher fare premium. That was as of earlier this year.

 

[lowecur]

Lowecur, ATA only carries something like 2 or 3 percent of the total traffic in the US, the FAA won't press the ATSB to make ATA go away to releive congestion in Chicago. That has to be one of the more ridiculous things I have heard. OK. Let me phrase it another way. Do you think by forcing ATA out of business it would allow some of the carriers that use ORD to transplant some flights to MDW? Or maybe no one wants to use MDW as it is mostly O&D.


General Lee: on every route we fly head to head against SWA out of MDW we have a fare premium (that is to say, we command a higher price per seat than they do) except for MCO, where they have a higher fare premium. That was as of earlier this year.

.....