ATA may fly smaller 100-seat jets. 717's

[vclean]

Latest "good" rumor: The B-717 will replace some of the S-340s, as C-8 pilots are furloughed they will be given a prefrrential hiring interview with ATA. Some of the S-340s will be used to probe new markets for the B-717s.

So if C8 furloughs, the newest fo's will interview before the capt's ?

 

[UM#1]

OKAY HOLD ON RIGHT THERE FOR A MINUTE... before we start rumors about furloughing C8 guys, we have to stop and not get ahead of ourselves. ATA does not have any orders for 717's, there are no negotiated pay rates, the pilots have not agreed to anything yet because the union hasn't even met with the company to negotiate anything yet, that happens next week, so the soonest the pilots will see anything (which must be voted on) will be over a week. Then the company will decided what they are going to do. At the road show the company stated there are 3 things they could do, the 717 plan, nothing, shrink(which they said really wasn't an option). Besides that anything could happen. Lets not scare these C8 guys into thinking that pink slips are coming....

 

[atafan]

UM#1,

This is the place for rumors and I stated that it was a rumor, so just relax......

I believe the B-717 deal is already done in principle and the company isn't waiting on this deal to see what the pilots will decide. The Company is fishing for some extra breathing room cash, the B-717s are on the way.

My previous message was primarily to get the C-8 pilots into action not just wait until the shoe drops, if it does.

 

[On Your Six]

This may have already been covered, but would the 717s also replace some of the 737-800s? Would any future fleet be 717, 757-200/300 and 767-300 (with maybe a few straggling L10-11s)? Is that the future for ATA? Would they really want 4-5 fleet types?

The 717 is a great airplane and it would be fun to fly...

 

[flyndesk]

From Atafan:

"The B-717 will replace some of the S-340s, as C-8 pilots are furloughed they will be given a prefrrential hiring interview with ATA."

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah we'll take the 800 hour wonders to fly the 717's. That's a good rumor.

The Company said they weren't getting rid of any of the Saabs. (Not that this means anything.) The 717's, they say, are for new markets, and markets we serve that would do better with say 6 flights a day in the 717 rather than 2 or 3 in the larger 737 or 757.

I doubt ATA will lower the hiring mins. We do like the Chico guys that come over, but they are captains with the PIC time.

 

[mach zero]

I talked to one of the CP's this week about the 717 deal. Since it could mean 50-100 new planes on the property, we will have to hire big time. In addition to upgrading all F/O's on property now (who want it), those who are in the leading edge of the hiring boom will be upgrading in short order as well. So we will be looking at hiring fairly high time people as a result since they will be upgrading in short order. IMHO the low time 800 hour wonders from C8 will not be considered...only the CA's. There's an ample supply of experienced airline folks on the street right now to choose from. The benefit that the low time C8 F/O's might get is a quicker SF-340 upgrade when they have the quals.

 

[storminpilot]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/040429/airlines_ata_1.html

Reuters -- ATA says may order Boeing or Embraer 100-seat jets
Thursday April 29, 3:22 pm ET
By Chris Stetkiewicz


SEATTLE, April 29 (Reuters) - U.S. low-fare carrier ATA Airlines on Thursday said it was considering an order for 100-seat jetliners from either Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) or Embraer SA (Sao Paolo:EMBR3.SA - News) to expand into new routes and shrink its average aircraft size.

Indianapolis-based ATA, the No. 10 U.S. airline and a unit of ATA Holdings (NasdaqNM:ATAH - News), was weighing Boeing's 717 model against Embraer's 190 to augment its fleet of larger aircraft, including Boeing 737-800s and 757s.

"ATA airlines currently flies the largest number of seats on average of any scheduled carrier, which is yield-limiting in today's environment", said George Mikelsons, ATA's Chairman, President & CEO.

"Operating a fleet of 100-seat aircraft would provide a cost-effective and flexible means of expansion for ATA, while improving unit revenues," Mikelsons said in a prepared statement.

The carrier did not say how many aircraft it was considering.

A union official said the new aircraft would replace some of the 757-200s and -300s, seating 200 to 247 passengers, and the 175-seat 737s, which would be shifted to higher capacity routes.

"We would prefer Boeing, but we understand we need to get the best bang for the buck," Erik Engdahl, local chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association (News - Websites) , told Reuters by telephone.

Representatives for Boeing's Seattle-based jetliner unit and Brazil's Embraer were not immediately able to comment.

ATA is a long-standing Boeing customer and currently operates 66 jetliners, many of which were financed or leased with help from the manufacturer's Boeing Capital Corp. unit.

ATA also operates 17 smaller Saab 340B turboprop aircraft on short-haul regional routes.

ATA ordered 47 Boeing jets in 2000, of which nine have not yet been delivered, including two 737s due in 2004 and seven more pushed back to 2007.

The carrier in January restructured $300 million in debt, pushing back most of its payments to 2009 or 2010 and cementing a deal to cut its aircraft lease payments of $150 million, thereby avoiding bankruptcy.

Like many airlines, ATA suffered a serious cash crunch as air travel demand dried up following the Sept. 11, 2001, hijack attacks in the United States.

ATA is the largest carrier at Chicago's Midway Airport and said in February that it may launch flights to Europe by the summer of 2005.

 

[UM#1]

this is a clip from the press release from ATA:


The airline is presently discussing its fleet and growth plans with its
union leadership, and will require an addition to its current cockpit contract
rates before formally launching negotiations with the aircraft manufacturers.

They'll have to rethink those crap pay rates they mentioned at the roadshow or they will get a big fat "NO" from the pilot group....

read the rest here

ATA Press Release

 

[Metroman]

There are very few 800 hr wonders here at C8.

 

[Glideslope!]

800hrs!

there are more than a few pilots at C8 with 737, A320, and other types too along with some FO's who are typed in different A/C who also have the pic time to go with it. For quite a few quys and gals over here this isn't the first flying job they ever had.

 

[flyndesk]

No offense was meant by the 800 hour comment. Just meant that the captains, who had put their time into an ATA owned company and had proven PIC, would be top-o-the list. Humble apologies.

I still doubt that there would be flow thru though.....

 

[Glideslope!]

Don't worry, no offense taken. I doubt there will be any sort of flow through. What's in it for the ATA guys? First things first, ATA has to actually aquire the 717's then we can all begin to hyperventilate about who's flying what. There are some pretty wild rumors going around right now but it's not time to begin a full fledged hyperventilation. Now if there's a padlock on the south ramp entrance door on sunday morning I'll be over at the A concourse hyperventilating

 

[antney]

ATA FAN
about your comments about the union that we voted "NO" for! First off we heard a lot of promises if we vote YES for the union, and we heard the same if we voted NO for the union, well as a group we voted NO and all of those promise we are still waiting for over a year and a half now. I do beleive the Union (whoever it is) is a neccasary evil. But you cant convince everyone to vote YES. To tell you the truth I did vote YES, but in all honesty don't know if that would of been a smart time or choice to have a union come into our company. Plus if did vote a union in we would want more than just 51% of us wanting it. It should benefit the majority of the pilot group as a whole, not individual. And one of those rumors we heard is that we would be guarantee a flow through with ATA. But whats going to say the Management of ATA will want that, you as a pilot or an ALPA memeber can only push it so far, management still makes decisions. So you just kinda of rubbed me the wrong way when you said we could of had something if we voted yes for the union, we voted no and we were suppose to get RJs, were still flying Saabs and the feeling around C8 is not postitive. Granted I would rather see mainline pilots grow and fly bigger equipment then see us get RJs, becuase RJs are not what I want to fly for my career.

To other concerns about C8 furloughing! Havent heard that, but they have been giving out voluntary leaves of absence to cut back on cost the last two months. Dont know if that has anything to do with people at ATA or just a C8 thing. And about 800 hour piltos at C8, yes we have a lot of them. But some of our guys with 700 hours fly better than guys with over 2000. I wouldnt think its fair for an FO to get an interview over other C8 captains. But heres my concern with the new aircraft for ATA. If say ATA takes 10 captains from C8, in return they will have training cost for the new hire at ATA, an FO to upgrade at C8 to take place of the captain that went to ATA, and hire a newhire to replace the FO that upgrade. So in return for ATA taking one of our guys, in return cost them 3 training cost, rather than hiring someone from outside of the company were it would cost once! I know our relationship is good with mainline, but if I was at management and knowing ATA has to make a bucket load of profit in the next 4-5 years, I would be concerned about this. It might be peanuts, but if they are worried about cutting cost it is probably something they will be thinking about.
Sorry I wrote so much just had to get it off the old chest!

 

[UM#1]

UM#1
Okay about your comments about the union that we voted "NO" for! First off we heard a lot of promises if we vote YES for the union, and we heard the same if we voted NO for the union, well as a group we voted NO and all of those promise we are still waiting for over a year and a half now. I do beleive the Union (whoever it is) is a neccasary evil. But you cant convince everyone to vote YES. To tell you the truth I did vote YES, but in all honesty don't know if that would of been a smart time or choice to have a union come into our company. Plus if did vote a union in we would want more than just 51% of us wanting it. It should benefit the majority of the pilot group as a whole, not individual. And one of those rumors we heard is that we would be guarantee a flow through with ATA. But whats going to say the Management of ATA will want that, you as a pilot or an ALPA memeber can only push it so far, management still makes decisions. So you just kinda of rubbed me the wrong way when you said we could of had something if we voted yes for the union, we voted no and we were suppose to get RJs, were still flying Saabs and the feeling around C8 is not postitive. Granted I would rather see mainline pilots grow and fly bigger equipment then see us get RJs, becuase RJs are not what I want to fly for my career.

Antney,
I think you are confusing me with ATAFAN, as he made the comments your are responding to. The only thing I said in regards to unions was about the ATA pilots union and how we (ata pilots) would say no to the pay rates the company was offering at the roadshow, but nothing has been negotiated yet with the ata union so we shall see. go back up and read ATAFANS psot and you'll see.

 

[Glideslope!]

ask the guys at eagle about AMR hiring from within. They probably know a little about flow through too. Antney's right. To a company that is extremely sensitive about cost right now he has some very valid points. ATA still owns C8 as a whole and 3 training events to fill one position is not in line with keeping costs down. Now, if C8 were to be sold.... that's another rumor for another thread!

before takeoff checklist to the line
prepare for hyperventilation!

 

[vclean]

Welcome to aviation Antney. The anti-union efforts at C8 were successful enough to lose our vote by less than 10. Management will always have some carrot hanging from a stick to keep you plugging along and distract you from seeking what is best for the pilot group. Anyone who believed the RJ for a no vote learned a valuable lesson. Management and labor have different objectives. Don't let the pixie dust blind you from meeting yours (ours).

 

[antney]

Vclean if you saw what I wrote I said I did vote for the Union! That is a yes on the ballot. I just was pointing out that the one comment from ATAFAN said if we voted yes we could have a flow through, just used the example from management of us getting RJS if we voted no. And by the way, thanks for the nice welcome into this community!

 

[FlyChicaga]

I think that 800 wonder comment ticked me off a bit. I guess because it hits close to home, seeing as I'm currently just passing 850 or something hours. Yes, I got lucky and was able to get on with low time. There are plenty of us at this company who were so fortunate. But because of our total time does that make us dirt? Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying we should get on with ATA. But it seems like it's ok for us to get skimmed off the bottom of the list and furloughed without much thought.

I've been busting my ass on the line trying to dispell the rumors that all the interns can't fly for anything, and we have these huge egos that have trouble getting through the cockpit door. Maybe there are some like that, but we sure aren't all like that. I'm just like the next guy who wants to see this company thrive, but at the same time wants to ensure a solid future for the pilot group while we are here.

I don't mean to sound like a whiner. I'm just sensitive about this subject, because every day I go to work I carry the weight of this "low time stigma" on my shoulders. I feel the need to work harder than most to do this job since everyone has this preconcieved notion about how low-timers are. It would be nice to just come to work, relax, and do the job without scrutiny. It would also be nice to have some consideration in the future of ATA.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you said flyndesk and others. I may be completely off base from what you meant.

I don't think any of us with below the published mins will be in this "hiring boom" at ATA should the 717 deal go through. I'd be happy to see many of my fellow pilots at C8 who have been hanging on waiting for RJs to get an even better present: right seat in the 717, and the payscale that comes with it. But I can't help but be concerned for the future of those not eligible to fly at ATA... because if C8 liquidates, we'll all be on the street trying to find a new home. Not sure how others feel but I'm hoping to stay on board here. After time you get to know the family and the problems we have... it will be hard to try and blend into a new place with new problems. I worked at ATA before I was flying here, so I feel like I've learned this place well.

With all that is going on, I hope we all at C8 wake up, get informed, and realize what the best decisions are for our future. There are things we can't control, and there are things we can. Whatever we do, we need to do it as a group, unified. Not without care or concern for what happens... sadly I see a lot of that I think.

[/rant]

 

[ataopsdave]

AMEN

 

[Drmagnus]

Does anyone know what kind of payscale AirTran, Midwest Express and Hawaiian have for the B717?