Ata

[Ty Webb]

Just heard today from a reliable source that the 717 deal fell through due ATA's inability to secure financing.

I find that hard to believe. AirTran was in terrible financial condition when they signed their 717 deal with Boeing.

Thankfully, we turned it around, and I expect ATA will, too.

 

[FlyChicaga]

All this up, down, and around at this company is going to drive me to the bottle!

 

[tz800ca]

Not to change where all of these posts are going, but why would ATA want another type on property? Can't you still get a 737-600 with a seating of 110? What savings would there really be into bringing in another type? Everyone was saying 'Oh yeah, 717 is a done deal'. I hope the 717 wasn't the bait for growth/concessions. It seems ATA lacks serious direction at a time they need it most.

BINGO!

 

[lowecur]

Personally, I can't see the 717 saving ATA. I think Boeing realizes that the health of AMR, UAL, and DL are more important to it's future than ATA. Tough decisions are just ahead.

 

[tzpilot]

Snafu

Business as usual here, Ready, Fire, Aim!

I'm glad the MEC rejected this TA, from what I have heard (only hearsay) it was pretty awful. The junior 73 folks were going to take the greatest hit (again, only hearsay). I have no problem in helping the company out if I thought they really needed it, but I find it hard to support when management is not willing to share in the pain with us. It's just another case of, do as I say, not as I do management.

As Mr. Black so eloquently put it, This fu*king ship is rudderless!

 

[jetguy]

The 717 deal was hinged upon secured financing. Airtran had a bunch of paid for DC-9's to borrow against.

How many of it's Aircraft does ATA own outright?

 

[njcapt]

All this up, down, and around at this company is going to drive me to the bottle!

Why wait?

 

[NipseyRussell]

Memo to ATA Mngt (ie. George):

Your current management team is attempting (& failing) to operate well beyond their educational & creative limits.

 

[mach zero]

Not to change where all of these posts are going, but why would ATA want another type on property? Can't you still get a 737-600 with a seating of 110? What savings would there really be into bringing in another type? Everyone was saying 'Oh yeah, 717 is a done deal'. I hope the 717 wasn't the bait for growth/concessions. It seems ATA lacks serious direction at a time they need it most.

The 737 line is tied up with orders. ATA probably could not #1 get the -600's for awhile and #2 not get a good deal on the price. The 600 would make sense but I think this 717 deal is so good, it will justify the new fleet type.

 

[mach zero]

Personally, I can't see the 717 saving ATA. I think Boeing realizes that the health of AMR, UAL, and DL are more important to it's future than ATA. Tough decisions are just ahead.

Of course any ATA thread would not be complete without a ch7 prediction from the all-knowing lowecur.

 

[tz800ca]

This Just In......again

[font=&quot]Remember that awful TA the MEC voted down a couple of days ago? Well, apparently there was some good ole fashion ALPA arm-twisting at the MEC meeting today and now the TA is going out to vote by membership. This way, it this horrible agreement passes, they can blame US!

I have been told the only two things that has changed is the formula used to calculate how the profit sharing is divided so it is more fair to the 737 drivers and the company has to commit to the 717 within a year. With that said the other flaws still exist:

1. 737 Drivers take the largest monetary hit throughout the agreement, including a PAY CUT at the end of the pay freeze and the 757 drivers get a raise. Guess which plane the negotiating committee chairmen flys.
2. The profit sharing (and I use the term loosely) has too many conditions that have to be met to realize any repayment. I was also told that ATA has only met the conditions in this agreement TWICE in its history.
3. The contract improvements are unenforceable due to the fact the language is too vague.
4. Management is not required to participate in the sacrifice.

JUST VOTE NO![/font]

 

[tzskipper]

You gotta love it...

"I have been told...."

If you have not read the entire agreement, you have no business putting this crap out.

Also, to your perception of "arm twisting" by ALPA is pure B.S.

Your posts are embarassing.

 

[tz800ca]

This Just In......again

For those of you that do not like to read long posts:

SAME TURD, DIFFERENT WRAPPER.

http://www.turdtwister.com/index.php

 

[tz800ca]

You gotta love it...

"I have been told...."

If you have not read the entire agreement, you have no business putting this crap out.

Also, to your perception of "arm twisting" by ALPA is pure B.S.

Your posts are embarassing.

HAVE YOU TALKED TO YOUR LEC REP TODAY? I HAVE.

SORRY, BUT THE TRUTH HURTS SOMETIMES.

READ THE REST OF MY POSTS, THEY HAVE BEEN SPOT ON.

HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF HEART WITH THE MEC WITH SO FEW CHANGES IN THE AGREEMENT? I AM ALL EARS......

 

[tzskipper]

"HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF HEART WITH THE MEC WITH SO FEW CHANGES IN THE AGREEMENT? I AM ALL EARS......"

The original agreement was originally voted down by the MEC over concerns about just a few items. The company agreed with the MEC's request for language amending the original TA, so the MEC did not need to much additional time to unanimiously ratify the "new" agreement.