New ATA DC-10

[alpine1989]

The lastest plan direct from the crew van driver. Oh wait, there is no crew van anymore.

ATA (GAL) acquired 9 DC-10-30's from NWA. 7 were intended to be flyers with 2 part outs.

ATA will operate 6 DC-10-30 aircraft. 3 will go on line in 2007 and 3 in 2008. The delivery schedule has been slowed due to the decision to keep L1011's flying longer.

ATA will operate 3 L1011-500s through the end of 2008.

WOA will get 3 DC-10-30 aircraft from GAL. Again, two of these were intended for part out by ATA.

Net loss of aircraft for ATA = 1

Alpine

 

[HalinTexas]

Anyone who believed they'd park recently D-checked L10's by the end of this year were smoking crack. ATA is notoriously incompetent in adding fleet types to the airline. It always takes longer to get them on line the should be necessary.

Subod Karnak "the magnificent" told us that the 9 DC 10's were a packaged deal or "no deal." That was the only way we would get them. We figured that we just keep two for parts as the are all older than our oldest L10.

Business plans change, but then again, they're now telling us that ATA never intended to operate more than 6 widebodies. Is that a change or an admission of a lie?

As far as NA is concerned, I've heard from various places that GAL is not interested in getting a contract with NA pilots. That's where the rumor of it's demise comes from. I don't know what the pilot group is seeking in a contract, so I wonder what would be best for them? Would ATA's contract be better than what NA could negotiate? I don't know.

 

[bigboeings]

From reading the aquisition proposal I would say that NA has to have some sort of contract. Since the news of the posible acquisition the company has been more willing to negotiate. Im sure ATA's contract would be better than what we get, but we dont have any guys on the street like ATA does. That is the bad part about it.

 

[xtwapilot]

I would seriously doubt that GAL will fold NA into any of the other 2, why would they return a certificate for nothing when it could be sold for money later on down the road. MP buysout poorly run companies and then dresses them up for a sale. Based on their history alone, they wouldn't return a certificate for nothing. Also don't forget that NA is the lowest cost operator of the 3, and has been making money from day one. It makes no sense to return the certificate of their lowest cost operator that also happens to be quiet profitable.

xtwapilot

 

[HalinTexas]

There's profitable, then there's $profitable$

Asset allocation for better yield management. MP will do what they have to do to make even more money. That includes closing down a carrier if need be to use those assets somewhere else.

My point? No job under GAL is safe. We all are expendable.

 

[billjohnson321]

since when is north american quite profitable.they lost money in 2006 on their own.

 

[xtwapilot]

I guess you overlooked the final numbers released for 2006, where the loss for the year is attributed to World due primarily to higher maintenance costs, and secondary a drop off of military revenue in Dec 2006 for World. Also look at the release today which shows, numbers for NAA up and numbers for World down.

 

[billjohnson321]

i encourage you to read the 10 k filings.you will notice that north american lost 144 dollars for every hour they flew.world made 46 dollars per hour flown.the reason world did not make 50 million dollars again this year is because of the aforementioned items.i agree the numbers are up for north american,i suppose that means the more they fly the more they lose.

 

[billjohnson321]

to be exact ,straight from the 2006 10 k filings.

WORLD PER BLOCK HOUR
REVENUE=9978
EXPENSE=9932

NORTH AMERICAN PER BLOCK HOUR
REVENUE=9725
EXPENSE=9869

 

[xtwapilot]

I'll look into that, but can you explain the 2006 loss management attributed to unexpected maintenance cost and the drop in Dec 2006 military revenue being the major contributors to the overall loss for FY2006
? All the above were on the World side.