No More ATA At Capital

dc8tom

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Posts
10
Total Time
15000
Not to be a wise ass but I have seen the same misquote in many replies of late. The correct idiom is I do not have a dog in this HUNT! I think you might have spent too much time watching ESPN during the VICK trial.Sorry but this irks me almost as much as captains saying my copilot or my F/O. wHAT egos.
 

nitefr8dog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Posts
450
Total Time
9000
I dont have any dog in this fight, but I can certainly attest to the way that management team operates.. from experience of my own...

They are capable of doing anything if its in their best interest and have a cozy relationship with the local ORL FSDO..

The Owner, P.F. is not one that like to go through much red tape.. and has the $$ Bling to make things happen in astonishing speed..

So now that they have a 75 on the property, I am sure they are going to do what it takes to get it in the air...
P.F. does not own it any more ATSG does.
 

MDWCrashPad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2004
Posts
52
Total Time
15000+
Pissedoff's original post stated that because the new Chief Pilot chose a junior 727 captain, who by the way has lots of 757 and international experience, to help him get the 757 program up and running, that Capital would no longer give preference to ATA pilots. I don't see how he comes to that conclusion.

First of all, a check airman is a management position under the law, even if the union contract specifies otherwise, for other purposes. Second the union apparently had bargained for, and was able to come to agreement with the company on, some limitations on how a 757 check airman could be used in regular flying when his seniority does not allow him to hold a 757 captain bid. Third, I believe that Ed was one of the first guys hired there after ATA closed, so I doubt if there are 30 ATA guys ahead of him. Even if there are, they would have been hired within a few days of Ed and it is still the chief pilot's choice, not a seniority position.

If Pissedoff was an ATA pilot, I do not understand how he could not know Hal, JB, or BM. I guess it is possible if he was cloistered in the L1011 world. And if he was, is he equally "pissedoff" that Omni has been hiring our guys as captains right off the street?

If I were a pilot at Capital, I would feel very good that Joe has taken over the task of bringing on the 757s, that Ed is going to get the guys checked out on the line, and that Bill may be joining them in the effort. Ed brought me up to speed on the Budapest to Iraq/Kwait flying back in January.

When the DC-10s were brought on-line at ATA, it was done in an extremely incompetent manor and brought down the entire airline. I wish we had gone off property to get people who knew what they were doing. Maybe we would still be flying.

Good luck to all the Capital guys. I hope you end up with 100 of the B757s, its a great plane.
 

CaptSeth

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Posts
510
Total Time
?
When the DC-10s were brought on-line at ATA, it was done in an extremely incompetent manor and brought down the entire airline. I wish we had gone off property to get people who knew what they were doing. Maybe we would still be flying.
Sorry, I have to disagree. As you know, I am not an apologist for management. But as someone that went through the DC-10 program, I don't think it was completely incompetent. The books and procedures were quite good, the training was great, and the whole program was up and running six months from the date of inception, and only a few days late. The fact that the training schedule went haywire was due to M-P's withdrawal of support for our operation as soon as they closed the deal on World Holdings, upon which they also withdrew most of the maintenance support, staffing, as well as not painting the aircraft in our colors.

Our local managers were unable to plan because the "plan" was never divulged to them, and they were only aware of changes in aircraft acceptance and fleet size well after decisions were made. ATA was not permitted to succeed by a group of money grubbers on Madison Ave. - in fact, it was purposefully flown into the ground.
 

MDWCrashPad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2004
Posts
52
Total Time
15000+
I did not mean to say that the pilots in the DC-10 program were the ones who did not perform as they should have. I guess I should have been more clear and I am sure that CaptSeth is more knowledgable about the particulars in the DC10 program than I am.

My understanding is that the DC-10s were in horible shape when we received them; that there were wiring problems in some of the systems that caused huge delays at times. Basically, that we never should have accepted them as delivered. I have also heard that we did not have a proper maintenance program setup for the DC-10 and that we ended up ferrying planes across the country to get small things fixed.

Whatever the problems, whoever was responsible, we ended up in the penalty box after not meeting the required on-time requirements. That cost us millions in military flying.

I think it is a wise decision to bring in the people who know what needs to be done when bringing on new equipment. Get it done right.
 

Colonel Savage

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
My understanding is that the DC-10s were in horible shape when we received them; that there were wiring problems in some of the systems that caused huge delays at times. Basically, that we never should have accepted them as delivered...
Where did these airplanes come from? What airline?
 

HalinTexas

昇る太陽の土&#
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Posts
1,536
Total Time
10000+
1970's vintage NWA. The newest was older than our oldest L1011.

They flew the hell out of them, and it showed.

We were supposed to get 7 to fly with 2 parts spares. But after the World bought ATA :rolleyes: , and appointed former ATA executives to run the un-merged operations, 3 went to World.
 

MD11Drvr

Still Learning
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Posts
398
Total Time
Enough
1970's vintage NWA. The newest was older than our oldest L1011.

They flew the hell out of them, and it showed.

We were supposed to get 7 to fly with 2 parts spares. But after the World bought ATA :rolleyes: , and appointed former ATA executives to run the un-merged operations, 3 went to World.
Hal,

Just to set the record straight I've never seen anyone say WOA bought ATA. By the same token ATA did not buy WOA. We had the misfortune of being bought by the same holding company. I do not feel WOA would have gotten any if the 10s had ATA been able to spool up thier program as scheduled. The reasons why vary greatly but in the end ATA could not get it together with the DC-10. The writing was on the wall for ATA well before the 10 and GAL and it would have taken more to save it than it had to offer. Not to say a valiant effort was'nt made by the employees but in the end none of us get to pick the management team we have to work for.
 

servicemonkey

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
53
Total Time
>5000
But after the World bought ATA :rolleyes: , and appointed former ATA executives to run the un-merged operations, 3 went to World.
Are you sure? I always heard that ATA bought World and North American through their wholly owned subsidiary "New ATA Holdings". Then when World and NAA found out that ATA wanted to really "bring them under their wing" they hired Global Aero Logistics to help with the transition, which pissed off FedEx, who in turn gave all of ATA's military flying to NWA, which was on the same team as ATA, and then with the loss of the AMC business, ATA could no longer prop up their scheduled service, which was bleeding $ like a stuck pig because for some reason scheduled service is harder to do than charter. But World and NA had done scheduled service before and really liked it but quit doing it for some reason and couldn't understand why ATA wouldn't listen to them and keep trying harder. Then, after GAL took over, and after many tee times and 19th hole cocktails, they instituted the “no reach around” method of management and
decided to make World pay $350 million dollars so they wouldn’t have to compete with ATA for their share of the “lucrative” AMC business.
 

Tristar

..one in the wilderness
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Posts
351
Total Time
7000+
Well . . . that's certainly the most interesting version I've ever heard of the whole deal. Unfortunately aside from a few of the names being correct, there is nothing even close to right in that narrative.

When ATA emerged from the first bankruptcy with DIP financing from Matlin Patterson, they created holding company, ATAH, to "own" the airline. ATAH was really nothing more than a shell company, it's only asset was ATA, and in every sense except on paper was ATA.

Later ATAH purchased World Air Holdings (which owned WOA and NAA), then changed its name from ATAH to GAL to "better reflect it's mission.

The top executives from ATA/ATAH (Karnik & Co.) then moved the headquarters of GAL from IND to ATL, and ultimately shut down ATA.

There is no doubt ATA was loosing money on sched service. There were many reasons behind this, including surrendering many of our best markets to WN when John Dennison was running the show (can you say collusion boys and girls? I'll never be able to prove it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck). Then add to this the complete mismanagement of our widebody program (park L-1011's we knew, get older DC-10's we didn't; get rid of most of our good in house mechanics, replace them with contract mx, ect) and ATA was backed into a corner. The final straw was when FedEx cancelled the contract due to poor performance (see above). Also, Southwest talked and talked about expanding the codeshare, but it never seemed to materialize.

Between all of this, MP finally had had enough. The story is they were initially going to shut down all of GAL, but it was pointed out that NAA and WOA were making money, so ATA got the axe. The problem with it all is it never should have happened. The employees reached out to MP on more than one occasion begging to have the idiots running the show replaced with real leadership. Our efforts were ignored, and so the employees of ATA paid the price for MP's ignorance and indifference to the very real problems that were bringing down the company. Oh, they did can Subodh - so we've got that going for us . . .

Fortunately for WOA and NAA, they seem to have competent management and a viable business model, so hopefully they will fare bette than ATA did.
 

Tristar

..one in the wilderness
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Posts
351
Total Time
7000+
Oops. Well, I feel like an a$$. Fortunately, I'm used to it (I'm married). I have heard some rather creative versions though, so it _seemed_ believable. Nevermind . . .
 

Golden Falcon

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Posts
659
Total Time
21000+
What seniority could there possibly be??? Thought that would have evaporated when ATA closed the doors...
 

mu2

Real Men Fly Props
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Posts
191
Total Time
+nitup
What happend to G Moss?
 

727Niteflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Posts
184
Total Time
12000+
I dont think they were real happy with him. Pretty hard to explain without getting into specifics, but he was let go shortly after the 75 came online.
 

alpine1989

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
102
Total Time
enough
I see that EW was named "High Flyer" of the month at Cappy. Good for him. He's a good guy.

Have you guys that were complaining gotten over yourselves?
 

dutch747

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Posts
147
Total Time
14000
Later ATAH purchased World Air Holdings (which owned WOA and NAA), then changed its name from ATAH to GAL to "better reflect it's mission.
Tristar, good post with lots of good info, but you are wrong in saying ATA Holdings bought WOA/NAA, it was Matlin P. who bought WOA/NAA, then formed GAL which under GAL was ATA, WOA, NAA. If what you said was true your scope would have gone much further in the courts than it did. Sorry for the thread hijack.
 

Tristar

..one in the wilderness
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Posts
351
Total Time
7000+
Well, MP already owned ATAH, the purchase occurred, then then name changed to GAL according to the documents I read. I'm not sure how much beyond that is semantics, but it's all sort of irrelevant at this point.

There is a ton of info on the whole SCOPE debacle, some of which I'm privy too and some not - there was more to that than just the order of the transaction, who bought what, ect; but it's all moot point now anyhow.
 
Top