Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA,ATA,JetBlue, or COEX??

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
On the subject of ATA....

This is an article from Aviation Week within the last month

Going for Broke
In moves that will make or break its attempts to survive the next two years without filing for bankruptcy protection, ATA Airlines has launched an exchange offer to extend $300 million in current debt and has renegotiated aircraft and other equipment leases with Boeing, GE and ILFC.
ATA, the former American Trans Air and the 10th-largest U.S. airline, said the restructured debt would reduce 2004-05 payments by $255 million, and the lease deals would cut its costs more than $40 million during the rest of this year and nearly $70 million in 2004-05. The carrier also made clear that the new lease terms are contingent on at least 85% acceptance of the debt exchange offer by its creditors, and that if either initiative fails, "the company may be forced to restructure its debts in bankruptcy." Its auditor, Ernst & Young, went further--under current conditions, it is "unlikely that the company will be able to meet its scheduled operating lease obligations beginning in 2004 and repay its debt when it matures."
KEPT AFLOAT BY LAST November's $168-million government-guaranteed six-year term loan but unable to borrow more, ATA laid the foundation for its current approach even as it announced a $40.8-million net profit for the second quarter--more than 90% of it from a federal security-fee refund. At that time, officials said they thought the carrier could survive the rest of 2003 on its $186 million in cash plus whatever it could bring in through operations, but it wouldn't be able to make surging debt and lease payments starting in 2004 (see table). The company began talks with lessors and brought in Citigroup and Morgan Stanley to consult on its debt (AW&ST Aug. 4, p. 37).
ATA's solution is straightforward--if creditors will accept it. Faced with paying off $175 million in senior notes in August 2004 and $125 million more in December 2005, the carrier proposes to extend the notes through 2009 and 2010, respectively. The interest rates would increase by 0.5%, to 11% and 10.125%.
Changes in the lease agreements would vary in detail. ATA would extend its deals with Boeing Capital Services Corp. and General Electric Capital Aviation Services by two years, deferring until later years payments now due through Mar. 31, 2005 (Boeing) and June 30, 2005 (Gecas). Under the Boeing agreement, delivery of seven on-order 737-800 aircraft would be deferred from 2004 to 2005. Gecas' commitment to finance five 737-800s would be dropped. International Lease Finance Corp. would reduce payments, without extensions, during the terms of leases for 15 aircraft, two of them not yet delivered.
Contingencies complicate the lease deals. All three require completion of the exchange offers, and GE's and ILFC's require that ATA extend its credit card processing agreement under terms comparable to those of the 2003 contract year. That won't be as straightforward as it sounds.
According to ATA's second-quarter filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the bank that processes and collects MasterCard and Visa card charges--U.S.Bank, a company spokesperson said--has been withholding a portion of payments for flights that are paid for but not yet operated. The theory is that the customer would be due a refund if ATA didn't operate the flight, and the bank would be liable for the refund if ATA didn't pay it. The bank began withholding cash soon after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, citing aviation industry uncertainty, and this deposit now amounts to about 60% of ATA's future obligations. If ATA fails to meet restrictive covenants in its contract, the bank can increase the deposit to 75% or even 100%.
The agreement with the bank expires Dec. 31 but renews automatically unless either party withdraws. ATA told the SEC it "can give no assurance that this agreement will be renewed, or that the company will be able to enter into a new agreement with another bank on comparable terms, or at all."
In a nightmare scenario, failure to keep up with payments under the leases, or for the senior notes, would amount to a default and would trigger cross-defaults, including the government-guaranteed loan. That loan also includes a covenant requiring ATA to maintain a $40-million cash balance. In a default, obligations under the notes might be accelerated for immediate payment and lessors might repossess aircraft, shutting ATA down.
 
Last edited:
Please don't mistake my comments for a slam on ATA (or COEX). For what it is worth I know some very happy folks at ATA and some moderatly content ones at COEX. Depending on your wants needs and qualifications either company can be a great place to be. That is why I put stuck in quotes. One pilot's stuck is another's dream job.
In fact I think the poster should consider any moves he makes at this stage in his career as potentially perminent - and not go jumping around just to try to build a better resume. The bottom line is that I wouldn't leave for ATA unless I would rather be at ATA than COEX: if SWA is what he wants and it is going to happen then it'll happen from either company.
 
Where do they get these writers?

In a nightmare scenario, failure to keep up with payments under the leases, or for the senior notes, would amount to a default and would trigger cross-defaults, including the government-guaranteed loan. That loan also includes a covenant requiring ATA to maintain a $40-million cash balance. In a default, obligations under the notes might be accelerated for immediate payment and lessors might repossess aircraft, shutting ATA down.


Actually, in a nightmare scenario, the Earth falls off it's orbit and crashes into the sun. About as likely, too. When National (N7) was busily being bankrupt, the aircraft leasors didn't repossess the airplane. They had absolutely no place to put those airplanes. Mind you, N7 only had 15 757's. What do you imagine ILFC or Boeing would do with 60+ aircraft?
 
Re: Where do they get these writers?

UpNDownGuy said:
In a nightmare scenario, failure to keep up with payments under the leases, or for the senior notes, would amount to a default and would trigger cross-defaults, including the government-guaranteed loan. That loan also includes a covenant requiring ATA to maintain a $40-million cash balance. In a default, obligations under the notes might be accelerated for immediate payment and lessors might repossess aircraft, shutting ATA down.


Actually, in a nightmare scenario, the Earth falls off it's orbit and crashes into the sun. About as likely, too. When National (N7) was busily being bankrupt, the aircraft leasors didn't repossess the airplane. They had absolutely no place to put those airplanes. Mind you, N7 only had 15 757's. What do you imagine ILFC or Boeing would do with 60+ aircraft?

I too would be much quicker to dismiss this article out of hand if it was from USAToday. Aviation Week, though, is a far more credible source.
 
This is a very accurate article. It clearly states the bond hurdle that ATA has to overcome. The previous offer to the bond holders was a typical George Mikelson first offer. 'You renegotiate these bond payments and I'll bring nothing to the table'. Followed by deafening silence. This is why George is known as a vicious negotiator. I have full confidence that a deal will be reached at the 11th hour, just like most labor contracts are. There is way too much riding on the completion of this deal for the bond holders to force the company into bankruptcy. I sincerely feel that as soon as George coughs up some terms, this will go through. With approx $190 million in the ATA bank right now, bond holders carrying $300 in paper would really get the shaft in a reorganization. Boeing, ILFC and GE would get it worse. I'm far from an expert on finance, but I can't imagine events following this course.
 
Let me 'splain you Lucy...

I should have been more accurate in my previous post. What I was referring to was the likelihood of ATA ceasing operations, and not the facts of our bond obligations. As I said earlier, there is no way these bond obligations cause the shutdown of ATA. What will happen is either re-negotiation, or a Chapter 11 filing, and THEN re-negotiation. It's irritating that this writer just takes that 'ol ball and runs with it...right into wild speculation that will not do anything but hurt ATA. I also agree with NJCapt...the bond holders, Boeing and ILFC have more to lose than ATA in this deal.
 
Everything about this business has taught me that longevity and stability are of primary importance.

The type or size of airplane, prestige of whichever uniform you wear, or the larger paycheck do not count for squat without a consistent paystub.

In this day and age, being at the bottom of any airline's seniority list is a large risk (for some airlines more than others). I would be very hesitant to leave your current position unless personal circumstances are forcing you elsewhere.

The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.

(Be prepared....long rant coming up....)

That being said...in order of preference.....

1..SWA
2..JBlu
3..ATA

SWA has proven that it has what it takes to operate a succesful business model.

JBlu may be the "new kid on the block" but they are doing something right (no small feat in this fickle business).

ATA has major hurdles (specifically the bond payment issue) in the next two years. It also lacks a "Brand Identity" and a consitent application of it's non-exsitent business model (confused you yet?) I'm still waiting to see what makes us an "Honestly Different Airline" as our ad literature proclaims.

We have no announced growth plans (other than increasing frequency of service) and are even deferring some deliveries next year as part of the financial bind we find ourselves in. All the hiring ATA is doing now is driven in large part by increasing utilization of the exsiting airframes. This is being done in the hopes of generating more revenue without increasing current fixed costs.

If this plan doesn't work - I wouldn't want to be at the bottom of the seniority list.

ATA also lacks a cohesive, motivated work force. The pilots are a great bunch - equal to the cadre at SWA, JBlu, Airtran etc.. Unfortunately pilot's alone can't make a successful experience for the passenger. You need motivated FA's, pleasant and professional CSA's, and a support structure for the crews that works with them, not against them.

And to top it off, all of these various elements must be united behind a mangement team that posses a cohesive and motivating vision as well as genuine concern for the wellfare of their employees.

That's what helps make a successful airline.

SWA and JBlu seem to possess these qualities.

ATA falls way short of the mark.

ATA may have been around for 30+ years. But it has been trying to shift itself from the charter business model to the scheduled service one...and only in the last few years. So, to be honest...we are still a "young" start-up in the LCC field.

Take it for what it's worth.

Good Luck in your decision.
 
CoEx or ATA? LOL!
CRJ or 757?
Hub-and-spoke or global?
Micky D's or Ruth's Chris?
Yugo or Porsche?
Snickers or Ghirardelli?
Kangroos or Jordans?
Putt-Putt or US Open?
Punky Brewster or the Olsen twins?!!!

News Flash, ATA is no longer a place to get "stuck" at. How about being at United or USair right now? SWA and JBlu are great companies but ATA is a wonderful place to get "stuck."
 
texanpilot said:
CoEx or ATA? LOL!
CRJ or 757?
Hub-and-spoke or global?
Micky D's or Ruth's Chris?
Yugo or Porsche?
Snickers or Ghirardelli?
Kangroos or Jordans?
Putt-Putt or US Open?
Punky Brewster or the Olsen twins?!!!

I can't resist setting the record straight:

We fly ERJs (remember they're built in the jungle), Yes Hub and Spoke blows, we only eat at Micky D's at the end of the month when we're out of money, some of our folks have blown their wad buying BMWs, AUDIs and Porches, we're all snacking on Snickers(cause we're not going anywhere for a while), Kangroos(sp?) or Jordans is a toss up, we all play putt putt but even that is getting expensive these days and most of us druel over Solei-Moon Fry (she's kinda hot nowadays) and can't wait for the Olsen Twins to do Playboy.
 
I have to chuckle, too.

I notice he didn't list AirTran, even though our present contract pays our FO's more than almost all regional captain pay (for the same year of service). With a 2 year upgrade, you;d think it would be a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Is Airtran going to start interviewing again soon (I think they stopped)? I have heard Airtran has stopped classes.

Also, you guys are notoriously hard to get an interview with.
 
We can hear opinions from all walks of life but the bottom line is that this is your decision and yes and important one.

I left COEX last March to start my career here at ATA. The company convinced me of the opprtunity, lots of research and a little faith in the plan, so I took it. I have never looked vback, this with relatively good seniority adn a pregnant wife I took it. The choice was difficult not because of the company, I knew this was a great place with great people, but because of the other factors above. So again, do research and make a decision, you will be comfortable with that.

There are great companies out there with great opportunities. SWA will hire plenty next year, JBLU looks to be a good player, Airtran is filled with growth, and yes ATA is filled with tremendous opportunity. Break them all down and see the one that has the best fit for you.

There are lots of us here that give advice out as if it were golden. I say listen to the ones that actually work at these great companies above and reason it out.

ATA is the place where I will hang my hat hopefully. The pilots are just fantstic and the contract is good. We are hiring lots of pilots with the same next year. The financial situation only has one more hurddle and that is the bond issue, which by the way the upper guys say not to sweat it out on that. ATA is profitable and will be for the year 2003.

Take this for what its worth and I think you will make a good decision.
 
FlyBoeingJets Is Airtran going to start interviewing again soon (I think they stopped)? I have heard Airtran has stopped classes.[/i] Boeing had to delay deliveries on 4 airplanes (due to some conflict w/Hawaiian Airlines). When deliveries resume said:
Can't be that hard- they hired me. Seriously, it's just a numbers thing. Too many apps, not enough seats.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom