Why are you surprised????

[elcapitan]

Yeah. . . . wasn't Chicago Express a PFT outfit?

To answer your question it was for awhile in the 90's. If you had under 1200 hours you had to pay for training upfront. However, you did get that money paid back to you over two years. Not exactly like pay for training and never see your money again...................................... Any other questions TY? This was not unlike alot of other regionals at the time.

And I suppose your point was to put Chicago Express down?

 

[elcapitan]

Let this die if you want. I still think there is something to discuss.

"At one time Express decided to hook up with ATA. That’s where I find fault in your management. They gave control away. That’s ultimately where their demise came from."



Lets see, they had a code share deal with ATA and it seemed like a good idea at the time. I don't see how now you have shifted your argument to the 1999 purchase of Chicago Express as the "ultimate answer for their demise" and not look at the whole picture.



Oh, I did I forgot to mention that in 2002 they tried to buy the airline back from ATA with a group of investors. Must of left that off the list. ATA refused to sell the airline.



"You were making money because of ATA. Feeding ATA. Without ATA your loads would have been much, much lower. You would need to be in management to see what difference the load factors would have been with ATA cutting back service. Likely a losing cause. "



I told you what the loads where when they cut back service and moved alot of the operations to IND and gave up high load cities like DAY, DSM, FNT. Yes it was true they feed ATA, and ATA benefited because Chicago Express was a highly efficient feeder airline for them. ATA was not as efficient; the average Captain usage per month on the 737 was under 50 hours.





"So Airtran agreed to a code share. Does that mean that C8 was automatically a success? I don't know of any successful low cost airline having a code-share with a regional. I honestly don't think it can work. If it did, why doesn't Airtran have a partner in Atlanta? Why doesn't someone start one up and make 1 to 2 million a month? It sounds like a done deal. Its because it doesn't fit the model. Otherwise you would see the LC's have feeders."





Some models work and others don't. Some models work for a while and then need to be adjusted to meet the market conditions. In the case of Airtran, they had a feeder in ATL that they were not happy with. In the case of Chicago Express the costs were low and not only did the pax go onto ATA but some used Chicago Express just to get to Chicago. They were many businessmen and women flew from Dayton and other cities just for a daytrip. It sounds so easy to say why doesn't someone start up an airline and make 1-2 million a month. Well that was the point; they needed an investor that was interested in GROWING the airline. Now to start one up will be more difficult because you lost the passengers you once had, plus the certificate, and the infrastructure of the airline. Could have been done at one point but now it would be take much more capital.



"I'm sorry your ATA friends are not getting hired at SWA. But I am told that almost every SWA class has ATA pilots in there. I don't blame SWA for being just as selective with the ATA pilots as anyone else. SWA didn't put ATA in bankruptcy. They didn't furlough their pilots. Why should they change their standards to hire some that just are not a fit?"



"No, I'm not smokin crack. But I can see why you got turned down by SWA. You really are not a fit. You would have been just as miserable over there as you are now. But thats OK. You are now where you really want to be. You said you hate PAX's. At SWA they are very customer orientated. You would have struggled with that."





This is not my battle..





"So you want to let this horse die? Then let it die. But I feel sorry for your strong dislike of people.

"



Again, this is not my battle. My argument is with the contention that it was Chicago Express's management’s fault that they are no longer in business. It just isn't true - you need to point the finger in another direction.

 

[TAZ MAN]

"



Again, this is not my battle. My argument is with the contention that it was Chicago Express's management’s fault that they are no longer in business. It just isn't true - you need to point the finger in another direction.

Fine. I suppose you want to point the finger at SWA also. Which is completely ridiculous. I could believe more to point the finger to ATA. But this discussion started with SWA and ATA.

"In the case of Chicago Express the costs were low and not only did the pax go onto ATA but some used Chicago Express just to get to Chicago."

The key word here is some. Some is not going to make you a profit. A few years ago I read an article about SWA and they said the difference between breaking even and making 700 million was the average of five passengers per leg. Thats on a 137 PAX plane. My guess is that if you lost three PAX per leg you would have been in the red. The margins in this business are razor thin. Express did very well with ATA and C8 would have probably done very poorly without them.

Your management decided to do a deal with ATA. Which turned out to be good for a time. But that deal ultimately is what caused C8 to go out of business. So yes, ultimately C8 management is at fault. Within five years of the deal Express was out of business. Express management hooked up with the wrong airline. I think anyone saw the risk of what ATA tried to do.

 

[jbDC9]

Man, talk about thread drift; what started off as a NWA/ALPA thread has turned into 3 pages of ATA/C8/SWA bashing. Gotta love this board...

 

[TAZ MAN]

Man, talk about thread drift; what started off as a NWA/ALPA thread has turned into 3 pages of ATA/C8/SWA bashing. Gotta love this board...

Oh boy, here comes the thread drift police.

Virtually every thread drifts dude. Its a natural part of conversation.

 

[jbDC9]

Virtually every thread drifts dude. Its a natural part of conversation.

Yeah, I know, I get that... but this is just getting silly. The original thread on NWA and ALPA lasted for what, two posts, and then this ATA/C8/SWA bile starts spewing? Alrighty then.

 

[elcapitan]

Fine. I suppose you want to point the finger at SWA also. Which is completely ridiculous. I could believe more to point the finger to ATA. But this discussion started with SWA and ATA.

"In the case of Chicago Express the costs were low and not only did the pax go onto ATA but some used Chicago Express just to get to Chicago."

The key word here is some. Some is not going to make you a profit. A few years ago I read an article about SWA and they said the difference between breaking even and making 700 million was the average of five passengers per leg. Thats on a 137 PAX plane. My guess is that if you lost three PAX per leg you would have been in the red. The margins in this business are razor thin. Express did very well with ATA and C8 would have probably done very poorly without them.

Your management decided to do a deal with ATA. Which turned out to be good for a time. But that deal ultimately is what caused C8 to go out of business. So yes, ultimately C8 management is at fault. Within five years of the deal Express was out of business. Express management hooked up with the wrong airline. I think anyone saw the risk of what ATA tried to do.

Again, how is it the fault and all the blame on C8. Did C8 cause ATA to lose 150 million in a year? Was it C8's fault that ATA purchased Boeing 737's and 757's at high lease rates? Was it C8's fault that the price of jet fuel doubled in a year? Was it C8's fault that ATA let its cash position dwindle to 20 million? Was it C8's fault that they had to declare bankruptcy? Was it C8's fault that ATA did nothing while the business "model" was significantly broken? Was is C8's fault that ATA decides to move back to IND and destroy all the business they had built up in MDW.

All C8 did was do everything ATA asked of them. C8 was the victim of ATA's problem, not the cause..ATA destroyed a perfectly good airline in three months, literally ripped them apart for no good reason. They could have sold them off and made more than the paltry 1.2 million they got. It probably cost them 5 or 6 million to shut the airline down.

Right now ATA needs 50 million in cash just to survive. So much for the SWA code share that was supposed to replace C8. And what about the replacement airplane, the 737 "classic", the airplane that will "rightsize" there operation. They are spending millions on this "plan". Don't you think regional jets could have done alot of that flying for them and at cheaper cost. The plan was to get CRJ700's which was never implemented. No, the fact is that C8 did too good a job for them and then paid the price for success.

I am sure you will still say that all this is C8's fault no matter what I say. Hey that is your opinion but you are wrong. The fault lays clearly on ATA and there management.

 

[TAZ MAN]

Again, how is it the fault and all the blame on C8. Did C8 cause ATA to lose 150 million in a year? Was it C8's fault that ATA purchased Boeing 737's and 757's at high lease rates? Was it C8's fault that the price of jet fuel doubled in a year? Was it C8's fault that ATA let its cash position dwindle to 20 million? Was it C8's fault that they had to declare bankruptcy? Was it C8's fault that ATA did nothing while the business "model" was significantly broken? Was is C8's fault that ATA decides to move back to IND and destroy all the business they had built up in MDW.

All C8 did was do everything ATA asked of them. C8 was the victim of ATA's problem, not the cause..ATA destroyed a perfectly good airline in three months, literally ripped them apart for no good reason. They could have sold them off and made more than the paltry 1.2 million they got. It probably cost them 5 or 6 million to shut the airline down.

Right now ATA needs 50 million in cash just to survive. So much for the SWA code share that was supposed to replace C8. And what about the replacement airplane, the 737 "classic", the airplane that will "rightsize" there operation. They are spending millions on this "plan". Don't you think regional jets could have done alot of that flying for them and at cheaper cost. The plan was to get CRJ700's which was never implemented. No, the fact is that C8 did too good a job for them and then paid the price for success.

I am sure you will still say that all this is C8's fault no matter what I say. Hey that is your opinion but you are wrong. The fault lays clearly on ATA and there management.

The fault was for C8's management to tie their success to ATA. A highly risky venture. C8 could only be successful if ATA was successful. If ATA went out of business, so would C8.

But I am sure you will say its SWA's fault no matter what I say.

 

[elcapitan]

The fault was for C8's management to tie their success to ATA. A highly risky venture. C8 could only be successful if ATA was successful. If ATA went out of business, so would C8.

But I am sure you will say its SWA's fault no matter what I say.

No. Didn't I just go through the whole scenario for you? Who's Fault do you think it is -ATA - for not doing the things that they needed to do remain competitive. 3 years ago ATA made a profit, so how can you call it a risky venture? ATA refused to make the changes required as the legacy carriers became more competitive they became less. C8 management did everything they were asked to do and proposed changes to make C8 more competitive. If they had made those changes they would have been in better shape today. You can't blame the ills of ATA on Chicago Express. I still believe if ATA had let them expand and grow they could have added more to the bottom line at ATA.

 

[TAZ MAN]

No. Didn't I just go through the whole scenario for you? Who's Fault do you think it is -ATA - for not doing the things that they needed to do remain competitive. 3 years ago ATA made a profit, so how can you call it a risky venture? ATA refused to make the changes required as the legacy carriers became more competitive they became less. C8 management did everything they were asked to do and proposed changes to make C8 more competitive. If they had made those changes they would have been in better shape today. You can't blame the ills of ATA on Chicago Express. I still believe if ATA had let them expand and grow they could have added more to the bottom line at ATA.

Didn't I go through the whole reason why for you? And you still don't get it?

Did I ever blame the ills of ATA on C8? No.

Ultimately it was your managements decision to work with ATA. Thats why they are ultimately responsible. You guys should have stayed on your own. I'm not saying your management was incompetent. They ultimately made the wrong decision.

Just because ATA made some money at one time didn't make them successful.

If the airlines made all the changes that all the employees suggested, they would be out of business in nothing flat.