Why are you surprised????

[Tanner]

Yes, a lot of truth. (hence, my other big beef with SWA since someone wanted to know). Every person from ATA that I know of that interviewed has been turned down.

If you got hired by UPS, then get off this board and get a life or something! Geez.....This board is for all us losers trying to get a job....If I get hired back into the airline industry and I'm posting opinions on how people should prepare for a screwing at XYZ airline, someone....please shoot me!

 

[SkiFishFly]

Yes, a lot of truth. (hence, my other big beef with SWA since someone wanted to know). Every person from ATA that I know of that interviewed has been turned down.

A guy in my 737 type class was former ATA who was interviewed and hired.

 

[Widow's Son]

A person in my new hire class was ATA and I have flown with several since.

 

[elcapitan]

I know SWA pilots as well. And I can say they have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. The Chiefs have no idea. Maybe the VP of ops, but he isn't talking either. Its one of the traditions of the airline. So to say that SWA pilots think so as well....is again unsubstantiated and based on assumption with absolutely no evidence from anywhere.

ATA went bankrupt. C8 was a casualty because of that. Plain and simple.

Answer me one question. Where would C8 be today if ATA took the Airtran deal.

I actually see if there is to lay any blame its on C8's management. They are ultimately are the ones responsible for their own demise. Maybe without choice. They are the ones who set up the framework for their future that didn't work out.

Do yourself a favor and stop being pissed at the things we have no control of. Learn from them and move on like you have done. Your in the pool of a good airline that will be more likely to give you what we all deserve for our hard work, stability.

YOU ARE ABSOULUTELY WRONG THAT IT WAS Chicage Express MANAGEMENTS FAULT.

Chicago Express CARRIED 100,000 PASSENGERS A MONTH IN AND OUT OF MIDWAY WITH 17 SAABS-IT WAS A HIGHLY EFFECIENT COMMUTER.

Chicago Express MADE MONEY FOR ATA - BETWEEN 1-2 MILLION A MONTH WHICH WAS THROWING MONEY DOWN A BLACK HOLE

Chicago Express MANGEMENT WANTED TO EXPAND THE AIRLINE BY ADDING CRJ's AND DOING CODESHARES-EVERY ATTEMPT WAS THWARTED BY ATA MANAGEMENT.

NEAR THE END WHEN ATA WAS GASPING FOR AIR-THEY BID ON THE CONTINENTAL EXPRESS FLYING BUT IT WAS TOO LATE-CONTINENTAL TOLD THEM THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LOW BIDDER BY A LONG SHOT

IN SEPTEMBER OF 2004 - ATA TOLD Chicago Express MANAGEMENT THEY COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED, THEY (ATA) WERE TO BUSY WITH THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. Chicago ExpressMANGEMENT SECURED AN ORDER FOR 13 CRJ's WITH NO MONEY DOWN. ATA THEN PROCEEDED TO NIX THAT ORDER.

IN OCTOBER OF 2004 - ATA TOLD Chicago Express MANGEMENT "CAN YOU GET THOSE CRJ's AGAIN". C8 MANAGEMENT WENT AND SECURED THE ORDER FOR THE CRJ's AGAIN!. AT THE LAST SECOND ATA CHANGED THEIR MIND AGAIN AND NIXED THE ORDER.

IN DECEMBER OF 2004 Chicago Express MANAGEMENT HAD WORKED OUT A CODESHARE WITH AIRTRAN - IF THEY WON THE DEAL.

REMEMBER THE BIG WERE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO IND PLAN. (ATA's IDEA) SO WE CUT OUR FLIGHTS BACK IN CHICAGO (REMEMBER THE 100,000 PEOPLE) AND STARTED FLYING INTRASTATE IND. WE WENT FROM FLYING AN AVERAGE OF 25 PEOPLE A FLIGHT TO 10. THE ATA (IND) CUSTOMER SERVICE COULD NOT HANDLE THE EIGHT SAABS ON THE GROUND - WE WERE LATE EVERY FLIGHT. THEN NWA COMES IN WITH CRJ's (YES - REMEMBER THOSE MARKETING PLANS) MATCHED ATA ON EVERY FLIGHT OUT OF IND (REMEMBER THOSE $29.00 FARES) AND DESTROYS ATA IN THEIR HOME TURF.

THEN THEY DECIDE TO MOVE BACK TO MDW (NOW I AM CONFUSED - CAN YOU THINK WHAT THE PASSENGERS WERE THINKING?). (OH, AND BY THE WAY CHICAGO IS THE #2 PASSENGER MARKET IN THE US AND WHAT IS IND?)

AT THAT POINT SWA (WINS THE DEAL!) AND LOANS ATA DIPP FINANCING. ATA ABRUPTLY DECIDES TO SHUTDOWN Chicago Express (MIND YOU THERE WAS NO WARNING). YOU CAN SURMISE THE REASON.

IF ATA HAD LET CHICAGO EXPRESS EXPAND THEY COULD HAVE HELPED WITH GETTING THEM OUT OF BANKRUPTCY. THERE WAS ALSO A PLAN TO PURCHASE CRJ-700's in SEPTEMBER OF 2002, WHICH WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED AND COULD HAVE HELPED ATA SIGNIFICANTLY DURING THIS BANKRUPTCY.

ONE OF THE FUNNIEST IDEA's THAT CAME OUT OF THIS MESS WAS WHEN ATA WAS LOSING MONEY THE BIG ORDER OF THE DAY WAS TO UNSCREW LIGHT BULBS AND SAVE ELECTRICITY. THE REAL REASON IS THAT (ATA) JUST BLEW IT BY NOT DOING WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO MAKE THE COMPANY COST EFFICIENT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. THEY JUST WAITED TO LONG AND WASTED TO MUCH MONEY. YOU DON"T GO INTO BANKRUPTCY WITH 20 MILLION IN THE BANK! THAT IS LIQUIDATION! THEY ARE EXTREMELY LUCKY TO BE EVEN FLYING TODAY!


SO-HOW WAS THIS CHICAGO EXPRESS'S MANGEMENT FAULT?

AGAIN - (AS JACK NICHOLSON WOULD SAY) YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH?

ANY QUESTIONS?

 

[Ty Webb]

ANY QUESTIONS?

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

 

[scabseeker]

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

Classic!

Wecome back ty.

 

[TAZ MAN]

Thanks for the input TAZ. You can stay in la la land all you want in regards to the SWA thing. How can you blame a management that did not have a choice? That's like blaming the gun manufacturers for someone's murder (ie. makes no sense whatsoever). I am not trying to be rude here, but have you been smoking crack tonight? Ok, I am done with this. Let's just agree to disagree. You think what you think and I will think what I think, K? Good nite. Let's let this horse lie.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[capt. megadeth]

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

It was a long time ago, but not for the last 5 or so years.

TAZ,
The best thing that ever happened to me was being turned down by SWA. If I got hired there I would be on 3rd year pay, about 800 pilots below me and it would be really hard to leave that even for cargo. I am sure you can understand. Hence, it was truly a blessing in disguise (yeah yeah yeah, I know some of you are saying it was a blessing for SWA too.....whatever). There are some people that love dealing with people and some that don't. I don't like dealing with and kissing peoples a$$es. I am not fake, I call it as I see it and I don't go around being "politically correct". I know some people don't like that but I would rather some not like me than be fake like, unfortunately, a lot of people in this world. So anyways, you are right, I am not a good fit for SWA and they certainly saw that in the interview.....thank God.

 

[Dennis Miller]

I call it as I see it and I don't go around being "politically correct".

Did you, or have you ever, applied for or interviewed for the SWA Type Rating Scholarship for women? And are you, or have you ever, been part of the Women in Aviation group? If you answer yes to either I would find you far from "Politically Incorrect". You would be using “Political Correctness” to further yourself, therefore sustaining the very structure you claim to deride.

 

[miles otoole]

Did you, or have you ever, applied for or interviewed for the SWA Type Rating Scholarship for women? And are you, or have you ever, been part of the Women in Aviation group? If you answer yes to either I would find you far from "Politically Incorrect". You would be using “Political Correctness” to further yourself, therefore sustaining the very structure you claim to deride.

Hey, you're not supposed to have known that. I am sure they had the same, "I don't kiss people's A$$es" during the interview. "Now entering the spin zone." Good luck with telling some crusty 'ol CA at UPS that you are not there to kiss his A$$ when some will expect it. hehehe

 

[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.