Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airtran / ATA  
User currently offlineFly_ata From United States of America, joined May 2001, 616 posts, RR: 6
Posted (10 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 3371 times:

I would love to hear thoughts / theories on why airtran makes money ( 100 mil ) last year and ATA made very little. Things to consider that make it a bit mind boggling at times : ATA has the lowest cost per mile of any carrier, and low wages by comparison. ATA also has the charter side / Military. Both carriers have new aircraft and airtran operates inside of a legacy carriers hub. I love the company I work for and bust my butt every day but I have to say im very curious how one carrier is rolling in dough but we seem to be fighting upstream.

theories ??

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

One good guess would be because out of MDW you are competing against Southwest. Anybody who tries to compete against Southwest has troubles.

Air Tran is competing against Delta which is not exactly doing financially well, you are competing against the healthiest US Airline


User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5958 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

Excluding special items, Airtran made only 16 million.

http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.012204/240225201.htm



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineFly_ata From United States of America, joined May 2001, 616 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

looks more like 59.6 million for full year.

User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5958 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Whoops!!...You're right, sorry.  Nuts


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineATA767 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 3213 times:

ATA has a more senior staff and much more expensive airplanes. Therir load factors a not outstanding and They are a larger outfit. This is some of the reasons they do not do as well.

User currently offlinePanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

AirTran has a homogenized fleet of 70-something brand new (I stress: brand new) B717s. ATA is still holding on to 25+ year old L1011s (I saw one in MCO last month- I love those birds!), and they have new B737-800s. Next, they have the B757-200/-300, which, obviously, have absolutely no commonality with the rest of the fleet. Fleet commonality does save the airline more money than people realize. I'm not sure about lease terms for the aircraft, but that could also be a factor. AirTran's block costs for the 717 are dirt cheap, IIRC. We'll compare the 737NG rates, when FL rolls in their fleet of 73G's.
Also, the airports they use as their general "hubs", and their route structures. TZ, as someone mentioned before, has military charters. They also have cross-country flights, IIRC. AirTran does not, if you don't count the wet-leased aircraft from Ryan Int'l. TZ hubs at IND and MDW- MDW is heavily saturated with WN service, and IND has it's fare share of service, too. WN alone could kill TZ on the spot, should they choose to. AirTran hubs at ATL, which is Delta's fortress hub. It's got almost no low-fare service, except for WN. FL is, therefore, flourishing in ATL.


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3406 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

I also believe that Airtran has found some niche routes that are underserved by low-cost competition and have exploited smaller routes from ATL that DL would never and could never compete on. Flint would be one of these by example.

User currently offlineNy-jfk-lga From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

I don't think Southwest Airlines could kill ATA on the spot, if they chose to.


Bring back McDonnell Douglas & T W A!!
User currently offlineIfly2eat From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3079 times:

ATA does however have the lowest cost per available seat mile of any U.S. airline. Watch what happens when AirTran introduces the B-737-700's into their fleet this summer. Also, watch ATA when we introduce business class this fall. It is called yield management and it will give us the flexibility to squeeze a few more dollars from business travelers for a bigger seat. Southwest couldn't kill ATA if they wanted to. Believe me they would have done it already. ATA is at point where it will either succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams or fail all together. We have been under all the other airlines' "radar" for 30 years but now we are stealing some of their business. ATA will either have to put up or shut up in the next few years. If I was a betting man ATA will be a force to be reckoned with in the not too distant future. (God I hope I'm right.)


Fly the friendly skys and stay out of mine.
User currently offlineGLAGAZ From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2004, 1982 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Is ATA planning a major European expansion by 05/06? To airports such as Shannon and Glasgow and others in central europe.


Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

WN killing TZ. OUCH! WN would not spend that kind of money to "kill" the third largest carrier of passengers out of Chicago and NUMBER 1 out of IND and MDW, even if I thought they could. I know it is about FL and TZ. I think you guys hit the nail on the head when you compare the price of aircraft. TZ's ordered a/c from Boeing and they were delivered brand new. There was no "middle man" like TWA/AA.

I would say SNN for sure in the next 2 years. I have heard rumors of PRG and MAN.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

TZ's ordered a/c from Boeing and they were delivered brand new. There was no "middle man" like TWA/AA.

The bulk of AirTran's 717 fleet is from the original 50 a/c order made by Valujet to MDD back in 1996. The other 20+ 717 are the ex-TWA a/c, plus the few that were earmarked for VuelaMex and two that will be in the fleet soon that are from HA. Also heard rumors of the Olympic ones heading over to the 'Tran as well.


User currently offlineMidway2airtran From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 864 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Before everyone goes on about Southwest, Delta, more experienced employees fleet commonality and the like, lets look at the RASMs for each. Does anyone know what ATA's RASM is? FL has one of the highest in the industry right now. The trick is the short-hops that bring higher yields per each mile than ATA's long haul. ATA's CASM's might be lower, but their longer-haul route map certainly does not have the yields you get out of flying the shorter hops. WN is also a good example of this, they have a high RASM as well. As Ifly2eat said earlier, ATA's new Business class product may help yields out a little more, not much else.

"AirTran has a homogenized fleet of 70-something brand new (I stress: brand new) B717s."

By the way, FL still had a significant number of old DC-9's throughout last year.



"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
User currently offlineMidway2airtran From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 864 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

After looking at the route maps for both ATA and Southwest, it appears that though WN has a heavy presence in ATA's hubs, they only compete directly in the Florida and West coast markets. Maybe WN isn't as such a big factor to ATA as said on here afterall?


"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
User currently offlineBonanzaAir From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

"Watch what happens when AirTran introduces the B-737-700's into their fleet this summer. "

Actually - Airtran is expecting cost to go lower with the 737 as they will immediately replace with wetleased Ryan planes on the west coast routes.


"By the way, FL still had a significant number of old DC-9's throughout last year."

Lets not forget the 737-200's either. While gone for a while now, there was a time when Airtran actually had three aircraft types, DC-9, 737-200, 717-200.

Bonanza


User currently offlineATA767 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

The funny thing is that you guya seem to think you can compare ATA to AirTran and WN. There is no comparison. Finacially they will differ as pointed out above and they reall service very different markets.

User currently offlineBNE From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 3169 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

Maybe ATA would do better with a new name, wait haven't they tried that already.

Airtran with a base in Atlanta doesn't have any low fare competition to deal with. Also the 717 is probably the best aircraft for the market that they serve. Thinks will probably get even better when US Airways gets shut down.



Why fly non stop when you can connect
User currently offlineIfly2eat From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

AirTran's cost will not go down when the new 737's get on the property. Its going to be double crew training (one vacancy on the new equipment can cause up to four training cycles.) Not to mention double the spare parts. The 717 and 737 have almost zero commonality. Ryan gives AirTran the airplanes and the crews for a set fixed price. For AirTran it is a fixed cost and the new airplanes will become a variable cost. Don't get me wrong I think AirTran does a good job and has a decent product but do not believe Forklift Joe's press releases about lower costs.


Fly the friendly skys and stay out of mine.
User currently offlineRumorboy From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 353 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Initially the 737's will make FL's CASM go up a little. But over time you will see there CASM dip down. Why? Well for one thing There stage lengths will increase a whole lot over the next two years. Remember as of now they do not count Ryan's stage length. The revenue the get from Ryan is in "other revenue" on the balance sheet. The same goes for the costs. When they start replacing Ryan you will see there stage length increase. The trick though as stage length increases your yield usually does not go up(aka Jetblue and ATA). Both of those airlines have the lowest costs of the business but also have the lowests RASMs in the business. And in both cases there stage lengths are almost twice as long as SWA and Airtran. The spread between RASM and CASM(operating margin) is going to be the key. If they can sustain 8% operating margins they will do just fine. As a matter of fact if you listen to there conference calls lately all they talk about is operating margins instead of yield, RASM's and CASM's.

As far as spare parts are concerned Airtran got a hell of a deal from Boeing. They only pay for what they use. So the initial costs of setting up shop(usually 4-6 million dollars) is being picked up by Boeing. Almost the whole airplane is going to be power by the hour. Just like the 717. Saves millions!

The first few that go through training Boeing is paying for. The only thing Airtran has to pay is pilots salaries while they are in training. Very similar deal they got for the 717. As for the other training events that will be triggered from moving pilots 717 to 737 Airtran will have to pay up. Same goes for the maintenance personal. Boeing picked up the bill on that one too. Forklift Joe may done some stupid things in the past but he is the most cost conscious guy in the business. He can squeeze two nickels and get fifteen cents. In the LCC world that is very important.


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

Actually, I think what ATA is really dealing with right now is its debt and its depreciation.

ATA loses money to service its debt. Under its balance sheet under "Total Other Income (Expense)" for 2002, it listed a $34.2 million loss. I'm sure most of that was to service their outstanding debt of $509.4 million, much of which I would guess was probably used to obtain their current fleet of aircraft, since it has doubled from the previous 5 years.

In addition, ATA gets to take money off their taxes for "Depreciation and Amortization", the cost of the reduction in value of owned assets. No real money is lost there, but it helps to deflate the cost of both taxes and common stock dividends, without actually losing any cash money. D&A accounted for $76.7 million in operating costs for 2002.

Combined, these two areas make up $110.9 million of ATA's $175 million 2002 losses.

Granted, that still means ATA lost $98.3 million in cash in 2002, and without their debt load it might only have been $64.1 million. That's still a lot better than most other airlines.

By the way, ATA's 2002 RASM was 7.26 cents, and their CASM was 8.17 cents.

Cheers!



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

From my understanding, FL got a "helluva" deal from Boeing on these 737's.
According to my sources, the lawyers who helped negotiate the deal said that FL probably got the "best" deal they have ever see Boeing give and these groups of lawyers have dealt with Boeing on behalf of many other airlines for a very long time............



User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

The law firm that is working with AirTran on the new 737s is Crowe & Dunleavy of Oklahoma City. In fact, they've already applied for and have reserved the registrations for all of the 737s. Crowe & Dunleavy are one of the top firms in dealing with aviation-business issues.
http://www.crowedunlevy.com/CM/PracticeAreas/PracticeAreas99.asp



User currently offlineChicago757 From United States of America, joined May 2003, 381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

I hear ya Fly_ATA.......I work for ATA @ MDW. However, there are talks about us aquiring some 757s in the near future to serve overseas routes!!! If thats the case what other low-cost airline can manage that! Southwest sure as hell couldn't , and airtran no way!


Go White Sox!!!!
User currently offlineWmupilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1473 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

True, but the launch of overseas flights can kill us if we aren't careful. If management does this right and conciders all the options and whether we can make it a viable option, we can make lots of money on it. But if they just go rushing into this without concidering what the legacy carriers are going to do, like the transcon flights, we are going to get our ass handed to us on a platter.


JetBlue - Bringing humanity back to air travel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rumor: AirTran And America West Buy 50/50 Stake In ATA posted Wed Mar 23 2005 00:10:26 by Gilesdavies
AirTran Confident Of ATA Bid! posted Wed Dec 8 2004 19:52:04 by KarlB737
Jblu Will Challange ATA/Airtran Deal posted Mon Dec 6 2004 17:16:18 by Rumorboy
AirTran CEO Says ATA Deal Close posted Fri Nov 12 2004 23:25:29 by CRPilot
AirTran May Back Out Of ATA Bid posted Tue Nov 9 2004 21:25:29 by SegmentKing
Time Table For Airtran Aquisition Of ATA Assets posted Thu Oct 28 2004 17:54:08 by Quickmover
Re: The MDW (ATA) Deal For AirTran... posted Wed Oct 27 2004 18:27:43 by John
ATA Bankrupt, To Sell MDW To AirTran posted Wed Oct 27 2004 00:32:09 by Vanguard737
America West And AirTran To Pick Apart ATA? posted Fri Oct 22 2004 05:37:13 by Jmc1975
Airtran And ATA posted Mon Apr 15 2002 01:12:00 by Jbmitt