Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8796 times:
I apologise if this has already been discussed but have searched extensively using the search engine for the forum and could find anything...
I have just read in Aircraft Illustrated - September edition that ATA intends to launch Transatlantic services from next year, using a 757-300 and Cologne is likely to be one of their first routes.
Does anyone know if this is going to be a scheduled service or a charter and where in the US will it be operating too? I am very surprised they say it is a 757-300 as I did not think these had the range or capability to fly accross the Atlantic. Also I did not think it was ETOPS enabled for these sort of routes.
Could these be similar services operated by both Thomas Cook and SkyService between the UK and Toronto where flights start from £188 inc tax using 757's on a daily basis.
The exact article is very small and on page 23...
"US budget carrier ATA has confirmed that it intends to launch trans-Atlantic services from next year. German airport Cologne/Bonn is seen as a possible destination, with ATA's B757-300's considered an ideal type for a low cost trans-Atlantic flights"
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 27127 posts, RR: 74
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8653 times:
Depending on where they fly from, the 753 should be able to make it. Now, MDW-Koeln, I don't know if it can. Also, some routes across the Atlantic require no ETOPS at all, because of all the airports in Greenland, Canada, Iceland etc. Besides, ATA flies LAX-OGG and LAX-HNL non-stop, and there are NO alternative airports there
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8452 times:
If and when ATA starts operations to Europe (it seems that Cologne will be the first city to receive service - from which US city is still a big question) it will be with 757-200 aircraft, according to most reports and rumors. The 752 should not have a problem with a US east coast-Cologne segment; as pointed out above, the 753s are doing a lot of Hawaii services and also show up on high denisty US mainland routes.
ATAflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7510 times:
To Capt078: that was my understanding too, that it was to start with the 757-200. That is a good trans-Atlantic aircraft, I worked several of the ORD-FRA flights when we did charters out of there. CGN sounds like a great destination as does GLA. I was originally hoping for LUX but CGN could supply pax from Belgium and Netherlands as well....overall a good choice!
I am not quite sure how far into Europe they can fly from the US. Someone with more insight correct me please, if I am wrong, but I think most of ATA's MAC flights stop over at SNN. I still believe that CGN shouldn't be a problem, though.
Two weeks ago a German daily reported that ATA is also in talks with Berlin.
We should hear by October if (and what of) ATA's plans come to fruition.
On a side note: does someone here know, when the next D-check is due for one of ATA's L1011-500?
Ramerinianair From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6312 times:
I'll agree that the best cities on the east coast to launch such service are BOS and NYC. There is one problem. ATA only has facilities at LGA not at JFK. LGA has a perimiter rule and therefore they could only have these flights go out on Saturday. Out of BOS, ATA would be able to go daily.
PHX Flyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 610 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6231 times:
<< ATA only has facilities at LGA not at JFK.>>
Not quite correct. ATA currently serves LGA, but not JFK. However, ATA does have a pilot crew base at JFK, and all previously scheduled long-haul flights departed from JFK too. Shannon and Edinburgh come to mind, as well as countless charters.
Chicago757 From United States of America, joined May 2003, 383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5313 times:
As an ATA gate agent at MDW, I read an employee article stating that George Mikelsons (Chairman of ATA) plans on using Orlando as the departure point for these overseas to Europe. He stated that if we were to use New York , or Boston, on the east coast, we'd get killed by other airlines. I think MCO would be ok, but I also think that now that MDW is international, we could monopolize the nonstop Europe market out of Chicago Midway.
Legend11 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 107 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5246 times:
Not sure you could go non-stop MDW to Europe due to runway configurations at MDW. At least, the runway length would have some impact on max TO weight, which would have the effect of either limiting the number of pax or more likely, how much fuel could be uploaded at MDW.
ORDflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5167 times:
"A fuelstop will make the market appeal considerably less favourable, and a very hard sell"
I agree...while I'm sure ATA would love to be able to fly some European flights from MDW since they get connecting traffic, the lack of a nonstop route will put them at a huge disadvantage compared to the carriers at ORD. But, they may be able to make a one stop route work from MDW if they can offer significantly lower fares than ORD airlines, and serve a route that is not currenlty served from ORD (CGN fits this profiie). They'll probably have a tough time luring the business travellers who want the quickest route, but they may find some leisure travellers willing to endure a slightly longer trip to save some money.