Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?  
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 6796 times:

Eventually, ATA will need an L-1011 replacement, not just because of age, but because of high fuel prices. Is the 767 possible? The largest L-1011 operator, Delta, chose a perfect L-1011 replacement, the 767-400ER. ATA is not yet in the condition to purchase new aircraft, but this could change. ATA could also look into used 767-300ERs. I don't really see a 787 order as most of the delivery slots for the 787 are full. What are your thoughts?


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6762 times:

It will be hard to get used 767-300ER's, very popular with carriers. But ATA should use every means to acquire the great birds.


I Love HNL.............
User currently offlineHawaiianHobo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

I'd love to see ATA fly -400ER's and it WOULD make sense for all of their old L1011 routes, but where would the airline get them from? I don't think ATA could buy them new any time soon and I was under the impression that Boeing was closing the 767 line down shortly (or am I totally wrong?). They'd have to buy them used and all the CO and DAL -400ER's I would assume, are used heavily. By the time ATA got them, they'd have so many hours on the frame that they're almost back to square 1.
I would guess -300ER's would work and there are plenty of them to choose from. It's just sad, I love the Tri-Star. I never wanna stop seeing it fly.  crying 



...
User currently offlineCessna057 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6712 times:

Ok, I totaly thought ATA was through. What routes are they still flying and what is their equipment?


Hold it . . . Hold it . . . HOLD THE FREAKIN NOSE UP!!
User currently offlinePiercey From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2233 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6694 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):

They're getting NWs old DC-10s....



Well I believe it all is coming to an end. Oh well, I guess we are gonna pretend.
User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6634 times:

Quoting Cessna057 (Reply 3):
Ok, I totaly thought ATA was through. What routes are they still flying and what is their equipment?

There not thru, they code share with Southwest Airlines. They are actually doing ok. They operate L-1011, 757-300, 757-200, 737-800, 737-300.
US, Hawaii, Mexico



I Love HNL.............
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1459 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6575 times:

Please do a search in the forum since this topic comes up every so often.

Because of the nature of the charter business, a new aircraft will never work. The lease rates are and would be too high to make a business case work for
unplanned and infrequent operations that are experienced in charter
operations. This makes 777s, new build 767s, 787s, A330s, and A340s unattractive. The 747 is too large.

The only aircraft that works the best are used 767-300ERs, but only if they are available and the lease rates are attractive, which they are not currently.
The MD-11 would work, but a bit too large and there just are not any passenger birds left since Fedex and UPS have gobbled them up.

Therefore, the only other choice is the DC10-30. While not optimal, the aircraft are inexpensive, have manufacturer support, abundant spares and engines, and plenty of places that will maintain them. The key to remember here is that if we can make money with L-1011s, which we are, with virtual no manufacturer support, spare parts or engines, and almost no maintenance providers then we certainly can make money with DC10-30s. These aircraft are viewed as an interim 5 year solution until used 767-300ERs are more abundant as 787s are delivered which will displace the 767s.

Right now we are awaiting an LOI/LOA from NWA for 7 DC10-30s plus 2 for part out. We are also looking at whatever 767-300ERs come to market, but the DC-10 deal makes the best business case as of now.

The following statements from our COO that were in a recent "Infoline" to employees pretty much sums up the military business and why we cannot operate aircraft like the 777:

"I hope you noticed our press release about our Military Awards for the
Contract Year starting October 2006. We received about $30MM in “fixed”
awards – very similar to our last year’s award. Our total business
expectation, however, is about $400MM – which means that more than
90% of our Military Charter business is done as “expansion” business – and
comes to us in an unpredictable manner.

I always get a question about “Fixed” vs. “Expansion” flying during Crew
Meetings – so let me answer it again: Historically – in the 1990s about HALF
of the Military Business was on a “Fixed” contract – i.e. something we could
depend on. It reached a peak in the year 2001 – when more than 60% of
the AMC business was awarded on the “Fixed” contract. Starting about
2003, the AMC changed is strategy to one of “Expansion” purchases – i.e.
these days the Military issues its requirements only a few days out.

What has this change to a much larger proportion of “Expansion” flying
meant for us at ATA? It has meant that military operations have been on a
much steeper roller-coaster! We are only able to predict operations – a few
days out. Many of the crewmembers have been directly impacted – with
MORE unpredictable trips and downtime. Our crew positioning expenses
have also increased substantially!

As you can imagine, the way to make a profit – doing unpredictable things
– is to be able to (1) Better predict (or “guess”) week-to-week demand and
(2) to have as much flexibility in our operating costs as possible. For
example, if we were flying new Boeing 777s – which cost about $2MM per
month in rent, if there is a week where the 777s have downtime because
the AMC does not award as much “Expansion” flying – it would mean a
permanent loss of 1/2 a million dollars for that week on the airplane alone –
let alone the cost of the idled crews, etc! That is one reason why we fly
the airplanes we do - namely the old-but-paid-for L1011s!"



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1459 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6557 times:

Quoting Cessna057 (Reply 3):
Ok, I totaly thought ATA was through. What routes are they still flying and what is their equipment?

I suggest you check out www.ata.com which will detail the scheduled service side of the business which is about 50% of our total revenues. The other 50% is military and commercial charter.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7088 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6412 times:

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 6):
This makes 777s, new build 767s, 787s, A330s, and A340s unattractive.

Maybe used A340s could work, they are not many around but A330 are even harder to get at the moment. LH will retire two ex LX A340s soon and AC will soon start phasing out their A340.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineMjlhou From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 154 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6394 times:

Hi TZtrisatar500......I was talking to an ATA capt. non-reving on one of our flts. the other day. He said that he thought ATA is looking exclusively for 763s with GE engines, aside from the DC10s from NW. Do you know if this is true? Just wondering, cuz like you said, probably hard to come by.

Cheers

MJL



Don't worry about things you can't change or control
User currently offlineAkizidy214 From Jamaica, joined Sep 2006, 408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6391 times:

There are quite a few 762's in storage. What about them?


DCA
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1459 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 8):
Maybe used A340s could work, they are not many around but A330 are even harder to get at the moment. LH will retire two ex LX A340s soon and AC will soon start phasing out their A340.

Was looked at, but not too many available and the lease rates are still too high. One big factor here is that we need aircraft NOW (2007) so we cannot wait for others to return theirs in the years to come and hope the lease rates will work.

Quoting Mjlhou (Reply 9):
ATA is looking exclusively for 763s with GE engines

Not necessarily so. Yes, 763s with GEs are preferrable, but we cannot overlook any 767-300ER that are available. We have looked at some Pratt powered examples. The old saying "beggars can't be choosers" has some validity here. You always have to take what some flight crew say with a grain of salt. They are not always involved in high level fleet discussions, much of what they say is rumor.

Quoting Akizidy214 (Reply 10):
There are quite a few 762's in storage. What about them?

Only the 762ER would work for range, but the cargo and passenger capacity does not work for the mission profile. Also, there are few 762ERs available, most in storage are of the non-ER type. To clarify here, the ER version is WITH the center tank, it does not refer to an ETOPS qualified aircraft.

[Edited 2006-10-01 17:08:14]


35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7088 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6181 times:

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 11):
Was looked at, but not too many available and the lease rates are still too high. One big factor here is that we need aircraft NOW (2207) so we cannot wait for others to return theirs in the years to come and hope the lease rates will work.

Too bad would be nice to have at least one US airline flying the A340-300  Wink



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1459 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6173 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 12):
Too bad would be nice to have at least one US airline flying the A340-300

Agreed. An A340-200 or -300 would be pretty cool in ATA livery.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6154 times:

Didn't IFLC order a bunch of 787s? Not sure if they are already arranged with other carriers or not but ATA could always lease a few from one of the leasing companies

User currently offlineDILF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6129 times:

Kudos to ATA for the D10 idea - - i'd love to see these great planes still flying in airline service!

User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5978 times:

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 13):
Agreed. An A340-200 or -300 would be pretty cool in ATA livery.

The A340 IMO is too large to be ATA's L-1011 replacement. The 767-400ER or A330-200 is the perfect size, although the 767-300ER would be good enough. I just don't see ATA purchasing Airbus aircraft anyway.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

Does the military use civil aircraft on cargo flights, too ? If yes, I wonder why ATA doesn't get a few Tristar freighters. They are readily available, cheap and have commonality to the rest of their fleet.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineDw9115 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

I thought ATA had lined up 4 or so 767-300/ER's to replace the L1011's about six months ago. I do not remember what happened with that granted I haven't payed much attention to it either.

[Edited 2006-10-01 22:33:08]

User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5616 times:

Quoting HawaiianHobo (Reply 2):
I was under the impression that Boeing was closing the 767 line down shortly (or am I totally wrong?)

Well i wouldn't say you are completley wrong but they have built 942 of the 969 that have been ordered. They are pushing one out once a month so they have about 3 years of production left, IF no more orders or the USAF tanker deal (if its not changed to a KC-777 or alternative) are made. That being said if ATA wanted a few 764ER's i'm sure boeing would be thrilled to produce them. That would be a perfect replacement for the L-1011's.

Quoting Akizidy214 (Reply 10):
There are quite a few 762's in storage. What about them?

As said before they would need ER's at least but the capicity would still take a HUGE hit as they are hugely different sized aircraft.

I say they should order up some 764ER's. But if they are going used that is out of the question as the oldest one out there is a month over 6 years old and the some are as new as 4 years.
763ER's would make sense as they are very close in capacity and could be used for long range ops.


I'm not up on my L-1011 vs DC-10 comparisons but why would they "upgrade" to a DC-10 from an L-1011. Last time i checked the DC-10 was just as much of a gas guzzler as the Tristar... Anyone?



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5542 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Poor ATA, pre-2001 they thought the legacy airlines would have dumped lots of 763ER by now. Now of course with their precarious financial conditions, the legacy airlines have kept their 763ER and haven't ordered any replacements yet. I see several airlines dumping their A340(Lufthansa, Air canada, Cathay & Air France) soon. No Major Asian(non Japanesse) has 763ER's. In Europe, BA has some, KLM and Alitalia have some 763ER. ATA's answer may be Qantas, it has many 763ER and 787 on order. ATA should make a trip to Australia.

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5289 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5465 times:

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 19):
I'm not up on my L-1011 vs DC-10 comparisons but why would they "upgrade" to a DC-10 from an L-1011. Last time i checked the DC-10 was just as much of a gas guzzler as the Tristar... Anyone?

Because fuel efficiency isn't the issue, that's why. Why is everyone so focused on "gas guzzling" regardless of the application to which the airframe is being put? (Just the other day, some moron from the New York Times wrote a whole thingy about the MD-80, calling it a "gas guzzler" and a "jalopy". Grrrr.)

If you look above, your question is answered by TriStar500.

Bottom line: dispatch reliability, availability of spare parts, maintenance, manufacturer support, engines, etc.

[Edited 2006-10-01 22:50:33]

[Edited 2006-10-01 22:51:05]

User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5067 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 21):
Why is everyone so focused on "gas guzzling" regardless of the application to which the airframe is being put?

Um... have you looked at oil prices lately? lol That might have something to do with it. I apologize for looking at the most obvious thing first. I sometimes forget that the support scheme for the Lockeed equipment is lacking. We aren't in the 80's anymore are we?

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 21):
Just the other day, some moron from the New York Times wrote a whole thingy about the MD-80, calling it a "gas guzzler" and a "jalopy". Grrrr.

Well... considering its the New York Times i'm not surprised. Bunch of idiots anyways.
I wouldn't call the MD-80 a gas guzzler but i've seen some pretty junked up mad dogs out there...  Wink



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4624 times:

Quoting Piercey (Reply 4):
They're getting NWs old DC-10s....

I'm not sure what that is all about. A good deal of NW's DC-10s are well past 100,000 hours - and have some of the most flying hours of any airlines around. I'm not sure why anyone would replace anything with them.... I mean, they are nice and all but.....seriously.

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 19):
I'm not up on my L-1011 vs DC-10 comparisons but why would they "upgrade" to a DC-10 from an L-1011. Last time i checked the DC-10 was just as much of a gas guzzler as the Tristar... Anyone?

Yep, it is. Who knows.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently onlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4388 times:

I thought ATA was taking delivery of an PB Air 763ER. If i'm right its supposed to be an 328ER version. I recall seeing this in a former thread.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
25 Rsmith6621a : Its not GONNA HAPPEN.....I know one of the VPs of ATA....it was a thought last year....it has all faded in to the garbage can..
26 AA777223 : Seriously, oh wow. I'd rather them stick with the L-1011. Yikes those are really, really old. Are there no newer ones available?
27 TZTriStar500 : Most of you need to re-read my post in reply 6. It explains why we are doing what we are with the widebody fleet. Did you actually read my post? This
28 Akizidy214 : How is ATA's charter revenue VS there commercial revenue? How many L1011'S are they trying to replace? And why is the MD11 to big? Sorry if im asking
29 Centrair : From NW? Great....Glad to hear that DC10s will still be plying the US skies for a little bit longer. Also glad to hear that a little money will go in
30 Beech19 : Obviously not... somehow i completeley missed the fact that these were used for charters. I apologize for making you sound like a broken record. I un
31 STT757 : They are keeping the line open to win the Air Force tanker contract, that contract would keep the 767 line open for years to come as the Air Force ne
32 Beech19 : OH OH!! ATA 772's That would be awesome!
33 RayChuang : I wonder are there enough DC-10-30's in top condition for TZ to buy term or long-term lease them as L10 replacements. This is because a lot of DC-10's
34 TZTriStar500 : Charter is about 50-60% of our total revenue, $300-500 million. We are seeking to replace 4 TriStar500s, but we are overcapacity right now and that i
35 AA777223 : There is no way of denying those are some heavily used aircraft. The idea of getting a hold of them after all they have been through doens't appeal t
36 Supa7E7 : Good luck ATA with the DC-10s. Rule of thumb, the more hrs/day you fly, the newer aircraft you need. For just a few hrs per day however, a DC-10 is pe
37 757dc10fltmech : This all should have stopped at reply #6 TZTriStar500 Very well put. It's all about the big picture. Most of the arguments are only a single part of t
38 TZTriStar500 : Well then, Mr. Armchair ATA CEO, what would you do knowing all of the facts as presented? In your vast expertise, why do you think this was not given
39 Columba : Actually I can not find any advantages the Dc 10 offers over the L1011. Both have three engines and a three man cockpit. Is the replacement of the L10
40 Post contains links Wjcandee : Just so everybody here understands what's going on, ATA's widebody fleet is almost exclusively used for military charter under its contract for the Lo
41 Wjcandee : Respectfully, please read TriStar's posts (or do the other posters the courtesy of reading the other posts in the thread before making your post). It
42 Post contains images Columba : Thanks, sorry but I lost the thread and could not read all 40 replies again. It is more difficult because reading in English usually takes more time
43 Wjcandee : I never fail to be impressed how the folks on here from other countries do such a good job reading and writing in English. Good point.
44 Post contains images B52murph : 4 Total, each ex. Royal Jordanian birds: 161AT,162AT,163AT,164AT. As always, appreciate the fine service TZTriStar500 and Wjcandee's airline provided
45 Post contains images Beech19 : Yes, most of us take it for granted. Kudos to all the 2nd language english speakers.
46 Post contains images BH : Another fine ATA post, do you know when the first DC-10 will be delivered?and is thier a contract allready signed to purchase or is it still in the ba
47 Wjcandee : Well...that's the big question for the investors in these airlines. World bought NAO in part because they realized that the future of MD11 passenger
48 Dl_mech : I wouldn't blame it on Lockheed, but the previous operators of the spares (are we talking HF antennas here?). The Lockheed parts that I've seen are d
49 474218 : Just what were Lockheed "weird manufacturing processes", and what make you an expert on them?
50 Wjcandee : Correct. The point was to say that you can't just assume that a "certified" part unbolted from an existing airframe will have holes that line up on t
51 Wjcandee : I didn't say the process was wierd. See response above. Oh, God. I'll save the witty retort. Go snipe somewhere else.
52 474218 : Lockheed built three types of spare parts: o Type 1A, interchangeable with no modification required or allowed. Flight control surfaces, interior pan
53 Post contains links Wjcandee : There are some missions that you need the size of the MD11, and some that the military would like a 747-400, but makes do with a couple of smaller ai
54 Wjcandee : There ya go, and I defer to your expertise as to manufacturing process. Bottom line seems to be that some parts being moved from one aircraft to anot
55 TZTriStar500 : This is correct, but actually is not unique to Lockheed. Many structural parts from existing airframes will usually not line up because they were non
56 Wjcandee : No need for apology. I actually heard it elsewhere as well. How it is as a comparative problem among manufacturers of older aircraft isn't the point
57 TZTriStar500 : After years of neglect by previous management, our charter sales group has become very agressive in attracting new non-military business. About 6 mon
58 Wjcandee : For commercial charter? Wow. Looking at the numbers in the World 10K, it seems that they do get some substantial occasional commerical charter progra
59 Post contains images FlyDreamliner : You do know that NW posted a profit last quarter, right? They posted a profit even after restructuring charges. I hope it never comes down to needing
60 BH : One more question for you: When i started out in this business in 92 we always had summer charters at BWI by various companies like ATA, Rich Int'l, T
61 TZTriStar500 : They say they can in combination with the military business. I may be baised here, but I do think we have experience and organizational capabilites t
62 FlyDreamliner : So if I'm understanding right, any DC-10s picked up from NWA by ATA would not be replacing L-1011s, but would be in addition to handle extra charter
63 TZTriStar500 : No, they will be direct one for one L-1011 replacements plus some extra (3).
64 Wjcandee : Probably true. Clipper002 always says that WOA's cargo sales department is second to none, but I don't hear as much about commercial pax charter sale
65 474218 : So will you be parking the L-1011's as soon as the NW DC-10's come on line? Are the last two L-1011's going to get their D-Checks? Just curious. As a
66 AA777223 : Wow, OK first of all, relax. This is nothing to get worked up about. All I was saying that that none of these are new aircraft by any means, and if t
67 Post contains images TZTriStar500 : I guess you don't read or listen, but we will not be getting 777s. Nice choice of words "thrown away" implying garbage right? The airframe hours are
68 Post contains images Wjcandee : When I was in law school in 85, I used to fly ML (which was Midway back then) DC9s home from MDW-LGA, PHL, and EWR. I'd look at the builder plates on
69 A342 : This got me thinking again. I mean, no matter how bad the spare part / mx situation is for the L1011, all the flying staff / mechs have to be trained
70 AA777223 : Maybe you shouldn't bother if you are going to get this worked up over a simple aviation forum. It really is not that big of a deal.
71 Wjcandee : Your sole purpose in posting was to CORRECT exactly the kind of poster that A.net needs -- somebody on the inside who actually knows what's going on?
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...
ATA L-1011 Replacement posted Fri Dec 27 2002 21:45:09 by TEDSKI
AA And Their A300 Replacement - 787-3 Possible? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 17:14:06 by 1337Delta764
ATA L-1011? posted Sun Jun 4 2006 16:23:44 by Planebuff
ATA L-1011 Aircraft posted Wed Mar 8 2006 03:15:03 by DTWAGENT
ATA's L-1011 N164AT Has Arrived... posted Wed Mar 1 2006 11:55:52 by A40-TY
ATA'S L-1011'S posted Fri Dec 30 2005 04:55:33 by COAMiG29
ATA L-1011 N/C? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 02:57:32 by Falcon flyer
ATA L-1011 Airports posted Sat Oct 15 2005 16:44:21 by BigPhilNYC
Status Of ATA's L-1011 Fleet? posted Tue Dec 7 2004 04:02:45 by FRA2DTW
ATA L-1011 Registrations posted Sun Aug 1 2004 18:47:16 by Bigphilnyc