JmhLUV2fly From United States, joined Dec 1999, 559 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
I am currently in my second week of training in Atlanta with AirTran for customer service agent/gate & ramp.
I was speaking with one of my instructers today and she informed me that there is word there are three MD-83's and a 757-2
sitting in MCO and could join the AirTran fleet. This is only what I heard so who knows the true validity of it, but its pretty neet to entertain for a second that AirTran may be expanding there fleet.
P.S. when I asked the instructor about the range of the 717, she said it can fly as far as Salt Lake City from the east coast with no problem.
Would be good to hear your thoughts.
JMH
Jcxp15 From United States, joined Jun 2001, 984 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1296 times:
The MD8X's would seem like a good investement for Airtran as it would give that additional range, as well as more pax loads (esp. needed on those flights that are always oversold).
The 757, to me, would seem like too big of a jump too quick. If they get it at a good price, then they should go ahead and at least buy it. Maybe using it on an ATL-West Coast flight or a hvy pax load flight at least for the time being.
They eventually will have to expand their fleet to bigger a/c. The 717's just won't be able to meet the demands that Airtran will face (provided things stay the way they are for them). MD8X's would seem like a good investement for them at this time.
IMissPiedmont From United States, joined May 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1223 times:
I don't dare refute your instructors statements. However, either aircraft might be too much for Valu......err I mean AirTran to aborb at this time. The MD-83 is logical to a point in that you said 3 are to join the fleet. The MD-83 has a large degree of commonality with the 717 so would not be much more than a gauge increase. The 757 is really pushing things though. Only one? And what route would they place it on? IMHO, I think the 757 is pure speculation.
I still get a kick out of the ads that Valu.....err, Airtran placed with the name change. "Something different". We certainly hope so.
Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man, though my mind could think I still was a madman
FlyPNS1 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3781 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1185 times:
I agree with MissPiedmont that it seems odd that Airtran would get just one 757 unless there are more to follow. However, I think the 757 is too big for Airtran and they would be better off with 737's to to ATL-West Coast flights. I think SWA has proven that you don't need huge planes to be a successful low-fare carrier.
So Jmh, will we be seeing your smiling face at the Airtran counter in PNS soon?
Gr8SlvrFlt From United States, joined Jan 2002, 1489 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1083 times:
The 757 rumors have been going around for quite some time and many swear they are true. From what I can tell there is no basis to them, however. I also feel that they are too big of a jump. MD-80s make more sense to me. I heard AirTran offered to buy them from USAir but US insisted FL take the pilots as well and the deal fell through. I think the MD-90 would be the most ideal companion to the 717. I never did understand why Delta wanted to keep their (for them) tiny fleet of fifteen. I understand that Joe Leonard has stated that FL is only looking toward more 717s and that most planned growth is for the northeast and more direct service between existing cities (I think FNT-MCO is next). While new flights to the west coast or Caribben would be fun, I think AirTran is wisely staying course with a conservative growth plan.
Travatl From United States, joined Mar 2001, 2145 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 983 times:
ValuJet actually owned 10 MD80s. Four were online, and six were in
refurb at the time of the accident. (The oxy canisters that brought down
592 were from an MD80 being overhauled). Also, ValuJet did not "come
back as AirTran". ValuJet relaunched service in September 1996, after
the May 1996 crash, and June 1996 shutdown. The "new ValuJet"
reopened it's doors with just seven DC9s, as compared to the 54
aircraft being operated at the time of the crash. The MD80s had been
sold, as had the DC9-20s. The airline continued to re-grow and added
many of the original DC9s back to the fleet. However, it was SLOW going getting passengers back. In the summer of 1997, the airline was back up to 24 airplanes, and the then CEO Joe Corr stated he felt confident that the airline would return to profitability, and that it would do so in one of three ways:
-By maintaining the ValuJet name and moniker and slowly reestablish itself.
-By renaming the airline, and attempting a rebranding on in it's own.
-By merging with another carrier, and rebrand both carriers, by either taking the other carrier's name, or by establishing a new name for the new combined carrier.
He felt, that although the third option would allow the airline to return to profitability the quickest, it was also going to be the most expensive.
Two weeks later, the merger was announced, and on September 24, 1997, 16 months after the crash of 592, ValuJet Airlines ceased to exist.
Travatl From United States, joined Mar 2001, 2145 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 954 times:
Leonard has made two "well referenced", (albeit somewhat contradictory) statement regarding future fleet plans:
"The airline is well positioned for significant growth in the coming months. Right now is the perfect time to be an airline looking to buy airplanes."
"Our focus for the fleet is to retire the DC9s quickly, and possibly increase both the rate at which we accept 717s, as well as the number we will recieve. AirTran has no plans to acquire any aircraft other than the Boeing 717 at this time."
DeltAirlines From United States, joined May 1999, 7296 posts, RR: 16 Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 896 times:
I would not be surprised if they picked up a few MD-80s to compete with Delta on the routes that have the loads and profits (BOS, LGA, MCO, amongst others). The 757 does seem like a stretch to me, due to its much larger size (180 seats compared to 110 in a 717 and 145 in an MD-80). I also think that AirTran would be more interested in bulking about ATL and adding flights to (what it seems to be) the new BWI hub.
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 880 times:
I think the M80 would be great if it is kept to current routes and not spread west. For example, ATL-MCO/TPA/FLL could go M80 on several flights, along with ATL-MDW/BOS/LGA. I think maybe 10 M80s would be enough for FL.
Woodsboy From United States, joined Mar 2000, 784 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 853 times:
Just a note***
The MD80 and MD90 dont have any commonality with the 717, they may appear to be similar but aside from a common fuselage diameter, tires and............well, thats about it.....there isnt any systems, powerplant or avionics commonality. If that would be the arguement for adding MD80s or MD90s to the fleet, they might as well add Fokker F-100s or Airbus A318s, they have about as much in common!
As for the future- AirTran will undoubtedly outgrow the current operational capability of the 717-200 first in range, then capacity. Perhaps AirTran will be the carrier that launches further development of the type. They wont be able to take on non-stop routes to the West Coast w/the 717, but that might be far down the pike in their long range plan. It would be interesting to speculate as to the future fleet, because you cant "grow" an airline with one aircraft type that has limited range.
ATA L1011 From United States, joined Feb 2001, 1231 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 842 times:
They will most likely need to get prepared to spend money on crew training for a new type. The MD-80/90 makes since from alot of perspectives including a maintenance perspective. It will be alot easier/cheaper for the A/P guys to train already being familiar with the SIMILIAR 80 or 90 series.
DeltaRules From United States, joined Sep 2001, 3197 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 828 times:
I can see AirTran operating MD-80s, but they don't really need more than 5 or 6. As for the 757, it would be interesting to see AirTran have them, and what kind of westward (maybe) expansion they would make, unless they kept it for high-traffic routes, like ATL-MCO or anywhere where they need more seats to accomadate passengers.
Does anybody know if the 757(s) would be delivered new, or who they would buy them off of if they would be taken second-hand?
FlyPNS1 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3781 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 759 times:
How many second hand 757's could there be??? I can't think of any major airline that is currently retiring the 757. The oldest 757's are just now turning 20 and most of the majors will probably squeeze another 5-10 years out of them.
ONT 737 From United States, joined Mar 2001, 573 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 731 times:
I've flown Air Tran only once, but I noticed that their gates are pretty darn close together. There is very little space between the wingtips of 2 717s (or DC-9s)parked next to eachother. Could MD80s (much less 757s) fit in their ATL gates without taking up two gates?
Flyinryan99 From United States, joined Feb 2001, 1454 posts, RR: 13 Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 717 times:
Deltarules - I agree with you as for the 757s would go well on the ATL - Florida routes because a lot of the time those flights are constantly oversold and an increase in capacity is definitely needed. Question is, how much capacity would fit the demand and what kind of fares would need to be charged in order to operate a 757 with profitability? OBTW....when Mr. Leonard was in TOL in December, he left an interesting book on the plane that I got my hands on...it was basically a book about Airbus Aircraft and etc...
ONT 737 - This is another problem in ATL, the only gates (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that could handle anything bigger then a 717 would be C14 and C16. But, there's also rumors goin around that we're gonna be movin' into the D concourse.
As for my 2 cents worth, I don't think we can expand too far west right now. I think we gotta stay in our niche until we find a way to break out slowly. I think we still need to focus on more direct flying on longer routes...that's what passengers seem to want right now. Maybe add one city to the west every year...and this year....I suggest COS....get those skiers!
ATA L1011 From United States, joined Feb 2001, 1231 posts, RR: 10 Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 709 times:
757's could fit as their wing would overlap the 717's or the DC-9's safely. M80's could they would probably have to use corner gates, although Valujet did have M80's for a minute I dont know what the gate situation was like although.
Travatl From United States, joined Mar 2001, 2145 posts, RR: 16 Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 667 times:
After the AirTran gate expansion in ATL, there are only four gates on Concourse C that would accommodate anything larger than DC9/717/737 aircraft. AirTran wants more gates but just can't get 'em.
And you can't put aircraft wing over wing, not intentionally anyway.
JmhLUV2fly From United States, joined Dec 1999, 559 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 633 times:
Its good to hear all your comments about the proposed AirTran fleet expansion. Well just have to wait and see.
FlyPNS1: I made it man, I finished up yesterday and got in late last night, met some great folks during training. So you will see me in PNS, they have me starting out on the ramp next week so not sure when Ill get up to the counter, I still have lots of practicing to do on the computer system or should we say, the beloved, "Flight Speed" =).
See you all in PNS.
JMH
"Fly AirTran Airways, You Can Get There From Here."
26 Acvitale: While eveyone guesses I think two things should be noted. The block hour costs are lower on the 757 compared to the MD80. So while the MD80 is smaller
27 Jrlander: As the E Concourse gates are not airline specific, and the fact that it is not used much during the morning, couldn't Airtran use some of those gates
28 Boiler Special: The E gates are a little out of AirTran's price range... it ain't cheap to use those gates no matter when you want to. -Kevin
29 Flyer732: They don't pay me enough right now as it is, they'd have to pay me and every other agent system wide minimum wage to afford a few gates on E for a mon
30 Flyer732: As far as gates that can handle a larger aircraft on C concourse. C14 and C2 can both handle a 737-800. I'm not sure how they plan on getting one into
31 Srbmod: If the rumors about AirTran taking over the old TWA gates, then getting MD-80 family aircraft could be possible. TWA was putting MD-83s, 717s, DC-9s a
32 Woodsboy: The span difference between and MD80/90 (107 ft)and a 717 (93ft) is 14 feet, that doesnt sound like much to me, but I dont know how tightly squeezed t
33 HlywdCatft: Did any of you ever consider that maybe they would go for something smaller like an ERJ or CRJ?
34 Srbmod: The only reason AirTran would have for acquiring RJs would be to start service to smaller cities less than an hour flight from ATL; cities like August
35 FlyPNS1: Someday...in about ten years when ATL opens up the new south terminal there will be lots of new gates for Airtran. Until then, it's going to be a tigh
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Dec 1999, 559 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
