OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:15 am

I mentioned this the other day (seen on another board) and just read today that:

"The aircraft in question are ex-Saudi L1011-200's. Ten of them have been parked at Raif, Saudi Arabia (OETF) since the late 1990's. ATA is rumored to be interested in five of them with a power by the hour arrangement. They are powered by the RB211-524B"
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:33 am

Yeah,but how much work will they require after sitting in the Saudi desert for 5 years ?
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
ANNOYEDFA
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:16 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:38 am

*sigh* Why pick up more of these old junkers when they can go pick up fuel efficient 76's from the desert. This makes no sense at all......  Nuts
"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:42 am

Because they've got pilots typed in the L10, they can probably get them for a song seeing as how no one else wants them, and they already have a spares inventory.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
ANNOYEDFA
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:16 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:52 am

Ummmm the 75/76 have a common cock-pit.... So I don't see a type problem.
"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:05 am


Perhaps they will part them out.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:06 am

Ummmm the 75/76 have a common cock-pit.... So I don't see a type problem.

No argument there. The folks typed in the 75 are likely busy flying the 75.

Anyone know what the rumored plans are for these jets. Is ATA looking to expand AMC contract operations? From some of Clipper002s comments in another thread, sounds like World has all the AMC business it can handle.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
GLAGAZ
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:14 am

Could they be used for the tx flights ATA are supposedly planning?SNN,GLA,CGN etc...
Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
 
UAL Bagsmasher
Posts: 1839
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 1999 12:52 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:15 am

Everyone always brings up the fuel efficiency comments when it comes to operating old aircraft. True, they burn more fuel. BUT, who's making more money? An airline based in MSP with 40 year old gas guzzling DC-9's and a bunch of DC-10's, or an ORD based airline with a brand new fleet of fuel efficient Airbus and other modern twinjet aircraft? Hmmmmmm.

[Edited 2004-12-23 23:18:15]
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:04 am

Good point my Bag smasher friend .... What costs more, an airplane payment or a gas bill ???
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
jran225
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 10:24 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:16 am

Hey guys,

this is absolutely fantastic news...at least for a hardcore Tristar fan such as myself! Living near BWI, I am used to seeing TZ's Tristar 500s on a regular basis and I'm still trying to hunt down N194AT. Most of the AMC charters we get at BWI arrive from FRA. Does anybody here know whether the Tristar 200s have the range to fly FRA-BWI non-stop?? Any info would be very much appreciated! Smile

Regards,
-Omar S.
Never tell your girlfriend about all the 'action' you're getting at the airport - only photogs understand that.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8588
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:26 am

ost of the AMC charters we get at BWI arrive from FRA. Does anybody here know whether the Tristar 200s have the range to fly FRA-BWI non-stop?? Any info would be very much appreciated!

FRA-BWI is 3,500 nm, so figure in another 500nm for the actual routing distance and another 500nm for wind penalties and weather for a trip distance of 4,500 nm. This should be doable with a L1011-200....

Good point my Bag smasher friend .... What costs more, an airplane payment or a gas bill ???

It isn't always that simple. If these aircraft have been in storage for a long time, refurbishement cost could add up quickly, heavy maintenance might be required, ect. In any event, the worldwide fleet of active L1011s is below 50 (I believe), so support of these aircraft through the next decade will likely dwindle. More L1011's are not a long-term solution to ATA's needs....
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:51 am

Fuel effeciency is not an issue for an AMC flight. The government pays for the fuel.
Yes, I'm sure World gets more requests than they can handle. From what I hear, so do we. With 25.000 more troops moving in, the business is ever expanding ...

The Saudi -200's are said to be in good shape and have low hours. If this deal goes through, it will be a great moneymaker for us!!
- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:58 am

Yes,but 5 years in the Saudi desert can't be good for a plane,let alone all the rubber in/on it .....
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:15 am

Let alone the newest L1011 is 20 years old. They only made 250 of 'em. Parts can't be in huge supply  Smile
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:21 am

A good site for L1011 enthusiasts...

http://flytristar.tripod.com/page/specs.html
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:30 am

The only real range requirement AMC has, is for an aircraft to make SEA-Japan nonstop. Only the -500 (and the -250) can do that. But the Japan flights will go away in the fall of -06.

As for parts, the AZ and CA desert is full of 1011-spares ... and storing an aircraft in the Saudi desert is probably no worse then storing an aircraft in the American desert ..
- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:32 am

Hey,I've got some L10 pics from IGM on there. The L will all be close to my heart. My first widebody/Int'l/movie flight was on 2 DL L's CVG-ZRH in July '95. Wish I wrote down the reg's.  Sad
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
bucky707
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 2:01 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:02 pm

>Ten of them have been parked at Raif, Saudi Arabia (OETF)<


For the record, OETF is Taif, Saudi Arabia, not Raif.
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:32 pm

The L will all be close to my heart. My first widebody/Int'l/movie flight was on 2 DL L's CVG-ZRH in July '95. Wish I wrote down the reg's.

I can relate to this very much. My first flying experience was on a Hawaiian L1011 (SFO-HNL-SFO) back in '92. Wish I was older at the time, and as involved in the aviation community as I am now. I'd probably remember much more vivid details from the experience.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:40 pm

How many Hrs/Cycles is the L1011 certified for?.
 
alexinwa
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:08 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:54 pm

Why will the SEA-Japan flights go away?
You mad Bro???
 
alexinwa
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:08 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:58 pm

Why do they need more L10's?

Look at this......

You mad Bro???
 
alexinwa
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:08 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:00 pm

Sorry here it is


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Hellmann

You mad Bro???
 
optionscle
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:08 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:50 pm

Hmm, good point Alexinwa.

Only thing I can think of (and I'm anything but a TriStar expert) is that those are listed as L-1011-385-1's and ATA is looking at Saudi's -200 models. Is this correct?

-Andrew
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:20 pm


Per Jet Airliner Production List, N195AT was converted to Tristar 50 in 1987
and to Tristar 150 in 1990.

Per Airlife Airliner 12, range data with Max Payload as follows;

Tristar 1 2,950 NM
Tristar 50 2,950 NM
Tristar 150 4,030 NM
Tristar 200 4,260 NM

Whilst pre 1990, greater range would have been the likely reason, I think that it is now airframe life. The stored aircraft may be either nearly expired or a major check due.
 
Clipper002
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:24 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:13 am

The 1011 cannot make it non-stop form SEA to OKO with the payload required by AMC. The requirement is for 360 seats. WO has this sewn up until the market disappears in '06 when Patriot Express is history. ATA cannot merely plug in additional lift for AMC. It is awarded on a percentage basis decided by how many MV points your AMC team is entitled to.

Ed
Ed
 
User avatar
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:27 am

Kinda off topic, but why is the tail of plane number four from the top different?
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:53 am

Clipper002 - that is incorrect ... World and ATA are sharing these flights. We are using the -500 with 281 seats, it has plenty range. The -200 however, doesn't have the range so we need to keep at least one -500 through the fall of 2006.
The reason for these flights going away is AMC's desire to move the traffic to scheduled flights.

Kaigywer - some aircraft were painted in a promotional Pleasant Hawaiian livery.



[Edited 2004-12-24 17:54:34]
- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
ramerinianair
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:03 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:58 am

KaiGwyer,
The tail is different as part of a marketing deal for pleasant holidays. I believe they were flying charters to Hawaii for a travel consolidator or agent and this was the deal to promote the service.
SR
W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
 
Clipper002
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:24 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:57 am

LN-MOW,
You are absolutely correct. I apologize. We had the -500 at Pan Am and they were pieces of junk. Forever having avionics problems. Have a Merry Christmas and wishing you guys at ATA all the best in future years,

Ed
Ed
 
ILSApproach
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:59 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 5:24 pm

I guess TZ could make some money with a few more transporting troops back and forth to Iraq.........................cuz it looks like were going to be there for awhile! Do they need more than what's in the desert now?

 Nuts

mike
 
northwest 777
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 2:48 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 5:35 pm

I see that someone posted the ranges of all the variants up through the -200s
but I don't see what L1011-500s are capable of doing at max payload. Can someone tell me? How many -500s do you think are out there that are still usable and how much does a bird like that sell for on the second hand, or in the case of some of these planes probably fifth and sixth hand, markets?
 
northwest 777
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 2:48 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Dec 25, 2004 5:42 pm

Nevermind, I guess I can answer my own question by going to the website that someone posted. The one for all L1011 enthusiasts to go to. Gosh, this post has only got my 21 year young brain daydreaming about the fantasy of starting up a little airline flying -500s from Seattle to different places in Europe, as Seattle is far underserved in that department, as far as direct service goes. I think local Seattle-ites could really get behind a project like that *wink wink* Paul Allen *nudge nudge* Bill Gates, and c'mon, who doesn't love the look (and especially THE SOUND) of an old tristar anyway?  Big grin
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:55 pm

Alright, now I am a BIG L-1011 fan and I love supporting it in our fleet almost on a daily basis, but I am a realist from my exposure to it for almost 4 years. Therefore, I'd like to set the record straight on this whole nonsense:

This was started by a few overzealous pilots with too much time on their hands that we need to buy some more L-1011's to rest the future of the company on. They took it on themselves to call aircraft brokers, overhaul facilties, etc. all under the lie that they were authorized by company leadership(i.e. George Mikelsons) to do it.

This is NOT going to happen since company leadership does NOT consult with pilots to decide company strategy. Its a bad business case and completely ignores the reality of operating these aircraft in this environment. They basically have no idea what they are talking about.

1) The L-1011 is essentially a "dead" aircraft in that fewer than 50 are still airworthy with most being in third world countries. Lockheed virtually no longer supports it and that which they do costs $500/per hour.

2) Since there are no longer any major US operators(e.g. Delta) and no market for spares, parts for this aircraft are either scarce or non-existant. Vendors no longer support, overhaul, or build many parts and Lockheed has a finite amount of parts themselves which are quickly dwindling. Using parts from dismantled aircraft is not a solution either since most of them have already been factory drilled by hand at time of installation which will not match another aircraft.

3) Regulatory requirements and modifications for aging aircraft of structure and avionics on this aircraft is daunting. There are nearly 2 dozen structural modifications and inspections that are required which are time consuming and very expensive. There is a long list of avionics mods required now and in the near future that cost millions because its nearly a one of a kind aircraft that no vendor can recover their costs since they will likely only modify less than 10. It also would take tens of thousands of engineering and planning manhours to generate the necessary paperwork.

4) The RB211-22B engine on the L-1011-1, 50, 100, 150 is no longer supported by Rolls which is one of the main reasons these model aircraft are being grounded for good. Also, nobody offers overhaul services for the -22B engine so the number of serviceable engines is going away. This is the reason we will not D check any of the aircraft in storage since they are all -50's, 100's, and 150's. Only the -524 is still supported which is only on the -200, -250, and -500.

5) Only 2-3 companies left in the world will D check an L-1011 for the same reasons I stated in the previous paragraphs. This D check costs between $5-10 million and does NOT include the regulatory modifications required if one of the ex-Saudia L-1011-200 were D checked. This would easily add another $10 million. The cost to D check and bring just one ex-Saudia L-1011-200 up to current standards would probably cost nearly $30 million. Anyone saying anything otherwise is dellusional.

6) We cannot add more -500 aircraft to our fleet without adding the multi-million dollar P4A door modification(the STC structural mod that adds the 4th door between the 2nd and 3rd door on the -500). This modification is an FAA requirement due to a FAR Part 25 amendment in the 1980's that require emergency exits to be less than 60 feet apart on new designs and new placed seat density requirements between those exits. The existing -500's on the US registry(Delta -500's) were grandfathered. They in turn got an exemption for those it aquired from Air Canada but the max passenger capacity was only 232 I beleive and that was for a 3-class layout. Therefore, any -500's added to the US registry with a density of greater than 232 would require an additional door be added since we have 283 on our -500's. So adding more -500's is not the answer either.

This idea of adding more L-1011's is pure nonsense and insanity. If ATA really intends on continuing in the AMC and ad-hoc charter business with widebodies, then we need either 767's of MD-11's. Relying on L-1011's would be disasterous and this company would deserve to fail with such a sorry business plan. If this happens, I for one will not stay around for it.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8588
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:07 pm

Relying on L-1011's would be disasterous and this company would deserve to fail with such a sorry business plan. If this happens, I for one will not stay around for it.

Well damn what can you say to that.... makes my reply 11 pale in comparison.

This is NOT going to happen since company leadership does NOT consult with pilots to decide company strategy. Its a bad business case and completely ignores the reality of operating these aircraft in this environment.

I floated the idea of a joint WN/ATA purchase for ~5 7E7-8 (2008-2010 delivery) to totally repalce the L1011s, but didn't get any response. WN has the capital to make it happen and I saw it as a way to place ATA's charter business on a firm footing for the future. Greatly reduced opperating cost, easily supported by Boeing, range to open new markets, simmilar capacity, not a massive capital investment.... any opinions?
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:33 pm

Why pick up more of these old junkers when they can go pick up fuel efficient 76's from the desert.

I'd assume that it might not be worth it to get the 767's, and get them certified for ETOPS. Especially for a company in financial distress -- which causes the FAA to watch VERY closely (even though they have an excellent safety record).

Steve
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:24 am

Tztristar 500

1. Does you figure of 50 include aircraft that are parked but still basicly flyable.

2.Are you saying that most parts that are fitted have been modified at the factory.

3.How much of this would also apply to used B767's.

4.The Saudi aircraft are L1011-200 with RB211-524's.

5.I do not know how soon the Saudi aircraft will need a D Check.

6.You are assuming that any L1011-500's that are available have not had the P4A mod.

I agree that the pilots should leave this type of strategy decision to management, however is'nt ATA in Ch11.

If so, why assume that management knows best.
 
ATAIndy
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:05 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:38 am

So if TZ does end up getting more L1011's will they paint them in the new c/s??
Boiler up! - Next flights: IND-MIA, MIA-IND
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:52 am


Given that they are for AMC contracts, I suspect that they will change the logos not the colours. The less spent the better.
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:45 am

I think that was one of the most well reasoned posts I have seen. The L1011 was a great aircraft in it's day, but the day is over. With a poor level of parts and support available to it, this fleet will soon be parked.

It might be time to start thinking about preserving some of the type before they are all metal chips in the sand.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:14 pm

BENNET123,

1) The figure of less than 50 is those that are currently flying. According to the Lockheed "goldenrod" fleet list, 78 are stored. Of those 78, it would be nearly impossible to operate them other than in 3rd world countries due to regulatory requirements.

2) Most parts were not precision drilled, but were hand-drilled(not dimensioned) during production. This was not unusual for aircraft of that time since most of them were essentially hand built. Therefore, it is not likely that the holes drilled in many parts will match one aircraft to another. Aircraft built today are more computer drilled and exactly dimensioned so one can virtually assure that part will match any aircraft.

3) 767's have a fraction of the regulatory requirements of the L-1011. The 767 is certified as damage-tolerant and therefore not suseptible to the same aging-aircraft issues. Aircraft of the 60-70's generation are designed as fail-safe and subject to extensive aging aircraft issues.

4) True, the ex-Saudi L-1011-200's have RB211-524's.

5) It does not really matter how soon they require a D check because in order to bring an aircraft out-of-service for 5-6 years and import it into the US registry along with accomplishing all the required modifications and bridging it into the ATA maintenance program, it absolutely would require a D check.

6) I am not assuming this, I know with certainty. Only 6 -500 aircraft in the world were ever converted with the P4A door and ATA owns them all. One has been scrapped(SE-DVX, S/N 1183) and one stored(N160AT, S/N 1217) with the 4 others(N161-164AT) still being operated.

Management should, but does not always know best. However, no airline relenquishes their business strategy and fleet planning decisions to their pilot groups.


ATAIndy,
We are NOT getting more L-1011s.


Starrion,
Thanks for the compliment and I too hope that one is preserved before they are all gone.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Rumors Re: More L1011s For ATA..

Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:49 pm


Thanks for that.

It is a pity that the Saudi fleet has been effectively dumped as they would be a ready made fleet.

I hope that ATA get the aircraft that they need and that we see the ATA L1011's continue to fly.

Perhaps the pilot's should have spoken to the Mechanics before spending their time on a non starter.

Dave