User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 4899
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:21 am

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
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:47 am

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.............
 
HawaiianHobo
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:33 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:03 am

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 
...
 
Cessna057
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:24 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:06 am

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!!
 
piercey
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:07 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:14 am

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.
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:41 am

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 avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:23 pm

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 avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:27 pm

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.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:21 pm

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
 
mjlhou
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:23 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:33 pm

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
 
akizidy214
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:10 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:36 pm

There are quite a few 762's in storage. What about them?
DCA
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:02 am

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.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:08 am

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 avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:10 am

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.
 
NASCARAirforce
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:20 am

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
 
DILF
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:44 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:28 am

Kudos to ATA for the D10 idea - - i'd love to see these great planes still flying in airline service!
NO MORE Trip Reports about SQ First Class! Or TG, CX or MH! E-N-O-U-G-H !!
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 4899
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:49 am

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
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:37 am

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.
 
dw9115
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:54 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:05 am

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]
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:31 am

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
 
jfk777
Posts: 5840
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:41 am

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.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:49 am

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]
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:50 am

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
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:08 am

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"
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:58 am

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.
 
rsmith6621a
Posts: 1507
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:21 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:14 am

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..
Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:10 am

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

Seriously, oh wow. I'd rather them stick with the L-1011. Yikes those are really, really old. Are there no newer ones available?
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:34 pm

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.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 14):
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

Did you actually read my post? This is not and will not be possible.

Quoting DILF (Reply 15):
Kudos to ATA for the D10 idea - - i'd love to see these great planes still flying in airline service!

Its not an idea, businesses are calculating and ATA is not going to operate the DC10 because we have some special affinity for it. Its an asset and business tool.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 16):
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 DC10s will be purchased, anything else would be leased which have mothly payments that are a major element in their acquisition. The old anti-Airbus guard is long gone at ATA. If an Airbus makes financial sense, we would be derelict not to consider it.

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
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.

Yes, CRAF does include cargo airlines. I don't know where to start on the extreme disadvantages of adding any more TriStars, let alone freighters. The airframe is dead and the only reason they are still around is because we have no choice. I have posted many times int he past about the difficulties in operating L-1011s.

Quoting Dw9115 (Reply 18):
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.

We were shopping around for some in the fall of 2005 and came very close to leasing an ex-Asiana 767-328ER, but the lease rate changed at the end and it became unattractive. We also looked at the UA birds that were released during bankruptcy, but subsequently went back to UA.


Quoting Beech19 (Reply 19):
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.

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.

You need to re-read my post in reply 6. We cannot operate new or newer aircraft in our type of charter operations. There is simply no financial business case for new 764ERs and we need aircraft in the next 6 months...how would this be possible?

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?

Yes it is, but the business case for it works and there are "advantages" to operating the DC10 over the L-1011 in this day and age.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 20):
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.

This is not true. Pre-2001, new build 763ERs where an original part of the refleeting with Boeing but was not signed. Previous management had decided to slowly get out of the charter business and the L-1011s would go with it. That fleet continued to decline, but new management discovered quite correctly that charter was profitable and without it we would not have made it through bankruptcy. However, there were no plans to replace that fleet so we are in the quandry we are now. Like I said above, we need aircraft within the next 6 months, so we cannot wait for other carriers to release large blocks of 763ERs. Besides, the current lease rates are too high.

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 22):
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?

Its obvious that you do not understand the nature in which these aircraft are operated. If it works financially in the operations to which they are placed, then why is it such a big deal that they are not the most efficient aircraft out there? Like I have said many times in this thread, a nice new super efficient widebody will NOT work in this type of operation. Fuel is not the the end all be all in a fleet decision, but part of any array of factors.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 23):
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.

Well sir, I know what it is all about and we are serious. Do you actually think that no thought goes into this? that its just done on a whim? I feel like a broken record, but re-read my post in reply 6.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 24):
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.



Quoting Rsmith6621a (Reply 25):
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..

Read above about the ex-Asiana 763ER from about a year ago.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 26):
Seriously, oh wow. I'd rather them stick with the L-1011. Yikes those are really, really old. Are there no newer ones available?

The L-1011 is no longer viable. Some of the DC10s are newer than the L-1011s. Is 1980 and 1987 really, really old? The L15s are 24 years old.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
akizidy214
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:10 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:43 pm

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 too many questions.
DCA
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:10 pm

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 27):
The DC10s will be purchased

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 into NW's coffers.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:19 pm

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 27):
Its obvious that you do not understand the nature in which these aircraft are operated.

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 understand now why new builds would obviously not work. Knowing these would be used for charters i completly agree that the DC-10's would be great aircraft for ATA untill used 763ERs start hitting market in force a few years from now. I used to take NW DC-10's from Detroit to Seattle every month, one of the few non-Boeing aircraft i looked forward to flying on. Love em'!
KPAE via KBVY
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:03 pm

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

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 needs hundreds of new tankers.

As for ATA what about the former UAL and Varig 777-200s (non ER) parked in the desert, they are not new but not as old as say NWA DC-10s. Some of the non ER 777s have been parked for a few years now, Im sure the creditors by now would be willing to offer very competitive lease rates on these aircraft.

Perhaps a combination of 2-4 777-200s and 767-300ERS.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:18 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 31):
Perhaps a combination of 2-4 777-200s and 767-300ERS.

OH OH!! ATA 772's That would be awesome!
KPAE via KBVY
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:25 pm

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 are heading to the scrapper at a pretty good clip lately.

Do you think TZ is willing to buy ex-NW DC-10-30's?
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:36 am

Quoting Akizidy214 (Reply 28):
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 too many questions.

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 is why 7 total widebodies are being sourced. The MD-11 is too large for most AMC charters when combined with total troops/cargo. Wjcandee can opine on this better than I, but I believe the MD-11 earns less per trip because it is not the most optimal size that the AMC desires.

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 30):
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 understand now why new builds would obviously not work. Knowing these would be used for charters i completly agree that the DC-10's would be great aircraft for ATA untill used 763ERs start hitting market in force a few years from now. I used to take NW DC-10's from Detroit to Seattle every month, one of the few non-Boeing aircraft i looked forward to flying on. Love em'!

No problem, this should be a place where we all learn.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 31):
As for ATA what about the former UAL and Varig 777-200s (non ER) parked in the desert, they are not new but not as old as say NWA DC-10s. Some of the non ER 777s have been parked for a few years now, Im sure the creditors by now would be willing to offer very competitive lease rates on these aircraft.

Those ex-VG 777s where looked at, but still not financially viable at this point. Also, too large for the need...see above about MD-11s.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 33):
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 are heading to the scrapper at a pretty good clip lately.

Do you think TZ is willing to buy ex-NW DC-10-30's?

NW's are in very good condition, but other than their fleet, you are correct about any others in good condition. These are and were used in some of NW's top international markets and have had interior upgrades within the last 5-6 years. These DC-10s will be a cash purchase and not leased. NW wants out of the DC-10 business completely as of January 2007.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 27):
The L-1011 is no longer viable. Some of the DC10s are newer than the L-1011s. Is 1980 and 1987 really, really old? The L15s are 24 years old.

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 to me as a very sound aquisition. They just aren't trading up very much.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:38 am

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 perfect. Charter is light duty for old horses.

You only buy a new jet if you will fly it hard.
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
757dc10fltmech
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:25 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:09 am

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 that.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 21):
Bottom line: dispatch reliability, availability of spare parts, maintenance, manufacturer support, engines, etc.

YES!
CAN DO!
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:25 am

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 35):
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 to me as a very sound aquisition. They just aren't trading up very much.

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 due diligence?

Nobody is denying that they are old, but new aircraft have the same problems if not maintained well. Are you implying that they are unsafe? Why so, if maintained properly? It is definitley a trade up in spares, engines, manufacturer support, vendor support, and places willing to work on one. These are factors that are killing the L-1011. Are L-1011s old under your definition?

I am saying it again, but newer aircraft with high lease rates do NOT work in the charter environment. I guess we should just go out of business than operate anything as "old" as a DC-10.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:39 am

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 L1011s so urgent that they have to be replaced soon

Are the L1011s so worn that they need to replaced that soon ? Can they not be upgraded untill ATA would find a more modern replacement for the L1011s like 767, 777, A330s or A340 ?
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:51 am

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 Long Range International segment under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program administered by the Air Mobility Command (AMC) of the US Air Force. Yes, on very rare occasion, if a sked flight needs to be covered and that's all they've got, or for some reason (peak holiday period, say) they have the ability to make extra money by dumping a lot of seats into the Hawaii market on a couple of specific days, they might *think about* using the L1011 (the widebody) with it's less-than-optimal dispatch reliability in place of their biggest narrowbody, the 753, with its virtually-flawless dispatch reliability. The widebodies at ATA, particularly if they expand their fleet, are also available for the few (very, very few) commercial charter opportunities (for US carriers, anyway) that exist any more requiring an aircraft bigger than a 753.

Given this, and remembering that while the military doesn't pay directly for fuel, it does build in protections against *fluctuations* in fuel price. Actual payment is based on a per-seat-mile formula, in which the payment per seat-mile differs depending upon whether the a/c is "large" (DC10, MD11, L1011, etc.), medium (757) or small (738). The number of seats per aircraft used appears to me to be tweaked a bit to get a reasonable payment for each model of aircraft, rather than be based upon actual seats in each tail number.

One thing that I've never seen done on A.net is to look at the actual composition of the fleets of the CRAF carriers that actually do the passenger flying, which are ATA, World, Omni, North American and Ryan, and to a lesser extent Miami Air.

From the latest-published lists of committed aircraft from those carriers, located at http://www.dot.gov/ost/oet/craf/index.html :

North American: 4 763ERs, 5 752s

ATA: 10 757s, 4 L1011-500s. The folks at the Office of Emergency Planning show ATA with 11 757s, which is a mistake. They are still listing N555TZ as an ATA aircraft, which it isn't. It's at CO now under a new registration.

Omni: 8 DC10-30s, 3 752s

World: 5 MD11 (although they actually have 8 to use, including 3 ex-DL ships), and 1 DC10-30

Ryan: 2 757s

Miami Air: 8 738s (used very sporadically on Int'l missions, and certainly not all at once, unlike the other carriers)



So, the actual fleet is:
752: 2(Ryan)+3(OAI)+6(ATA)+5(NAO)=16
753: 4(ATA)
763ER: 4(NAO)
DC10: 1(WOA)+8(OAI)=9
MD11: 7(WOA) (actually 8, but one of WOAs a/c is VIP-config and not suitable)
OR
752: 16
753: 4
763: 4
D10: 9
M11: 7

Given that there are 9 DC10s regularly serving on military missions, it's actually the most-used widebody aircraft. Of course, because ATA uses some of its 752s on Hawaii service, there actually aren't 6 to use for military; more like 2 or 3, and NAO sometimes doesn't have any 757s available for the military (such as this summer) except on a very ad-hoc basis. So that 752 number is a little deceptive.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:58 am

Quoting Columba (Reply 39):
Are the L1011s so worn that they need to replaced that soon ?

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's all explained there. It's not just an issue of "3-engines, 3-persons, so they're the same plane". Have a little respect for the fact that airline operations are a tad more complex than that.

The issue, simply put, is that if an L1011 breaks, particularly overseas, it may go out of service for a long time while an appropriate part is found and shipped to the location of the breakdown. Once there, it may not fit, or may have wierd drill holes, because of the Lockheed manufacturing process. It may also be the wrong part, whereupon a whole new trip has to be made for the part. There are also very few places in the world that can fix an L1011, and only two (?) I think that will even consider doing something like a D-check on one, at least to FAA specs. There is also virtually zero support from the manufacturer. This can create tremendous difficulty in an environment where you need to get your troops somewhere reliably. In contrast, the DC10 is still widely used around the world (like by FedEx and other cargo carriers, for example), so when one breaks, it's vastly simpler to find a part and a place to work on it, dramatically reducing the time needed to get it back into service and the troops moving.

2 of ATA's L1011s were recently D-checked, which probably means that they aren't that "worn".

[Edited 2006-10-02 22:02:05]
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:15 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 41):

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 than reading German  Wink
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:29 am

Quoting Columba (Reply 42):
reading in English usually takes more time than reading German

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.
 
b52murph
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:31 am

Quoting Akizidy214 (Reply 28):
How many L1011'S are they trying to replace?

4 Total, each ex. Royal Jordanian birds: 161AT,162AT,163AT,164AT. As always, appreciate the fine service TZTriStar500 and Wjcandee's airline provided on 3 segments back and forth overseas. (On 194AT, 161AT, and 162AT [pictured below]) Thanks ATA.
Big version: Width: 2048 Height: 1536 File size: 495kb
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:39 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 43):
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.

Yes, most of us take it for granted. Kudos to all the 2nd language english speakers.  bigthumbsup 
KPAE via KBVY
 
BH
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:27 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:22 am

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 back and forth stage? On another note is the charter market big enough for ATA,World, and Omni if and when the military work drops off? Another fine post to Wjcandee and TZtristar500.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 207kb
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:08 am

Quoting BH (Reply 46):
On another note is the charter market big enough for ATA,World, and Omni if and when the military work drops off?

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 charter was going to be almost exclusively military, except for very special track charters like their Houston-Angola service and seasonal stuff like they did this summer for Ethiopian. (MD11 freight charter, in contrast, has been going pretty strong, and they just converted one of their passenger birds to a freighter precisely because of this reason.) Optimally, one wants aircraft like the 757 and 767 that are a better size for commercial ad hoc and track charter, and rather than try to find those, World restructured into a holding company format and the holding company then bought NAO, which then joined the same military "team" this year. World will lose the 3 ex-DL aircraft in late 2007/early 2008, so that will reduce their capacity on the MD11 side a bit, while NAO experiments with some niche sked service (which will likely shift around a bit as JFK-ACC probably goes away as DL enters that market) and adds 767s and 757s as needed. Folks like Omni are a little-less-well positioned for the decline, but they actually do a bit of commercial charter with the DC10, and have added 757s for the same reason that World bought NAO. ATA is well-positioned, except for widebodies, to switch their assets between charter and sked, although the 753s are arguably a bit too new/expensive to produce optimal returns when just flying military service, but they do make money as long as they are kept flying, which they are right now.

Bottom line is that none of these carriers likely want to expand dramatically on the military fleet side, at least with aircraft that have a substantial capital cost. WOA is careful to stagger its lease expirations so they can downsize if necessary, and I assume that the other folks do the same.

The problem is that nobody really knows how long the higher operational tempo will be maintained. It could be another year or it could be two or it could be more. That's actually a pretty-short period of time for anybody who would think to enter the business, but a decent window for those who are already in it. When things get thicker than the present fleet can handle, the charter guys are supplemented by other members of their team, who have mixed feelings about these missions but will do them voluntarily when needed in order to keep the AMC from "activating" the CRAF, which imposes obligations on them that they'd prefer to avoid. Also, as the legacy carriers reduce their costs, the cost to them of doing the charter when compared to the reimbursement rate is more attractive than it used to be, although it's still no cakewalk given that they're less-equipped to do them, given that they don't do them all the time. So the charter guys don't have to have a fleet that is large enough to do absolutely-everything that the military needs; they can "right size" except for the biggest peaks. OTOH, there are valleys as well as peaks, and the charter aircraft do have periods where at least some of them sit around.

One factor that TriStar mentioned is how the overall military contract is changing. First, the military has reduced and plans to eliminate the Patriot Express, which was the group of rotator flights run by the AMC that family members and relocating military personnel, as well as on-leave military personnel could get seats on. These flights would go from the West Coast to various places in the Pacific Theatre and from the East Coast to Germany, for example. When international traffic dropped off dramatically a few years ago, the airlines and their political allies made the point quite definitively that the GSA's City-Pair program (which provides reduced government rates for seats on airlines) could transport those folks at a much-lower cost per actually-occupied seat on the Patriot Express, and the commercial airlines were desperately in need of revenue. (This doesn't take into account how many servicepeople on leave used the "standby" seats on those aircraft, but that wasn't part of the discussion: it focused primarily on the "positive space" seats, if you will, for which the government would otherwise purchase a commercial ticket for the families and servicepeople.) Also, the increased availability of point-to-point CONUS-International flights made the traditional collect-and-distribute model of the Patriot Express seem a little anachronistic. However, there are and always will be things like force protection issues and the question of seat availability if International traffic rebounds, as it has, so it isn't totally clear that Patriot Express will completely go away. However, as it made up a decent part of the fixed-buy portion of the AMC contract, its gradual elimination has made the International CRAF contract a much more indefinite business. There will always be certain rotators and such that can be bought on fixed-buy, but it's a surprisingly-small number.

That said, there are factors that fall on the brighter side for the charter carriers. Remember that there is no organic military passenger lift (setting aside the very limited passenger space on cargo aircraft, which is actually pretty nice). That means that most military passengers have to fly on an AMC carrier or a commercial flight. So one good factor for these guys, even as the Iraq conflict winds down, whenever that happens, is the shortening of certain assignments abroad outside of the Iraq conflict, which means more rotation which means more flights. Another is the fact that the world remains a dangerous place, and we're likely to be needed in other places once the Middle East settles down. So for the next 2-3 years, at least, I think these guys will have a decent "pie" of business. After that, it's anybody's guess, but there will certainly be a strong baseline of business, that will likely be covered more and more by aircraft that are smaller than the MD11.

Hope this helps.
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:30 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 41):
it may not fit, or may have wierd drill holes, because of the Lockheed manufacturing process.

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 delivered without holes.

L-1011 spares were junk five years ago, let alone today. Reliability of the L-1011 at DL actually improved once most of the junk spares were out of the system. Kudos to TZ for keeping them in the air this long.

Good luck TZTristar500! You will be one of the few people to directly compare the DC-10 to the L-1011. You'll miss the L-1011 FIM's.
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: ATA's L-1011 Replacement - 767s Possible?

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:37 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 41):
Once there, it may not fit, or may have wierd drill holes, because of the Lockheed manufacturing process.

Just what were Lockheed "weird manufacturing processes", and what make you an expert on them?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, AsiaTravel, Baidu [Spider], cougar15, dergay, ManuCH, PlanesNTrains, scbriml, Scorpio, SGAviation, smi0006, thomasphoto60, tnotten, ZK-NBT and 166 guests