cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:45 pm

while i understand that buying DC-10s from NW was probably cheaper than new-build 767s from boeing, would the 767-400 fit into the role that TZ is using the L1011s/DC-10s for? my understanding is that the 764 was designed as an L1011 replacement for DL/CO originally, and no other carriers use them as yet. still, i think it would have been a better investment for the long term to get the 764s from boeing, if it were possible. 'sides, the airplane would have looked awesome in thier new scheme!
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
san747
Posts: 4344
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:54 pm

Must've been a cost issue, plus the fact that TZ has a history with the DC-10. They've never had any type of 767 in their fleet, so maintenence and training costs for the new type may have been prohibitive...
Scotty doesn't know...
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:45 pm

If you're Delta and you fly your 767-400 11 hours per day, you make enough money to pay the mortgage on the plane.

If you're ATA and you only fly 3 hours a day (guesstimate), that won't pay the mortgage on a new jet.

A DC-10 is great because you can keep it on the tarmac without a big monthly payment. The 764 is a lovely jet but the price tag is too high for ad-hoc charter work. That would be a waste of a nice jet.
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4465
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:03 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
If you're ATA and you only fly 3 hours a day (guesstimate), that won't pay the mortgage on a new jet.

Wasnt this one big reason why they ended up in BK?
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:06 pm

For starters, the availability for 764's right now is zero. Only DL and CO operate the type. Secondly, as mentioned above, the pricetag is too high. Thirdly, even used 763's on today's market turned out to be too expensive for TZ to be able to run them profitably. That was the reason they went with DC-10's, to provide lift in the interim period until 787 deliveries makes more 763's available at a reasonable price. As a charter carrier, TZ is not able to utilize their widebodies at the same rate as a scheduled carrier would, and it is therefore more sensitive to aircraft prizing.
- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:04 pm

History with the DC-10 was not as big of an issue as you might think. The Maintenance Program still had to be re-designed, the crews had to be trained. It was as if we never owned the aircraft. A lot has happened in 10 years with this airline and that frame. Now with regard to 767s, it is all about availability. As LN-MOW has stated, there are no 767s on the market here in '07 in advance of the 787 production binge. And the scant few that are available are so expensive that most well established carriers cant afford them let alone TZ. The variant that TZ needs is at least a -300ER or a -400ER, and to get a -400ER it would have to be new. To get a -300ER takes work, especially if you are leaning towards acquiring ones with CF6's on them instead of the Pratt engines. When we last tried to acquire a 767, an Asiana bird, the lease rate had climbed to somewhere in the neighborhood of $550k a month when we turned them down.

As far as acquisition options that ATA has, here is a very general rundown of the performance of the aircraft in the "L1011 Class":

----------------L1011-500---------DC-10-30-----------767-300ER--------767-400ER------A330-200------A330-300

Pax Cap:------283---------------318----------------350 (max)--------375 (max)-------293 (max)---------335 (max)
Range: ------5345 Nmi-------6220 Nmi---------5975 Nmi----------5625 Nmi-------6750 Nmi----------5650 Nmi
MTOW------231,000 lbs-----572,000 lbs------412,000 lbs------450,000 lbs-----507,000 lbs------507,000 lbs


As you can see, the DC-10 is unique in that it has the most range for the most passengers. The config listed is ATAs current, but Boeing says that the max capacity is 380, higher then any of the other options. It is also readily available (or was at the time ATA needed it) in the quantities that ATA needs. And for the price, which was a lot lower than the 767, the airframes are a good deal.

I would love to see ATA order some new airframes, but my wager is that if they do so, it will be 787s in 7-10 years and they will replace the DC-10s in between then and now with used 767s as they become more plentiful after the 787 makes its production debut.

I hope this helps a little more with the future of ATA's widebody fleet. The only factor that this theory doesn't control is if they need the lift ASAP for international expansion a la WN codeshare. Mattlin Patterson might pony up the money if they think it would turn a long term profit in that regard.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
skibum9
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 1:13 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:22 pm

Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 4):
For starters, the availability for 764's right now is zero.

I hope you are referring to used 764s? Boeing still has the 767 line open, and all versions of the 767 are still available if an airline wants a new one.

Also, IIRC, the U.S. military, for which TZ does a good amount of lift for, has a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights. If that is still a requirement it means TZ could not use the 767 if it wanted, and its choice of aircraft was limited to newer L1011s, DC-10s, MD-11s, 340s or 747s.
Tailwinds!!!
 
EXAAUADL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:48 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:27 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
If you're Delta and you fly your 767-400 11 hours per day, you make enough money to pay the mortgage on the plane.

If you're ATA and you only fly 3 hours a day (guesstimate), that won't pay the mortgage on a new jet.

BINGO...it is a fixed cost issue...the D10s have high operating costs, but you bill the Govt, plus the D10s are paid for.
 
DualQual
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:29 pm

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 6):

Also, IIRC, the U.S. military, for which TZ does a good amount of lift for, has a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights. If that is still a requirement it means TZ could not use the 767 if it wanted, and its choice of aircraft was limited to newer L1011s, DC-10s, MD-11s, 340s or 747s.

Not sure about that. The USAF operates 737, 757, and Gulfstream aircraft transoceanic. The USN also has Gulfstreams, 737, and DC-9's.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:29 pm

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 6):
a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights

This is not the case. The AMC program was designed with the 767-300 in mind, in fact the rumor is that for the money, the 767-300ER makes the most profit in AMC flying. That was one of the biggest acquisition points when ATA was looking at them. The aircraft have to be ETOPS, but TZ routinely substitutes 757-300 and 757-200 on transoceanic flights for the AMC program.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:32 pm

With regard to the fixed costs, they are only partially subsidized by the Government. It would have still been better for ATA to acquire 767s at a similar or slightly higher cost then it would be for the DC-10. The maintenance costs don't come off, and new 767s would be a lot less intensive then the fleet leader in hours for the entire DC-10-30 Fleet.

[Edited 2007-08-01 16:36:17]
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
ChiGB1973
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:39 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:41 pm

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 3):
Wasnt this one big reason why they ended up in BK?

High fuel prices, low ticket prices. I saw Mr Mikelsons in front of IND one day and he said, full planes, no money. The scheduled service planes had to be getting a better usage than 3 hours a day. For charters, that could be closer to correct.

As for the 764, I believe the 763 would be a much better plane for TZ purposes. The military charters have heavy cargo, meaning the soldier's gear. The better range and more compatible (size wise) with subbing for the 753 when necessary on scheduled service. Of course, MDW would be excluded.

M

[Edited 2007-08-01 16:45:31]
 
ChiGB1973
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:39 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:49 pm

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 6):
Also, IIRC, the U.S. military, for which TZ does a good amount of lift for, has a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights. If that is still a requirement it means TZ could not use the 767 if it wanted, and its choice of aircraft was limited to newer L1011s, DC-10s, MD-11s, 340s or 747s

I flew many troops across the Atlantic on a 757-200 and -300.

M
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:07 am

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 5):
As far as acquisition options that ATA has, here is a very general rundown of the performance of the aircraft in the "L1011 Class":

----------------L1011-500---------DC-10-30-----------767-300ER--------767-400ER------A330-200------A330-300
Pax Cap:------283---------------318----------------350 (max)--------375 (max)-------293 (max)---------335 (max)
Range: ------5345 Nmi-------6220 Nmi---------5975 Nmi----------5625 Nmi-------6750 Nmi----------5650 Nmi
MTOW------231,000 lbs-----572,000 lbs------412,000 lbs------450,000 lbs-----507,000 lbs------507,000 lbs

I thihk you need to look at the L-1011-500 numbers.
Pax Cap: .......283? depending on configuration is up to 315.
Range:...........5345 Nmi? close enough
MTOW...........231,000 lbs? actually its 514,000 lbs.
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:10 am

Sorry, 283 is what ATA is configured at, same as the number for the DC-10. I pulled the MTOW number off of the Airliners data page and did't cross check it though I should have.

Thanks for the correct.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:11 am

While it is perfectly OK to be inquisitive and ask questions why airlines (TZ in this case) do certain things, I often wonder if everyone understands how these decisions come about. Over the last few years, there have been many professional people in this company that have searched, looked at, studied, analyzed, etc. many aircraft including the 747-200, 767-300, 767-200, 777-200, A340-200/300, MD11, and DC10 as suitable replacements for the L-1011s. After factoring in our unique AMC operations (all ad-hoc of approx. 1.5 cycles/day), acquisition costs, availability, lease rates, etc., the DC10 was the ONLY short-term viable business case that would be consistently profitable.

They are currently on 5 year leases with extend options. If during that period or after, there become more viable options, they will be explored. My personal opinion is they will only be 5-7 year aircraft, if that, as it will become more difficult to maintain like the L-1011 as world operators decline especially for interior items as TZ, Omni, and World will probably be the very last pax operators of the type.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:19 am

Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 4):
For starters, the availability for 764's right now is zero. Only DL and CO operate the type. Secondly, as mentioned above, the pricetag is too high. Thirdly, even used 763's on today's market turned out to be too expensive for TZ to be able to run them profitably.

In the end, might the decision to go with DC-10s come back and haunt TZ, given they're already very much used airplanes and they might have to be replaced sooner than TZ anticipated, if for no other reason than operating economics (fuel prices and maintenance)? In the long run, TZ might have done better to try to get some of those "expensive" 767s because it would have given them an airplane that might save them money over a period of years.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 9):
This is not the case. The AMC program was designed with the 767-300 in mind, in fact the rumor is that for the money, the 767-300ER makes the most profit in AMC flying. That was one of the biggest acquisition points when ATA was looking at them. The aircraft have to be ETOPS, but TZ routinely substitutes 757-300 and 757-200 on transoceanic flights for the AMC program.

Remember, North American also flies AMC charters, and they do it with B-767-300ERs. Isn't World and NA part of TZ now?

BTW, here at DFW today, TZ has 2 L-1011-500s parked, and 1 DC-10-30 (N702TZ). The DC-10 is still in NW colors, but has "ATA" painted in yellow on each side. Looks very strange. Also the registration number is painted in either black, or a very dark blue (it is cloudy here at DFW today).
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:58 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 16):
In the end, might the decision to go with DC-10s come back and haunt TZ, given they're already very much used airplanes and they might have to be replaced sooner than TZ anticipated

It's a matter of calculating the costs involved in having an expensive 'new' aircraft sitting on the ground 16 hours of the day versus the additional operating costs for a 'paid off old plane' in the air for 8.

It's a reason NW still flies the DC-9 .... and they have a lot higher utilization than TZ's Diesel 10's.
- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
SKY1
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:14 am

I wonder if Boeing will see more 767-400 metal sold to other carriers (Maybe as a 787 interim solution?)
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:54 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Isn't World and NA part of TZ now?

Although we are not sure how it is all going to work I will tell you this much: World and North American are not a part of ATA. They are owned by the same parent company (or will be pending government approval) but are separate companies. The 763ERs that NA has are theirs alone. In fact, the DC-10s that are going to World are being subleased, so it isn't as if ATA is getting zero kickback for the birds.

And TZTriStar, I think you hit it right on the money. Speculation is fun, but there are a lot of people being paid a lot of money to do this sort of thing. And until I am one of them, all I can do is make conjecture.

You have to admit though, it would be nice to see a shiny new 764ER in ATA colors... Wink
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 7):
the D10s have high operating costs, but you bill the Govt

Actually, the operators are paid by the gov't per seat-mile, within groups of aircraft types (large, medium, small). An MD-80 is small, a 752 is medium, an MD11 is large. 10.18 cents per contracted seat-mile for large and 12.5 cents per contracted seat-mile for medium (plus stop charges and certain adjustments). A DC10-30 is "large", and gets paid at the 10.18 cents per seat-mile rate, while the 763 gets paid at the 12.5 cents rate. Typically, the AMC pays for 240 seats on the 763 and 330 on the DC10-30, so the per-mile rate is more comparable than it seems from the per-seat-mile rates.

Those who point out the utilization issue are correct. The point is that where utilization levels are uncertain, having a low-capital-cost aircraft is a hedge against the slow periods: if you're not using it, you're not paying too much for it to sit. The higher costs to utilize it limit your profitability per hour, but you balance that against the fact that a higher-capital-cost aircraft might make you unprofitable overall. An alternative is a full power-by-the-hour lease, which WOA, for example, had on one of its cargo DC10s. When they used it, they paid for it; when they didn't, they didn't. Naturally, it cost a bunch to use when they used it, but they didn't use it unless they really needed it. You don't want *all* your capital assets to be on that basis, but the ones at the margins certainly can be. Nobody has talked about reliability here, which is another major issue in military contracts: the AMC has timeliness and reliability requirements that are very, very punitive, and maintenance and operations standards that are written in blood. Newer aircraft are broadly-speaking more reliable than older, and can better-withstand the rigors of a high operating tempo (when it happens) and can, as a result of greater parts/maintenance availability in remote locations, be fixed faster when they do break, so operating older aircraft in AMC service requires operating procedures and practices (like bases where certain parts are stored and putting mechanics on every flight, etc.) that cost money and might not be as necessary with newer aircraft. That said, however, it appears that the best business case, taking into account these factors as well, was made with the DC10s.

In short, the optimal aircraft for TZ's charter use is going to be the one that best fits the range of potential utilization that it will face: the highest potential highs, the lowest potential lows, and the most-likely utilization (which will include moving nonstop during high op-tempo periods and not at all for long periods in between).

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 9):
but TZ routinely substitutes 757-300 and 757-200 on transoceanic flights for the AMC program.

It's less "subsitution" than actually assigning that aircraft to the mission, given the ACL (cabin load) required by the AMC for the mission. Ryan and North American also are asked to provide 752s on certain long-range international military missions.
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 21):
It's less "subsitution" than actually assigning that aircraft to the mission, given the ACL (cabin load) required by the AMC for the mission.

Of that I am aware, but often the requirement is for more widebody lift then we can provide and therefore we have the "substitute" a 753 instead. That was the situation to which I was referring.

But thank you for the clarification.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
asuflyer05
Posts: 2053
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:53 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:32 am

Would it make sense for ATA to put their DC10s through the Boeing MD10 conversion process?
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7069
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 23):
Would it make sense for ATA to put their DC10s through the Boeing MD10 conversion process?

Might not be worth if they're going to be around for little time and these are leased planes.

Hunter
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:01 am

One thing that a lot of you are ignoring is that a DC-10 is a three engine aircraft that gives it an advantage over any twin engine aircraft. If the DC-10 needs an engine change and is in a remote location, it may be ferried , empty, on two engines to a location that has a spare engine and better equipment to change it. This requires less down time and allows a quicker return to service, which is much more economical for a smaller airline.
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:30 pm

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 22):
Of that I am aware, but often the requirement is for more widebody lift then we can provide and therefore we have the "substitute" a 753 instead. That was the situation to which I was referring.

Gotcha. I was just thinking that if the 757 was actually called for on some International CRAF missions, it refuted the poster's contention that the AMC only wanted multi-engine aircraft. We all know that not to be true any more.

I should have realized who was posting (you) and that you already knew that. I hope I didn't sound snippy; didn't mean to.

[Edited 2007-08-02 05:31:26]
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:23 pm

Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 23):
Would it make sense for ATA to put their DC10s through the Boeing MD10 conversion process?

In addition, we already have the three man crews required to take the bird out as they are needed for our L1011 aircraft. That conversion is expensive and not necessary so I do not see it materializing. In fact, didn't FX stop the conversion mid process as it turn out to be less economically viable then was originally thought? Maybe someone who knows a little more about the MD-10 can answer that one.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 26):
I should have realized who was posting (you) and that you already knew that. I hope I didn't sound snippy; didn't mean to.

No big deal at all. The text robs us of any emotion. I hope you didn't think I was being snippy in return. I assure you that the whole thing was done lightheartedly. This issue hits home for me as there is nothing I would love more then to see 8 or 9 763ERs or 764ERs in ATA colors doing long haul work for us. It just isn't in the cards right now, but all of this talk is exciting. It makes me think that I can hope that maybe, someday, that wish will become a reality.

Just the little things that get you through the working day....

Quoting Nwarooster (Reply 25):
it may be ferried , empty, on two engines to a location that has a spare engine and better equipment to change it.

This is a great point. Especially given that most of the MAC flights are to areas far from normal ATA personnel because they are one off stations, or maybe only once or twice a month.

[Edited 2007-08-02 14:26:40]
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:55 pm

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 5):
I would love to see ATA order some new airframes,

don't they need engines too? Why do people on Anet talk about frames when they mean aircraft or airplane. An airframe doesn't do anyone any good without engines  Smile

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
that won't pay the mortgage on a new jet

You don't mortgage a plane you leave or take out an installment loan. Mortgages are for property only.


TZ is smart to keep the DC-10's as posted above, it makes very good sense for their type of operation.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:15 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 28):
don't they need engines too? Why do people on Anet talk about frames when they mean aircraft or airplane. An airframe doesn't do anyone any good without engines Smile

Well as long as the frame can mount an serviceable RB211 from an L1011 aircraft we have plenty of those. It wont be able to fly, but it will at least have something under the wing.

Picky, Picky...  Wink
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 27):
In fact, didn't FX stop the conversion mid process as it turn out to be less economically viable then was originally thought?

They slowed it down in the wake of 9/11. Original plan: 70 MD10s plus options. At the time it slowed, they had like 16 of them. They now have, according to the FedEx web site, 62 of them. So the conversion works for them.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: B767-400 For TZ?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:10 am

Those DC10 are better for ATA, the 767 400 do not have the speed are width that a DC10 has, also those DC10s have more range.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, a320fan, alski, ASMD11, BAeRJ100, Baidu [Spider], BartSimpson, Boeing747Girl15, deltacto, Google [Bot], JannEejit, JeremyB, JetBuddy, KarelXWB, oslmgm, pvjin, SCQ83, StTim, sunking737, travelhound, Yahoo [Bot] and 202 guests