your correct flt# 4625/ return flt# 4626, I wounder if the SEA to HNL is close to the 180 min ETOPS limit? thank for the info Cloud Watcher, Happy Holidays.
ATA on the Rebound!
- Thread starter corl737
- Start date
What flight for SWA went to Hawai'i? One was used a proving/test run a LONG time ago as far as I know that was the only one. What flight are you referring to?
A good place to check distances between airports and etops info is at this web site: http://gc.kls2.com/.
SEA-HNL is probably doable within 180 mins etops criteria , but there will be payload restrictions due to ETOPS fuel requirements.
You have to be able to carry enough fuel to reach the equal time point, to be able to descend to 10000 feet, then fly to the closest suitable airport on one engine, descend to 1500 feet, hold for 15 mins, execute a missed approach and execute another approach and land. Depending on the winds you may need 4-6000 lbs more fuel for 180 mins etops route than would be required to fly the same distance over land where numerous en rte alternates are available.
SEA-HNL is probably doable within 180 mins etops criteria , but there will be payload restrictions due to ETOPS fuel requirements.
You have to be able to carry enough fuel to reach the equal time point, to be able to descend to 10000 feet, then fly to the closest suitable airport on one engine, descend to 1500 feet, hold for 15 mins, execute a missed approach and execute another approach and land. Depending on the winds you may need 4-6000 lbs more fuel for 180 mins etops route than would be required to fly the same distance over land where numerous en rte alternates are available.
An article in the Wall Street Journal last week quotes Gary Kelley (CEO of Southwest) as saying that SWA will eventually begin international service, but that it would initially be done via a codeshare. He did not get any more specific, but one might conclude that he is referring to the ATA code share. This assumption shoots some holes in the "charter only" version of ATA.
I guess the "ideal" version of my plan is that ATA revert to "charter only". The main improvements provided by the (my) plan, however, are in fleets (WN gains 73's for overwater flights and TZ can simplify even further to only 75s) and in WN's broadening of their network at a time when there are few open areas to expand into. Hawaii and the US VI would give them much-needed space. TZ reverting to charter-only would just make sense in my eyes (if you are shrinking an operation, might as well simplify at the same time) but it isn't essential to the "plan". Perhaps WN would eventually tag onto another carrier for the international. You can bet that they are watching international new entrants carefully and not just hanging their hats on TZ.
Only problem with that plan is that a huge part of ATA's charter business is military charters. According to a friend of mine who is an ATA flight attendant, the military HATES narrow-body jets for overseas deployments, especially the 757.
Well seeing as they must already be flying on the 75 (as their fleet is currently only 73/75...correct me if I'm wrong but I thought they had phased out the L1011), unless ATA wanted to only expand the military charter business when rescinding to charter-only or charter-focused, I don't see this as an issue. To be smart about it, TZ should diversify its charters with the additional 75's that would be pulled in from scheduled service and they should use them for non-military charters. I think it would be foolish to only try to expand the military segment. And like I said...since they are only flying 73's and 75's, the military would not be getting widebodies right now from my understanding.
No, they still operate five L-1011s on their charter operations. According to AvWeek, they plan to replace one this year with a 767-300, but the other four stay in the fleet for the time being.
My friend, the ATA flight attendant, also told me that the L1011s had gotten so unreliable that a mechanic now flies as part of the crew. He/she gets the same layover hotels, etc. that the flight crew gets. If nothing happens, he/she has basically had a multi-day foreign vacation at company expense.
JAMAKE1
Veteran
Hmmmm...aging L-1011's, a sole 767-300, 757-200/300's, and 737-300/500/800's...seems like a very hodge-podge fleet complement for an airline of ATA's dwindling size. Think they'll succeed? Having recently lost the Pleasant Hawaiian Holidays contract, will SFO-Hawaii continue to be in the game plan post emergence? With the loss of SFO-MDW service and no Southwest service at SFO, I cannot see how ATA will compete with the likes of HA and UA in this market. I was perusing the ATA website the other day and the route map had all of these numbers next to city pairs that were going to be discontinued in the very near future. The Midway operation will be down to a handful of routes to DFW, DCA, and LGA with a few international destinations thrown in. I'm skeptical about their future. Comments? Thoughts?
As I've said before, ATA is not long for this world. The whole involvement by SWA was nothing more than a ploy to gain control of MDW for a relatively small amount of money and eliminate their major MDW competitor at the same time. Without a big city hub with major operations, ATA can not survive.
As has been noted above, their charter operations are going down the tubes for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that the travel agencies that actually book that charter business are not going to risk losing a bunch of customers and having to refund a bunch of money if the carrier goes out of business at the last minute. There are too many charter operations out there that are in much better financial shape.
The Defense Department sees no reason to cram upwards of 200 soldiers into a 757 for deployment to Iraq when they can send an additional 50 in a 777 operated by AA, UA, or DL. It's my understanding that our CRAF flying offers are limited only by the availability of 767s/777s.
Similar threads
