ITYT Travel Forums  

Go Back   ITYT Travel Forums > Travel Companies & Programs > Airlines & Frequent Flier Programs > AirTran Airways (FL)
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-02-2003, 12:29 AM   #1
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
UBS Financial Downgrades AirTran and Southwest Airlines

UBS Financial Downgrades AirTran and Southwest Airlines

Quote:
He says discounters continue to gain share aggressively, but he thinks valuations are getting stretched on AAI and LUV.

For AirTran, Buttrick sees EPS of 55 cents in 2003, and 80 cents in 2004. For Southwest, he sees EPS of 36 cents in 2003, and 50 cents in 2004. He has a $13 price target for LUV, and $12 target for AAI.
__________________

dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2003, 03:18 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
And This Makes AirTran Unsafe How?

Don't fly AirTran! They're not safe to fly because UBS downgraded their stock! At least TRY to disguise the true intent of this website and stop being so obvious
__________________

haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2003, 05:48 PM   #3
Senior Member
ITYT Navigator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: AUS [Austin, TX, USA]
Posts: 610
Send a message via AIM to Nugget
Now that's just silly. Southwest is a perfectly safe airline which I recommend routinely for cost-conscious travellers. Nobody is making a case that an airline's stock price or financial outlook has a direct effect on their safety. The fact that Southwest's stock was downgraded shows this quite clearly.
Nugget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 08:42 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Come ON!

...but do you seriously think this thread would've even been started if the headline was "UBS Financial Downgrades Southwest Airlines"? I think you know the answer to that. And isn't this site designed to warn people about the safety hazard that is AirTran? So what does a downgrade of it's stock have to do with anything and why was that even posted. I'll tell you why: it serves only to bash AirTran, as does this site. That is the real agenda here. Come on chief, I know you're smarter than that
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2003, 03:45 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ORD
Posts: 188
Keep fighting those windmills, Haze, you'll get 'em yet!
phule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 12:31 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Thanks!

...oldest trick in the book: those with an agenda create a strong current of misinformation until the propoganda appears to be "the norm." Then when someone with a little common sense comes along and says "hold on a minute, this is a bunch of obsolete hogwash!" you try to totally discredit them by calling them things like a kook and claiming they're on drugs. Again, the condescention is flattering, but no thanks [/quote]
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 04:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Ahh, the old book of tricks. Presumably this is the same book that teachers AirTran maintenance supervisors to encourage mechanics to sign off on work that wasn't completed? Or pack hazardous oxygen generators in cardboard boxes?

Oldest trick in the book indeed.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 05:19 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Why Yes, That's the Propoganda I Was Speaking Of

...dude, I saw that NTSB show on Discovery Channel too! Neato, wasn't it? The only problem is that you're forgetting that those weren't AirTran supervisors, hell they weren't even ValuJet supervisors. They were SabreTech supervisors. And it was a SabreTech technician who boxed up the oxygen canisters, albeit after another SabreTech technician erroneously labled them "empty."

Now that didn't excuse VALUJET just because they subcontracted out their maintenance and SabreTech's technicians forged documents and mislabeled canisters and mistakenly loaded hazardous materials on an aircraft. But I sure am glad that AIRTRAN supervisors have never encouraged anyone to fabricate a report, and their very own "inhouse" mechanics have been awarded the FAA's Diamond Award for safety and maintenance on several occasions. Part of the reason ValuJet was so unsafe was because they subcontracted their maintenance to an incompetent SabreTech (now defunct, fortunately). Part of the reason AirTran is so safe is that their inhouse mechanics regularly snag the highest safety and training award from the FAA.

Now did you have anything acurate to say, or just more of your propoganda to spew
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 06:39 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
you know better

baker, the little discussion was going so well until you pull this crap again by just spitting out (on paper were other gullible people can be snagged) what you think happened or what a friend of a friend of a friend who's cousin worked at the Miami airport 20 gates from ValuJet at the time of the crash told you. Instead of researching your info and putting down just the facts like your little ITYT.com website is supposed to do.....oh but why start now when you have a warning page with all sorts of mis-information about AirTran on it!!!!!!!!!!! still scrapping?
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 07:01 PM   #10
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Unlike you, I got my information about ValuJet 592 from the NTSB report. I'm pretty frightened that you just admitted to getting your information from a television show. I guess that clearly I was foolish for discussing this with you under the presumption that you actually had read the report. Please read the report and pay particular attention to section 1.1.2.4 which discusses the packing of the oxygen generators.

I never claimed that AirTran supervisors packed the boxes. Please don't blame me for anything as a result of your reading comprehension problems.

As far as AirTran supervisors encouraging mechanics to sign off on work not completed (aka pencil whipping), it has been documented in NTSB reports to have happened in the past. Additionally, AirTran is currently being sued by a former employee for wrongful termination. The ex-employee in question was terminated less than a week after he filed an FAA whistleblower report on AirTran for pencilwhipping.

Did you work at the airline when it was named ValuJet? If you did, then you're part of the problem. If not, then you don't know what has changed between the two airlines and are not an authority on what has changed.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2003, 07:23 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
reply

baker dont ignore my replies now, thats just not like you..... As far as an ex-employee sueing the Airline, I havent heard of this yet, It may be true. Why dont you post the site you got the info? Is it a machanic? was he fired from ATL or MCO? All I can say is that if I was pissed at an employer for firing me I would say that too....I guess. You cant just get fired from AirTran (if your a mechanic) because we are union. Teamsters for that matter and there has to be a reason, and then some. Were just like every other business out there who hires people that you may have wished you didnt as time goes by. I personally hate the guys who sit around and dont pull there weight or try to get out of every job that comes up...So if this was one of those guys then I'm sorry but It obviosly happened for a reason if the union stood by it. As far as "AKA" pencil whipping....not on my watch................Safety first! Stop speculating!
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2003, 09:18 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Ummmmm

Gee dbaker, don't understand sarcasm very well do you? I was simply implying that you got your info about that particular incident from the Discovery special since it just aired a couple of weeks ago. If you actually read the NTSB report on the matter, then I'm proud of you

Speaking of reading comprehension defficiency, I never said that you claimed AirTran supervisors packed any boxes. Go back and read it again very s-l-o-w-l-y and if you still don't get it I'll "spell it out for you."

As far as the lawsuit goes, produce evidence of it and then I'll believe it. I've never seen or heard of it before and can't find evidence of it anywhere. And if it does exist at all, I'm sure it pertains to ValuJet supervisors instead of AirTran.

I don't work for AirTran, I'm just a small business owner in Athens, GA. I never flew ValuJet because I knew better, being from Georgia and following the airline very closely from friends in the industry, news reports (WSB-TV, AJC), and publications (Aviation Week, NTSB and other internet safety reports, etc). Then I purchased AirTran stock in 1997 after the ValuJet accident, subsequent merger, and overhaul. I've flown them regularly ever since and have been very happey with their performance. I've personally voted on company officers, so I know how the corporate culture has changed from firsthand knowledge. If I didn't "work for the airline when it was ValuJet, then I don't know what has changed and are not an authority"? I think a regular passenger of theirs who lives less than an hour from their home airport and has followed them extremely closely ever since the ValuJet days and also just so happens to be a current shareholder/owner that votes on corporate officers and other matters is more of an authority on what has changed than a frequent flier from Texas is. Not to mention that jetmech717 is a mechanic within the airline...
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2003, 12:46 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
Quote:
AirTran rose 18 cents to $13.93. The carrier announced new routes between Reagan National to Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. and Fort Myers, Fla. on Oct. 23. The Boeing 717 will be used on the route.
Quote:
AirTran Holdings (AAI: news, chart, profile) hit a 52-week high of $13.99.
and climbing!!!!!!!!!!!
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2003, 06:29 PM   #14
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Re: Ummmmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by haze
As far as the lawsuit goes, produce evidence of it and then I'll believe it. I've never seen or heard of it before and can't find evidence of it anywhere. And if it does exist at all, I'm sure it pertains to ValuJet supervisors instead of AirTran.
AirTran Airways - The Truth about Safety | Whistleblower Lawsuit

So, it does exist, and it was after the renaming of ValuJet to AirTran. So much for baseless speculation, huh?
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2003, 07:33 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
youre right.

Baker you are absolutly correct, Every mechanic here at AirTran airways understands the long standing tradition of looking the other way, because we know that if we say something we will get fired. Nobody cares about safety or the chance of losing their license RIGHT!!!!! Is that what you wanna hear??????????? Well sorry you feel that way, but its just not the case, Safety first always. Someone got mad about losing their job, thats that. I'm sure there were alot of reasons. feel free to copy any of these sentences and use them against me at a later post. lol
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2003, 09:08 AM   #16
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
You're claiming that he got mad about losing his job a couple weeks before it happened and then reported AirTran to the FAA?

Safety first, logic second I suppose.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2003, 10:16 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
lets look deeper, shall we.

Baker says without thinking:
Quote:
You're claiming that he got mad about losing his job a couple weeks before it happened and then reported AirTran to the FAA?
Safety first, logic second I suppose.
You are the first one to cry about people putting words in your mouth, and here you go, second lets look at the claim.

Plantiff said:
Quote:
[Plantiff] alleges that on June 30, 2001, an AirTran DC-9 airplane landed at [Tampa] with one of its two engines running at a temperature that exceeeded [FAA] safety guidelines, a condition that could have resulted in engine failure.
First of all the FAA does not set the guidlines for EGT (exhaust gas temperature). The aircraft manufacturer does, and there are limits set that the engine can operate in.

Plantiff said:
Quote:
After perceiving this dangerous condition, [Plantiff] recommended to [AirTran Supervisor] that the engine be subjected to a detailed physical inspection. Instead, [AirTran Supervisor] and two maintenance workers climbed into the aircraft's cockpit and conducted a "high powered run," i.e., began running the engine at high power in an effort to ascertain its air-worthiness. [Plantiff] alleges that none of these individuals were qualified to undertake this diagnostic maneuever, and that as such they violated . . .
So the plantiff was the only engine run qualified technician in Tampa right....Doubt it. And oh my he considers the actions taken by the other techs a "diagnostic test".....Oh yeah sounds to me like they just signed it off. If you call going to take-off power to duplicate the discrepency ignoring it. Get over it and move on.
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2003, 10:45 PM   #18
Senior Member
ITYT Navigator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: AUS [Austin, TX, USA]
Posts: 610
Send a message via AIM to Nugget
Re: lets look deeper, shall we.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
You are the first one to cry about people putting words in your mouth, and here you go, second lets look at the claim.
dbaker is hardly putting words in your mouth. You said exactly what he rephrased. "Someone got mad about losing their job, thats that." Clearly that isn't that. The termination came after the whistleblowing, so there's absolutely no way your version of events can be true. The motivation for the whistleblowing was not an event that occurred afterwards. Pointing out the illogic of your statement is not putting words in your mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
So the plantiff was the only engine run qualified technician in Tampa right....Doubt it.
I doubt your allegation too -- mainly because part of the plaintiff's complaint is that a qualified employee was available and wasn't involved in the test. Again you fail to grasp the meaning of the text which you're referring to. The petition doesn't make the claim that the plaintiff was the only person so qualified. It makes the claim that the people who performed the engine run were not qualified. Try reading the ruling before you discount it as inaccurate.

Clearly you are approaching this issue with the pre-determined decision that it has no merit and you are searching for facts to fit your notion. In that rush to prove yourself, you apparantly are not spending enough time reading the text itself.

I didn't respond to the [FAA] regulation issue. I have no opinion about that. I can only go by what the ruling says.
Nugget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2003, 04:16 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
ok

Nugget said:
Quote:
I didn't respond to the [FAA] regulation issue. I have no opinion about that. I can only go by what the ruling says.
First of all its not a ruling, this is all alligations, second of all how can you respond to something you know absolutly nothing about............Aircraft Maintenance

Third of all thanks for leaving me something, and if any mechanics read this let this be a warning to you if you work for AirTran watch out and you better not do it by the book.........lol just a little humor
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2003, 09:54 AM   #20
Senior Member
ITYT Navigator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: AUS [Austin, TX, USA]
Posts: 610
Send a message via AIM to Nugget
I have no idea what you mean.

First off, this is a ruling. I have no idea why you'd think it isn't. The document presented is a ruling from the appeals court that the issue is to be sent back down to the lower court for litigation. We refer to it as "the ruling" because it is "a ruling".

Secondly, when I say "I have no opinion about that" I am not, in fact, responding. So I have no idea why you think that point deserves comment from you, unless you're just trying to pick a fight.

Thirdly, what about those areas where I did comment? Are you now admitting that you are completely confused on this issue?
__________________

Nugget is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0