Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Have you called Baltia on the phone and asked to speak with Igor or Russ Thal? Why not pose your questions to them directly instead of indirectly here?
Baltia: 1-718-244-8880
It occurs to me that maybe a "frequency allocation" can't be given until an airline has its certification. But it could still retain its route authority (with dormancy waiver) while a certification application is being processed. Obviously, the DOT wouldn't want to tie up time slots at JFK until an airline was actually certified and ready to fly.
But I'm not an expert in this, so I don't really know.
At the DOT summary page listing documents in the folder, to see a document you have to click on its title in the "Title" column. That brings up a page with a brief statement of what the document is about, and on the right side of the screen there is a red symbol for a pdf file. Also an option to see it in HTML (on the left, I think).
Incidentally, when you click on the link, it probably takes you to the last page in the summary that only has a couple of things listed. This tool is not user friendly! If that's the case, scroll to the bottom of the page where you can click on a button to go back to the prior page of docs listing. Most of the docs of interest are in the middle of the second page of docs listings.
Hope this helps.
Don't know.
The ambiguity here is with "route authority" versus "frequency allocation." They don't seem to be the same thing, per the conflict between one DOT doc that refers to their waiver of route dormancy being extended to 9/9/11 (later extended again to at least 3/9/11) and the other DOT doc referring to a frequency allocation not being granted in May 2010.
Baltia claims they still have it - that a waiver of the time requirement is routinely given as long as they are actively working their way through FAA certification. So I guess it's up to somebody to prove that they don't.
There seems to be a contradiction between these two DOT documents, in that one refers to a waiver of the deadline to start service having been extended to 9/9/10 and the other saying that an application for "frequency" had been denied in May, 2010.
However, if you look earlier to the application for frequency, it is for specific flight times...
--------------
OST-2009-0070 - Frequency Allocation - New York-St. Petersburg
March 13, 2010
Amended Application for a Frequency Allocation
Baltia proposes to start weekly service between New York and St. Petersburg upon obtaining such service authority from the Russian Federation. Baltia will use its own B747 aircraft configured for three class service. Baltia has applied for slots at JFK for the following schedule:
FIt. #101-dep KJFK 1600 Sat/arr LED 800 Sun
FIt. #102-dep LED 1100/arr KJFK 1230 Monday (same day service)
--------------
So this doesn't seem to specifically address route authority, but addresses flight frequency on the route.
An ambiguity here.
In the DOT documents at...
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=50;s=DOT-OST-2007-0007
I found documents and correspondence between the DOT and Baltia referencing an impending expiration of an extension of Baltia's waiver of dormancy due to expire on 3/9/11, and an application by Baltia to extend the waiver another 6 months. Apparently, this application stopped the clock, and the DOT replied that they needed more info in order to consider the extension of waiver, with a list of needed items. Then there is Baltia's reply to this request in April with what seem to be the requested items, and then no more documents filed on this issue - nothing showing that the DOT took any action to deny the waiver extension and rescind Baltia's route authority, nor that it took any action to extend the waiver.
For manual submittal date, go to the link below, open the PDF and then go to page 7. That page has the FAA logo on it (so it's their document), and has an FAA approved schedule as of 4/21/11. It shows April 4, 2010 as the proposed submission date, and April 21, 2011 ( a year later) as a resubmission date for the "Application Package."
The manuals are described as a necessary part of the application in the FAA flowchart of the process at:
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v10%20air%20trans%20over%20sys/chapter%2001/10_001_003.htm
So it seems from this that the manuals would have to have been submitted for Baltia to get past the first "gate," and they claim to now be at the second gate.
Further, the schedule shows a date for proposed manual approval, which could only happen if the manuals had been submitted on the submittal and resubmittal dates.
For more info on the part 121 certification requirements, go to:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/air_carrier/
Okay, see www.regulations.gov for Baltia's 4/22/11 report to Damon Walker of the DOT for Baltia's report on the status of its two aircraft and its intentions for them at that time.
Keep in mind that the belly landing was in 1986 - long ago - and the plane had its new belly installed then under Boeing supervision. A lot of airliners flying safely today have had significant skin repairs, and as long as they are regularly checked for metal fatigue (much more sophisticated gear for this now than even a few years ago) as required, they can be safely flown.
However, since 705 was bought, more good aircraft options are now available at affordable prices that may make it better to choose another plane for the 2nd plane to fly the route rather than continue with the refurb on 705. As I said earlier, Baltia is moving in a dynamic aircraft market where the range of options are always changing. In any case, when you are faced with the necessity for a decision, you have to decide within the range of options available at that moment in time. That's what Baltia has done.
"...doesn't change that Baltia needed the a plane to complete the FAA application and raise needed funds.."
Correct. But as I explained, that's not the only reason they chose this particular plane, which is the key issue here. The fact is that at that particular point in time, the only aircraft option Baltia had to work with that was affordable was 705. In a dynamic environment, you have to decide within the range of options that are available to you AT THE TIME. After they flew 705 to Malaysia, the plane went into the MAS maintenance hanger to begin the D-check (photos on line at sticky above). It was AFTER work had already started on 705 to make it ready to fly the Baltia route, that 706 became available. That set up a new range of options that didn't exist before. Nobody has a crystal ball to see what options you might have later if you delay a decision. So after 705 went into the MAS hangar in Malaysia, when 706, a much better airplane, became available at an affordable price (far less than the $5-6 mill asked by other airlines), Baltia decided to buy it and use it as its starter aircraft.
"...the only reason..."
You've just proved my point about your unwarranted inferences and mistaken assumptions. I never said any such thing.
In America, the burden of proof is always on the accuser.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that they didn't.
Not true. When they bought it, they fully expected to start service with that plane. They even bought a new seating package for it which they sent with it to Malaysia. But after that, a much better aircraft investment appeared, that was then attainable, so they wisely took it.
At the time they bought 705, when the options they'd been looking at from other airlines were in the $5-6 mill range, 705 looked like a good way to get the airline up and running. At the time that they bought it, all plans were for starting the route with that plane. Then a far superior option appeared, so they took it.
So far, the combined costs of 705 and 706 are less than the purchase prices they could get from other airlines prior to buying 705.
What's wrong with that?
"Website debacle"??? What are you talking about?
Apparently, 705 was a necessary stepping stone.
Here is a quote from FAA requirements for certification appication:
"In the Formal Application Package, you have to be able to identify the airplane you intend to use by make/model/serial number so that you can write your training programs and maintenance programs."
Source: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/air_carrier/cert_ques_and_ans/#4
Baltia seems to have been faced with a catch 22 then - they had to have a flyable plane in hand before they could a) submit their application to the FAA and b) raise capital to complete the application process. Baltia tried to negotiate a 747 purchase from several other airlines over several months in 2008, but all were priced far more than they could afford. Then they found 705, and its logs were inspected prior to purchase. This 705 plane cost just $475,000 for the airframe, plus the cost of some maintenance to make it ready to ferry to Malaysia where it was to undergo a D-check heavy maintenance program. This work to be done at an FAA-approved facility there that cost far less than any US maintenance facility.
The engines for 705 were leased (later transferred to 706). After this plane flew to Malaysia in late summer 2009, it was then possible to submit the application to the FAA and to raise a lot more capital.
Then, in late fall 2009, 706 (then Northwest N623US) was being retired by Delta-Northwest and was purchased by Kalitta. Baltia looked at it and saw that this plane was in much better shape than 705, had a lot more time left to run on the airframe, and though its airframe purchase price was $1,200,000 it would require far less work and expense to refit (a C-check instead of D-check) than 705. So they bought it from Kalitta, and had Kalitta do the C-check, and brought the leased engines back from Maylasia to hang on it.
So 705 seems to have been a necessary expedient to get to the next step in certification processing and financing. After that plateau was reached, then the 706 opportunity appeared, and long term, that was clearly a better investment going forward, and by then Baltia had the capital to do it.
Virgin Atlantic started with one used 747.
"...all they have produced is a half way finished website."
Not true. As detailed in Baltia's statement of steps completed toward certification which has been posted here several times, Baltia has produced:
1. DOT declaration of fitness and assignment of route authority from JFK to St. Petersburg, RU.
2. Purchase and heavy maintenance upgrades to a 747 that is now fully owned and ready to fly.
3. Assembly of the necessary FAA approved staff of professionals to operate the airline.
4. Opening of offices at JFK necessary for operations.
5. Submission and resubmission of complete manuals and SAIs for certification.
6. Acquisition of capital investments necessary to accomplish all of the above.
"...how many more years is that going to take?"
Only the FAA can tell when the manuals will be approved. None of us can, and Baltia can't. The FAA is apparently telling them only, "No news is good news." Granted, not very satisfactory from our point of view.
There is, however, a way to get the FAA to move off the dime on manuals approval, which has worked before in other situations with the FAA, and that is through a poke by a member or two of Congress. As you've already seen here, some investors are pushing that course, and there are good reasons why it should succeed. But I have no way to predict how long that will take, except that I've seen it work pretty fast in other cases.
So what? Having the website available in Russian is of no importance until Baltia is authorized to market their services and start selling tickets. Certainly of no importance in getting Russian investors, of which Baltia already has quite a few (look at the list of investors in Baltia's report made to the FAA at this time last year - at www.regulations.gov). It also makes no sense to translate into Russian until the design of the operating website is finalized. What a waste of money that would be, paying for translations while changes are still being made. Makes no rational sense at all.
And by the way, it's not going to take 4-5 months, as some say, to have the full website up and running because the reservations and bookings part of it - which is the main function of any airline website - is a turnkey "under the hood" system provided by Radixx. So none of that functionality needs to be programmed, just plugged in under the skin of the website.
Dynamic Air certificate granted for part 121 charter operations on October 28, 2010. Apparently, they don't fly scheduled routes. I think I recall that part 121 places a lesser burden of requirements for certification on charter operations as compared to scheduled airline operations.
All the "under the hood" programming comes later. What we're seeing now is just the top level design face of the website.
The big boys don't think in terms of a single route that isn't connected to something else. They think in terms of an overall route structure - hub & spoke - etc. Hard to make JFK - LED fit into that kind of overarching existing structure, I guess. But your other points are good points too.
Very nice looking new Baltia website, but definitely still in beta! There's another amusing typo. See if you can find it before it gets fixed.
I wish there was some way we could grab that free flight before they discover the typo!
They had a curious business model. Here's a quote from the "About Us" page on their website:
"Direct Air is an indirect air carrier ... providing public charter air flights....The company began providing scheduled Public Charter flights March 7, 2007."
Interesting contradiction in that first phrase! It seems that the "indirect" part of their operation was that their routes were actually flown by subcontractor airlines.
Besides fuel costs, the article says they went belly up due to heavy competition in their markets from several discount carriers - something Baltia won't face for quite a while because of the bilateral agreement between US & Russia.
According to their website, Dynamic Aviation has been around for 75 years and the 767, under part 121, is operated for charter, not scheduled service. They don't mention when they got 121 certification, but it was certainly prior to the new certification regime.
Still below $4.46 in 2009, when a Baltia financial performance projection that was made available to investors showed that at that price they could still make a comfortable profit with a conservative load factor.
Correct. It's still under construction. More functionality added daily.
"So whoever said the State Department isnt involved is WRONG!"
Your earlier claim was that the State Dept. had some role in the airline certification process and/or the assignment of routes to specific airlines. It has absolutely no role in either of those activities. It does negotiate bilateral agreements for air travel with other countries, but the implementation of the agreement is under the authority of the DOT.
Baltia owns great leather seats but can't put them in until after certification, for reasons explained earlier.
The US State Department has absolutely nothing to do with it after they negotiated the bilateral air service agreement between the US and Russia. The State Department doesn't certify or regulate airlines and doesn't assign airline routes. The DOT does.
"...one of the other airlines would have picked it up by now?"
Good question, and it's been answered several times before on this board.
Not much for Baltia to worry about there. Obviously, there is no chance of a return to the Cold War because the economies of Russia and Western Europe, and to a lesser degree, the US & Russia, have become thoroughly entwined so that everyone has far too much to lose by reverting to a Cold War and almost nothing to gain from it.
Russia depends on sales of oil and gas to Western Europe for a steady flow of income to prop up the Putin regime. He speaks critically of the US, but when it comes to action...last month Russia sent a tanker through the ice to Nome to rescue that iced-in American city running out of oil. If we really were on the verge of another Cold War, that wouldn't have happened.
A lot of the "internet chatter" you mention doesn't seem to look very far below the surface.
At the time of that letter, N706BL was in the midst of its C-check which went on for quite a while longer. Attention and resources were focused on that effort. I think that once the leased engines came off of N705BL and then were shipped back to the US for installation on N706BL, the other plane was put in storage in Malaysia. At the time of that letter, I think the plan was to get 706 flying and making money first, and then turn attention back to 705 and getting it flying again, but with the more modern interior Baltia had purchased. Since then, other aircraft have become available that might be more cost effective to bring on line. At present, I don't think a final decision has been made about what they will do with 705.
What's so great about those articles which are thoroughly contradicted by today's facts?
They say that Baltia has no route assignment and no aircraft. That is now untrue. Now, in fact Baltia does have a DOT route assignment from JFK to LED. Now, in fact, Baltia has wings - at least one 747 ready to fly. At that time, Baltia did not have an application being processed by the FAA for certification. Now it does.
So what is the relevance of those articles with obsolete information?
I think that was prior to their concentration of resources on N706BL.
The leased engines that were on N705BL were shipped back to Michigan and installed on N706BL. So N705BL has no engines on it.