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.
Yes I did, no you didn’t, yes I did, no you didn’t - yes I did!
My post was in reply to this:
“FACT: BALTIA AIR LINES WAS ORGANIZED BY A TEAM OF U.S. AIRLINE PROFESSIONALS.“
And my reply (in part) was this:
“Please let us know, which of the founding fathers has U.S. airlines experience...in the last 20 years, or so.”
Now you can say, what about this guy and what about that guy and what about the other guy all day long. However, it doesn’t answer my question, does it? Give me names - give me verifiable experience...READ MY POST...
Which one of the directors and executive officers of Baltia has U.S. airlines experience in the last 20 years? Go to the most recent Amended (I love that word) Annual Report...it lists 6 people as the directors and executive officers of Baltia. Which one of them has U.S. airline experience in the last 20 years? Answer - none. There is no director of flight ops, no director of maintenance and no director of etc., etc., etc. listed in the report, nor on the company website. TEAM of professionals? Hundreds of years of actual airlines experience? Where is this team? Where is all this experience? I’ll give you Thal...but not in the last 20 years. His actual airlines experience was over 30 years ago - but he’s the only one (even though I never heard of Ceabord Airlines - maybe it’s the Russian spelling of Seaboard?)
.
Please let us know, which of the founding fathers has U.S. airlines experience...in the last 20 years, or so. I checked the resumes of all of the directors and executive officers of Baltia - I couldn't find a shred of evidence that ANY of them have airline experience. Please don't embarrass yourself by saying that working for Baltia constitutes airline experience...I think you have to fly planes to consider yourself an airline.
Wait a minute - you just got done saying (Post #15676) that the -400 was more fuel efficient than the -200 because because it was lighter. Now you are saying that the -400 is more fuel efficient because it is heavier? How can that be? Which is it? What does all your experience tell you? How many hours do you have flying a -400? How do you know which one is more fuel efficient if you haven't any real world experience?
The 4% you are referring to - which you read on wikipedia...c'mon, go ahead...admit it...was ONLY due to the addition of winglets. The test was performed on a -200. They put winglets on one and it increased fuel efficiency by 4%. The -400 is WAY more efficient than the -200...not just 4%.
Wrong? No, I'm right! I have to be - I got that information from wikipedia - try looking it up. By the way...according to Boeing, the -400 weighs more than the -200.
I never suggested the government intended to replace the VC-25's with 747-400's. However, since you brought it up...
Don't know where you got your numbers...probably from some wikipedia article. The 4% you're referring to is the fuel burn savings which resulted from the wing modification, alone. A more important statistic than fuel burn would be the cost per seat mile. In this category, the -400 savings would be considerably more than 4%.
Be that as it may, there is no way the government would consider the -400 for the next generation of AF1. It would most likely be the 747-8, which is around 16% more efficient to operate than the -400's.
Not worried, but operational cost is definitely a major concern. Even more so is the ability to stay airborne for extended periods of time without mid-air refueling.
I don't think the government intends to continue to use the current models after 30 years...hmmm...now why do you think that would be a concern?
Not a valid comparison - military version (+) vs. commercial...age - 22 years vs. 33 years...the plan is to replace the current AF1's, since they are not very fuel efficient. I wonder why Baltia didn't figure that out...
Delta still flying DC9's - not a valid comparison - DC9 vs. 747-200.
Aloha Flight 243 - not a valid comparison - 737-200 vs. 747-200.
Please try to limit comparisons between Baltia's 747-200 to Delta's 747-200...oh wait - Delta is no longer flying 747-200's...oh darn...
Trying to ascertain which part of this post was of such great value that it warranted being edited and re-posted...was it the comparison of N706BL to the B-52? Or was it the comparison to military -200 aircraft? Perhaps it was this statement: “And yes, Delta does fly some aircraft that are older than N706BL!!! That is a fact.“ Again, Delta does not fly ANY aircraft older than N706BL across the Atlantic, which is the intended usage for N706BL (someday soon, I believe). I think we all agree that DC9-50's would not be a wise choice for transoceanic flight. All of the other statements in this post are the opinion of the author, not necessarily facts...I have friends...I am very familiar with...the -200 can do 80% of what a -400 can do (???). Oh wait - maybe it was the reference to Richard Branson. Now I know we have a number of Richard Branson fans onboard here, and I certainly don’t want to say anything against the man, but he really didn’t start up an airline (by himself). He took over an existing start-up airline, and re-named it Virgin Atlantic Airlines. And yes, Virgin flew a 747-200 aircraft (which was leased) at the beginning, but that was 1984, not 2012...or is it 2013...or 2014...when is it that Baltia intends to start flying, anyway??? This may be of interest...according to wikipedia...Part of Richard Branson's approach to business is to succeed within the first year or exit the market. This includes a one-year limit on everything associated with starting up. Virgin Atlantic became profitable during the first 12 months, aided by sister company Virgin Records' ability to finance the lease of a second-hand Boeing 747. The firm timed operations to take advantage of a full summer, from June to September – the most profitable period of the year...
...just like Baltia...
I was replying to your statement that Delta is still flying DC9-50's and comparing them to Baltia (maybe someday, but I kinda doubt it) flying a 747-200 to Russia. I don’t understand the reason for the comparison - Someone made a statement that Baltia’s plane is 33 years old, and you came back with the statement that Delta is flying older planes (not really), but not to Russia, and not across the ocean. I know someone who is still flying a Curtiss-Jenny - that should make Baltia’s choice of aircraft perfect logical, would it not? I was being facetious with my question regarding Delta flying DC9-50's across the Atlantic. I am well aware of the range of that model. I was being serious with my question regarding the fact that Delta has no 747-200's in its fleet - why do you think that is? You didn’t answer my question.
Your question regarding whether or not I have aviation experience is completely irrelevant. Obviously, with all your aviation experience, you didn’t know the difference between DC9-30's and 50's, and you thought (erroneously) that DC9-50's that Delta is flying were built in the 60's. So maybe aviation experience is not that important to this discussion.
Just a SERIOUS investor loading up on cheap shares of Baltia stock.
Keep checking - you'll see something any day now...any day...
I believe the DC9-50 model began flying in the mid to late 70's, not the late 60's. That would make them about the same age (34 vs. 33 years?) as Baltia's prized turkey...I mean rooster.
Does Delta fly their DC9's on trans-oceanic flights?
I noticed Delta doesn't have a single 747-200 in their fleet...I wonder why...
How can a company that has no operating income, no day-to-day operations to monitor, no salaries to pay (so I’ve been told - heh, heh), and absolutely nothing to do all day but check the mail to see if the FAA manual approval has come in (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaa!!!!!), be so consistently late in filing their quarterly reports?
“...the Company's accountant has not yet completed his required review and reports. Attempting to complete these records prior to the prescribed deadline would entail unreasonable effort and expense.”
They can’t be serious - unreasonable effort? What don’t they want the prospective shareholders to know? Nevermind...I just figured it out...
So first I called the used car salesman and asked him if that car on his lot was any good. He said it was the best car he had ever seen, so I bought it. The transmission exploded 3 miles from the dealership. By the time I walked back to the dealership, they had gone out of business.
Then I called Baltia headquarters and asked them if their stock was any good. They said it was the best investment out there, so I bought it. The stock imploded 3 weeks after I bought it. By the time I got to JFK, they were taking the furniture out of the office, and scraping the name off the door.
Heard Baltia management recently went to Greece to buy some cheap real estate...just in case they had to suddenly leave the country...
...just call them, and they’ll tell you...
Yeah, the Wright brothers actually FLEW their plane...see the difference?
GREAT!!! Maybe he can fly his passengers over to Russia with that invention - one at a time!
There you have it - irrefutable evidence of his knowledge of the airline industry. Let me guess - he hasn't actually flown that flying machine either, right? Well, it's only been 33 years since he designed it. Maybe he's waiting for FAA approval of the manual - they can be pretty stubborn, you know...
In my opinion, the Coke machine just off to the left is more impressive. What does that picture say? What is Baltia? Is it a farm? A restaurant? What is the primary reason for this entity to exist? The name and the logo say nothing.
Got a feeling the fake take-off video is about to get posted again...
If you only knew how close you are getting to the truth...
I believe I previously posted the answer to your question here, although I am unable to find it. I believe the answer was no.
Instead of all this anxiety over WHEN - very soon, any day now, by the end of the week, etc…and making excuses - it’s because the market is closed today, it’s because of the holiday week, it’s because UPS is on strike, etc…and blaming the FAA - for dragging their feet, making the requirements too hard, being typical government workers, etc.
How about admitting REALITY – it’s NEVER going to happen. Baltia is NEVER going to get FAA approval! Baltia is NEVER going to fly! You are NEVER going to get rich by holding BLTA stock - not even if you hold it for 100 years!!!
Sorry I can’t provide a link for this…sometimes reality is hard to prove - you just figure it out after a while.
Wow - that's almost as exciting as the fake Baltia take-off video!!!
That would be the address of Electric Power Equipment Company.
Funny how you practically guarantee Baltia will be flying very soon, then less than 2 hours later, you fall back on that old tried and true, the FAA is holding us up excuse. So, if the FAA holds you up for another 18 months, will Baltia be flying very soon? And if the FAA rejects the last submittal? Then how soon will it be? Define soon...very or otherwise...
...and maybe the Easter bunny will come and bring you some stock that will actually increase in value...
Don't worry - it won't be Baltia...jmo...
The letters are starting to have an effect - Nice!
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For Baltia’s stocks are a-plungin'.
—Bob Dylan, Abimbola
Baltia management has industry experience? As in experience running an airline? That’s a joke! Are you including the 23 years of Baltia existence? That’s hardly running an airline! An airline has planes flying. Do some DD and read their resumes – not exactly a real confidence booster, if you’re expecting to see current successful airline management experience.
If you want to know whether Baltia management reads this board, why don’t you call them and ask, instead of demanding links? They have plenty of time to respond to your questions – all they’re doing is waiting for the FAA to get back to them…and trying to sell some more shares of stock…
Bet they fly before Baltia.
I went to both links in your post - there is no pdf there.
I agree - I'd just like to take a look at it.
I know there are a lot of very knowledgeable members here, some of whom are Baltia employees, either direct or contract employees (although they refuse to admit it). I've heard, ad nauseum, that we are all patiently waiting on the FAA to approve the manuals, etc. Could one of you very knowledgeable individuals kindly post a link that proves Baltia actually submitted manuals to the FAA for approval, and when that actually occurred?
Please spare me the "go to the Baltia website", "do your DD", "call Baltia yourself", and other slogans we've all heard a hundred times before.
Show me the proof of manual submittal...if you can.
Be careful what you wish for...
You just stated that the only reason Baltia bought 705 was to give The FAA reason to accept their application, and to raise a lot more capital. How could one assume anything else?
In your own words:
"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."
The prosecution rests...
Sure, the burden of proof is always on the individual who questions Baltia. I think it's time for Baltia to start showing some proof about things.
Is that so? Prove it. Show objective evidence that Baltia intended to fly that piece of garbage.
So, in a nutshell, 705 was purchased to fool the FAA into thinking Baltia has a plane to fly, and at the same time, fooling potential investors into thinking Baltia has a plane to fly. Is that the reality here? Baltia bought a plane that they never intended to fly in order to dupe the Federal Government and a bunch of investors?
Pretty good deal on the new web site:
Free Flight*
The mileage required for one-way flight in Voyager Class (double for roundtrip) is:
New York – St. Petersburg 4,000 Miles
That means, every time you fly one roundtrip, you get a free roundtrip. Don't know any other airline that has an offer like this!
...guess they dropped the "Freeloader" tag for their frequent flyer program...
Excellent post - surprised it's still up!