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.
If one chooses to believe the Executive Vice President of Baltia Airlines, the manuals were to be submitted to the FAA in October of 2009.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/baltia-pushes-back-launch-until-2010-332498/
In a letter to the DOT on 4/22/11, Baltia stated the following:
"N706BL is in the process of FAA certification and will comply with all FAA safety standards prior to commencement of service. Aircraft N705BL is being refurbished and will be FAA certified and in compliance with all FAA safety standards prior to being placed in Baltia’s commercial operations."
Doesn't sound to me like they plan on scrapping it out...has Baltia notified the DOT of other plans for N705BL? If so, when?
According to Baltia, N705BL is being refurbished...At least that's what they told the DOT...
I couldn't have done any worse than those who wrote their manuals.
Yes, simple - read the requirements, write manuals that comply with the requirements, get approval - simple.
One that is incapable of complying with written requirements...now there is the one who is simple.
Why do the diehard Baltia fans always ‘blame’ the FAA for holding things up? If Baltia management had a clue as to what they’re doing, Baltia would have been flying already. The process is quite simple - there is a requirement to submit manuals - the manuals have to comply with regulations. Obviously Baltia management hasn’t been able to develop manuals that comply with regulations. Why not? The regulations are too difficult? The regulations are confusing? The FAA changed the requirements along the way? Baltia management is incompetent?
The FAA will approve manuals that are compliant - why is that so hard to comprehend? Why aren’t Baltia manuals compliant? They don’t know what they’re doing.
There is no “tweaking” of manuals. Either they comply or they do not. Noncompliant manuals are disapproved...rejected...another submittal cycle coming up. Things are looking pretty good for the second quarter of 2013...but then the training phase begins...first flight early in 2014 - if they don’t fold, first.
Might be a refreshing change - you get my vote!
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=10878893&ticker=BLTA:US&previousCapId=3103233&previousTitle=BALTIA%20AIR%20LINES%20INC
There are other sources - all say the same thing.
$8,800,000.
It takes approximately 3 years to implement an SMS program. I should have read thestreet to obtain that critical public information - thanks.
If a Baltia's senior management makes a statement at a public symposium, is that considered public dissemination? Or does it have to appear on a newswire?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/baltia-pushes-back-launch-until-2010-332498/
Does saying that the manuals will be submitted next month a truthful statement or is it wishful thinking? If senior management lies at a public symposium is that considered public dissemination of false information?
There are probably only 10 or 12 people in the world who don't read flightglobal...can you imagine that?
Please give an example of a newswire. Please post a link to public dissemination regarding Baltia on a newswire. I think we would all like to know where to see this public information.
Then what would constitute public dissemination? A legal notice in the New York Times? An article in the Airline Blog? A White House announcement? Maybe it's already happened - have you checked all those sources lately?
Wonder why AIS is not on the FAA Qualified Certification Consultants list?
Wonder if Baltia used a consultant that is on the FAA Qualified Certification Consultants list?
Wonder if Baltia used a consultant?
Wonder if that's the problem?
Why don't you inform us all, then, instead of making derogatory statements?
If Baltia makes a statement to this board, it is public information, and therefore not illegal. If Baltia calls you at home and gives you negative information (non-public information), so you can dump your stock, then that is illegal.
Four months? How about 3 years? Remember this from flightglobal in September 2009?
'Baltia executive vice president Russell Thal told the Cargo Facts 2009 aircraft symposium in Seattle the carrier had originally planned to begin services late this summer with Boeing 747-200 flights between New York JFK and St Petersburg in Russia. But he says it has taken longer to prepare the manuals required by the FAA and Baltia now plans to submit its manuals next month.
The carrier has been told by the FAA it will then take four to five months for the manuals to be reviewed. Therefore the earliest Baltia will be able to launch is February.'
This is why I don't believe a word Baltia senior management says.
For what it’s worth...at least try to come close...
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away
Stephen Stills
Today, the NRC voted to license two new nuke plants in Georgia. The approval took less than 4 years. You guys think Baltia had a lot of paperwork to submit?
If I didn't have faith, I would have dumped my shares a long time ago. The blatant lying is getting annoying.
Here we go again...I can't take it anymore...
New information that is supported by facts is the ultimate benefit to us all.
Thank you.
Nice research job. There was no attempt to make a correlation between those incidents and N706BL, on my part. It was only to support my previous position regarding the severity of corrosion and metal fatigue in the aircraft industry, in general.
Now, N705BL...not so sure...
You know, if you guys had done your due diligence, you would be able make me go away...it's really very simple. All you're doing now is sending me pm's every time you click on my name to ignore - pretty funny!!!! I'm more popular than I thought!
That was a wise decision, in my opinion.
You guys should appreciate me more - when I post, our rating goes up. Check out the breakout boards - #17 and climbing!
“Let's set something straight. You said, "Corrosion is a major problem with aged aircraft." - It is not. - unless the operator is NOT following the required "aging aircraft inspection" requirements, which are designed to detect potential problems before they become airworthiness issues, and correct those deficiencies. Baltia's first aircraft is regulation compliant.”
I’m not sure what your point is here. You say corrosion is NOT a major problem - unless the operator is not following the required blah, blah, blah... Therefore, corrosion COULD be a major problem.
“You said, "Once it’s there, it eats through the metal like a cancer." Not true, unless it is left untreated (and moisture is present long-term) - and the "aging aircraft inspection" requirements identify potential problems and the resultant treatment/repair then prevents it from spreading. Period. These are preventive inspections/actions.”
Same thing here - you say corrosion doesn’t eat through metal like a cancer - unless it is left untreated. Therefore corrosion COULD eat through metal like a cancer.
Inspections are never 100% effective in detecting flaws. Even with the best equipment and the most highly qualified technicians, flaws get missed, and that’s a fact. Many airlines now outsource their maintenance and inspections to foreign countries to save money, and who knows what goes on there, and how thorough their inspections are. Baltia didn’t do that, did they? If a flaw goes undetected, it can propagate and lead to failure of a component, which can lead to the loss of an aircraft. There have been quite a few aircraft incidents which have been investigated and proven to be the result of metal fatigue and/or corrosion. Such as:
Far Eastern Flt. 103 (1981), corrosion
Aloha Flt. 243 (1988), metal fatigue
El Al Flt. 1862 (1992), metal fatigue
China Air Flt. 611 (2002), metal fatigue
SWA Flt. 2294 (2009), metal fatigue
SWA Flt. 812 (2011), metal fatigue
When metals age, they get tired. Eventually, they fall apart. If corrosion and metal fatigue weren’t concerns, then why would the FAA require airlines to spend all of this time and effort to look for it, repair and/or replace parts and components that are affected?
“FYI - the "sister ship" is what has commonly been referred to on this board and elsewhere, as the other Delta/NWA aircraft that Kalitta is holding for Baltia. Nobody else has confused that term with the aircraft that we all know was set aside in Malaysia.”
And where was this information posted on this board? Which one of the 11695 posts should I have read to have acquired this information? Maybe I should have gone to baltia.org to get my information? Nobody else got confused? We all know? Who is we?
“Incorrect information? - You wrongfully assumed that Baltia was starting with the Pakistani aircraft.”
According to the FAA N-Number registry, Baltia owns 5 numbers, 705BL through 709BL. However, 707BL through 709BL are past due their renewal date and have no aircraft serial number assigned to them. Therefore, wouldn’t one ASSUME that Baltia’s two planes would be 705BL and 706BL? And since 705BL was purchased in 2009 (yes, 2009), and there are numerous pictures and videos on the web showing engines being hung on the wings and Baltia management posing with it, wouldn’t one ASSUME that it might be the number 1 plane in the Baltia fleet?. Why hasn’t this mystery sister ship shown herself? Why haven’t numbers been assigned? Why buy a 747, hang engines on it and fly it to Malaysia...to sit? Why is Kalitta “holding” a plane for Baltia? Because they are nice guys? Because they like Baltia? Didn’t Baltia’s SEC report state they owned two planes? Was one of them the one sitting in a swamp in Malaysia, or was it the one being “held” by Kalitta?
“Negativity? - It's when someone states a partial truth about a topic (corrosion concerns), applies it to the subject at hand (Baltia's aircraft), then extrapolates to an untruth ("once it's there, it eats through the metal like a cancer", creating by association an unnecessary fear/concern.”
Since you have agreed that corrosion MAY be a concern, and it COULD eat through metal like a cancer, your statement above is unfounded. It seems like you are making things up because you think I may frighten off potential investors. Keep in mind, I am an investor...I am a stockholder...I want to know the truth, not a bunch of fairy tales. You can call me a liar all you want on the internet, but I may just show up at the next stockholder’s meeting...you going?
Would you care to tell us the difference between facts and substantiated facts - and how that relates to the post you replied to?
“You posted incorrect information and put forth language that was negative, based up faulty assumptions.”
Oh really? Please identify the incorrect information that I posted. While you’re at it, please identify which of my assumptions was faulty.
And where was the negativity - was it the fact that I pointed out you were wrong...or was that an assumption on my part?
“N706BL is the first aircraft that will be placed into service...NOT N705BL. As Eye correctly stated, 706 was a Northwest Plane. The plane was and is in excellent condition and did not sit in a graveyard. A search of the tail number supports this claim as well. BB”
“Eye” did not state that 706 was a Northwest plane, correctly or otherwise. “Eye” stated, exactly as I quoted, which was:
“Baltia's aircraft was NOT sitting in the desert for a long period of time, as it and its sister ship were flying 26 months ago full of passengers in the Delta Airlines system, after the Delta/NWA merger. “
He implied that NEITHER plane sat in the desert, and that BOTH planes were flying passengers for Delta. He subsequently edited his post to add “(the one from Kalitta)”, but left the “...it and its sister ship ...” (Meaning both aircraft) part of the statement intact.
“The inspections are required under the FAA "aging aircraft" (not "aged") mandates...”
I wasn’t referring to FAA mandates in my post. I was referring to aged aircraft...like really old planes.
“...sophisticated X-Ray machines that detect cracks and intergranular corrosion...“
I am unaware of any X-Ray machine that can detect intergranular corrosion.
“Baltia's aircraft was NOT sitting in the desert for a long period of time, as it and its sister ship were flying 26 months ago full of passengers in the Delta Airlines system, after the Delta/NWA merger. “
I could have sworn that the green stripes on plane in this picture (that has N705BL printed on it), are indicative of Pakistan International Airlines. Are they a part of Delta/NWA also?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26601411@N06/4451138913/in/set-72157623665219828/
I believe this plane was taken out of service in 2005. That would be over 6 years ago...I consider that a long period of time.
“And unless you know the specifics of the major components on this aircraft (Ldg Gears, flt controls, etc etc), and have knowledge of Baltia's inventory of spares, it is a little presumptuous of you to predict what Baltia's options will be when a "D" check is due.“
Is it a little presumptuous of me to believe Baltia’s SEC filing that states the estimated useful life of their airplane is 5-7 years? Is it presumptuous of me to believe that D-checks are required every 4-5 years (based on usage)? Is it presumptuous to believe that a D-check can remove a plane from service up to 2 months and cost up to 2 million dollars? Is it therefore presumptuous of me to assume that Baltia would not want to spend more on maintenance than a plane is worth?
Why do you people constantly attack members who post facts here?
Metal fatigue is certainly a major concern. However, there is more to consider than just cycles. Cycles are important to track, but flight hours, altitudes flown, plane loading and age of the aircraft are also factors to be considered. A plane that flies at 45,000' for 8 hours will receive more stress than a plane that flies 2 hours at 29,000'. Corrosion is a major problem with aged aircraft. Corrosion leads to intergranular attack and stress corrosion cracking. The Baltia plane is 37 years old - plenty of time for corrosion to take hold. Once it’s there, it eats through the metal like a cancer. The plane (as well as all of it’s relatives) was retired by a major airline and put out to pasture in an airplane graveyard until rescued by Baltia. I would hope that a D-check was performed on this plane, and not just a C-check. You can bet the plane will be back in the graveyard before the next D-check is due.
The best pilot in the world can’t keep a plane in the air if the wings fall off...
Nice to see some honesty here.
Excellent post!
I have revised this post to be in full compliance with ihub terms of service. I also consider it to be withing the 'spirit' of this board. As stated in the ihub terms of service:
"Messages posted by individuals may be misleading, deceptive, or in error. If you disagree with a posting, feel free to voice your opinion. It is the policy of iHub to allow our members to freely discuss issues in a free and open manner, and we will not take sides in disagreements or disputes based on investment sentiment or other subjective criteria."
I am herein voicing my opinion...
“Baltia's prospective investors don't rely on an uber-crisp video of the plane taking off to make an investment. Serious investors will rely on information from Baltia management, SEC filings and often times visiting the facility at JFK before choosing to invest in Baltia's private placement.”
Really? Let’s take a look at what serious investors see...
“Baltia's prospective investors don't rely on an uber-crisp video of the plane taking off to make an investment.”
But an fake looking video won’t have a negative effect?
“Serious investors will rely on information from Baltia management...”
Information from Baltia management?
Here’s the latest press release from Baltia.com:
Baltia Air Lines Expands into New Headquarters at JFK (June 30, 2011 )
That’s not exactly the latest news...or is it?
“...SEC filings...”
Here’s the latest SEC filings (for the fiscal year ending 12/31/11):
Baltia amended their annual report 4 times
Baltia amended their 4th quarter report 1 time
Baltia submitted ‘inability to timely file’ reports 4 times
Seems like they can’t do anything on time...
“...often times visiting the facility at JFK before choosing to invest in Baltia's private placement.”
I’m sure you visited both the JFK and the Pulkovo facilities prior to investing...a serious investor would do these things, would they not?
Wonderful explanation...it still looks fake.
Sorry...
I do not appreciate the insult.
If Baltia has applied to FAA, then should be records of this and correspondence between FAA and Baltia exists. Records should be available for public review as part of freedom of information act. I can't believe all these people here have invested millions of dollars and just sit and wait for "something good to happen". If Baltia can't comply with regs, I'd like to know about it - wouldn't you? Not much good could come if they don't fly, right?
Hi. I am new here, but am a stockholder in Baltia. Would like to know if anyone here has been in contact with the FAA regarding approvals.