PDA

View Full Version : CAA/ Dept of Trade and Industry give Euro jobs to the USA again


ikea monster
22nd Oct 2005, 00:54
Comments please chaps - Cause I bet this would not happen in the good old USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATION BY BRITISH AIRWAYS TO LEASE A FOREIGN-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT

Thank you for your letter of 9 September. Our advice is as follows:

Applicant: British Airways plc Lessor: Atlas Air
Aircraft: Boeing 747-200F N528MC or substitute* Type of lease: Wet
* substitute may be a Boeing 747-400F
Length of proposed lease: 1 October 2005 until 31 March 2006

Temporary needs or exceptional circumstances that give rise to the application:
Exceptional circumstances. BA had a temporary waiver to wet lease one Boeing 747-200F from 2 September 2004 until 30 September 2005. It has now applied to extend this lease for a further six months until 31 March 2006. This takes the period of the lease to 19 months in all. The minute statement of Regulation 2407/92 states that for the purposes of Article 8.3 short-term leases would normally cover periods of up to a traffic season. BA therefore needs to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances in order to satisfy the criteria in Article 8.3.

Objections/representations:
The application was published in the Official Record on 13 September 2005 and has drawn objections from BALPA and from two individuals. BALPA objects to the further extension of this lease and says that it no longer complies with the wet lease specification of exceptional or temporary needs. It states that the lease has now run continuously for over a traffic season and that it understands there are now UK-based Boeing 747 aircraft, crewed by UK/EU nationals, available through Global Supply Systems (GSS) to meet the contractual needs of BA.

The two individuals object to a US-registered aircraft and crew flying out of the UK for a UK company, saying this should be done by a UK aircraft and crew. One objection goes further and says that this practice has been going on for a number of years and is stopping UK pilots’ jobs, and says that they will raise the issue with their MP if this application is approved, because under no circumstances would a US operator allow a UK-registered aircraft to operate in the USA and take US jobs.

BA comments in support of the application and in response to the objections:
BA says that it requires this extension as there are no suitable aircraft on the UK register and an aircraft is required in support of BA’s cargo programme to Hong Kong, India and Chicago. It says that the circumstances faced by the airline are exceptional in that there are no aircraft on the market compatible with the existing GSS operation at a time when it needs to support its existing programme. GSS, BA’s supplier, is currently in negotiation to secure Boeing 747-200F and -400F aircraft to replace the US-registered aircraft currently being operated by BA. However, although it is taking longer than expected to complete this task, GSS is optimistic that it would be able to crew the new UK-registered aircraft and make it available to BA by April 2006. BA has supplied further commercially sensitive information regarding the efforts to source additional aircraft, which we are attaching in a confidential annex. BA points out that other European authorities continue to approve similar wet lease arrangements.

In response to the objection from BALPA, BA says that while it agrees that GSS has Boeing 747s that are operated by UK and EU nationals, all three aircraft are already under wet lease to BA. As and when GSS is able to add another aircraft to the UK register, BA intends that this will replace the leased aircraft.

As for the comments from individuals, BA says that providing it makes economic and safety sense, it has always done its utmost to use British aircraft. As there are no other UK-registered aircraft currently suitable to its commercial needs it has no real choice but to seek foreign-registered aircraft. BA has every sympathy with the concerns voiced regarding the inability of UK airlines to operate within the USA. It understands that the topic is part of the current round of UK/US talks aimed at establishing a transAtlantic common aviation area. However, at this time BA has no other option than to request an extension to the wet lease of this US-registered aircraft thus providing capacity for its customers and protecting jobs at BA.

Advice:
The CAA's Statement of Policies says that airlines should be free to choose the aircraft they employ and, subject to Article 8.3 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2407/92, that the CAA will advocate a liberal policy when advising the Department on these applications. However, BA needs to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances in order to satisfy the criteria in Article 8.3.

GSS is the only UK operator of 747 freighters, with three -400F on the UK register. (There is one 747-200F on the UK register, although this is currently in storage without a current Certificate of Airworthiness.) BA says that the further lease extension is required in exceptional circumstances because despite energetic efforts by BA and GSS, they are still unable to source a suitable aircraft to transfer to the UK register in a very tight market. This extension seemed to be a possibility when we advised on BA's previous applications. BA had anticipated that a limited number of 747 freighters would become available in 2005, but no firm dates were ever given. We noted at that time that press reports suggested that demand for such aircraft was increasing, with two Boeing 747-400 passenger-to-freighter conversion programmes launched last year. BA does now seem to be more confident that an aircraft can be sourced, crewed and placed on the UK register by April 2006.

The objections mention the lack of wet-leasing reciprocity with the US. As we have said previously, we consider any lack of leasing reciprocity with another country to be a matter for the Department in the formulation of its negotiating strategy with the government concerned, rather than something to be challenged in the context of a specific application.


Our conclusion is that BA's difficulties in sourcing a suitable aircraft are consistent with our understanding that there is strong demand in the market for 747 freighters. BA seems quite aware of the restrictions in Article 8.3 and appears to be committed to be placing an aircraft on the UK register via GSS. While the process has become quite protracted there does seem to be a greater prospect of a firm conclusion date within the period of the proposed extension. Meanwhile the airline has commercial commitments that it cannot fulfil with its current fleet. On balance our belief is that the criteria in Article 8.3 have been met and the airline has demonstrated a genuine commercial need for the aircraft within its own operations. BA would not be overly dependent on aircraft registered outside the EEA.

Recommendation: We recommend that you issue an Article 8.3 waiver.

Airbubba
22nd Oct 2005, 01:02
Thanks, we sure need the work!

flyerjohn
22nd Oct 2005, 17:54
The problem is that GSS is basically a front for BA. They won't move without the nod from BA. BA are too slow to give them the nod! In order to OK such an expensive lease they need to hold an extraordinary board meeting. Due to the "intensive" work commitments of the board members (i.e for all their other Companies!!) this takes a while to organise. By the time they agree to it, it's always too late to secure the planes.

A sensible managment might sign a MOU so that the next time an aircraft comes up for lease, there is no need to go through the process. This would of course mean that they would be unable to manipulate the situation as they currently do. Any delay in their decision means that there is no aircraft available by the time they say yes. This then means that they can go to the weak and feeble DofT and CAA and force the issue. QED. No need to ever expose themselves.

As for these superb defenders of our standards??? They are so weak that they happily give away much of the work that should be done by UK/EU nationals within our borders. Does anyone know if MY Travel still have their 3 Canadian A320's flying with Canadian pilots (of course) on their "temporary" contract? They used to stay in the UK all year but move round a base between seasons to get around the "not normally for more than a season" wording.

Why would anyone pay £60k+ for an ATPL?

With the continual abuse of these regulations they may never see meaningful employment in this country. A bit of an exaggeration perhaps but a valid point. This simply does not happen in other countries with stronger political will. Where it does, it is to a much lesser extent.

We may work in a global industry but whilst the craven "men in suits" give in to airlines who play with semantics to manipulate the regulations, we are all losers. We must be proactive and be willing to stand up for our future and that of the aspiring pilots of tomorrow.

Unable Due Traffic
22nd Oct 2005, 18:21
Does anyone know if MY Travel still have their 3 Canadian A320's flying with Canadian pilots (of course) on their "temporary" contract?

Does not the same parent company of My Travel place British crews/aircraft in CYWG for the winter Season?

How unfair is that?

CargoOne
22nd Oct 2005, 23:24
Well, basically the problem is the absence of UK (or EU) widebody freighter wetlease-specialists, while US have a few of them. The only other is located in Iceland. All others are "third world" operators.

I'm sure everyone knows what is GSS in terms of ownership, so I don't see the real reason why there should be a different opinion on "US-registered" or "GSS" aircraft, apart from the nationality of the pilots employed.
However if you want to stick that... just remember how many UK pilots are flying for Middle East and Far East operators.

There is an other way to go, which is used by (names skipped). They just using a third-world operators to fly (from legal point of view) on a charter basis but under charterer's callsign and traffic rights, which is not different from a wetlease if we stick to commercial and financial side of the business.

So I hardly can see what is the point of blaiming BA for using of US-registered freighter.

flyerjohn
22nd Oct 2005, 23:56
With respect Cargoone, the reason there are so many "foreign" pilots in the Middle East and Asia is that historically these countries have not had the resources or skills base required. This is changing (at differing rates) and the slow decline in all our terms and conditions is one of the consequences. As these countries train their own indigenous pilots, so the expat workforce is squeezed out both physically and financially.
My point about GSS is that they are unable to expand as they ought to because they are purely BA driven. I am as angry as the rest that BA won't just face up and either take over GSS and give the workforce there some form of security or give them (GSS managment and the "mystery partner!!!!" the remit to get on with the job and lease the next available aircraft whenever it may come up.
Cargo is still growing very fast and even with the latest fuel shocks it is a very profitable industy. There have been aircraft offered but no decision has been forthcoming in time to secure a lease. This leaves BA with even less exposure and all the crews at GSS with less job security. It is completely unneccessary.
The main thrust of the original post was "It would not be allowed to happen in the US". That is the truth of the matter and unfortunately not the case in the UK.

411A
23rd Oct 2005, 20:02
Sadly, most here seem to miss the entire boat, never mind finding even the pier...

NO British operator, using UK registered modern freighter aircraft is prepared to supply full-fledged ACMI freighter ops, and unless/until one appears, the jobs will go to the offshore operators.

Full stop.

As for British pilots, who object to foreign operators coming in and scooping up the cream, start your own darn company to supply reasonable uplift...or get out of the way, as others will surely fill the void.
IE...put up or shut up.

Elementary, my dear Watson.:}

Flame
24th Oct 2005, 10:39
"Unable Due Traffic"

First Choice have Canadian crew operating a Dublin Based, Canadian registered, A320 on IT charters at the moment. They also have a Canadian Registered B757 operating in a similar fashion

Out of Dublin Futura are operating two TransGlobal B737's which are American registered and opertated by all American crews. This has been the scene for many months now.

Ryanair have employed American Pilots, and I stand to be corrected on this, but i believe Aer Lingus have a least one Aussie flying for them

Now, where is my silk scarf and flying jacket..I am off to the USA and explain to the FAA how easy it is for me to get a job in the USA..!!!!!!!

Human Factor
24th Oct 2005, 11:42
Ryanair have employed American Pilots, and I stand to be corrected on this, but i believe Aer Lingus have a least one Aussie flying for them

BA have Aussies, Kiwis, Americans, Canadians, French, you name it flying for them on mainline. All these people have the legal right to work in the UK (in any job). The issue at stake is that US pilots without the normal right to work in the UK are flying wet-leased aircraft on the N register which would otherwise be G-reg and operated by British (EU) pilots. Funnily enough, I can't imagine the US allowing any British pilots to do the reverse....

This is the reason GSS exists in the first place as Atlas tried this on a few years ago...

foxmoth
24th Oct 2005, 12:43
"Unable Due Traffic"

I think there is a difference between a company which is doing a reciprocal arrangement and the one that BA are doing which is totally one sided:ouch:

cactusbusdrvr
24th Oct 2005, 20:12
Last time I checked in for work I saw 2 Kiwis, a Venezualan, a Portugese, several Canadians and an Ethiopian pilot flying for us. I've been here since 1987 and have flown with Koreans, Chinese and every nationality except India.

America is the land of the free and the home to anyone with a greencard, which really can't be that hard to get if I fly with all you foreign devils so much. Actually, I like it , it makes the flight go by quickly when you can ask about someone's home country and background.

And from the small world catagory: I was getting a coffee at Starbucks the other day in PHX and the fellow serving me was talking about his family in Sudan. It turns out his uncle was the minister on the helicopter that crashed a few months ago during a storm. It was a big deal at the time because the uncle was pushing for reforms in the government and the next thing you hear is he is killed in the crash.

Flame
25th Oct 2005, 06:05
Gentlemen;

I am aware that I am going out on a tangent here...but can anyone explain to me how so many non Europeans can be employed flying for European carriers, when it appears that there is a glut of pilots in Europe looking for work.

Bearing in mind, that a non European national requires a work permit to work in Europe, maybe there is a massive shortage of pilots in Europe and the carriers have no other choice but to employ non Europeans.

Captain Mercurius
25th Oct 2005, 10:36
“Bearing in mind that a non European national requires a work permit to work in Europe, maybe there is a massive shortage of pilots in Europe and the carriers have no other choice but to employ non Europeans.”

Errr… excuse me…

Let me know were is a shortage of pilots in Europe, because I need a job, and I am seriously fed up to learn that there are Americans, Canadians, South Africans, Aussies, Nigerians, Kiwis ,and other nationalities freely working in Europe, and the reverse is not the rule. :(

To mention one company, Cargolux, they have several non-Europeans working there.:}

Daysleeper
25th Oct 2005, 12:51
So BA lease one aircraft compared to their fleet of a couple of hundred machines?

If we are worried about jobs how bout the two Tu-204s operating for TNT via a variety of UK AOCs over the lasts 4 years. Whats the justification for that?

Flame
25th Oct 2005, 14:26
Gentlemen (and Ladies)

If so many non Europeans are allowed work in the EU, assuming that all have been granted work permits by the respective countries..surely this implies that the airlines in the countries concerned are sending a signal that they are unable to locate similar qualified pilots in Europe. This is the only conclusion that I can come to

IMHO.. I suspect that the European carriers are not looking hard enough within Europe

JW411
25th Oct 2005, 15:49
The two Tu-204s are on the Air Atlantic (Coventry) AOC and are not on the TNT Airways AOC.

Perhaps you should be asking the UK CAA why Air Atlantic are permitted to operate Russian-crewed and Egyptian-registered aircraft on a UK AOC?

Daysleeper
25th Oct 2005, 15:56
The two Tu-204s are on the Air Atlantic (Coventry) AOC and are not on the TNT Airways AOC

I did say they have been on a variety of AOCs. At the least Heavylift, Couger and now Atlantic. The customer, TNT, has remained the same throughout, they operate in TNT colours on TNT routes. Supposedly they came to allow TNT to assess the aircraft against the performance of the 757f with a view to a future purchase of one or other type. Only that was 4 years ago, so why are they still here.

Tartan Giant
27th Oct 2005, 08:55
To add more fuel to the fire, I asked my MP about "waivers" under EC 2407/92 Art 8.3.

The answer by Ms Buck (pass the Buck) will probably surprise many.

TG

PS: Those who don't know what 2407/92 is all about just google it.
---------------------------------------------------------------



Charles Hendry (Wealden, Con) Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications were approved for a waiver under Article 8.3 of the European Council Regulation 2407/92 between 1 January 2001 and 1 May 2005; to whom they were issued; and by whom the Government have been approached for a waiver under the same scheme since 1 January.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport) Hansard source

Between 1 January 2001 and 1 May 2005 the Secretary of State granted waivers under Article 8.3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2407/92 to UK airlines as set out in the following table:

UK airline Approvals
Aeromega Helicopters 4
Air 2000 12
Air Atlanta Europe 16
Air Cordial 2
Air Kilroe 12
Air Wales 6
Airtours International Airways 15
Astraeus 17
Atlantic Airlines 12
Aurigny Air Services 8
BAC Express Airlines 11
BMI Regional 10
Britannia Airways 33
British Airways 47
British Airways Citiexpress Ltd. 23
British Midland 4
British Midland Commuter 1
British Midland Regional Ltd. 1
Cabair Helicopters Ltd. 1
Channel Express 22
CHC Scotia Limited 22
Cheqair 1
Cougar Leasing Limited 4
Eastern Airways 2
Easy Jet 19
Euroceltic Airways 6
European Aviation Air Charter 5
Excel Airways 85
First Choice Airways Ltd. 11
Flightline 5
Flybe 4
Flyglobespan 1
Gama Aviation 1
Global Supply Systems 2
Gold Air International Ltd. 1
Heavylift Cargo Airlines 4
JMC Airlines 4
Loganair 2
McAlpine Aviation Services 1
Monarch Airlines 9
My Travel Airways 42
Pool Aviation Ltd. 1
Suckling Airways Ltd. 4
Tag Aviation 4
Thomas Cook 4
Virgin Atlantic 10
Woodgate Executive Air Charter 9

Since 1 January this year the following UK airlines have applied for waivers under Article 8.3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2407/92:

UK Airline Applications
Air Atlanta Europe 19
Air Wales 1
Airx Ltd. T/A Rockhopper 1
Astraeus 17
Atlantic Airlines 1
BMI Baby 2
BMI Regional 2
Britannia Airways 3
British Airways 3
British Airways Citiexpress Ltd. 6
British Midland 1
Channel Express 7
CHC Scotia Limited 12
Eastern Airways 4
Easy Jet 2
Excel Airways 52
First Choice Airways Ltd. 8
Flybe 4
Loganair 4
Monarch Airlines 2
My Travel Airways 14
Suckling Airways Ltd. 1
Thomas Cook 14
Thomsonfly 2

Daysleeper
27th Oct 2005, 09:06
Perhaps TG could explain "waivers" some more for those of us who dont know.

Tartan Giant
27th Oct 2005, 09:12
I refer my Right Honourable friend, DaySleeper to the answer I gave a moment ago ref "waivers":

PS: Those who don't know what 2407/92 is all about just google it.

TG

Daysleeper
27th Oct 2005, 09:31
Whilst the opinion of the Finish council on maters of intra community air routes is a fascinating first topic to come up on google I suggest people just accept TGs word for it.

Has anyone got access to the CAA official record. Notably 1695, 1697 and 1700?

Tartan Giant
27th Oct 2005, 10:06
Whilst DaySleeper has uncovered a little on the Finnish perspective.........http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/rules/doc/consultation_3_package/contributions/finland-civilaviationauthority.pdf

they are not alone in thinking along these lines:
Excerpt: 12 June 2003
VIEWS OF THE FINNISH CIVIL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION on the Commissions consultation paper on the revision of the regulations (EEC) no 2407/92, 2408/92 and 2409/92 of 23 July 1992, forming the third air transport package.................. As it is uncertain how the new EU Member States will manage to fulfil their safety oversight obligations, we stress that full liberalisation of air transport must be connected to flight safety safeguards. In any case the possibility to use a flag of convenience should be prevented.

More to chew on chaps.

TG

Flightrider
27th Oct 2005, 22:34
The data stats above are not entirely appropriate to use for comparison. It shows the number of applications sought and if you didn't apply for one, you wouldn't be listed even though you might well have subchartered a foreign-registered aircraft more. I find it very hard to believe that the figures for some charter operators are so low.

If this is correct, how come the EuroAtlantic L1011 and White A310 spent so much time at LGW this summer working for FlyJet (who don't even appear on the list) and other major airlines? I wouldn't base any serious argument on this list. It all depends on how diligent the airlines are at applying for the waivers, and there is no process to ensure that they obtain a waiver for any instance of using a foreign-registered aircraft.

Playing Devil's advocate, it also doesn't show how many sub-outs for other European airlines that UK airlines have undertaken this summer. In the case of Titan Airways alone, I suspect it's a fair few. If we are moaning about "flagging out", then it would be unfair to forget this section of UK industry which seems to do quite well out of the ability to "flag out" in other countries. It does cut both ways.

ikea monster
28th Oct 2005, 00:15
Comments please chaps: The point I was trying to make was that the UK CAA published this application on their website on the 13th Sep 2005. This was brought to notice by a fellow Pilot who then mass emailed every UK/JAA worker he/she knew.

So why then did only Two individuals post a complaint !!!

We had our chance to omit this US Reg A/C from operating in the UK but the majority of persons failed to lodge their complaint. So this A/C will operate for another 6 months - Our next opportunity to lodge complaint will be before the 6th Mar 06 - Email to "Shepherd Frances" <[email protected]> your objection. Please feel free to bombard the above with your feelings either + or - . The more that this subject is brought to the UK CAA attention the sooner we can stamp out foreign Reg aircraft operating from our shores and save Euro jobs.

Holer Moler
28th Oct 2005, 00:25
IK - Thanks for the info - Msrs "Shepherd Frances" <[email protected]> will have my objection ASP.

Daysleeper
28th Oct 2005, 06:58
EuroAtlantic L1011

Last time I looked that aircraft was on the CS (Portugal) reg and has every right to be in Gatwick or any other EU airfield it likes.

The point is non EU aircraft operating internal EU routes without reciprical rights being granted for EU aircraft in their home country

Flightrider
28th Oct 2005, 08:00
The L1011 has every right to be in Gatwick - but if it is operating on behalf of a UK airline, the UK airline still has to obtain what's known as an Article 8.1 waiver from the DfT. The figures presented are not simply about non-EU registered aircraft; if that was the case, why on earth would Eastern Airways' application to lease a German Dornier 328 have been published in this week's Official Record?

Joe le Taxi
30th Oct 2005, 23:08
The fact there were only two objections is slightly misleading, as a number of GSS pilots delegated the filing of an objection to BALPA, which they duly did.