BA/ATLAS/AACS STN-ATL

[partyreptile]

From the tuesday edition of www.justplanes.com, (http://www.justplanes.com,) notice that BA will start sevice from stanstead to atlanta. Who will be doing this? AACS crews, increasing sevice while Atlas mainline crews sit on furlough? Heard that AACS crews are being asked to sell back their days off and getting minimum time at home. What gives here? Any AACS crews out there?

[JiveBomber]

Party Reptile

I don't quite see your point.Is it the fact that AACS is a subsidiary or that Brit pilots are operating into the States.Do you feel we should all stick to our home turf ?If so there'd be a lot more going home West bound than coming back U.K. side.Also while I have the opportunity to ask, does anybody know where GSS are going to fit into all of this?

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: JiveBomber ]

[The Guvnor]

Quite right. I say use EU pilots for EU based aircraft - especially as the Yanks don't premit wet leases of our aircraft to their airlines!! :mad: :mad:

[Notso Fantastic]

Guvnor, what an insulting, racist post. You should not use derogatory racist remarks like that in an international Forum like this. I don't know where you think you are coming from referring to a very good ally of the free world in such a manner. Perhaps you are overposting so violently now that you are out of all self control. I note you have gone from 2490 to 2509 in no time at all. We missed our barbeque! But in the meantime, I am complaining about the racialist overtones of your posting.

[Beaver Driver]

Yawn
gov

do we really have to go thru this discussion again, or are you just looking for someone to blame for the incompetent handling of your own airline, which has yet to turn a fan. Me-thinks you are setting the stage for the time when your investors come looking for results. Then you can blame the big bad United States for ALL of your problems. YOU....are the weakest link bye bye.

[The Guvnor]

Notso Fantastic, dear chap! I had the steaks and wors on the braai ready to go along with Castles and Ohlsons chilling in the fridge; tried to contact you to provide details but you appear to have neglected to include your email address in your profile and have me on ignore when I tried to pm you!! Surely some mistake, as you seem to respond to rather a lot of my posts! ;) :eek: ;)

However, I'm really rather concerned here as you appear to equate nationality with race. Surely, as an alleged B747 captain, you know the difference? And furthermore, as an alleged 747 captain, I'm sure you'd be rather concerned to know that there are foreign pilots potentially about to take away your job - if the IPA and people like myself and many others don't do something about it! :eek: :eek:

Beaver Driver - sorry mate, but this is an issue that I'm going to keep responding to until the US government decides to work off a level playing field. Equally, you can't complain about British (AACS) crews still flying ex UK as it's their home territory, not yours.

It has nothing to do with my own operation - though I would like to be able to wet lease aircraft to US carriers without having to go through a US Certificate Holder which costs a fortune (and which has to either be added onto the cost of the aircraft, making us uncompetitive; or swallowed by us and reducing our already slim margins). :mad:

If you Yanks played by the same rules as the rest of the world, that wouldn't be an issue!

I still haven't been able to work out why it is you do it - sure as heck isn't for safety or security reasons, with many US airports being insecure and the FAA's maintenance oversight and aircrew licencing practices highly questionable when compared to those in Europe. :mad:

Diplomat - they do, sort of. They lease to Ryan International, which provides the crews (all of whom I understand have to be green card holders or US nationals). It seems to be more a dry lease of aircraft rather than a full wet lease as it would be elsewhere.

This is an interesting link to the issues currently prevailing on Bermuda II:

Bermuda II - Government's Response to DETR Report (http://www.aviation.dtlr.gov.uk/response/cm4907/index.htm)

Pertinent paragraph is: The Government agrees that the US rules prohibiting the wet leasing of non-US aircraft within their domestic market are anti-competitive and protectionist, and it will continue to press the US to rescind those rules. However, it would require US legislation to allow wet leasing by UK airlines in a form which is commercially attractive to potential US lessees, and so this could not be delivered in an early preliminary deal. In our recent informal discussions with the US we offered a deal very close to that recommended by the Committee — liberalisation of the all-cargo market by summer 2002 — provided that, by that time, the US Government had legislated to allow UK airlines to wet-lease to US airlines to the same extent as US carriers (such as Atlas Air) currently wet-lease to UK airlines. The US Government said that they were not interested in such a deal. The Government notes that US carriers are permitted wet lease into the UK domestic market, subject to certain constraints imposed by EU Regulations.

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

[Beaver Driver]

OK gov
Once again because you really don't seem to get it. The UK does not allow wet leasing within it's borders so why should we allow you to wet lease in the US? Do you think we are that stupid. There would be no reciprocity, as your market is not something we are interested in especially not with the restrictions imposed.

How can you wet lease without going thru another certificate holder???? You clearly have no concept of a wet lease. Further, as I have pointed out in many posts before, (do a search if you have to) it is the UK government who is the roadblock to the open skies agreements, not the US.

For example, here is an article from 3 years ago, discussing a bill in the US Congress:

Washington – With the United States and British representatives scheduled Monday to begin negotiations on aviation treaties, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Minority Member Jim Oberstar today introduced legislation which directs negotiators to make substantial progess on opening access for U.S. air carriers to the restricted U.K. market and imposes harsh penalties if no progress is made.

“Unfortunately, with one of our biggest allies, Great Britain, we have one of the most restrictive bilateral agreements,” Shuster said. “Under the current agreement, the British hold dominant rights to air travel between the two countries. To illustrate that point, British Airways, one of the two British carriers serving the United States, is allowed to fly more routes to the U.S. than all U.S. carriers can fly to the U.K. combined. This is not fair and it must change.”

Shuster said that the point of his legislation was not to impose penalties, but rather to encourage the British government to open up more U.S flights to the United Kingdom.

Shuster’s bill seeks to achieve the following:

The bill mandates that the United States and United Kingdom come to an agreement that would grant all applications U.S. carriers currently have filed with the Department of Transportation for route access to the United Kingdom.

The bill also mandates more access to Heathrow International Airport for U.S. carriers that do not currently have access to this airport.

If this agreement is not reached within six months of the bill’s passage, the Secretary of Transportation is directed to revoke all current slots and slot exemptions held by British air carriers at Chicago O’Hare and New York Kennedy airports. In addition, if the United States and United Kingdom do not reach an Open Skies agreement within one year of the bill’s passage, the bill mandates renunciation of the current United States-United Kingdom bilateral agreement.

Shuster noted that the United States has “Open Skies” agreements with over 36 countries which are either being phased in or have been completed. Open Skies agreements allow a free market in air service in which airlines can fly where they want.



It appears to me that the hold up is the Crowns refusal to allow U.S. carriers to obtain economically viable landing and takeoff slots at the two London airports (particularly Heathrow). And still you want us to open up our airspace so you can wet lease intra-US when your government won't even allow us slots into your airports to fly international. Come on gov, get a clue....do we really seem that naive to you!

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]

[Slick]

On a similar point does anyone know what the FAA require of the JMC pilots going to Boston this winter. I gather the routes on which they fly have to be international but little more.

The UK is issueing validations like sweets to US pilots over here for the summer. I have been told that FAA will not do the same for Brits ?, but don't have the full story. Does holding a US licence make it any easier ?.

Best rgds

[The Guvnor]

Beaver Driver - you obviously overlooked this: The Government notes that US carriers are permitted wet lease into the UK domestic market, subject to certain constraints imposed by EU Regulations.

Domestic = internal.

In any case, even external (ie US to foreign points) wet leases are not generally permitted by the DOT - yet that's exactly what ATLAS is doing here!!

So you're wrong, I'm afraid, on that matter.

You're also wrong on who is holding up Bermuda II. It's the US government, not the UK - check out the link in my post above for full details. The US wants the UK to roll over and play dead on a number of issues (to make that 45 degree tilted 'level' playing field into a 90 degree tilt) :eek: :mad: :eek: - such as unlimited access to LHR, unlimited 5th freedom rights through LHR and cabotage rights within the EU; yet is intransigent about cabotage within the USA, the Fly America policy and foreign ownership of US airlines. The US remains anti-competitive where its own market is concerned.

The relevant section within the document to which I provided a link says:

(e) The United States has proved to be intransigent about its domestic legislation relating to cabotage, airline ownership and Fly America. The current proposal to accept a more liberal air services agreement in return for permitting alliances between airlines in order to allow United Kingdom airlines to gain access to the US domestic market may lead to a deal in the short term, but such a deal should include a clear timetable for the lifting of US restrictions on cabotage and airline ownership, and of the Fly America policy (paragraph 72).

The Government agrees that US protection of its domestic market is inimical to full liberalisation and will continue to impress upon the US the benefits of competition in a free market, even if, in the interim, some agreement short of full liberalisation is reached. The Government notes that the removal of some of these anti-competitive measures — but not necessarily Fly America — would require domestic legislation within the US. However, the Government has seen no evidence yet of steps being taken in this direction, nor of any political will to take them. The US Government maintains at present that it is unable to commit itself to legislate on the grounds that it would be difficult to get Congress to accept legislation that it might regard as contrary to US commercial interests.

The positions, as they stand are simple. The US wants its demands met; and is prepared to give nothing in return. Come on, that's not negotiation!! :eek: :eek:
On the other hand, the British government is saying, very clearly, that the US can have its access to LHR, Europe etc, but only if the playing field is truly level - and that's full reciprocity. What's wrong with that?? :confused: :confused:

As for wetleasing through a certificate holder... well, I obviously didn't explain myself too well, so I'll do it again. ATLAS can wet lease direct to BA as it holds an AOC and BA holds an AOC, with ATLAS aircraft, crews, maintenance and insurance (ie ACMI). Conversely, if I want to lease an aircraft to Joe Bloggs Air in the States, I can't do that directly - I have to put it through a US operator that has the aircraft type on its certificate and they then provide the crews (some of which I can provide to them which they then flip back to me as long as they have the right bits of paper). Then, the aircraft can only fly from US to foreign points - never domestically. The intermediary carrier makes a lot of money for not a lot of work; and the whole process seems to be designed specifically to put foreign companies at a competitive disadvantage. Oh, and I forgot to mention that if Joe Bloggs Air is unionised, then chances are the deal will be blocked by them as they don't want 'foreigners' coming in and rocking the boat! :rolleyes:

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

[Notso Fantastic]

Bejesus.....he's out of all control! Why doesn't the ignore function work? (see his profile and press the ignore link). If you can't ignore him electronically, just skip his numerous, fatuous and over opinionated posts. What an idiot! Guvnor.....you are the weakest link.....Goodbye!

[HalesAndPace]

Notso Fantastic, despite sometimes disagreeing with him on other occasions, this time the Guvnor has his facts bang to rights (a quaint colloquial term over here that means 100% correct!). If you can't face the facts, don't bother to take part in the discussion.

[tonyryan]

Notso Fantastic
your pen name is most apt.

There are hundreds of US pilots in Europe flying US registered a/c with EU countries.

The US authorities will not allow EU pilots to fly EU registered a/c within the US. Full Stop.
It's about time the US were given a dose of their own medicine and the practice oof US pilots flying US registered a/c in the EU stopped.

It ain't racism - it's protectionism, entirely by the US authorities.

[The Guvnor]

Notso Fantastic - dear chap, I'm sorry - you're just not my type. I prefer girls. (Well, there must be some reason why you've spent over 50% of your last 50 posts following me around!) ;) ;) Look upon it as giving meaning to your life! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: As has been said to you countless times before, if you don't like what I'm saying - then just ignore it! And you claim you're a captain on BA 747-400s? :confused: :confused:

You know, it's strange - you have a go at me when I say that pilots are demanding a bit much ... but not only do you remain silent about non EU nationals coming in and taking your colleagues' and fellow European's jobs, but you're actually offensive about it!

Rather strange, really.

[Diesel8]

tonyRyan,

So since fair is fair, the wonderful Concorde is not going to be landing in the US, since it does not meet stage three (remember the stage three hushkit ban in EU)

Furthermore, British carriers will now be retsricted in the US to no more slots than US carriers can obtain in LHR. Buhbye BA, Virgin and BMI.

Wanna go on or did you have enough?

[snooky]

This discussion should not need to take place at all.
BA flights of this nature should be operated by BA pilots and no one else.
Hopefully this will soon be the case.

[partyreptile]

Well lets get back to the point, shall we?
The original point being that AACS was constituted in order to satisfy the DETR about Atlas flying BA routes. Why should UK pilots be favored when flying into US airspace, while ATLAS crews are on furlough, even though they are higher on the sen. list than the AACS crews that would now be flying into/out of the US. And GUV, when BA get some freighters, then BA crews should fly them, on that we all agree. Do not blame the US crews for a Brit business decision.

[The Guvnor]

Partyreptile - I think you answered your own question when you say "AACS was constituted in order to satisfy the DETR about Atlas flying BA routes" - AACS and the UK AOC holder (the name of which escapes me just now but which Rod Lynch is CEO of) are apparently a completely seperate entity from Atlas with their own aircraft, crews, etc.

There is therefore nothing wrong (and indeed some would see it as poetic justice) with those British crews, operating an aircraft in British Airways World Cargo colours, flying into the States.

I'm certainly not blaming the US crews for a British business decision: but there are a couple of things that need to be taken into consideration here. The first is the unlevel playing field as far as wet leases are concerned; and the second is the UK's own rules which permit a maximum wetlease of six months (unless good cause is shown to extend it). Channex's B737-300QCs are a case in point - they are on the Icelandic register at present solely because the CAA has not certified the cargo door. As soon as that's done, the aircraft will come onto the UK register. In the meantime, as I understand it, the aircraft are being operated by UK pilots with Icelandic validations!

Now, if you're talking about AACS crews flying on other ATLAS operations - that's an entirely different story and I have full sympathy with you guys there. Is that the case?

[Roadtrip]

What ever happened to the US Atlas mainline defectors that took positions with AACS. Has their welcome run out in the UK or are they being allowed to stay?

BTW - Any union that allows outsourcing of their flying under their code isn't worth salt.

[Scottie Dog]

Taking the line slightly further, I see from the CAA pages that Manchester/Atlanta has also been approved for a series of 4 flights from September - What, I hear you say, British Airways actually adding a service from EGCC! They have also applied for Manchester/Montreal as a cargo only route!!??

Scottie Dog
:eek: :eek:

[Hunter58]

Roadtrip

are you telling us that ALPA is not worth a bit? As all mayors have small commuter airlines flying under their code, ALPA has lost a major battle, no?

On the other hand, what is so bad about wet-leases? If you want to be able to offer freighter services, then there is almost no way around wet-leases until you get to a fleet size of more than five of six planes. And, in order to keep the jobs you have, it has been proven by Cargolux and alikes, that it is always a wise decision to wet-lease in good times and only fly your own equippment in bad ones. Saves you to furlough pilots. But it seems to me such a thought about long term job stability has never crossed your mind!

[The Guvnor]

Hunter58 - absolutely no problem whatsoever with wet leases. My sole problem is that the US doesn't allow foreign airlines to wet lease to US carriers; and I believe that sanctions should be applied to those US carriers (and crews) until the US government changes its position and has a truly level playing field approach.

BTW, I hear that Gemini have postponed their plans for eight MD11Fs?

[Dutchie]

As I understand it, all UK-US flights are flown by US crews. All UK to other destination flights are flown by International crews. These could be any nationality including some Dutch guys.

There are also some other guys based in AMS and FRA I understand.

[partyreptile]

AACS is not a separate airline, or company. AACS pilots are wearing ATLAS id's, using FAA licenses, dispatched by Atlas in NY, inspected by US FAA inspectors. There is no separate AOC authorization; and while GSS (second alter-ego airline) is trying to get a certificate in the UK, they do not have one. The aircraft flying the BA contract are N reg. airplanes. And as concerns AACS crews flying routes other than BA, AACS has taken over almost all of the flying throughout europe, the mideast and into Asia. AACS crews are flying nearly flat-out, with the company offering to buy their days off from them, while claiming that there is no flying and hence the Atlas mainline crews must be laid off. Anyone who believes that this particular row is about UK vs. US open skies, or wet lease playing fields, is truly deluded, it is a labor struggle between Atlas mgt. and the mainline crews, and AACS and GSS are simply being used as leverage in the neg.'s.

[Roadtrip]

Hunter - I meant to say unrestricted outsourcing. I believe FEDEX and some other unions allow some outsourcing during business spikes, but it's a slippery slope and needs to be very carefully restricted. Allowing management to get the camel's nose under the tent is an invitation to more and more outsourcing. Scope is the most important part of a labor contract, by far - which is exactly why AAMT is able to put the screws to Council 73 right now. Given the international/wet-leasing nature of Atlas' biz, it's quite a bit tougher get the right language for a contract, but it's clear that AACS (and the future GSS) is 80% union busting and 20% UK legal fixes.

Do you know what happened to the Atlas defectors that went to the UK? I thought they were only going to get work permits for a year or so.

[411A]

Not so nice with MC gone, is it guys? You threw daggers at him when he was running the show, and now.......the picture isn't pretty, is it?
Also, some conveniently forget that MC came up with the AACS idea in the first place.

[brokepilot]

Hey Guvnor
Wow I hope that I can grow up and be just like you . it seems that your way toooo smart for this website! do you have a life? a job? a dream? how is it that you are so darn smart????? with 10k+ flying hrs and jobs from crap j3 cubs to crap B747s and lots of crap in the middle, I just want to say your my hero.


:cool: :confused:

[Beaver Driver]

411A you are clueless. Your comments don't even bear a reply. Go chase your golf ball around Sun Lakes.

Gov once again I must say don't underestimate the power of a bunch of pissed of pilots writing letters to the US DOT in opposition of your airline getting ANY kind of approval to operate in the US. Your obvious anti-American sentiments send your message loud and clear and we'll be sure to relay that message in our letters.

[Notso Fantastic]

People, don't let daft comments from Guv insult you. This man is an instant expert on EVERYTHING in aviation, and plainly he is not a pilot and simply shouldn't be here! Read all about this person: http://flytristar.tripod.com/article/art06.html

[The Guvnor]

Notso Fantastic, as I told you previously, dear boy, I did try to send you my rebuttal to that piece of cr*p which I'm quite sure you'd have found interesting and you may well have even learnt something. Unfortunately, you're one of those people who likes to snipe from behind the cover of anonymity and you haven't included your email in your profile. I, on the other hand don't do that - so you're invited to email me and I'd be happy to pass it on. There are a fairly sizeable number of PPRuNe members that have either an involvement in the project or have a good knowledge of it and I'm sure they would also be happy to tell you that it's cr*p and to wind your neck in.

OK? :D :D :D

Incidentally, I'm really puzzled why you are not supporting your fellow British pilots against these Yankee buccaneers who are coming over here and taking BA 747 pilots' jobs ... and you claim you're a BA 747 Capt?? Care to explain that one??

Beaver Driver - if you reckon that a "a bunch of pissed of pilots writing letters to the US DOT" have lots of political clout, then why not use it effectively and lobby for free and level playing fields? Right now, you're trying to have your cake and eat it. It's fine by you to come swanning over to the UK and other European countries, effectively stealing the jobs of pilots from those countries. However, when those same pilots start dishing the same medicine out to you, then it starts to hurt, doesn't it? :D :D :D

Like they say - what goes around, comes around!

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

[Intruder]

If wet leasing of US reg airplanes in the UK is so "bad," why is there NO UK carrier capable of competing and winning the BA contract?!? Surely, if the business is so lucrative, there would be at least ONE UK investor willing and able to buy a few 747-400s, hire a bunch of UK pilots, and undercut the Atlas rate!

The ONLY reason I could imagine that Atlas has the contract in such an adverse environment is that there is no domestic UK player existent...

[The Guvnor]

Intruder - that's a very fair point. There are several UK ACMI operators/large charter companies including HeavyLift Cargo Airlines, Air Foyle and AFX. Of these, AFX operates a number of B747-200s which I believe are currently on lease to Cargolux.

The fact is that raising finance for airlines is a lot easier in the States (boy, do I know that!! :D :D :D ) and it's much easier for a US operator to raise finance for operations such as ATLAS than European ones.

Unfortunately, European cargo airlines tend to be undermined by third world flagged operations - many of which are really domiciled here in Europe - over which the various civil aviation authorities have little or no control and which take full advantage of their lower costs. MK Airlines is a particular culprit in this area.

[HEAVYWHALE]

Wow Gov!

Sounds like you are admitting that it's a UK Government problem. Could it be?

Naaaahhhhh... Couldn't be!

[ 27 August 2001: Message edited by: HEAVYWHALE ]

[Roadtrip]

BALPA must be lapdogs for management if they have a contract that allows outsourcing of their flying.

[Diesel8]

Hey Guv,

For what it is worth, I can assure you that they are a lot more British and European pilots working as pilots in the US, than vice versa.

As far as I see it, there are no obstacles to you starting your own airline or an ACMI operations. Well, other than aircraft, money and an AOC license. There simply is no need for EU airlines to do ACMI in the US, we have plenty of lift, both pax and Cargo. The only place we need increased lift is in seasonal work and we do avail ourselves of it. Now defunct TransAer (Hope all my friends ther are employed) was operating in the US through TransMeridian. Ryan was running essentially the same scheme through Apple Vacations with I believe JMC.

But, and that is the question, if you can offer a product that is superior and cheaper than say Atlas, then I am certain BA will come banging on your door. If it is harder to raise capital in the UK, well, that is hardly our fault.

[Huck]

G. Washington stands vindicated!

[Hunter58]

Guv

your whisperers might be wrong, in the long term. I cannot immagine Gemini NOT to increase the MD11 fleet within the next three years. After the slump there will be a boom again. And then you've got to be ready. But there might be some long term plans for the DC10s being coocked right now.

[The Guvnor]

Heavywhale - finance isn't a UK government problem; it's more an attitude problem on the part of financiers. There's no doubt at all that the US has more of an entrepreneurial spirit than the UK - why do you think MC came to the States in the first place? Do you think if he'd stayed at home in the subcontinent - or even come to the UK - he'd have had an operation like Atlas or its predecessors?

Roadtrip - no comment :D :D :D ... but note that it's the IPA/IPF that's vocal about flagging out, not BALPA!

Diesel8 - absolutely correct. On the passenger side of things, there are two distinct ACMI markets - seasonal and start-ups. However, bear in mind that as far as the US market is concerned, the majority of that seasonal market is domestic (especially NE USA to Florida, Vegas etc). In exactly the same way, the main European seasonal market is also internal - UK to the Med mainly.

As for cargo - unfortunately, it seems that the European cargo industry has been decimated, due largely to those third world pirates. People like Maggie Oldham had been shouting this from the rooftops for years but people ingnored her - now we're paying the price. HeavyLift effectively belongs to Farhad Azima; Air Foyle is tied up with the Ukranians; and AFX is providing ACMI lift for Cargolux. On the continent, CargoLion was killed off and Cargolux are concentrating exclusively on their scheduled services. Hunter 58 knows a lot more about the current European market than I do, so I'll let him comment.

As for the relative numbers of pilots working in the US vs Europe - remember this debate isn't about individuals, it's about ACMI operations.

Hunter 58 - I heard that 8 MD11s had been deferred for up to three years and that the 10s (which were due to have been phased out) will continue to be operated. Correct?

[fr8box]

Guv,
I believe your comments about the Gemini MD-lls have the correct numbers, just the wrong sequence. Gemini expects it's fleet to grow to 12 DC-10s and 12 MD-11s within the next three years. The company has acquired the DC-10s already and is now working toward the MD-11 goal. They currently have four MD-11s on their certificate and expect to add the next eight over the next three years or sooner, depending on the recovery. There are no plans to phase out the DC-10s as they are an integral part of the overall business strategy. In addition, the 10 has become a very popular cargo aircraft in this very down cargo market. Can't fill a 747, then how about a DC-10? All the 10s are now flying under contract.

[Hunter58]

Guv / fr8

speculative! The main problem is, as I understand it, to get used MD11s. But there may be some tension gone away with FedEx and UPS delaying deliveries, thus opeing up new windows for conversion and new tails. Concerning the 10's I recently read that apparently Gemini is somehow involved in the A330-200F program. That could mean a 10 replacement, or an augmentation of the fleet. If I had DC10s (or 747-200/300s), I'd be concerned about Stage IV. So I guess anybody looking for some newer aircraft is probably geared right. And as from what I know about Bill S, he's very keen to have the right gear in.

All Others:
Europe has become avery difficult place for all the local ACMI operators, as their main customers (DHL, FedEx, UPS and TNT) all have decided to stop all A300 programs and fly it on their own. As they cannot lease the aricraft to the States (and as most US based companies are trying to get the little market there is now without facing the same problems of operating as a EU based carrier would in the US), all these companies are getting rid of their aircraft. Want an A300? You can get them dead cheap right now, cash preferred. You just won't find a market. ANd for the companies it's get out in total or back to F27s.

On another note, there are some people wondering why FedEx should be allowed internal EU traffic on their own planes and rights while EU based carriers could never achieve this in the US. Seems kind of weird! :confused: But the last words are not spoken here, and all EU pilot unions should be on their feet instead of crying for more money the carriers don't have anymore. Here we talk job protectionism by ALPA (nicely supported by the US Department of Transportation), and over the pond everyone is watching in amazement. Why do you pay any royalties to your union then?

Such logic has always amazed me... :confused:

[Diesel8]

Guv,

You are partly right that we are not talking about people, yet you always point out that EU flying should be done by EU crews.

If the US where to use the same rhetoric, I can only imagine the amount of unemployed, highly qualified pilots there would all of a sudden be in England.

Secondly, you as a potential airline CEO is going to do whatever it takes to succeed in this cutthroat business. Be it arranging to get an AOC in a more "liberal" country in the EU, outsource all your maintenance to the cheapest bidder and employing "foreigners" who will fly more for less.

Such is the world we live in and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we will accomodate ourselves.

So untill you prove that you are indeed different, I do recommend you step down from your high horse.

[The Guvnor]

Diesel8 - no, to cut corners in the way you suggest would be wholly counter-productive. If we wanted to fly solely within the EU then yes, we could indeed domicile ourselves somewhere cheap and friendly (say Ireland) and import lots of cheap pilots - in fact, you're describing Europe's most successful airline, Ryanair, here! :D :D :D - but to fly from the UK to destinations outside the EU requires us to have a UK AOC and to fully comply with the CAA regs about operations, training, FTL, maintenance and ownership rules.

What I've been saying is that ACMI leases in Europe should be done by one of two groups: either (a) any nationality where European airlines are permitted to wetlease into those countries; or (b) when European airlines are not permitted to wetlease into a country, then full wetleases from that country should not be permitted but rather European crews should be used.

There is nothing stopping US pilots, on an individual basis coming over to the EU and seeking work.
Hopefully, this clarifies my position.