View Full Version : Atlas/AACS

7th Mar 2001, 04:44
Where do you people in Atlas stand now that AACS is a 'fait acompli'. They have created an EU regulation busting airline in the UK
and are re registering Atlas aeroplanes on to the Brit register. Where will it stop?
You'll have a whole range of 'foreign' operations under the Atlas Holding banner in no time at all and you are powerless to stop it. In the UK the principal contract is with
BA's World Cargo and since the change to ATLAS Holdings I bet the discussions are based on how can this cartel be made bigger.
It's your patch but look out. You have a very serious threat approaching danger level.

Captain Airclues
7th Mar 2001, 15:13
I wouldn't be too sure about the 'fait acompli' bit torpedoe. I talked to some Atlas Mainline crews yesterday, and they were all prepared to strike if their aircraft were flown by AACS crews. I think that BA might very soon find itself without any dedicated cargo capacity.


Silver Thunder
9th Mar 2001, 22:31
What do you think the pilots at BA or United, or anywhere would do if they got a 26% pay cut during record profits? The company continues to take things away from us. Our health insurance costs have increased. The hotels we stay in have changed to a lower standard. Instead of non-stop commercial flights to reposition we get multiple stops. They keep us out a full 18 days and now prohibit overtime flying. Every paycheck must be scrutinized, there will be a shortage that will take months to collect. Active union members are being singled out and disciplined, fortunately the FAA is watching. They are trying to move the company off shore. They are telling the AACS group that they will be terminated if they join our union, or any union. At every turn the company subtly encourage dissent between the pilot groups.

Although we were paid well below industry standard we were somewhat content until the company started their games. The management of Atlas Air must have wanted ALPA on the property, every action they take further unites the pilot group. We will vote for a strike, we will strike!



[This message has been edited by Silver Thunder (edited 09 March 2001).]

10th Mar 2001, 02:37
I'm not 100% sure of Brit Law but I don't
think Atlas Holdings/ AACS can terminate somebody for being union. I imagine a few of them are in unions already anyway. Your posting makes Atlas sound somewhat of an undesirable environment.
Is the job market not bouyant enough for the heavy metal pilots to tell them to take a hike anyway? You have my symapathies in the mean time. Do the guys in AACS know what they are into?

10th Mar 2001, 02:51
Boy does this sound familiar. I think Atlas managers may have attended seminars in the Fragrant Harbour. Keep the faith guys, this can be dealt with, especially in a more labour friendly country.

Ignition Override
10th Mar 2001, 09:17
Good luck to the real Atlas pilots. I've met some of you guys at an almost windowless training center. When your airline started operations years ago, it looked as if your company wanted to take care of you.

stator vane
10th Mar 2001, 12:42
wow, this sounds discouraging. Atlas US had a class date for April 2 which changed to April 23 which i was considering going to, but after reading this thread, i seriously doubt that i will.

great airplane and great international flights, but that sounds as if that is all that is good about Atlas!

The Guvnor
10th Mar 2001, 14:15
As long as they obey the rules, ie:

1) at least 51% of the ownership and control is in the hands of UK nationals;

2) they employ UK/EU crews

I don't think there should be too many problems. You Yanks really do need to wake up and smell the coffee - this is a global business, as shown by SQ's investment in VS and BA and SAir's global network of franchisees (and investments).

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the US crews of Atlas - they ahve been over here for a considerable time, stealing the bread from the mouths of UK/EU pilot's children. Let's see how they like it when the boot's on the other foot! :) :) :)

Unfortunately, the Americans - for reasons best known to themselves - demand an unlevel playing field. Atlas, for example, is allowed to own 49% of a UK airline - yet AFX could not own more than 24.9%.

The US definition of 'Open Skies' means that as long as US carriers get to fly when and where they want they are happy - including cabotage and derived fifth freedom operations; yet few foreign airlines are able to attain the same level of economic benefit. The US seems to view a level playing field as one that is tilted 45 degrees in their favour!

Why is this? Could it be that US carriers are, in fact, so inward looking and poorly managed that, in fact, they find it had - of not downright impossible - to compete with foreign airlines?


[This message has been edited by The Guvnor (edited 10 March 2001).]

Silver Thunder
10th Mar 2001, 17:55
Hey Guv,

You have made it clear in these forums that you don't care for any airline that is not yours. You suggest that Atlas can't compete globally, you are misinformed, our business is global.

Yes the airline business has become global. We need to stand together as aviators, globally. Who else will protect us, our companies, our governments?

You have implied that you are a manager of some sort. I question the motivation of most of your postings.

The Guvnor
10th Mar 2001, 19:15
Silver Thunder - I have never said (or implied) that "all airlines that aren't mine are bad". As I'm between airlines, so to speak, that would be pretty hard in any case! :)

In any case, as you should know if you work for them, Atlas Air is not a 'proper' airline. It is an ACMI operator, and therefore operates as an 'instant airlines R us' service for 'real' airlines (ie those that sell the cargo space) - and yes, as I know very well it is a global business (with, I think, the majority of its aircraft being leased to non US carriers).

My dispute is with those that apply one rule when they want to get into someone else's market; yet jump up and down when other people try and get into 'their' markets.

Silver Thunder
10th Mar 2001, 20:12
The pilots of Atlas Air are not against or opposed to pilots from other countries. We have many nationalities in our company, at all levels.

We are opposed to a non-union pilot group, A group that was put together to bust our union. AACS was created to divide us.

I would like to have the AACS group join our senority system and our union.

Beaver Driver
10th Mar 2001, 20:21
Hey Guv
You still haven't figured it out have you. Lets all say it one more time with feeling. The EU IS NOT A COUNTRY. The U.S. is. There is no way you will be allowed to come over here and ACMI between points in the US. Atlas can't do that in the UK, we only do that between COUNTRIES in the EU.

You say you have no sympathy for US Atlas pilots as if we had something to do with where we fly. If you want to protect your interests, don't spend all your time cutting down a company, and most especially it's pilots, who have nothing to do with the routes. Instead,spend your time lobbying for a United States of Europe, rather than a lose conglomeration of trade partners with an inter-country hiring agreement. Atlas has only been doing what your EU laws allow. I would hate to hear you whine if we tried to haul cargo inter-UK.

Your grasp of cabotage and the flying freedoms is shakey at best and your geography positively sucks. When the EU becomes a country and all the member states within give up their sovereignity and enact one set of laws concerning foreign companies and cabotage/x freedom rules then, and only then, can you come to the U.S and ask for reciprocal ACMI. By the time that happens you and I will both be dead. Don't blame the Atlas pilots....blame your ministers.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 10 March 2001).]

Silver Thunder
10th Mar 2001, 20:58
Los pilotos de Aire del Atlas no son contra u opuesto a pilotos de otros pa'ses. Nosotros tenemos muchas nacionalidades en nuestra compañ'a, en absoluto los niveles.
Nosotros nos oponemos a un grupo de piloto de non-unión, UN grupo que fue reunido para reventar nuestra unión. AACS fue creado para dividirnos.

Me gustar'a tener el AACS agruparse una nuestro sistema del senority y nuestra unión.

Pardon my French

Les pilotes d'Air de l'Atlas ne sont pas contre ou ont opposé aux pilotes d'autres pays. Nous avons beaucoup de nationalités dans notre compagnie, à tous les niveaux.
Nous sommes opposés à une non - union groupe pilote, UN groupe qui a été réuni pour casser notre union. AACS a été créé pour nous diviser.

J'aimerais avoir l'AACS grouper joignez notre système du senority et notre union.

Pardon my German

Die Piloten von Atlas-Luft sind nicht gegen oder abgeneigt zu Piloten von anderen Ländern. Wir haben viele Staatsangehörigkeiten in unserer Gesellschaft, bei allen Niveaus.
Wir werden zu einem nicht-Verein Pilot Gruppe, EINE Gruppe, die zusammengesetzt wurde, um unsere Gewerkschaft kaputtzumachen, opponiert. AACS wurde geschaffen, um uns zu teilen.

Ich ließe gern die AACS Gruppe unser senority-System und unsere Gewerkschaft verbinden.


I piloti di Aria di Atlante non sono contro o contrario a piloti da paesi altri. Noi abbiamo molte nazionalità nella nostra società, a tutti i livelli.
Noi siamo opposti ad un gruppo di pilota di non-unione, Un gruppo che è stato messo insieme per scoppiare la nostra unione. AACS fu creato per dividerci.

Gradirei avere l'AACS raggruppare congiunga il nostro sistema di senority e la nostra unione.


Os pilotos de Ar de Atlas não são contra ou contrário a pilotos de outros pa'ses. Nós temos muitas nacionalidades em nossa companhia, a todos os n'veis.
Nós somos opostos a um grupo de piloto de non-união, UM grupo que foi reunido para estourar nossa união. AACS foi criado para nos dividir.

Eu gostaria de ter o AACS se agrupar una nosso sistema de senority e nossa união.

Silver Thunder
10th Mar 2001, 21:59
Well said Beaver Driver.

Perhaps I should leave it to Beaver?

10th Mar 2001, 22:38

Surely you live in the United States of America, just as we live in a Union of European States.

Much as it grieves me to agree with the Guv, you are splitting hairs to promote your cause.

Get real.

Silver Thunder
10th Mar 2001, 23:14
Hey Beaver, are you D. T.?

10th Mar 2001, 23:30
WARNING!, someone paid the electricity bill in that dingy, windowless office in PIK the gov calls home. Now he's back on the Atlas war path.
Watch out you theiving Atlas pilots, you naughty people, how dare you come over and fly for a BRITISH company, on BRITISH soil, at THEIR request.
How could you do this when there are all those UK registered 747-200/400 freighters lying around waiting to fly?. Shame on you.

You should stay on your side of the pond and play in your own sand box, just listen to the Guv he knows.
Don't let the fact that Polar Air Cargo has a maintenance base in PIK, and freely operates in and out of the UK confuse you, they are nice people, and can therefor pass into the Guv's little empire without reproach, but you, you whiners at Atlas have none of the Guv's sympathy, just read his 1951'st post.

But just remember please, when he is finally ready to get his NEXT start-up airline going, can he please have all those clapped out US registered Tri-Stars REALLY cheap?(He'll talk nicely to you "YANKS" then, I'm sure).

Tongue in cheek?, yes..

Same old song and dance from the Guv?, MOST DEFINATELY.

Well said Silver Thunder,
Beav, I'll see you in PVG.


Silver Thunder
10th Mar 2001, 23:51
Bravo Iain!

The Guvnor
11th Mar 2001, 00:38
LimeyAK - as usual, you're trying to twist things around here.

So let's keep it simple, so that you can understand, OK? :)

1) The CAA regs state that wet leases of foreign aircraft will be permitted for a maximum of six months. BA used theior influence to get that extended to what, the best part of three years? If BALPA was a half-way effective union, they should have blocked this - as the IPA has worked arduously to do - as it is BA crews that should be flying those aircraft.

2) The operation of wet-lease aircraft from the UK, on behalf of British Airways, on international routes should be done by a UK AOC holder, with UK or EU crews.

3) AACS is not a union busting operation. Again, let's keep it simple. How many aircraft will AACS operate? How many aircraft are in the ATLAS fleet? Do you, in all honesty, expect BA to merrily turn round and say to ATLAS management "no problem guys; you can ground our aircraft in order to operate other services for other airlines. Good luck with the union busting!"

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh rrrrrriiiiiiggggghhhttttt!!!! :) :rolleyes: :)

4) If AACS pilots want to, they can join BALPA - and/or, if they organise themselves as a union, the IPA.

5)AFX operates B747s (-200s) and should have been given preference to provide aircraft; and if they didn't (or couldn't) then Cargolus has -400s that they could have leased to BA.

6) ATLAS is an ACMI operator: this means that they never fly for their own account. Aerial mercenaries, in fact. Polar Air Cargo is a 'normal' airline - flying its own routes and at its own financial risk. They are more than welcome in PIK where they contribute to the economy and do not steal jobs from Brits and other Europeans.

From what I understand, ATLAS pilots were given a pay increase in exchange for not organising themselves. They have reneged on their side of the deal. Now, they whine about the company not being sympathetic to them. Serves you right, lads!

As I said in an earlier post, this is a global industry and companies such as ATLAS will start to establish offshore operations both to comply with local rules and to reduce their costs. Remember, at the end of the day management is answerable to the owners of the company - the stockholders - and their primary interest is in the maximisation of profits.

You want sanctions applied against ATLAS? I agree with you. I think that all ATLAS aircraft operating in Europe (and all other US ACMI operators), for European airlines should be embargoed; that no assistance should be given to non-EU crews by any airport or operations staff; and that they should have their travel privileges on EU airlines revoked. Perhaps that way they would perhaps wake up and smell the coffee!

11th Mar 2001, 00:51
Let me try to get this straight;
The United States of America has one President, one Congress, one Supreme
Court that rules hopefully in the best interest of the majority of the people of the USA. We also have (good or bad) a IRS that taxes all of the people at specified rates.
Now you folks in the EU claim that you're one country (well sort of).
Let's see, my last fellow crewmembers that worked at STN lived in various other European Countries (they very quickly pointed out to me)in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to the UK.
I live in the State of Connecticut and pay the same rate of Federal taxes as my fellow crewmembers that live in any of the other forty-nine states. Also, whether I live in Maine or Montana the dollar is the standard form of currency. Now of course I'm dating myself, but in the late sixties it didn't matter if I lived in Anchorage or Atlanta,
I still received a draft card and had the responsibility to serve my country.
Now, let's see all those Euros as currency in the UK, Denmark, Switzerland, etc. right!, not even close! ;how about a European elected central government? The French would love that! It would rule and tax equally, Ireland to Italy, Poland to Portugal. Maybe in a hundred years!
Come on guys, the EU is a great step forward into the 1970's, but it is still made up of independent and sovereign nations, not one single unified country.
If your airline has the 5th freedom rights,you are more that welcome to fly to JFK and pick up US passengers and take them to BDA, ANU, AUA, FDF, etc. like BA did, as well as KLM and AF just to name a few.
Your governments'(note the plural usage) allow Atlas to operate it's own planes on behalf of other carriers to other countries the same as the US allows foreign carriers to pick up and fly through the US to other countries. Maybe the US pilots should demand seniority numbers on every EU carrier that operates through the US and it's territories?
It's only fair!
Having met and flown with more than a few AACS crewmembers, I find them to be, (perish the thought) a lot like me. We like what we're doing,flying, we try to be professionals, we like women, boats, planes, cars and our kids, and we're trying to make a living. My problem is with the Atlas management team (AMT) that is using AACS as a weapon against the Atlas Crews that built the airline and without us there wouldn't be an AACS today. Also now that I've met these folks I find that the AMT doesn't really want us to get together.
Go figure! We might all try to form some sort of an organization. That would force Atlas Holdings to form Pakistan AACS or something even more cost effective.
Anyway, Atlas is a US corporation that is using AACS mainly as an economic tool, as well as a bargaining chip. If anyone thinks that the AMT is hiring EU citizens for ethical reasons, then you're spending too much time in certain smoking bars in AMS.
Some of you that claim the EU is the same as the US need a reality check!
Give us all a break!
Finally, in another month spring should be arriving in the UK. That would be a great time for the "Guv" (all the best to him and his 1011's) to get his soapbox out and make a weekend tour of UK's parks. Maybe he'll publish his schedule? We Atlas folks on layovers in the UK would love to listen!
We could even donate a few Euros, oops!, that's right the UK doesn't use the EU's money!

[This message has been edited by Ct.Yankee (edited 10 March 2001).]

11th Mar 2001, 01:33
Guv you have mad cow disease, or your brains are being eaten like in the movie Hannibal. I have been at atlas 6 years and NEVER got a pay raise for NOT voting in a union. You are BRAIN DEAD!

Let me pull your head out of the brown cloud for you.

Back in 96 mamangement only partly admited that we were grossly under paid.Is for one year only they said that Capts would get a 20% minimum profit sharing guarante. While FE's and FO's would get a 10% guarante. Profits were always running over 25% anyhow.

The Guvnor
11th Mar 2001, 01:42
Strange that ... do a search on AACS and you'll see that rather a lot of your colleagues did say that there was some sort of settlement in exchange for a 'no union' agreement.

Strange, that! :) :) :)

11th Mar 2001, 02:21
Sometimes your statements remind me of a "talking head" reporting on an aviation subject, just enough points to sound like an authority, but not enough knowledge to really know what he's/she's talking about.
In 1996/97 Atlas was bleeding Captains.
FE's and FO's at the time were not the problem.
The AMT(atlas mgmt team) had already published a pay scale for the next three years that put them in a box. It didn't stem the losses of Captains and to a lesser extent FO's.
The quick fix from the H.R.,V.P.(he's no longer here) was to pay Captains a 20% overrride monthly and the FO's and FE's a 10% override. At the end of the year the remaining "profit sharing" would be paid equally to all. BTW, it's varied from 26%
to 38%. (don't hold me to the exact #'s , but I'm within 2% points on the high side)
When the new H.R.,V.P. took over, the union vote was coming up, so all of a sudden the profit sharing plan was good, only if there was no union on the property.
After a failed union vote the AMT reneged on various promises and a union was overwhelmingly voted in. A sad statement for a company that had so many pilots that were not pro union or apathetic at best.
What really took the cake was that the AMT not only stopped profit sharing, BUT, they witheld our previous years already earned profit sharing! Hence the so far successful court case of ALPA vs Atlas.
As an aside, in my previous life I was one of 3,600 pilots that walked off the job rather than work for Lorenzo. Two hundred(the"golden 200")continued to fly, and that broke the strike. So, yes, the crews at AACS do worry me, especially if they are forced to fly.
I've been replaced once and I will do whatever it takes not to be replaced again!
Your seemingly pro-lorenzo writings do bother me and all of us who have lost our careers due to him and his management practices! There are many of us at Atlas that are his victims and will not be victims again.
We'll see you on the soapbox.

[This message has been edited by Ct.Yankee (edited 10 March 2001).]

11th Mar 2001, 02:48
Ct. Yankee

Would you answer us this one simple question……

Who has trained your replacements at AACS?

It would seem to me that your anger and efforts against AACS crewmembers and AMT are focused in the wrong direction.

Ignition Override
11th Mar 2001, 03:55
No matter who defends whichever airline payscales and mgmt attitudes towards its workers, a few things are undeniable.

When employee turnover is high among those who fly the larger jets (many turboprop pilots would leave their jobs in order to fly almost ANY jet!) the salaries/benefit packages are usually far below the available market rates (often far below their employer's ability to compensate), resulting in dissatisfaction and low morale which can not be quantified by the business schools.

11th Mar 2001, 11:38
Guv, trust me on this one. Regardless of what you heard or read Atlas NEVER gave a pay increase in order to keep the Union out. Actually, I understand that there has never been a pay increase for the crew force in the history of the airline which may be why they now have a Union.

However, upon unionization in the Feb 2000 time frame management did refuse to pay profit sharing to the crews which was earned in 1999 (long before unionization)and cut future profit sharing entirely. Perhaps it's just me but that first act sounds like pure theft. Regardless, at this point these actions have both been found to be illegal acts of coersion and intimidation by the Court. In all probability Atlas will be paying a rather hefty bill of owed profit sharing and penalties. Very rough math shows $15 Million plus depending on how long they drag this out.

As to there ever having been an agreement of ANY type between management and the crews, there have only been three. All were letters of agreement signed post Feb 2000 and regarded standard, mundane administrative matters. All were abrubtly and rather petulantly withdrawn by management. If memory serves, that happened right about the time they lost the above mentioned court case.
Strange that.

Hope that clears it up.

11th Mar 2001, 12:14

Your question is an entirely logical one.

The answer is that the trainers you allude to (Check Airmen and most Sim Instructors) are indeed members of the Union. As such, they must abide by the same laws that the other union members do. Specifically, by US labor law you can't take a "work action" (strike, slowdown, etc.) unless you already have a contract. The Atlas crews do not have a contract yet. Thus, should those folks refuse to train AACS crews they would be performing a defined illegal work action under US law and the Union would be sanctioned. That means major fines, bad karma at the contract negotiating table from the Federal mediator, etc. The horrific fines resulting from the AAL pilot union's actions last year is a good example of this.

Sorry to jump in Ct. Yankee!

[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 11 March 2001).]

Magic Blue
11th Mar 2001, 13:49

Sorry but totally disgaree.My comments in capitals below


6) ATLAS is an ACMI operator: this means that they never fly for their own account. Aerial mercenaries, in fact. Polar Air Cargo is a 'normal' airline - flying its own routes and at its own financial risk. They are more than welcome in PIK where they contribute to the economy and do not steal jobs from Brits and other Europeans.



Beaver Driver
11th Mar 2001, 17:42
Sorry but the E.U. is not even close to the same type of government as the U.S. (see above posts concerning different governing bodies, different currency, different laws, etc., etc.,) Maybe you and the Gov should attend remedial geography/civics together.

Once again you prove your total ignorance of not only U.S. companies and operations, but European operations, laws, history, and geography as well. Perhaps you should stick to the bush (league). Africargo and it's (non) operation suits you. :)

Silver T.
I'll never tell

Anyone hear of a new company called Global Supply Sytems? They are somehow associated with Atlas/AACS and may be the 51% EU owned AOC that Atlas has been looking for. Sounds like they may be transferring some AACS folks over there as well as Atlas airframes. And you doubters thought that Atlas was not trying to set themselves up to "keep the freight moving" in the event of a strike. Who knows maybe it's a Caledonian Wings subsidiary. The Gov would fit right in with Atlas managment and AACS' Mike Bull :)

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]

The Guvnor
11th Mar 2001, 18:29
Magic Blue - What a lot of rot you talk! :) :) :)

AF continue to go through PIK on a scheduled basis. Cargo yields are higher ex UK than they are ex European continent; Polar currently has problems as its GSA in Europe has been given an overriding capacity preference, which is driving their yields down. AF and Polar will doubtless be paying exactly the same for the pleasure of using PIK - so how on earth can you claim that Polar is receiving beneficial treatment there!

Both AF and LH have very high operating costs - these are issues that must be addressed byu those carriers. If LH or AF are unhappy at PIK, I am quite sure that another airport - such as SNN or MAN - will welcome them with open arms.

What UK jobs depend on the ATLAS concept? Certainly no UK pilots jopbs, if ATLAS mainline pilots have their way, eh!! :rolleyes:

There are, it seems two main issues here:

1) Unionisation of Atlas
2) Illegal operation of foreign registered aircraft by UK/EU carriers.

There's a third issue that overlaps both of those - the establishment of AACS. As I understand it - and remember, as an outsider so I have to base my perception both on what people post here and what I read elsewhere - AACS has been set up in response to the IPA's pressure over flagging out. Therefore, the aircraft being operated for BA will now come onto a UK AOC and the UK (G-) register; and will be flown by UK pilots. This is a very good thing for the UK aviation industry.

I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which will be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'. BA would be highly unlikely to release the aircraft from their own services to help out ATLAS; and the UK crews would only be able to operate G registered aircraft - again, not a lot of use when the rest of the ATLAS fleet are on the N register.

If the people working for AACS agree to work on different terms and conditions - so what? I am quite sure that the guys flying for Polar and Cargolux also have different terms
and conditions.

Employment and social conditions in Europe are, as has been discussed on other threads, completely different to those in the States; and in my view the AACS rates and conditions recognise that fact.

As for the EU - whilst at the moment we may still be moving towards a central government, there are numerous areas of harmonisation that have already occurred - including civil aviation. For EU carriers, Europe is already one nation - how on earth do you think you can have an Irish airline flying between the UK and Belgium otherwise?
Employment legislation is another area - nationals and other EU citizens are supposed to have preference over non EU aliens. This is an area that needs to be rigorously enforced - especially as it is so hard for EU pilots to get work in the US; and downright impossible for EU operators to provide ACMI leases to US carriers.

Put a level playing field in place on your side of the pond; and maybe we might support you guys over things like AACS. Until then, AACS gets our full support.

Beaver Driver
11th Mar 2001, 19:01

--"For EU carriers, Europe is already one nation - how on earth do you think you can have an Irish airline flying between the UK and Belgium otherwise?" --

OK I'll bite and please pay attention. What you are describing is called "Seventh Freedom" It is the right of one airline to pick up passengers (or freight)in a country not it's own, and transport them to a third country, also not of it's own flag, without stopping in it's own country. What you want to do is called cabotage; operating your airline, (registered in the UK one assumes), from point to point in another country (the U.S.). U.S. airlines currently can not do this in any one European country but can do this (as defined) in the E.U. (remember the EU is a conglomeration of sovereign nations, not one country). Why would you think you could do this in the U.S., which is one sovereign country. You really do need to get some education on this before you pontificate so.

-- "Employment legislation is another area - nationals and other EU citizens are supposed to have preference over non EU aliens. This is an area that needs to be rigorously enforced - especially as it is so hard for EU
pilots to get work in the US; and downright impossible for EU operators to provide ACMI leases to US carriers." --

See my post above. The MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES in the EU allow foreigners to work in their countries...and the rules are different for each country. The states in the U.S. have no power or sovereignity of their own to allow or otherwise regulate air commerce or the employment in air commerce.

-- "I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which will be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'. BA would be highly unlikely to release the aircraft from their own services to help out ATLAS; and the UK crews would only be able to operate G registered aircraft - again, not a lot of use when the rest of the ATLAS fleet are on the N register."--

Once again you don't know what you are talking about. There are currently NO G-registered Atlas aircraft...soon MAYBE, but not yet. As for the other, AACS crews are not dedicated to the BA contract. They have been flying ALL of Atlas contracts on N registered aircraft, and have been flying in the U.S. (I flew with one AACS crewman last night ORD-ANC). If you look hard enough you will see that AACS is hurting YOUR cause, as it is mobilizing our courts and congress to be even more isolationist.


[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]

The Guvnor
11th Mar 2001, 22:18
Beaver Driver - read what I said again. This is not Seventh Freedom - it is legislation enacted by the EU.

Now onto the wetlease issue:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Wetlease rules lead list of unresolved issues as U.S.-U.K. negotiations resume

The British Cargo Airline Alliance descended on Washington last week with the
hope of pushing its agenda of moving toward an "op en skies" agreement with the
United States. A deal still is a long way off and, given the current political climate,
the status quo of talking about open skies but arguing about how to get there is
apt to continue, said BCAA Secretary Steve Guynan.

While in Washington, Guynan attempted to grease the skids before formal talks
begin next month by meeting with Department of Transportation Assistant
Secretary Bradley A. Mims and members of Congress with aviation interests. DOT
downplayed the meeting, refraining from discussing the nature of it other than
stating it was not a government-sanctioned encounter.

The BCAA is made up of four British all-cargo operators: Air Foyle, Channel
Express, HeavyLift and Atlantic Airlines. The group argues that U.K. carriers are at
a great disadvantage to U.S.-based competitors in the $4 billion wetleasing market
where U.S. law prohibits wetleasing aircraft registered outside the United States.

"Under U.S. law, wetleasing an aircraft (from a foreign company) by a U.S. airline
is prohibited. However, the U.S. allows its airlines to wetlease to other countries,"
the BCAA states in its promotional materials. "This is hypocritical and
protectionist and closes off 40 percent of the world market to non-U.S. airlines,
effectively maintaining and strengthening an American monopoly on the wetleasing

The success of Atlas Air frustrates its U.K. counterparts because the airline
generates $600 million a year in revenue, a good chunk of which comes from
European-flag carriers. That business, BCAA claims, is off-limits because the
aircraft fly into and out of the United States, something that is prohibited for
foreign-registered aircraft under current wetleasing rules.

FDX Corp. Chairman Frederick W. Smith has lobbied both DOT Secretary Rodney
Slater and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey, to support the liberalization
of the U.S.-U.K. air freight market. While he supports giving U.K. carriers the
opportunity to bid for U.S. wetleasing contracts, the real agenda for Federal
Express is much bigger in scope.

FedEx filed for an extra bilateral application that would grant the company the
ability to pick up new freight in Prestwick, Scotland, before flying on to its
European hub in Paris. The company successfully asked for the same right from
the French government a few years ago.

"We have very patiently supported the negotiations to liberalize the agreement,"
said Greg Rossiter, managing director of public relations for FedEx. "There doesn't
seem to be any potential for an agreement anytime soon so ... rather than
continue to tie up our customers unnecessarily by these fruitless passenger talks,
we filed the extra application."

FedEx expects to hear something on its application in the next few weeks. If the
application isn't granted, FDX Corp. Chairman Smith has threatened to end his
company's freighter flight to Scotland, thereby eliminating somewhere between
1,000 and 3,000 potential new jobs to be created by the expansion.

The wetleasing issue is just one of many stumbling blocks the two governments
can count on when they return to the negotiating table on July 6. This round of
talks will be the first since last October when U.S. officials walked away From the

Finally, let's turn to AACS. As a UK AOC holder, they have to use UK registered aircraft - otherwise they are right back to the existing BA situation. I have it on good authority from a contact in the CAA SRG that the aircraft will be going onto the G register.

The sooner you guys let AACS get on with things and set up the UK operation the better - that way they will be restricted to the UK aircraft and y'all will be happy, eh?

Beaver Driver
11th Mar 2001, 23:46
To do an ACMI wet lease you must have permission for seventh freedom flying. The contracts and the x/freedom issue are apples and oranges. The Journo writing the article you copied probably doesn't even know what the Chicago Convention was, let alone the Seven Agreed on freedoms on which I beleive Britain was a signatory. If you can't understand this then maybe you should stick to something you do know. Face it Gov, the UK has nothing we want, thus you are dealing from a very small power base indeed. Your inter-UK market is just not lucrative enough for any U.S. carrier to want. While our inter-U.S. market is huge. Now if you wanted to give up your sovereignity, fire the Queen, and have the French president be the president of the E.U., declare the E.U. one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all, give up British rules and regulations (including the Pound)and THEN deal with the U.S. on ACMI issues.....MAYBE we'll talk to you.

By the way, AACS will NEVER be restricted to just G-reg airplanes. Atlas management has already stated that. If you will look at the archives you will see that I predicted the start of another sub-/or alter-AACS. That is what G.S.S. appears to be, further muddying the issues.

I have nothing left to say to you on this issue. You are obviously in need of a H.S. education on the matter....(that doesn't include copying editorials from the notoriously inaccurate British tabloids)....either that or a good ol fashioned asswhipping.

kindest regards

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]

The Guvnor
12th Mar 2001, 00:12
Beaver Driver - what a load of bollox!! :) First, the ACMI operator generally flies under the authority of the lessee carrier - which is why in order to lease aircraft on an ACMI basis, the lessee has to hold its own AOC and/or Operating Licence. If it does not hold an AOC and/or Operating Licence, then it can only take the aircraft on a full charter basis; and in that context the lessor needs to obtain relevant traffic rights. However, we're not talking full (wet) charter; we're talking ACMI lease.

As for: copying editorials from the notoriously inaccurate British tabloids - that article originally came from the Wall Street Journal. LOL!!!! :) :rolleyes: :)

Finally, I have no doubts AACS will stick to G registered aircraft; and if ATLAS management decides to set up similar companies around the world (such as GSS - perhaps you might like to fill us in on that?) then that is simply one of the prices of dealing in a global industry.

We don't need a bunch of Yank pilots coming over here, taking our jobs, when we can't operate over there. The sooner the unions here extract their digits and impose sanctions on non-EU crewed aircraft owned by these companies, the better.

12th Mar 2001, 02:01
Firstly, I can't wait for the next post from the Guv, could he please write my username in bold letters lots and lots of times with lots of exclamation marks so I can feel like a schoolboy getting told off by the Head Master?. What a joke.

You say Polar doesn't get preferential treatment at PIK?, yeah right, they chose it for it's pituresque quality and nice weather.
I doubt they got a good deal on the hanger either right?.

To my fellow AAI crewmembers, you are wasting your time with this one, he makes it sound like we are directly threatening HIS job, (one I woundn't touch with a ten foot barge pole).
His awesome knowledge of the Chicago Convention and it's results far outweigh what we mere mortals know about our OWN company,and you folks who have 25 years in the business and have been at Atlas since it's inception have apparently no clue what you are talking about.

Your time is better spent watering the window box.

Guv, you keep saying that it is a "global market" out there, thats right, and Atlas is taking advantage of that fact.
There is freight to be flown, Atlas has the lift, so we are flying it.
If there really is a market for several wide body airframes out of Prestwick, then you've got em' all beat, you go with your bad self!, LOL.

I don't need to repeat what my colleagues have said regarding AACS and our position, they have hit the nail right on the head.

If you put half the effort into your company that you do on this forum, it might actually fly!

Lak (awaiting a Bold Type response)

12th Mar 2001, 03:50
I think you will find the Chicago Convention of 1944 led to the "five freedoms agreement".
If you refer to "The Law of International Air Transport" by Bin Cheng, you will find all the details on how sixth and seventh freedoms are virtual freedoms arrived at by stringing together fifths, and have no real standing in any published agreement.

lost in hold.

[This message has been edited by ClearDirect (edited 12 March 2001).]

12th Mar 2001, 04:18
You mentioned that BA,KLM,AF flew from the US to BDA,ANU,AUA,FDF, etc. Up until fairly recently, those points were UK, Dutch, or French points, so the respective airlines were exercising 3rd and 4th freedoms.

FDF is still a French point, I am not sure about BDA and AUA. ANU is now part of Caricom and I believe they have a joint Caribbean aviation policy.

I am not involved in the UK/US argument going on here, but the Caribbean is at the loosing end of the "balance of commercial opportunity" and is looking on to see how the EU deals with it.

This week's Economist has an interesting article that touches on some of the implications of US aviation policy that affect the rest of the world adversely. It is difficult to dismiss The Economist as a sensationalist tabloid publication.

fly low, bite hard

Beaver Driver
12th Mar 2001, 04:24
I was attempting to simplify things for the unsophisticated individual I was trying to edify. When you instruct at the fifth grade level you must start simple.

You are correct, and for those who have a real interest in aviation and knowledge of history, and civics, here is the meat (Gov you can quit reading now as you won't understand any of this):

After thirty-seven days of continuous meetings, and some secret talks between the U.S., Cananda, and Great Britain, the Chicago Conference resulted in five documents being established.
1. Bilateral Agreement Rules - basically concerned air routes.
2. Provisional ICAO - Deals with ratifying the temporary ICAO established in June 1945.
3. Permanant ICAO - determines membership in ICAO.
4. International Air Transit Agreement- this is the two freedoms agreement which are referred to as the technical freedoms. The first of these is the right of an aircraft to fly over the territory of another country who has agreed to it. The second of these freedoms conveys the right of an airplane to land for technical reasons, such as refueling or repairs, but not for commercial purposes, such as picking up or discharging passengers. Hence the moniker "Tech Stop".
5. International Air transport Agreement (five freedoms agreement) This agreement was signed by the 16 (countries) and consisted of the two Technical agreements plus three more commercial freedoms. The first of these commercial freedoms is the right to carry traffic from the planes country of origin to another country. The second commercial freedom refers to the right to pick up traffic in other countries and return to the country of origin. The third freedom is the right of an airline to carry traffic between countries outside it's own country.

You are mostly (or Cheng is) correct. The sixth and seventh freedoms came about as interpretations of the other freedoms. However, I think you will find that they are refered to in U.S.open skies agreements signed first by the Netherlands in 1992, many other European countires in 1995, and Germany in 1996. If memory serves, there are 47 such agreements in place betweeen the U.S and others, and the standard agreement now also includes or refers to the 7 freedoms and also traffic rights for cargo carriers.


[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 12 March 2001).]

12th Mar 2001, 04:59
You may well be right on the recent agreements, I don't have the updated Cheng, and I haven't been involved in route rights since the mid-eighties.
So who formalised the definition of 6th and 7th, was it the US or the Dutch?

The Guvnor
12th Mar 2001, 05:18
Beaver Driver - In other words, the 'extra' three derived freedoms (as in derived fifth freedom) are as defined by the US DOT.

Those self same people that defined Open Skies as "We can fly wherever we like, including operating Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Freedom flights in your country. However, Heaven help you if any of your airlines try and do the same in our country."

Actually, this happens to be an area I know a fair amount about, as when I was CEO of a regional carrier in Burundi, I was involved with Rodney Slater's attempt to impose his one-sided 'Open Skies' on COMESA. Luckilly, that fell apart after it was pointed out that as most of the COMESA carriers had been - unilaterally - categorised as Cat II/Cat III (as then applied) by the DOT, such rights were completely worthless as the US would block any reciprocal COMESA operators.

It was blatantly obvious that Slater's intention was to obtain derived Fifth Freedom rights for US carriers, such as Pan Am used to hold.

The various Freedoms (including the US three) are as follows:

First freedom

The privilege to fly across another state without landing.

Second freedom

The privilege to land in another state for non-traffic purposes (eg refuelling, mechanical requirements) but not for the purpose of uplifting passengers or discharging traffic.

Third freedom

The privilege to put down in another state revenue passengers, mail and freight taken on in the state of airline registration.

Fourth freedom

The privilege to take on in another state revenue passengers, mail and freight destined for the state of airline registration.

Fifth freedom

The privilege for an airline registered in one state and en route to or from that state to take on revenue passengers, mail and freight in a second state and to put them down in a third state.

Not part of the Chicago Convention:

Sixth freedom

The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers, mail and freight in a second state, transport them via the state of registration, and put them down in a third state.

Seventh freedom

The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers and freight to a second state and to put them down in a third state without the journey originating, stopping or terminating in the state of registration.

Eighth freedom

The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers and freight at one point in the territory of a second state and deliver them to another point in the territory of the second state, i.e. domestic passengers and freight in a foreign state. (NB: This is also known as Cabotage)

[This message has been edited by The Guvnor (edited 12 March 2001).]

12th Mar 2001, 11:19

In reference to AACS/Atlas/BA you stated:

"I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which would be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'."

As I have pointed out before in this forum, obviously in vain, Atlas operated and continues to operate 1 (one) B747-400 freighter in fulfillment of it's BA contract. AACS is to have 5 (five) 747s, some of which are 200s which do not fit BA's requirements.

To the average mind, AACS, if actually a BA-only proposition, seems to be seriously over staffed and equiped at a time when there is an excellent worldwide market for heavylift assets. Please state your view as to why AACS now needs 5 B747 freighters (including 200s which BA doesn't use) to service the BA contract which used to require only one.

I'll help by pointing out what these excess AACS assets ARE doing currently: Flying other Atlas contracts that have nothing to do with BA, the UK or even the EU. Examples? Korean Air ANC-SEL-ANC, China Air ANC-TPE-ANC, Lan Chile MIA-BOG-MIA, etc.

Seriously Guv, while you make some good points on other issues of international trade which absolutely need to be addressed, this one is a red herring. AACS is merely the first step of Atlas management's plan to outsource the unionized crewforce's jobs. If it had the happy coincidence or excuse of satisfying UK rules as well, so much the better for Atlas management.

The Guvnor
12th Mar 2001, 14:30
StbdD - Thanks for that - at last we as outsiders are getting more information on the real situation at ATLAS.

Two things spring to mind - first BA has wanted to expand the number of aircraft they have on ACMI lease from ATLAS for some time now; and that there has been strong interest in leasing aircraft from ATLAS expressed by at least one other UK operator; but thanks largely to the efforts of the IPA on the 'flagging out' issue, they have been unable to do so.

Secondly, even if they do have five aircraft, if two or three of them are dedicated to BA ops, then the balance won't be of much use to ATLAS as 'scab' aircraft in the event of a strike. Obviously, AACS needs to have a certain number of aircraft in order to achieve operational economies of scale.

I would suggest that AACS would be used as an EU operation, and therefore provide lift to carriers such as Alitalia, SAS, Air France etc. I agree with you though that I can see no reason for AACS as a company to be operating outside a tightly defined 'sphere of influence'; and as soon as they get themselves properly organised and the aircraft on the UK register then this, I am sure, will be resolved.

I would be considerably more interested to learn how they managed to get around the UK ownership and control issues: who, exactly, are the UK nationals that own and control a minimum of 51% of the company?

12th Mar 2001, 15:21
Just to add a little bit to the xth freedom discussion:

In the late 40's and early 50's the US government actively did try to ban the 6th and 7th freedom (which as a matter of fact are a combination of the other five), as they perceived the 'unfair' compatition from European airlines being harmless to their own flying. They actively contested, that a passenger from Italy should not be allowed to fly on BEA/BOAC, AF, SR etc. to this carriers main base and then onward to the US. They insisted, that sucha passenger MUST fly direct, preferrably on a US airline.

Srange views by the US policymakers are not new at all.

There's nothing like a three-holer...

13th Mar 2001, 03:54
Wow, all this talk of the various freedom rights is daunting. In essence AACS was only formed to get round the EC Law 2407/92 because they would not be allowed to continue
much longer under the Atlas Banner and extend beyond one aeroplane. ( the second being on a renewable monthly dispensation).
Now ( imminently) they can do just whatever they want as soon a they have satisfied the CAA as to their AOC and re registered their
aeroplanes. Job done whether you like it or not. The jobs on N reg aeroplanes have been lost to US pilots whether thay like it or not.
The cartel between AACS and BA will only get bigger and more management types will slide across seamlessly from BA to AACS, you just watch. It's a done deal guys and I fear you've been well and truly shafted.

[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 12 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 13 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 14 March 2001).]

Beaver Driver
13th Mar 2001, 04:20

Contention by ONE government official whether he be the head of the DOT or not, does not a policy make. There are five freedoms of the air formally established. All the others have been established by negotiating practice or precedent between bilateral partners. Each bilateral agreement between two countries always contains provisions allowing, at a minimum, the first four freedoms of the air. The fifth freedom was not universally made available between countries. Recently, Other traffic freedoms and concepts have been developed, some of which have been included in U.S. bilateral air service agreements with other nations. But by no means are the U.S. definitions of the other freedoms (six through eight) accepted by all other nations on the globe, or are they codified in biltilateral agreements like the Chicago Convention.

The U.S. generally defines sixth freedom as flowing traffic from a third country over an
airline's homeland to a destination in the United States. An example would be a Japanese
airline flowing traffic originating in Thailand over Japan to the United States. Most bilateral agreements do not explicitly set down sixth freedom rights, they are simply a silent partner of fifth freedom rights that are taken advantage of by most airlines around the world once fifth freedom rights are established. (This is actually a combination of Third and fourth freedoms that has been so universally used by the airlines and signatory countries of the Chicago as to be accepted into common practice. Yes, I suppose the U.S. (D.O.T.?) took the lead and formally defined it, but only after it was in such wide spread use as to be un-asailable.

The United States has defined seventh freedom as the ability of an airline to provide service between two countries not of its homeland without the service being connected in any way with a service to the homeland country. An example of this type of service would be a U.S. airline providing turn-around service between Frankfurt and Paris. (This was done originally, I understand, in the early 1970's primarily to help Iceland).

Some journo's in aviation are beginning to call Cabotage the eighth freedom. The pure definition of cabotage from the Chicago Convention is the right of an airline of one country to fly and carry traffic between two points within the territory of another country. There is a strict prohibition in the Chicago Convention against any signatory state "exclusively" exchanging cabotage rights with another signatory state, so once this happens, there will be no going back....even when the Southwest's of the U.S. decimate the British Airline industry.

Currently, a number of U.S. laws and regulations prohibit foreign airlines, aircraft and/or crews from operating between two points in the U.S. and carrying traffic. For a cabotage exchange, EACH ONE of these U.S. laws would have to be separately repealed or otherwise rendered ineffective. The problem is that some of the laws involve other modes of transportation (like the maritime industry). In addition, the Chicago Convention would have to be dealt with if the U.S. (or any other signatory country) tried to conclude a cabotage exchange with one partner, or even the EU.

Under the Treaty of Rome which created the European Common Market and European Union, the 15 European signatory states made a commitment that their individual national borders would be broken down for trade and transportation purposes among those states. As a result, airlines licensed by the EU member states now hold EU licenses and may fly between any cities within the borders of the European Union. There are some who argue that the Treaty of Rome is a violation of the Chicago Convention, but no one has taken the EU to court over the issue. The 15 national governments of the E.U. STILL RETAIN ALL AUTHORITY todecide how their airlines will fly/operate to and from non-EU member states or third countries and also which airlines can operate in and out of their states and under which freedoms.

The European Commission continues to challenge the rights of member states on this authority, but it has not been successful. The EC has alleged in a court filing that European member states which signed open skies agreements with the United States violated the Treaty of Rome by authorizing U.S. airlines to fly between two EU member states and carry traffic (fifth freedom rights). This suit has not been ruled on, and European member states believe the EC will lose the suit. Purely for public relations purposes, does the EC maintain that U.S. airline fifth freedom rights within the EU are the same as cabotage rights. This EC argument, most U.S. experts say, has no validity.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 13 March 2001).]

13th Mar 2001, 05:30
Beaver Driver
The definition of Cabotage is:-

AIR TRANSPORT internal air traffic: the right of a country to operate "internal traffic" especially air traffic, using its own carriers and not those of other countries

Some countries restrict the carriage of cargo between their own ports to ships flying their own flag. This practice, known as cabotage, has existed for centuries. It has almost disappeared in Europe but it is strictly enforced in the United States, where there is substantial coastwise trade, some of which involves international voyages through the Panama Canal.

Please enlighten me on how the Chicago Convention has defined cabotage in relation to traffic rights in another state and what ICAO article refers to this

My impression of the convention was that agreement was reached that established the principle that every nation has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory and granted transit rights i.e the right to fly over another nation's territory and the right to land there for non-traffic purposes, such as refuelling and permitted non-scheduled, charter(article 5), and private flights.

However agreement was not reached on traffic rights (to pick up and set down passengers, cargo, and mail) and bilateral negotiations had to be carried out to effect such arrangements. The American principle of "Freedom of the Air" and the British principle of "Order in the Air" were reconciled in 1946 in Bermuda at a meeting between the United States and Britain. Subsequent bilateral agreements are based on the so-called Bermuda Principles covering the regulation of routes, capacity, and tariff.

An interesting and informative discussion protectionism is alive and kicking on both sides of the atlantic


Always willing to listen

Beaver Driver
13th Mar 2001, 09:43
Actually Websters defines cabotage as:

n- from the French caboter- [to sail along the coast](1831) - 1 : trade or transport in coastal waters or airspace between two points within a country. 2 : the right to engage in cabotage.

One of my reference books defines it like this: The carraige of air traffic which originates and terminates within the boundraries of a given country by an air carrier of another country. Rights to such traffic are usually entirely denied or severely restricted.

Most other texts that I have define it the same way. An example would be if Caledonian Wings (an non-U.S. company) wanted to carry cargo between JFK and LAX. This is the generally accepted definition of cabotage and the one that the Chicago Conference adopted. Not sure where your def. came from but most in aviation don't dfine it that way. (unless I read it wrong or you typed it wrong....)

What follows is shamelessly plagerized from the folks at Perdue University Aviation Technology Class Notes (AT300 Aviation Infrastructure):

Bilateral Agreements and the Seven Freedoms of International Air Service.
The First Chicago Convention – Chicago 1944
In the shadow of World War II, free nations gathered in Chicago to lay a foundation for international air transportation. A number of nations, including the United States, argued for a multinational free-market environment. Others, and notably the British, argued for a more restrictive environment and their views prevailed. Today, international air transportation is among the most restricted forms of international commerce. Service is provided under bilateral agreements negotiated between the two nations served. Unlike the multilateral agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO), international aviation services are banned unless authorized by these bilateral agreements.

While the Chicago convention failed to produce a free aviation market, it did create the safety and other regulatory infrastructure, which has enabled air transportation to transform the world’s economy in the jet age, bringing diverse peoples together, generating knowledge and understanding, inhibiting prejudice, catalyzing cultures, and stimulating commerce.

Bilateral Agreements
The bilateral air service agreements negotiated between nations traditionally seek
a reciprocal balance of benefits for the airlines of both countries. As the United States had the largest domestic air travel market, and therefore more major airlines than other countries, it became increasingly difficult from the 1970’s onwards, for other countries to find benefits for U.S. carriers that balanced the benefit they sought for their own carriers in a new bilateral. The user – the air traveler and the shipper – and the economic needs of cities were not considered a serious factor until the formation of USA-BIAS became a balancing force in U.S. international aviation policy.

Bermuda 1
The first aviation bilateral agreement was negotiated between the United States
and Great Britain and is known as "Bermuda 1". Negotiators from both sides were flown to the Island of Bermuda by the U.S. Army Air Corps and left there until they had hammered out an agreement. Bermuda 1 became the template for many other bilateral agreements negotiated through to the early 1970’s.

Bermuda 2
In 1978 the United States and Great Britain negotiated a significantly different bilateral agreement, which expanded market access for the consumer but which still tightly regulated capacity, pricing, and other marketing factors. This agreement became known as Bermuda 2. Subsequently, a growing number of bilateral air agreements of a liberal nature were negotiated with other countries.

If you will read my post above I think it will answer your questions or at least confim your impressions of the Chicago Conference.

This is all way to complicated to go into on this thread as we are already far off topic. (sorry Danny). I just felt it necessary to educate those who find a little crumb of knowledge (Gov) and proceed to crow from the rooftops.

13th Mar 2001, 10:05
&gt;&gt;What follows is shamelessly plagerized from the folks at Perdue University Aviation Technology Class Notes&lt;&lt;

Perdue University? Did you really go there?

www.perdue.com (http://www.perdue.com)

13th Mar 2001, 18:06
:) :) :)

We have good news to report in connection with the profit-sharing lawsuit. As you know, Atlas filed a motion to stay the matter pending review by the United States Supreme Court. By order dated March 9, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Atlas' motion, and today it issued a "mandate," whereby the matter is remanded to the District Court for the commencement of proceedings on the remedy, including back-pay.

ALPA intends to move promptly to begin the proceedings in the District Court to compensate us for profit-sharing allocations we have lost out on since April 1999 and to restore our profit-sharing on a going forward basis.

Can you say,"convicted of UNION BUSTING TACKTICS?????"!!!!!! This was the companies last appeal and now are forced to pay us back for some of the injustices they have put us through.

AACS lawsuit is next! Kind of set's the tone wouldn't you say???? ;)

Silver Thunder
13th Mar 2001, 19:59
Thanks for the info HeavyWhale. I knew we would prevail.

I believe that this labor dispute will be taught in aviation and business schools for years to come. Richard Shuyler and Bill Allen will become an example of how not to run a company. I pray that Linda Chowdry has the wisdom to fire these buffoons.

I have never seen a more greedy, self-destructive management team, but then I was not at Eastern. Bean counters need to consider the cost of attrition (safety), and an eroding customer base.

13th Mar 2001, 21:33
Haven't been updated recently on the Atlas debacle. Anybody have answers to:

1. What's the status of AACS? How many current and qualified crews do they have and how many airplanes are they flying?

2. Are AACS crews flying more than just BA contract airplanes??

3. Are AACS crews flying in or out of the United States?

4. Are all training slots still going to

5. Is Atlas mainline hiring again?

6. What's been the attrition of F/Os at Atlas mainline during the last six months?

7. Is it true that management has parked some airplanes for lack of contracts?

8. What's the real motive behind the new holding company?

13th Mar 2001, 22:06
1. Who Cares?, the courts will take care of them. (130 members or so)

2. Yes

3. Yes again

4. Around 90%

5. Mid year or so

6. Nearly none in the last 6 months

7. Nope

8. What else doe's a convicted Union Buster do?

Hope that answers some of your questions.


[This message has been edited by LimeyAK (edited 13 March 2001).]

13th Mar 2001, 22:47
Just got off the phone with one Capt. who's been here for over 4 years. We've been figuring out how much the company owes us. I figured that he's going to get paid about $64,000 at the min. I'm going to get about $20,000.

I wonder, for you outsiders, how you would feel if someone stole $100 out of your pocket? I'm sure that you would be so mad that you could spit! Now just imagine how you would feel if someone stole $64,000 from you and took that money to train your replacement worker with it. Ouch, kinda stings doesn't it???

Atlas Air managment has now been convicted of steeling from there own employees! They should be ashamed. If I stole from them, they would at the very least fire me. They could throw my butt in jail! But what will happen to them? Not much, just a little ego shot.

Let me say this however, they have just funded each and every one of our strike funds. With this kind of money I could stay on strike for a year!!! I wonder how long the company could afford to let us??? Not a day? Not two days??

We're ready..... are they?

14th Mar 2001, 02:53
Have a hard time believing that attrition has stopped considering the 10-20 per month earlier last year. Has the quality of F/Os slipped so much that they are no longer competitive elsewhere?? Waiting to gut it out and see what the contract brings?? Been hearing tales of guys sitting at home due to no flying? Untrue??\

Heavywhale - Atlas couldn't afford 5 MINUTES of a strike. You guys are in the driver's seat. The faster you can get to nut cuttin', the better. It's clear that management is going to slow-leak the negotiations as long as possible. At least you guys don't have to worry about the President siding with management via a PEB, like what will probably happen with Delta sooner or later.

[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 13 March 2001).]

14th Mar 2001, 07:35

11 Captains, 52 F/Os, and 4 F/Es gone in the last 6 months.

14th Mar 2001, 19:04
By my count that's an attrition factor among mainline pilots of about 20% per year! When AACS gets put out-of-biz by the courts, then Linda's going have to park airplanes for lack of crews. Hang in there guys and don't settle for a cent less than you deserve.

BTW, how can AACS crews be flying in the states? Aren't you guys dropping the dime on them with the INS??

When DHL starts hiring in Europe for the 757 freighters, maybe that'll siphon off some of the AACSers that want a real job.

[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 14 March 2001).]

The Guvnor
14th Mar 2001, 21:44
Roadtrip - I don't think so! All she has to do is set up a bunch of 'mini ATLAS' operations around the world, employing local crews at local rates (none of this expat cra*p!) and not only will they get more work, but they will have cheaper and more committed crews to do it with.

That leaves ATLAS with a core of US aircraft operating out of the States on behalf of US clients - how many of those have you got? :) :) :)

Rule one in life, boys - don't p*ss off the person signing your paycheck. If any of you reckon you can do it better, I'm sure there's nothing stopping you from going off and setting up your own ACMI operation! :rolleyes:

14th Mar 2001, 22:02
So Guv

Are you advocating that everyone should just touch their forelock and tilt the cap no matter what. Persume that "genocide" could be an OK scenario for you

Like to know where you learnt your management skills?

[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 14 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 14 March 2001).]

15th Mar 2001, 01:51
Well, I guess we'll have to see how it all turns out, Guv. Lot's of intrigues and court battles to go yet. I suppose that Atlas could ship the whole operation to Liberia and operate tramp freighters from there using tramp pilots. There's already been several noteworthy incidents involving the "other company" that Atlas is quite mum about. I'm guessing that any more alter-ego companies being formed is not going to happen between now and when Council 72 is released to legally strike. By that time even the AACSers will be getting the picture of what kind of snake pit they stepped into. The formation of the "holding company" very well may be an indicator of things to come, but if basing off-shore US is such a good (cheaper)idea, why didn't Michael do sooner? I'm sure there are lots of Eastern European ex-MiG pilots and South American pilots that would be willing to work like dogs for sub-par wages. It'll be interesting to see how the US labor courts view it. Standing by. My money's on ALPA.

BTW, when is your company going to issue an IPO?

[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 14 March 2001).]

The Guvnor
15th Mar 2001, 03:20
Roadtrip - it's a toughie ... and believe it or not I do have a fair amount of sympathy for you guys; especially over being shafted on the profitshare deal. I guss it's cause I'm a Libran ... I see both sides of the equation and have a stong sense of fair play!

However, at the end of the day as I said above its the guy that signs the cheque (or check if you prefer) that calls the tune. If the shareholders feel that they will get more return out of a whole load of mini-ATLASes dotted around the world - and at the same time cut their overheads then I don't think that there is anything anyone can do about it - court or otherwise. As I have said, this is a global business with global players.

That said, standards have to be kept up - that's one of ATLAS' principal selling points: but at the same time don't forget that the main reason carriers use ATLAS is (a) for flexibility and (b) because overall it's cheaper. The moment you guys start demanding serious pay hikes, the cost advantage disappears up in smoke and the contracts with it.

At the moment, you're (as a company) in the enviable position of being in a near-monopoly situation; the only other big player is Gemini and they largest the go is the MD11. I guess you could count World in as well, but for how much longer? Watch out for Polar ... at the moment they are mainly concentrating on their own operations but if they decide to get into the ACMI business you'll be in trouble as they have far deeper pockets.

Beware the recession as well - it's going to lead to serious cutbacks in leased aircraft; again unless there is a substantial cost benefit in keeping the operation going.

But I'm sure this is all stuff you have already considered.

The question is, what are you going to do about it?

Magic Blue
15th Mar 2001, 03:27
Guv,Sorry wrong again,Polar are more expensive on ACMI rates than Atlas on the -400F and from what I here they will only use the ageing -100F on charter or lease.But this may change depending on how well they utilise the new aircraft.

15th Mar 2001, 06:22
As far as pilot pay goes, Atlas may have to settle for 10.5% after tax profit instead of 12% (in an industry where 7% is considered a great year). Although I quit Atlas some time ago, I loved the aircraft, the flying, and the crews I flew with. Unfortunately, management demonstrated to me, many times, their incompetence and non-concern for employees. Hence, I now work for a excellent company with industry standard pay/benefits and a management that cares. And it would appear that an attrition rate of 20% per year backs my opinion up with hard data.

Silver Thunder
15th Mar 2001, 19:44
It is unfortunate that every new company must go through these growing pains. Only in rare cases does management have enough vision to see what is best long term. I know that we will only get what we can negotiate. We must negotiate from a position of strenght, 100% STRIKE VOTE!

Most of our management team (Rick Shuyler) has been in this industry for a long time. I would think they could look beyond short term gain and work toward building a stable and profitable company.

I know the Guv will disagree. Right now he is thinking:

Those who have something should have nothing, and those who have nothing should have less.

Sorry Guv, I couldn't help myself. This banter has become too much fun.

[This message has been edited by Silver Thunder (edited 15 March 2001).]

15th Mar 2001, 21:47
You are incorrect in regards to Polar. Although we mostly fly our own freight instead of being an active competitor to Atlas, we have recently leased long term, one of our -400's to a luxumborg based company. (Not Cargolux or Pathfinder)Also we have a -200 flying for Lufthansa off and on.
Other then a short term UPS contract none of our -100's are on ACMI contracts.
And in regard to Preswick we are getting a good deal there because we were willing to spend time and alot of money setting up the Maintenance base there which is employeeing a large number of local citizens.

16th Mar 2001, 02:43
Well, to make it clear...

POLAR's 744 is flying for STAF / SwissGlobalCargo, and that is pure ACMI. Why that is, you have to ask POLAR. I thought they bought their new babies for the Pacific, but apparently that game plan ha changed by now...

There's nothing like a three-holer...

16th Mar 2001, 21:32
What's up with G.S.S.? is AACS history?

16th Mar 2001, 23:00
Probably clamdigger. The question now is, will the mainline pilots and ALPA welcome the AACS crewmembers back on their seniority list?

17th Mar 2001, 00:17

17th Mar 2001, 00:24
What's G.S.S.?

Beaver Driver
17th Mar 2001, 00:58
Global Supply Systems.

It is a third company that is going to be, or already has been, set up by Atlas to flim flam the U.K. DETR into allowing Atlas an AOC. Mainline pilots are not real sure of it's ownership and or status as we have been told nothing official by Atlas Management. Apparently the AACS manager knows what it is so any real info would have to come from an AACS guy. Sounds like G.S.S. is going to be to AACS what AACS was/is to Atlas. I can't hardly wait to see the AACS pilots reaction.

No the mainliners that went to the dark side (AACS) will not be welcomed back with open arms, if at all, unless it is at the bottom of the seniority list.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 16 March 2001).]

Magic Blue
17th Mar 2001, 01:30
Hunter who is STAF and where is the PO 744F running to ex LUX for bith STAF/SGC

17th Mar 2001, 02:04
So Beaver Driver, when AMT announces that they will begin a furlough of mainline pilots next month, should AACS or GSS welcome them as hew hires at the bottom of the list too or not at all?

Beaver Driver
17th Mar 2001, 02:21
That would be my expectation if I were going over there. As I consider it a separate company, but that's just me. Atlas managers gave the AACS guys Atlas ID cards so they could get the FAA to buy off on letting mainline instructors do their training. And, since they have Atlas ID cards, they would have to be among the first to go in a furlough situation, as the courts would force Atlas to furlough in reverse date of hire order. Ya gotta hate that!

17th Mar 2001, 02:51
I see your point. What a royal mess this is. This is going to hurt a lot of good people who were fooled by AMT.

17th Mar 2001, 06:12
I don't get it. What is Atlas' plan? With the attrition at mainline, they can't just furlough AACS without parking airplanes. Are they just playing a shell game and going to void the AACS pilot contracts and try and roll them over to an even worse deal at GSS? This thing smells even worse than most of Atlas' deals. Hope ALPA is keeping a close watch on this one. I sounds to me like Atlas is letting lawyers run the company. That's the first step in starting a frenzy of self-destruction.

17th Mar 2001, 23:52
I don’t understand why Atlas just didn’t sell 51% ownership of AACS to whoever now has 51% ownership of GSS???? Id like to see the legal paperwork on this. As a publicly traded company, aren’t the share holders entitled to see who owns what?

18th Mar 2001, 00:10
Might have miss something in the thread But what Flight licences do AACS personnel operate with??

18th Mar 2001, 00:13
You guys are finally catching on. Can you say Lorenzo!

18th Mar 2001, 01:09

You are absolutely correct, an unenviable situation has deveoped for some good folks who trusted and hoped for the best. However, even a cursory review of the threads regarding AACS in the last year makes it screamingly clear that they were warned. The general response seemed to be a thumbed nose at best. Actually some of those warnings and predictions seem uncanily accurate in light of recent events.


I believe you either underestimate the power of the Courts or you are not aware of the true dynamics of this situation. As a big brush summary: If the Courts rule against Atlas/AACS in the current lawsuit AACS WILL go away, there WILL eventually be a contract signed between Atlas and it's crewforce, and the provisions (scope, etc.) of that contract WILL make it impossible for Atlas to ever try this stunt again. Of course if Atlas is sold somewhere in that process who knows what will happen.

Global industry or not, Atlas is chartered, licensed and owned in the US. That is what the AACS lawsuit is really all about. Atlas tried to evade US labor law (among others) by moving assets and operations overseas and replacing the US, unionized crewforce with a non-US, non-unionized crewforce. That dog ain't gonna hunt. Unlike the situation apparently extant in some other nations, US labor laws are written to protect US workers.

As to the stock holders, I'm sure they would prefer that personnel work for free, maintenance not be required, and taxes not be owed but that's not going to happen either. Even stock holders have to sip from the reality font on occasion. This is one of those occasions.

[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 17 March 2001).]

The Guvnor
18th Mar 2001, 16:18
STAF is an Argentinian airline (with some sort of tie-up into a Mexican operation as well), formerly operated a DC10-30CF and now has an MD11 from World Airways.

Main exports seem to be flowers and other perishables into the States.

20th Mar 2001, 01:08
Thanks Guv, just wanted to say it. Actually they are also behind Cielos del Peru and operate a couple of DC10s from Gemini as well. Some call them the new driving force in South America. And behind all this is SwissGlobal. I think the mexican company is history by now, but who knows with Alfonso.


I am not sure you did not miss the Guv's point here. Your legal battle against Atlas in honour (and I hope you win), but that is not the issue. Let's see how long Atlas will be able to fly for BA, as this lawsuit is not finished yet and there is a lot of pressure from the EU to kick Atlas out and finally live the law to the letter. I always thought that respecting the laws is something you Americans are so pround of. You should maybe also ask IAP about their opinion... You'd be surprised!

There's nothing like a three-holer...

20th Mar 2001, 01:29
...as Elton John Would say, "Leave it, its beaver"..all gonna be a mood point. I guess Atlas is buying DHL.

[This message has been edited by 400Skipper (edited 19 March 2001).]

20th Mar 2001, 01:53
Is this a guess, or do you have evidence?

20th Mar 2001, 08:53
RUmour not good enough for ya? ;)

20th Mar 2001, 17:17

What is actually at issue here depends upon ones point of view. For instance, do you really think Atlas pilots or for that matter Atlas itself cares enough about a ONE aircraft BA contract to go through all this hassle and expense? Unlikely. With Atlas' 35 or so jets losing BA would be a temporary blip on their screen. That being said, perhaps what's really at issue is the fight against the Atlas management plan to establish multiple "wholly owned subsidiaries" in order to move jobs offshore and out of union hands. AACS' intended scope has been proven to be much wider than just the BA contract and with GSS on the horizon who knows what pilot groups and nationalities these labor tactics will effect next? Offshore is still offshore no matter where you live. Thats how some view "the" issue.

In all fairness regarding respect for law; BA, a UK company, issued the contract(s) in question. Presumably they are quite familiar with the laws of their own country, In fact they probably aided in drafting them. Atlas on the other hand is a foreign company hired by a national company (BA) with the express approval of the national (UK) government. Since Atlas operated in accordance with UK regulations it is rather difficult to see any lack of respect for UK law on Atlas' part. BA and the UK lawmakers/enforcers are perhaps another story.

As to IAP opinions, one suspects their value to Atlas pilots would be roughly the same as Atlas pilots opinions would be to the IAP.

20th Mar 2001, 17:18
any of you boys over there at aacs (soon to be gss..maybe, if that doesn't fail too) know the outcome of the 3/13/01 meeting at stn? if you don't, and are still in the "dark", don't you think maybe it's time to turn on the light and find out what the hell is going on? everytime i meet/see one of you guys somewhere, it's like you have no clue...i guess you just don't care....i would!

21st Mar 2001, 12:55

sure, you don't care at all. But just for reminding me, how many aircraft did you have standing around since christmas??? I remember to be reported a two digit number. I just wonder how many customers are still in the world wanting you services...

I know this business very well! And nobody can afford to lose a customer! Nobody, not even Atlas.

Regarding the legality... You as a company offering ACMI services, you still have to know how other countries regulations work. In this particular case you don't really have an active part (unless you want to keep the customers you have), but the signs about the slow moving demise of ACMI (for carriers not being in the same geographical and administrative region)are on the wall. I just want to see your face once Rich Shuyler has to tell you, that because of this incredible behaviour of the EU Directorate of Transportation (and they are only trying to do what the DoT does!!!) you are out of a job at Atlas. Not that I would enjoy seeing that, but it is one of the possible outcomes of this whole legal battle.

There's nothing like a three-holer...

21st Mar 2001, 22:03

for you even to imply that you'd be happy to see ANY pilot out of of job makes me sick!
as one who has been furlouged, had airlines fail on him, etc....it is never enjoyable seeing any pilot out of a job, for any reason... like one of my friends said to "the guv", what you need is a good ass whippin'!

The Guvnor
21st Mar 2001, 22:43
Clamdigger - you're just demonstrating (yet again) that American's really don't understand English. Hunter58 didn't say that he wished that ATLAS crew members would lose their jobs - although there seems to be less than no appreciation by ATLAS pilots for the jobs stolen from UK/EU pilots.

I, for one, have little sympathy for you lot as you simply seem to expect the right to fly around the world, taking local jobs, simply because ATLAS is a US carrier.

What's all this noise? I'll have no trouble in here! This is a local airline for local pilots!

(Apologies to the League of Gentlemen)

Beaver Driver
21st Mar 2001, 23:29
Hey Governess
ACMI and the freedoms of the air (Chicago Conference) has been around a LOT longer then the European Union. For you to say that we stole your jobs is pure bovine scatology. We were flying intercountry in Europe long before YOU guys changed the rules. And you didn't even do that properly. From all I read, the British government is the hold up on the open skies agreement not the U.S., and especially not the Atlas pilots. Isn't it typical of you to blame someone else for your troubles. Seems you go thru life doing that Neil. Maybe you should consider another career field 'cause with your lack of knowledge of things aviation, civics, and geography, you sure aren't going to make it in this one.

22nd Mar 2001, 02:27
Beaver Diver
No matter which way you look at the EU, as the EU sees itself or as you see it, Atlas has no grandfathered rights.
If you say that Europe is a bunch of individual countries then they(Atlas) do not have automatic 5th freedom.
If the EUs view of a common aviation group is accurate, then Atlas are looking at cabotage.
The UK is being very cagey( and rightly so) about open skies because it knows the "balance of economic opportunity" could easily tilt against it unless many safeguards are built in.
No matter how repetitive ,overbearing, or insulting your posts are, none of these factors are convincing arguments for your point of view, so you will just have to come up with something better to convince the pro-EU element.
Stay up IPA!

Beaver Driver
22nd Mar 2001, 03:32
Unfortunately you are incorrect. The x/freedom rights are negotiated country to country, not by economic trade coalition (EU) to country. The EU currently has no rights to negotiate a treaty say, for France, or any other individual country. They can only negotiate for the EU and hope that the member countries will go along.

The U.S. airlines have been operating in and out of countries in Europe, on fifth freedom far longer than there has been an EU (I wasn't specifically refering to Atlas).

To say that we have stolen your jobs is to prove one so totally ignorant as to be incompetant to run an airline let alone post 2000 threads of bombastic bullpuckey.

Fire the Queen become one with the rest of Europe, united under ONE set of rules and regulations, then come talk to the US. You see, the problem is that as individual countries, you have nothing we want. The limited traffic, point to point, within any country in Europe is not enough for any US airlines to make the effort to open up routes there, nor is it worth negotiating a bi-lateral treaty. However, the amount of intra-contry traffic in the US is huge, so naturally all the airlines in Europe want a piece of the pie. No one over here blames them, and no one over here is accusing you of trying to steal our jobs. The only thing we are saying, is what have you got to offer in return. The answer, currently by individual country, is nothing. The only way you will be able to negotiate with the US is to get on equal footing. So if you really want to make a difference, write your ministers and become one United States of Europe.

You are correct the the UK is being VERY cagey. It's something that the Gov doesn't seem to understand. He wants something for nothing. He wants to come over here and operate without restrictions yet we would be severely restricted from operating over there. When we don't buy into that he accuses the Atlas pilots of stealing EU pilots jobs. I don't think so. Open skies is open skies....lets go for it, no restrictions. You have my vote, but are you ready to let some of the low cost streamlined carriers come over to the continent and put all your airlines out of business.

PS, if you read the definition of cabotage it talks about countries, not economic trade coalitions, which is what the EU is right now.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 21 March 2001).]

22nd Mar 2001, 15:12
Au contrair, Beaver, grandfather rights go with specific airlines, not countries. When a carrier ceases to operate grandfathered routes, it's home country cannot nominate a replacement without new negotiations.
Even a name change puts those routes in jeopardy.
The United States does not have cabotage, according to your definition, since it is a political amalgamation of individual states within one country, America. America has cabotage, but what is America?
Interstate operation such as NY/Fla is the same as France/Portugal according to EU rules. Can foreign carriers operate NY/Fla on 5th freedom?
The best examples of grandfather rights came from PanAm, BOAC, and KLM, mainly because they had routes in place before Chicago 1944.

The fact that you do not recognise the EU as a political as well as economic union would be disputed by many EU citizens who find their lives seriously affected by the absurd rules of the EU parliament. :) :)
The main reason that US carriers have an economic advantage is that they play the game to the less restrictive rules of the FAA. If EU carriers operated to FAA rules they would blow the US carriers totally into the weeds.

If you asked the EU hierarchy they would vociferously assert that they are a political union despite any evidence to the contrary.

It'll never fly.

[This message has been edited by RightsFlyer (edited 22 March 2001).]

22nd Mar 2001, 15:46
If the US is truly committed to free markets, why does it restrict foreign ownership in it's carriers to only 25%.
Why are they giving Richard Branson such a hard time to set up a US operation? Couldn't be that they are afraid of the competition, could it?

The Guvnor
22nd Mar 2001, 19:32
Actually, Beaver Driver, I'd say that it's you that's the one with the hazy comprehension of things European. :rolleyes:

You may possibly recall that some sixty years ago, we had this little conflict over here. Then again, you may not - as it was yet another war that the Americans were singularly late for - unlike Vietnam where those gooks whupped some Yankee ass, eh, boy? :)

Anyway, as a result of the Allies winning the war, Germany was administered by four Allied powers - the British, Soviets, Americans - and for some reason, the French. The Soviets refused to allow the operation of West German aircraft through the air corridors into Berlin, and therefore only British Airways, Pan Am and Air France were allowed to operate to Berlin from other points in Germany. These operations were known as the IGS, or Internal German Services.

TWA also operated regional aircraft (latterly B727s) from Heathrow (as did Pan Am) but these were simply change-of-gauge on routes such as LHR-CAI and LHR-ATH and no fifth freedom rights were conferred. Pan Am operated several flights (mainly to Germany) through London using both the originating aircraft and change-of-gauge 727s and fifth freedom rights were conferred on these routes. PA103, for example, originated with a 727 from FRA connecting onto the 747 to JFK.

These ‘grandfather' rights were transferred with some rather dubious sleight-of-hand work by the US authorities when Pan Am and TWA's services were taken over by American and United. The British position at the time - which they regrettably did a U-turn on - was that neither Pan Am or TWA had any rights to sell their rights to a third party; and that if they wished to cease operating the routes then they would simply become vacant and open to any US carrier that wished to apply; but that any ‘special' rights would no longer apply (remembering that the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, obviating the need for the IGS routes).

The present Bermuda II negotiations are being held up not by the British but by the Americans who are terrified of allowing reciprocity. They are keen to have US carriers provide US aircraft on wet lease with US national crew members to airlines around the world - but stubbornly refuse to allow foreign carriers the right to lease their aircraft operated by their nationals to US airlines without additional certification. In such operations, these aircraft are not operating under their own traffic rights so it is completely false to state that for example, the lease of an A320 by JMC to say Ryan International to operate between EWR and MIA constitutes cabotage services by a foreign carrier: they would be operating on behalf of Ryan which is a US airline and therefore constitutes a domestic operation. However, the United States in its infinite wisdom does not even permit US carriers to wet lease in foreign aircraft to operate from the United States to foreign countries - so JMC would not be permitted to lease Ryan its DC10-30 to operate from the US to the UK!

Nor does the US permit foreign interests to own more than 24.9% of a US carrier - unlike most other countries such as the UK where foreign ownership of up to 49% is permitted. American Airlines would theoretically be permitted to buy 49% of British Airways - but the converse would not be legal. Is this right and equitable? I think not.

For as long as such uneven playing fields exist, no further leeway should be permitted to US carriers; in particular the ACMI leases of US aircraft operated by US crews on behalf of EU airlines. Much as the ATLAS crews attempt to deny that they are to blame, they nevertheless are stealing the bread from the mouths of the families of EU pilots. They are stealing their jobs and incomes as much as if they held them up at gunpoint - US crew members should have no right whatsoever to operate aircraft on behalf of EU airlines for as long as there are EU nationals willing and able to fly such aircraft. That there are such EU crewmembers willing and able to fly such aircraft is borne out by the number of pilots that have applied to AACS.

The ATLAS mainline pilots - seemingly a very militant bunch of people - go on at great length about their ‘rights' and ‘scabs'. What about the rights of the pilots you're displacing? And in the event that the European pilots unions - such as BALPA - created picket lines to block the operation of such services by non EU crews, would they honour such lines - or would they themselves become ‘scabs'?

The creation of AACS and other local ‘mini-ATLAS' operations is merely the logical - and in my view quite proper - way of permitting the local operation of aircraft on behalf of local airlines by local pilots; and should be actively encouraged.

At present, the United States - in its self-appointed role as global policeman - is in reality merely a playground bully; demanding of others what it refuses to provide itself. And in the 21st Century, are such practices really acceptable?

Beaver Driver
22nd Mar 2001, 20:21
You are talking contracts, I'm talking treaties. I never said anything about grandfather rights, all I said was US airlines had been operating on 5th freedom rights long before the EU was even a concept let alone a reality. Your understanding of the US governing systems is wrong. As I said in my previous post the EU does not have the right to establish a contract for individual nations as they do not govern those nations nor do they regulate the airspace above them. In contrast to that, the UNITED STATES government does have the right to negotiate and establish a contract for the entire 50 states as they govern and regulate the airspace above them...they also regulate interstate commerce and many other things. Interstate from JFK to FLa is way different from France - Portuagal. France and Portugal are two different countries, New York and Florida are not. Each of our states does not have it's own sovereignity, rather it is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT that holds this. That's how we are so different from the EU and that's why you will never be able to have cabotage or 8th freedom rights in the US until you make the EU more attractive to us. Doing so would involve giving up your individuality. You would not have a royal family, the Pound would have to give way to the Euro...etc, etc,

The rest of the world doesn't care what they EU parliment says they are, as actions speak louder than words. Just like some on this board they want something for nothing. You want us to treat you like a unified nation with one set of rules and regulations, but you refuse to give up the things that separate you into individual nations.

22nd Mar 2001, 21:08

Your attempt to compare NY/FLA to France/Portugal is truly laughable!!! You should compare NY/FLA to something like Whales to Scotland or N. Ireland to England or something like that. Not Intra country! Last I checked Portugal and France are two separate countries. I'm no political science major but last I checked they were separate.

To quote you,"America has cabotage, but what is America?" Last I checked "America" as you people on the right side of the pond call it. It is the Country made up of Fifty States, and a couple of Districts and Provinces and Territories that no one ever thinks about. But that's why us "Yanks" call it the "U.S.", because it's the "United States of America"! We all fall under the same Federal Government, all pay (in U.S. Dollars, I might add) taxes to the same Federal Government, all vote for the same president, and all have the same military!

Which brings me to another point, Gov! You guys always forget about July, 4th 1776 don't you? Remember, the U.S. kicked the British's ass back across the pond? Remember, Dec. 7th, 1941? One point that you are forgetting is that Sir Winston Churchill had military intel. on the fact that the Jap's. were going to attack Pearl Harbor and the only reason they didn't tell us was the hope that the U.S. would get involved in the War so we could come bail your asses out, so you wouldn't have to speak German the rest of your ****ing ungrateful lives!!!! You Pompis ASS!!!!

And Lets not forget Vietnam! It was the U.S. coming into S.E. Asia to bail out the French! Your E.U. Buddies that you now so defend!!!! And if it wasn't for a Political mess over there during the times of U.S. escalation, then we would have kicked their little butts.

So, Guv, you have crossed over the line! You basically, spit on both my Grandfathers graves! Both of them fought during W.W.II and one even stormed the beaches at Normandy. So, how dare you spit, on the graves of all the U.S. Military men that sacrificed there lives to get your ungrateful ass out of the biggest bind that Great Britain and all of Europe had ever been in. If it wasn't for them you'd for sure be speaking German!!! I believe that the British have a little song called "The Yanks Are Coming"!!!

Just keep in mind Gov. that your Anti-American sentiments will be remembered!!!!

As for Atlas Pilots taking other peoples jobs, last I checked it's Atlas hiring all of you guys. Each and every one of them jumping at the chance to work for a U.S. company. And last I checked Atlas was working for a British company who hired them. So, shouldn't your beef be with the company who put Atlas to work in the first place. BA came to us and said,"can you provide us with two B 747-400's to operate STN-HKG?" What was Atlas going to say? As far as it being the pilots fault that's laughable too! When flying shows up on the bid package that's when we find out where we will be going. How is it the pilots fault? And to answer your question, NO! we wouldn't cross your picket lines!

And your saying,"The creation of AACS and other local ‘mini-ATLAS' operations is merely the logical - and in my view quite proper - way of permitting the local operation of aircraft on behalf of local airlines by local pilots; and should be actively encouraged." I agree with what you are saying. I think that Atlas Mgt. is trying to skirt around the laws in your country and that we should pull out immediately! I think that Atlas Mgt. is using AACS as a double edge sword! On one side it's a convenient way to appease the British Gov and skirt the law, and the other, the bigger reason, is to create a non-union work force! The creation of this "mini-Atlas" or better known as GSS is Atlas Air's first true attempt to be Legal in Britain. The reasoning behind this is as follows. AACS was originally designed to operate as a crew force of approx. 200-300 crew members. Operating all Atlas Contracts, excluding the intra U.S. flying. Now AACS is falling on its face, and now GSS surfaces! Do you know how many crew members are going to be working for GSS????? 7Capt's and 17F/O's!!!!!!! Now, to you, doesn't that seem a little more reasonable??? To operate the only flying currently being protested by the British Gov., the BA flying! That's a total of Two, count them, ONE-TWO!!!!! You don't need 200-300 crew members to fly two frigging aircraft. So, wake up and smell the coffee!!! Not Tea, I might add!!!

You guys, on the out side just don't know. It's rough over here, and we're trying to make it better from the inside out. Those of us who don't feel like we can win, leave and find better jobs. That's why our attrition is so high! So, you want us to sit back and watch Atlas Main get smaller (through attrition) and watch AACS(non Union) grow to 200-300 strong??? You guys need to get a life and really think about what the issues are here. As far as Atlas needing the BA contract, we could put those two 400's to work somewhere else tomorrow!!!! Emirates, is begging for them. So, is China Airlines. So, don't kid yourselves. You really don't know what's going on over here!

[This message has been edited by HEAVYWHALE (edited 22 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by HEAVYWHALE (edited 22 March 2001).]

22nd Mar 2001, 21:31
Guv, step into my jungle.

Beaver Driver
22nd Mar 2001, 21:35
Once again you have confused EWR-MIA which is inside the United States with operating between COUNTRIES. Can you think of any examples where US ACMI contracts are intra-country or cabotage. I can't. (Operating between countries in the EU is NOT cabotage). Why should we give you rights to operate your aircraft in the US. We don't want to operate aircraft intra-UK. If you think just because we have rights to operate inter-country, that you should be able to operate intra-US, then you really are goofy. That would not be reciprocity. That's where the hang up is. You assume that now that the UK is a member of the EU (although they haven't yet embraced the Euro or given up any rights to govern themselves and their airspace) that they should have rights to fly inside the United States. I'm telling you that ain't gonna happen. Were not stubborn but neither are we as un-intelligent as you seem to think we are.

The un-even playing field exists only in your mind. Remember AACS is a WHOLLY owned subsidiary of Atlas World Wide Holdings. Where's the level playing field there? If Atlas pilots have stolen your jobs then write your ministers, as your regulations have allowed this (In your case you should probably have someone write for you, as I'm sure, with your record, the UK government considers you a crackpot). Just look at your CAA Official Record Series 2 and look back several issues. You'll see there that the CAA permitted BA to extend the leases on 2 Atlas -400s in late 2000. Why is that? Why did you allow it? Did you protest or write letters? US crewmembers might crew an aircraft, but our companies are the ones that operate the aircraft on behalf of the EU airlines. So is it our fault for doing what we were ordered to do? Did you contact BA and tell them that you wanted to wet lease to them? You love to sit in your dim little room with your laptop and chastise the U.S. and it's pilots, but I say to you WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT? Quit you whining and get to work.

Once we get a contract, and are no longer "At Will" employees, we will honor any request from another union for help, even though they seemed to ignore our requests.

Here is some copy from the International Transport Workers' Federation. Isn't that headquartered in the UK?
"The 1944 Chicago Convention set up an international air system in which countries regulate international air traffic through international treaties. Such treaties determine the airlines which are designated to fly routes, and the capacity and frequencies that airlines are allowed to fly. Most states have rules which ensure that only an airline owned and controlled by their nationals may fly their country's routes. This system has come under attack by sections of the industry as being too restrictive. The United States government has been particularly aggressive in pursuing the liberalisation of aviation markets through liberal "open skies" agreements. The ITF, however, warns about the lessons learned in the maritime industry about the effects of loosening regulatory controls with in particular the risk of "flags of convenience" emerging in the industry. Open skies also risk smaller countries loosing their national airlines which cannot compete against global mega-carriers."

Once again Neil, get off the internet and go to work. Quit blaming the US, and US pilots, for all of your problems.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 22 March 2001).]

22nd Mar 2001, 22:08
Funny how the other PPruners who once agreed with the Guvs ranting's have fallen silent after his 2026th post.

You really are an embarassment to your country sir, you ungrateful git.

You really don't want to step into 400skippers jungle, no matter how much I'd like to see you try..

Who is the Broker for the Ex Delta L-1011's?,
maybe a little cutting and pasting of the Guv's post's are in order so they are CLEAR on his opinion of Americans.

Keep em' coming you dip, the file is growing.

Mary Poppins
23rd Mar 2001, 00:51
Any chance you guys can stick to the topic?
History can be interesting but..............

23rd Mar 2001, 01:08
Sorry, guys, I made an elementary error, I thought that state to state in the US was the same as state to state in the EU.

I am a little uncertain as to what the international definition of a union of states is, in order to have legal status to negotiate route rights. Perhaps Beaver would enlighten us?

I hesitate to stir the WW2 pot too much, but suffice it to say that most of the world paid for the assault on humanity made by Herr Hitler. The Americans paid a big price, but they are a big country.
Proportionately, the Russians are the ones who paid the biggest price, and the UK bankrupted itself and lost many fine people, standing up for what it thought was right.

It could be argued that if Britain had not fought alone, it too would have been swallowed up and the might of a combined Europe/Asia would have been brought to bear on the US before it awoke from it's isolationist slumber.We would all have been speaking German, or Japanese. Thank God that didn't happen, English is bad enough.

By the way, the way I heard the story, the US intelligence knew they were going to be attacked, but not the exact time. (But the radar people saw it coming, but were ignored)

I reiterate, loudness and insults do not guarantee correctness, so gentlemen, let's stick to discussion not harangues.

It'll never fly.

[This message has been edited by RightsFlyer (edited 22 March 2001).]

23rd Mar 2001, 01:53
The arguments rage on but are sidelined frequently by trivia. The thrust of the matter is that many did write to the Departments responsible protesting at Atlas operating on a dispensation to the EU Directive. It is my belief that many palms were greased, many lunches bought and many promises of the 'future' were made and certain people in the contracts stage were made to feel like royalty. None of that is anything new in commerce but it leaves a foul taste in a lot of peoples mouths.
I respect the case of Atlas mainline pilots and I truly believe they are collectively being shafted by the new MO in AACS or whatever its called this week.
AACS seem to be without principal and have made offers to withdraw them again after individuals have crossed the bridge. That in itself should be grounds for a cohesive attack by the unions on both sides of the ocean. If they can do that and get away with it they'll stop at nothing.
To the various guys who have vented their spleen on the various merits of national pride, I respect what you say. My heritage is no different to yours and we have always been on the right side of right.
Stand up for your case and we will stand alongside.

23rd Mar 2001, 02:33

Well said mate, this issue always seems to start with a good question and then dissolves into a Nationalistic series of barbs.
(I am not innocent)
The only way YOU will see Atlas mainline disappear from the BA contract is through your ministers just as the only way WE will see the end of AACS over here (intra US) is through our senators and judicial system.

Bringing up skewed opinions on past historical conflicts only clouds the issues at hand and shows pretty poor taste.

Regards, Lak

23rd Mar 2001, 04:49
Sense beginning to prevail at last. Got to agree with you. As long as we tilt at the symptom we will not deal with the disease, which is political in nature.
Divide and rule will succeed unless we out-think the playmakers. Pilots do not make the plays, but maybe we can influence those who do.
Just as you say, let us find out who precisely is accountable for the areas that are causing grief, and confront them with our views, on a regular basis to keep their attention.

lost in hold.

Beaver Driver
23rd Mar 2001, 05:13
Well Said. Sometimes we all need to step back a little from such an emotional and divisive issue. Thanks.

Sovereignity is the issue here. The U.S. and her relationship with the individual states can be summed up like this. The U.S. government has the ultimate authority over the states in all matters inter-state (state to state) or international. (having said that, however, I know there are exceptions, but these were specificaly granted or allowed by the fed). For instance the State of Colorado has no right to negotiate a treaty with a foreign (sovereign) nation, rather that kind of treaty would have to come from the US Federal government.

The states also have no rights to regulate anything the federal government has claimed. The airspace over the entire U.S. and it's territories is one example of something that is deemed federal and thus the states were forced to give up their rights to regulate it (if they even wanted to).

For the EU to have this kind of government will be near impossible in our lifetime due to the current nationalistic ideas of most over there. You all have different historys, rich heritage, and varied government systems that you are comfortable with, and understandably reluctant to give up. But, that is what it would take, IMHO, to be able to effectively regulate and control the EU airspace as the US federal government regulates and controls the airspace over here. Until that happens, there will be no such thing as cabotage in the EU for foreign aircraft flying between different countries. It will be what it is right now; simply 5th freedom rights, which are all part of the multi-lateral treaties negotiated at the Chicago Conference of 1944.

Limey - Good post. I know you are as unhappy with AACS as I am. It's hard not to blame the AACS guys and the U.K.. Guess if we did that we'd be just as bad as some on this board who blame Atlas pilots for all their troubles. Next thing you know we'll all be responsible for the corrosion found in a warm L-1011. Maybe we can convince everyone to blame Atlas management.

CD-Thanks for that. Many of us have written our congressmen on this issue. Maybe we could write your ministers and you could write our congressmen. They might listen to you...they sure don't listen to us; mostly I think because they know we have no money for them (Atlas paycheck you know).

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 23 March 2001).]

23rd Mar 2001, 07:18
To the rest of you all,

Sorry for the history lesson, and the ranting and raving, it was unnecessary. I just couldn't sit back and listen to the GOV's anti-American attitude any more. I have nothing against any other citizen of any countries. We all have history that we can be proud of and don't have to put down anyone else's place of birth or residence. After all I didn't choose to be born in the U.S.A. I was just lucky not to be born in a third world poverty stricken country. I didn't start it, but hopefully it's finished. I don't apologize to the Gov, just to the rest of you all. I hate when things get personal.

So, lets get back to the point! Atlas Mgmt sucks!!!!

23rd Mar 2001, 16:47
Beaver driver,
Its nice to see a professional argument put
forward,however as one of the european contingent I disagree.
In my view the argument has nothing todo with
any 1946 international agreement,it has nothing to do with the internal politics of europe.The argument that the Europeans have
is that under no circumstances whatsoever
would the U.S. government or for that matter
ALPA allow a European company to come and fly
with European pilots from,for example,Miami
to Bogata,so I still fail to understand
why we have to accept U.S. pilots coming to London,and flying London to Dubai or coming
to Italy and Flying Milan to Delhi.
I believe that if you guys talk to us we can come to an agreement,and that may include backing any action you wish to take concerning conditions.

23rd Mar 2001, 17:25
Ummm Softy,

You are wrong, Iberia has an onwward hub from Miami. They come over to Miami in 747s and switch to Iberia narrow body short hauls to the various Island in the carribean and countries in Latin America.

Those narrow bodies can't serve Puerto Rico or the States, but they go plenty of other places.

Its just that the Spanish ruled central America, not The english so there is no market for you...


23rd Mar 2001, 19:11
I think that probably miami was not a good example,I don´t know well the situation with
Iberia,but I would guess that it is a very long standing arrangement.
I am sure neither ALPA or the U.S. government
would allow any European company formed in 1992,to operate Miami-Bogata on a scheduled basis.I´m not convinced as to why we should accept an American company doing this in Europe.

The Guvnor
23rd Mar 2001, 19:18
Beaver Driver - you continue to try and have your cake and eat it!

ATLAS is an ACMI operator, right? What I was did in my last post, was to give an example of a UK airline providing an aircraft on an ACMI basis to a US carrier. Oh no, you say ... that's not the same thing!!

Then, to make matters simple for you, I gave an example of a UK aircraft being ACMI leased to a US carrier for operations outside the USA (in fact to the UK, to make it really easy). But no, that scenario isn't the same as ATLAS either!! So what is, then?? :rolleyes:

First, a definition: cabotage = domestic operations in another country by a foreign carrier for its own account. EWR-MIA = a domestic route; but operations by a UK wet leased aircraft operating for a US carrier are NOT cabotage operations!!. During this past summer, Tradewinds had a couple of L1011s here operating intra-EU; so did Air Atlanta (an Icelandic - and therefore non-EU - carrier); and in the past American Trans Air, Tower Air and World Airways (two name but three US carriers) have frequently operated on behalf of UK airlines within the EU (and even within the UK!) on subservice (ie ACMI/wet lease).

We are NOT talking about scheduled services here. We're talking about ACMI operations. We (ie the EU) permit - at the moment - US carriers to operate for EU carriers without restriction (other than the six month rule). EU carriers, on the other hand, are not permitted to operate ACMI services for US carriers without restriction. This is the uneven playing field we are on at the moment.

And that's the problem - it's one rule for the Yanks and it's another for the rest of the world. :mad:

Incidentally, the International Transport Workers Federation's concerns about flags of convenience are all too real - I can think of several examples of carriers which are in effect UK based airlines yet are operating without proper safety and operational oversight due to their use of third world ‘flag of convenience' operations. The principal culprit is MK Airlines, which has its main operating base at Manston in Kent; its administrative and technical base in East Sussex and is registered (but has no operational or administrative presence) in Ghana. Their propensity to employ only Zimbabweans means that they, too, are stealing EU pilots' jobs.

400Skipper - my jungle is in Africa. Most Americans can't even find it on the map - and those that do tend to make an almighty cock-up there (remember Somalia, Liberia, Zaire and Angola?) You're welcome to come on over ... if you can find it! :)

Heavywhale - we might have lost a troublesome colony back in 1776, but we got our revenge when we burnt down the White House in when was it, 1812 or so? :) :)

We are of course appreciative for those people (like your grandfathers) who came over to the UK to fight in Europe - unlike Joe Kennedy who as US Ambassador to the Court of St James did everything he could to both prevent the US assisting the UK and support Germany (along with such other misguided individuals as Charles Lindbergh). In particular, we shall remain grateful to the members of the Eagle Squadron who flew with the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

The saying about the US forces in the UK was, as I recall: "Over paid, over sexed and over here!" Obviously a tribute to the great sensitivity and diplomacy shown by your countrymen during their sojourn here.

As for the French, we don't like them either ... :) - although I seem to recall that US involvement was not at the behest of the French but was rather to halt the spread of global Communism. Rather strange, really, as I understand early bombing raids were very carefully planned to avoid infrastructure targets such as the Haiphong docks specifically to avoid p*ssing off other Communist nations!

Onto more serious (and relevant) matters though - the rules here are that foreign (ie non EU) aircraft can be leased in for a maximum of six months. The ATLAS/BA contract has gone on considerably longer than that, as you well know. This is largely the fault of our own DETR which does not enforce its own rules. However, thanks mainly to pressure from the IPA, they have now insisted that they follow UK laws: obtain a UK AOC, put the aircraft on the UK register and have UK/JAA licenced crews.

As Torpedoe points out, those rules are governed under an EU Directive. You therefore have an example which shows that the EU does exert control over European skies and airline operations - much as some here may wish to try and deny its existence!

I agree with you that any attempt to use this as anything other than a UK/EU operation would be wholly improper; and in particular, I would be opposed to it being used as a source of crews for US or Asian operations. It should be, as I have said several times now, a local airline for local pilots; and based on the information you have provided I agree that the GSS scenario is a much more logical and viable situation.

That said, I disagree with you that they can assume that it will be non-Union. Remember under EU law, closed shops - whether unionised or non-union - are illegal and subject to obtaining the concensus of the required number of staff then a union - such as BALPA or the IPA if it decides to become a union - can be brought in against management's wishes.

I thought that China Airlines were returning some of their aircraft - or are those just -200s?

A final note - much as it may appear to the contrary, I am not anti-American. I have numerous American friends and also have business interests in the United States. I am, however, firmly opposed to the US tendency for "one rule for us; another for the rest of the world"; and in particular I am opposed to the hippocricy (sp?) that has been shown here where US nationals are taking jobs that are rightly (and legally) the preserve of locals; yet those same US nationals wish locals to respect their request for a boycott of the company that offers them employment (at the expense of said US nationals). Sure, it's your government that makes the laws - but I don't see any of you doing anything to make things more equitable for the people this side of the pond!

[This message has been edited by The Guvnor (edited 23 March 2001).]

23rd Mar 2001, 20:06
The US vs EU arguments shown on this thread here are regrettable. Especially the hostorical irrelevant comments regarding wars dating back 200yrs. Unless your motive is a wind up (good fun I agree), I suggest we respect those (on all sides - German & Japanese too) that gave their lives in persuit of war.

An aside:
Whoever it was who spelt Whales with the "h" - have a look at an atlas (forgive the pun...), we think you meant Wales...

To continue:
Key point that I think people misunderstand is that we (aviation community - pilots et al) are in a increasingly globalising market.

Developments such as Star / Oneworld / code share /wet leasing etc. are tip of the iceberg. Sure, the current inability of the US & UK (or EU) to reach agreement on a level playing field, is of major concern. (I share the concerns of the Brits/Euros on the matter of "full" reciprocity, **check the dictionary for definition** before you comment...)

But we all do ourselves no favours in keeping our points of view to the short term issues.

No matter how much one shouts, screams, & jumps up & down, aviation is headed for full globalisation.

The issues of US pilots flying US aircraft in the USA, and vice-versa, are soon to be non-issues.

Sooner you think about more pressing issues involved with such globalisation, the better.

And before you ask, you know what such issues are before I even begin to mention them, eg.:

* Safety
* Flight Time Limitations
* HMI (MMI or whatver you call it)
* Salary & other conditions of employment
* Liability & culpability

The list goes on and on....

Wake up on both side of the Atlantic, and smell the beans...

You pilots do yourselves no favours by exhibiting such antagonistic, narrow minded attitudes to fellow professionals....


23rd Mar 2001, 21:31
The other day I caught a jump seat out to California (to interview with Polar). One of my friends who works for Atlas was also jumping that day. He told me that Atlas was airmailing AACS guys to Miami so they could pick up flights on US REGISTERED AIRCRAFT.

This action is in direct contravention of U.S. law...which got me to thinking.

What kind of management has so little regard for the law? Is it possible to trust a manager / individual with such disregard for the law? Can you believe anything this person might say? Can you really believe that such a person would bargain in good faith? I mean, heck, he's a known law-breaker, right?

I'm just a simple old Texas boy, but it seems to me that the management at Atlas is not to be trusted. I believe that they would, as we sometimes say in Texas, rather climb a tree and lie, when they could easier stand on the ground and tell the truth.

Bottom line, AACS was formed as a union busting move. Pure and simple.

I hope the guys at Atlas strike, and that the strike puts Atlas out of business. If not then no pilot in the USA will have a job thats worth a damn. It would be just a matter of time before every other airline in the US would do the same thing as Atlas, and start hiring foreign pilots at ten cents on the dollar!

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 24 March 2001).]

23rd Mar 2001, 22:12
Im not a fan of the Guv but that´s below the belt.....

23rd Mar 2001, 22:24
I think it's time for Danny to do something about this thread

[This message has been edited by 46mph (edited 23 March 2001).]

23rd Mar 2001, 22:55
Softy, JAL flies Tokyo-JFK-Sao Paulo.
Same for KAL and JAL from Seoul -LAX-Sao Paulo.

24th Mar 2001, 01:02
I think the Iberia MIA onwards operation is a "change of gauge" ie a large aircraft brings in a number of passengers who then continue in smaller aircraft to a further point. Usually such operations do not allow sector traffic on the smaller gauge sectors.

The JAL and KAL JFK-Brazil operations are probably in exchange for points beyond Tokyo or Seoul operated by US carriers. Exchange of 5th onward points is fairly common.

lost in hold.

24th Mar 2001, 02:28
Heavywhale, you should maybe study a little history that is off of the North American continent before youy comment on foreign affairs. The French were out of Vietnam before the "Americans" stepped in. In fact review your history and read Henry Kissingers autobiography. It will enlighten your conceptions on many things that revolve around your small nucleus. As for the rest of the debate, why is this becoming a bashing of some sorts?
Seems pilots have nothing better to do than bitch and complain.
Atlas is definately doing the "Union busting thing", and the Europeans do not have the balls to stand up!!! Poor us!!
585 million against 280 million and we still @#$% it up.
As the saying goes "Divide and conquer"
That's what Atlas and the European politicians are doing to all us poor bastards.

Keep the blue side up

24th Mar 2001, 06:52
[This message has been edited by KaptainKangaroo (edited 24 March 2001).]

24th Mar 2001, 07:30
Its not the same argument,JAL operates an aircraft which is based in Japan and Japanese registered,through the U.S. to a
second destination,and this is by reciprocal agreement.Atlas on the other hand needs to base its aircraft in London to operate London
-Hong Kong with no reciprocal agreement.
Therefore the only way in my view that this can be done fairly,is to put the aircraft on the U.K. register,and operate them with people legal to work in the U.K. and as I understand it that includes American Atlas employees.

24th Mar 2001, 08:02
Now that everyone's exhausted from another round of UK-EU-US lawyering, I'll ask the question again.

What do you think the purpose and intention of GSS vs AACS is?

24th Mar 2001, 11:00
Professionalism includes, among other things, a tenacious dedication towards excellence and an unwavering persuit of the truth.

14 CFR 61.151 (c) states, and I quote, "To be eligible for an airline transport pilot certificate, a person must...be of good moral character".

GUV's endless anti-American haranguing make him a target. He has commented, ad nauseam, on the evil and unfair practices of American corporations, individuals, institutions and anything else he can dream up, and I for one am sick and tired of it.

The Guvnor
24th Mar 2001, 11:55
MachOverSpeed - that particular allegation was one created by Who? aka Freenum etc and I'm sure if you do a search you'll find my response at the time.

No I am not anti-American: again, perhaps you ought to try learning English as if you did so perhaps you'd realise that my concerns are simply those of the US fondness for one-way deals, uneven playing fields and lack of reciprocity in what they do.

Could it simply be that - as suggested earlier in this thread - the Americans are petrified of competition from the Europeans on fair terms?

I suspect so! :) :)

24th Mar 2001, 17:27

First, a definition: cabotage = domestic operations in another country by a foreign carrier for its own account. EWR-MIA = a domestic route; but operations by a UK wet leased aircraft operating for a US carrier are NOT cabotage operations!!.
We are NOT talking about scheduled services here. We're talking about ACMI operations. We (ie the EU) permit - at the moment - US carriers to operate for EU carriers without restriction (other than the six month rule). EU carriers, on the other hand, are not permitted to operate ACMI services for US carriers without restriction. This is the uneven playing field we are on at the moment.


Finally. This is the whole point. I've stayed out of this until now, as its been a re-hash of the old BA-US Freighters & Fedex A380 thread. Lets try and leave out all the invective.
I will agree with our US cousins on one point though. This is largely our own fault; its up to our politicians to so something about it, which they clearly aren't.
In other words;
Atlas/Gemini etc CAN operate lets say BA123 LHR-MAN ACMI.
AFX/Cargolux etc CANNOT operate AA123 JFK-ORD ACMI.
This is the level playing field we are talking about. This is NOT cabotage or any kind of n-th freedom. Think of it as renting a car.

rgds Rat

24th Mar 2001, 18:38

Now we are getting somewhere! Very intelligent and thoughtful post on your part. It's not the American's fault for being there. They are just using the system for Capitalistic benefits! You can't blame Atlas for trying to make money in a system where they have been allowed and given extensions to operate by the very system that the Guv is blaming unfair. Where is the logic there?

So, Guv, Where is your logic? You blame an American company that is operating in "your" system. They have been allowed by "your" government and have been making "your" money. Sounds like you're just jealous to me! Yes, I do see your point on the matter that "we evil Americans" don't let you come over here and operate. But I could be mistaken, If an American company wanted to ACMI from a foreign company I believe they can! I seem to see Heavy Lift operating in and out of the U.S. for U.S. companies all the time. They do it with that big C-5A looking Russian Airplane (don't know the name, AN 124??). I believe that the only real reason that you don't see more foreign companies doing it is because of the overwhelming American ACMI presence in America. I believe that the American companies provide better service, price, equipment, and reliability wise. Heavy Lift is attractive in America because it's the only company that can provide service transporting the 777 engines around the world. Capitalism at it's purest level!

So, don't whine and complain because "you" can't provide the same service. It's called Capitalism. Something that Socialistic countries have a very hard time with. Case and Point, Why on earth hasn't a EU company stepped up and offered better service to BA than Atlas can provide? Raw Capitalism would say that if another company came to BA and offered better service at a better value that BA would drop Atlas and go with the better deal. Why hasn't that happened??? Because no one can! So, you are telling us that BA should pay more for a service, get worse service, and get less lift capacity, just because they aren't a "British" company! Sounds to me like "you" are the ones that can't compete!!! If you truly want competition, you would find out rapidly that the American operation system is so ruthless, that subsidized airlines wouldn't hack it one day in our system. If you really want to level the playing field, take away the Government Subsidies and "Come into our Jungle"!!!! You guys wouldn't last a day!!!

Same service, same schedule, same quality, same price???? Don't think that you could do it? Other wise you already would have!!!!!!!
;) ;) ;)

[This message has been edited by HEAVYWHALE (edited 24 March 2001).]

24th Mar 2001, 19:56
Heavywhale; I believe the AN124 is a bit of a special case and operates under all kind of exemptions. There aren't that many of them around.
I don't really agree with your points on service or price however on capacity you're correct. Leasing an Atlas aircraft is not particularly cheap, but then again you have whats needed - spare freighters. To my knowledge, there are NO (EDIT) 74F's to be had at the moment (well maybe some of Kitty Hawk's old [email protected]). AFX have one 742 flying for CLX at the moment; their second one will probably do the same. Not much use for transatlantic unless a YQX stop is planned. Even then, max payload is still less than a -400. I digress.
If I understand correctly, the sticking point seems to be that this contract with BA is against the law (someone mentioned 6 months max with an exemption). Why should BA be allowed to get away with it? Notice I'm not blaming Atlas - they are just doing what they are being allowed to do.

OOPS forgot the word NO - makes more sense now.
rgds Rat

[This message has been edited by CargoRat2 (edited 24 March 2001).]

Beaver Driver
24th Mar 2001, 20:52
I don't beleive Atlas does any MAN-LHR, other than a tech stop (second freedom) or to drop cargo (fifth? freedom). In other words if they stop in LHR on their way to MAN they only drop cargo....they pick up no cargo to carry LHR-MAN. If they do pick up cargo it's going further than MAN (probably Dubai). To tell the truth I don't know if it's because they can't, or if that's just the way it's set up, but I suspect that it is because the DETR won't allow it.

It is entirely possible for a foreign airline to do that in the US, and we see it all the time in ANC. Cargo carriers come in (KAL,NCA,JAL,ANA,CAL to name but a few) stop in ANC (sometimes a tech stop, sometimes to drop or pick-up cargo; most notably fish)then continue on to another US destination. Why the Gov can't do this is beyond me, but probably has to do with the amount of time he spends on his computer instead of doing his job. The root reason that he can't do an ACMI lease to a US carrier is because of the same reason Atlas can't; because we can't sell it. The US cariers don't need us. They either have enough lift, or their pilot unions scope clauses won't allow it, even for another US carrier like Atlas.

You have both raised a good point. IS it cabotage when you are leased to a foreign carrier. I would think it is, as evidenced by the fact that Atlas hauls no freight from LHR-MAN or MAN-LHR (other than that which came from somewhere else or that which is destined to go on).

I wouldn't get too froggy about the Afica thing. There are plenty of guys (lots of Americans, including me) on this board who have spent a lot of time over there, flying for Airlines such as Southern Air, Transafriqe, and SafAir. Suprisingly, however, I've not met one person who ever flew for Africargo. Care to comment?

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 24 March 2001).]

24th Mar 2001, 21:03
Compete? Compete with who? You with us? Not hardley!

Even a cursory analysis of economic yardsticks will show that America out-competes any and all comers.

Lets compare the percentage of full employment in America with any other country.

Lets compare the level of foreign investment in America with any other country.

Lets compare the productivity of the American worker with those of any other country.

Lets compare the rate of taxation in America with any other industrialized nation.

You keep crying about a "level playing field", yet cower in the shadows of socialist inspired blockades to free trade and equal access to markets and capital.

How you folks run your country is your business. What do I care? We have taken a look at the great success of European style socialist economics and have found that our system, with its flaws, works better for us. I would venture to guess that without government subsidy a disproportionate number of EU airlines (not to mention Airbus) would fall flat on their faces.

The simple fact is that IF the playing field WERE leveled (i.e. true competition) you guys would get eaten alive. So please don't blame US for YOUR decision to embrace Marxist theory and its attendant failures.

Since its inception we have spent 5 trillion some-odd dollars on NATO (whose true purpose was to keep the Europeans from fighting among themselves, again). I wonder what our productivity would be if we had invested that money on our own infrastructure instead? Furthermore, I wonder what the EU economic condition would now be if we had not spent the money over there?

And another thing, I am so damn sick of hearing you cry about US taking away YOUR jobs. Back when I first started flying I had to compete with Europeans who came here to learn to fly, then padded their log books up to 1200 hours and who then flew night freight FOR FREE. My wages were artifically driven down by this influence. Others couldn't even find a flying job. But, I stuck it out. I learned that life is oftentimes unfair. Bummer, dude! Well, I figure that turn about is fair play.

Deal with it, or keep crying like a little girl.

[This message has been edited by MachOverspeed (edited 24 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by MachOverspeed (edited 24 March 2001).]

24th Mar 2001, 21:40
Hi again Beaver. The LHR-MAN thing is just an example. Atlas doesn't fly this route FOR BA (to the best of my knowledge). They could however if BA wanted. As for ANC with the fish, I would suppose it has to do with an "Open Skies" agreement. I live in Luxembourg which has such an agreement with the US.
As for whether ACMI is a form of cabotage, well I don't think so. After all, the leassor gains no commercial benefit from flying the route, only xx USD per blockhour using the leasee's callsign/traffic rights.

And MachOverspeed: Anyone who calls me a socialist is liable to get thumped :mad:

rgds Rat

Goat Roper
25th Mar 2001, 05:42
Mr. Governer

I have been reading your post's now for near a year and have always wondered how you do it. How are you a CEO of what you claim is a major company yet you find so much time for the internet.....? over 2000 posts on this board alone not to mention the other boards you post on. I have noticed on the Caledonian Wings web sight the your schedule includes many American Cities. I wonder how amenable my American friends really are. Seems like a few letters to the DOT protesting your applications due to your obviously anti-American sentiments would torpedo your plans. If I were in your shoes, I think I would tone down the American, DOT, FAA bashing until I actually got my airline off the ground.

25th Mar 2001, 06:08
Amen, Goat Roper!

25th Mar 2001, 11:51
Your heading down the same slippery slide as the Guv,on the opposite side of course.

I don´t like History or Politics much,but I have to take issue with you on most of what you said:
1.Granted there is only 4% unemployment in the U.S. compared with 10% in the E.U. but 90% of people in E.U. are middle class
compared to little over 50% in U.S.

2. Regarding foreign investment in the U.S.
it is falling rapidly since the tech bubble burst,and while there is a decline in Europe it is much less than that of the U.S.

3.Since the advent of the 35 hour week in France,the French have become amongst the most productive workers in the world per man hour,and more productive than the U.S.
look at Airbus compared with Boeing where man hours to build an Airbus is approximately
2/3 of what it is to build a Boeing.

4. My experience with Tax as a family man (which is of great advantage in continental Europe)is that it is similar in Europe to the U.S.,income tax that is.

5. My understanding is that subsidies to European airlines finished approx 5 years ago,with the exception I think of olympic airways,and you are right that virtually none
of the nationalised airlines would have survived in a free market,but you have to look at Eastern and Pan Am and Continental,
that also could not survive a free market(at least continental could not have survived without Frank Lorenzo).

6.I believe that if European airlines were allowed to operate on the N register,with the associated lower costs involved,they would be equally competetive.

7.As for NATO,I believe as a % of GDP the U.K. puts the most money into military spending.Europe as a whole puts in approx.
80% of what the U.S. puts in to military spending,and now that the Germans have started spending again on military this is set to overtake the U.S. level of spending in the short term(I´m not talking about effectiveness).

8.As for your last point on jobs,I was one of the guys coming from Europe on a J1 visa,
and I was allowed to work for 9 months after training,and I feel the same 9 month opportunity should be extended to you after you have invested individually $40,000 in to
the E.U. economy.

wayne campbell
25th Mar 2001, 12:12

You seem to describe the U/S with rose colored glasses.
Who cares what the unemployment level is in the U/S, you have the highest crime rate of any western country on earth, and a standard of living about half that of my country (keep ya guessing) for most of the population.
As for productive workers, dont even go there girlfriend.

The Guvnor
25th Mar 2001, 13:57
Beaver Driver, Mach Over Speed, HEAVYWHALE etc...

As there seems to be a huge gap in comprehension in the translation from the Queen's English to American English, let me try and make it simple.

1) We, the Europeans, currently permit the operation of foreign aircraft on ACMI operations (on behalf of EU carriers) domestically and internationally without restriction.

2) You, the Americans, do not currently permit the operation of foreign (ie non US) aircraft on ACMI operations (on behalf of US carriers) domestically and internationally without restriction.

We ARE NOT talking about the operation of say BA flights from EWR to MIA. We ARE talking about ACMI leases of aircraft - and this is ATLAS' sole business - to local airlines.

In every country of the world - except one - local airlines are permitted to lease in aircraft on an ACMI basis from suitably qualified foreign airlines. That one exception is the United States.

Our position, as Europeans, is that this is both illegal under GATT rules and demonstrates supreme arrogance by the US; and we call on EU operators to impose sanctions on US aircraft provided on ACMI leases with non EU crew members until reciprocity is introduced.

Got it now, boys? :) :rolleyes: :)

25th Mar 2001, 14:13

25th Mar 2001, 15:07
Very emotive issue. A shame that it has degenerated into a trans-atlantic slanging match.
Guv: GATT is WTO now (me thinks). This ACMI business is the whole point, as you and I have posted a couple of times above. However I can only blame ourselves (or more to the point our govts) for this situation. What is being done about it? Sweet FA seems to be the answer.

rgds Rat

25th Mar 2001, 17:38
Whats being done about it?
Try writing to the following at the DETR

Mr.Glen Cronin
Multilateral Division, Aviation Group.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
2/27 Great Minster House,
76 Great Marsham Street,
London SW1 4DR

Telephone +44 (0)207 890 5882
Fax 207 676 2192
email [email protected]

Register as much protest there as there has been on this thread here. Its only us talking in ever decreasing and degenerating circles to ourselves. A sort of mutual aberration society really. Lobby your own MP about the scams that are being perpetrated by AACS or whatever they are choosing to call themselves this week. Is BA/AACS a cartel? I think it may be and the Office of Fair Trading have some very definite ideas about what that means! Spread your wings guys because nobody but ourselves is being shafted here [on both sides of the pond]

[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 25 March 2001).]

25th Mar 2001, 20:41
Ouch...my head hurts.

My apologies, I sometimes get carried away, particularly when under the influence...its a good thing that it was too cold for a ride on the new Speedie!

I think we can all agree that the whole AACS thing is a very contentious issue. And I sincerely don't believe that it should boil down to a we/us/them argument.

My concern really is that Atlas is using AACS crew members, holding non FAA tickets, to fly N registered aircraft from points in the USA. Clearly illegal, and the strategy is to bust the union, pure and simple. This action is directly injuring my friends, and I don't like it.

If Atlas gets away with this, then NO PILOT IN THE USA WILL BE SAFE IN HIS JOB. Furthermore, although some on this forum may profit from this in the short term, eventually the "worm will turn" and you, too, will suffer the same fate, and some third world low-timer will displace you for a fraction of what you are worth. Enough said.

Having been displaced by "free labor", I can tell you that ones tolerance for this practice is directly proportional to how it affects ones ability to feed/house/clothe ones family. Trust me. You don't want it to happen to you, and I don't want it to happen to you either, whoever you may be.

25th Mar 2001, 20:44
hey guys this mentality is the reason airline management idiots (******s to you british brethern) succeed....

25th Mar 2001, 21:13
Three observations:

1. If EU companies are so much more efficient, then why isn't BA contracting with them to outsource part of their cargo operation instead of expensive/unreliable Atlas Air?

2. Guv: You infer your future company would be interested in ACMI'ing in the US. Assuming it was permitted by US law, what companies in the US do you think would be interested in contracting with a EU ACMI carrier? Given that virtually all commuter/national/major airlines in the US have union contracts that have strict scope clauses, what US airlines/cargo outfits do you think would be good prospects for say a L-1011 cargo/pax carrier like your long-anticipated company? I know my union contract will not permit management to outsourcing flying. How can an EU company do it better / cheaper / faster than an a US one and if this is true, where are the EU investment bankers? The only US companies that I can think of off-hand that may be interested in out-sourcing are a few package/cargo lines with weak union contracts who contract during the busy Christmas season only to make up for a temporary lack of capacity. Christmas contracts alone won't run an airline -- so where would be your market in the U.S.? How about Canada/Mexico? Why haven't they started more ACMI outfits if it's so lucrative??

3. If the EU doesn't want US ACMI carriers, they ought to legislate it now. Why don't they?? Corruption? Bargaining chip? Complacency? Stupidity? Naivity? What??

[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 25 March 2001).]

25th Mar 2001, 21:30
AACS personnel must hold a validation issued by the FAA based on a recognized ICAO licence.If this is not the case then ATLAS mainstream pilots should inform the authority about the breach of the relevant FAR.

If however their licenses have been validated then the arguement rest with the FAA and not ATLAS management

[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 25 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 25 March 2001).]

25th Mar 2001, 21:35
Hey Guv,

Here's an analogy that might bring you to lite??? Ha!

Here's what you sound like...... (totally hypothetical situation)

I live in Amsterdam and my Government allows me to smoke Hash in Bars, and smoke marijuana freely. Now I'm a citizen of the Netherlands so as a citizen I'm allowed to. So, now I go to America, and feel my addiction kicking in and I need a really good Joint! Do you think that I'm going to be able to smoke my Pot and get away with it? No! It's because in America it's not legal to get high or smoke pot anywhere.

So, now I'm really mad!!! When I get home I immediately go into my favorite local Hash Bar and lite up and get a great buzz on. But after a few minutes, I look over, and what do I see? Some damn Americans!!!! Sitting there IN MY COUNTRY, smoking my Good Dutch Pot!!!! Well, I'm so pissed off now!!! But what can I do about it, not a damn thing! It's legal for them to do it, isn't it???

So, what I'm saying is that who is to blame??? Is it the American sitting there smoking the pot, enjoying his nice buzz, taking advantage of the laws in that particular country? Or is it my countries laws that make me mad because of the injustices and inequities in the laws between the two?

Now you sound like the guy who blames the Americans for coming into your country and smoking all your POT!!!

I figured that you would understand this analogy very well because you obviously sit around on your computer smoking all day long!!! So, roll up another one and let me know what you think!!!

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

25th Mar 2001, 21:44
The americans don't have to go to AMS to smoke pot. They do it in the states anyway with total disregard for the law. Typifying the attitude prevalent within the culture

25th Mar 2001, 22:03
Hey Guv,

You don't have a clue do you?

Tell your government to change the rules to "level the playing field"..it's not our fault that the EU has no restrictions on U.S. carriers doing ACMI.

Until then, quit whining...what are you a CEO of again? Pprune? Oh, I got it, some sort of virtual airline?? LOL

[This message has been edited by KaptainKangaroo (edited 25 March 2001).]

Beaver Driver
25th Mar 2001, 22:15
If you don't get off the Anti-American thing I don't think your company would be a fit airline to operate in and out of the States. You claim you have lots of American friends yet several times in this thread you have called The U.S. the big bully etc. etc. GET OFF IT. There is lots wrong with governments on both sides of the Atlantic but all you are succeeding in doing with your bombastic pontifications against Americans is to unite us against you. Do not underestimate what a letter writing campaign from a bunch of pissed off pilots and transportation industry workers could do.

In response to your last post I was wondering if you are European, African, British, Scottish, or what. You see, once again, Europe is not a country. I think from reading your bio, you must be British. Is the UK really a full memeber of the EU? If so, why is the Pound still in ciculation instead of the Euro? You want something for nothing! You want ACMI rights on the EU coattails, yet you are not really a full memeber, and you don't allow the EU to regulate your airspace or your treaties and contracts. There is no way we are going to let you ACMI here in the US as you have nothing to give us in return. Even if the US government would allow it the ailines wouldn't, especially not after they meet you. U.S. Airline managers would rather piss off their pilots by violating union scope clauses with a VIABLE REAL company run by a CEO who could actually make the thing work, not a virtual reality company.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 25 March 2001).]

26th Mar 2001, 03:12
All AACS crewmembers hold FAA licenses.

The Aircraft are N-reg and therefor operate under FAA rules.

Captains require FAA IOE observation before being signed off, which is why alot of them were seen in MIA and ANC, the FAA just can't afford to send it's inspectors to AMS or DXB to do IOE.

AACS operates under FAR 121 and Atlas Air Cargos Operations specifications, the flights are dispatched and followed from New York.

How much of this company sounds EU so far?


There really is a catch 22 here, the company tells the mainline crewmembers that it is just another crew base, with a standing bid out for Captains available at all times, BUT the company also has to toe the line with the DETR and the queen Mum in proving that it really is a British company with good intentions towards the Crown, and therefor keeping its seemingly precious BA contract on life support.

So which is it?, just good business or Union Busting in the back door politics?



26th Mar 2001, 09:43
Dear LimeyAK...

ALL AACS pilots are NOT FAA licensed, one has only to check the flight manifest...

First Officers must have IOE too, and that is done by "IOE Captains" (company check airmen)...the FAA can do it, and sometimes they might, but even if they did, the FAA is NOT a branch of the Department of Justice, and as such have no police power ( if this confuses you, please refer to the United States Constitution and the United States Code ).

I have absolutely reliable information, from folks on the ground, that AACS/non-FAA pilots are dispatched on N registered Atlas flights from points in the USA.


And yes, you're right, this should be brought to the attention of the authorities (maybe they are reading this), but even more important, this fact should be, and I imagine it WILL be, brought to the attention of the appropriate court, at the appropriate time. Please don't forget, so far the court has found that Atlas has not acted in good faith, and has found AGAINST Atlas, in favor of the union...

I repeat, if the Americans get screwed today, then you guys can look forward to a screwing tomorrow! If you don't stand against this injustice now, then you can expect damn little pitty when its your butt on the line.

26th Mar 2001, 10:38
Dear Engineer,

Just what the heck do you mean, "typifying the culture"?

I'll have you know, sir, that I have been taking government mandated drug/alcohol tests for more than 11 years now. In fact, at one time I was simultaneously enrolled in TWO anti drug/alcohol programs because I was holding down TWO full time flying jobs. I have never failed a test, nor have I ever been afraid to take one.

Also, every one of my friends are professional pilots, and none of them have ever failed a test either. My mother doesn't do drugs, nor my father, nor my sister, nor my kids, or any of their friends, nor the vast majority of 280 million hard working, honest and generally well meaning people who are Americans. I'll compare our ratio of drug fiends to your's any day. I think its a safe bet that we can run faster, jump higher, dive deeper and get out drier than
anybody else on the block. All without breaking a sweat. We thrive on challenge, prosper in adversity, revel in competition and seek the impossible.

Are you of the opinion sir, that American culture is somehow inferior to that of other nations? We have some problems, to be sure, every nation has, but we can easily buy and sell whatever chicken-s*** country YOU hail from, with money to spare, or, alternatively, turn it into a lifeless wasteland in less than half an hour. You might be interested to know that the younger generation here has no emotional ties to the Old World, as my generation has, and life don't mean squat to them! One day they'll have their finger on the REALLY BIG TRIGGER

Use Caution!

26th Mar 2001, 10:48
That pot smoking analogy was pretty good I have to admit.
As I understand it all the European guys working for AACS have been in Miami and Minniapolis completing both the FAA ATP and
the 747 type rating,which as I understand makes us all legal.
I don´t think any of the European guys want to be involved in strike breaking where your pay and conditions are concerned,the worry that we have is that you will be striking against the existence of the Stansted base,which is my job,and as you put it so clearly before,is food for my family.
I personally don´t feel that I am taking anybody elses job by operating an aircraft between Stansted and Hong Kong.

Ignition Override
26th Mar 2001, 10:56
As just an outsider, GUVNOR and HEAVYWHALE: Maybe people take themselves a bit too seriously and defensively, we all need to try to be more factual and less personal. Sure, anyone can get that way once or twice. You guys probably would enjoy the same excellent beer and pub music if you didn't know each other's Pprune nicknames, and would discuss vacation or layover experiences!

Just a suggestion, but many people on Pprune might need to try harder to keep the defensive sort of flag-waving nationalism out of these airline debates. All wars are horrible, whether one's country starts 'em or finishes 'em. The innocent civilians suffer unbelievable heartbreak over lost fathers, mothers, sons, daughters etc, so should we really gloat over victories (reading about the true cost, but most of us never experienced it), and stand up on a Hyde Park soapbox to crow about the final score, like a football or basketball game? All sides involved in serious conflicts suffer somehow.

All nations have done helpful and hurtful things to neighboring countries-it just depends on which historical period is discussed. One nation's white (or black) knights in shining armour who "gallop" to their rescue in single-, two- or four-engined machines are another nation's airborne terrorists, especially with the nightmares of carpet-bombing. How about the distant ancestors of many English Pprune members from the former "Danelaw"-just imagine if you could have chatted with Alfred's Saxon farmers-soldiers in Wessex etc who managed to hold them off.

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 26 March 2001).]

Kep Ten Jim
26th Mar 2001, 11:42
MachOverspeed -

All AACS pilots DO have FAA licences.

AACS pilots operating in and out of the USA do so for training purposes only, with an Atlas check captain occupying the other seat.

26th Mar 2001, 12:45
Oh my God... that is how a formerly professional discussion can deteriorate...!

Well, let's get back to it...

The Rat did rightly descibe the nature of doing business in the ACMI world. And, the other fact is (and now Beaver, read this very carefully) that the EU is persistent in wanting to finally urge it's members to apply the laws they have all agreed upon anyway. Although the EU (in the classical terms) is not a country, it had the political will to act as one (that does not always work). And it looks like they have decided to act as one in the ACMI business.

The laws (which every country as accepted as being it) are clear. Either you are a JAA approved carrier, and they you can play thee whole game, or you are not, and then it needs a time limited special exemptinon.

The difference between now and then (the good old times) is, that there were no EU based carriers who did use the legal way to stop the US competition (and it is not a matter of aircraft types, but principles. How long would, let's say GECAS have to lease a brand new 747-400F to one of these carriers, if it needs to be? The whole contract would be signed in less than a week, you can bet on that. And it will take some while until the aircraft is built, but that is only a couple of months these days). So now the EU carriers have decided to challenge the ruling of the aviation aurthorities in court, wanting the law to be followed by the letter!

What is so bad about that? I know, you are going to be out of work, and the whole traffic rights deadlock will continiue. The key to stop that nonsense is in the hands of Mr. Mineta by now (he at least understands something about transportation, unlike Mr. Slater). Open up the markets, and the situation will be the true and fair competitive market (that some participants to this discussions have so wonderfully tried to explain to us 'socialistic' countymen [never claim me to be that again, it could be potentially lethal]), but it seems that some people west of the big pond have some real fear about that. Or don't open up and a lot of pilot's will lose their jobs because finally some politicians have decided to act, as their customers will not be able to get the services they would like to have. I don't like that, but that seems to be it.

Oh, and before I forget it:

The ACMI business has nothing to do with 5th or any kind of freedom. It is like a taxi business, you need a concession to offer the servicein a geographical location. At least that is the case in all of the world, except the US. There the FAA lawyers brable about trafic rights and so on. They have the tendency of no really understanding the whole concept, but maybe the FAA lawyers will get there one of these days. The traffic rights are with the commercially responsible entity (the lessor), the technical responsibility (ops and mx) with the lessee. And the only question to be answered is, if the lessee is in the same administrative region as the lessor (the administrative region in this case being defined by all the bi- and multilateral treaties covering this particular business). It's such an easy business, really.

There's nothing like a three-holer...

26th Mar 2001, 14:30
"Typifying the culture"

Your post dated 25Mar 1641utc
"Ouch...my head hurts. My apologies, I sometimes get carried away, particularly when under the influence..."

My statement clarified Keep up the ten year programme and hope I didn't hit that raw nerve too hard.

Back to the thread It appears that AACS crewman hold FAA licences and operate only to the states for training purposes only

So for ATLAS mainstream people unfortunately it is the thin edge of the wedge Two options accept or leave!

26th Mar 2001, 19:03
You will find that the ACMI market in the US would be very limited due to very strict scope clauses negotiated in union contracts. The airline I work for would never be allowed to wet-lease aircraft. If we allowed that, then why not just open the southern border (yea, I know, more than it is now) and allow a flood of third world labor to dilute the living standards we enjoy now. Despite all the hoopla about world markets, aviation isn't one of them and never will be. When we in the US enjoy a decent standard of living from aviation (except regionals, and COMAIR is working on that as we speak), why should we acquiese to "open skies?" Is it protectionism?? You bet. Just like every other country, including those in Europe. UK and Euro pilots should clean up their own countries rules and outlaw off-shore ACMI carriers. They should also stop drinking the company kool-aid and get labor contracts with scope clauses, industry standard wages, etc. Why does BALPA allow guys like Atlas to come in and take away their jobs???? Quit bellyaching about the symptoms of bad policy and start holding your own people accountable for their actions and leadership.

Beaver Driver
26th Mar 2001, 20:16
There is a grey area here that Atlas is exploiting. Your Visa's are good for training only. Atlas considers IOE traing. The rest of us including the INS, the labor department, and some in congress do not. Watch for this to change soon.

Funny that the JAA has not even weighed in on this business yet. The only objection to what Atlas is doing has come from the UK DETR and the gov. ACMI vs. the fifth freedom rights depend on the particular countrys legal regulations. With most, it's the registration of the aircraft not who they are flying for. Once again I say to you...what would be the benefit of, say Delta, wet leasing a freighter company. Even if their unions would allow it there would be no benefit to them. They already have the lift and can do it cheaper with their own planes than with a wet lease. I have not heard of any wet leases available in the U.S., even for US companies.

If we had already had a contract there would be no AACS. That's why Atlas had to push it thru so fast and it's why your training took so long. Atlas managers were not really ready to do AACS but they had to get it in place prior to our contract. We would not be striking specifically against the AACS pilots only against management ever forming another situation such as this one. My guess is that AACS in it's present form will have to go away....either thru the contract or thru the courts. It might be with GSS or another entity, but it will most certainly be a UK company with a separate AOC. If I was an AACS pilot I would be searching for another job.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 26 March 2001).]

26th Mar 2001, 22:25

Most of them are. I have spoken to quit a few of our AACS brothers and they are seeing the same things we have seen for years. Ran into an AACS guy at ANC, completed sim training in November, just starting IOE last week, and still fighting about the pay he should be getting. He said the answer is different every week. This Bull character is a perfect fit with this managment team, no people skills.

Spoke to another AACS fellow in TPE, flown two legs in two months, and he said he was the average, many were going non-current sitting at home. Sure sounds like a strike breaking operation in waiting to me?

Another case, a guy needed some IOE, so they deadheaded him commercial from STN to KUL for one leg of IOE, then back to STN from Melborne. How long can this last, and will it effect the bottom line at Atlas? It has to sooner or later.

26th Mar 2001, 23:03

I with your general train of thought though your facts on AACS staff and licensing seem misleading. IF there is an N registered Atlas flight operated for revenue with a NON FAA certifcated crewmember listed as an operating crewmember then Atlas has just opened up a monsterous can of worms.

For those less informed than yourself, ANY captain must have one leg of IOE observed by the FAA before line duty can be assigned.

All F/O's require IOE, which you correctly pointed out is normally given by a company Check Captain.

The EX-BA Captains with 20+ years on type had to go through the whole process of the FAA approved type rating course and had to endure the required IOE with one leg observed by the Feds to become qualified.

My whole point is as long as the Aircraft is N-registered, it MUST be operated by an FAA certificated crew.
So IF, as you previously pointed out, there are NON FAA certificated crewmembers operating any of our flights then I know of a couple of US senators who might like to hear about it.

Just trying to make sense of it all....Lak

[This message has been edited by LimeyAK (edited 26 March 2001).]

27th Mar 2001, 00:58

just to freshen your memory: besides the UK the Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Belgian, Spanish, German and Italian authorities are having a good look at the present industry practice of ACMI. The reason that JAA does not interfer is, that it is not the enforcing part of the authorities. The enforcement of rules is still up to the individual countries aviation bodys.

As for Delta: it is not that they have sufficient lift, but because they have no clue what cargo really is that they don't use carriers like Atlas. By the way, did you ever fly for Pathfinder, STAF, SwissGlobal, Eagle, Florida West? These are your US customers.

Get to know your marketplace. You don't believe the management brabbles when it comes to pilot pay and conditions either, so why should you now?

There's nothing like a three-holer...

27th Mar 2001, 01:06

Please post or e-mail me the details (names, flights, places) of this "absolutely reliable" information you have, and I will follow up on the legal side of the issue. I have the technology...

Beaver Driver
27th Mar 2001, 01:51
We have heard nothing from any regulatory agency in the countries you mentioned. Got any references or is this just your personal opinion?

You make my point with the JAA. If they are the governing body for the EU and they are powerless to do anything ("The enforcement of rules is still up to the individual countries aviation bodys"(sic).) Then how can you claim that the EU is one body as far as the freedoms of the air and the wet lease dialog is concerned.

Delta was a poor example as they don't really have a true cargo wing....substitue Northwest, FedEx, UPS, etc, and you will get my point.

Pathfinder, STAF, SwissGlobal, Eagle, Florida West are not certificated US airlines that I know of, thus a wet lease in the truest sense of the word would be impossible. I always thought that a wet lease is when one airline (Atlas) leases itself out to another airline that actually has a certificate and for various reasons needs more lift. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that we charter to most of these folks anyhow and that is a different animal althogether, and none of the flying we do for them is inter-US. The real point is that we don't haul much freight inter-US as the Majors (with schedules) can do it cheaper in their bellies than we can. Or else it can go on a truck, also much cheaper to operate than a 747.

I think the gov is whining because he wants to come over and do passengers and charters such as Ryan et al. do over there. He sees the Atlas/AACS and the whole ACMI arguement as a convienient way to further his cause without doing the work he really needs to do. He wants something for nothing. And he sees the US market as wide open and actually thinks he can compete. He's wrong on both counts.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 26 March 2001).]

27th Mar 2001, 02:35
Even if he was legally able to do it, the "Guv" couldn't compete in the U.S. If there was a market for that in the U.S., there would already be someone here taking it. Sure he may be able to get a few tramp charters, but certainly not enough to run viable airline, even if he had one.

27th Mar 2001, 03:25

Thanks, it's already being handled.

Stay tuned...

I would like to add, that as a one time manager of an FAR 135 operation, I can tell you that the unwritten policy of the FAA is to not get involved in employment disputes, crewing of aircraft, flight time/duty time/rest period "technicalities", and the like unless someone bends metal. I personaly have been ramped checked, having been on duty in excess of 20 hours (at a fuel stop), and the inspector couldn't have cared less. So if ANYBODY thinks that the FAA cares about the nationality of the certificate that a pilot might hold, that person should please wake up! I think they would however get upset if a guy's medical had expired.

The point is, that here in the States, probably worse than anywhere else, the debate over whether an aircraft was operating "on a revenue leg" or whether the flight (or portion thereof) could be considered "training" or not would keep lawyers working diligently through the night for years. An option to be avoided if one is employed by the government, whose aim is to screw individuals and not corporations (who fund political campaigns).

As far as AACS is concerned, I agree with the previous poster that there are two major probabilities, and I would add an additional one of somewhat less liklelihood.

1. The court finds for the union and through further legal action AACS goes away.

2. Atlas backs down, the union insists upon AACS going away, which it then does.

3. The strike puts Atlas out of business, in which case AACS goes away.

I feel like the job market could easily absorb the Atlas pilots, and I for one would dearly love to see airline management in general taught a lesson.

If Atlas gets away with this, no pilot, eventually even our "Euro" friends who post on this board, will be safe from displacement by cheap labor.

I wonder how much they pay pilots in Bangladesh?

27th Mar 2001, 04:26

You make some good points and you seem to understand what is going on here, but are you really trying to tell me that if I get ramped by the FAA and show him my British ATPL or ICAO equivalent whilst operating an ATLAS aircraft he WON'T care?, I think not.

To clear it up, any crewmember flying an Atlas or for that matter ANY US registered aircraft MUST posess a US license and medical approriate for the type of aircraft flown, just as a Pilot flying a 757 for BA must have a British (or more recently JAA accepted) ATPL with a 757/767 endorsement.

Aside from licensing there is the issue previously mentioned of an appropriatley licensed non work permit holding individual flying Atlas aircraft between two points in the US, an issue I know is being looked into by the local INS.

By the way, sounds like Airbus was the winner for the 56t aircraft....Lak

27th Mar 2001, 10:10

I have well-founded doubts that "it's already being handled." Since you don't provide any e-mail address whatsoever in your profile, I have no choice but to express those doubts here.

Please let me know how it's "being handled." I don't want you to duplicate or hinder others' efforts...

My e-mail address in in my profile.

27th Mar 2001, 12:16
Beaver driver,
I understand your frustration with this management,however AACS does now exist!and approximately 100 pilots are employed,and of course all of us will fight tooth and nail to keep our jobs.European labour laws strongly favour workforce much more so than U.S. labour laws,and I don´t believe that any European authority will accept Atlas forming this company,employing pilots,and then suddenly deciding because of a U.S. union contract,to take those jobs away,particularly when the routes concerned are between Europe and Asia.
My understanding is that currently the fastest growing cargo market worldwide is between Europe and Asia and that Atlas shareholders can not afford to be out of this market.
I hope that,although currently you tow a tough line,that you will soon become more concilliatory with your European colleagues.

27th Mar 2001, 13:21
Small point, Re: US Lic. and medical.
Not completely accurate, I flew an N registered aircraft leased to a non-US carrier and the FAA issued a licence, based on ICAO licence, and accepted the ICAO licence medical in lieu of US medical. Licence was valid only in respect of nominated aircraft for specified carrier.

27th Mar 2001, 13:39

Magic mate, but what were the conditions?

I am only trying to clear up the point that any crewmember flying an Atlas tail HAS to posess an FAA license and medical, they have no dispensation for foreign certificates.

It is a small but seemingly important point in regards to AACS.

Thanks, Lak

27th Mar 2001, 19:18
softy -
When Council 72 strikes, will you cross the picket line and fly struck cargo?? How many AACS crews will scab, when Mr. Bull says, "fly or be fired?" The salient point is . . there aren't enough AACS crews to prevent an implosion at Atlas Air, even if they do scab. The end result will be, Atlas Air will shut down, the people that scab will be known, but Council 72 will win in the end anyway. Atlas Air can't just close the ticket counters and stop selling tickets like COMAIR is doing now. Atlas has contracts to deliver on right NOW. AACS crews are in a very "no-win" position, regardless of the outcome. Their only hope is to unionize and come in from the cold.

If you want to be a colleage, unionize NOW and then you can be a union brother and not a threat.

[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 27 March 2001).]

Beaver Driver
27th Mar 2001, 19:43
Companies go out of business all the time. Bases are realigned, personnel are are offered a move (if they are qualified to accept) or they are let go. It remains to be seen, of course, but the U.S. court system may make AACS just too expensive for Atlas to operate IN IT'S PRESENT FORM. There is nothing that says AACS can't operate in another form such as GSS, with a EU AOC and as a separate company. Perhaps that's why GSS was formed. What ever the outcome, you can be sure that Atlas managers will not act in your best interests. It's just my opinion that AACS won't be around in it's present venue. If you want to fight for your job, join the union and join us in the struggle against Atlas managers anti-pilot, anti-union, and anti-labour tactics. You and your welfare are the last thing they considerd when they opened AACS and it's that last thing on their minds right now.

As for the Atlas stockholders, I've gotta tell you that they are already so pissed off (the ones that care) about the recent changes to Atlas and the HUGE amounts of money spent to try to train marginally qualified pilots into AACS, that anything management does is likely to be very thouroughly scrutinized, if not outright investigated by the SEC.

27th Mar 2001, 19:58
Surely if you have a ICAO recognised licence Then under annex1 of the convention The national aviation authority can valid your license and medical whilst stipulating any restrictions placed on that validation.This gels with what SSS stated.

Beginning to thinks that some info posted on this thread is to cloud issues and incite bad feeling. Worth while looking at certain individuals and date of registration and whether these names have posted outside of this thread

Like you cannot believe that the FAA would condon the action of non licensed personnel flying state registered aircraft.

In terms of labour laws that poses a different question. But logically as AACS crewman are employed within the EU no work permit is required as long as those concerned have right of abode within the EU

My question is if AACS EU crewman have been issued with a FAA licence could someone point me in the right direction to get one ;) :) ;)

BD maybe AACS have moved because they have disconnected the UK listed number @ STN

[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 27 March 2001).]

28th Mar 2001, 10:57
In my opinion a lot of AACS guys are already members of BALPA,however currently AACS does not recognise any union,much as I would prefer that they did.I can´t reasonably give any timeframe for when we will become unionized.
On the issue of whether we would cross picket lines,of course I can only speak for myself,I would not cross any Pilots picket line for a strike that involved pay and conditions for fellow pilots.I would cross a picket line if the successfull outcome of the strike involved myself and my colleagues losing our jobs.
As for the issue of experience,I don´t have all the statistics but on the course that I was on in Miami,All of the AACS guys had 3000+ hours of heavy Boeing Jet time,while the American guys on the same course came from Beech 1900´s and other relatively light twins,the majority of the AACS captains have 5+ years in the left seat of 747´s from BA or other heavy jets from other companies.
Don´t get me wrong I never support taking on direct entry captains,I think its most unfair.
On the point of Atlas management caring about my welfare,management will only ever care about business,its the same in every company,whats different in this company is the situation of one group of pilots against another,in my view a very unhealthy situation for everybody except the management.

Beaver Driver
28th Mar 2001, 12:31
It wouldn't be fair to B.S. you. Any contract negotiations are likely to contain wording to specifically prevent Atlas from forming an entity such as AACS in it's present form. The way Atlas management did this venture did no one any good. Not you, not Atlas pilots, not BA, nobody except Atlas. It pitted us against each other and hoodwinked a bunch of nice guys into taking jobs with a not so nice company. AACS will most probably go away anyway; if not forced to by the US courts, then because the British DETR will no longer accept it's presence as it is currently set up (US owned).

I would like to assure you that you will still have a job, but knowing how Atlas management works, I don't think that will be the case. If all goes good for you then whatever company Atlas decides to buy, form, or otherwise use for it's purposes (to circumvent DETR regulations) will have some pilot positions. If not, then I hope you have some other irons in the fire.

As far as the qualifications are concerned, sim time is at such premium here since Atlas started training the AACS pilots, that they have cut back on the time we mainline pilots are allowed for proficiency trainers/pc's. They did this to provide more sim time for the AACS new hires who haven't been able to make the grade in the alloted time. No reflection on anyone really, it just seems that few with any real qualifications saw fit to interview and take the job.....or maybe, like most of us, they saw right thru the job offer to what it really was.

28th Mar 2001, 17:24

re the different goverments looking deeply into ACMI: yes, I have first hand info that they are doing it.

The thing with JAA is, that it is not a EU body, but something independent with the goal of standardizing the member state's aviation rules. Insofar they have mostly succeded. But the EU also has decided to form one EU aviation agency (altough this has not been approved by the member states yet, thanks to BSE and Foot & Mouth they have some other points on the agenda right now). The Directorate od Transport has made it clear that they are looking into the ACMI business and will support any member state enforcing the present EU laws (to which all have agreed, by the way). And the rules are basically a mirror of the US rules, so the good times may be over for you guys. And that is all I ever said, nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding the US customers of yours:

Yes, they are no airlines and in the legalistic view you are not flying wet-leased services (exceptions are there, as Florida West has traffic rights). The thing is, the US carriers (with the exeption of Northwest) have given up on cargo. What they do is add-on business. So they need no freighters and the forwarders come to lease planes directly. It is still the same market, altough legally different.

There's nothing like a three-holer...

30th Mar 2001, 13:10
Well it seems Atlas is leasing to US carriers after all. FEDEX is taking 3 x -200F according to AirCargoNews 29Mar.

rgds Rat

7th Apr 2001, 21:12
Fascinating, all 12 pages of it.

On March 1, two Atlas -400Fs were leased to Global Supply System with G- reggies.

7th Apr 2001, 22:40
Not according to the April 3 CAA OR-2 report...


Standard Transparent Procedure


British Airways Plc for the period 31 March to 15 April 2001 inclusive; to provide additional capacity; two Boeing 747-400F aircraft, registrations N494MC and N495MC; US registered.

The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has approved British Airways’ application to lease N494MC for a period of one year and N495MC for a further two weeks until 15 April 2001. A temporary waiver has been granted until an audit has been carried out.

The applications were published in Official Record Series 2 Nos 1426 and 1431. These waivers are an extension to those previously granted which were published in Official Record Series 2 Nos. 1436, 1441, 1446, 1455, 1460, 1462, 1466, 1469, 1474 and 1478.

Beaver Driver
8th Apr 2001, 03:37
Doesn't look like it's happened yet. Wishful thinking on your part or just a windup? Perhaps you could enlighten us?


8th Apr 2001, 17:29
Finally this get professional again...

I think the G - registration will happen (with time), but that wold be what the whole primary purpose of AACS was. Let me make it clear again: AACS primary purpose was to be the crew member pool for that new entity in Europe, in order to provide lift to EU carrier without having any legal troubles (as far as the traffic riths and approval of AOCs are concerned). But, being Atlas it seems very much to be that case, that they also used the whole concept to bust your union. And now, as AACS is reality, I don't really understand why you ALPA people don't start sitting together with the AACS guys and support them into forming their own union. Despite what management tells you, it is perfectly legal for them to form a union, as any clause in the AACS contract forbidding such a thing would be illegal and challangeable in court. The cmpany is based in the UK, and there the formation of a Union is definitely allowed under any circumstance.

There's nothing like a three-holer...

Beaver Driver
8th Apr 2001, 20:28
Some of what you wrote is correct. Atlas pilots and Alpa are trying to bring AACS into the fold, so to speak, although I'm not sure how successful we have been, or how successful BALPA has been in signing up members.

On the other hand, AACS, IN IT'S PRESENT FORM, will have to go away as it is an American company and will never be able to get an AOC. (something I have been saying for months) Unfortunatly it seems the company knows this and would have shut the whole thing down already if we had not been in contract negotiations. Currently, it's a great smokescreen for them and something they can bargain away during the contract talks. There is no other reason to keep it open. AACS has been a huge drain on Atlas budget and resources and is just not a viable operation. I agree that Atlas will probably lease some aircraft to a European company, most probably Global Supply Systems with Mike Bull (shudder) as the director. I hope they have it better planned than AACS, However. I hope they have thought it all through and figured out the legal and proper way to do it. Because if they haven't, they will face an extensive battle in the courts and with the Securities and Exchange Commision, explaining how they transfered assets from a publicly held company to an offshore company that they don't own a majority stake in.

I really do feel for the AACS guys. They were sold a bill of goods, and a bunch of promises, that Atlas managers had no intention of keeping. If I were them I would be jumping ship as fast as I could get my CV in. Even a BA DEP would be better than the situation they are in now.


Airways Ed
8th Apr 2001, 20:36
Jean's on the right track as we have reported N494MC & N495MC to Global Supply System as G-GSSB & G-GSSA, respectively, effective March 1. Presume from above that this has been delayed.

8th Apr 2001, 20:55

I'll take a look at the tail number of those A/C. I would assume that they are the one's currently flying out of STN. G-registered does not really mean much in the US under FAA part 121 regs. As long as it has a compliance check, it can stay on the Atlas Air AOC with G-registration or just about any registration that is under a bilateral agreement. I have flown many A/C registered somewhere else other than the US on a US AOC. Maybe it means something special in the UK. It does make it easier to move the A/C over to the Global Supply System that is being formed.

9th Apr 2001, 00:34

but nothing prevents GSS to designate AACS as supplier for it's cockpit crews. As long as they are corretly licensed and all the paperwork has been done correctly, that is no problem at all. GSS has to be majority helb by EU money, but that does not mean that AACS also has to comply to that rule.

There's nothing like a three-holer...

9th Apr 2001, 03:18

A US-controlled company, wholly owned by the supposed minority US owner of GSS, [exclusively] supplying crews to that supposedly UK-controlled carrier? Sounds like overstepping the bounds of "effective control," to me! Talk about legal hassles!

Beaver Driver
9th Apr 2001, 04:06
And you think the DETR would allow this??? What then would stop Atlas crews from bidding AACS and totally pushing out all the EU crews. What would stop Atlas from supplying GSS with Atlas mainline crews. Everything you guys say you want will go away under a company situation like that. All the EU jobs could go away. All the money would flow to Atlas in the US. It would really provide nothing for you. Hmmmm....maybe the DETR needs some letters from you guys opposing this GSS/AACS thing with Atlas.