Skyservice seek Air 2000 clearance

[doo]

I wonder have Skyservice & Airtours had a fall out?


Decision No. 501-A-2002
September 9, 2002
APPLICATION by Skyservice Airlines Inc. carrying on business as Skyservice and/or Roots Air, on behalf of itself and Air 2000 Limited, for an approval pursuant to section 60 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, and section 8.2 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended, to permit Skyservice Airlines Inc. carrying on business as Skyservice and/or Roots Air, while providing its non-scheduled international service, to use a B757/233 seat aircraft and flight crew provided by Air 2000 Limited, from December 18, 2002 to April 27, 2003.
File No. M4210/R177-2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skyservice Airlines Inc. carrying on business as Skyservice and/or Roots Air (hereinafter Skyservice), on behalf of itself and Air 2000 Limited (hereinafter Air 2000), has applied to the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) for the approval set out in the title. The application was received on May 23, 2002.

Under Licence No. 977397, Skyservice is authorized to operate a non-scheduled international service, large aircraft.

The Agency requested comments on the application from Canadian air carriers licensed to operate a non-scheduled international service and that operate with large aircraft. The carriers were provided with a period of thirty (30) days to submit their comments and the applicants were provided with ten (10) days to submit a reply.

On July 3, 2002, WestJet filed its comments with the Agency and advised that it had not been contacted to operate the flights, but did not object to the present application.

On July 4, 2002, Signature Vacations submitted an intervention in support of the request by Skyservice and Air 2000 as it would be the principal charterer contracting for the capacity of the proposed aircraft.

On July 5, 2002, The Calgary Airport Authority submitted an intervention in support of the request by Skyservice and Air 2000 and stated that the proposed service has the potential to replace some of the capacity shortfall and would be very welcome in the community. Although, the intervention was received after the prescribed July 4, 2002 deadline, the Agency, in its Decision No. LET-A-193-2002, pursuant to section 8 of the National Transportation Agency General Rules, SOR/88-23, accepted the comments as being relevant to its consideration of the matter.

On July 31, 2002, Air Comet S.A. carrying on business as Air Plus Comet (hereinafter Air Plus) and Red Seal Tours, Inc. (hereinafter Red Seal), a Canadian tour operator, requested that the Agency allow Air Plus and Red Seal 30 days to formulate an intervention in respect of the Skyservice and Air 2000 applications set out in the title. By Decision No. LET-A-231-2002, the Agency denied the request by Air Plus and Red Seal as pleadings in the said application closed on July 4, 2002.

The Agency has reviewed and considered the application and the material in support thereof and is satisfied that it meets the requirements of section 8.2 of the ATR.

Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 60(1) of the CTA and section 8.2 of the ATR, the Agency hereby approves the use by Skyservice of aircraft and flight crew provided by Air 2000, and the provision by Air 2000 of such aircraft and flight crew to Skyservice, in order to permit Skyservice, while providing its non-scheduled international service, to use a B757/233 seat aircraft and flight crew provided by Air 2000, from December 18, 2002 to April 27, 2003, subject to the following conditions:


Air services shall be operated under the non-scheduled international licence of Skyservice (Licence No. 977397).


Commercial control of the flights shall be maintained by Skyservice. Air 2000 shall retain operational control of the flights and shall receive payment based on the rental of aircraft and crew and not on the basis of volume of traffic carried or other revenue-sharing formula.

Skyservice and Air 2000 are reminded of the continuing requirement to comply with sections 8.2 and 8.5 of the ATR.

The approval granted herein does not exempt Skyservice and Air 2000 from the requirements of other legislative acts or regulations, including those of Transport Canada.



Skyservice to WetLease from Air 2000

[Scud Runner]

No, they didn't have a falling out. While Skyservice and MyTravel may sleep together on a regular basis, their relationship is not mutually exclusive! After the fall of Canada 3000, Skyservice signed a contract with Signature Vacations (which is owned by First Choice) for a fair amount of lift. With the range required for Caribbean flights from some western cities, the B757 is a better aircraft, and this way, Skyservice gets that capability during the winter months without adding another type.

Word is that Skyservice will reciprocate with an A320 in the U.K. next summer for Air 2000, and will continue their deal with MyTravel.

Scud

[Airbus Girl]

The latest word is that Air 2000 are moving 3 of their aircraft onto the Canadian register and that they will operate these aircraft in the UK again next year, but with Canadian crews.

I sure hope this isn't true, bearing in mind the amount of unemployed aircrew in the UK, these Canadians will end up taking around 40 of our jobs.

[Noctivaga]

Airbus Girl, these sort of commercial tie-ups are fairly common and sometimes last for a long time. If memory serves Air 2000 and Canada 3 slept together for almost 10 years. The application clearly states the intention to use UK aircraft and UK pilots to service the contract. In effect, contrary to your post, this is about 40 Canadian jobs that are going to UK pilots when we have a huge number of laid off pilots in Canada, and many of them are B757 rated. I don't wish to debate the increase in efficiency etc, as that is bean counter territory. I do think however, in this day of world travel etc., that one is either FOR the increase in efficiency, meaning anyone works anywhere, or one is AGAINST meaning you only work in your territory. Given the huge number of UK pilots currently plying their trade under sunnier skies, and very many of them doing so voluntarily, I would think that your post hints at xenophobia. Would you want the expat UK pilots who are extremely capable and very highly qualified to return and take your job? I would think not. The flip side of that coin is that companies are allowed to make arrangements like this to their profit, and to a degree it works against many deserving qualified airmen(people). And not just in the front office either. Feel free to disagree with the contract if you like, but it sure makes someone's day.

[tailscrape]

Noctivaga,

What a load of tosh you talk. Airbus Girl has it spot on.

The fact remains that these aircraft are part of the Air2000 fleet. Therefore they should be flown by us, the Air2000 pilots.

Colleagues of mine at Air2000 have had to leave recently because they have been on short term contracts (previously having been permanent), this is unacceptable to me, and I find the idea of cheap crews and mercenary seat swapping unpalatable in the extreme.

If you enjoy working part time and for peanuts in Canada, then you do it. Just don't expect all of us Brits to go with you on your merry way to poor terms and conditions ville.............

40 pilots from Uk taking your jobs? No I don't think so. The fact remains that Air2000 and other Uk airlines are able to win business from under your noses because they turn a profit in busy months. Your airlines seem incapable of turning a profit irrespective of how much business you have.

If your aviation industry was leaner and meaner you wouldn't be in the mess you are now, and also you wouldn't need to come over to the UK and fly UK aircraft for UK companies. The fact that the a/c will remain C registered is nothing but a cheap sham.

Your argument is flawed and smacks of desperation.

[Noctivaga]

Tailscrape, humble apologies for blighting your day with 'tosh' as you call it. Read the application in the first post, and you will find that it is UK crews in UK aircraft doing Canadian jobs, which is why I found the post by Airbus girl somewhat skewed. As I said, if that is acceptable, then so is it acceptable when done in the reverse, so no complaints. Personally, I have gone the expat route, as conditions in Canada are deplorable. The whys and wherefores of conditions in Canada are complex, but essentially I agree with you. It is a structural problem.
I work as an expat, and so philosophically I have no problem whatsoever with people selling their skills wherever they can. And there are a load of us around the world. What I was attempting to point out to Airbus Girl is that if UK pilots can sell their wares overseas, then it is just as valid for foreigners to sell their wares in the UK. You find it tosh, I find that fair play.
Keep the blue side up.

[airbuslad]

Just for your info SSV is wet leasing the 57'sand also using MYT crews in the winter in Canada.

[HiSpeedTape]

Jeez how legal is this in terms of UK employment law? At the moment they have their Aircraft, Pilots, Cabin Crew and Maintenance staff over here flying for MYT. MYT employees (Piots and Cabin Crew) have been forced to relocate temorarily to make way for them. Others have been told that their jobs are at risk if (or when) this becomes a long term strategy. The simple point is that there are sufficient qualified UK folk to fly and service the aircraft. It's just the aircraft that we are short of - not the people.
Next year will see them doing much them same thing for JMC and MYT and posssibly 2 Bob as well.

[faq]

..FLS engineers relocated/redundant too

[m&v]

Airbusgirl;
The latest I heard was that Air2k was to 'fly' one '57(wet lease) from central canada to the oute Carib.Canadian F/a's.
MYT are to fly ex Central Canada(different base)3 front end crews,Canadian F/as.....C'reg acraft(validation)
Reciprocal arrangement for next summer in the UK:eek:

[Big Tudor]

HST

Which aircrew have been forced to relocate to accommodate SSV? I think your talking out of your hat, old chap. The SSV pilots are currently at LBA (no MYT pilots), MME (no MYT pilots), GLA (No MYT Airbus pilots) and NCL (they are crewing the second aircraft as NCL is established for only 1 a/c.
The reason there is SSV cabin crew over here at the moment is filling in the gaps where MYT cabin crew have left. Doesn't make much sense to employ and train cabin crew only to make them redundant 2 months later!!

[Boeingman]

The reciprocity of these arrangements when it comes to flight crew seems rather one sided. If the same number of UK crew were in Canada in the winter as Canadian crew in the UK in the summer then that would appear to be fair.

But it seems that the token number of pilots going to Canada this winter are a fraction of the number planned to come the other way. If there was a shortage of qualified UK (EU) pilots that would be one thing but that isn't the case.

I suspect our government won't give a damn but I suspect the EC might show interest.

I hope someone can prove me wrong and that there will be full reciprocity of flight crew.

[GARDENER]

Without wishing to take "sides" (currently looking for a flying job after recently qualifying/ girlfriend works on board SSV in the Summer MYT winter) I think one needs to look at the fact that MYT has not got the a/c and crews to keep up with demand in the summer months and this therefore is the easy option. They are one of the few companies that were less affected by 911 as they sub a lot of work out in the summer and keep everyone in a job in the winter- nil redundancies Air 2000 on the other hand do the opposite and had to lay off crew. I am not saying this is right or wrong and maybe job prospects would be better for me if this was not the case but from a business point of view I guess it makes sense. Final point being the Canadians are generally a great bunch of people just doing their job so don't dig at them have a go at the people in the ground level offices.

[doo]

But I said before, my co. UK based laid off around the same ammount as SSV brought in. and grounded a/c.

[EPRman]

BITE,

Make that two aircraft. And that is only the start. It's bad news for my colleagues who are being demoted at the end of October - the second year this company has demoted captains. Little to no chance of re-promotion for them next year because of the Canadian aircraft. Not to mention zero prospects of command for F/O's here who have to endure a very difficult and demoralizing command selection procedure.

What are BALPA doing? Apparently nothing. The CC appear to have lost the plot in this company.