CX acmi 747-8F with Atlas
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, if I was to guess, CX has been forced into this in order to keep to some of their contractual guarantees on reliability and schedule keeping. Mainly because they have so screwed up their own schedule, upset ALL their crew, sickness rates off the charts, etc, etc. This is the only way they can guarantee their performance guarantees to some of their clients, and so hopefully avoid yet ANOTHER lawsuit(s).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about that....re-reading the title it would be more correct to say Atlas ACMI with CX. I commented on a previous freighter thread that I could not immediately find that Atlas a management sent a communication six or so months ago out of the blue regarding tax liabilities for crew who spend time in HK. I thought it suspicious at the time and I would hazard to guess that's approximately the time that the deal was done.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The easiest way to identify a conspiracy theory is to check for the two common components:
1) confirmation bias : the most pervasive cognitive bias and a powerful driver of belief in conspiracies. We all have a natural inclination to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. The real-world events that often become the subject of conspiracy theories tend to be intrinsically complex and unclear. Early reports may contain errors, contradictions and ambiguities, and those wishing to find evidence of a cover-up will focus on such inconsistencies to bolster their claims. If you look at Trafalgars last post you will find a picture perfect example. The motivation behind the Atlas deal is apparently exactly what Trafalgar always assumed it would be. What a coincidence.
2) complexity : ever wondered why conspiracy theories are so ridiculously complex? Because that is often the only way to secure a totally unproven and fictitious story from immediate exposure.
Now, let's look at more plausible options, shall we?
- Leasing requires zero initial capital
- Leasing is totally flexible. No residual cost should there be a need to reduce capacity in the future. New contracts are often time limited, so leasing allows testing the water without risk. Which is , surprise surprise, why so many Cargo Operators are using that option, not only Cathay.
- Atlas really want the contact. Lower cost, extra capacity, need the money, higher productivity, want to get into the market, etc..
- Capacity is needed immediately
- CC is having an effect, but giving in would be more expensive than to lease
PS BC, cargo operation is not as easy to roster as pax ( which operates from A to B and back to A and not from e.g. A to B to C To D and back via E to F to A)
All Cargo airlines have this problem. Ask around. It's complicated.
1) confirmation bias : the most pervasive cognitive bias and a powerful driver of belief in conspiracies. We all have a natural inclination to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. The real-world events that often become the subject of conspiracy theories tend to be intrinsically complex and unclear. Early reports may contain errors, contradictions and ambiguities, and those wishing to find evidence of a cover-up will focus on such inconsistencies to bolster their claims. If you look at Trafalgars last post you will find a picture perfect example. The motivation behind the Atlas deal is apparently exactly what Trafalgar always assumed it would be. What a coincidence.
2) complexity : ever wondered why conspiracy theories are so ridiculously complex? Because that is often the only way to secure a totally unproven and fictitious story from immediate exposure.
Now, let's look at more plausible options, shall we?
- Leasing requires zero initial capital
- Leasing is totally flexible. No residual cost should there be a need to reduce capacity in the future. New contracts are often time limited, so leasing allows testing the water without risk. Which is , surprise surprise, why so many Cargo Operators are using that option, not only Cathay.
- Atlas really want the contact. Lower cost, extra capacity, need the money, higher productivity, want to get into the market, etc..
- Capacity is needed immediately
- CC is having an effect, but giving in would be more expensive than to lease
PS BC, cargo operation is not as easy to roster as pax ( which operates from A to B and back to A and not from e.g. A to B to C To D and back via E to F to A)
All Cargo airlines have this problem. Ask around. It's complicated.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 3rd May 2017 at 20:39.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, please step into my corner office anytime.
But what would you like to tell me ? You see, I am a bit old fashioned.
I think a debate benefits from exchanging arguments.
Do you have one?
But what would you like to tell me ? You see, I am a bit old fashioned.
I think a debate benefits from exchanging arguments.
Do you have one?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nippi
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW
Your argument perpetuates the war between CX and their pilots. This maybe good for you short term. But the scrap yard is full of faded paint jobs of airlines who engage in this tactic. A win win agreement must be reached for all of our benefit.
The CX way of take it or nothing. Has no place in today's modern transportation system.
Someday they will come for you. They always do.
Your argument perpetuates the war between CX and their pilots. This maybe good for you short term. But the scrap yard is full of faded paint jobs of airlines who engage in this tactic. A win win agreement must be reached for all of our benefit.
The CX way of take it or nothing. Has no place in today's modern transportation system.
Someday they will come for you. They always do.
Short memories. KA started with wet-leasing to Atlas. They fly around at CI 0 and taxy at a snail's pace because they charge by block hour. Managers were saying that KA saved so much money when they started flying their own freighters.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is patently absurd to think that leasing would save money rather than make peace with the TUs and improve rostering and operational efficiency; its just one more way to stubbornly blow cash to say 'I'm right' while digging in.
Think about it. If this made sense why not just lease most everything out and not fly your own airplanes at all ?
Think about it. If this made sense why not just lease most everything out and not fly your own airplanes at all ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes it makes sense. Buying 2 B748 would be around 400m USD or so, plus the expansion of crew required. If you think the uptick in cargo is temporary, or aren't sure how sustainable it will be, wetleasing a couple more makes sense, even if more expensive.
Shep69 - all the big US airlines do exactly what you say. Anything small (78 seats or so) is wetleased by UA/ AA etc from regional jet/ turboprop companies. Because it is cheaper for DL to just buy x thousand block hours from SkyWest or whoever than fly their own aircraft
Shep69 - all the big US airlines do exactly what you say. Anything small (78 seats or so) is wetleased by UA/ AA etc from regional jet/ turboprop companies. Because it is cheaper for DL to just buy x thousand block hours from SkyWest or whoever than fly their own aircraft
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS BC, cargo operation is not as easy to roster as pax ( which operates from A to B and back to A and not from e.g. A to B to C To D and back via E to F to A)
Ask any jumbo pilot for some of the disaster stories - high value urgent freight (ie, high revenue) being transloaded to other carriers because we can't crew a jet.
Or even worse, high value time critical perishable freight being carried despite the fact that it has undoubtedly spoiled due to the excessive crew shortage induced ground time often without the necessary ground power or aircon required to keep the cargo healthy.
Oh, yes, I forgot, some manager gets a few bucks in bonus because the apu, ground power and ground aircon costs are kept down. Bravo to you, you're a hero. Don't worry about the multi million dollar loss on the freight contract.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just look at this latest move for what it is: evidence of the epic failure of CX management. Instead of focusing on settling the legitimate issues of concern that their pilot group have, they would rather stubbornly dig their heels in and let the crewing chaos continue. The cost of that is now evidenced by their having to bring in outside companies to ensure the legal integrity of some of their freight contracts.
Our own freighters 'on the ground' so to speak (figuratively, as that is the result of inefficient rostering, so less than optimum monthly hour averages amongst the crews), increasing numbers leaving for new jobs (they don't have to be 'better' jobs, just that they aren't with CX, as most who leave are sick to the teeth with the place and management).
Well done CX management, the wheels are well and truly coming off. Failure writ large. And more to come no doubt.
Our own freighters 'on the ground' so to speak (figuratively, as that is the result of inefficient rostering, so less than optimum monthly hour averages amongst the crews), increasing numbers leaving for new jobs (they don't have to be 'better' jobs, just that they aren't with CX, as most who leave are sick to the teeth with the place and management).
Well done CX management, the wheels are well and truly coming off. Failure writ large. And more to come no doubt.
Last edited by mngmt mole; 4th May 2017 at 05:06.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX apparently is only getting 11.5hrs utilisation per day.
If they could get that up to 13, that's the equivalent of adding the 2 Atlas aircraft.
Wasn't CX a market leader for aircraft utilisation back in the good old days?
A quick search shows how out of wack CX is.
If they could get that up to 13, that's the equivalent of adding the 2 Atlas aircraft.
Wasn't CX a market leader for aircraft utilisation back in the good old days?
A quick search shows how out of wack CX is.
The Cargolux 747-400 freighters operated an average of 17:23 block hours per day, the highest utilization that the airline’s 747-400F fleet ever achieved. During the same week, the Cargolux 747-8 freighters operated an average of 16:29 block hours per day.