Polar/Atlas @ EINN
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Age: 45
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polar/Atlas @ EINN
Just received an sms from my manager while on christmas leave that Polar/Atlas have pulled out of EINN. Anyone out there able to shed more light on this?
Scissors
Scissors
EINN Closure Confirmed
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Van,
Well you can take heart as AAWH says the contract is going away on the first.
You can also take solace in the fact that the Polar money pit is causing AAWH to go down the tubes at a rapid clip. Check out the company rumor board. If it weren't for Atlas, Polar would have been dead long ago...as it stands now Polar is draging Atlas down too. No wonder GECC was so desparate to dump Polar.
Well you can take heart as AAWH says the contract is going away on the first.
You can also take solace in the fact that the Polar money pit is causing AAWH to go down the tubes at a rapid clip. Check out the company rumor board. If it weren't for Atlas, Polar would have been dead long ago...as it stands now Polar is draging Atlas down too. No wonder GECC was so desparate to dump Polar.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UTAH USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polar is the only thing keeping AAWH in business. It is not Polar that is parking aircraft and furloughing pilots. Check out the 8k filed for the period ending Sept 03. Polar had an operating profit of $113,000. Atlas had an orerating loss of 5.5 mil. If it was not for Polar, Atlas might already have shut down.
Gecas sold Polar to AAWH just before 911 when cargo was in the crapper. Since then cargo has taken off. ACMI has not.....
Gecas sold Polar to AAWH just before 911 when cargo was in the crapper. Since then cargo has taken off. ACMI has not.....
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You won't find the separate information in the 8K because "All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation." However don't get informed, just keep telling yourself that you are the hero's. Don't read the company board, Don't look at your load factors or even your loads. Can't make money with empty airplanes. Polar is directly responsible for the net loss of 81.1 million this year. That you can find in the 8K if you actually know how to read one. Most of Atlas loss is attributed to the money they paid to mechanics and ground contractors to keep Polar running. AAWH has not made a dime since they bought Polar. Polar has NEVER made money. Why do you think GECC was so anxious to dump them?
Last edited by Beaver Driver; 31st Dec 2003 at 01:34.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out the 8k filed for the period ending Sept 03. Polar had an operating profit of $113,000. Atlas had an orerating loss of 5.5 mil. If it was not for Polar, Atlas might already have shut down.
In the unaudited statement of operations in Exhibit 99.1 of that report, operating loss is stated as $742,000 for the 3 months ending 30 Sep 03, and $23,420,000 for the first 9 months of 2003. Your alleged figures don't match -- not even close -- with either of those, so there is NO WAY you could have calculated them from other figures in the report.
If you look at the fleet plan in Item 12, Section II of that 8-K, you will note that ACMI (the "Atlas" segment) is the ONLY segment of service within AAWH that is anticipated to INCREASE through the next 4 years -- both in the -200 and -400 fleets. Dry leases to 3rd parties and charters are scheduled to decrease, and Scheduled Service (the "Polar" segment) is scheduled to remain static but only after the removal of 2 airplanes from scheduled service by the end of 2003.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Deep South
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting! I have good friends at both Polar and Atlas and they are all spouting the same line. Each one blames the other for their problems. The only difference I can see is that Atlas admits they are losing money trying to keep Polar in business and Polar says they are making money and supporting Atlas. My only question would be....why is Atlas furloughing, parking aircraft and filing bankruptcy while supporting Polar? If Polar is indeed a pit into which Atlas is pouring money, wouldn't it make sense to turn that senario around? Keep the money maker and dump the loser. If Polar is going to park two aircraft at the end of 2003, we're about as close as you can get. I haven't spoken to anyone with the knowledge of that happening. It'll be interesting to see how all of this plays out, but it will surely be to the detriment of some good aircrews and that's sad.
Last edited by fr8box; 31st Dec 2003 at 06:14.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Here and There
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not to forget, that Polar has some valuable slots into Japan and other Asian Countries, which are worth a lot. Strategically, that alone could be a reason to keep Polar. (There is certainly more than one reason.)
I personally think, that AAWH wants Chapter 11 and is trying hard to get there, just to renegotiate terms & conditions with its suppliers, (i.e. Boeing) maybe including crews.
Laying off crews and the spectacular press announcements could be just a theatrical part of the effort to archieve that goal. (Now I'm playing devil's advocate, but the discussion about the dubious management culture in AAWH is not new either.)
I hope that the Lay-Off of those, who have been affected, will not last long....The cargo market outlook seems not to be that bad after all...
Best wishes
Avius
I personally think, that AAWH wants Chapter 11 and is trying hard to get there, just to renegotiate terms & conditions with its suppliers, (i.e. Boeing) maybe including crews.
Laying off crews and the spectacular press announcements could be just a theatrical part of the effort to archieve that goal. (Now I'm playing devil's advocate, but the discussion about the dubious management culture in AAWH is not new either.)
I hope that the Lay-Off of those, who have been affected, will not last long....The cargo market outlook seems not to be that bad after all...
Best wishes
Avius
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: California US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that Atlas is being 'drained' financially by Polar is not supported by facts.
Atlas is WET-leasing several planes to POLAR, flying POLAR routes and flight numbers, all over the world. In only a few instances are Atlas flight numbers being operated by Polar aircraft and crews- the only ones I have heard of are some South American flying that Polar was doing before AAWH bought it, anyway.
Polar is not wet-leasing ANY planes TO Atlas, which would be happening if Polar was a 'big drain' to that firm, and if it was the Polar business model that was obsolete. In fact, Polar is DRY-leasing a -400, N496MC, along with 2 (sometimes 3) -300's (N354MC, N355MC) FROM AAWH that would have to be parked if not for the Polar lease payments.
AAWH mgt. can post all of the financials and press releases they like; we have seen their credibility be destroyed with past lies about profits to Wall Street. No one with any smarts believes what comes out of Purchase any more. This is reflected in AAWH's stock price, which thanks to the utterly inept post-Chowdry management and obsolete business model is in the toilet.
It's true that Polar was in dire financial straits when Atlas purchased it. However, this quickly ended with 9/11 and the huge amount of military charter flying Polar did. This was more that enough to sustain Polar as a going concern until the Asian/South American markets' tonnages came back. It was the Air Force (and sadly, 9/11), that saved Polar, NOT AAWH.
AAWH's ACMI/outsourcing is virtually dead. Chowdry blew it by flaunting his profits in the face of his customers, such as China Air, etc. (i.e. the ridiculous BBJ purchase). Atlas has little to offer nowadays except a lot of leased airplanes to charter. Now that Chowdry is dead, AAWH management are simply trying to squeeze Polar like a lemon, to weave their 'golden parachutes' for the all but inevitable bankruptcy/liquidation to follow.
Not surprisingly, caught in the middle of this are a lot of decent employees at both airlines of AAWH...but since it's common in the US for mgt. to be rewarded for destroying companies, and to pit employee groups against one another, the 'forecast calls for pain'...!
TT.
Atlas is WET-leasing several planes to POLAR, flying POLAR routes and flight numbers, all over the world. In only a few instances are Atlas flight numbers being operated by Polar aircraft and crews- the only ones I have heard of are some South American flying that Polar was doing before AAWH bought it, anyway.
Polar is not wet-leasing ANY planes TO Atlas, which would be happening if Polar was a 'big drain' to that firm, and if it was the Polar business model that was obsolete. In fact, Polar is DRY-leasing a -400, N496MC, along with 2 (sometimes 3) -300's (N354MC, N355MC) FROM AAWH that would have to be parked if not for the Polar lease payments.
AAWH mgt. can post all of the financials and press releases they like; we have seen their credibility be destroyed with past lies about profits to Wall Street. No one with any smarts believes what comes out of Purchase any more. This is reflected in AAWH's stock price, which thanks to the utterly inept post-Chowdry management and obsolete business model is in the toilet.
It's true that Polar was in dire financial straits when Atlas purchased it. However, this quickly ended with 9/11 and the huge amount of military charter flying Polar did. This was more that enough to sustain Polar as a going concern until the Asian/South American markets' tonnages came back. It was the Air Force (and sadly, 9/11), that saved Polar, NOT AAWH.
AAWH's ACMI/outsourcing is virtually dead. Chowdry blew it by flaunting his profits in the face of his customers, such as China Air, etc. (i.e. the ridiculous BBJ purchase). Atlas has little to offer nowadays except a lot of leased airplanes to charter. Now that Chowdry is dead, AAWH management are simply trying to squeeze Polar like a lemon, to weave their 'golden parachutes' for the all but inevitable bankruptcy/liquidation to follow.
Not surprisingly, caught in the middle of this are a lot of decent employees at both airlines of AAWH...but since it's common in the US for mgt. to be rewarded for destroying companies, and to pit employee groups against one another, the 'forecast calls for pain'...!
TT.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, this quickly ended with 9/11 and the huge amount of military charter flying Polar did. This was more that enough to sustain Polar as a going concern until the Asian/South American markets' tonnages came back.
The mere fact that Polar is doing a lot of flying does NOT imply they are profitable. Polar opened several new routes in 2003 on speculation, and the tonnages have NOT been enough to make them profitable overall. Further, their continuing direct competition with Pacific Air Cargo (Ned Wallace and Connie Kalitta working with Betti Ward) through HNL is not likely to produce profits in the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atlas Had Understated Its Operating Losses
AIR CARGO WORLD (magazine): "...Troubled Atlas Doubles Losses...
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings did not enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as planned last month, but that was hardly because of good financial news at the world's largest operator of 747 freighters. With its books still under scrutiny, Atlas postponed its bankruptcy filing until February, saying it needs more time to negotiate new deals with creditors because its financial results for 2003 will be "significantly below" previous estimates.
The beleaguered carrier had projected in September that its 2003 net loss would be $16.7 million. But Atlas now says its net loss for the year will be $71.6 million, more than double its 2002 net loss.
"As a result, the company has revised its business plan to reflect these recent actual results and modified its projections of future operating results accordingly," Atlas said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "The company is currently in discussions with its major creditors and lessors with a view to obtaining their agreement to the payment reductions and deferrals and fleet reductions contemplated by the revised business plan."
Atlas attributes its "shortfall" to lower than anticipated military charters; lower than expected scheduled service revenue "due to an industry wide delay in seasonal peak demand"; and rising jet fuel prices.
It now says it will operate 42 aircraft in the future, eight fewer than outlined in its September business plan.
The struggling company is planning to file for a "prepackaged bankruptcy," meaning it would file for Chapter 11 protection with debt payment reductions and deferrals already negotiated. Rather than thrashing out such deals with lessors and creditors, Atlas plans to ask for the court's approval of an already negotiated plan when it files for bankruptcy protection on February 1.
But Atlas adds that "no assurance can be given" that it will successfully hammer out a prepackaged filing. Failure to reach such an accord may lead to "other actions, which may include ceasing operations, or selling assets for the benefit of its creditors," Atlas said in its filing.
Atlas' future financial obligations are daunting. Its long-term debt totals $930.6 million and it owes a combined $3.7 billion in aircraft lease payments through 2025.
The debts have grown as Atlas' core business of outsourced, "wet lease" flying for other airlines has withered, pushing the airline to seek other sources of revenue, including sales to forwarders...."
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings did not enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as planned last month, but that was hardly because of good financial news at the world's largest operator of 747 freighters. With its books still under scrutiny, Atlas postponed its bankruptcy filing until February, saying it needs more time to negotiate new deals with creditors because its financial results for 2003 will be "significantly below" previous estimates.
The beleaguered carrier had projected in September that its 2003 net loss would be $16.7 million. But Atlas now says its net loss for the year will be $71.6 million, more than double its 2002 net loss.
"As a result, the company has revised its business plan to reflect these recent actual results and modified its projections of future operating results accordingly," Atlas said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "The company is currently in discussions with its major creditors and lessors with a view to obtaining their agreement to the payment reductions and deferrals and fleet reductions contemplated by the revised business plan."
Atlas attributes its "shortfall" to lower than anticipated military charters; lower than expected scheduled service revenue "due to an industry wide delay in seasonal peak demand"; and rising jet fuel prices.
It now says it will operate 42 aircraft in the future, eight fewer than outlined in its September business plan.
The struggling company is planning to file for a "prepackaged bankruptcy," meaning it would file for Chapter 11 protection with debt payment reductions and deferrals already negotiated. Rather than thrashing out such deals with lessors and creditors, Atlas plans to ask for the court's approval of an already negotiated plan when it files for bankruptcy protection on February 1.
But Atlas adds that "no assurance can be given" that it will successfully hammer out a prepackaged filing. Failure to reach such an accord may lead to "other actions, which may include ceasing operations, or selling assets for the benefit of its creditors," Atlas said in its filing.
Atlas' future financial obligations are daunting. Its long-term debt totals $930.6 million and it owes a combined $3.7 billion in aircraft lease payments through 2025.
The debts have grown as Atlas' core business of outsourced, "wet lease" flying for other airlines has withered, pushing the airline to seek other sources of revenue, including sales to forwarders...."
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously Beaver Driver, and without picking sides here, if as you say "Polar is directly responsible for the net loss of 81.1 million this year" why is Atlas Air parking 9 airplanes and furloughing 140 or so crewmembers?
I really don't know if Atlas Air lost more than Polar Air or vice versa, but I would think that if Polar was responsible for the loss you account them for, one would think that AAWH would park Polar's airplanes and furlough their pilots.....unless, of course, management has decided to rape both companies and leave with their pockets as full as possible, as soon as possible
Pat
I really don't know if Atlas Air lost more than Polar Air or vice versa, but I would think that if Polar was responsible for the loss you account them for, one would think that AAWH would park Polar's airplanes and furlough their pilots.....unless, of course, management has decided to rape both companies and leave with their pockets as full as possible, as soon as possible
Pat
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostly comes from company responses to the question -has Polar ever made any money? The response was no. Also comes from a summer time meeting where the reported year loss for Polar was 40 million (admittedly before the re-audit and updated numbers in Sept) and the loss for Atlas was 8 million. They said the Atlas loss was mostly due to the fact that ,while Atlas couldn't "officially" transfer money to Polar, they could pay all of their mechanic contractors and other ground contractors. Thus Atlas has been supporting Polar. Information also comes from my own observations of hearing Polar flights takeoff that were empty or nearly so.
The reason Atlas is having to park airplanes instead of Polar is simple. Polar has a route structure that they have to maintain even if they are losing money. This is called "developing a market." The trade off (and there are always trade offs in economics) comes at Atlas expense. The opportunity costs to Atlas management apparantly currently favor Polar. It is not however because they have made so much money, or even that they might make money. They are simply one segment of a business model. It is currently easier for management to park Atlas airplanes than to go out and get new ACMI contracts in that shrinking market.
The thing that really upsets Atlas pilots is that they had a 600 million surplus of cash prior to buying Polar. Now Atlas is way in the hole. Polar was bought using Atlas pilots profit sharing. The Tokyo rights that they are so proud of don't mean a hill of beans if you aren't hauling any cargo there. They truly don't mean all that much anyway.
The reason Atlas is having to park airplanes instead of Polar is simple. Polar has a route structure that they have to maintain even if they are losing money. This is called "developing a market." The trade off (and there are always trade offs in economics) comes at Atlas expense. The opportunity costs to Atlas management apparantly currently favor Polar. It is not however because they have made so much money, or even that they might make money. They are simply one segment of a business model. It is currently easier for management to park Atlas airplanes than to go out and get new ACMI contracts in that shrinking market.
The thing that really upsets Atlas pilots is that they had a 600 million surplus of cash prior to buying Polar. Now Atlas is way in the hole. Polar was bought using Atlas pilots profit sharing. The Tokyo rights that they are so proud of don't mean a hill of beans if you aren't hauling any cargo there. They truly don't mean all that much anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still doesn't make much sense to me. The simple fact that as you say it is easier to continue to have Polar fly their own routes than have Atlas Air look for new ACMI contracts tells me that Atlas Air does not have enough ACMI contracts for the amount of airplanes they have or simply can't seem to lock in any more contracts, therefore Atlas Air must be losing a pretty good amount of money simply in lease payments and very low utilization.
How many ACMI contracts does Atlas Air currently operate? Who is their biggest customer?
I any case, if I understand you correctly, Polar is draining Atlas Air. Then if AAWH was to get rid of Polar, Atlas Air would come back to profitability.
1/ Allow me to be skeptical about that because I don't see the ACMI market exploding anytime soon.
2/ Why doesn't management get rid of Polar NOW??
Pat
How many ACMI contracts does Atlas Air currently operate? Who is their biggest customer?
I any case, if I understand you correctly, Polar is draining Atlas Air. Then if AAWH was to get rid of Polar, Atlas Air would come back to profitability.
1/ Allow me to be skeptical about that because I don't see the ACMI market exploding anytime soon.
2/ Why doesn't management get rid of Polar NOW??
Pat
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heil,
No I didn't say it was easier for AAWH to allow Polar to continue. I said that if they wanted to develop a market they HAD to allow Polar to continue to fly while losing money. This is basic economics of developing a market. Unfortunately while they are doing this they ARE draining Atlas. Granted ACMI is not profitable right now, but it was. And the money Atlas set aside, as well as the previous years profit sharing, has all gone to support Polar instead of supporting Atlas in the lean times.
I never claimed that ACMI was great or that Atlas business model was a current money maker. What I did say was that the Polar guys claims that they are "supporting Atlas" are pure horse puckey. Atlas and ACMI are currently losing LESS money than Polar and the scheduled flying. Atlas is paying for Polars ground contractors (and not doing that very well either). However, AAWH can't park Polar aircraft because that would make it really hard to complete their schedules and thus develop the markets that they are trying so hard to serve. So maybe in this respect it is easier to park the ACMI aircraft of Atlas, than the scheduled Polar aircraft....but easy always comes with a cost - in this case the cost is the furlough of Atlas pilots.
Polar has NEVER made money. Not once in their history. They didn't make money when they were on Southern Air's Certificate and they are not making money now. One only has to listen to the radios when they depart a major base and hear how little cargo they are carrying to understand that this is true. Many times I have heard "Payload ZERO." Where is the sales department? Can't find one in my city. 747's dont fly for free. Zero payload = Zero revenue - Fixed costs. ....seems like the AAWH (or Polar) sales department would be working 24/7 to keep ANY revenue on the aircraft to at least offset the fixed costs.
I agree that Atlas should dump Polar. I know they have tried several times and actually might have had a buyer last March.
Having said all of this, let me say that it is not the hard working Polar pilots or ground staff that are the problem. The cause of AAWH current woes is a management that insists on doing battle with it's employees rather than concentrating on business. These guys are not only inept, they are driving the companies apart and into the ground while paying themselves big retention bonuses. Unfortunately the majority of the pilots at both companies are too short sighted to see it.
I only wish the Polar guys could see this and stop with their "We are saving Atlas" rhetoric.
No I didn't say it was easier for AAWH to allow Polar to continue. I said that if they wanted to develop a market they HAD to allow Polar to continue to fly while losing money. This is basic economics of developing a market. Unfortunately while they are doing this they ARE draining Atlas. Granted ACMI is not profitable right now, but it was. And the money Atlas set aside, as well as the previous years profit sharing, has all gone to support Polar instead of supporting Atlas in the lean times.
I never claimed that ACMI was great or that Atlas business model was a current money maker. What I did say was that the Polar guys claims that they are "supporting Atlas" are pure horse puckey. Atlas and ACMI are currently losing LESS money than Polar and the scheduled flying. Atlas is paying for Polars ground contractors (and not doing that very well either). However, AAWH can't park Polar aircraft because that would make it really hard to complete their schedules and thus develop the markets that they are trying so hard to serve. So maybe in this respect it is easier to park the ACMI aircraft of Atlas, than the scheduled Polar aircraft....but easy always comes with a cost - in this case the cost is the furlough of Atlas pilots.
Polar has NEVER made money. Not once in their history. They didn't make money when they were on Southern Air's Certificate and they are not making money now. One only has to listen to the radios when they depart a major base and hear how little cargo they are carrying to understand that this is true. Many times I have heard "Payload ZERO." Where is the sales department? Can't find one in my city. 747's dont fly for free. Zero payload = Zero revenue - Fixed costs. ....seems like the AAWH (or Polar) sales department would be working 24/7 to keep ANY revenue on the aircraft to at least offset the fixed costs.
I agree that Atlas should dump Polar. I know they have tried several times and actually might have had a buyer last March.
Having said all of this, let me say that it is not the hard working Polar pilots or ground staff that are the problem. The cause of AAWH current woes is a management that insists on doing battle with it's employees rather than concentrating on business. These guys are not only inept, they are driving the companies apart and into the ground while paying themselves big retention bonuses. Unfortunately the majority of the pilots at both companies are too short sighted to see it.
I only wish the Polar guys could see this and stop with their "We are saving Atlas" rhetoric.
Last edited by Beaver Driver; 6th Jan 2004 at 16:02.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: California US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD sez:
"Granted ACMI is not profitable right now, but it was."
Sorry, but 'was' is hardly relevant in business. It's NOW that matters.
BD sez:
"And the money Atlas set aside, as well as the previous years profit sharing, has all gone to support Polar instead of supporting Atlas in the lean times. "
Heh. I wonder how much of that 'set-aside' money went to buy Chowdry's BBJ and the toy jet trainer he whacked in? OK, I'll tell you...around $40,000,000 for the BBJ, and $2,500,000 for the L-59 (list prices). That's a lotta 'profit sharing' money down the tubes!
Your assertion that Polar has been 'supported' by Atlas is, as you so eloquently put it, 'horse puckey'. Polar already HAD the markets and routes that Atlas is happily flying with its WET-LEASED airplanes. Polar did NOT need the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH to 'develop' these markets. The markets came back all by themselves after the economies of the nations being served improved post 9-11, just like the econ textbooks tell us.
If these are such terrible markets, then why, pray tell, does Atlas WET-LEASE planes to Polar to fly them? Surely not because the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH like to lose money, or are running a jobs program for Atlas crews!
BD sez:
"Atlas and ACMI are currently losing LESS money than Polar and the scheduled flying."
Perhaps you could back up your statements with figures that show how much 'less profitable' the scheduled flying that Atlas wet-lease aircraft are doing for Polar is than ACMI.
The ACMI flying that Atlas is doing may very well be profitable. However, the FACT is there's not enough of it to support the Atlas fleet. This is why AAWH needs to fly Polar freight with wet leases, otherwise several ATLAS planes would be grounded and hundreds of crew laid off. The Polar 'Albatross', with its valuable ROUTES, is the ONLY reason these planes and crews have jobs right now. I say again, all politics aside, if this were not the case, it would be Polar planes wet-leased to Atlas, not the other way round.
BD sez:
"Atlas is paying for Polars ground contractors (and not doing that very well either). However, AAWH can't park Polar aircraft because that would make it really hard to complete their schedules and thus develop the markets that they are trying so hard to serve."
Again, you imply that the AAWH marketing and management geniuses needed to 'develop' markets that already had been served well by Polar, when what ACTUALLY was needed was for the shipper's numbers to improve. Polar ALWAYS had the lift, and ALWAYS had the ROUTES...BEFORE AAWH came on the scene. What was lacking was the freight, which the national economies of the SHIPPERS gave us...not the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH.
BD sez:
"So maybe in this respect it is easier to park the ACMI aircraft of Atlas, than the scheduled Polar aircraft....but easy always comes with a cost - in this case the cost is the furlough of Atlas pilots."
Ah. Now we're getting to the real meat of your trouble with Polar, the possible furlough of Atlas pilots. Well, since AAWH can't simply transfer Polar routes to Atlas (though in effect they have been, illegally, with the wet-lease fiasco) and that the AAWH ACMI business model is OBSOLETE, then it follows mgt. might resort to furloughs. The same thing was to happen at Polar before the Air Force saved it, post-9/11.
It's quite likely that Chowdry intended to liquidate Polar after he took over the route authorities- but the involved regulatory organizations wouldn't let him, particularly the Japanese. Perhaps he didn't do his research, or maybe his political clout might have made it happen. But it's irrelevant now.
BD sez:
"Polar has NEVER made money. Not once in their history."
Again, some facts, figures, cites? This would really help when you make blanket statements like this.
BD sez:
"They didn't make money when they were on Southern Air's Certificate and they are not making money now. One only has to listen to the radios when they depart a major base and hear how little cargo they are carrying to understand that this is true. Many times I have heard "Payload ZERO."
Polar was a STARTUP when they were on Southern Air's ticket. How many businesses start up in the black- particularly nonsked airlines?
As for your nonsensical 'Payload ZERO' claim, I can only surmise these were MILITARY flights you were listening to...in which case this is a non-starter, since the Air Force pays the same whether the plane's full or empty. Sure, we take off empty sometimes...SYD or MEL-HKG is one regular one, but the loads at the other end more than make up for it these days.
In the last 2 months, I've not departed a station for overseas with less than 70,000k on board, or otherwise bulked out. Granted, it's the 'holiday season' of larger-than-normal loads, but these are hardly indications of an operation that's not financially viable.
BD sez:
"Where is the sales department? Can't find one in my city. 747's dont fly for free. Zero payload = Zero revenue - Fixed costs. ....seems like the AAWH (or Polar) sales department would be working 24/7 to keep ANY revenue on the aircraft to at least offset the fixed costs."
See above.
BD sez:
"I agree that Atlas should dump Polar. I know they have tried several times and actually might have had a buyer last March."
Lord, how I wish that would happen. Out of all the 'outfits' that could have bought Polar, Chowdry's AAWH was, and still is, at the very bottom of my list (no offense meant to the Atlas crews, as they're along for the ride like the rest of us).
At least Connie and Ned, bastards though they are, actually want to run a freight airline. Who knows what the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH want to do from one day to the next? As it stands, many of them have been run off by the SEC and Wall Street, feathering their nests the whole way, and weaving golden parachutes in the gold-plated Purchase office towers. Perhaps this is where more of the 'set-aside' profit-sharing money went, rather than 'propping up' Polar?
BD sez:
"Having said all of this, let me say that it is not the hard working Polar pilots or ground staff that are the problem. The cause of AAWH current woes is a management that insists on doing battle with it's employees rather than concentrating on business. These guys are not only inept, they are driving the companies apart and into the ground while paying themselves big retention bonuses. Unfortunately the majority of the pilots at both companies are too short sighted to see it.
I only wish the Polar guys could see this and stop with their "We are saving Atlas" rhetoric."
Speaking for myself, I hardly think Polar is 'saving Atlas'. That's the very LAST thing I thought about on my last flight of 2003 (with over 112k of cargo, I might add).
However, blaming the acquisition of Polar for AAWH' obsolete business model, stock market shenanigans, and the resulting AAWH financial meltdown is not logical. When Polar starts wet-leasing to Atlas to cover AAWH ACMI flying, then your assertions might hold water. For now, they don't.
TT
"Granted ACMI is not profitable right now, but it was."
Sorry, but 'was' is hardly relevant in business. It's NOW that matters.
BD sez:
"And the money Atlas set aside, as well as the previous years profit sharing, has all gone to support Polar instead of supporting Atlas in the lean times. "
Heh. I wonder how much of that 'set-aside' money went to buy Chowdry's BBJ and the toy jet trainer he whacked in? OK, I'll tell you...around $40,000,000 for the BBJ, and $2,500,000 for the L-59 (list prices). That's a lotta 'profit sharing' money down the tubes!
Your assertion that Polar has been 'supported' by Atlas is, as you so eloquently put it, 'horse puckey'. Polar already HAD the markets and routes that Atlas is happily flying with its WET-LEASED airplanes. Polar did NOT need the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH to 'develop' these markets. The markets came back all by themselves after the economies of the nations being served improved post 9-11, just like the econ textbooks tell us.
If these are such terrible markets, then why, pray tell, does Atlas WET-LEASE planes to Polar to fly them? Surely not because the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH like to lose money, or are running a jobs program for Atlas crews!
BD sez:
"Atlas and ACMI are currently losing LESS money than Polar and the scheduled flying."
Perhaps you could back up your statements with figures that show how much 'less profitable' the scheduled flying that Atlas wet-lease aircraft are doing for Polar is than ACMI.
The ACMI flying that Atlas is doing may very well be profitable. However, the FACT is there's not enough of it to support the Atlas fleet. This is why AAWH needs to fly Polar freight with wet leases, otherwise several ATLAS planes would be grounded and hundreds of crew laid off. The Polar 'Albatross', with its valuable ROUTES, is the ONLY reason these planes and crews have jobs right now. I say again, all politics aside, if this were not the case, it would be Polar planes wet-leased to Atlas, not the other way round.
BD sez:
"Atlas is paying for Polars ground contractors (and not doing that very well either). However, AAWH can't park Polar aircraft because that would make it really hard to complete their schedules and thus develop the markets that they are trying so hard to serve."
Again, you imply that the AAWH marketing and management geniuses needed to 'develop' markets that already had been served well by Polar, when what ACTUALLY was needed was for the shipper's numbers to improve. Polar ALWAYS had the lift, and ALWAYS had the ROUTES...BEFORE AAWH came on the scene. What was lacking was the freight, which the national economies of the SHIPPERS gave us...not the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH.
BD sez:
"So maybe in this respect it is easier to park the ACMI aircraft of Atlas, than the scheduled Polar aircraft....but easy always comes with a cost - in this case the cost is the furlough of Atlas pilots."
Ah. Now we're getting to the real meat of your trouble with Polar, the possible furlough of Atlas pilots. Well, since AAWH can't simply transfer Polar routes to Atlas (though in effect they have been, illegally, with the wet-lease fiasco) and that the AAWH ACMI business model is OBSOLETE, then it follows mgt. might resort to furloughs. The same thing was to happen at Polar before the Air Force saved it, post-9/11.
It's quite likely that Chowdry intended to liquidate Polar after he took over the route authorities- but the involved regulatory organizations wouldn't let him, particularly the Japanese. Perhaps he didn't do his research, or maybe his political clout might have made it happen. But it's irrelevant now.
BD sez:
"Polar has NEVER made money. Not once in their history."
Again, some facts, figures, cites? This would really help when you make blanket statements like this.
BD sez:
"They didn't make money when they were on Southern Air's Certificate and they are not making money now. One only has to listen to the radios when they depart a major base and hear how little cargo they are carrying to understand that this is true. Many times I have heard "Payload ZERO."
Polar was a STARTUP when they were on Southern Air's ticket. How many businesses start up in the black- particularly nonsked airlines?
As for your nonsensical 'Payload ZERO' claim, I can only surmise these were MILITARY flights you were listening to...in which case this is a non-starter, since the Air Force pays the same whether the plane's full or empty. Sure, we take off empty sometimes...SYD or MEL-HKG is one regular one, but the loads at the other end more than make up for it these days.
In the last 2 months, I've not departed a station for overseas with less than 70,000k on board, or otherwise bulked out. Granted, it's the 'holiday season' of larger-than-normal loads, but these are hardly indications of an operation that's not financially viable.
BD sez:
"Where is the sales department? Can't find one in my city. 747's dont fly for free. Zero payload = Zero revenue - Fixed costs. ....seems like the AAWH (or Polar) sales department would be working 24/7 to keep ANY revenue on the aircraft to at least offset the fixed costs."
See above.
BD sez:
"I agree that Atlas should dump Polar. I know they have tried several times and actually might have had a buyer last March."
Lord, how I wish that would happen. Out of all the 'outfits' that could have bought Polar, Chowdry's AAWH was, and still is, at the very bottom of my list (no offense meant to the Atlas crews, as they're along for the ride like the rest of us).
At least Connie and Ned, bastards though they are, actually want to run a freight airline. Who knows what the marketing and management geniuses at AAWH want to do from one day to the next? As it stands, many of them have been run off by the SEC and Wall Street, feathering their nests the whole way, and weaving golden parachutes in the gold-plated Purchase office towers. Perhaps this is where more of the 'set-aside' profit-sharing money went, rather than 'propping up' Polar?
BD sez:
"Having said all of this, let me say that it is not the hard working Polar pilots or ground staff that are the problem. The cause of AAWH current woes is a management that insists on doing battle with it's employees rather than concentrating on business. These guys are not only inept, they are driving the companies apart and into the ground while paying themselves big retention bonuses. Unfortunately the majority of the pilots at both companies are too short sighted to see it.
I only wish the Polar guys could see this and stop with their "We are saving Atlas" rhetoric."
Speaking for myself, I hardly think Polar is 'saving Atlas'. That's the very LAST thing I thought about on my last flight of 2003 (with over 112k of cargo, I might add).
However, blaming the acquisition of Polar for AAWH' obsolete business model, stock market shenanigans, and the resulting AAWH financial meltdown is not logical. When Polar starts wet-leasing to Atlas to cover AAWH ACMI flying, then your assertions might hold water. For now, they don't.
TT