BA/ATLAS/AACS STN-ATL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: southern calif.
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA/ATLAS/AACS STN-ATL
From the tuesday edition of www.justplanes.com, notice that BA will start sevice from stanstead to atlanta. Who will be doing this? AACS crews, increasing sevice while Atlas mainline crews sit on furlough? Heard that AACS crews are being asked to sell back their days off and getting minimum time at home. What gives here? Any AACS crews out there?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A slip trench near you !
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Party Reptile
I don't quite see your point.Is it the fact that AACS is a subsidiary or that Brit pilots are operating into the States.Do you feel we should all stick to our home turf ?If so there'd be a lot more going home West bound than coming back U.K. side.Also while I have the opportunity to ask, does anybody know where GSS are going to fit into all of this?
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: JiveBomber ]
I don't quite see your point.Is it the fact that AACS is a subsidiary or that Brit pilots are operating into the States.Do you feel we should all stick to our home turf ?If so there'd be a lot more going home West bound than coming back U.K. side.Also while I have the opportunity to ask, does anybody know where GSS are going to fit into all of this?
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: JiveBomber ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor, what an insulting, racist post. You should not use derogatory racist remarks like that in an international Forum like this. I don't know where you think you are coming from referring to a very good ally of the free world in such a manner. Perhaps you are overposting so violently now that you are out of all self control. I note you have gone from 2490 to 2509 in no time at all. We missed our barbeque! But in the meantime, I am complaining about the racialist overtones of your posting.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn
gov
do we really have to go thru this discussion again, or are you just looking for someone to blame for the incompetent handling of your own airline, which has yet to turn a fan. Me-thinks you are setting the stage for the time when your investors come looking for results. Then you can blame the big bad United States for ALL of your problems. YOU....are the weakest link bye bye.
gov
do we really have to go thru this discussion again, or are you just looking for someone to blame for the incompetent handling of your own airline, which has yet to turn a fan. Me-thinks you are setting the stage for the time when your investors come looking for results. Then you can blame the big bad United States for ALL of your problems. YOU....are the weakest link bye bye.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Notso Fantastic, dear chap! I had the steaks and wors on the braai ready to go along with Castles and Ohlsons chilling in the fridge; tried to contact you to provide details but you appear to have neglected to include your email address in your profile and have me on ignore when I tried to pm you!! Surely some mistake, as you seem to respond to rather a lot of my posts! 
However, I'm really rather concerned here as you appear to equate nationality with race. Surely, as an alleged B747 captain, you know the difference? And furthermore, as an alleged 747 captain, I'm sure you'd be rather concerned to know that there are foreign pilots potentially about to take away your job - if the IPA and people like myself and many others don't do something about it!
Beaver Driver - sorry mate, but this is an issue that I'm going to keep responding to until the US government decides to work off a level playing field. Equally, you can't complain about British (AACS) crews still flying ex UK as it's their home territory, not yours.
It has nothing to do with my own operation - though I would like to be able to wet lease aircraft to US carriers without having to go through a US Certificate Holder which costs a fortune (and which has to either be added onto the cost of the aircraft, making us uncompetitive; or swallowed by us and reducing our already slim margins).
If you Yanks played by the same rules as the rest of the world, that wouldn't be an issue!
I still haven't been able to work out why it is you do it - sure as heck isn't for safety or security reasons, with many US airports being insecure and the FAA's maintenance oversight and aircrew licencing practices highly questionable when compared to those in Europe.
Diplomat - they do, sort of. They lease to Ryan International, which provides the crews (all of whom I understand have to be green card holders or US nationals). It seems to be more a dry lease of aircraft rather than a full wet lease as it would be elsewhere.
This is an interesting link to the issues currently prevailing on Bermuda II:
Bermuda II - Government's Response to DETR Report
Pertinent paragraph is: The Government agrees that the US rules prohibiting the wet leasing of non-US aircraft within their domestic market are anti-competitive and protectionist, and it will continue to press the US to rescind those rules. However, it would require US legislation to allow wet leasing by UK airlines in a form which is commercially attractive to potential US lessees, and so this could not be delivered in an early preliminary deal. In our recent informal discussions with the US we offered a deal very close to that recommended by the Committee — liberalisation of the all-cargo market by summer 2002 — provided that, by that time, the US Government had legislated to allow UK airlines to wet-lease to US airlines to the same extent as US carriers (such as Atlas Air) currently wet-lease to UK airlines. The US Government said that they were not interested in such a deal. The Government notes that US carriers are permitted wet lease into the UK domestic market, subject to certain constraints imposed by EU Regulations.
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
However, I'm really rather concerned here as you appear to equate nationality with race. Surely, as an alleged B747 captain, you know the difference? And furthermore, as an alleged 747 captain, I'm sure you'd be rather concerned to know that there are foreign pilots potentially about to take away your job - if the IPA and people like myself and many others don't do something about it!
Beaver Driver - sorry mate, but this is an issue that I'm going to keep responding to until the US government decides to work off a level playing field. Equally, you can't complain about British (AACS) crews still flying ex UK as it's their home territory, not yours.
It has nothing to do with my own operation - though I would like to be able to wet lease aircraft to US carriers without having to go through a US Certificate Holder which costs a fortune (and which has to either be added onto the cost of the aircraft, making us uncompetitive; or swallowed by us and reducing our already slim margins).
If you Yanks played by the same rules as the rest of the world, that wouldn't be an issue!
I still haven't been able to work out why it is you do it - sure as heck isn't for safety or security reasons, with many US airports being insecure and the FAA's maintenance oversight and aircrew licencing practices highly questionable when compared to those in Europe.
Diplomat - they do, sort of. They lease to Ryan International, which provides the crews (all of whom I understand have to be green card holders or US nationals). It seems to be more a dry lease of aircraft rather than a full wet lease as it would be elsewhere.
This is an interesting link to the issues currently prevailing on Bermuda II:
Bermuda II - Government's Response to DETR Report
Pertinent paragraph is: The Government agrees that the US rules prohibiting the wet leasing of non-US aircraft within their domestic market are anti-competitive and protectionist, and it will continue to press the US to rescind those rules. However, it would require US legislation to allow wet leasing by UK airlines in a form which is commercially attractive to potential US lessees, and so this could not be delivered in an early preliminary deal. In our recent informal discussions with the US we offered a deal very close to that recommended by the Committee — liberalisation of the all-cargo market by summer 2002 — provided that, by that time, the US Government had legislated to allow UK airlines to wet-lease to US airlines to the same extent as US carriers (such as Atlas Air) currently wet-lease to UK airlines. The US Government said that they were not interested in such a deal. The Government notes that US carriers are permitted wet lease into the UK domestic market, subject to certain constraints imposed by EU Regulations.
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK gov
Once again because you really don't seem to get it. The UK does not allow wet leasing within it's borders so why should we allow you to wet lease in the US? Do you think we are that stupid. There would be no reciprocity, as your market is not something we are interested in especially not with the restrictions imposed.
How can you wet lease without going thru another certificate holder???? You clearly have no concept of a wet lease. Further, as I have pointed out in many posts before, (do a search if you have to) it is the UK government who is the roadblock to the open skies agreements, not the US.
For example, here is an article from 3 years ago, discussing a bill in the US Congress:
Washington – With the United States and British representatives scheduled Monday to begin negotiations on aviation treaties, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Minority Member Jim Oberstar today introduced legislation which directs negotiators to make substantial progess on opening access for U.S. air carriers to the restricted U.K. market and imposes harsh penalties if no progress is made.
“Unfortunately, with one of our biggest allies, Great Britain, we have one of the most restrictive bilateral agreements,” Shuster said. “Under the current agreement, the British hold dominant rights to air travel between the two countries. To illustrate that point, British Airways, one of the two British carriers serving the United States, is allowed to fly more routes to the U.S. than all U.S. carriers can fly to the U.K. combined. This is not fair and it must change.”
Shuster said that the point of his legislation was not to impose penalties, but rather to encourage the British government to open up more U.S flights to the United Kingdom.
Shuster’s bill seeks to achieve the following:
The bill mandates that the United States and United Kingdom come to an agreement that would grant all applications U.S. carriers currently have filed with the Department of Transportation for route access to the United Kingdom.
The bill also mandates more access to Heathrow International Airport for U.S. carriers that do not currently have access to this airport.
If this agreement is not reached within six months of the bill’s passage, the Secretary of Transportation is directed to revoke all current slots and slot exemptions held by British air carriers at Chicago O’Hare and New York Kennedy airports. In addition, if the United States and United Kingdom do not reach an Open Skies agreement within one year of the bill’s passage, the bill mandates renunciation of the current United States-United Kingdom bilateral agreement.
Shuster noted that the United States has “Open Skies” agreements with over 36 countries which are either being phased in or have been completed. Open Skies agreements allow a free market in air service in which airlines can fly where they want.
It appears to me that the hold up is the Crowns refusal to allow U.S. carriers to obtain economically viable landing and takeoff slots at the two London airports (particularly Heathrow). And still you want us to open up our airspace so you can wet lease intra-US when your government won't even allow us slots into your airports to fly international. Come on gov, get a clue....do we really seem that naive to you!
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]
Once again because you really don't seem to get it. The UK does not allow wet leasing within it's borders so why should we allow you to wet lease in the US? Do you think we are that stupid. There would be no reciprocity, as your market is not something we are interested in especially not with the restrictions imposed.
How can you wet lease without going thru another certificate holder???? You clearly have no concept of a wet lease. Further, as I have pointed out in many posts before, (do a search if you have to) it is the UK government who is the roadblock to the open skies agreements, not the US.
For example, here is an article from 3 years ago, discussing a bill in the US Congress:
Washington – With the United States and British representatives scheduled Monday to begin negotiations on aviation treaties, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Minority Member Jim Oberstar today introduced legislation which directs negotiators to make substantial progess on opening access for U.S. air carriers to the restricted U.K. market and imposes harsh penalties if no progress is made.
“Unfortunately, with one of our biggest allies, Great Britain, we have one of the most restrictive bilateral agreements,” Shuster said. “Under the current agreement, the British hold dominant rights to air travel between the two countries. To illustrate that point, British Airways, one of the two British carriers serving the United States, is allowed to fly more routes to the U.S. than all U.S. carriers can fly to the U.K. combined. This is not fair and it must change.”
Shuster said that the point of his legislation was not to impose penalties, but rather to encourage the British government to open up more U.S flights to the United Kingdom.
Shuster’s bill seeks to achieve the following:
The bill mandates that the United States and United Kingdom come to an agreement that would grant all applications U.S. carriers currently have filed with the Department of Transportation for route access to the United Kingdom.
The bill also mandates more access to Heathrow International Airport for U.S. carriers that do not currently have access to this airport.
If this agreement is not reached within six months of the bill’s passage, the Secretary of Transportation is directed to revoke all current slots and slot exemptions held by British air carriers at Chicago O’Hare and New York Kennedy airports. In addition, if the United States and United Kingdom do not reach an Open Skies agreement within one year of the bill’s passage, the bill mandates renunciation of the current United States-United Kingdom bilateral agreement.
Shuster noted that the United States has “Open Skies” agreements with over 36 countries which are either being phased in or have been completed. Open Skies agreements allow a free market in air service in which airlines can fly where they want.
It appears to me that the hold up is the Crowns refusal to allow U.S. carriers to obtain economically viable landing and takeoff slots at the two London airports (particularly Heathrow). And still you want us to open up our airspace so you can wet lease intra-US when your government won't even allow us slots into your airports to fly international. Come on gov, get a clue....do we really seem that naive to you!
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London U.K
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a similar point does anyone know what the FAA require of the JMC pilots going to Boston this winter. I gather the routes on which they fly have to be international but little more.
The UK is issueing validations like sweets to US pilots over here for the summer. I have been told that FAA will not do the same for Brits ?, but don't have the full story. Does holding a US licence make it any easier ?.
Best rgds
The UK is issueing validations like sweets to US pilots over here for the summer. I have been told that FAA will not do the same for Brits ?, but don't have the full story. Does holding a US licence make it any easier ?.
Best rgds
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver Driver - you obviously overlooked this: The Government notes that US carriers are permitted wet lease into the UK domestic market, subject to certain constraints imposed by EU Regulations.
Domestic = internal.
In any case, even external (ie US to foreign points) wet leases are not generally permitted by the DOT - yet that's exactly what ATLAS is doing here!!
So you're wrong, I'm afraid, on that matter.
You're also wrong on who is holding up Bermuda II. It's the US government, not the UK - check out the link in my post above for full details. The US wants the UK to roll over and play dead on a number of issues (to make that 45 degree tilted 'level' playing field into a 90 degree tilt) - such as unlimited access to LHR, unlimited 5th freedom rights through LHR and cabotage rights within the EU; yet is intransigent about cabotage within the USA, the Fly America policy and foreign ownership of US airlines. The US remains anti-competitive where its own market is concerned.
The relevant section within the document to which I provided a link says:
The positions, as they stand are simple. The US wants its demands met; and is prepared to give nothing in return. Come on, that's not negotiation!!
On the other hand, the British government is saying, very clearly, that the US can have its access to LHR, Europe etc, but only if the playing field is truly level - and that's full reciprocity. What's wrong with that??
As for wetleasing through a certificate holder... well, I obviously didn't explain myself too well, so I'll do it again. ATLAS can wet lease direct to BA as it holds an AOC and BA holds an AOC, with ATLAS aircraft, crews, maintenance and insurance (ie ACMI). Conversely, if I want to lease an aircraft to Joe Bloggs Air in the States, I can't do that directly - I have to put it through a US operator that has the aircraft type on its certificate and they then provide the crews (some of which I can provide to them which they then flip back to me as long as they have the right bits of paper). Then, the aircraft can only fly from US to foreign points - never domestically. The intermediary carrier makes a lot of money for not a lot of work; and the whole process seems to be designed specifically to put foreign companies at a competitive disadvantage. Oh, and I forgot to mention that if Joe Bloggs Air is unionised, then chances are the deal will be blocked by them as they don't want 'foreigners' coming in and rocking the boat!
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Domestic = internal.
In any case, even external (ie US to foreign points) wet leases are not generally permitted by the DOT - yet that's exactly what ATLAS is doing here!!
So you're wrong, I'm afraid, on that matter.
You're also wrong on who is holding up Bermuda II. It's the US government, not the UK - check out the link in my post above for full details. The US wants the UK to roll over and play dead on a number of issues (to make that 45 degree tilted 'level' playing field into a 90 degree tilt)
- such as unlimited access to LHR, unlimited 5th freedom rights through LHR and cabotage rights within the EU; yet is intransigent about cabotage within the USA, the Fly America policy and foreign ownership of US airlines. The US remains anti-competitive where its own market is concerned. The relevant section within the document to which I provided a link says:
(e) The United States has proved to be intransigent about its domestic legislation relating to cabotage, airline ownership and Fly America. The current proposal to accept a more liberal air services agreement in return for permitting alliances between airlines in order to allow United Kingdom airlines to gain access to the US domestic market may lead to a deal in the short term, but such a deal should include a clear timetable for the lifting of US restrictions on cabotage and airline ownership, and of the Fly America policy (paragraph 72).
The Government agrees that US protection of its domestic market is inimical to full liberalisation and will continue to impress upon the US the benefits of competition in a free market, even if, in the interim, some agreement short of full liberalisation is reached. The Government notes that the removal of some of these anti-competitive measures — but not necessarily Fly America — would require domestic legislation within the US. However, the Government has seen no evidence yet of steps being taken in this direction, nor of any political will to take them. The US Government maintains at present that it is unable to commit itself to legislate on the grounds that it would be difficult to get Congress to accept legislation that it might regard as contrary to US commercial interests.
The Government agrees that US protection of its domestic market is inimical to full liberalisation and will continue to impress upon the US the benefits of competition in a free market, even if, in the interim, some agreement short of full liberalisation is reached. The Government notes that the removal of some of these anti-competitive measures — but not necessarily Fly America — would require domestic legislation within the US. However, the Government has seen no evidence yet of steps being taken in this direction, nor of any political will to take them. The US Government maintains at present that it is unable to commit itself to legislate on the grounds that it would be difficult to get Congress to accept legislation that it might regard as contrary to US commercial interests.
On the other hand, the British government is saying, very clearly, that the US can have its access to LHR, Europe etc, but only if the playing field is truly level - and that's full reciprocity. What's wrong with that??
As for wetleasing through a certificate holder... well, I obviously didn't explain myself too well, so I'll do it again. ATLAS can wet lease direct to BA as it holds an AOC and BA holds an AOC, with ATLAS aircraft, crews, maintenance and insurance (ie ACMI). Conversely, if I want to lease an aircraft to Joe Bloggs Air in the States, I can't do that directly - I have to put it through a US operator that has the aircraft type on its certificate and they then provide the crews (some of which I can provide to them which they then flip back to me as long as they have the right bits of paper). Then, the aircraft can only fly from US to foreign points - never domestically. The intermediary carrier makes a lot of money for not a lot of work; and the whole process seems to be designed specifically to put foreign companies at a competitive disadvantage. Oh, and I forgot to mention that if Joe Bloggs Air is unionised, then chances are the deal will be blocked by them as they don't want 'foreigners' coming in and rocking the boat!
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bejesus.....he's out of all control! Why doesn't the ignore function work? (see his profile and press the ignore link). If you can't ignore him electronically, just skip his numerous, fatuous and over opinionated posts. What an idiot! Guvnor.....you are the weakest link.....Goodbye!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Notso Fantastic, despite sometimes disagreeing with him on other occasions, this time the Guvnor has his facts bang to rights (a quaint colloquial term over here that means 100% correct!). If you can't face the facts, don't bother to take part in the discussion.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notso Fantastic
your pen name is most apt.
There are hundreds of US pilots in Europe flying US registered a/c with EU countries.
The US authorities will not allow EU pilots to fly EU registered a/c within the US. Full Stop.
It's about time the US were given a dose of their own medicine and the practice oof US pilots flying US registered a/c in the EU stopped.
It ain't racism - it's protectionism, entirely by the US authorities.
your pen name is most apt.
There are hundreds of US pilots in Europe flying US registered a/c with EU countries.
The US authorities will not allow EU pilots to fly EU registered a/c within the US. Full Stop.
It's about time the US were given a dose of their own medicine and the practice oof US pilots flying US registered a/c in the EU stopped.
It ain't racism - it's protectionism, entirely by the US authorities.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Notso Fantastic - dear chap, I'm sorry - you're just not my type. I prefer girls. (Well, there must be some reason why you've spent over 50% of your last 50 posts following me around!) Look upon it as giving meaning to your life! As has been said to you countless times before, if you don't like what I'm saying - then just ignore it! And you claim you're a captain on BA 747-400s?
You know, it's strange - you have a go at me when I say that pilots are demanding a bit much ... but not only do you remain silent about non EU nationals coming in and taking your colleagues' and fellow European's jobs, but you're actually offensive about it!
Rather strange, really.
Look upon it as giving meaning to your life! As has been said to you countless times before, if you don't like what I'm saying - then just ignore it! And you claim you're a captain on BA 747-400s? You know, it's strange - you have a go at me when I say that pilots are demanding a bit much ... but not only do you remain silent about non EU nationals coming in and taking your colleagues' and fellow European's jobs, but you're actually offensive about it!
Rather strange, really.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tonyRyan,
So since fair is fair, the wonderful Concorde is not going to be landing in the US, since it does not meet stage three (remember the stage three hushkit ban in EU)
Furthermore, British carriers will now be retsricted in the US to no more slots than US carriers can obtain in LHR. Buhbye BA, Virgin and BMI.
Wanna go on or did you have enough?
So since fair is fair, the wonderful Concorde is not going to be landing in the US, since it does not meet stage three (remember the stage three hushkit ban in EU)
Furthermore, British carriers will now be retsricted in the US to no more slots than US carriers can obtain in LHR. Buhbye BA, Virgin and BMI.
Wanna go on or did you have enough?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: southern calif.
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well lets get back to the point, shall we?
The original point being that AACS was constituted in order to satisfy the DETR about Atlas flying BA routes. Why should UK pilots be favored when flying into US airspace, while ATLAS crews are on furlough, even though they are higher on the sen. list than the AACS crews that would now be flying into/out of the US. And GUV, when BA get some freighters, then BA crews should fly them, on that we all agree. Do not blame the US crews for a Brit business decision.
The original point being that AACS was constituted in order to satisfy the DETR about Atlas flying BA routes. Why should UK pilots be favored when flying into US airspace, while ATLAS crews are on furlough, even though they are higher on the sen. list than the AACS crews that would now be flying into/out of the US. And GUV, when BA get some freighters, then BA crews should fly them, on that we all agree. Do not blame the US crews for a Brit business decision.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Partyreptile - I think you answered your own question when you say "AACS was constituted in order to satisfy the DETR about Atlas flying BA routes" - AACS and the UK AOC holder (the name of which escapes me just now but which Rod Lynch is CEO of) are apparently a completely seperate entity from Atlas with their own aircraft, crews, etc.
There is therefore nothing wrong (and indeed some would see it as poetic justice) with those British crews, operating an aircraft in British Airways World Cargo colours, flying into the States.
I'm certainly not blaming the US crews for a British business decision: but there are a couple of things that need to be taken into consideration here. The first is the unlevel playing field as far as wet leases are concerned; and the second is the UK's own rules which permit a maximum wetlease of six months (unless good cause is shown to extend it). Channex's B737-300QCs are a case in point - they are on the Icelandic register at present solely because the CAA has not certified the cargo door. As soon as that's done, the aircraft will come onto the UK register. In the meantime, as I understand it, the aircraft are being operated by UK pilots with Icelandic validations!
Now, if you're talking about AACS crews flying on other ATLAS operations - that's an entirely different story and I have full sympathy with you guys there. Is that the case?
There is therefore nothing wrong (and indeed some would see it as poetic justice) with those British crews, operating an aircraft in British Airways World Cargo colours, flying into the States.
I'm certainly not blaming the US crews for a British business decision: but there are a couple of things that need to be taken into consideration here. The first is the unlevel playing field as far as wet leases are concerned; and the second is the UK's own rules which permit a maximum wetlease of six months (unless good cause is shown to extend it). Channex's B737-300QCs are a case in point - they are on the Icelandic register at present solely because the CAA has not certified the cargo door. As soon as that's done, the aircraft will come onto the UK register. In the meantime, as I understand it, the aircraft are being operated by UK pilots with Icelandic validations!
Now, if you're talking about AACS crews flying on other ATLAS operations - that's an entirely different story and I have full sympathy with you guys there. Is that the case?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ever happened to the US Atlas mainline defectors that took positions with AACS. Has their welcome run out in the UK or are they being allowed to stay?
BTW - Any union that allows outsourcing of their flying under their code isn't worth salt.
BTW - Any union that allows outsourcing of their flying under their code isn't worth salt.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking the line slightly further, I see from the CAA pages that Manchester/Atlanta has also been approved for a series of 4 flights from September - What, I hear you say, British Airways actually adding a service from EGCC! They have also applied for Manchester/Montreal as a cargo only route!!??
Scottie Dog
Scottie Dog
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip
are you telling us that ALPA is not worth a bit? As all mayors have small commuter airlines flying under their code, ALPA has lost a major battle, no?
On the other hand, what is so bad about wet-leases? If you want to be able to offer freighter services, then there is almost no way around wet-leases until you get to a fleet size of more than five of six planes. And, in order to keep the jobs you have, it has been proven by Cargolux and alikes, that it is always a wise decision to wet-lease in good times and only fly your own equippment in bad ones. Saves you to furlough pilots. But it seems to me such a thought about long term job stability has never crossed your mind!
are you telling us that ALPA is not worth a bit? As all mayors have small commuter airlines flying under their code, ALPA has lost a major battle, no?
On the other hand, what is so bad about wet-leases? If you want to be able to offer freighter services, then there is almost no way around wet-leases until you get to a fleet size of more than five of six planes. And, in order to keep the jobs you have, it has been proven by Cargolux and alikes, that it is always a wise decision to wet-lease in good times and only fly your own equippment in bad ones. Saves you to furlough pilots. But it seems to me such a thought about long term job stability has never crossed your mind!