British Airways US Freighters
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Rat
Southern had 1 B747-200F (N750SJ ex SQ aircraft with R4G2's) operating for CV before they went down. At that time they were about to buy 3 CV Classics and wet lease back 2 of them. But deal fell through with Southern demise, and Atlas steamed in to pick up the pieces.
But these CV leases are a "funny" arrangement in that the real customer is actually ASB/Panalpina, with CV essentially just a middle man...
If the new Southern are back in the picture with CV, it would seam that the Atlas/CV relationship never really prospered. Or are Atlas still in the game with CV ?? ( I heard that an Atlas 74F in China A/L colours over ran at LUX a few months back too...)
Cheers
Z.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Zones;
N750SJ went to JAL if I remember correctly. They currently have 1 ex LH bird, SCD only, CF6 engines - 1/2 more to come.
I think 742 went to MK.
Ref the 3 Classics. Thanks for the non-returnable deposits - we kept the dosh, SJ went bust a few days later. Kitty Hawk were also sniffing around these aircraft. They later became N537/538/539MC. I think 538 was sold a couple of months ago to C.A.L in TLV.
Yes ASB is a major customer - thing is we cannot give them all the capacity they require - so we will help out arranging alternative aircraft for them.
An Atlas -200 with CI callsign did over-run by about 15ft. Took almost an hour to get it out again due snow (tow trucks couldn't get any grip).
N750SJ went to JAL if I remember correctly. They currently have 1 ex LH bird, SCD only, CF6 engines - 1/2 more to come.
I think 742 went to MK.
Ref the 3 Classics. Thanks for the non-returnable deposits - we kept the dosh, SJ went bust a few days later. Kitty Hawk were also sniffing around these aircraft. They later became N537/538/539MC. I think 538 was sold a couple of months ago to C.A.L in TLV.
Yes ASB is a major customer - thing is we cannot give them all the capacity they require - so we will help out arranging alternative aircraft for them.
An Atlas -200 with CI callsign did over-run by about 15ft. Took almost an hour to get it out again due snow (tow trucks couldn't get any grip).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hot from rumour control
Atlas has set up a wholly-owned subsidiary called "Atlas Air Crew
Services", which will be based at STN and headed by a former British Airways wide-body pilot.
The initial composition of the base will be 5 airplanes and 120
Crewmembers:
2 -400s with 16 Capts and 32 F/Os to service the current BA contract
flying
3 -200s with 24 Capts, 24 F/Os, and 24 F/Es to service [parts of] the
Malaysia, Sterling, China Air, and Emirates contracts
Current Atlas Crewmembers will have first right to bid for the STN base,
according to seniority. All terms will be in the proffer being sent. Bids
will close May 1, 2000, and awards will be made May 6, 2000. All vacancies
not
bid by and awarded to current Atlas Crewmembers will be opened to local Pilots
and Flight Engineers who apply to Atlas Air Crew Services at STN. Current
Atlas Crewmembers who move to STN will have seniority over all new-hires.
There will be "absolutely no furloughs" as a
result of this business decision. Atlas is not sure how it will affect the
manning of the JFK crew base (it "should not be significant"), but ANC will
grow.
The STN base will be run under UK labor laws. There will be different
work
rules and separate seniority lists. They will NOT be subject to the US
National Railway Labor Act or National Mediation Board, or represented by ALPA
Council 72. Crewmembers will work under a "personal contract" and be paid a
salary in British pounds. Work month will be 20 days, with time-and-a-half on
a daily basis for work over 20 days. Expect to be away from STN for "several
months at a time." We were told that an initial commitment is 2 years, after
which a Crewmember would be able to return to a stateside base with full
retained seniority (e.g., a 5-year Capt who goes to STN for 2 years could
return to JFK with 7-year seniority) to fill a vacancy or bump a junior
Crewmember. Note: Any terms may be subject to change in the future as a
result of negotiated terms (e.g., scope, seniority) of the ALPA contract that
is being negotiated by Council 72 and the "mainline" Atlas Air.
The STN flying will be under US FARs and current Atlas policies.
Scheduling will be done at STN; dispatch will be done from JFK. Training will
be done at current Atlas training sites. Atlas Air Crew Services crews will
NOT fly into the US.
....
[This message has been edited by CargoRat (edited 15 April 2000).]
Atlas has set up a wholly-owned subsidiary called "Atlas Air Crew
Services", which will be based at STN and headed by a former British Airways wide-body pilot.
The initial composition of the base will be 5 airplanes and 120
Crewmembers:
2 -400s with 16 Capts and 32 F/Os to service the current BA contract
flying
3 -200s with 24 Capts, 24 F/Os, and 24 F/Es to service [parts of] the
Malaysia, Sterling, China Air, and Emirates contracts
Current Atlas Crewmembers will have first right to bid for the STN base,
according to seniority. All terms will be in the proffer being sent. Bids
will close May 1, 2000, and awards will be made May 6, 2000. All vacancies
not
bid by and awarded to current Atlas Crewmembers will be opened to local Pilots
and Flight Engineers who apply to Atlas Air Crew Services at STN. Current
Atlas Crewmembers who move to STN will have seniority over all new-hires.
There will be "absolutely no furloughs" as a
result of this business decision. Atlas is not sure how it will affect the
manning of the JFK crew base (it "should not be significant"), but ANC will
grow.
The STN base will be run under UK labor laws. There will be different
work
rules and separate seniority lists. They will NOT be subject to the US
National Railway Labor Act or National Mediation Board, or represented by ALPA
Council 72. Crewmembers will work under a "personal contract" and be paid a
salary in British pounds. Work month will be 20 days, with time-and-a-half on
a daily basis for work over 20 days. Expect to be away from STN for "several
months at a time." We were told that an initial commitment is 2 years, after
which a Crewmember would be able to return to a stateside base with full
retained seniority (e.g., a 5-year Capt who goes to STN for 2 years could
return to JFK with 7-year seniority) to fill a vacancy or bump a junior
Crewmember. Note: Any terms may be subject to change in the future as a
result of negotiated terms (e.g., scope, seniority) of the ALPA contract that
is being negotiated by Council 72 and the "mainline" Atlas Air.
The STN flying will be under US FARs and current Atlas policies.
Scheduling will be done at STN; dispatch will be done from JFK. Training will
be done at current Atlas training sites. Atlas Air Crew Services crews will
NOT fly into the US.
....
[This message has been edited by CargoRat (edited 15 April 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
No one seems to have mentioned an important factor. There are dozens of US registered aircraft operating within Europe, and whilst they are still allowed to come in, European operators will never be able to establish themselves so that they can satisfy the needs of DHL, BA etc.
If DETR say "OK", then AFX, Channex, Heavylift, Air Foyle, and others will have no incentive whatsoever to acquire an aircraft that will do the job, bearing in mind that there is an economic hurdle to overcome right at the start, ie US operators are inherently more cost effective than European operators.
But with better economy of scale, this hurdle could be reduced very considerably.
OneWorld 22, I accept your info, but I am sure that wet-lease operations are not allowed within the USA, so there must have been some sort of exceptional circumstance at play. I'll go along with ShotOne.
Ho Lee
If DETR say "OK", then AFX, Channex, Heavylift, Air Foyle, and others will have no incentive whatsoever to acquire an aircraft that will do the job, bearing in mind that there is an economic hurdle to overcome right at the start, ie US operators are inherently more cost effective than European operators.
But with better economy of scale, this hurdle could be reduced very considerably.
OneWorld 22, I accept your info, but I am sure that wet-lease operations are not allowed within the USA, so there must have been some sort of exceptional circumstance at play. I'll go along with ShotOne.
Ho Lee
Guest
Posts: n/a
Apologies for going off the subj slightly, but for benefit of Rat, according to my records:
740 went to JAL or MK (Q-power)
741 went to MK or JAL (Q-power)
(can't remember which one went to which)
744 went to Northwest (Q-power)
745 I think is in storage. (J-power rubbish)
750 went to SAA (R4G2)
Well prior to SJ death, 742 was the aircraft that had the Mercury spill...went to Polar later after clean up.
Cheers
Z.
740 went to JAL or MK (Q-power)
741 went to MK or JAL (Q-power)
(can't remember which one went to which)
744 went to Northwest (Q-power)
745 I think is in storage. (J-power rubbish)
750 went to SAA (R4G2)
Well prior to SJ death, 742 was the aircraft that had the Mercury spill...went to Polar later after clean up.
Cheers
Z.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the USA, we have cabotage laws that prevent foreign carriers from taking pax or cargo from one US point to another, whether they be ships or airplanes.
A BA flight from LHR to JFK many proceed to SFO, for instance, and discharge it's thru pax there. It may not however pick up pax at JFK, carry them to SFO for a fare, and discharge them there.
I believe such laws exist in other European countries. For instance, TWA operated JFK to MAD, then on to Malaga. We could not board paying pax in MAD for Malaga.
I support such laws, and I'm surprized the UK does not have similar ones.
A BA flight from LHR to JFK many proceed to SFO, for instance, and discharge it's thru pax there. It may not however pick up pax at JFK, carry them to SFO for a fare, and discharge them there.
I believe such laws exist in other European countries. For instance, TWA operated JFK to MAD, then on to Malaga. We could not board paying pax in MAD for Malaga.
I support such laws, and I'm surprized the UK does not have similar ones.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The point is, Capt Ed, that US carriers are allowed to use a European hub (such as prestwick or brussels) to carry freight onward to various destinations within Europe (I agree not necessarily within the same country). European carriers flying in the opposite direction absolutely can't do this.
By the way, would Zones and geh65 mind doing their reggie spotting on another thread please.
By the way, would Zones and geh65 mind doing their reggie spotting on another thread please.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ShotOne - I see the problem. A question now. Could British registered A/C use ORD as a hub, and fly to Canada and Mexico, for instance?
Cruise ships of practically every nation use US Ports to go all over and back. The only cruise ships left in US Registry are in Hawaii. We've cruised to Bermuda from NY on ships registered in Norway, and Liberia (what a joke!). Foreign ships cruise the inland waterway to Alaska from Vancouver, BC, and from Los Angeles to Mexican ports.
Cruise ships of practically every nation use US Ports to go all over and back. The only cruise ships left in US Registry are in Hawaii. We've cruised to Bermuda from NY on ships registered in Norway, and Liberia (what a joke!). Foreign ships cruise the inland waterway to Alaska from Vancouver, BC, and from Los Angeles to Mexican ports.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shot1
I take yr point - but I did apologise in advance. Problem is that many Pprune threads take slightly different tacks as they develop...
And my interest was more than just "reggie spotting" or whatever you call it....
Back to the point however - and using the CV/Panalpina/Atlas/SAT leases as an example.
Panalpina have some specific contracts which require cargo to go from Mexico to USA, and Mexico to Europe, and US to Europe, and vice versa.
They get around this by using cunning plan: wet lease CV for t-rights LUX/MEX, MC or SJ for the US/MEX bit. But it is Panalpina that chooses MC or SJ or whoever, CV acts pretty much as a middle man, adding a few % on rates to cover some of admin costs.
Panalpina (or CV) need US carriers for their low costs and t-rights out of USA... they couldn't do it with CV aircraft on regular basis (if they had a/c available).
Guest
Posts: n/a
]Zones,
You seem to know what the F business is all about.
After my beer with my ex-SAT friend:
cfm 744 with NW
741 MK
742 Polar
745?
750 SAA & back to leasing Co
Rat
Attn Zones: ref CV/PAN/MC/SJ: The thing is, you can fill 25 F a/c Europe to S.America, the thing is "what about the return load". Think about it.
Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat (edited 16 April 2000).]
You seem to know what the F business is all about.
After my beer with my ex-SAT friend:
cfm 744 with NW
741 MK
742 Polar
745?
750 SAA & back to leasing Co
Rat
Attn Zones: ref CV/PAN/MC/SJ: The thing is, you can fill 25 F a/c Europe to S.America, the thing is "what about the return load". Think about it.
Rat
[This message has been edited by CargoRat (edited 16 April 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
>Are you seriously trying to say that if >Delta or American Airlines wished to set up >and run
>a freight subsidiary from JFK for 5 years >with British owned and crewed aircraft they
>would be allowed to? Dream on.
>ShotOne,
>There would not be much point in doing that, >for American to set up a British crewed
>company, since it is more cost effective, >read cheaper, for them to use an american
>company. The other point is that Americans >union would not go along with it. Whether
>there is a federal ruling concerning this >topic, I honestly do not know.
In response to the above, a couple of points. Non-U.S. operators could do sub-contract, but I expect not on domestic routes, just international ones, 3rd, 4th and 5th freedom stuff.
Next, I would remind you that the international code-share that all the U.S. major pax carriers do amounts to the same thing anyway!
>a freight subsidiary from JFK for 5 years >with British owned and crewed aircraft they
>would be allowed to? Dream on.
>ShotOne,
>There would not be much point in doing that, >for American to set up a British crewed
>company, since it is more cost effective, >read cheaper, for them to use an american
>company. The other point is that Americans >union would not go along with it. Whether
>there is a federal ruling concerning this >topic, I honestly do not know.
In response to the above, a couple of points. Non-U.S. operators could do sub-contract, but I expect not on domestic routes, just international ones, 3rd, 4th and 5th freedom stuff.
Next, I would remind you that the international code-share that all the U.S. major pax carriers do amounts to the same thing anyway!
Guest
Posts: n/a
With regard to TransAer operating in the US, all A320s leased to Transmeridian are re registered with an American reg. Initially in 1994, 95, allcrews that went to Chicago were let go by TransAer and re employed in the States. The Cuban aircraft retain the Irish reg, however they dont fly in to the USA only Canada or South America. Aeropostale A320s in Caracas operated into Miami with Irish reg.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello all!
Cargo operations are obviously not profitable. SK (Scandinavian Airlines)did operate N523MC, 517...and several other ac. for a few years, GOT-SHJ-MFM...GOT-JFK...Dry lease..Guess what happend! SK cancelled the contract with ATLAS and NOW...LH with German pilots(!)is operating one 747 and one MD11 from GOT, atleast three times a week (GOT-SHJ-..? and GOT-Fairbanks..?). The MD11 even on SK callsign. How is this possible???
Comments!
[This message has been edited by spirit38 (edited 18 April 2000).]
Cargo operations are obviously not profitable. SK (Scandinavian Airlines)did operate N523MC, 517...and several other ac. for a few years, GOT-SHJ-MFM...GOT-JFK...Dry lease..Guess what happend! SK cancelled the contract with ATLAS and NOW...LH with German pilots(!)is operating one 747 and one MD11 from GOT, atleast three times a week (GOT-SHJ-..? and GOT-Fairbanks..?). The MD11 even on SK callsign. How is this possible???
Comments!
[This message has been edited by spirit38 (edited 18 April 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi spirit38,
517 is flying for China Airlines, & I think 523 is also with them.
Ref callsign: pretty standard for ACMI. The 5Y birds will have also used SK flight numbers. We use whoever's callsign for such leases.
Cargo is profitable if you go about it in the right way, though with current fuel prices the margins must be quite low using a classic aircraft.
Rat
517 is flying for China Airlines, & I think 523 is also with them.
Ref callsign: pretty standard for ACMI. The 5Y birds will have also used SK flight numbers. We use whoever's callsign for such leases.
Cargo is profitable if you go about it in the right way, though with current fuel prices the margins must be quite low using a classic aircraft.
Rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cargorat / Zones,you both have good knowledge of our company.I see how cargorat will know but not you zones,where are you based in uk.Anyway from a personal view,Atlas are supplying carriers worldwide a solution that so far no one has matched.Our company and Cargolux go back a long way and will continue to do so.Initially CV controlled the wetlease operation and this has since passed to our control.I dont see why Atlas should not be allowed to continue working with BA as they have done for several years now.I know that this may appear harsh to the European carriers and I have worked with many of afford to wait until you have the business before you buy the equipment.A good example is CV.It takes real balls to do what they did.Going from 3 -400s to 10.With no guarantee to fill them.They got the equipment and worked round the clock to sell them and fill them and they are still doing it.Atlas have done the same although not as a scheduled carrier but in the ACMI trade.
Anyway surely the DETR have to take on board that nobody else has 2 x 747-400Fs that are availble for wetlease from next month in the UK.
If I am correct in saying these applications from BA are in breach of EU regulations EEC/2407/92,although leasing can be permitted for the temporary needs of an air carrier or if there are exceptional circumstances.The DETR have since recvd 6 objections to the renewal of the licences.Its up to BA to convince the DETR that this is exceptional circumstances.Lets wait and see and hope that whatever the outcome is,it will benefit all concerned
Anyway surely the DETR have to take on board that nobody else has 2 x 747-400Fs that are availble for wetlease from next month in the UK.
If I am correct in saying these applications from BA are in breach of EU regulations EEC/2407/92,although leasing can be permitted for the temporary needs of an air carrier or if there are exceptional circumstances.The DETR have since recvd 6 objections to the renewal of the licences.Its up to BA to convince the DETR that this is exceptional circumstances.Lets wait and see and hope that whatever the outcome is,it will benefit all concerned
Guest
Posts: n/a
Moien Panalpina/SGC.
I think you got it in one. There simply aren't any spare 400s around,& Atlas have the production line sewn up for quite a while. I really can't understand what all the complaining is about.
If I may say so, we went from 4 -200s (3 x 271C ex TransAmerica, 1 x 228F ex AF (1974 vintage)) to the current 10 400s (2 more to come for the moment).
Are you in UK or LUX?
rgds Rat
I think you got it in one. There simply aren't any spare 400s around,& Atlas have the production line sewn up for quite a while. I really can't understand what all the complaining is about.
If I may say so, we went from 4 -200s (3 x 271C ex TransAmerica, 1 x 228F ex AF (1974 vintage)) to the current 10 400s (2 more to come for the moment).
Are you in UK or LUX?
rgds Rat