British Airways US Freighters
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whale Driver is essentially correct about Sikorski. If Whale Driver is an Atlas guy, he may be reluctant to use real name or email address lest Atlas management track him down and harrass him. Atlas are very sensitive to information, especially true information (no misinformation needed to make a point) getting out. That should tell you something!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Happy Jack,
Don't know if it's belly up. That would be wishful thinking on the part of many of us Atlas mainline guys. Awaiting reports from those on the scene in the UK to get an idea how it is going with AACS. Posts from Atlas guys in this and other threads have been fairly accurate in expressing our frustrations with Atlas management. Years of experiencing broken promises and worsening working condtions drove us to ALPA. Guess we all feel like AACS UK is another betrayal since contract for us was designed to be so poor that none or few of us of us would go across to the STN operation. Frustrating to watch on as Atlas seeks to use another group of pilots against us. I think most of us can swallow using Brits or EU passport holders to fly for BA, but carving out portions of Emirates and Malaysian contracts is going too far and clearly a step designed to antagonize the union.
Anyone over there actually made contact with AACS?
Don't know if it's belly up. That would be wishful thinking on the part of many of us Atlas mainline guys. Awaiting reports from those on the scene in the UK to get an idea how it is going with AACS. Posts from Atlas guys in this and other threads have been fairly accurate in expressing our frustrations with Atlas management. Years of experiencing broken promises and worsening working condtions drove us to ALPA. Guess we all feel like AACS UK is another betrayal since contract for us was designed to be so poor that none or few of us of us would go across to the STN operation. Frustrating to watch on as Atlas seeks to use another group of pilots against us. I think most of us can swallow using Brits or EU passport holders to fly for BA, but carving out portions of Emirates and Malaysian contracts is going too far and clearly a step designed to antagonize the union.
Anyone over there actually made contact with AACS?
Guest
Posts: n/a
One of the purposes of AACS is obviously to try and bust the Atlas pilot's union. By creating a wholly owned subsidiary, Atlas management probably hopes to develop a crew force that is indentured by work contracts and forced to work despite legal work action by mainline Atlas crews. The potentially "strike-breaker" work contract that these foolish people would have to sign would require payback for training, hence they couldn't quit easily or cheaply. I would expect that AACS crews would be treated even worse than mainline Atlas crews are treated now. Mr. Bull's reputation preceeds him. It sounds as if he's right in sync with the Mr. Chowdry's vision of indentured servitude. You can probably look for more of the same anywhere Chowdry can find people to work for peanuts - South American, etc. Anybody stupid or foolish enough to work for AACS deserves what they get. You can be assured that the rest of Atlas crews will consider them what they will are. If you want to make yourself a pariah with the real Atlas crewmembers and want to ruin your aviation career, just do it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Talk about the wool being pulled over the eyes. About the only BA division making money right now is CARGO. The Atlas 400's are operated jammed packed full.It's like printing your own money. Atlas are used for only 2 reasons.
1. Total operating costs far cheaper = more profit
2. No initial outlay buying freighters = more profit
BA could easily buy their own freighters and operate them at a profit BUT at the end of the day it wouldn't be as much profit as when they use Atlas. MONEY TALKS,.....
Point in hand, Citybird just dropped their 400F option. BA could pick that up at a discount but why should they if they won't make as much profit. Even Ayling knew this one.
1. Total operating costs far cheaper = more profit
2. No initial outlay buying freighters = more profit
BA could easily buy their own freighters and operate them at a profit BUT at the end of the day it wouldn't be as much profit as when they use Atlas. MONEY TALKS,.....
Point in hand, Citybird just dropped their 400F option. BA could pick that up at a discount but why should they if they won't make as much profit. Even Ayling knew this one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Zones and CargoRat,
So if Cargorat is Cargolux or SGC/Panalpina, Zones would be an Ex Southern Air Transport fella? Small world isn't? How many beers have we had toghether? What about Atlas' empire since the sad loss of MC? What do you forecats?
[email protected]
Air Start
So if Cargorat is Cargolux or SGC/Panalpina, Zones would be an Ex Southern Air Transport fella? Small world isn't? How many beers have we had toghether? What about Atlas' empire since the sad loss of MC? What do you forecats?
[email protected]
Air Start
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well lets see.
130 hired since August. Seems like the only people that actually applied to Atlas (except for a very small minority of retired-BA Captains) are either VERY unqualified or VERY inexperienced. Sim time is at a premium as Atlas instructors are having to devote too much time to these guys. Less than 60 fully trained. Atlas have had to change policy since so many failed the sim check. Now they will only give 8 sims....prior to AACS they trained to proficiency. Already had 2 incidents with AACS guys due to inexperience. Rumors say that Atlas has had to pay some INS fines. This venture has been a huge drain on Atlas' budget. Congress is involved and the courts are moving on a lawsuit. Seems like this experiment has failed. I wish all AACS guys good luck. You should have looked before you leaped.
130 hired since August. Seems like the only people that actually applied to Atlas (except for a very small minority of retired-BA Captains) are either VERY unqualified or VERY inexperienced. Sim time is at a premium as Atlas instructors are having to devote too much time to these guys. Less than 60 fully trained. Atlas have had to change policy since so many failed the sim check. Now they will only give 8 sims....prior to AACS they trained to proficiency. Already had 2 incidents with AACS guys due to inexperience. Rumors say that Atlas has had to pay some INS fines. This venture has been a huge drain on Atlas' budget. Congress is involved and the courts are moving on a lawsuit. Seems like this experiment has failed. I wish all AACS guys good luck. You should have looked before you leaped.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver Driver-
Interesting about all the failures and extended training of the AACS recruits. Saw that coming. What incidents have AACS crews been involved in? Also, with mainline training at a virtual standstill trying to train the replacement workers, what's been the attrition, especially of F/Os?? Sounds like management has Atlas in increasingly steep descent.
Interesting about all the failures and extended training of the AACS recruits. Saw that coming. What incidents have AACS crews been involved in? Also, with mainline training at a virtual standstill trying to train the replacement workers, what's been the attrition, especially of F/Os?? Sounds like management has Atlas in increasingly steep descent.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Roadtrip,
How are you guys liking the East Coast? I guess it was good we left the last company, things sure aren't looking too promising.
Poor AACS guys (SCABS), couldn't happen to a more deserving group. I hope the mainland guys come out okay.
How are you guys liking the East Coast? I guess it was good we left the last company, things sure aren't looking too promising.
Poor AACS guys (SCABS), couldn't happen to a more deserving group. I hope the mainland guys come out okay.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread still exists??? Perhaps one of the more interesting threads we've had in recent times.
And no I'm bloody well not SGC as insinuated above.
Although the subject has been beaten to death, with most opinions catered for, we can always continue the discussion (fight?) on Freight Dogs.
------------------
rgds Rat
And no I'm bloody well not SGC as insinuated above.
Although the subject has been beaten to death, with most opinions catered for, we can always continue the discussion (fight?) on Freight Dogs.
------------------
rgds Rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
CR2
I agree interesting dialog. I wonder how this news article sits with the gov. Seems the hang up with open skies is not with the US. Read on Mcduff....
NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Three major U.S. airlines on Wednesday called on federal aviation officials to negotiate an "open skies'' deal between the U.S. and Britain that guarantees smaller U.S. carriers more access to the British market.
Delta Air Lines Inc. (NYSE
AL - news), Continental Airlines (NYSE:CAL - news) and Northwest Airlines (NasdaqNM:NWAC - news) said they wrote to U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta warning that an unconditional agreement would allow AMR Corp.'s American Airlines (NYSE:AMR - news) and British Airways (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BAY.L) to dominate trans-Atlantic routes.
In their letter, the three U.S. carriers said without more access for other airlines to landing slots, services and facilities at London's Heathrow Airport, a bilateral agreement to liberalize cross-Atlantic air traffic would only crimp competition.
Earlier this month British Airways held talks with U.S. officials on what the airline industry viewed as an attempt to garner support for a stronger alliance with American Airlines, the world's largest airline.
"The two most dominant airlines in the U.S.-U.K. market now seek to create the most powerful and anti-competitive alliance in international aviation history,'' the letter to Secretary Mineta stated.
"Unless the department takes decisive steps to ensure significant access at London's Heathrow Airport, open skies between the U.S. and the U.K. will damage competition and harm U.S. consumers,'' the letter said.
The United States and Britain will hold informal talks on liberalizing air travel later this month.
Mineta met earlier this month with executives from American Airlines and British Airways as they sounded out the prospects of U.S. support for deepening their commercial alliance. The Clinton administration blocked a similar proposal in 1999.
The United States has been pushing for an "open skies'' agreement with Britain, which apparently has resisted because it would undercut the strong position of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic Airways at Heathrow.
I agree interesting dialog. I wonder how this news article sits with the gov. Seems the hang up with open skies is not with the US. Read on Mcduff....
NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Three major U.S. airlines on Wednesday called on federal aviation officials to negotiate an "open skies'' deal between the U.S. and Britain that guarantees smaller U.S. carriers more access to the British market.
Delta Air Lines Inc. (NYSE
AL - news), Continental Airlines (NYSE:CAL - news) and Northwest Airlines (NasdaqNM:NWAC - news) said they wrote to U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta warning that an unconditional agreement would allow AMR Corp.'s American Airlines (NYSE:AMR - news) and British Airways (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BAY.L) to dominate trans-Atlantic routes.In their letter, the three U.S. carriers said without more access for other airlines to landing slots, services and facilities at London's Heathrow Airport, a bilateral agreement to liberalize cross-Atlantic air traffic would only crimp competition.
Earlier this month British Airways held talks with U.S. officials on what the airline industry viewed as an attempt to garner support for a stronger alliance with American Airlines, the world's largest airline.
"The two most dominant airlines in the U.S.-U.K. market now seek to create the most powerful and anti-competitive alliance in international aviation history,'' the letter to Secretary Mineta stated.
"Unless the department takes decisive steps to ensure significant access at London's Heathrow Airport, open skies between the U.S. and the U.K. will damage competition and harm U.S. consumers,'' the letter said.
The United States and Britain will hold informal talks on liberalizing air travel later this month.
Mineta met earlier this month with executives from American Airlines and British Airways as they sounded out the prospects of U.S. support for deepening their commercial alliance. The Clinton administration blocked a similar proposal in 1999.
The United States has been pushing for an "open skies'' agreement with Britain, which apparently has resisted because it would undercut the strong position of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic Airways at Heathrow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
How about this ShotOne;
Airtours have two Canadian registered A320's from Skyservice operating in the UK during the summer months. When the A320's go home in winter, the crews continue in the UK and operate a Skyservice A330 on long haul routes for Airtours.
A Skyservice Captain gets paid a loss less - $82,000 Canadian, about £38,000 at last count, versus about £60,000 for an Airtours Capt. Airtours provide houses and hire cars in the UK for the Canadian crews and they also pay them a daily allowance. The Canadian crews do not pay UK tax.
Airtours plan to operate two more Skyservice A320's in the UK next summer, bringing the total to four for summer 2002.
Airtours have two Canadian registered A320's from Skyservice operating in the UK during the summer months. When the A320's go home in winter, the crews continue in the UK and operate a Skyservice A330 on long haul routes for Airtours.
A Skyservice Captain gets paid a loss less - $82,000 Canadian, about £38,000 at last count, versus about £60,000 for an Airtours Capt. Airtours provide houses and hire cars in the UK for the Canadian crews and they also pay them a daily allowance. The Canadian crews do not pay UK tax.
Airtours plan to operate two more Skyservice A320's in the UK next summer, bringing the total to four for summer 2002.
