Atlas/AACS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv you have mad cow disease, or your brains are being eaten like in the movie Hannibal. I have been at atlas 6 years and NEVER got a pay raise for NOT voting in a union. You are BRAIN DEAD!
Let me pull your head out of the brown cloud for you.
Back in 96 mamangement only partly admited that we were grossly under paid.Is for one year only they said that Capts would get a 20% minimum profit sharing guarante. While FE's and FO's would get a 10% guarante. Profits were always running over 25% anyhow.
Let me pull your head out of the brown cloud for you.
Back in 96 mamangement only partly admited that we were grossly under paid.Is for one year only they said that Capts would get a 20% minimum profit sharing guarante. While FE's and FO's would get a 10% guarante. Profits were always running over 25% anyhow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv
Sometimes your statements remind me of a "talking head" reporting on an aviation subject, just enough points to sound like an authority, but not enough knowledge to really know what he's/she's talking about.
In 1996/97 Atlas was bleeding Captains.
FE's and FO's at the time were not the problem.
The AMT(atlas mgmt team) had already published a pay scale for the next three years that put them in a box. It didn't stem the losses of Captains and to a lesser extent FO's.
The quick fix from the H.R.,V.P.(he's no longer here) was to pay Captains a 20% overrride monthly and the FO's and FE's a 10% override. At the end of the year the remaining "profit sharing" would be paid equally to all. BTW, it's varied from 26%
to 38%. (don't hold me to the exact #'s , but I'm within 2% points on the high side)
When the new H.R.,V.P. took over, the union vote was coming up, so all of a sudden the profit sharing plan was good, only if there was no union on the property.
After a failed union vote the AMT reneged on various promises and a union was overwhelmingly voted in. A sad statement for a company that had so many pilots that were not pro union or apathetic at best.
What really took the cake was that the AMT not only stopped profit sharing, BUT, they witheld our previous years already earned profit sharing! Hence the so far successful court case of ALPA vs Atlas.
As an aside, in my previous life I was one of 3,600 pilots that walked off the job rather than work for Lorenzo. Two hundred(the"golden 200")continued to fly, and that broke the strike. So, yes, the crews at AACS do worry me, especially if they are forced to fly.
I've been replaced once and I will do whatever it takes not to be replaced again!
Your seemingly pro-lorenzo writings do bother me and all of us who have lost our careers due to him and his management practices! There are many of us at Atlas that are his victims and will not be victims again.
We'll see you on the soapbox.
Regards,
Yank
[This message has been edited by Ct.Yankee (edited 10 March 2001).]
Sometimes your statements remind me of a "talking head" reporting on an aviation subject, just enough points to sound like an authority, but not enough knowledge to really know what he's/she's talking about.
In 1996/97 Atlas was bleeding Captains.
FE's and FO's at the time were not the problem.
The AMT(atlas mgmt team) had already published a pay scale for the next three years that put them in a box. It didn't stem the losses of Captains and to a lesser extent FO's.
The quick fix from the H.R.,V.P.(he's no longer here) was to pay Captains a 20% overrride monthly and the FO's and FE's a 10% override. At the end of the year the remaining "profit sharing" would be paid equally to all. BTW, it's varied from 26%
to 38%. (don't hold me to the exact #'s , but I'm within 2% points on the high side)
When the new H.R.,V.P. took over, the union vote was coming up, so all of a sudden the profit sharing plan was good, only if there was no union on the property.
After a failed union vote the AMT reneged on various promises and a union was overwhelmingly voted in. A sad statement for a company that had so many pilots that were not pro union or apathetic at best.
What really took the cake was that the AMT not only stopped profit sharing, BUT, they witheld our previous years already earned profit sharing! Hence the so far successful court case of ALPA vs Atlas.
As an aside, in my previous life I was one of 3,600 pilots that walked off the job rather than work for Lorenzo. Two hundred(the"golden 200")continued to fly, and that broke the strike. So, yes, the crews at AACS do worry me, especially if they are forced to fly.
I've been replaced once and I will do whatever it takes not to be replaced again!
Your seemingly pro-lorenzo writings do bother me and all of us who have lost our careers due to him and his management practices! There are many of us at Atlas that are his victims and will not be victims again.
We'll see you on the soapbox.
Regards,
Yank
[This message has been edited by Ct.Yankee (edited 10 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
No matter who defends whichever airline payscales and mgmt attitudes towards its workers, a few things are undeniable.
When employee turnover is high among those who fly the larger jets (many turboprop pilots would leave their jobs in order to fly almost ANY jet!) the salaries/benefit packages are usually far below the available market rates (often far below their employer's ability to compensate), resulting in dissatisfaction and low morale which can not be quantified by the business schools.
When employee turnover is high among those who fly the larger jets (many turboprop pilots would leave their jobs in order to fly almost ANY jet!) the salaries/benefit packages are usually far below the available market rates (often far below their employer's ability to compensate), resulting in dissatisfaction and low morale which can not be quantified by the business schools.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv, trust me on this one. Regardless of what you heard or read Atlas NEVER gave a pay increase in order to keep the Union out. Actually, I understand that there has never been a pay increase for the crew force in the history of the airline which may be why they now have a Union.
However, upon unionization in the Feb 2000 time frame management did refuse to pay profit sharing to the crews which was earned in 1999 (long before unionization)and cut future profit sharing entirely. Perhaps it's just me but that first act sounds like pure theft. Regardless, at this point these actions have both been found to be illegal acts of coersion and intimidation by the Court. In all probability Atlas will be paying a rather hefty bill of owed profit sharing and penalties. Very rough math shows $15 Million plus depending on how long they drag this out.
As to there ever having been an agreement of ANY type between management and the crews, there have only been three. All were letters of agreement signed post Feb 2000 and regarded standard, mundane administrative matters. All were abrubtly and rather petulantly withdrawn by management. If memory serves, that happened right about the time they lost the above mentioned court case.
Strange that.
Hope that clears it up.
However, upon unionization in the Feb 2000 time frame management did refuse to pay profit sharing to the crews which was earned in 1999 (long before unionization)and cut future profit sharing entirely. Perhaps it's just me but that first act sounds like pure theft. Regardless, at this point these actions have both been found to be illegal acts of coersion and intimidation by the Court. In all probability Atlas will be paying a rather hefty bill of owed profit sharing and penalties. Very rough math shows $15 Million plus depending on how long they drag this out.
As to there ever having been an agreement of ANY type between management and the crews, there have only been three. All were letters of agreement signed post Feb 2000 and regarded standard, mundane administrative matters. All were abrubtly and rather petulantly withdrawn by management. If memory serves, that happened right about the time they lost the above mentioned court case.
Strange that.
Hope that clears it up.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Move_It,
Your question is an entirely logical one.
The answer is that the trainers you allude to (Check Airmen and most Sim Instructors) are indeed members of the Union. As such, they must abide by the same laws that the other union members do. Specifically, by US labor law you can't take a "work action" (strike, slowdown, etc.) unless you already have a contract. The Atlas crews do not have a contract yet. Thus, should those folks refuse to train AACS crews they would be performing a defined illegal work action under US law and the Union would be sanctioned. That means major fines, bad karma at the contract negotiating table from the Federal mediator, etc. The horrific fines resulting from the AAL pilot union's actions last year is a good example of this.
Sorry to jump in Ct. Yankee!
[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 11 March 2001).]
Your question is an entirely logical one.
The answer is that the trainers you allude to (Check Airmen and most Sim Instructors) are indeed members of the Union. As such, they must abide by the same laws that the other union members do. Specifically, by US labor law you can't take a "work action" (strike, slowdown, etc.) unless you already have a contract. The Atlas crews do not have a contract yet. Thus, should those folks refuse to train AACS crews they would be performing a defined illegal work action under US law and the Union would be sanctioned. That means major fines, bad karma at the contract negotiating table from the Federal mediator, etc. The horrific fines resulting from the AAL pilot union's actions last year is a good example of this.
Sorry to jump in Ct. Yankee!
[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 11 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv,
Sorry but totally disgaree.My comments in capitals below
Quote5)AFX operates B747s (-200s) and should have been given preference to provide aircraft; and if they didn't (or couldn't) then Cargolus has -400s that they could have leased to BA. LETS FACE THE FACTS,THE 747-200F IS NO USE ON THESE ROUTES OPERATED BY BA.THEY WOULD HAVE TO INCURR FUEL STOPS WHICH IS COST,AND THAT OUTWAYS MOST THINGS THESE DAYS.ALSO WHEN ATLAS PUT AN AIRCRAFT INTO A/C-CHECK,THEY GIVE YOU ANOTHER.DOUBT AFX COULD MANAGE THAT.ALSO CARGOLUX ARE NOT AN ACMI OPERATER.THEY ARE A CARGO AIRLINE,WHY WOULD THEY LEASE AN AIRCRAFT TO DIRECT COMPETITION.SORRY ATLAS STILL OFFER THE ONLY SOLUTION TO MANY EUROPEAN CARRIERS FREIGHT NEEDS VIA THE ACMI SYSTEM WITH -400F AIRCRAFT.
6) ATLAS is an ACMI operator: this means that they never fly for their own account. Aerial mercenaries, in fact. Polar Air Cargo is a 'normal' airline - flying its own routes and at its own financial risk. They are more than welcome in PIK where they contribute to the economy and do not steal jobs from Brits and other Europeans.
THIS MAY BE SO,BUT YOU FAIL TO REALISE THAT SINCE POLARS CLIMB TO STARDOM IS PIK THEY HAVE FORCED OR ARE FORCING THE COMPETITION OFF THE ROUTES.TWO YEARS AGO LH AND AF WERE DOMINENT ON THE ORD-PIK ROUTE.POLAR HAS KICKED OUT LH WITH CHEAP RATES AND AF IS STRUGGLING,BUT THEN AGAIN THAT IS NOT AFFECTING EU PILOTS JOBS EH GUV.GET OFF YOUR PIK/POLAR A KISSING SESSION.WE ALL KNOW THEY ARE FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH IN PIK THESE DAYS.IF PIK HAD REAL VISION THEY WOULD HAVE TRIED TO PROTECT LH.AF WILL FALL NEXT.
ALSO MANY UK JOBS DEPEND ON THE ATLAS CONCEPT FOR ITS CUSTOMERS,SO PLSE DROP THIS GUV AS YOU ARE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD.THERE IS PLENTY OF BUSINESS GOING FOR ALL,ITS NOT ATLASAIRS FAULT THE UK/EU CARGO OPERATORS DO NOT HAVE THE SET UP TO OFFER AND DO NOT SEEM TO TRY.STOP CRYING AND GET THE FINGER OUT.
Unquote
Sorry but totally disgaree.My comments in capitals below
Quote5)AFX operates B747s (-200s) and should have been given preference to provide aircraft; and if they didn't (or couldn't) then Cargolus has -400s that they could have leased to BA. LETS FACE THE FACTS,THE 747-200F IS NO USE ON THESE ROUTES OPERATED BY BA.THEY WOULD HAVE TO INCURR FUEL STOPS WHICH IS COST,AND THAT OUTWAYS MOST THINGS THESE DAYS.ALSO WHEN ATLAS PUT AN AIRCRAFT INTO A/C-CHECK,THEY GIVE YOU ANOTHER.DOUBT AFX COULD MANAGE THAT.ALSO CARGOLUX ARE NOT AN ACMI OPERATER.THEY ARE A CARGO AIRLINE,WHY WOULD THEY LEASE AN AIRCRAFT TO DIRECT COMPETITION.SORRY ATLAS STILL OFFER THE ONLY SOLUTION TO MANY EUROPEAN CARRIERS FREIGHT NEEDS VIA THE ACMI SYSTEM WITH -400F AIRCRAFT.
6) ATLAS is an ACMI operator: this means that they never fly for their own account. Aerial mercenaries, in fact. Polar Air Cargo is a 'normal' airline - flying its own routes and at its own financial risk. They are more than welcome in PIK where they contribute to the economy and do not steal jobs from Brits and other Europeans.
THIS MAY BE SO,BUT YOU FAIL TO REALISE THAT SINCE POLARS CLIMB TO STARDOM IS PIK THEY HAVE FORCED OR ARE FORCING THE COMPETITION OFF THE ROUTES.TWO YEARS AGO LH AND AF WERE DOMINENT ON THE ORD-PIK ROUTE.POLAR HAS KICKED OUT LH WITH CHEAP RATES AND AF IS STRUGGLING,BUT THEN AGAIN THAT IS NOT AFFECTING EU PILOTS JOBS EH GUV.GET OFF YOUR PIK/POLAR A KISSING SESSION.WE ALL KNOW THEY ARE FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH IN PIK THESE DAYS.IF PIK HAD REAL VISION THEY WOULD HAVE TRIED TO PROTECT LH.AF WILL FALL NEXT.
ALSO MANY UK JOBS DEPEND ON THE ATLAS CONCEPT FOR ITS CUSTOMERS,SO PLSE DROP THIS GUV AS YOU ARE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD.THERE IS PLENTY OF BUSINESS GOING FOR ALL,ITS NOT ATLASAIRS FAULT THE UK/EU CARGO OPERATORS DO NOT HAVE THE SET UP TO OFFER AND DO NOT SEEM TO TRY.STOP CRYING AND GET THE FINGER OUT.
Unquote
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arkroyal
Sorry but the E.U. is not even close to the same type of government as the U.S. (see above posts concerning different governing bodies, different currency, different laws, etc., etc.,) Maybe you and the Gov should attend remedial geography/civics together.
Gov
Once again you prove your total ignorance of not only U.S. companies and operations, but European operations, laws, history, and geography as well. Perhaps you should stick to the bush (league). Africargo and it's (non) operation suits you.
Silver T.
I'll never tell
Anyone hear of a new company called Global Supply Sytems? They are somehow associated with Atlas/AACS and may be the 51% EU owned AOC that Atlas has been looking for. Sounds like they may be transferring some AACS folks over there as well as Atlas airframes. And you doubters thought that Atlas was not trying to set themselves up to "keep the freight moving" in the event of a strike. Who knows maybe it's a Caledonian Wings subsidiary. The Gov would fit right in with Atlas managment and AACS' Mike Bull
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
Sorry but the E.U. is not even close to the same type of government as the U.S. (see above posts concerning different governing bodies, different currency, different laws, etc., etc.,) Maybe you and the Gov should attend remedial geography/civics together.
Gov
Once again you prove your total ignorance of not only U.S. companies and operations, but European operations, laws, history, and geography as well. Perhaps you should stick to the bush (league). Africargo and it's (non) operation suits you.
Silver T.
I'll never tell
Anyone hear of a new company called Global Supply Sytems? They are somehow associated with Atlas/AACS and may be the 51% EU owned AOC that Atlas has been looking for. Sounds like they may be transferring some AACS folks over there as well as Atlas airframes. And you doubters thought that Atlas was not trying to set themselves up to "keep the freight moving" in the event of a strike. Who knows maybe it's a Caledonian Wings subsidiary. The Gov would fit right in with Atlas managment and AACS' Mike Bull
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Magic Blue - What a lot of rot you talk!
AF continue to go through PIK on a scheduled basis. Cargo yields are higher ex UK than they are ex European continent; Polar currently has problems as its GSA in Europe has been given an overriding capacity preference, which is driving their yields down. AF and Polar will doubtless be paying exactly the same for the pleasure of using PIK - so how on earth can you claim that Polar is receiving beneficial treatment there!
Both AF and LH have very high operating costs - these are issues that must be addressed byu those carriers. If LH or AF are unhappy at PIK, I am quite sure that another airport - such as SNN or MAN - will welcome them with open arms.
What UK jobs depend on the ATLAS concept? Certainly no UK pilots jopbs, if ATLAS mainline pilots have their way, eh!!
There are, it seems two main issues here:
1) Unionisation of Atlas
2) Illegal operation of foreign registered aircraft by UK/EU carriers.
There's a third issue that overlaps both of those - the establishment of AACS. As I understand it - and remember, as an outsider so I have to base my perception both on what people post here and what I read elsewhere - AACS has been set up in response to the IPA's pressure over flagging out. Therefore, the aircraft being operated for BA will now come onto a UK AOC and the UK (G-) register; and will be flown by UK pilots. This is a very good thing for the UK aviation industry.
I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which will be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'. BA would be highly unlikely to release the aircraft from their own services to help out ATLAS; and the UK crews would only be able to operate G registered aircraft - again, not a lot of use when the rest of the ATLAS fleet are on the N register.
If the people working for AACS agree to work on different terms and conditions - so what? I am quite sure that the guys flying for Polar and Cargolux also have different terms
and conditions.
Employment and social conditions in Europe are, as has been discussed on other threads, completely different to those in the States; and in my view the AACS rates and conditions recognise that fact.
As for the EU - whilst at the moment we may still be moving towards a central government, there are numerous areas of harmonisation that have already occurred - including civil aviation. For EU carriers, Europe is already one nation - how on earth do you think you can have an Irish airline flying between the UK and Belgium otherwise?
Employment legislation is another area - nationals and other EU citizens are supposed to have preference over non EU aliens. This is an area that needs to be rigorously enforced - especially as it is so hard for EU pilots to get work in the US; and downright impossible for EU operators to provide ACMI leases to US carriers.
Put a level playing field in place on your side of the pond; and maybe we might support you guys over things like AACS. Until then, AACS gets our full support.
AF continue to go through PIK on a scheduled basis. Cargo yields are higher ex UK than they are ex European continent; Polar currently has problems as its GSA in Europe has been given an overriding capacity preference, which is driving their yields down. AF and Polar will doubtless be paying exactly the same for the pleasure of using PIK - so how on earth can you claim that Polar is receiving beneficial treatment there!
Both AF and LH have very high operating costs - these are issues that must be addressed byu those carriers. If LH or AF are unhappy at PIK, I am quite sure that another airport - such as SNN or MAN - will welcome them with open arms.
What UK jobs depend on the ATLAS concept? Certainly no UK pilots jopbs, if ATLAS mainline pilots have their way, eh!!
There are, it seems two main issues here:
1) Unionisation of Atlas
2) Illegal operation of foreign registered aircraft by UK/EU carriers.
There's a third issue that overlaps both of those - the establishment of AACS. As I understand it - and remember, as an outsider so I have to base my perception both on what people post here and what I read elsewhere - AACS has been set up in response to the IPA's pressure over flagging out. Therefore, the aircraft being operated for BA will now come onto a UK AOC and the UK (G-) register; and will be flown by UK pilots. This is a very good thing for the UK aviation industry.
I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which will be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'. BA would be highly unlikely to release the aircraft from their own services to help out ATLAS; and the UK crews would only be able to operate G registered aircraft - again, not a lot of use when the rest of the ATLAS fleet are on the N register.
If the people working for AACS agree to work on different terms and conditions - so what? I am quite sure that the guys flying for Polar and Cargolux also have different terms
and conditions.
Employment and social conditions in Europe are, as has been discussed on other threads, completely different to those in the States; and in my view the AACS rates and conditions recognise that fact.
As for the EU - whilst at the moment we may still be moving towards a central government, there are numerous areas of harmonisation that have already occurred - including civil aviation. For EU carriers, Europe is already one nation - how on earth do you think you can have an Irish airline flying between the UK and Belgium otherwise?
Employment legislation is another area - nationals and other EU citizens are supposed to have preference over non EU aliens. This is an area that needs to be rigorously enforced - especially as it is so hard for EU pilots to get work in the US; and downright impossible for EU operators to provide ACMI leases to US carriers.
Put a level playing field in place on your side of the pond; and maybe we might support you guys over things like AACS. Until then, AACS gets our full support.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gov
--"For EU carriers, Europe is already one nation - how on earth do you think you can have an Irish airline flying between the UK and Belgium otherwise?" --
OK I'll bite and please pay attention. What you are describing is called "Seventh Freedom" It is the right of one airline to pick up passengers (or freight)in a country not it's own, and transport them to a third country, also not of it's own flag, without stopping in it's own country. What you want to do is called cabotage; operating your airline, (registered in the UK one assumes), from point to point in another country (the U.S.). U.S. airlines currently can not do this in any one European country but can do this (as defined) in the E.U. (remember the EU is a conglomeration of sovereign nations, not one country). Why would you think you could do this in the U.S., which is one sovereign country. You really do need to get some education on this before you pontificate so.
-- "Employment legislation is another area - nationals and other EU citizens are supposed to have preference over non EU aliens. This is an area that needs to be rigorously enforced - especially as it is so hard for EU
pilots to get work in the US; and downright impossible for EU operators to provide ACMI leases to US carriers." --
See my post above. The MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES in the EU allow foreigners to work in their countries...and the rules are different for each country. The states in the U.S. have no power or sovereignity of their own to allow or otherwise regulate air commerce or the employment in air commerce.
-- "I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which will be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'. BA would be highly unlikely to release the aircraft from their own services to help out ATLAS; and the UK crews would only be able to operate G registered aircraft - again, not a lot of use when the rest of the ATLAS fleet are on the N register."--
Once again you don't know what you are talking about. There are currently NO G-registered Atlas aircraft...soon MAYBE, but not yet. As for the other, AACS crews are not dedicated to the BA contract. They have been flying ALL of Atlas contracts on N registered aircraft, and have been flying in the U.S. (I flew with one AACS crewman last night ORD-ANC). If you look hard enough you will see that AACS is hurting YOUR cause, as it is mobilizing our courts and congress to be even more isolationist.
BD
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
--"For EU carriers, Europe is already one nation - how on earth do you think you can have an Irish airline flying between the UK and Belgium otherwise?" --
OK I'll bite and please pay attention. What you are describing is called "Seventh Freedom" It is the right of one airline to pick up passengers (or freight)in a country not it's own, and transport them to a third country, also not of it's own flag, without stopping in it's own country. What you want to do is called cabotage; operating your airline, (registered in the UK one assumes), from point to point in another country (the U.S.). U.S. airlines currently can not do this in any one European country but can do this (as defined) in the E.U. (remember the EU is a conglomeration of sovereign nations, not one country). Why would you think you could do this in the U.S., which is one sovereign country. You really do need to get some education on this before you pontificate so.
-- "Employment legislation is another area - nationals and other EU citizens are supposed to have preference over non EU aliens. This is an area that needs to be rigorously enforced - especially as it is so hard for EU
pilots to get work in the US; and downright impossible for EU operators to provide ACMI leases to US carriers." --
See my post above. The MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES in the EU allow foreigners to work in their countries...and the rules are different for each country. The states in the U.S. have no power or sovereignity of their own to allow or otherwise regulate air commerce or the employment in air commerce.
-- "I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which will be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'. BA would be highly unlikely to release the aircraft from their own services to help out ATLAS; and the UK crews would only be able to operate G registered aircraft - again, not a lot of use when the rest of the ATLAS fleet are on the N register."--
Once again you don't know what you are talking about. There are currently NO G-registered Atlas aircraft...soon MAYBE, but not yet. As for the other, AACS crews are not dedicated to the BA contract. They have been flying ALL of Atlas contracts on N registered aircraft, and have been flying in the U.S. (I flew with one AACS crewman last night ORD-ANC). If you look hard enough you will see that AACS is hurting YOUR cause, as it is mobilizing our courts and congress to be even more isolationist.
BD
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver Driver - read what I said again. This is not Seventh Freedom - it is legislation enacted by the EU.
Now onto the wetlease issue:
Finally, let's turn to AACS. As a UK AOC holder, they have to use UK registered aircraft - otherwise they are right back to the existing BA situation. I have it on good authority from a contact in the CAA SRG that the aircraft will be going onto the G register.
The sooner you guys let AACS get on with things and set up the UK operation the better - that way they will be restricted to the UK aircraft and y'all will be happy, eh?
Now onto the wetlease issue:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Wetlease rules lead list of unresolved issues as U.S.-U.K. negotiations resume
The British Cargo Airline Alliance descended on Washington last week with the
hope of pushing its agenda of moving toward an "op en skies" agreement with the
United States. A deal still is a long way off and, given the current political climate,
the status quo of talking about open skies but arguing about how to get there is
apt to continue, said BCAA Secretary Steve Guynan.
While in Washington, Guynan attempted to grease the skids before formal talks
begin next month by meeting with Department of Transportation Assistant
Secretary Bradley A. Mims and members of Congress with aviation interests. DOT
downplayed the meeting, refraining from discussing the nature of it other than
stating it was not a government-sanctioned encounter.
The BCAA is made up of four British all-cargo operators: Air Foyle, Channel
Express, HeavyLift and Atlantic Airlines. The group argues that U.K. carriers are at
a great disadvantage to U.S.-based competitors in the $4 billion wetleasing market
where U.S. law prohibits wetleasing aircraft registered outside the United States.
"Under U.S. law, wetleasing an aircraft (from a foreign company) by a U.S. airline
is prohibited. However, the U.S. allows its airlines to wetlease to other countries,"
the BCAA states in its promotional materials. "This is hypocritical and
protectionist and closes off 40 percent of the world market to non-U.S. airlines,
effectively maintaining and strengthening an American monopoly on the wetleasing
business."
The success of Atlas Air frustrates its U.K. counterparts because the airline
generates $600 million a year in revenue, a good chunk of which comes from
European-flag carriers. That business, BCAA claims, is off-limits because the
aircraft fly into and out of the United States, something that is prohibited for
foreign-registered aircraft under current wetleasing rules.
FDX Corp. Chairman Frederick W. Smith has lobbied both DOT Secretary Rodney
Slater and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey, to support the liberalization
of the U.S.-U.K. air freight market. While he supports giving U.K. carriers the
opportunity to bid for U.S. wetleasing contracts, the real agenda for Federal
Express is much bigger in scope.
FedEx filed for an extra bilateral application that would grant the company the
ability to pick up new freight in Prestwick, Scotland, before flying on to its
European hub in Paris. The company successfully asked for the same right from
the French government a few years ago.
"We have very patiently supported the negotiations to liberalize the agreement,"
said Greg Rossiter, managing director of public relations for FedEx. "There doesn't
seem to be any potential for an agreement anytime soon so ... rather than
continue to tie up our customers unnecessarily by these fruitless passenger talks,
we filed the extra application."
FedEx expects to hear something on its application in the next few weeks. If the
application isn't granted, FDX Corp. Chairman Smith has threatened to end his
company's freighter flight to Scotland, thereby eliminating somewhere between
1,000 and 3,000 potential new jobs to be created by the expansion.
The wetleasing issue is just one of many stumbling blocks the two governments
can count on when they return to the negotiating table on July 6. This round of
talks will be the first since last October when U.S. officials walked away From the
table.
</font>
Wetlease rules lead list of unresolved issues as U.S.-U.K. negotiations resume
The British Cargo Airline Alliance descended on Washington last week with the
hope of pushing its agenda of moving toward an "op en skies" agreement with the
United States. A deal still is a long way off and, given the current political climate,
the status quo of talking about open skies but arguing about how to get there is
apt to continue, said BCAA Secretary Steve Guynan.
While in Washington, Guynan attempted to grease the skids before formal talks
begin next month by meeting with Department of Transportation Assistant
Secretary Bradley A. Mims and members of Congress with aviation interests. DOT
downplayed the meeting, refraining from discussing the nature of it other than
stating it was not a government-sanctioned encounter.
The BCAA is made up of four British all-cargo operators: Air Foyle, Channel
Express, HeavyLift and Atlantic Airlines. The group argues that U.K. carriers are at
a great disadvantage to U.S.-based competitors in the $4 billion wetleasing market
where U.S. law prohibits wetleasing aircraft registered outside the United States.
"Under U.S. law, wetleasing an aircraft (from a foreign company) by a U.S. airline
is prohibited. However, the U.S. allows its airlines to wetlease to other countries,"
the BCAA states in its promotional materials. "This is hypocritical and
protectionist and closes off 40 percent of the world market to non-U.S. airlines,
effectively maintaining and strengthening an American monopoly on the wetleasing
business."
The success of Atlas Air frustrates its U.K. counterparts because the airline
generates $600 million a year in revenue, a good chunk of which comes from
European-flag carriers. That business, BCAA claims, is off-limits because the
aircraft fly into and out of the United States, something that is prohibited for
foreign-registered aircraft under current wetleasing rules.
FDX Corp. Chairman Frederick W. Smith has lobbied both DOT Secretary Rodney
Slater and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey, to support the liberalization
of the U.S.-U.K. air freight market. While he supports giving U.K. carriers the
opportunity to bid for U.S. wetleasing contracts, the real agenda for Federal
Express is much bigger in scope.
FedEx filed for an extra bilateral application that would grant the company the
ability to pick up new freight in Prestwick, Scotland, before flying on to its
European hub in Paris. The company successfully asked for the same right from
the French government a few years ago.
"We have very patiently supported the negotiations to liberalize the agreement,"
said Greg Rossiter, managing director of public relations for FedEx. "There doesn't
seem to be any potential for an agreement anytime soon so ... rather than
continue to tie up our customers unnecessarily by these fruitless passenger talks,
we filed the extra application."
FedEx expects to hear something on its application in the next few weeks. If the
application isn't granted, FDX Corp. Chairman Smith has threatened to end his
company's freighter flight to Scotland, thereby eliminating somewhere between
1,000 and 3,000 potential new jobs to be created by the expansion.
The wetleasing issue is just one of many stumbling blocks the two governments
can count on when they return to the negotiating table on July 6. This round of
talks will be the first since last October when U.S. officials walked away From the
table.
</font>
The sooner you guys let AACS get on with things and set up the UK operation the better - that way they will be restricted to the UK aircraft and y'all will be happy, eh?
Guest
Posts: n/a
To do an ACMI wet lease you must have permission for seventh freedom flying. The contracts and the x/freedom issue are apples and oranges. The Journo writing the article you copied probably doesn't even know what the Chicago Convention was, let alone the Seven Agreed on freedoms on which I beleive Britain was a signatory. If you can't understand this then maybe you should stick to something you do know. Face it Gov, the UK has nothing we want, thus you are dealing from a very small power base indeed. Your inter-UK market is just not lucrative enough for any U.S. carrier to want. While our inter-U.S. market is huge. Now if you wanted to give up your sovereignity, fire the Queen, and have the French president be the president of the E.U., declare the E.U. one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all, give up British rules and regulations (including the Pound)and THEN deal with the U.S. on ACMI issues.....MAYBE we'll talk to you.
By the way, AACS will NEVER be restricted to just G-reg airplanes. Atlas management has already stated that. If you will look at the archives you will see that I predicted the start of another sub-/or alter-AACS. That is what G.S.S. appears to be, further muddying the issues.
I have nothing left to say to you on this issue. You are obviously in need of a H.S. education on the matter....(that doesn't include copying editorials from the notoriously inaccurate British tabloids)....either that or a good ol fashioned asswhipping.
kindest regards
BD
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
By the way, AACS will NEVER be restricted to just G-reg airplanes. Atlas management has already stated that. If you will look at the archives you will see that I predicted the start of another sub-/or alter-AACS. That is what G.S.S. appears to be, further muddying the issues.
I have nothing left to say to you on this issue. You are obviously in need of a H.S. education on the matter....(that doesn't include copying editorials from the notoriously inaccurate British tabloids)....either that or a good ol fashioned asswhipping.
kindest regards
BD
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 11 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver Driver - what a load of bollox!! First, the ACMI operator generally flies under the authority of the lessee carrier - which is why in order to lease aircraft on an ACMI basis, the lessee has to hold its own AOC and/or Operating Licence. If it does not hold an AOC and/or Operating Licence, then it can only take the aircraft on a full charter basis; and in that context the lessor needs to obtain relevant traffic rights. However, we're not talking full (wet) charter; we're talking ACMI lease.
As for: copying editorials from the notoriously inaccurate British tabloids - that article originally came from the Wall Street Journal. LOL!!!!
Finally, I have no doubts AACS will stick to G registered aircraft; and if ATLAS management decides to set up similar companies around the world (such as GSS - perhaps you might like to fill us in on that?) then that is simply one of the prices of dealing in a global industry.
We don't need a bunch of Yank pilots coming over here, taking our jobs, when we can't operate over there. The sooner the unions here extract their digits and impose sanctions on non-EU crewed aircraft owned by these companies, the better.
First, the ACMI operator generally flies under the authority of the lessee carrier - which is why in order to lease aircraft on an ACMI basis, the lessee has to hold its own AOC and/or Operating Licence. If it does not hold an AOC and/or Operating Licence, then it can only take the aircraft on a full charter basis; and in that context the lessor needs to obtain relevant traffic rights. However, we're not talking full (wet) charter; we're talking ACMI lease.As for: copying editorials from the notoriously inaccurate British tabloids - that article originally came from the Wall Street Journal. LOL!!!!
Finally, I have no doubts AACS will stick to G registered aircraft; and if ATLAS management decides to set up similar companies around the world (such as GSS - perhaps you might like to fill us in on that?) then that is simply one of the prices of dealing in a global industry.
We don't need a bunch of Yank pilots coming over here, taking our jobs, when we can't operate over there. The sooner the unions here extract their digits and impose sanctions on non-EU crewed aircraft owned by these companies, the better.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly, I can't wait for the next post from the Guv, could he please write my username in bold letters lots and lots of times with lots of exclamation marks so I can feel like a schoolboy getting told off by the Head Master?. What a joke.
You say Polar doesn't get preferential treatment at PIK?, yeah right, they chose it for it's pituresque quality and nice weather.
I doubt they got a good deal on the hangar either right?.
To my fellow AAI crewmembers, you are wasting your time with this one, he makes it sound like we are directly threatening HIS job, (one I woundn't touch with a ten foot barge pole).
His awesome knowledge of the Chicago Convention and it's results far outweigh what we mere mortals know about our OWN company,and you folks who have 25 years in the business and have been at Atlas since it's inception have apparently no clue what you are talking about.
Your time is better spent watering the window box.
Guv, you keep saying that it is a "global market" out there, thats right, and Atlas is taking advantage of that fact.
There is freight to be flown, Atlas has the lift, so we are flying it.
If there really is a market for several wide body airframes out of Prestwick, then you've got em' all beat, you go with your bad self!, LOL.
I don't need to repeat what my colleagues have said regarding AACS and our position, they have hit the nail right on the head.
If you put half the effort into your company that you do on this forum, it might actually fly!
Lak (awaiting a Bold Type response)
You say Polar doesn't get preferential treatment at PIK?, yeah right, they chose it for it's pituresque quality and nice weather.
I doubt they got a good deal on the hangar either right?.
To my fellow AAI crewmembers, you are wasting your time with this one, he makes it sound like we are directly threatening HIS job, (one I woundn't touch with a ten foot barge pole).
His awesome knowledge of the Chicago Convention and it's results far outweigh what we mere mortals know about our OWN company,and you folks who have 25 years in the business and have been at Atlas since it's inception have apparently no clue what you are talking about.
Your time is better spent watering the window box.
Guv, you keep saying that it is a "global market" out there, thats right, and Atlas is taking advantage of that fact.
There is freight to be flown, Atlas has the lift, so we are flying it.
If there really is a market for several wide body airframes out of Prestwick, then you've got em' all beat, you go with your bad self!, LOL.
I don't need to repeat what my colleagues have said regarding AACS and our position, they have hit the nail right on the head.
If you put half the effort into your company that you do on this forum, it might actually fly!
Lak (awaiting a Bold Type response)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver
I think you will find the Chicago Convention of 1944 led to the "five freedoms agreement".
If you refer to "The Law of International Air Transport" by Bin Cheng, you will find all the details on how sixth and seventh freedoms are virtual freedoms arrived at by stringing together fifths, and have no real standing in any published agreement.
------------------
lost in hold.
[This message has been edited by ClearDirect (edited 12 March 2001).]
I think you will find the Chicago Convention of 1944 led to the "five freedoms agreement".
If you refer to "The Law of International Air Transport" by Bin Cheng, you will find all the details on how sixth and seventh freedoms are virtual freedoms arrived at by stringing together fifths, and have no real standing in any published agreement.
------------------
lost in hold.
[This message has been edited by ClearDirect (edited 12 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ct.Yankee,
You mentioned that BA,KLM,AF flew from the US to BDA,ANU,AUA,FDF, etc. Up until fairly recently, those points were UK, Dutch, or French points, so the respective airlines were exercising 3rd and 4th freedoms.
FDF is still a French point, I am not sure about BDA and AUA. ANU is now part of Caricom and I believe they have a joint Caribbean aviation policy.
I am not involved in the UK/US argument going on here, but the Caribbean is at the loosing end of the "balance of commercial opportunity" and is looking on to see how the EU deals with it.
This week's Economist has an interesting article that touches on some of the implications of US aviation policy that affect the rest of the world adversely. It is difficult to dismiss The Economist as a sensationalist tabloid publication.
------------------
fly low, bite hard
You mentioned that BA,KLM,AF flew from the US to BDA,ANU,AUA,FDF, etc. Up until fairly recently, those points were UK, Dutch, or French points, so the respective airlines were exercising 3rd and 4th freedoms.
FDF is still a French point, I am not sure about BDA and AUA. ANU is now part of Caricom and I believe they have a joint Caribbean aviation policy.
I am not involved in the UK/US argument going on here, but the Caribbean is at the loosing end of the "balance of commercial opportunity" and is looking on to see how the EU deals with it.
This week's Economist has an interesting article that touches on some of the implications of US aviation policy that affect the rest of the world adversely. It is difficult to dismiss The Economist as a sensationalist tabloid publication.
------------------
fly low, bite hard
Guest
Posts: n/a
CD
I was attempting to simplify things for the unsophisticated individual I was trying to edify. When you instruct at the fifth grade level you must start simple.
You are correct, and for those who have a real interest in aviation and knowledge of history, and civics, here is the meat (Gov you can quit reading now as you won't understand any of this):
After thirty-seven days of continuous meetings, and some secret talks between the U.S., Cananda, and Great Britain, the Chicago Conference resulted in five documents being established.
1. Bilateral Agreement Rules - basically concerned air routes.
2. Provisional ICAO - Deals with ratifying the temporary ICAO established in June 1945.
3. Permanant ICAO - determines membership in ICAO.
4. International Air Transit Agreement- this is the two freedoms agreement which are referred to as the technical freedoms. The first of these is the right of an aircraft to fly over the territory of another country who has agreed to it. The second of these freedoms conveys the right of an airplane to land for technical reasons, such as refueling or repairs, but not for commercial purposes, such as picking up or discharging passengers. Hence the moniker "Tech Stop".
5. International Air transport Agreement (five freedoms agreement) This agreement was signed by the 16 (countries) and consisted of the two Technical agreements plus three more commercial freedoms. The first of these commercial freedoms is the right to carry traffic from the planes country of origin to another country. The second commercial freedom refers to the right to pick up traffic in other countries and return to the country of origin. The third freedom is the right of an airline to carry traffic between countries outside it's own country.
You are mostly (or Cheng is) correct. The sixth and seventh freedoms came about as interpretations of the other freedoms. However, I think you will find that they are refered to in U.S.open skies agreements signed first by the Netherlands in 1992, many other European countires in 1995, and Germany in 1996. If memory serves, there are 47 such agreements in place betweeen the U.S and others, and the standard agreement now also includes or refers to the 7 freedoms and also traffic rights for cargo carriers.
Thanks
BD
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 12 March 2001).]
I was attempting to simplify things for the unsophisticated individual I was trying to edify. When you instruct at the fifth grade level you must start simple.
You are correct, and for those who have a real interest in aviation and knowledge of history, and civics, here is the meat (Gov you can quit reading now as you won't understand any of this):
After thirty-seven days of continuous meetings, and some secret talks between the U.S., Cananda, and Great Britain, the Chicago Conference resulted in five documents being established.
1. Bilateral Agreement Rules - basically concerned air routes.
2. Provisional ICAO - Deals with ratifying the temporary ICAO established in June 1945.
3. Permanant ICAO - determines membership in ICAO.
4. International Air Transit Agreement- this is the two freedoms agreement which are referred to as the technical freedoms. The first of these is the right of an aircraft to fly over the territory of another country who has agreed to it. The second of these freedoms conveys the right of an airplane to land for technical reasons, such as refueling or repairs, but not for commercial purposes, such as picking up or discharging passengers. Hence the moniker "Tech Stop".
5. International Air transport Agreement (five freedoms agreement) This agreement was signed by the 16 (countries) and consisted of the two Technical agreements plus three more commercial freedoms. The first of these commercial freedoms is the right to carry traffic from the planes country of origin to another country. The second commercial freedom refers to the right to pick up traffic in other countries and return to the country of origin. The third freedom is the right of an airline to carry traffic between countries outside it's own country.
You are mostly (or Cheng is) correct. The sixth and seventh freedoms came about as interpretations of the other freedoms. However, I think you will find that they are refered to in U.S.open skies agreements signed first by the Netherlands in 1992, many other European countires in 1995, and Germany in 1996. If memory serves, there are 47 such agreements in place betweeen the U.S and others, and the standard agreement now also includes or refers to the 7 freedoms and also traffic rights for cargo carriers.
Thanks
BD
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 12 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver Driver - In other words, the 'extra' three derived freedoms (as in derived fifth freedom) are as defined by the US DOT.
Those self same people that defined Open Skies as "We can fly wherever we like, including operating Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Freedom flights in your country. However, Heaven help you if any of your airlines try and do the same in our country."
Actually, this happens to be an area I know a fair amount about, as when I was CEO of a regional carrier in Burundi, I was involved with Rodney Slater's attempt to impose his one-sided 'Open Skies' on COMESA. Luckilly, that fell apart after it was pointed out that as most of the COMESA carriers had been - unilaterally - categorised as Cat II/Cat III (as then applied) by the DOT, such rights were completely worthless as the US would block any reciprocal COMESA operators.
It was blatantly obvious that Slater's intention was to obtain derived Fifth Freedom rights for US carriers, such as Pan Am used to hold.
The various Freedoms (including the US three) are as follows:
First freedom
The privilege to fly across another state without landing.
Second freedom
The privilege to land in another state for non-traffic purposes (eg refuelling, mechanical requirements) but not for the purpose of uplifting passengers or discharging traffic.
Third freedom
The privilege to put down in another state revenue passengers, mail and freight taken on in the state of airline registration.
Fourth freedom
The privilege to take on in another state revenue passengers, mail and freight destined for the state of airline registration.
Fifth freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state and en route to or from that state to take on revenue passengers, mail and freight in a second state and to put them down in a third state.
Not part of the Chicago Convention:
Sixth freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers, mail and freight in a second state, transport them via the state of registration, and put them down in a third state.
Seventh freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers and freight to a second state and to put them down in a third state without the journey originating, stopping or terminating in the state of registration.
Eighth freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers and freight at one point in the territory of a second state and deliver them to another point in the territory of the second state, i.e. domestic passengers and freight in a foreign state. (NB: This is also known as Cabotage)
[This message has been edited by The Guvnor (edited 12 March 2001).]
Those self same people that defined Open Skies as "We can fly wherever we like, including operating Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Freedom flights in your country. However, Heaven help you if any of your airlines try and do the same in our country."
Actually, this happens to be an area I know a fair amount about, as when I was CEO of a regional carrier in Burundi, I was involved with Rodney Slater's attempt to impose his one-sided 'Open Skies' on COMESA. Luckilly, that fell apart after it was pointed out that as most of the COMESA carriers had been - unilaterally - categorised as Cat II/Cat III (as then applied) by the DOT, such rights were completely worthless as the US would block any reciprocal COMESA operators.
It was blatantly obvious that Slater's intention was to obtain derived Fifth Freedom rights for US carriers, such as Pan Am used to hold.
The various Freedoms (including the US three) are as follows:
First freedom
The privilege to fly across another state without landing.
Second freedom
The privilege to land in another state for non-traffic purposes (eg refuelling, mechanical requirements) but not for the purpose of uplifting passengers or discharging traffic.
Third freedom
The privilege to put down in another state revenue passengers, mail and freight taken on in the state of airline registration.
Fourth freedom
The privilege to take on in another state revenue passengers, mail and freight destined for the state of airline registration.
Fifth freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state and en route to or from that state to take on revenue passengers, mail and freight in a second state and to put them down in a third state.
Not part of the Chicago Convention:
Sixth freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers, mail and freight in a second state, transport them via the state of registration, and put them down in a third state.
Seventh freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers and freight to a second state and to put them down in a third state without the journey originating, stopping or terminating in the state of registration.
Eighth freedom
The privilege for an airline registered in one state to take on revenue passengers and freight at one point in the territory of a second state and deliver them to another point in the territory of the second state, i.e. domestic passengers and freight in a foreign state. (NB: This is also known as Cabotage)
[This message has been edited by The Guvnor (edited 12 March 2001).]