Atlas/AACS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv,
In reference to AACS/Atlas/BA you stated:
"I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which would be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'."
As I have pointed out before in this forum, obviously in vain, Atlas operated and continues to operate 1 (one) B747-400 freighter in fulfillment of it's BA contract. AACS is to have 5 (five) 747s, some of which are 200s which do not fit BA's requirements.
To the average mind, AACS, if actually a BA-only proposition, seems to be seriously over staffed and equiped at a time when there is an excellent worldwide market for heavylift assets. Please state your view as to why AACS now needs 5 B747 freighters (including 200s which BA doesn't use) to service the BA contract which used to require only one.
I'll help by pointing out what these excess AACS assets ARE doing currently: Flying other Atlas contracts that have nothing to do with BA, the UK or even the EU. Examples? Korean Air ANC-SEL-ANC, China Air ANC-TPE-ANC, Lan Chile MIA-BOG-MIA, etc.
Seriously Guv, while you make some good points on other issues of international trade which absolutely need to be addressed, this one is a red herring. AACS is merely the first step of Atlas management's plan to outsource the unionized crewforce's jobs. If it had the happy coincidence or excuse of satisfying UK rules as well, so much the better for Atlas management.
In reference to AACS/Atlas/BA you stated:
"I cannot see - and perhaps someone can explain it to me - how the aircraft and crews which would be dedicated to BA will, in any way, be allowed to act as 'scabs'."
As I have pointed out before in this forum, obviously in vain, Atlas operated and continues to operate 1 (one) B747-400 freighter in fulfillment of it's BA contract. AACS is to have 5 (five) 747s, some of which are 200s which do not fit BA's requirements.
To the average mind, AACS, if actually a BA-only proposition, seems to be seriously over staffed and equiped at a time when there is an excellent worldwide market for heavylift assets. Please state your view as to why AACS now needs 5 B747 freighters (including 200s which BA doesn't use) to service the BA contract which used to require only one.
I'll help by pointing out what these excess AACS assets ARE doing currently: Flying other Atlas contracts that have nothing to do with BA, the UK or even the EU. Examples? Korean Air ANC-SEL-ANC, China Air ANC-TPE-ANC, Lan Chile MIA-BOG-MIA, etc.
Seriously Guv, while you make some good points on other issues of international trade which absolutely need to be addressed, this one is a red herring. AACS is merely the first step of Atlas management's plan to outsource the unionized crewforce's jobs. If it had the happy coincidence or excuse of satisfying UK rules as well, so much the better for Atlas management.
Guest
Posts: n/a
StbdD - Thanks for that - at last we as outsiders are getting more information on the real situation at ATLAS.
Two things spring to mind - first BA has wanted to expand the number of aircraft they have on ACMI lease from ATLAS for some time now; and that there has been strong interest in leasing aircraft from ATLAS expressed by at least one other UK operator; but thanks largely to the efforts of the IPA on the 'flagging out' issue, they have been unable to do so.
Secondly, even if they do have five aircraft, if two or three of them are dedicated to BA ops, then the balance won't be of much use to ATLAS as 'scab' aircraft in the event of a strike. Obviously, AACS needs to have a certain number of aircraft in order to achieve operational economies of scale.
I would suggest that AACS would be used as an EU operation, and therefore provide lift to carriers such as Alitalia, SAS, Air France etc. I agree with you though that I can see no reason for AACS as a company to be operating outside a tightly defined 'sphere of influence'; and as soon as they get themselves properly organised and the aircraft on the UK register then this, I am sure, will be resolved.
I would be considerably more interested to learn how they managed to get around the UK ownership and control issues: who, exactly, are the UK nationals that own and control a minimum of 51% of the company?
Two things spring to mind - first BA has wanted to expand the number of aircraft they have on ACMI lease from ATLAS for some time now; and that there has been strong interest in leasing aircraft from ATLAS expressed by at least one other UK operator; but thanks largely to the efforts of the IPA on the 'flagging out' issue, they have been unable to do so.
Secondly, even if they do have five aircraft, if two or three of them are dedicated to BA ops, then the balance won't be of much use to ATLAS as 'scab' aircraft in the event of a strike. Obviously, AACS needs to have a certain number of aircraft in order to achieve operational economies of scale.
I would suggest that AACS would be used as an EU operation, and therefore provide lift to carriers such as Alitalia, SAS, Air France etc. I agree with you though that I can see no reason for AACS as a company to be operating outside a tightly defined 'sphere of influence'; and as soon as they get themselves properly organised and the aircraft on the UK register then this, I am sure, will be resolved.
I would be considerably more interested to learn how they managed to get around the UK ownership and control issues: who, exactly, are the UK nationals that own and control a minimum of 51% of the company?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to add a little bit to the xth freedom discussion:
In the late 40's and early 50's the US government actively did try to ban the 6th and 7th freedom (which as a matter of fact are a combination of the other five), as they perceived the 'unfair' compatition from European airlines being harmless to their own flying. They actively contested, that a passenger from Italy should not be allowed to fly on BEA/BOAC, AF, SR etc. to this carriers main base and then onward to the US. They insisted, that sucha passenger MUST fly direct, preferrably on a US airline.
Srange views by the US policymakers are not new at all.
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
In the late 40's and early 50's the US government actively did try to ban the 6th and 7th freedom (which as a matter of fact are a combination of the other five), as they perceived the 'unfair' compatition from European airlines being harmless to their own flying. They actively contested, that a passenger from Italy should not be allowed to fly on BEA/BOAC, AF, SR etc. to this carriers main base and then onward to the US. They insisted, that sucha passenger MUST fly direct, preferrably on a US airline.
Srange views by the US policymakers are not new at all.
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wow, all this talk of the various freedom rights is daunting. In essence AACS was only formed to get round the EC Law 2407/92 because they would not be allowed to continue
much longer under the Atlas Banner and extend beyond one aeroplane. ( the second being on a renewable monthly dispensation).
Now ( imminently) they can do just whatever they want as soon a they have satisfied the CAA as to their AOC and re registered their
aeroplanes. Job done whether you like it or not. The jobs on N reg aeroplanes have been lost to US pilots whether thay like it or not.
The cartel between AACS and BA will only get bigger and more management types will slide across seamlessly from BA to AACS, you just watch. It's a done deal guys and I fear you've been well and truly shafted.
[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 12 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 13 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 14 March 2001).]
much longer under the Atlas Banner and extend beyond one aeroplane. ( the second being on a renewable monthly dispensation).
Now ( imminently) they can do just whatever they want as soon a they have satisfied the CAA as to their AOC and re registered their
aeroplanes. Job done whether you like it or not. The jobs on N reg aeroplanes have been lost to US pilots whether thay like it or not.
The cartel between AACS and BA will only get bigger and more management types will slide across seamlessly from BA to AACS, you just watch. It's a done deal guys and I fear you've been well and truly shafted.
[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 12 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 13 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by torpedoe (edited 14 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hunter
Contention by ONE government official whether he be the head of the DOT or not, does not a policy make. There are five freedoms of the air formally established. All the others have been established by negotiating practice or precedent between bilateral partners. Each bilateral agreement between two countries always contains provisions allowing, at a minimum, the first four freedoms of the air. The fifth freedom was not universally made available between countries. Recently, Other traffic freedoms and concepts have been developed, some of which have been included in U.S. bilateral air service agreements with other nations. But by no means are the U.S. definitions of the other freedoms (six through eight) accepted by all other nations on the globe, or are they codified in biltilateral agreements like the Chicago Convention.
The U.S. generally defines sixth freedom as flowing traffic from a third country over an
airline's homeland to a destination in the United States. An example would be a Japanese
airline flowing traffic originating in Thailand over Japan to the United States. Most bilateral agreements do not explicitly set down sixth freedom rights, they are simply a silent partner of fifth freedom rights that are taken advantage of by most airlines around the world once fifth freedom rights are established. (This is actually a combination of Third and fourth freedoms that has been so universally used by the airlines and signatory countries of the Chicago as to be accepted into common practice. Yes, I suppose the U.S. (D.O.T.?) took the lead and formally defined it, but only after it was in such wide spread use as to be un-asailable.
The United States has defined seventh freedom as the ability of an airline to provide service between two countries not of its homeland without the service being connected in any way with a service to the homeland country. An example of this type of service would be a U.S. airline providing turn-around service between Frankfurt and Paris. (This was done originally, I understand, in the early 1970's primarily to help Iceland).
Some journo's in aviation are beginning to call Cabotage the eighth freedom. The pure definition of cabotage from the Chicago Convention is the right of an airline of one country to fly and carry traffic between two points within the territory of another country. There is a strict prohibition in the Chicago Convention against any signatory state "exclusively" exchanging cabotage rights with another signatory state, so once this happens, there will be no going back....even when the Southwest's of the U.S. decimate the British Airline industry.
Currently, a number of U.S. laws and regulations prohibit foreign airlines, aircraft and/or crews from operating between two points in the U.S. and carrying traffic. For a cabotage exchange, EACH ONE of these U.S. laws would have to be separately repealed or otherwise rendered ineffective. The problem is that some of the laws involve other modes of transportation (like the maritime industry). In addition, the Chicago Convention would have to be dealt with if the U.S. (or any other signatory country) tried to conclude a cabotage exchange with one partner, or even the EU.
Under the Treaty of Rome which created the European Common Market and European Union, the 15 European signatory states made a commitment that their individual national borders would be broken down for trade and transportation purposes among those states. As a result, airlines licensed by the EU member states now hold EU licenses and may fly between any cities within the borders of the European Union. There are some who argue that the Treaty of Rome is a violation of the Chicago Convention, but no one has taken the EU to court over the issue. The 15 national governments of the E.U. STILL RETAIN ALL AUTHORITY todecide how their airlines will fly/operate to and from non-EU member states or third countries and also which airlines can operate in and out of their states and under which freedoms.
The European Commission continues to challenge the rights of member states on this authority, but it has not been successful. The EC has alleged in a court filing that European member states which signed open skies agreements with the United States violated the Treaty of Rome by authorizing U.S. airlines to fly between two EU member states and carry traffic (fifth freedom rights). This suit has not been ruled on, and European member states believe the EC will lose the suit. Purely for public relations purposes, does the EC maintain that U.S. airline fifth freedom rights within the EU are the same as cabotage rights. This EC argument, most U.S. experts say, has no validity.
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 13 March 2001).]
Contention by ONE government official whether he be the head of the DOT or not, does not a policy make. There are five freedoms of the air formally established. All the others have been established by negotiating practice or precedent between bilateral partners. Each bilateral agreement between two countries always contains provisions allowing, at a minimum, the first four freedoms of the air. The fifth freedom was not universally made available between countries. Recently, Other traffic freedoms and concepts have been developed, some of which have been included in U.S. bilateral air service agreements with other nations. But by no means are the U.S. definitions of the other freedoms (six through eight) accepted by all other nations on the globe, or are they codified in biltilateral agreements like the Chicago Convention.
The U.S. generally defines sixth freedom as flowing traffic from a third country over an
airline's homeland to a destination in the United States. An example would be a Japanese
airline flowing traffic originating in Thailand over Japan to the United States. Most bilateral agreements do not explicitly set down sixth freedom rights, they are simply a silent partner of fifth freedom rights that are taken advantage of by most airlines around the world once fifth freedom rights are established. (This is actually a combination of Third and fourth freedoms that has been so universally used by the airlines and signatory countries of the Chicago as to be accepted into common practice. Yes, I suppose the U.S. (D.O.T.?) took the lead and formally defined it, but only after it was in such wide spread use as to be un-asailable.
The United States has defined seventh freedom as the ability of an airline to provide service between two countries not of its homeland without the service being connected in any way with a service to the homeland country. An example of this type of service would be a U.S. airline providing turn-around service between Frankfurt and Paris. (This was done originally, I understand, in the early 1970's primarily to help Iceland).
Some journo's in aviation are beginning to call Cabotage the eighth freedom. The pure definition of cabotage from the Chicago Convention is the right of an airline of one country to fly and carry traffic between two points within the territory of another country. There is a strict prohibition in the Chicago Convention against any signatory state "exclusively" exchanging cabotage rights with another signatory state, so once this happens, there will be no going back....even when the Southwest's of the U.S. decimate the British Airline industry.
Currently, a number of U.S. laws and regulations prohibit foreign airlines, aircraft and/or crews from operating between two points in the U.S. and carrying traffic. For a cabotage exchange, EACH ONE of these U.S. laws would have to be separately repealed or otherwise rendered ineffective. The problem is that some of the laws involve other modes of transportation (like the maritime industry). In addition, the Chicago Convention would have to be dealt with if the U.S. (or any other signatory country) tried to conclude a cabotage exchange with one partner, or even the EU.
Under the Treaty of Rome which created the European Common Market and European Union, the 15 European signatory states made a commitment that their individual national borders would be broken down for trade and transportation purposes among those states. As a result, airlines licensed by the EU member states now hold EU licenses and may fly between any cities within the borders of the European Union. There are some who argue that the Treaty of Rome is a violation of the Chicago Convention, but no one has taken the EU to court over the issue. The 15 national governments of the E.U. STILL RETAIN ALL AUTHORITY todecide how their airlines will fly/operate to and from non-EU member states or third countries and also which airlines can operate in and out of their states and under which freedoms.
The European Commission continues to challenge the rights of member states on this authority, but it has not been successful. The EC has alleged in a court filing that European member states which signed open skies agreements with the United States violated the Treaty of Rome by authorizing U.S. airlines to fly between two EU member states and carry traffic (fifth freedom rights). This suit has not been ruled on, and European member states believe the EC will lose the suit. Purely for public relations purposes, does the EC maintain that U.S. airline fifth freedom rights within the EU are the same as cabotage rights. This EC argument, most U.S. experts say, has no validity.
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 13 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver Driver
The definition of Cabotage is:-
AIR TRANSPORT internal air traffic: the right of a country to operate "internal traffic" especially air traffic, using its own carriers and not those of other countries
Some countries restrict the carriage of cargo between their own ports to ships flying their own flag. This practice, known as cabotage, has existed for centuries. It has almost disappeared in Europe but it is strictly enforced in the United States, where there is substantial coastwise trade, some of which involves international voyages through the Panama Canal.
Please enlighten me on how the Chicago Convention has defined cabotage in relation to traffic rights in another state and what ICAO article refers to this
My impression of the convention was that agreement was reached that established the principle that every nation has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory and granted transit rights i.e the right to fly over another nation's territory and the right to land there for non-traffic purposes, such as refuelling and permitted non-scheduled, charter(article 5), and private flights.
However agreement was not reached on traffic rights (to pick up and set down passengers, cargo, and mail) and bilateral negotiations had to be carried out to effect such arrangements. The American principle of "Freedom of the Air" and the British principle of "Order in the Air" were reconciled in 1946 in Bermuda at a meeting between the United States and Britain. Subsequent bilateral agreements are based on the so-called Bermuda Principles covering the regulation of routes, capacity, and tariff.
An interesting and informative discussion protectionism is alive and kicking on both sides of the atlantic
Cheers
Always willing to listen
The definition of Cabotage is:-
AIR TRANSPORT internal air traffic: the right of a country to operate "internal traffic" especially air traffic, using its own carriers and not those of other countries
Some countries restrict the carriage of cargo between their own ports to ships flying their own flag. This practice, known as cabotage, has existed for centuries. It has almost disappeared in Europe but it is strictly enforced in the United States, where there is substantial coastwise trade, some of which involves international voyages through the Panama Canal.
Please enlighten me on how the Chicago Convention has defined cabotage in relation to traffic rights in another state and what ICAO article refers to this
My impression of the convention was that agreement was reached that established the principle that every nation has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory and granted transit rights i.e the right to fly over another nation's territory and the right to land there for non-traffic purposes, such as refuelling and permitted non-scheduled, charter(article 5), and private flights.
However agreement was not reached on traffic rights (to pick up and set down passengers, cargo, and mail) and bilateral negotiations had to be carried out to effect such arrangements. The American principle of "Freedom of the Air" and the British principle of "Order in the Air" were reconciled in 1946 in Bermuda at a meeting between the United States and Britain. Subsequent bilateral agreements are based on the so-called Bermuda Principles covering the regulation of routes, capacity, and tariff.
An interesting and informative discussion protectionism is alive and kicking on both sides of the atlantic
Cheers
Always willing to listen
Guest
Posts: n/a
Engineer
Actually Websters defines cabotage as:
n- from the French caboter- [to sail along the coast](1831) - 1 : trade or transport in coastal waters or airspace between two points within a country. 2 : the right to engage in cabotage.
One of my reference books defines it like this: The carraige of air traffic which originates and terminates within the boundraries of a given country by an air carrier of another country. Rights to such traffic are usually entirely denied or severely restricted.
Most other texts that I have define it the same way. An example would be if Caledonian Wings (an non-U.S. company) wanted to carry cargo between JFK and LAX. This is the generally accepted definition of cabotage and the one that the Chicago Conference adopted. Not sure where your def. came from but most in aviation don't dfine it that way. (unless I read it wrong or you typed it wrong....)
What follows is shamelessly plagerized from the folks at Perdue University Aviation Technology Class Notes (AT300 Aviation Infrastructure):
Bilateral Agreements and the Seven Freedoms of International Air Service.
The First Chicago Convention – Chicago 1944
In the shadow of World War II, free nations gathered in Chicago to lay a foundation for international air transportation. A number of nations, including the United States, argued for a multinational free-market environment. Others, and notably the British, argued for a more restrictive environment and their views prevailed. Today, international air transportation is among the most restricted forms of international commerce. Service is provided under bilateral agreements negotiated between the two nations served. Unlike the multilateral agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO), international aviation services are banned unless authorized by these bilateral agreements.
While the Chicago convention failed to produce a free aviation market, it did create the safety and other regulatory infrastructure, which has enabled air transportation to transform the world’s economy in the jet age, bringing diverse peoples together, generating knowledge and understanding, inhibiting prejudice, catalyzing cultures, and stimulating commerce.
Bilateral Agreements
The bilateral air service agreements negotiated between nations traditionally seek
a reciprocal balance of benefits for the airlines of both countries. As the United States had the largest domestic air travel market, and therefore more major airlines than other countries, it became increasingly difficult from the 1970’s onwards, for other countries to find benefits for U.S. carriers that balanced the benefit they sought for their own carriers in a new bilateral. The user – the air traveler and the shipper – and the economic needs of cities were not considered a serious factor until the formation of USA-BIAS became a balancing force in U.S. international aviation policy.
Bermuda 1
The first aviation bilateral agreement was negotiated between the United States
and Great Britain and is known as "Bermuda 1". Negotiators from both sides were flown to the Island of Bermuda by the U.S. Army Air Corps and left there until they had hammered out an agreement. Bermuda 1 became the template for many other bilateral agreements negotiated through to the early 1970’s.
Bermuda 2
In 1978 the United States and Great Britain negotiated a significantly different bilateral agreement, which expanded market access for the consumer but which still tightly regulated capacity, pricing, and other marketing factors. This agreement became known as Bermuda 2. Subsequently, a growing number of bilateral air agreements of a liberal nature were negotiated with other countries.
If you will read my post above I think it will answer your questions or at least confim your impressions of the Chicago Conference.
This is all way to complicated to go into on this thread as we are already far off topic. (sorry Danny). I just felt it necessary to educate those who find a little crumb of knowledge (Gov) and proceed to crow from the rooftops.
Actually Websters defines cabotage as:
n- from the French caboter- [to sail along the coast](1831) - 1 : trade or transport in coastal waters or airspace between two points within a country. 2 : the right to engage in cabotage.
One of my reference books defines it like this: The carraige of air traffic which originates and terminates within the boundraries of a given country by an air carrier of another country. Rights to such traffic are usually entirely denied or severely restricted.
Most other texts that I have define it the same way. An example would be if Caledonian Wings (an non-U.S. company) wanted to carry cargo between JFK and LAX. This is the generally accepted definition of cabotage and the one that the Chicago Conference adopted. Not sure where your def. came from but most in aviation don't dfine it that way. (unless I read it wrong or you typed it wrong....)
What follows is shamelessly plagerized from the folks at Perdue University Aviation Technology Class Notes (AT300 Aviation Infrastructure):
Bilateral Agreements and the Seven Freedoms of International Air Service.
The First Chicago Convention – Chicago 1944
In the shadow of World War II, free nations gathered in Chicago to lay a foundation for international air transportation. A number of nations, including the United States, argued for a multinational free-market environment. Others, and notably the British, argued for a more restrictive environment and their views prevailed. Today, international air transportation is among the most restricted forms of international commerce. Service is provided under bilateral agreements negotiated between the two nations served. Unlike the multilateral agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO), international aviation services are banned unless authorized by these bilateral agreements.
While the Chicago convention failed to produce a free aviation market, it did create the safety and other regulatory infrastructure, which has enabled air transportation to transform the world’s economy in the jet age, bringing diverse peoples together, generating knowledge and understanding, inhibiting prejudice, catalyzing cultures, and stimulating commerce.
Bilateral Agreements
The bilateral air service agreements negotiated between nations traditionally seek
a reciprocal balance of benefits for the airlines of both countries. As the United States had the largest domestic air travel market, and therefore more major airlines than other countries, it became increasingly difficult from the 1970’s onwards, for other countries to find benefits for U.S. carriers that balanced the benefit they sought for their own carriers in a new bilateral. The user – the air traveler and the shipper – and the economic needs of cities were not considered a serious factor until the formation of USA-BIAS became a balancing force in U.S. international aviation policy.
Bermuda 1
The first aviation bilateral agreement was negotiated between the United States
and Great Britain and is known as "Bermuda 1". Negotiators from both sides were flown to the Island of Bermuda by the U.S. Army Air Corps and left there until they had hammered out an agreement. Bermuda 1 became the template for many other bilateral agreements negotiated through to the early 1970’s.
Bermuda 2
In 1978 the United States and Great Britain negotiated a significantly different bilateral agreement, which expanded market access for the consumer but which still tightly regulated capacity, pricing, and other marketing factors. This agreement became known as Bermuda 2. Subsequently, a growing number of bilateral air agreements of a liberal nature were negotiated with other countries.
If you will read my post above I think it will answer your questions or at least confim your impressions of the Chicago Conference.
This is all way to complicated to go into on this thread as we are already far off topic. (sorry Danny). I just felt it necessary to educate those who find a little crumb of knowledge (Gov) and proceed to crow from the rooftops.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>What follows is shamelessly plagerized from the folks at Perdue University Aviation Technology Class Notes<<
Perdue University? Did you really go there?
www.perdue.com
Perdue University? Did you really go there?
www.perdue.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
We have good news to report in connection with the profit-sharing lawsuit. As you know, Atlas filed a motion to stay the matter pending review by the United States Supreme Court. By order dated March 9, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Atlas' motion, and today it issued a "mandate," whereby the matter is remanded to the District Court for the commencement of proceedings on the remedy, including back-pay.
ALPA intends to move promptly to begin the proceedings in the District Court to compensate us for profit-sharing allocations we have lost out on since April 1999 and to restore our profit-sharing on a going forward basis.
Can you say,"convicted of UNION BUSTING TACKTICS?????"!!!!!! This was the companies last appeal and now are forced to pay us back for some of the injustices they have put us through.
AACS lawsuit is next! Kind of set's the tone wouldn't you say????
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the info HeavyWhale. I knew we would prevail.
I believe that this labor dispute will be taught in aviation and business schools for years to come. Richard Shuyler and Bill Allen will become an example of how not to run a company. I pray that Linda Chowdry has the wisdom to fire these buffoons.
I have never seen a more greedy, self-destructive management team, but then I was not at Eastern. Bean counters need to consider the cost of attrition (safety), and an eroding customer base.
I believe that this labor dispute will be taught in aviation and business schools for years to come. Richard Shuyler and Bill Allen will become an example of how not to run a company. I pray that Linda Chowdry has the wisdom to fire these buffoons.
I have never seen a more greedy, self-destructive management team, but then I was not at Eastern. Bean counters need to consider the cost of attrition (safety), and an eroding customer base.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Haven't been updated recently on the Atlas debacle. Anybody have answers to:
1. What's the status of AACS? How many current and qualified crews do they have and how many airplanes are they flying?
2. Are AACS crews flying more than just BA contract airplanes??
3. Are AACS crews flying in or out of the United States?
4. Are all training slots still going to
AACS?
5. Is Atlas mainline hiring again?
6. What's been the attrition of F/Os at Atlas mainline during the last six months?
7. Is it true that management has parked some airplanes for lack of contracts?
8. What's the real motive behind the new holding company?
1. What's the status of AACS? How many current and qualified crews do they have and how many airplanes are they flying?
2. Are AACS crews flying more than just BA contract airplanes??
3. Are AACS crews flying in or out of the United States?
4. Are all training slots still going to
AACS?
5. Is Atlas mainline hiring again?
6. What's been the attrition of F/Os at Atlas mainline during the last six months?
7. Is it true that management has parked some airplanes for lack of contracts?
8. What's the real motive behind the new holding company?
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. Who Cares?, the courts will take care of them. (130 members or so)
2. Yes
3. Yes again
4. Around 90%
5. Mid year or so
6. Nearly none in the last 6 months
7. Nope
8. What else doe's a convicted Union Buster do?
Hope that answers some of your questions.
Lak
[This message has been edited by LimeyAK (edited 13 March 2001).]
2. Yes
3. Yes again
4. Around 90%
5. Mid year or so
6. Nearly none in the last 6 months
7. Nope
8. What else doe's a convicted Union Buster do?
Hope that answers some of your questions.
Lak
[This message has been edited by LimeyAK (edited 13 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just got off the phone with one Capt. who's been here for over 4 years. We've been figuring out how much the company owes us. I figured that he's going to get paid about $64,000 at the min. I'm going to get about $20,000.
I wonder, for you outsiders, how you would feel if someone stole $100 out of your pocket? I'm sure that you would be so mad that you could spit! Now just imagine how you would feel if someone stole $64,000 from you and took that money to train your replacement worker with it. Ouch, kinda stings doesn't it???
Atlas Air managment has now been convicted of steeling from there own employees! They should be ashamed. If I stole from them, they would at the very least fire me. They could throw my butt in jail! But what will happen to them? Not much, just a little ego shot.
Let me say this however, they have just funded each and every one of our strike funds. With this kind of money I could stay on strike for a year!!! I wonder how long the company could afford to let us??? Not a day? Not two days??
We're ready..... are they?
Guest
Posts: n/a
LimeyAK-
Have a hard time believing that attrition has stopped considering the 10-20 per month earlier last year. Has the quality of F/Os slipped so much that they are no longer competitive elsewhere?? Waiting to gut it out and see what the contract brings?? Been hearing tales of guys sitting at home due to no flying? Untrue??\
Heavywhale - Atlas couldn't afford 5 MINUTES of a strike. You guys are in the driver's seat. The faster you can get to nut cuttin', the better. It's clear that management is going to slow-leak the negotiations as long as possible. At least you guys don't have to worry about the President siding with management via a PEB, like what will probably happen with Delta sooner or later.
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 13 March 2001).]
Have a hard time believing that attrition has stopped considering the 10-20 per month earlier last year. Has the quality of F/Os slipped so much that they are no longer competitive elsewhere?? Waiting to gut it out and see what the contract brings?? Been hearing tales of guys sitting at home due to no flying? Untrue??\
Heavywhale - Atlas couldn't afford 5 MINUTES of a strike. You guys are in the driver's seat. The faster you can get to nut cuttin', the better. It's clear that management is going to slow-leak the negotiations as long as possible. At least you guys don't have to worry about the President siding with management via a PEB, like what will probably happen with Delta sooner or later.
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 13 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Intruder-
By my count that's an attrition factor among mainline pilots of about 20% per year! When AACS gets put out-of-biz by the courts, then Linda's going have to park airplanes for lack of crews. Hang in there guys and don't settle for a cent less than you deserve.
BTW, how can AACS crews be flying in the states? Aren't you guys dropping the dime on them with the INS??
When DHL starts hiring in Europe for the 757 freighters, maybe that'll siphon off some of the AACSers that want a real job.
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 14 March 2001).]
By my count that's an attrition factor among mainline pilots of about 20% per year! When AACS gets put out-of-biz by the courts, then Linda's going have to park airplanes for lack of crews. Hang in there guys and don't settle for a cent less than you deserve.
BTW, how can AACS crews be flying in the states? Aren't you guys dropping the dime on them with the INS??
When DHL starts hiring in Europe for the 757 freighters, maybe that'll siphon off some of the AACSers that want a real job.
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 14 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roadtrip - I don't think so! All she has to do is set up a bunch of 'mini ATLAS' operations around the world, employing local crews at local rates (none of this expat cra*p!) and not only will they get more work, but they will have cheaper and more committed crews to do it with.
That leaves ATLAS with a core of US aircraft operating out of the States on behalf of US clients - how many of those have you got?
Rule one in life, boys - don't p*ss off the person signing your paycheck. If any of you reckon you can do it better, I'm sure there's nothing stopping you from going off and setting up your own ACMI operation!
That leaves ATLAS with a core of US aircraft operating out of the States on behalf of US clients - how many of those have you got?
Rule one in life, boys - don't p*ss off the person signing your paycheck. If any of you reckon you can do it better, I'm sure there's nothing stopping you from going off and setting up your own ACMI operation!
Guest
Posts: n/a
So Guv
Are you advocating that everyone should just touch their forelock and tilt the cap no matter what. Persume that "genocide" could be an OK scenario for you
Like to know where you learnt your management skills?
[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 14 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 14 March 2001).]
Are you advocating that everyone should just touch their forelock and tilt the cap no matter what. Persume that "genocide" could be an OK scenario for you
Like to know where you learnt your management skills?
[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 14 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Engineer (edited 14 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, I guess we'll have to see how it all turns out, Guv. Lot's of intrigues and court battles to go yet. I suppose that Atlas could ship the whole operation to Liberia and operate tramp freighters from there using tramp pilots. There's already been several noteworthy incidents involving the "other company" that Atlas is quite mum about. I'm guessing that any more alter-ego companies being formed is not going to happen between now and when Council 72 is released to legally strike. By that time even the AACSers will be getting the picture of what kind of snake pit they stepped into. The formation of the "holding company" very well may be an indicator of things to come, but if basing off-shore US is such a good (cheaper)idea, why didn't Michael do sooner? I'm sure there are lots of Eastern European ex-MiG pilots and South American pilots that would be willing to work like dogs for sub-par wages. It'll be interesting to see how the US labor courts view it. Standing by. My money's on ALPA.
BTW, when is your company going to issue an IPO?
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 14 March 2001).]
BTW, when is your company going to issue an IPO?
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 14 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roadtrip - it's a toughie ... and believe it or not I do have a fair amount of sympathy for you guys; especially over being shafted on the profitshare deal. I guss it's cause I'm a Libran ... I see both sides of the equation and have a stong sense of fair play!
However, at the end of the day as I said above its the guy that signs the cheque (or check if you prefer) that calls the tune. If the shareholders feel that they will get more return out of a whole load of mini-ATLASes dotted around the world - and at the same time cut their overheads then I don't think that there is anything anyone can do about it - court or otherwise. As I have said, this is a global business with global players.
That said, standards have to be kept up - that's one of ATLAS' principal selling points: but at the same time don't forget that the main reason carriers use ATLAS is (a) for flexibility and (b) because overall it's cheaper. The moment you guys start demanding serious pay hikes, the cost advantage disappears up in smoke and the contracts with it.
At the moment, you're (as a company) in the enviable position of being in a near-monopoly situation; the only other big player is Gemini and they largest the go is the MD11. I guess you could count World in as well, but for how much longer? Watch out for Polar ... at the moment they are mainly concentrating on their own operations but if they decide to get into the ACMI business you'll be in trouble as they have far deeper pockets.
Beware the recession as well - it's going to lead to serious cutbacks in leased aircraft; again unless there is a substantial cost benefit in keeping the operation going.
But I'm sure this is all stuff you have already considered.
The question is, what are you going to do about it?
However, at the end of the day as I said above its the guy that signs the cheque (or check if you prefer) that calls the tune. If the shareholders feel that they will get more return out of a whole load of mini-ATLASes dotted around the world - and at the same time cut their overheads then I don't think that there is anything anyone can do about it - court or otherwise. As I have said, this is a global business with global players.
That said, standards have to be kept up - that's one of ATLAS' principal selling points: but at the same time don't forget that the main reason carriers use ATLAS is (a) for flexibility and (b) because overall it's cheaper. The moment you guys start demanding serious pay hikes, the cost advantage disappears up in smoke and the contracts with it.
At the moment, you're (as a company) in the enviable position of being in a near-monopoly situation; the only other big player is Gemini and they largest the go is the MD11. I guess you could count World in as well, but for how much longer? Watch out for Polar ... at the moment they are mainly concentrating on their own operations but if they decide to get into the ACMI business you'll be in trouble as they have far deeper pockets.
Beware the recession as well - it's going to lead to serious cutbacks in leased aircraft; again unless there is a substantial cost benefit in keeping the operation going.
But I'm sure this is all stuff you have already considered.
The question is, what are you going to do about it?