Atlas/AACS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Guv, just wanted to say it. Actually they are also behind Cielos del Peru and operate a couple of DC10s from Gemini as well. Some call them the new driving force in South America. And behind all this is SwissGlobal. I think the mexican company is history by now, but who knows with Alfonso.
Beaver
I am not sure you did not miss the Guv's point here. Your legal battle against Atlas in honour (and I hope you win), but that is not the issue. Let's see how long Atlas will be able to fly for BA, as this lawsuit is not finished yet and there is a lot of pressure from the EU to kick Atlas out and finally live the law to the letter. I always thought that respecting the laws is something you Americans are so pround of. You should maybe also ask IAP about their opinion... You'd be surprised!
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
Beaver
I am not sure you did not miss the Guv's point here. Your legal battle against Atlas in honour (and I hope you win), but that is not the issue. Let's see how long Atlas will be able to fly for BA, as this lawsuit is not finished yet and there is a lot of pressure from the EU to kick Atlas out and finally live the law to the letter. I always thought that respecting the laws is something you Americans are so pround of. You should maybe also ask IAP about their opinion... You'd be surprised!
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hunter58
What is actually at issue here depends upon ones point of view. For instance, do you really think Atlas pilots or for that matter Atlas itself cares enough about a ONE aircraft BA contract to go through all this hassle and expense? Unlikely. With Atlas' 35 or so jets losing BA would be a temporary blip on their screen. That being said, perhaps what's really at issue is the fight against the Atlas management plan to establish multiple "wholly owned subsidiaries" in order to move jobs offshore and out of union hands. AACS' intended scope has been proven to be much wider than just the BA contract and with GSS on the horizon who knows what pilot groups and nationalities these labor tactics will effect next? Offshore is still offshore no matter where you live. Thats how some view "the" issue.
In all fairness regarding respect for law; BA, a UK company, issued the contract(s) in question. Presumably they are quite familiar with the laws of their own country, In fact they probably aided in drafting them. Atlas on the other hand is a foreign company hired by a national company (BA) with the express approval of the national (UK) government. Since Atlas operated in accordance with UK regulations it is rather difficult to see any lack of respect for UK law on Atlas' part. BA and the UK lawmakers/enforcers are perhaps another story.
As to IAP opinions, one suspects their value to Atlas pilots would be roughly the same as Atlas pilots opinions would be to the IAP.
What is actually at issue here depends upon ones point of view. For instance, do you really think Atlas pilots or for that matter Atlas itself cares enough about a ONE aircraft BA contract to go through all this hassle and expense? Unlikely. With Atlas' 35 or so jets losing BA would be a temporary blip on their screen. That being said, perhaps what's really at issue is the fight against the Atlas management plan to establish multiple "wholly owned subsidiaries" in order to move jobs offshore and out of union hands. AACS' intended scope has been proven to be much wider than just the BA contract and with GSS on the horizon who knows what pilot groups and nationalities these labor tactics will effect next? Offshore is still offshore no matter where you live. Thats how some view "the" issue.
In all fairness regarding respect for law; BA, a UK company, issued the contract(s) in question. Presumably they are quite familiar with the laws of their own country, In fact they probably aided in drafting them. Atlas on the other hand is a foreign company hired by a national company (BA) with the express approval of the national (UK) government. Since Atlas operated in accordance with UK regulations it is rather difficult to see any lack of respect for UK law on Atlas' part. BA and the UK lawmakers/enforcers are perhaps another story.
As to IAP opinions, one suspects their value to Atlas pilots would be roughly the same as Atlas pilots opinions would be to the IAP.
Guest
Posts: n/a
any of you boys over there at aacs (soon to be gss..maybe, if that doesn't fail too) know the outcome of the 3/13/01 meeting at stn? if you don't, and are still in the "dark", don't you think maybe it's time to turn on the light and find out what the hell is going on? everytime i meet/see one of you guys somewhere, it's like you have no clue...i guess you just don't care....i would!
Guest
Posts: n/a
StdbyD
sure, you don't care at all. But just for reminding me, how many aircraft did you have standing around since christmas??? I remember to be reported a two digit number. I just wonder how many customers are still in the world wanting you services...
I know this business very well! And nobody can afford to lose a customer! Nobody, not even Atlas.
Regarding the legality... You as a company offering ACMI services, you still have to know how other countries regulations work. In this particular case you don't really have an active part (unless you want to keep the customers you have), but the signs about the slow moving demise of ACMI (for carriers not being in the same geographical and administrative region)are on the wall. I just want to see your face once Rich Shuyler has to tell you, that because of this incredible behaviour of the EU Directorate of Transportation (and they are only trying to do what the DoT does!!!) you are out of a job at Atlas. Not that I would enjoy seeing that, but it is one of the possible outcomes of this whole legal battle.
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
sure, you don't care at all. But just for reminding me, how many aircraft did you have standing around since christmas??? I remember to be reported a two digit number. I just wonder how many customers are still in the world wanting you services...
I know this business very well! And nobody can afford to lose a customer! Nobody, not even Atlas.
Regarding the legality... You as a company offering ACMI services, you still have to know how other countries regulations work. In this particular case you don't really have an active part (unless you want to keep the customers you have), but the signs about the slow moving demise of ACMI (for carriers not being in the same geographical and administrative region)are on the wall. I just want to see your face once Rich Shuyler has to tell you, that because of this incredible behaviour of the EU Directorate of Transportation (and they are only trying to do what the DoT does!!!) you are out of a job at Atlas. Not that I would enjoy seeing that, but it is one of the possible outcomes of this whole legal battle.
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
Guest
Posts: n/a
hunter58
for you even to imply that you'd be happy to see ANY pilot out of of job makes me sick!
as one who has been furlouged, had airlines fail on him, etc....it is never enjoyable seeing any pilot out of a job, for any reason... like one of my friends said to "the guv", what you need is a good ass whippin'!
for you even to imply that you'd be happy to see ANY pilot out of of job makes me sick!
as one who has been furlouged, had airlines fail on him, etc....it is never enjoyable seeing any pilot out of a job, for any reason... like one of my friends said to "the guv", what you need is a good ass whippin'!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Clamdigger - you're just demonstrating (yet again) that American's really don't understand English. Hunter58 didn't say that he wished that ATLAS crew members would lose their jobs - although there seems to be less than no appreciation by ATLAS pilots for the jobs stolen from UK/EU pilots.
I, for one, have little sympathy for you lot as you simply seem to expect the right to fly around the world, taking local jobs, simply because ATLAS is a US carrier.
What's all this noise? I'll have no trouble in here! This is a local airline for local pilots!
(Apologies to the League of Gentlemen)
I, for one, have little sympathy for you lot as you simply seem to expect the right to fly around the world, taking local jobs, simply because ATLAS is a US carrier.
What's all this noise? I'll have no trouble in here! This is a local airline for local pilots!
(Apologies to the League of Gentlemen)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Governess
ACMI and the freedoms of the air (Chicago Conference) has been around a LOT longer then the European Union. For you to say that we stole your jobs is pure bovine scatology. We were flying intercountry in Europe long before YOU guys changed the rules. And you didn't even do that properly. From all I read, the British government is the hold up on the open skies agreement not the U.S., and especially not the Atlas pilots. Isn't it typical of you to blame someone else for your troubles. Seems you go thru life doing that Neil. Maybe you should consider another career field 'cause with your lack of knowledge of things aviation, civics, and geography, you sure aren't going to make it in this one.
ACMI and the freedoms of the air (Chicago Conference) has been around a LOT longer then the European Union. For you to say that we stole your jobs is pure bovine scatology. We were flying intercountry in Europe long before YOU guys changed the rules. And you didn't even do that properly. From all I read, the British government is the hold up on the open skies agreement not the U.S., and especially not the Atlas pilots. Isn't it typical of you to blame someone else for your troubles. Seems you go thru life doing that Neil. Maybe you should consider another career field 'cause with your lack of knowledge of things aviation, civics, and geography, you sure aren't going to make it in this one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver Diver
No matter which way you look at the EU, as the EU sees itself or as you see it, Atlas has no grandfathered rights.
If you say that Europe is a bunch of individual countries then they(Atlas) do not have automatic 5th freedom.
If the EUs view of a common aviation group is accurate, then Atlas are looking at cabotage.
The UK is being very cagey( and rightly so) about open skies because it knows the "balance of economic opportunity" could easily tilt against it unless many safeguards are built in.
No matter how repetitive ,overbearing, or insulting your posts are, none of these factors are convincing arguments for your point of view, so you will just have to come up with something better to convince the pro-EU element.
Stay up IPA!
No matter which way you look at the EU, as the EU sees itself or as you see it, Atlas has no grandfathered rights.
If you say that Europe is a bunch of individual countries then they(Atlas) do not have automatic 5th freedom.
If the EUs view of a common aviation group is accurate, then Atlas are looking at cabotage.
The UK is being very cagey( and rightly so) about open skies because it knows the "balance of economic opportunity" could easily tilt against it unless many safeguards are built in.
No matter how repetitive ,overbearing, or insulting your posts are, none of these factors are convincing arguments for your point of view, so you will just have to come up with something better to convince the pro-EU element.
Stay up IPA!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rights
Unfortunately you are incorrect. The x/freedom rights are negotiated country to country, not by economic trade coalition (EU) to country. The EU currently has no rights to negotiate a treaty say, for France, or any other individual country. They can only negotiate for the EU and hope that the member countries will go along.
The U.S. airlines have been operating in and out of countries in Europe, on fifth freedom far longer than there has been an EU (I wasn't specifically refering to Atlas).
To say that we have stolen your jobs is to prove one so totally ignorant as to be incompetant to run an airline let alone post 2000 threads of bombastic bullpuckey.
Fire the Queen become one with the rest of Europe, united under ONE set of rules and regulations, then come talk to the US. You see, the problem is that as individual countries, you have nothing we want. The limited traffic, point to point, within any country in Europe is not enough for any US airlines to make the effort to open up routes there, nor is it worth negotiating a bi-lateral treaty. However, the amount of intra-contry traffic in the US is huge, so naturally all the airlines in Europe want a piece of the pie. No one over here blames them, and no one over here is accusing you of trying to steal our jobs. The only thing we are saying, is what have you got to offer in return. The answer, currently by individual country, is nothing. The only way you will be able to negotiate with the US is to get on equal footing. So if you really want to make a difference, write your ministers and become one United States of Europe.
You are correct the the UK is being VERY cagey. It's something that the Gov doesn't seem to understand. He wants something for nothing. He wants to come over here and operate without restrictions yet we would be severely restricted from operating over there. When we don't buy into that he accuses the Atlas pilots of stealing EU pilots jobs. I don't think so. Open skies is open skies....lets go for it, no restrictions. You have my vote, but are you ready to let some of the low cost streamlined carriers come over to the continent and put all your airlines out of business.
PS, if you read the definition of cabotage it talks about countries, not economic trade coalitions, which is what the EU is right now.
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 21 March 2001).]
Unfortunately you are incorrect. The x/freedom rights are negotiated country to country, not by economic trade coalition (EU) to country. The EU currently has no rights to negotiate a treaty say, for France, or any other individual country. They can only negotiate for the EU and hope that the member countries will go along.
The U.S. airlines have been operating in and out of countries in Europe, on fifth freedom far longer than there has been an EU (I wasn't specifically refering to Atlas).
To say that we have stolen your jobs is to prove one so totally ignorant as to be incompetant to run an airline let alone post 2000 threads of bombastic bullpuckey.
Fire the Queen become one with the rest of Europe, united under ONE set of rules and regulations, then come talk to the US. You see, the problem is that as individual countries, you have nothing we want. The limited traffic, point to point, within any country in Europe is not enough for any US airlines to make the effort to open up routes there, nor is it worth negotiating a bi-lateral treaty. However, the amount of intra-contry traffic in the US is huge, so naturally all the airlines in Europe want a piece of the pie. No one over here blames them, and no one over here is accusing you of trying to steal our jobs. The only thing we are saying, is what have you got to offer in return. The answer, currently by individual country, is nothing. The only way you will be able to negotiate with the US is to get on equal footing. So if you really want to make a difference, write your ministers and become one United States of Europe.
You are correct the the UK is being VERY cagey. It's something that the Gov doesn't seem to understand. He wants something for nothing. He wants to come over here and operate without restrictions yet we would be severely restricted from operating over there. When we don't buy into that he accuses the Atlas pilots of stealing EU pilots jobs. I don't think so. Open skies is open skies....lets go for it, no restrictions. You have my vote, but are you ready to let some of the low cost streamlined carriers come over to the continent and put all your airlines out of business.
PS, if you read the definition of cabotage it talks about countries, not economic trade coalitions, which is what the EU is right now.
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 21 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Au contrair, Beaver, grandfather rights go with specific airlines, not countries. When a carrier ceases to operate grandfathered routes, it's home country cannot nominate a replacement without new negotiations.
Even a name change puts those routes in jeopardy.
The United States does not have cabotage, according to your definition, since it is a political amalgamation of individual states within one country, America. America has cabotage, but what is America?
Interstate operation such as NY/Fla is the same as France/Portugal according to EU rules. Can foreign carriers operate NY/Fla on 5th freedom?
The best examples of grandfather rights came from PanAm, BOAC, and KLM, mainly because they had routes in place before Chicago 1944.
The fact that you do not recognise the EU as a political as well as economic union would be disputed by many EU citizens who find their lives seriously affected by the absurd rules of the EU parliament.
The main reason that US carriers have an economic advantage is that they play the game to the less restrictive rules of the FAA. If EU carriers operated to FAA rules they would blow the US carriers totally into the weeds.
If you asked the EU hierarchy they would vociferously assert that they are a political union despite any evidence to the contrary.
------------------
It'll never fly.
[This message has been edited by RightsFlyer (edited 22 March 2001).]
Even a name change puts those routes in jeopardy.
The United States does not have cabotage, according to your definition, since it is a political amalgamation of individual states within one country, America. America has cabotage, but what is America?
Interstate operation such as NY/Fla is the same as France/Portugal according to EU rules. Can foreign carriers operate NY/Fla on 5th freedom?
The best examples of grandfather rights came from PanAm, BOAC, and KLM, mainly because they had routes in place before Chicago 1944.
The fact that you do not recognise the EU as a political as well as economic union would be disputed by many EU citizens who find their lives seriously affected by the absurd rules of the EU parliament.
The main reason that US carriers have an economic advantage is that they play the game to the less restrictive rules of the FAA. If EU carriers operated to FAA rules they would blow the US carriers totally into the weeds.
If you asked the EU hierarchy they would vociferously assert that they are a political union despite any evidence to the contrary.
------------------
It'll never fly.
[This message has been edited by RightsFlyer (edited 22 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver,
If the US is truly committed to free markets, why does it restrict foreign ownership in it's carriers to only 25%.
Why are they giving Richard Branson such a hard time to set up a US operation? Couldn't be that they are afraid of the competition, could it?
If the US is truly committed to free markets, why does it restrict foreign ownership in it's carriers to only 25%.
Why are they giving Richard Branson such a hard time to set up a US operation? Couldn't be that they are afraid of the competition, could it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually, Beaver Driver, I'd say that it's you that's the one with the hazy comprehension of things European. 
You may possibly recall that some sixty years ago, we had this little conflict over here. Then again, you may not - as it was yet another war that the Americans were singularly late for - unlike Vietnam where those gooks whupped some Yankee ass, eh, boy?
Anyway, as a result of the Allies winning the war, Germany was administered by four Allied powers - the British, Soviets, Americans - and for some reason, the French. The Soviets refused to allow the operation of West German aircraft through the air corridors into Berlin, and therefore only British Airways, Pan Am and Air France were allowed to operate to Berlin from other points in Germany. These operations were known as the IGS, or Internal German Services.
TWA also operated regional aircraft (latterly B727s) from Heathrow (as did Pan Am) but these were simply change-of-gauge on routes such as LHR-CAI and LHR-ATH and no fifth freedom rights were conferred. Pan Am operated several flights (mainly to Germany) through London using both the originating aircraft and change-of-gauge 727s and fifth freedom rights were conferred on these routes. PA103, for example, originated with a 727 from FRA connecting onto the 747 to JFK.
These ‘grandfather' rights were transferred with some rather dubious sleight-of-hand work by the US authorities when Pan Am and TWA's services were taken over by American and United. The British position at the time - which they regrettably did a U-turn on - was that neither Pan Am or TWA had any rights to sell their rights to a third party; and that if they wished to cease operating the routes then they would simply become vacant and open to any US carrier that wished to apply; but that any ‘special' rights would no longer apply (remembering that the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, obviating the need for the IGS routes).
The present Bermuda II negotiations are being held up not by the British but by the Americans who are terrified of allowing reciprocity. They are keen to have US carriers provide US aircraft on wet lease with US national crew members to airlines around the world - but stubbornly refuse to allow foreign carriers the right to lease their aircraft operated by their nationals to US airlines without additional certification. In such operations, these aircraft are not operating under their own traffic rights so it is completely false to state that for example, the lease of an A320 by JMC to say Ryan International to operate between EWR and MIA constitutes cabotage services by a foreign carrier: they would be operating on behalf of Ryan which is a US airline and therefore constitutes a domestic operation. However, the United States in its infinite wisdom does not even permit US carriers to wet lease in foreign aircraft to operate from the United States to foreign countries - so JMC would not be permitted to lease Ryan its DC10-30 to operate from the US to the UK!
Nor does the US permit foreign interests to own more than 24.9% of a US carrier - unlike most other countries such as the UK where foreign ownership of up to 49% is permitted. American Airlines would theoretically be permitted to buy 49% of British Airways - but the converse would not be legal. Is this right and equitable? I think not.
For as long as such uneven playing fields exist, no further leeway should be permitted to US carriers; in particular the ACMI leases of US aircraft operated by US crews on behalf of EU airlines. Much as the ATLAS crews attempt to deny that they are to blame, they nevertheless are stealing the bread from the mouths of the families of EU pilots. They are stealing their jobs and incomes as much as if they held them up at gunpoint - US crew members should have no right whatsoever to operate aircraft on behalf of EU airlines for as long as there are EU nationals willing and able to fly such aircraft. That there are such EU crewmembers willing and able to fly such aircraft is borne out by the number of pilots that have applied to AACS.
The ATLAS mainline pilots - seemingly a very militant bunch of people - go on at great length about their ‘rights' and ‘scabs'. What about the rights of the pilots you're displacing? And in the event that the European pilots unions - such as BALPA - created picket lines to block the operation of such services by non EU crews, would they honour such lines - or would they themselves become ‘scabs'?
The creation of AACS and other local ‘mini-ATLAS' operations is merely the logical - and in my view quite proper - way of permitting the local operation of aircraft on behalf of local airlines by local pilots; and should be actively encouraged.
At present, the United States - in its self-appointed role as global policeman - is in reality merely a playground bully; demanding of others what it refuses to provide itself. And in the 21st Century, are such practices really acceptable?
You may possibly recall that some sixty years ago, we had this little conflict over here. Then again, you may not - as it was yet another war that the Americans were singularly late for - unlike Vietnam where those gooks whupped some Yankee ass, eh, boy?
Anyway, as a result of the Allies winning the war, Germany was administered by four Allied powers - the British, Soviets, Americans - and for some reason, the French. The Soviets refused to allow the operation of West German aircraft through the air corridors into Berlin, and therefore only British Airways, Pan Am and Air France were allowed to operate to Berlin from other points in Germany. These operations were known as the IGS, or Internal German Services.
TWA also operated regional aircraft (latterly B727s) from Heathrow (as did Pan Am) but these were simply change-of-gauge on routes such as LHR-CAI and LHR-ATH and no fifth freedom rights were conferred. Pan Am operated several flights (mainly to Germany) through London using both the originating aircraft and change-of-gauge 727s and fifth freedom rights were conferred on these routes. PA103, for example, originated with a 727 from FRA connecting onto the 747 to JFK.
These ‘grandfather' rights were transferred with some rather dubious sleight-of-hand work by the US authorities when Pan Am and TWA's services were taken over by American and United. The British position at the time - which they regrettably did a U-turn on - was that neither Pan Am or TWA had any rights to sell their rights to a third party; and that if they wished to cease operating the routes then they would simply become vacant and open to any US carrier that wished to apply; but that any ‘special' rights would no longer apply (remembering that the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, obviating the need for the IGS routes).
The present Bermuda II negotiations are being held up not by the British but by the Americans who are terrified of allowing reciprocity. They are keen to have US carriers provide US aircraft on wet lease with US national crew members to airlines around the world - but stubbornly refuse to allow foreign carriers the right to lease their aircraft operated by their nationals to US airlines without additional certification. In such operations, these aircraft are not operating under their own traffic rights so it is completely false to state that for example, the lease of an A320 by JMC to say Ryan International to operate between EWR and MIA constitutes cabotage services by a foreign carrier: they would be operating on behalf of Ryan which is a US airline and therefore constitutes a domestic operation. However, the United States in its infinite wisdom does not even permit US carriers to wet lease in foreign aircraft to operate from the United States to foreign countries - so JMC would not be permitted to lease Ryan its DC10-30 to operate from the US to the UK!
Nor does the US permit foreign interests to own more than 24.9% of a US carrier - unlike most other countries such as the UK where foreign ownership of up to 49% is permitted. American Airlines would theoretically be permitted to buy 49% of British Airways - but the converse would not be legal. Is this right and equitable? I think not.
For as long as such uneven playing fields exist, no further leeway should be permitted to US carriers; in particular the ACMI leases of US aircraft operated by US crews on behalf of EU airlines. Much as the ATLAS crews attempt to deny that they are to blame, they nevertheless are stealing the bread from the mouths of the families of EU pilots. They are stealing their jobs and incomes as much as if they held them up at gunpoint - US crew members should have no right whatsoever to operate aircraft on behalf of EU airlines for as long as there are EU nationals willing and able to fly such aircraft. That there are such EU crewmembers willing and able to fly such aircraft is borne out by the number of pilots that have applied to AACS.
The ATLAS mainline pilots - seemingly a very militant bunch of people - go on at great length about their ‘rights' and ‘scabs'. What about the rights of the pilots you're displacing? And in the event that the European pilots unions - such as BALPA - created picket lines to block the operation of such services by non EU crews, would they honour such lines - or would they themselves become ‘scabs'?
The creation of AACS and other local ‘mini-ATLAS' operations is merely the logical - and in my view quite proper - way of permitting the local operation of aircraft on behalf of local airlines by local pilots; and should be actively encouraged.
At present, the United States - in its self-appointed role as global policeman - is in reality merely a playground bully; demanding of others what it refuses to provide itself. And in the 21st Century, are such practices really acceptable?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rights
You are talking contracts, I'm talking treaties. I never said anything about grandfather rights, all I said was US airlines had been operating on 5th freedom rights long before the EU was even a concept let alone a reality. Your understanding of the US governing systems is wrong. As I said in my previous post the EU does not have the right to establish a contract for individual nations as they do not govern those nations nor do they regulate the airspace above them. In contrast to that, the UNITED STATES government does have the right to negotiate and establish a contract for the entire 50 states as they govern and regulate the airspace above them...they also regulate interstate commerce and many other things. Interstate from JFK to FLa is way different from France - Portuagal. France and Portugal are two different countries, New York and Florida are not. Each of our states does not have it's own sovereignity, rather it is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT that holds this. That's how we are so different from the EU and that's why you will never be able to have cabotage or 8th freedom rights in the US until you make the EU more attractive to us. Doing so would involve giving up your individuality. You would not have a royal family, the Pound would have to give way to the Euro...etc, etc,
The rest of the world doesn't care what they EU parliment says they are, as actions speak louder than words. Just like some on this board they want something for nothing. You want us to treat you like a unified nation with one set of rules and regulations, but you refuse to give up the things that separate you into individual nations.
You are talking contracts, I'm talking treaties. I never said anything about grandfather rights, all I said was US airlines had been operating on 5th freedom rights long before the EU was even a concept let alone a reality. Your understanding of the US governing systems is wrong. As I said in my previous post the EU does not have the right to establish a contract for individual nations as they do not govern those nations nor do they regulate the airspace above them. In contrast to that, the UNITED STATES government does have the right to negotiate and establish a contract for the entire 50 states as they govern and regulate the airspace above them...they also regulate interstate commerce and many other things. Interstate from JFK to FLa is way different from France - Portuagal. France and Portugal are two different countries, New York and Florida are not. Each of our states does not have it's own sovereignity, rather it is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT that holds this. That's how we are so different from the EU and that's why you will never be able to have cabotage or 8th freedom rights in the US until you make the EU more attractive to us. Doing so would involve giving up your individuality. You would not have a royal family, the Pound would have to give way to the Euro...etc, etc,
The rest of the world doesn't care what they EU parliment says they are, as actions speak louder than words. Just like some on this board they want something for nothing. You want us to treat you like a unified nation with one set of rules and regulations, but you refuse to give up the things that separate you into individual nations.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RightsFlyer
Your attempt to compare NY/FLA to France/Portugal is truly laughable!!! You should compare NY/FLA to something like Whales to Scotland or N. Ireland to England or something like that. Not Intra country! Last I checked Portugal and France are two separate countries. I'm no political science major but last I checked they were separate.
To quote you,"America has cabotage, but what is America?" Last I checked "America" as you people on the right side of the pond call it. It is the Country made up of Fifty States, and a couple of Districts and Provinces and Territories that no one ever thinks about. But that's why us "Yanks" call it the "U.S.", because it's the "United States of America"! We all fall under the same Federal Government, all pay (in U.S. Dollars, I might add) taxes to the same Federal Government, all vote for the same president, and all have the same military!
Which brings me to another point, Gov! You guys always forget about July, 4th 1776 don't you? Remember, the U.S. kicked the British's ass back across the pond? Remember, Dec. 7th, 1941? One point that you are forgetting is that Sir Winston Churchill had military intel. on the fact that the Jap's. were going to attack Pearl Harbor and the only reason they didn't tell us was the hope that the U.S. would get involved in the War so we could come bail your asses out, so you wouldn't have to speak German the rest of your ****ing ungrateful lives!!!! You Pompis ASS!!!!
And Lets not forget Vietnam! It was the U.S. coming into S.E. Asia to bail out the French! Your E.U. Buddies that you now so defend!!!! And if it wasn't for a Political mess over there during the times of U.S. escalation, then we would have kicked their little butts.
So, Guv, you have crossed over the line! You basically, spit on both my Grandfathers graves! Both of them fought during W.W.II and one even stormed the beaches at Normandy. So, how dare you spit, on the graves of all the U.S. Military men that sacrificed there lives to get your ungrateful ass out of the biggest bind that Great Britain and all of Europe had ever been in. If it wasn't for them you'd for sure be speaking German!!! I believe that the British have a little song called "The Yanks Are Coming"!!!
Just keep in mind Gov. that your Anti-American sentiments will be remembered!!!!
As for Atlas Pilots taking other peoples jobs, last I checked it's Atlas hiring all of you guys. Each and every one of them jumping at the chance to work for a U.S. company. And last I checked Atlas was working for a British company who hired them. So, shouldn't your beef be with the company who put Atlas to work in the first place. BA came to us and said,"can you provide us with two B 747-400's to operate STN-HKG?" What was Atlas going to say? As far as it being the pilots fault that's laughable too! When flying shows up on the bid package that's when we find out where we will be going. How is it the pilots fault? And to answer your question, NO! we wouldn't cross your picket lines!
And your saying,"The creation of AACS and other local ‘mini-ATLAS' operations is merely the logical - and in my view quite proper - way of permitting the local operation of aircraft on behalf of local airlines by local pilots; and should be actively encouraged." I agree with what you are saying. I think that Atlas Mgt. is trying to skirt around the laws in your country and that we should pull out immediately! I think that Atlas Mgt. is using AACS as a double edge sword! On one side it's a convenient way to appease the British Gov and skirt the law, and the other, the bigger reason, is to create a non-union work force! The creation of this "mini-Atlas" or better known as GSS is Atlas Air's first true attempt to be Legal in Britain. The reasoning behind this is as follows. AACS was originally designed to operate as a crew force of approx. 200-300 crew members. Operating all Atlas Contracts, excluding the intra U.S. flying. Now AACS is falling on its face, and now GSS surfaces! Do you know how many crew members are going to be working for GSS????? 7Capt's and 17F/O's!!!!!!! Now, to you, doesn't that seem a little more reasonable??? To operate the only flying currently being protested by the British Gov., the BA flying! That's a total of Two, count them, ONE-TWO!!!!! You don't need 200-300 crew members to fly two frigging aircraft. So, wake up and smell the coffee!!! Not Tea, I might add!!!
You guys, on the out side just don't know. It's rough over here, and we're trying to make it better from the inside out. Those of us who don't feel like we can win, leave and find better jobs. That's why our attrition is so high! So, you want us to sit back and watch Atlas Main get smaller (through attrition) and watch AACS(non Union) grow to 200-300 strong??? You guys need to get a life and really think about what the issues are here. As far as Atlas needing the BA contract, we could put those two 400's to work somewhere else tomorrow!!!! Emirates, is begging for them. So, is China Airlines. So, don't kid yourselves. You really don't know what's going on over here!
[This message has been edited by HEAVYWHALE (edited 22 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by HEAVYWHALE (edited 22 March 2001).]
Your attempt to compare NY/FLA to France/Portugal is truly laughable!!! You should compare NY/FLA to something like Whales to Scotland or N. Ireland to England or something like that. Not Intra country! Last I checked Portugal and France are two separate countries. I'm no political science major but last I checked they were separate.
To quote you,"America has cabotage, but what is America?" Last I checked "America" as you people on the right side of the pond call it. It is the Country made up of Fifty States, and a couple of Districts and Provinces and Territories that no one ever thinks about. But that's why us "Yanks" call it the "U.S.", because it's the "United States of America"! We all fall under the same Federal Government, all pay (in U.S. Dollars, I might add) taxes to the same Federal Government, all vote for the same president, and all have the same military!
Which brings me to another point, Gov! You guys always forget about July, 4th 1776 don't you? Remember, the U.S. kicked the British's ass back across the pond? Remember, Dec. 7th, 1941? One point that you are forgetting is that Sir Winston Churchill had military intel. on the fact that the Jap's. were going to attack Pearl Harbor and the only reason they didn't tell us was the hope that the U.S. would get involved in the War so we could come bail your asses out, so you wouldn't have to speak German the rest of your ****ing ungrateful lives!!!! You Pompis ASS!!!!
And Lets not forget Vietnam! It was the U.S. coming into S.E. Asia to bail out the French! Your E.U. Buddies that you now so defend!!!! And if it wasn't for a Political mess over there during the times of U.S. escalation, then we would have kicked their little butts.
So, Guv, you have crossed over the line! You basically, spit on both my Grandfathers graves! Both of them fought during W.W.II and one even stormed the beaches at Normandy. So, how dare you spit, on the graves of all the U.S. Military men that sacrificed there lives to get your ungrateful ass out of the biggest bind that Great Britain and all of Europe had ever been in. If it wasn't for them you'd for sure be speaking German!!! I believe that the British have a little song called "The Yanks Are Coming"!!!
Just keep in mind Gov. that your Anti-American sentiments will be remembered!!!!
As for Atlas Pilots taking other peoples jobs, last I checked it's Atlas hiring all of you guys. Each and every one of them jumping at the chance to work for a U.S. company. And last I checked Atlas was working for a British company who hired them. So, shouldn't your beef be with the company who put Atlas to work in the first place. BA came to us and said,"can you provide us with two B 747-400's to operate STN-HKG?" What was Atlas going to say? As far as it being the pilots fault that's laughable too! When flying shows up on the bid package that's when we find out where we will be going. How is it the pilots fault? And to answer your question, NO! we wouldn't cross your picket lines!
And your saying,"The creation of AACS and other local ‘mini-ATLAS' operations is merely the logical - and in my view quite proper - way of permitting the local operation of aircraft on behalf of local airlines by local pilots; and should be actively encouraged." I agree with what you are saying. I think that Atlas Mgt. is trying to skirt around the laws in your country and that we should pull out immediately! I think that Atlas Mgt. is using AACS as a double edge sword! On one side it's a convenient way to appease the British Gov and skirt the law, and the other, the bigger reason, is to create a non-union work force! The creation of this "mini-Atlas" or better known as GSS is Atlas Air's first true attempt to be Legal in Britain. The reasoning behind this is as follows. AACS was originally designed to operate as a crew force of approx. 200-300 crew members. Operating all Atlas Contracts, excluding the intra U.S. flying. Now AACS is falling on its face, and now GSS surfaces! Do you know how many crew members are going to be working for GSS????? 7Capt's and 17F/O's!!!!!!! Now, to you, doesn't that seem a little more reasonable??? To operate the only flying currently being protested by the British Gov., the BA flying! That's a total of Two, count them, ONE-TWO!!!!! You don't need 200-300 crew members to fly two frigging aircraft. So, wake up and smell the coffee!!! Not Tea, I might add!!!
You guys, on the out side just don't know. It's rough over here, and we're trying to make it better from the inside out. Those of us who don't feel like we can win, leave and find better jobs. That's why our attrition is so high! So, you want us to sit back and watch Atlas Main get smaller (through attrition) and watch AACS(non Union) grow to 200-300 strong??? You guys need to get a life and really think about what the issues are here. As far as Atlas needing the BA contract, we could put those two 400's to work somewhere else tomorrow!!!! Emirates, is begging for them. So, is China Airlines. So, don't kid yourselves. You really don't know what's going on over here!
[This message has been edited by HEAVYWHALE (edited 22 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by HEAVYWHALE (edited 22 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gov
Once again you have confused EWR-MIA which is inside the United States with operating between COUNTRIES. Can you think of any examples where US ACMI contracts are intra-country or cabotage. I can't. (Operating between countries in the EU is NOT cabotage). Why should we give you rights to operate your aircraft in the US. We don't want to operate aircraft intra-UK. If you think just because we have rights to operate inter-country, that you should be able to operate intra-US, then you really are goofy. That would not be reciprocity. That's where the hang up is. You assume that now that the UK is a member of the EU (although they haven't yet embraced the Euro or given up any rights to govern themselves and their airspace) that they should have rights to fly inside the United States. I'm telling you that ain't gonna happen. Were not stubborn but neither are we as un-intelligent as you seem to think we are.
The un-even playing field exists only in your mind. Remember AACS is a WHOLLY owned subsidiary of Atlas World Wide Holdings. Where's the level playing field there? If Atlas pilots have stolen your jobs then write your ministers, as your regulations have allowed this (In your case you should probably have someone write for you, as I'm sure, with your record, the UK government considers you a crackpot). Just look at your CAA Official Record Series 2 and look back several issues. You'll see there that the CAA permitted BA to extend the leases on 2 Atlas -400s in late 2000. Why is that? Why did you allow it? Did you protest or write letters? US crewmembers might crew an aircraft, but our companies are the ones that operate the aircraft on behalf of the EU airlines. So is it our fault for doing what we were ordered to do? Did you contact BA and tell them that you wanted to wet lease to them? You love to sit in your dim little room with your laptop and chastise the U.S. and it's pilots, but I say to you WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT? Quit you whining and get to work.
Once we get a contract, and are no longer "At Will" employees, we will honor any request from another union for help, even though they seemed to ignore our requests.
Here is some copy from the International Transport Workers' Federation. Isn't that headquartered in the UK?
"The 1944 Chicago Convention set up an international air system in which countries regulate international air traffic through international treaties. Such treaties determine the airlines which are designated to fly routes, and the capacity and frequencies that airlines are allowed to fly. Most states have rules which ensure that only an airline owned and controlled by their nationals may fly their country's routes. This system has come under attack by sections of the industry as being too restrictive. The United States government has been particularly aggressive in pursuing the liberalisation of aviation markets through liberal "open skies" agreements. The ITF, however, warns about the lessons learned in the maritime industry about the effects of loosening regulatory controls with in particular the risk of "flags of convenience" emerging in the industry. Open skies also risk smaller countries loosing their national airlines which cannot compete against global mega-carriers."
http://www.itf.org.uk/SECTIONS/Ca/econ.htm
Once again Neil, get off the internet and go to work. Quit blaming the US, and US pilots, for all of your problems.
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 22 March 2001).]
Once again you have confused EWR-MIA which is inside the United States with operating between COUNTRIES. Can you think of any examples where US ACMI contracts are intra-country or cabotage. I can't. (Operating between countries in the EU is NOT cabotage). Why should we give you rights to operate your aircraft in the US. We don't want to operate aircraft intra-UK. If you think just because we have rights to operate inter-country, that you should be able to operate intra-US, then you really are goofy. That would not be reciprocity. That's where the hang up is. You assume that now that the UK is a member of the EU (although they haven't yet embraced the Euro or given up any rights to govern themselves and their airspace) that they should have rights to fly inside the United States. I'm telling you that ain't gonna happen. Were not stubborn but neither are we as un-intelligent as you seem to think we are.
The un-even playing field exists only in your mind. Remember AACS is a WHOLLY owned subsidiary of Atlas World Wide Holdings. Where's the level playing field there? If Atlas pilots have stolen your jobs then write your ministers, as your regulations have allowed this (In your case you should probably have someone write for you, as I'm sure, with your record, the UK government considers you a crackpot). Just look at your CAA Official Record Series 2 and look back several issues. You'll see there that the CAA permitted BA to extend the leases on 2 Atlas -400s in late 2000. Why is that? Why did you allow it? Did you protest or write letters? US crewmembers might crew an aircraft, but our companies are the ones that operate the aircraft on behalf of the EU airlines. So is it our fault for doing what we were ordered to do? Did you contact BA and tell them that you wanted to wet lease to them? You love to sit in your dim little room with your laptop and chastise the U.S. and it's pilots, but I say to you WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT? Quit you whining and get to work.
Once we get a contract, and are no longer "At Will" employees, we will honor any request from another union for help, even though they seemed to ignore our requests.
Here is some copy from the International Transport Workers' Federation. Isn't that headquartered in the UK?
"The 1944 Chicago Convention set up an international air system in which countries regulate international air traffic through international treaties. Such treaties determine the airlines which are designated to fly routes, and the capacity and frequencies that airlines are allowed to fly. Most states have rules which ensure that only an airline owned and controlled by their nationals may fly their country's routes. This system has come under attack by sections of the industry as being too restrictive. The United States government has been particularly aggressive in pursuing the liberalisation of aviation markets through liberal "open skies" agreements. The ITF, however, warns about the lessons learned in the maritime industry about the effects of loosening regulatory controls with in particular the risk of "flags of convenience" emerging in the industry. Open skies also risk smaller countries loosing their national airlines which cannot compete against global mega-carriers."
http://www.itf.org.uk/SECTIONS/Ca/econ.htm
Once again Neil, get off the internet and go to work. Quit blaming the US, and US pilots, for all of your problems.
[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 22 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Funny how the other PPruners who once agreed with the Guvs ranting's have fallen silent after his 2026th post.
You really are an embarassment to your country sir, you ungrateful git.
You really don't want to step into 400skippers jungle, no matter how much I'd like to see you try..
Who is the Broker for the Ex Delta L-1011's?,
maybe a little cutting and pasting of the Guv's post's are in order so they are CLEAR on his opinion of Americans.
Keep em' coming you dip, the file is growing.
You really are an embarassment to your country sir, you ungrateful git.
You really don't want to step into 400skippers jungle, no matter how much I'd like to see you try..
Who is the Broker for the Ex Delta L-1011's?,
maybe a little cutting and pasting of the Guv's post's are in order so they are CLEAR on his opinion of Americans.
Keep em' coming you dip, the file is growing.