Astar Cargo Help PLEASE!!!!!

[Chubaka]

Thanks for everyone's response to my question about the transcon. It seems to be on the up and up. Not meant to stir the pot. Just a straightforward question.

 

[Flyer8]

Just a question...

I have heard you guys arguing about reliability for a while,but have not seen any numbers..We are still flying DC-8's and average around 98% (98.5% so far this month). We do burn some gas,but people seem to appreciate the high reliability.Does the 767 beat this reliability rate? Just curious...Not stirring the pot!

 

[AV8OR]

erich,

As you can see from a couple of the posts, it seems murky as to whether or there was a side letter getting some type of CBA relief so yall could take over the transcons. I simply trying to establish fact from rumor as to A. Whether the relief thing ever happened and..B. For what purpose? Once facts, are out there, everyone's free to form their own opinion. On this issue, I don't have one yet.

But thanks for your input.

Clipper,

1. I don't think any A-300's were parked. Credit hours(pay) went down in that aircraft.
2. The bus has been moved around several times, not sure if it was ever on a (pre-DHL buyout) ABX only run. Not on that a/c.
3. Not sure exactly. Let's see 809, couple of Boeings and I think a bus, so...maybe 4-5 total. Guys? Anybody at Astar wanna correct me there?
4. Now THAT is a very interesting question. Economical.....hmmm, that could mean a lot of things. Union contracts do sometimes have the affect of, let's say, "guiding" a company's decision on economic issues, like, whether or not to try and use a "competing" airline on the same field, OR, maybe, to use a cheaper labor airline within the same company. In thins industry, we have traditionally tried to limit the bottom of this type of "economic" decision with things like scope clauses and airline integration. As you are well though, sometimes both of those things can be hard pressed to actually see resolution. But in a one word answer, to some degreee, "yes".
5. Not sure where the quote "great new" comes from but, yes, as a matter of fact we did just vote in a new, IMO, "OK" contract. Honestly, for me, no hostility. It is what it is. Just grow a little tired of some of the "AStar was a pi$$ant airline that came up here and stole all of OUR Airborne, (which no longer existed when we got there) flying,....and they're not even CATII!" stuff, just as I know yall resented our scope arbitration. Everybody's tired of all of it.

I feel like the Ledbetter boy in the Jerry Clower story where they were coon hunting and when Neugene climbed up the tree to get the coon down he found it was an angry bobcat instead. While getting his a$$ handed to him he yells down for some body to shoot the cat, but his dad, worried about shooting Neugene, says he can't. Neugene's classic line to his dad is "Well go ahead and shoot on up here amongst us both! One of us got have some relief!"

That about sums it up for me regarding the whole affair!

 

[LarryinTN]

Our contract limits day/night transitions. You can transition between day and night flying only once per block of flights, you must have at least 16 hours off between the day and night flights and the transition must be at either the first, or last, layover in the block.

These provisions were put in many years ago to prevent having a schedule which constantly swapped back and forth between day and night flying while allowing a block (week) of flying to either start or end with a day trip. This would typically be a Sunday afternoon start, 16+ hour layover, then night flying for the rest of the week or a week of night flying ending with a 16+ hr layover and Sunday morning flight into ILN.

The transcon consists of three duty periods. The first and third of which are day flight, the second is night flying. That's two day/night transitions which weren't allowed. The company initially broke the trip up with different crews, on different trips, doing segments of the transcon but not making the whole cycle.

The agreement was made to allow the double day/night/day transition for the transcon in exchange for a couple of concessions from the company. The minimum rest was INCREASED (not decreased as had been alleged) from 16 hours to 24 hours at both SFO and JFK. That 24 hour rest can not be reduced. Additionally, the requirement for catering on the SFO-LAX-JFK night was added. Those company concessions provided the same, if not better, protection to the crews than the original rule which was intended to address a completely different issue.

There was no membership vote on this issue.

 

[hvydriver]

Our contract limits day/night transitions. You can transition between day and night flying only once per block of flights, you must have at least 16 hours off between the day and night flights and the transition must be at either the first, or last, layover in the block.

These provisions were put in many years ago to prevent having a schedule which constantly swapped back and forth between day and night flying while allowing a block (week) of flying to either start or end with a day trip. This would typically be a Sunday afternoon start, 16+ hour layover, then night flying for the rest of the week or a week of night flying ending with a 16+ hr layover and Sunday morning flight into ILN.

The transcon consists of three duty periods. The first and third of which are day flight, the second is night flying. That's two day/night transitions which weren't allowed. The company initially broke the trip up with different crews, on different trips, doing segments of the transcon but not making the whole cycle.

The agreement was made to allow the double day/night/day transition for the transcon in exchange for a couple of concessions from the company. The minimum rest was INCREASED (not decreased as had been alleged) from 16 hours to 24 hours at both SFO and JFK. That 24 hour rest can not be reduced. Additionally, the requirement for catering on the SFO-LAX-JFK night was added. Those company concessions provided the same, if not better, protection to the crews than the original rule which was intended to address a completely different issue.

There was no membership vote on this issue.

That's interesting LJ. We ran the trip precisely the same way you describe above. Except we didn't give on the double/day/night transition. And we already had catering, of course.

 

[Jurassic Jet]

I have a question. Why did none of your Airbuses make it on Friday? I heard they were CAT2... We had at least one runway CAT2 most of the night.

Ooooh...I'll take this one. :nuts:

hvydriver may be pontificating a conspiracy theory:

"RVR dropped below 1200 anytime there was an Astar a/c in range."

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/B...cks_A/threadview?bn=25762&tid=12384&mid=12617

 

[AV8OR]

Ooooh...I'll take this one. :nuts:

hvydriver may be pontificating a conspiracy theory:

"RVR dropped below 1200 anytime there was an Astar a/c in range."

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/B...cks_A/threadview?bn=25762&tid=12384&mid=12617

That's not the same hvydriver is it? Just yankin yer chain hvy!

 

[hvydriver]

Ooooh...I'll take this one. :nuts:

hvydriver may be pontificating a conspiracy theory:

"RVR dropped below 1200 anytime there was an Astar a/c in range."

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/B...cks_A/threadview?bn=25762&tid=12384&mid=12617

Yep, that's me. And true. Otherwise, the fabulous french nightmare would have been on the ramp along with all those wunnerful DC9's. Presuming they got in the air.

I have personally experienced the ILN Tower declaring CATII ops., use 22R, and all the while 22L was severe clear. (I know it was ducks walking this past weekend for both runways. This was a fog bank last winter.) And have the tower refuse my request for a visual approach to 22L. And 22R was visible the whole way down the chute as well. But, it was "CATII". No flames, just what happened.

 

[nitefr8dog]

That's interesting LJ. We ran the trip precisely the same way you describe above. Except we didn't give on the double/day/night transition. And we already had catering, of course.

I think Abx ended up with the trip because the 767 used alot less gasoline, did not break down as much and was overall cheaper to operate ie:two man vs three,etc. no flame. But come to think of it that would mean DP actually wanted to save money!

 

[Fly Astar Jets]

Our contract limits day/night transitions. You can transition between day and night flying only once per block of flights, you must have at least 16 hours off between the day and night flights and the transition must be at either the first, or last, layover in the block.

These provisions were put in many years ago to prevent having a schedule which constantly swapped back and forth between day and night flying while allowing a block (week) of flying to either start or end with a day trip. This would typically be a Sunday afternoon start, 16+ hour layover, then night flying for the rest of the week or a week of night flying ending with a 16+ hr layover and Sunday morning flight into ILN.

The transcon consists of three duty periods. The first and third of which are day flight, the second is night flying. That's two day/night transitions which weren't allowed. The company initially broke the trip up with different crews, on different trips, doing segments of the transcon but not making the whole cycle.

The agreement was made to allow the double day/night/day transition for the transcon in exchange for a couple of concessions from the company. The minimum rest was INCREASED (not decreased as had been alleged) from 16 hours to 24 hours at both SFO and JFK. That 24 hour rest can not be reduced. Additionally, the requirement for catering on the SFO-LAX-JFK night was added. Those company concessions provided the same, if not better, protection to the crews than the original rule which was intended to address a completely different issue.

There was no membership vote on this issue.

Thanks LJ for straight dope.

FAJ

 

[erichartmann]

Yep, that's me. And true. Otherwise, the fabulous french nightmare would have been on the ramp along with all those wunnerful DC9's. Presuming they got in the air.

I have personally experienced the ILN Tower declaring CATII ops., use 22R, and all the while 22L was severe clear. (I know it was ducks walking this past weekend for both runways. This was a fog bank last winter.) And have the tower refuse my request for a visual approach to 22L. And 22R was visible the whole way down the chute as well. But, it was "CATII". No flames, just what happened.

I've experienced much the same at other airports, LAX and BOS spring to mind. Had to abandon the approach at LAX two or three times as it went up and back down on 24R. Finally got smart and asked what it was doing on 25L/R. Same thing in BOS. The fog bank and rolled up over 4L/R, mins were reported but not there (the fog hadn't reached the RVR) while 15R was well above mins.

Don't know why they wouldn't let you change runways at ILN. I don't believe the conspiracy stuff. Before you guys came the same sort of thing happened. They seem to have their little plan in mind, we don't see it, and they won't show it to us.

 

[hvydriver]

I've experienced much the same at other airports, LAX and BOS spring to mind. Had to abandon the approach at LAX two or three times as it went up and back down on 24R. Finally got smart and asked what it was doing on 25L/R. Same thing in BOS. The fog bank and rolled up over 4L/R, mins were reported but not there (the fog hadn't reached the RVR) while 15R was well above mins.

Don't know why they wouldn't let you change runways at ILN. I don't believe the conspiracy stuff. Before you guys came the same sort of thing happened. They seem to have their little plan in mind, we don't see it, and they won't show it to us.

Eric,

I don't mean to imply there is a "conspiracy" as some have said. I prefer to view it as a pure chaos theory environment, sprinkled with a dash of idiocy with the tower ops. Some of it perhaps is them having to deal with not having their own approach/departure control and having to coordinate that with DAY. Who knows. It's beyond frustrating.

 

[LarryinTN]

Except we didn't give on the double/day/night transition.

Then how did you operate the flight? ILN-SFO is daytime, SFO-LAX-JFK is night, and JFK-ILN is daytime again. That's two day/night transitions.

We operated it, for a while, without two day/night transitions by having the ILN-SFO crew return on a SFO-ILN day flight. The SFO-LAX-JFK legs were flown by a crew that had flight ILN-SFO on the night system. The arriving JFK on the SFO-LAX-JFK legs would limo to EWR and fly a night EWR-ILN flight. Lastly, the JFK-ILN trip was flown by yet another crew but I don't remember where they came from. In any case, none of the crews had a double day/night transitions but the trips were not very good, short layovers, etc., which was a lot more fatiguing than doing the full transcon. In the end it was a better trip for the crews (from a rest perspective) to waive the double day/night transition restriction as that restriction was intended to protect against a very different kind of schedule.

And have the tower refuse my request for a visual approach to 22L. And 22R was visible the whole way down the chute as well.

A couple of issues here...

1. The tower can't issue a visual approach clearance. That is done by Dayton approach. They'd have to relay the request to Dayton on the phone and get it from them.

2. Doesn't matter if you can see the runway if the airport's prevailing visibility or reported ceiling is below VFR minimums. Without the required reported visibility Dayton can not issue a visual approach clearance per 7110.65 7-4-3 b.

3. Dayton can not provide vectors to a visual approach unless the reported ceiling is at least 500' above the MVA/MIA per 7110.65 7-4-2.

I've seen a number of instances of shallow fog (MIFG) where the runway is clearly visible from the air but the surface visibility, and RVR readings, are well below minimums. I've held at both FSD and SGF with the runway plainly in sight waiting for the reported vis to improve to minimums. When it did, the runway is clear right up to the point that you enter the fog in the flare and the runway environment suddenly (nearly) disappears.

Some of it perhaps is them having to deal with not having their own approach/departure control and having to coordinate that with DAY.

You can thank the FAA for that. Many years ago, Airborne Express (ABF) paid for the radar site at the ILN airport. Prior to that installation it was non-radar procedures in/out of ILN. i.e. wait for the preceding landing to cancel or hold for release until the preceding departure was in RADAR contact. ABF paid for the remote RADAR installation and feed to Dayton so that they'd have proper RADAR coverage down to the ground but the FAA wouldn't allow the certification of the BRITE RADAR displays in the ILN tower because the tower controllers were not FAA employees (they were ABF employees). This meant that the ILN tower was just a "VFR" tower that couldn't provide IFR separation except through the procedures specified in their letters of agreement with Dayton. This allowed them to launch departures at the specified intervals, give canned clearances in the case of a missed approach, etc., but they couldn't do what any normal FAA tower could do.

I think that they were eventually able to get the BRITE certified but the FAA still doesn't let them do all of the things that an FAA tower would be allowed to do with the level of equipment that they have.

 

[TWA]

They have the displays in the tower, just aren't allowed to use them. Every so often they turn them on to make sure they still work.

 

[LarryinTN]

They have the displays in the tower, just aren't allowed to use them.

Really? I thought they got them certified. What a waste... Don't know why the FAA has such a hang up about it.

 

[shooter]

Look this thread is not for you. I can see that your angry and upset and I completely understand. These anger issues cannot be good for your health.
You have made your point that you do not like Astar WE GET IT. So move along and stop wasting our time with your junk. It just makes you look desperate. ABX isn't going anywhere so relax and try to regain some dignity.

You know fodc8, it is you that has the anger problem. It's called passive anger. You have just posted a remark that abxdx asked for factual figures from. You could not provide them and continued to "act" as if your response was valid. By doing so you are provoking abxdx to aggression then you try and patronize him by saying he is the one that has the anger problem.

You sir, are need of some meds and professional help. Others in your group have been guilty of the same in the past. Is there a coincidental pattern or a real issue that is reason for concern? Hmmmm, things to ponder.

 

[hvydriver]

>You can thank the FAA for that. Many years ago, Airborne Express (ABF) paid for the radar site at the ILN airport. Prior to that installation it was non-radar procedures in/out of ILN. i.e. wait for the preceding landing to cancel or hold for release until the preceding departure was in RADAR contact.<

Wow. That clearly sucks even more than the current deal. How in the world did you guys even get a sort done "back then"?

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

>
Wow. That clearly sucks even more than the current deal. How in the world did you guys even get a sort done "back then"?

With a fleet of medieval siege machines operated by a malleable and obedient tribe of slave labor ruled by an iron-fisted management that refused to let common sense get in the way of its dogma. In other words, same as today really.

 

[hvydriver]

With a fleet of medieval siege machines operated by a malleable and obedient tribe of slave labor ruled by an iron-fisted management that refused to let common sense get in the way of its dogma. In other words, same as today really.

ROFLMAO! Now, that's funny!

 

[TWA]

With a fleet of medieval siege machines operated by a malleable and obedient tribe of slave labor ruled by an iron-fisted management that refused to let common sense get in the way of its dogma. In other words, same as today really.

So they were Catholic?