ABX says NO THANK YOU to ASTAR

[jdflyer51]

I think that the c container is a moot issue. Even Joe Hete admits it was an idea whose time has passed. As everything in Airborne's past, individual payoffs were involved there. Brasier and Cline profited handsomely from their sale as did Hete, Weismann and other officers from the new runway. I personally believe that Astar will be refleeted. Additional 767 300s will come and all of us will be flying them after the fence comes down. The word that the eboard and the mec have heard as well as others, directly from Germany is that this whole thing will be bigger than we can imagine. I tend to believe that is true. Accordingly, I look forward to when we are merged and we can wield some negotiating power as a combined group.

 

[inplaneview]

From Air Cargo News, 7 Aug 07:
ABX extends its reach

07-Aug-2007 : ABX Air has signed an agreement to buy ex-Chinese Boeing 767-200s and convert them into freighters.

The cargo airline said it will purchase the Boeing 767-200 aircraft, powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4E engines, from Air China. The cost to purchase the aircraft and refit it for cargo transport will be about $23 million, ABX said in a news release.

The 767-200 will be used for long-range, international transport, the airline said. It is the first extended-reach aircraft ABX has purchased.

"This investment in additional 767 lift capacity reflects our confidence in the growth and vitality of the air cargo market, particularly outside the United States," said Joe Hete, president and chief executive officer.

First paragraph: "ABX Air has signed an agreement to buy ex-Chinese Boeing 767-200s and convert them into freighters."

First time I've read in the press that we have signed agreement to by more than one Air China airplane. Have we announced this formally? How many and when are they gettin' here?!

 

[erichartmann]

The latest from the rumor mill is that ABX has already purchased all of the available 767-200's worth buying. This may or may not include unannounced additional aircraft from AA and Air China, though I'm told the AA deal was for the one aircraft only. ABX is now actively pursuing the purchase of 767-300's.

ABX apparently "owns" the next 100 conversion slots for 767 aircraft. The plan is to convert the current "C" container aircraft if no additional 767-200/300 pax airframes are purchased in time to fill upcoming slots.

I doubt the ABX/Astar/DHL deal is dead yet. I'm not sure how it will play out, but I think DHL still wants ABX's fleet. Hete wants more money. DHL/DP doesn't want to pay. Personally I think Aster/DHL/DP will try to drive the ABX stock price down to make the $7.75 offer look good. They may even sweeten it a bit. Hete may try to get ANA to buy in. ANA may do it because they also want the ABX lift. We're in play, and unfortunately the rank and file are simply along for the ride.

 

[UM#1]

FROM THE LATEST ISSUE OF AIR CARGO WORLD:

http://www.aircargoworld.com/features/0807_1.htm



The 767-300 is one of Boeing's newest conversion programs, launched in October 2005 with All Nippon Airways as the first customer. The 767-300 converted freighter will have virtually the same cargo capability as the 767-300 factory-built freighter, with about 52 tonnes of structural payload at a range of approximately 3,100 nautical miles at 412,000 pounds maximum takeoff weight.
Under the Boeing Converted Freighter program, Boeing is totally responsible for all modification designs, management, certification and after-delivery service.


Boeing also manages the modification centers that actually perform the touch labor.


The 767-300 conversion modification centers are Singapore Technologies Aerospace in Singapore and Alenia Aeronavali in Italy. It takes about 120 days to convert the plane to a freighter, and the plane can carry 24 88-by-125 inch pallets on the main deck plus 14 LD-2 containers and four 96-by-125 inch pallets on the lower deck.


There are two 767-200 "special freighter" programs available.


Aeronavali has a license from Boeing to convert 767-200 planes to cargo configuration. Israel Aircraft Industries' Bedek Aviation Group began a conversion program in late 2001, designated the 767-200BDSF. It initially converted nine 767-200s for Airborne Express without a main deck cargo door. It then obtained supplemental type certificates in the United States, Europe and Israel for conversion with a maindeck cargo door.


The company has converted 29 767-200s for ABX and GECAS, with the GECAS aircraft flying for Tampa Airlines in Colombia and Star Air in Europe. Hadassah Paz, a spokesman for Bedek Group, said the company has "quite a number of firm orders and options for the 767-200 conversion, (but) because the passenger segment is booming, customers currently have difficulties getting feed stock."



Conversion is done in Israel and Brazil.
Paz also said Bedek has launched a 767-300 conversion program under a 50/50 partnership with Mitsui. These will be converted through the establishment of the M&B Conversion Company in Dublin.


The first 767-200 freighter conversion being done under the Boeing approved service bulletin is nearing completion at Aeronavali's Venice facility and is expected to fly in September or October, according to Giuseppe Gambino, Aeronavali's sales manager. Boeing will perform all the certification test flying, Gambino said. The company has firm orders for five conversions, including the test aircraft that will be turned over to the customer once certification is completed. Options on another five conversions have also been placed, and Aeronavali "is in serious discussions" with several other possible customers, Gambino said.


Cargo conversion of the 767-200 takes about four-and-a-half months and costs roughly $12.5 million, he said. However, Air Cargo Management Group put the cost of the 767-200 converted freighter at $9 million to $10 million and conversion of the A300-600 or A310-300 at $8.5 million to $9.5 million.


Total cost of conversion obviously depends on numerous factors, including the cost of the airframe plus engines and avionics. And while it used to be that a general rule of thumb was that the low initial cost could overcome the longer-term higher cost of maintenance and fuel, that rule could be changing.
Fried noted as jet fuel moves closer to $4 a gallon, "there is a compelling argument to purchase one of those (newer) aircraft. I've heard that there is a 25 percent efficiency of the newer aircraft over the planes that are out there now."

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

From penguin22.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyjetDC8
We, as a group, sleepwalked into this because a survey wasn't taken to determine the prevalent attitude to the ANA charter logistics

Wrong. We had a zoomerang survey on that. I'm sure your negative vote on the whole idea was counted.
__________________

All the way back to post #71. Excuse my tardiness in replying but I've been away on an Asian fun trip. It was very Asian but it wasn't very much fun. I'm not in the best of moods.

Actually Fisheater, it is you who are wrong. Perhaps you've simply forgotten the chronology. I'll remind you. The Zommerang-boomerang survey didn't come out until after our union intelligensia had negotiated themselves between a rock and a hard place. Simple enough one would have thought - just say no. Trouble is that they initially didn't although the membership did.

So then we had the panic survey and I'm sure your vote for a concessionary contract was counted. Music to Joe's ears. Time to change NO concessionary contracts! into:

penguin: will do japan for fish.

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

Double post.

 

[GoABX]

Supposedly we only have 4-5 items left plus pay and retirement. Pay probably won't be that contentious seeing as we asked for a Tiny raise and the company has countered with Tiny -.5%. How long long can you possibly dicker over that?!!

Then let's vote. And when we are done voting, Jayson Ross can fix those big problems. Apparently our group is not that concerned about making more money, but rather quality of life issues. In the end those items are cheaper for the company than bumping salaries.

 

[erichartmann]

Voting

Its really very simple. When the T/A is presented for a vote, just say no. :bomb:

The the E-Board will have to determine why the T/A was voted down and attempt to negotiate a fix. Hopefully this will result in a real survey, one were the membership can express its opinions. :angryfire

Some or all of both the E-Board and the negotiating committee may resign, particularly if they truely believe they brought back the best deal they could get. :nuts:

Hete, of course, will screw himself into the overhead amid dire claims of loss of the ANA deal, furloughs etc. :uzi:

 

[ke4lir]

Its really very simple. When the T/A is presented for a vote, just say no. :bomb:

The the E-Board will have to determine why the T/A was voted down and attempt to negotiate a fix. Hopefully this will result in a real survey, one were the membership can express its opinions. :angryfire

Some or all of both the E-Board and the negotiating committee may resign, particularly if they truely believe they brought back the best deal they could get. :nuts:

Hete, of course, will screw himself into the overhead amid dire claims of loss of the ANA deal, furloughs etc. :uzi:

So exactly whose side are you on? If you don't trust the E-Board then why didn't you run?

 

[ABXbooger]

Better yet, call them personally and tell them your side...they listened to me when I was furloughed.

 

[erichartmann]

So exactly whose side are you on? If you don't trust the E-Board then why didn't you run?

It really isn't a matter of "sides". Someone had complained about a lack of info from the E-board regarding the contract. The E-board and the N-Committee have chosen not to reveal what those articles already T/Aed cover. The answer is, as I said earlier, simple. When the T/A is presented for ratification, if you don't like it, just say no.

My other comments reference the likely outcome if the T/A is voted down by the membership. As a union, we have rejected two previous T/A's. The first was in 1986/87. The negotiating committee brought back an agreement which they refused to recommend. Management had insisted it would pass. They were wrong. The second was in 1996. The E-board looked at the T/A as presented to them by the negotiating committe, recognized that some serious problems existed, and refused to proffer it to the membership for a vote.

The world did not come to an end in either case. It will not come to an end if we decide this agreement is a turkey and vote it down as well.

As to why I didn't run:

1) I have previously served the Union in a number of different capacities.

2) I am senior enough to be regarded by the "why can't we all get along" crowd as one of the barbarians.

3) I am senior enough to be regarded by many of the junior members as to senior to care about or represent their interests.

4) I don't care to devote my life to working for people who don't appreciate the effort.

5) I have come to believe there is some small amount of truth in management's position that the union spends far to much effort representing 2% of its members for their lack of judgement; in short, those who, without the union, would have been handed corporate Darwin awards long ago. I have no desire to represent these individuals.

6) If you ask me how I feel about something I will not shade the truth (as I see it) to fit your sensibilities.

7) In short, I do not regard myself as electable, do not care to run, do not wish to serve (again), and do not wish to waste my time.