Abx?

[xspud]

Wouldn't ILN get us into the crew "fencing" argument again? I agree that the extra travel time is a productivity problem, too.

Some of the ACMI cargo carriers "home base" their crews, but most have at least a percentage of trips that start/end in the U.S.

RE: LAX; I'm guessing that a lot of crews would commute to LAX to begin/end trips anyway, but what I've heard about paying CA income tax regardless is scary.

Most (maybe all) of the contract pilots flying ANA/JP Express now are given a "commuting allowance" and arrange their own transportation over and back.

ANA basically has one flight a day to Narita from LAX, SFO, ORD, IAD & JFK.

 

[erichartmann]

Wouldn't ILN get us into the crew "fencing" argument again? I agree that the extra travel time is a productivity problem, too.

Some of the ACMI cargo carriers "home base" their crews, but most have at least a percentage of trips that start/end in the U.S.

RE: LAX; I'm guessing that a lot of crews would commute to LAX to begin/end trips anyway, but what I've heard about paying CA income tax regardless is scary.

Most (maybe all) of the contract pilots flying ANA/JP Express now are given a "commuting allowance" and arrange their own transportation over and back.

ANA basically has one flight a day to Narita from LAX, SFO, ORD, IAD & JFK.

IMO we should close MIA, use ILN as the sole domicile, and fence the crews. Your mileage may vary.

 

[ABXbooger]

I think we are all pretty sure it will be a US domestic base, and I think ILN would be the best solution for the pilots. We commercial now to the west coast RIV trips, what's the difference if we commute to Japan? (the obvious ones aside). With a LAX domicile, mgmt will only save a little money, I am sure we could negotiate a deal with ANA for positive space on their planes at seriously reduced rates. The money saved on commuting pilots to ILN for training from LAX could offset the traveling.

Also, a question to those that have been there: what happens if you are in Asia and you get sick, i.e. in need of medical attention, how does the medical benefits cover that?

I think reserve is going to be another issue, R4 in Tokyo?

Anyone else think the two different press releases are funny? ANA says this is as good as done, and ABX says we shall see. The date put forward by ANA (MAR 25) is a little ambitious. Even if we start doing it with mgmt people, how are we going to train the people who eventually will be there. tons of ??????????????????????'s

 

[xspud]

Anyone else think the two different press releases are funny? ANA says this is as good as done, and ABX says we shall see. The date put forward by ANA (MAR 25) is a little ambitious.

Yeah, I noticed the difference, too. I hope ABX doesn't burn any bridges here. If ANA is counting on us and we don't come through, how seriously are other carriers going to take us in the future? ANA is the 7th largest pax airline in the world and they're entering a major growth phase in cargo. If we're going to be in the ACMI business it seems like they'd be a great company to work with. And not so good to disappoint them.

Maybe ILN is the domicile solution and the international crews would effectively end up being "home-based" (as some of the RIV flying ends up now). The ANA flying would end up with at least 5 travel/rest days per cycle out of ILN.

 

[AV8OR]

"Also, a question to those that have been there: what happens if you are in Asia and you get sick, i.e. in need of medical attention, how does the medical benefits cover that?"

Yall need to make sure you get a separate coverage that covers a corp jet flight back to the US in this event. We carry a card with an international phone # for that purpose.

JMO

 

[MJH767]

I think ILN would be the best choice foe the pilot group. If they insisted it be an international gateway, ORD and DFW have nonstops with flight times about 2 hrs longer than LAX nonstops, so why is LAX the hot choice? DFW would be tax friendly.

 

[LarryinTN]

LAX is the hot choice because of the travel time. Our contract limits our scheduled duty periods to 12-1/2 hours. It would be over 18 hours on duty to commercial from ILN to Japan which would require an extra day with a layover on the West Coast.

 

[erichartmann]

Anyone else think the two different press releases are funny? ANA says this is as good as done, and ABX says we shall see. The date put forward by ANA (MAR 25) is a little ambitious. Even if we start doing it with mgmt people, how are we going to train the people who eventually will be there. tons of ??????????????????????'s

Boogger, I think Joe is still negotiating with us. He thinks we're stupid.

Personally, I believe ABX has deal worked out with ANA based on current contract. Now they are trying to see how much better they can do by amending current contract to more favorable terms for them. If they can further cut costs they might pass a portion of the savings along to ANA.

 

[erichartmann]

LAX is the hot choice because of the travel time. Our contract limits our scheduled duty periods to 12-1/2 hours. It would be over 18 hours on duty to commercial from ILN to Japan which would require an extra day with a layover on the West Coast.

That's not an insurmountable barrier. I wouldn't want to go coach though.

I would like us, as a company, to get the contract. I personally don't care to fly it though, not with what I've heard about the schedules. I like my cheese right where it is. OTOH, I will if I have to. I would seriously entertain the idea of flying an ANA contract personally if needed to keep Joe from hiring off the street.

 

[xspud]

Personally, I believe ABX has deal worked out with ANA based on current contract.

Good point, eric. Under the current agreement they would have to create a domicile (no fencing agreement). Almost certainly LAX because of ANA flights and duty time. With the current scheduling rules trips would look a bit like RIV, with commercial DH at beginning and end of each week. The flights ANA has scheduled for the -200 are no longer than our current domestic flights, so they could fly us most every day over there. Net result would be 10-12 flying days per month out of Japan.

I have a hard time imagining that this would go so junior that we would require Captains off the street, especially if lines were built to the current contract. If I read the contract correctly, it looks like the company would have the option of assigning current crewmembers or hiring off the street for any positions that were not bid. Is there more to that section than I'm reading? I know that there's often a bunch of "intent" and "precedent" history behind those paragraphs.

I would only be concerned about hiring into those seats if that were done instead of making them available to current (or furloughed) pilots. Every current ABX crewmember should have the option of bidding for this if they want it. If it goes unbid and the company is hiring as a result of growth, that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. UPS is hiring people into the right seat of the MD-11 ANC, for example.