Cargo 360 just bought Southern Air

[ironspud]

I think we have 3 or 4 743s. They go everywhere. Where ever the customer wants world wide. And yes I like the 743 a lot better. It has a much more roomy upper deck. Other then that the plane is identical to the 742.

Due Diligence. SAI has no 743's. They are all 742's. What SAI does have are 2 747-200 SUD's amongst the mongrels. That's all.

 

[27 driver]

deleted

 

[dutch747]

Due Diligence. SAI has no 743's. They are all 742's. What SAI does have are 2 747-200 SUD's amongst the mongrels. That's all.

Do those SUD's have the two rear doors with escape slides in the Upper Deck as well as the little forward door in the upper deck? (Just wondering how to pick them out)

 

[ironspud]

Do those SUD's have the two rear doors with escape slides in the Upper Deck as well as the little forward door in the upper deck? (Just wondering how to pick them out)

Yes. N746SA/N748SA. 746 is allegedly the highest time (or cycles, not sure which) 747-200 in the world.

 

[27 driver]

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]Boeing's 747-300 model introduced the distinctive stretched upper deck which can seat up to 69 economy class passengers.

The 747-300 was the end result of a number of Boeing studies which looked at increasing the aircraft's seating capacity. Ideas studied included fuselage plugs fore and aft of the wing increasing seating to around 600, or running the upper deck down the entire length of the fuselage. In the end Boeing launched the more modest 747SUD (Stretched Upper Deck) with greater upper deck seating on June 12 1980.

The 747SUD designation was soon changed to 747EUD (for Extended Upper Deck), and then 747-300. The new model first flew on October 5 1982 and was first delivered to Swissair on March 28 1983. Other customers included UTA, Saudia, SIA, Qantas and Cathay.

Compared to the -200, the -300's upper deck is stretched aft by 7.11m (23ft 4in), increasing economy class seating from 32 to a maximum of 69. The lengthened upper deck introduced two new emergency exit doors and allows an optional flightcrew rest area immediately aft of the flightdeck to be fitted. Access is via a conventional rather than spiral staircase as on the earlier models.
Otherwise the 747-300 is essentially little changed from the 747-200 and features the same takeoff weight and engine options. 747-300 variants include the 747-300M Combi and the short range 747-300SR built for Japan Air Lines for domestic Japanese services.

same same
[/FONT]

 

[FreightGod]

Me thinks JAL had -100 SUD back in the days.
Not sure if they were delivered that way, or if they were modified later. ?

As for -200 SUD, that would be the -300, no?

 

[FreightGod]

Did a quick Google search and found that JAL modified -100s and -200s to stretch the upper deck.

High density domestic ops in Japan, 500+ pax probably.

Never flew a -300, but heard it had a different fuel system than the -200. True?

 

[B747Flyer]

Did a quick Google search and found that JAL modified -100s and -200s to stretch the upper deck.

High density domestic ops in Japan, 500+ pax probably.

Never flew a -300, but heard it had a different fuel system than the -200. True?

You might be thinking of the fuel system differences between a -100 and a -200. The -200 has 2 more Reserve Tanks over the original -100s (4 vs. 2). Some Carriers (Atlas/Polar for one) have deactivated these extra tanks as they have speed restrictions when filled. They are usually dry by TOC though.

The -300's fuel system is the same as the -200.

The -300's cruise .01 mach faster at LRC due to the more efficient, larger fuselage "wetted area"...that's about the only difference - at least between C360's two -200Fs and our -300SF. They are all sequential line numbers, built for the same carrier (KAL originally) so that certainly helps.

 

[dutch747]

Did a quick Google search and found that JAL modified -100s and -200s to stretch the upper deck.

High density domestic ops in Japan, 500+ pax probably.

Never flew a -300, but heard it had a different fuel system than the -200. True?

The only thing that I remember that was different (In the cockpit) on most -300's (C360's -300 is an exception) is the starter switches were magnetically held in to 50% instead of the sore arm method.

 

[OrionFE]

The only thing that I remember that was different (In the cockpit) on most -300's (C360's -300 is an exception) is the starter switches were magnetically held in to 50% instead of the sore arm method.

Right the f@#& on!

 

[dutch747]

Right the f@#& on!

I hope I didn't lead you astray. C360's planes are sore arm starter switches.

 

[OrionFE]

I hope I didn't lead you astray. C360's planes are sore arm starter switches.

I didn't know there was anything different. That would be cool!

 

[dutch747]

For those of you who don't frequent the "other" forums, Follow this link:

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/showthread.php?t=3108&page=26

Read the post by StipAlert. It sums everything up concerning this gangbang.

 

[Thedude]

I hope I didn't lead you astray. C360's planes are sore arm starter switches.

Thats your workout before napping down while crossing the NoPac

 

[pilotbrain]

I ran into an old friend the other day in MIA, he told me that he got hired by southern air on the b-747-400 his class starts on Oct 28. If this is true that really sucks that SA is hiring pilots off the street for the 400’s. Does anyone over at SA know anything about this?

 

[unwashed]

From another forum and well worth the read.

"Unfortunately, I think you are right as well. From what I have been able to ascertain, the depreciation write-offs on the airplanes alone as a result of the structure of this deal more than make up for any losses, including an unanticipated early shut down of Cargo 360 and the loss of the KAL contract due to personnel shortage.

Say what you will about Neff, but the present bottom line at Southern is what Oak Hill's after, not the future value of an exceptional cargo airline. Neff pays cash or gets short-term financing on airframes that are 90% used up, flies them until they are 110% used up, and then parks them in the desert to prop up what's left or part out for profit. Is that the kind of business I'd want to run? Probably not. But is it profitable? Hell yes. I heard from one source that each of those airframes generates around $200,000 per month in pure profit.

Oak Hill likes money, and they don't particularly care about anything else, apparently, as long as it doesn't interfere with the bottom line. Why should they? They have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to make money--not to improve your quality of life. SA's management team is in place instead of Cargo 360's because they have the higher cash flow to show for it. On time performance and all those other metrics only matter to airlines that are trying to build something great. For SA and Oak Hill, it's the money that matters, and if they can make that kind of cash doing what they're doing, then Oak Hill sees no need to tweak it.

And let's not fool ourselves. The offer of employment to the C360 crews is only on the table to bridge the staffing gap. Come this time next year, it won't matter one bit whether anyone crosses over as the hiring will have caught up. It might cost them a bit in the meantime, but I'm betting that they will recoup most of that by working the pilots like dogs to cover the shortage, and that is precisely why the C360 guys will be insisting on amendments to whatever offer eventually shows up...someday.

I'm not sure what the hold-up is on the SA/SACG end, but it doesn't matter really. Anything that C360's pilots negotiate on the side will virtually have to apply to the SACG as well or I'm betting that there will be no "consensus" among them on seniority list integration. For now, any delays just serve to turn up the heat on SA and OH, which is fine with me. But make no mistake: this deal has already served Oak Hill's needs with the tax write-off. If the airframes move over with no pilots and SA just parks its two highest-time freighters and works the crews overtime to staff the extra plane, it's still been profitable for Oak Hill and SA and even the heavy investors at C360, although I'm sure the latter group would rather have just maintained control of the operation they were so carefully crafting.

So who gets screwed? The pilots at both groups unless we come together and seize this limited opportunity to demand change. Will that happen? I doubt it. I have seen very little but tough talk from many of our guys in the past, and I expect that to continue. Anyone who has something better to go to is a fool to stick around to see how this plays out (and many already have moved on). Everyone else is more than happy to shut up and take the promise of double pay for the next few months. God forbid we do or say anything that might jeopardize that!

And I've enjoyed meeting and talking with all the SACG guys in ANC the past couple of months. I empathize with you, and some of us will be sympathizing with you very soon. However, I also get the impression that the SACG is looking for a large portion of the C360 crews to come over and take a stand, but it's just not going to happen. Someone said it a few pages back--most of us are here for the unique opportunity of building something great alongside our management team. We believed in Cargo 360. Many of us purchased stock in the company when it was offered. And although there have been some really dumb policies come out of Seattle from time to time, the pendulum has always swung back to the middle with the gravitational pull of reason from the majority of both sides.

No matter how great the SACG is, the fact remains that Neff and his management team don't care about you, and they won't care about us either. Certainly Oak Hill won't notice until it begins impacting their bottom line, which means that a labor action is in the cards if you're ever to improve anything. But the contract isn't even up for negotiation for several more years, so all they really have to do is stick to it and we've got no legs to stand on. (It's my understanding that they often aren't even doing that, but with no formal grievance process or the bankroll of a national union, there's really no recourse.) As one of our captains said after a meeting with Tom and Bill in ANC, "It doesn't matter if they let me rewrite that entire contract from scratch myself, I'm not going over there." There is no trust of SA's management.

So yes, on paper, it looks like this has all kinds of small benefits for the C360 crews that transition over, which might add up to something significant. However, the scheduling, corporate culture, and trust issues trump all of that, and there is nothing at all that can be done about the latter two, short of replacing the entire SA management team, which OH will never do because of the cash flow they're generating.

Sorry to be such a downer, but the big money boys really ruined what was going to be something great, and I'm going to be surprised if any pilot at the combined "Southern 360" ever sees any tangible benefit from it. The bottom line was that Oak Hill Capital was absolutely the wrong investor for Cargo 360 to be courting. However, at the time, the company didn't have much of a choice--they made a deal with the devil, and this is the result."
Posted by StripAlert

 

[27 driver]

I ran into an old friend the other day in MIA, he told me that he got hired by southern air on the b-747-400 his class starts on Oct 28. If this is true that really sucks that SA is hiring pilots off the street for the 400’s. Does anyone over at SA know anything about this?

I think the SACG might have something to say about that, as well as the C360 guys. Not sure if we can do anything but there will be a lot of unhappy people. Not a good way to build goodwill amongst the ranks.

 

[unwashed]

Read the post from StripAlert and you probably understand they (SA) don't care.

 

[27 driver]

Read the post from StripAlert and you probably understand they (SA) don't care.

Don't worry bro, I am painfully aware of my status as a line puke at SAH. I also know our union is all bark and no bite.:bawling:

 

[unwashed]

well if our letters ever arrive ( I have been told they are delayed yet again) maybe we can put teeth in the bite.