Foreign Airlines for Troop movements?

[FlyBoeingJets]

Another Republican money saving idea.



Pentagon Seeks to Use Foreign Airlines
By MICHELINE MAYNARD

Published: April 10, 2004

The Pentagon is asking Congress for the authority to award contracts to foreign airlines to move troops and equipment, a business that has always been limited to - and been lucrative for - American-based carriers...

...Specifically, the Defense Department is seeking to repeal Section 2710 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003. That section requires that contracts be awarded to air carriers with American ownership of 50 percent or more...

The analysis did not mention the reserve fleet, but industry officials said the request, if approved by Congress, could lead to competition from foreign carriers.

Word of the request was first disclosed yesterday in an Internet newsletter, Inside the Air Force. A spokesman for the Air Force's Transportation Command, based at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, confirmed the request.

Participants in the reserve fleet sign up for government contracts to transport troops around the world in peacetime. In return, they agree to turn over their planes on short notice, for 30 days at a time, to move soldiers and gear during emergency wartime mobilizations....

Last year's mobilization proved a lifeline for participating airlines, which had been battered by a drop in traffic because of fears over the outbreak of war, a weakened economy and the SARS virus. ...

The biggest passenger carriers participating in the reserve fleet last year were ATA Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Continental Airlines, and the charter airline World Airways, according to the Pentagon.
Officials at the Air Transport Association, which represents domestic airlines, did not return calls seeking comment....

Competition could bring down the price that the military pays to transport troops, he said.

 

[General Lee]

Fly home from Iraq on an Egypt Air 777. That would be fun! (Didn't we have 11 MD-11s that we COULD HAVE used for MAC charters? We are still paying $15,000 a day for each--sitting in the desert. Sounds like our fault again.....)


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[FLB717]

Doesn't Iraqi Airways have a few aircraft just sitting around, we could contract with them!

What idiot thought this idea up.

 

[General Lee]

They had a 747SP I think---but we may have shot it's rudder off...Hey, Afganistan has an airline now--Ariana---and it has some old A300s and a couple 727s too than could be ferried from Kabul over to Baghdad easily. That would be really cheap!

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[fredflyer]

Doesn't Iraqi Airways have a few aircraft just sitting around, we could contract with them!

I've got a few good pictures of their fleet....... if I could only figure out how to post them on the internet..

 

[typhoonpilot]

This is not a good idea for many reasons, not the least of which is safety. If they start going with the low bidder I wouldn't want to be on any of the airplanes they get. Witness the 62 Spanish soldiers killed on their way back from Afghanistan last year when their chartered Ukrainian Yak 42 crashed in poor visibility at Trabzon in northern Turkey. Bet the Spanish or NATO wished they had paid a little more money for a decent charter company after that accident. PPrune has a thread on it under Rumours and News just search under Trabzon crash.

Typhoonpilot

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

Typhoon

Being American doesn't insulate a company from being negligent or stupid either - Valujet and the Arrow Air crash at Gander come to mind. What's really needed is due dilligence by the GAO.

Nothing is wrong with the lowest bidder as long as they have been properly audited and maybe a LOSA carried out.

 

[typhoonpilot]

I agree, Cathay, Emirates, Singapore, Lufthansa, etc. would probably be safer than most U.S. carriers but if the chartering of Ukrainian Yak 42s is any indication of the direction they want to go then I would be against it.

Typhoonpilot

 

[CatYaaak]

I agree, Cathay, Emirates, Singapore, Lufthansa, etc. would probably be safer than most U.S. carriers..."
Typhoonpilot

Not only that, if you were a soldier who would you rather have as your Flight Attendants just before going into or coming out of a war zone? A planeful of; (a) single, smiling, 20-something Emirates babes, or (b) grumpy Delta senior mamas with a smattering of way-too-smiley single guys who obviously want to take a closer look at your "gear"?

 

[DrinkSweetTea]

Im guessing that after fighting for one year, Id be glad to see an american flight attendant regardless of age.

 

[CatYaaak]

Im guessing that after fighting for one year, Id be glad to see an american flight attendant regardless of age.

The question is, who would you rather see?

 

[FLB717]

An American F/A. Becuase then I don't have to work about my Jack and Coke tip going to some terorrist cells of her brothers like Hamas or a Homicide Bomber as a F/A.

 

[CatYaaak]

An American F/A. Becuase then I don't have to work about my Jack and Coke tip going to some terorrist cells of her brothers like Hamas or a Homicide Bomber as a F/A.

Most Emirates (or Gulf Air, Quatar, etc.) F/As, like their pilots, are expats... Brit, Aussie, Irish, Phillipine, or Eastern Europe, and some American nationals. No worries there. Say, how many Jack and Coke's did you have before you wrote this?

 

[TBF]

Fly home from Iraq on an Egypt Air 777. That would be fun! (Didn't we have 11 MD-11s that we COULD HAVE used for MAC charters? We are still paying $15,000 a day for each--sitting in the desert. Sounds like our fault again.....)


Bye Bye---General Lee

World Airways is leasing a few of those MD-11s and using them for AMC charters. There is plenty of uplift capacity in the US CRAF fleet! Nothing like kicking the industry when it is down.

 

[General Lee]

TBF,

I know, we just gave you some of our MD-11s, and we still have 11 left that we are paying for each day (I think $15,000 each) to sit in the desert. We also still use some 767ERs and maybe some 777s for the MAC program......I know Omni and ATA are also involved to a large extent---but the Pentagon wants cheaper foreign airlines to do it......I doubt that will happen, and I am happy someone in the press brought this story out....

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[pipejockey]

I agree, Cathay, Emirates, Singapore, Lufthansa, etc. would probably be safer than most U.S. carriers
Typhoonpilot

I am in utter and complete shock at that statement! Why would the above named airlines be safer than a US carrier?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FLB717
An American F/A. Becuase then I don't have to work about my Jack and Coke tip going to some terorrist cells of her brothers like Hamas or a Homicide Bomber as a F/A.

Agree with you 100% FLB717. Id rather have that wrinkly old Delta hag, or some smiley faced guy, they are Americans! The last thing I want to see is the face of the people Ive just been trying to avoid being killed by.

 

[FLB717]

CatYaak,

I had none prior to that post, if I did might have got to a point and offended someone.

 

[Dizel8]

"Being American doesn't insulate a company from being negligent or stupid either - Valujet and the Arrow Air crash at Gander come to mind."

Hmmm, several good articles on big A at Gander, most seem to believe some shady things took placed, fully backed by a certain goverment. When was the last time you heard of things being removed from a crash site, before the NTSB had a chance to look at it or wreckage being bulldozed into the ground?

From one source:
"Dr. David Elcombe, director of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB), released the Canadians' toxicological findings on March 5, 1986, although they were not presented at any public hearings. These results presented problems for the "instantaneous" death theory posed by Dr. McMeekin. The consensus between the two governments was that there was no pre-impact explosion. Therefore the story went something like this: everyone was alive, then several seconds later, all aboard perished immediately when the plane contacted the ground as a result of wing icing, and erupted in a ball of fire. This is where Dr. Elcombe's findings pose a problem. Many of the bodies contained high levels of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, both products of combustion. (1:37-38) An accepted guideline used by pathologists is that these products cannot enter the tissue of the body by any means other than respiration. So according to Dr. Elcombe, 256 people who died "instantaneously" have high levels of combustion products which they would have had to have inhaled. To make this important piece of evidence fit into the accepted "no explosion" theory, the survival time after the crash was increased from zero seconds to almost five minutes. The families were being asked to deal with the nightmarish possibility that their loved ones sat living, within a fiery inferno of jet fuel for almost five minutes. Interestingly, many of the bodies that had high levels of combustion products in their lungs were also decapitated, yet according to the official report, they somehow kept breathing five minutes after being dismembered. This could be exactly why Dr. Elcombe sent a memo to Dr. McMeekin dated June 20, 1986 stating: "Some of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide values are striking ... and I look forward to meeting with you ... to consider their significance." (2:167)"

 

[typhoonpilot]

I am in utter and complete shock at that statement! Why would the above named airlines be safer than a US carrier?

Fatal Event Rate Since 1975: ( Rate per million departures )

Mind you most major foreign airlines have a much lower number of departures than U.S. carriers that typically have thousands of departures per day so one accident can skew the statistics.

Air Canada .33
American .50
Delta .16 ( The General is going to be happy )
Northwest .28
United .37
USAirways .35
Southwest 0
AirTran 5.88 ( Sorry Ty )
British Airways .22
Lufthansa .19
Cathay 0
Virgin Atlantic 0
Emirates 0
Qantas 0
Singapore .75 ( One fatal accident ever )
Egypt Air 7.6 ( Just since somebody mentioned them )


So, with the exception of Singapore my statement is statisically correct. Are you still in complete and utter shock ?

I have flown all over the world as both a passenger and a pilot and I would ride on the airlines I mentioned anyday and feel very safe. While I wouldn't feel unsafe on a U.S. carrier, I was just trying to make a point that the U.S. doesn't have the market on safety cornered.

If you look back at my original post in this thread I think it is a bad idea to pursue a plan to outsource military airlift to foreign airlines because I'm afraid the government would go with the low bidder, read unsafe airline that cuts corners.


Typhoonpilot

 

[General Lee]

Typhoonpilot,

Well, infact I am proud of our record---and I hope it improves. (knock on wood) Maybe there is a lack of larger airplanes (only NW and UA have 744s for US carriers)--and the pentagon wants more for its money. I just think they should try to support the home team, but many foreign airlines fly charters for the Hajj---not just Saudia. Maybe it is a cost issue, and maybe Singapore could do it for cheaper---and we know the stews over there are hot---so our troops would like that.....Even though our troops get the "Grandma treatment" from our Delta stews (most are Grandmas)........Take care and have fun on that 777.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Pilotbob3]

what are you traitors???? yea sure take away flying from American companies and give it to foriegn airlines?????? what the heck is wrong with all of you????? unbelievable.. .....gee why don't we just have the foreign airlines take over the usa too...open skies everywhere......sheesh...idiots

 

[BMD]

gulf air

I'd fly with the girls from Gulf Air any time.

 

[General Lee]

Pilotbob3,

Easy man, I was just saying the stews from Singapore are hot, and the troops may like that better than the grannies at Delta. I wish personally that we would take the 11 MD-11s out of the desert that we are still paying close to $15,000 a day for (each) and use them for MAC charters. But again, that is our fault (the pilots').

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[TBF]

TBF,

I know, we just gave you some of our MD-11s, and we still have 11 left that we are paying for each day (I think $15,000 each) to sit in the desert. ....

Bye Bye--General Lee

I am no longer at World, spent a few years there (good company, great people) and had a first hand look at AMC "teaming". All the majors have formed teams to farm out their share of their CRAF commitment. It made sense when there was more profit in scheduled flying. I would have thought with the downturn in the industry that the majors would have exercised their right to do more of that flying instead of parking aircraft and furloughing employees!

 

[CatYaaak]

what are you traitors???? yea sure take away flying from American companies and give it to foriegn airlines?????? what the heck is wrong with all of you????? unbelievable.. .....gee why don't we just have the foreign airlines take over the usa too...open skies everywhere......sheesh...idiots

No, I'm not a traitor and you'd have to be an idiot yourself to think so or bandy that label about so freely. Since the military operates under budget contraints, if the Pentagon can save $$ by using foreign carriers (that of course meet safety and security standards) to transport troops , that means more $$ at the other end for important things like equipment and ammo.

It was the Pentagon that requested the ability to open competitive bids to foreign carriers.....are they traitors too? The military exists to protect your life and this country, but that doesn't mean it has to subsidize any airline or your paycheck. It's not about you, or "your flying".

Here's an idea for you. The way to keep our troops on U.S. airlines is to put in the lowest bids. Since keeping them there seems to be some sort of Patriot Barometer for you, how about flight crews doing their part to keep the costs down and volunteering to crew those flights say, once a year by rotating crews, without pay? You know, for free? Chipping in for the troops?

 

[ivauir]

What are these foreign airlines parent countries going to offer us in return - oh nothing? Then forget it. I have ZERO interest in supporting Air France and I don't care what the FAs look like, just so long as they don't wake me up.

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

These times are very trying for us as pilots as we have a vested interest in what we do because we love it. Painful thing is that we are usually employees of a company. And the company is guided by the bottom line. The Pentagon is simply a business looking out for its bottom line. Reduce costs is the name of the game. If US carriers want to continue their patriotic duty to ferry troops, they will have to be competitive to do it. And how hot the stews are (or not) will not really be a factor in the Pentagon's decision IMHO.

No hard feelings, just business.

EB

 

[CatYaaak]

What are these foreign airlines parent countries going to offer us in return - oh nothing? Then forget it. I have ZERO interest in supporting Air France and I don't care what the FAs look like, just so long as they don't wake me up.

If they bid the lowest, in effect they are freeing up more $$ for the Pentagon to spend on the troops in other ways. Are you one of the troops being transported and on the gound over here? If so, you have my thanks. If not, then you don't have to worry about being awakened (or not) be any F/As, either cute or dog-butt ugly, on any of these flights.

But it's not as if most of these arilines are isolationist. Your example, AF, is "supported" in it's business by Delta and vice versa by virtue of being codeshare partners. If you're flying for SWA, then what are you worried about? Even from the East Coast, you don't have equipment that will go that far without stopping 3+ times anyway.

 

[ivauir]

Are you one of the troops being transported and on the gound over here?

Yes I am.

If you're flying for SWA, then what are you worried about?

I am worried about the principle of it. There is more to the price than the purshase price. Delta pays US taxes and this is a market that only the US has. It is not like Delta is going to get a contract to move Russian or French troops so why should these foreign carriers get a free ride? This just doesn't make sense, I am all for free trade, but that needs to be a two way deal - they have nothing to offer - so no deal.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Here's an idea for you. The way to keep our troops on U.S. airlines is to put in the lowest bids.

I can see it now....a wave of 50 RJs at a time heading off to the Middle East with our troops on board.