• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

CRAF: THE MILITARY and THE AIRLINES

Status
Not open for further replies.

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Airlines Not Hurt By Increased Reserve Pilot Call-Ups

Thursday January 27, 5:08 PM EST


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) --The U.S. military has helped airlines more than it has hurt them by calling up reserve pilots since the Sept. 11 attacks, industry and Pentagon officials say. Increased use of reserve pilots - many of whom fly in their civilian lives as well - has created scheduling headaches and the occasional personnel crunch for the airlines. But the call-ups provide extra training and work for furloughed pilots. The military also takes up slack by chartering flights to transport troops and supplies.

Vice Adm. John Cotton, Chief of Navy Reserve, said the Pentagon is actively looking for ways to lessen the strain on employers whose workers get mobilized. For example, the service has started to consider regional impact so that areas aren't hit disproportionately, he said in an interview this week.

For instance, Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV) scrambled after about two dozen pilots were mobilized from a unit near its Phoenix hub, Cotton said. Also, a Texas hospital chain was recently hit hard when a large group of nurses were called up at once.

"What we have to do is work with business on when is the best time for these people to go," said Cotton, a pilot with both military and civilian flight experience. He is currently on a leave of absence from American Airlines, part of AMR Corp. (AMR).

Airlines get a big boost from the Pentagon via the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which uses civilian jets to supplement military airlift. International flights this year are expected to cost $1.9 billion. In January, the fleet will move 83,000 troops, up from 40,000 in the same month a year ago. Air Mobility Command spokesman Mark Voorhis said the increase stems from this month's Iraqi elections, as well as troop rotations and a program that sends deployed personnel on short visits home.

Hard data on pilot call-ups are hard to come by. The reserves only recently began systematically compiling civilian occupation data. Even when such data is available, it is usually incomplete because so many pilots fly reserve missions on their days off instead of a wholescale shift to military duty.

The Air Force currently has 186 pilots mobilized, said Air Force Reserve spokeswoman Col. Audrey Bahler. But that number doesn't include the contributions of part-time reservists, who perform the majority of reserve duties. "We count on most of our missions being flown by volunteers," Bahler said. " They'll go fly their mission and then they'll go back and do their civilian jobs, and then in a couple of weeks they'll volunteer to fly another mission."

Delta Air Lines (DAL) says military needs haven't bitten into its bottom line. Only a few hundred of its pilots and mechanics are active in the reserves, even though many more have military experience, said Delta spokesman Anthony Black. "We haven't seen any kind of an operational impact from the temporary loss of the employees," Black said. "We do everything we can to work with them."

Delta has about 8,100 pilots total. Right now, about 900 are on the furlough list, Black said. Advocates for reservists say the military could do more to draw from furlough lists instead of actively employed pilots.

For example, "if there's another F-16 driver that's in a squadron that's been furloughed somewhere, just substitute that pilot," said Ret. Maj. Gen. Bobby Hollingsworth, a retired U.S. Marine Corps pilot who now leads the Defense Department's committee on Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Hollingsworth said the Defense Department and the airlines have worked together to minimize the industry's burden.

One small change with a big impact was a switch to mid-month mobilization. Previously, the military announced call-ups at the top of the month, the same time that the airlines finalized their schedule.

Also, airlines can save money if the Navy or Air Force gives more notice for when mobilized pilots will return to civilian life and need to renew their civilian flight qualifications. That way airlines won't have to start paying pilots to sit around waiting for a training slot, Hollingsworth said. "The earlier notice that their services can give them as to when they're coming back, the quicker they can get them into their training schedule," he said.

Vice Adm. Cotton says the Pentagon needs to accept that reserve personnel will make family and employer their top two priorities. Military service comes third, despite a sincere commitment to the armed forces.

Call-ups that last 45 days or less are much easier for employers to work around, he said. Also, the military should look at ways to improve health benefits for mobilized service members' families, who may not live near a military hospital but need government-funded health insurance while their spouse or parent is deployed. Paying the private sector to continue benefits may make sense in these cases, he said. "It also would probably save the government some money."

Cotton warned that the Pentagon's need for reserves hasn't slackened, as combat operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other missions, like tsunami relief, arise. Many Navy reservists have not yet been tapped, but they're not off the hook.

.... "Be ready. You're going to get called," Cotton said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: I AM NOT A SPOKESMAN FOR ANY AIRLINE NOR ALPA ... ALL OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN AND ANY POSTS COPIED FROM OTHER SOURCES ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR ORIGINAL AUTHORS ... A4s
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Nwa Seeks Relief To Capture Additional CRAF Flying

AlpaLogo3.gif
NWA SEEKS RELIEF TO CAPTURE ADDITIONAL CRAF FLYING (1/28/05)
features_plane.jpg



NWA management has asked ALPA for contract relief so the Company can bid on and perform additional military charter flying during the months of
February, March, April, and May of 2005. This relief would affect pilots in the DC10, A330, and 747 fleets.

Given the unplanned nature and timeframe for the flying, the MEC's desire that NWA not miss an opportunity to generate additional revenue, and the belief it will be possible to provide this relief without harming active NWA pilots or delaying the recall of furloughed pilots, ALPA has entered into talks with management to see if satisfactory terms can be negotiated to allow NWA to conduct this flying.

Again, there is no certainty at this point that NWA will be awarded the flying, but the Company can only bid to perform it if is certain to be able to staff the additional operations. The terms of any tentative agreement ALPA and management reach on this issue will be subject to final approval by the
MEC.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
CRAF helping Airlines Bottom Line .....

Pentagon Boosts Airline Revenue Amid Rising Fuel Costs
pentagon.jpg
19910428%20747-251%20Northwest%20Desert%20Storm%20I%20m.jpg


Thursday February 3, 11:43 PM EST

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones) - U.S. airlines will bring in more revenue this year from a Pentagon charter program because of fuel-related rate increases, according to government data.

The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) has contributed billions in airline revenue since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which took a lasting toll on the travel industry. Airlines volunteer for the program, which qualifies them for charter business while remaining on call for emergency use.


Kuwait is the most frequent destination for people and cargo, with Germany the second-most popular stop. Civilian airplanes don't fly in and out of high-threat areas like Iraq, said Merle Lyman, the Defense Department's division chief for the program. (Note: But we did go into and out of some areas with a fighter escort. During Desert Storm, it was a treat and very reassuring to see a couple of F-14's tucked in on either side of us as the sun was coming up over the Arabian Peninsula ... A4s)

Lyman said that the government isn't lining the airlines' pockets unnecessarily. The Pentagon benefits from having aircraft on standby to supplement its own fleet. "Because of the CRAF program, the Department of Defense is not required or responsible for maintaining a fleet of aircraft - maintaining and operating which is a huge expense - during peacetime," Lyman said.

A few airlines are notably dependent on the program: ATA Holdings Corp. ( ATAHQ) and World Airways, part of World Air Holdings Inc. (WLDA). Bigger carriers also take part frequently.

The 2003 Iraq war saw the only recent mobilization of the reserve air fleet, when the military activated its reserve forces for a few months. Most of the time, volunteer fleets handle the load. (Note: the first use of CRAF was in Gulf One, i.e., Desert Shield/Desert Storm ... A4s)

The Pentagon depends on the reserve air fleet for the more than 90% its passenger air transport and about 40% of cargo flights. Cargo demand has risen dramatically in recent years because the Air Force's C-17 and C-5 cargo planes have been deployed to war zones.

(Note: I cannot format and reproduce a comparative chart on this site to document the assertion that the 747-200 and especially the F model make the C-5 and C-17 look pretty weak by nearly any yardstick of performance. But "trust me" on this -- in payload, range, speed, ferry range, max pallet load, wartime payload delivered ... any measurement you choose to use --- the 747 "Whale" is the name of the game in delivering military cargo. The ONLY thing the G.I. transports can do better is take-off and land in slightly shorter distances.

During the last two CRAF activations, I participated in going to the "sand" on numerous occasions --- some of the best flying I have done in "civie street". Long 25+ hour days, living out of a suitcase for over a month at a time, sleeping on the floor of the cockpit, etc, etc. All those "civilian hardships". But all the time it was worth it and the "troops" were great. I cannot ever remember being that young. When a Marine Gunnery Sergeant looks "young" to me, you know something is wrong ... you have passed a milestone in your life.... A4s)


updatba.gif
ROGER BALL !!
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Patmack18 said:
It's my understanding
NOOOooope, your understanding is wrong.... But that doesn't make you a bad person .... :icon_wink (I'm not going to spell-check this, please excuse)

The Pentagon expects to spend about $2 billion on the fleet for international travel this year, slightly up from $1.9 billion in 2004 and more than double pre-Sept. 11 levels (levels since Desert Storm -- 10 years ago), program officials at Scott Air Force Base state. But the good news is that the airlines stand to make more money per trip.

In 2005, reimbursement rates have risen along with rising fuel costs. For the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, airlines make about 10.2 cents per passenger on large jets like the Boeing 747, up from 9.1 cents in fiscal year 2004. For cargo planes - which have seen a big jump since the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan - airlines make about 31.9 cents per ton for large planes, up from a previous rate of 27.8 cents per ton.

Most major airlines participate in the program. Analysts say it hasn't had a major impact on the industry but nonetheless has helped the bottom line. At this point, given the obvious weakness of the passenger side of the business, any little bit helps to boost revenue in what's a pretty good margin business.

On nearly half of the trips we made --- the aircraft was EMPTY -- as in a totally EMPTY ferry flight -- but yet we got paid for a "full boat", thanks to the stucture of the CRAF program and government requirements. But it IS a good deal overall for the taxpayer. Because of the CRAF program, the Department of Defense is not required or responsible for maintaining a larger fleet of transport aircraft - which is a huge expense.

As mentioned previously, the Pentagon depends on CRAF for 90% its passenger and 40% of cargo flights. Also mentioned above, ATA and World Airways probably exist ONLY because of CRAF and the bigger carriers are also "rediscovering the joys of CRAF" recently. Please note a previous post which identifies at least one major carrier that is actively SEEKING additional CRAF flying as we write ... remember, airlines VOLUNTEER for the program, and they're VOLUNTEERIN' more and more these days ... so you can do the $$$$ math.

I'm gonna go with the call that the Continental and NWA gouge you got is bum gouge. Both airlines had a host of problems, brought on by huge debt requirements from previous buy-outs and bankruptcies, the spike in fuel costs as a result of the Gulf War, the downturn in traffic as a result of the same war, and many other long simmering issues --- but not the CRAF flying. If anything, CRAF flying helped pay many of the bills when the airline was bleeding in other areas. And utilization? The more you keep an aircraft airborne, the more cost efficient it becomes.

One of the airlines you mentioned EMERGED from a previous bankruptcy (1990) within a year AFTER the CRAF flying ended after Desert Storm. While the other airline WAS near a Chapter 11 filing in 1993, it had nothing to do with the effects of CRAF flying. Just so you know who we are dealing with here --- the CEO was crying and had to leave the pilot contract negotiations because he could not control himself .... I'm serious; no joke :)

OPINION: based on airline "inside" experience: Airline managements are consistent in one thing: when times get tight and tough --- they always find a way to blame someone else for their financial difficulties. To admit error is beyond the capacity of the CEO's office.
... A4s :)

updatba.gif
ROGER BALL !!
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Nope. We're gonna' go "is too, is not, is too, is not" .... etc., etc. on this one.
Patmack18 said:
Continentals financial situation at the time was less than perfect...
RIGHT !!
Patmack18 said:
...they still profited on the CRAF flights
RIGHT !!
Patmack18 said:
...it was less than what they would have made using those planes for mainline flying...
RIGHT, again !! Give that man a good cigar ! But, as you correctly point out --- management made a decision that did not produce the $$$ they had counted on, i.e., CRAF flying. HOWEVER, the "line" flying was not there in any case --- as loads were seriously depleted during the wartime flying scares -- you know how the reactionary media and public thinks. Continental management thought CRAF was the golden goose that would get them out of the financial morass they were in -- they were IN Chapter 11 at the time of Desert Storm and recovered in 1993. Kind of tough to blame CRAF under these circumstances. But they will try ... and did. :)
Patmack18 said:
the extra flying the pilots were doing ($$$)
Partially right! More flying cost more pilot $$$ --- but extra time was billed to the government -- UNCLE contractually pays by flight hour/mileage/weight. Continental did not have to scrape up "overtime" out of management's coffers ...
Patmack18 said:
and the loss of mainline flying....
Partially right ! AGAIN !! You are good, Pat ! :) But the loss of "line" flying was due to other factors (see above) CRAF flying to the "Sand" involved Continental's wide-bodies (exclusively, I think) --- seldom used in the early '90's for domestic flying. Used, to be sure, but not primarily. International loads were WAAAAA-Y-Y-Y down. UNCLE filled the gap with taxpayer $$$$ .....
Patmack18 said:
at least that was their excuse... along with about 92342353242 other things....
RIGHT AGAIN !!! THAT's IT !! I GIVE UP !! :)

But seriously, you took college courses in airline management. Where did deregulation emanate from? Alfred Kahn, et'al? The ivy-covered halls of ACADEMIA ... and my experience has been that the professors who teach management courses usually (ALWAYS would probably be too strong) take a pro-management position.

And remember:
A4sForever said:
OPINION: based on airline "inside" experience: Airline managements are consistent in one thing: when times get tight and tough --- they always find a way to blame someone else for their financial difficulties. To admit error is beyond the capacity of the CEO's office.[/I] ... A4s

updatba.gif
ROGER BALL !!
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Patmack18 said:
Most, if not all (I can't think of one) were prior military pilots and airline pilots that were teaching in their retirement years. My Mgmt teacher was one of the cheif pilots at Eastern, and a few others were fleet captains at places like United, Delta, etc.

All but one that were prior military, were Navy/Marine. Had ONE that was a KC-135 guy.
We'll dismiss the KC-135 guy out of hand. :icon_wink But after that one --- Well then, shut my mouth.... where was this college, anyway?? I want everyone to go there .... Heck, I want to get my PhD there !!

.... except that a couple of our "fleet captains" are idiots :clown_125 -- truly. They stay in the office over the years with a "death grip" because it is POWER and they have small "you-know-what's", and, quite frankly, they are sh!t pilots. It becomes a mutual protection association for less than stellar pilots and guys who want to feel important. I don't know your professors -- cannot speak to them, obviously. But I know whereof I speak in MY CASE as I have trained at least 2 or 3 -- or attempted to ... one was even a Stud of mine in the Navy. He is lucky he got his Wings --- it is largely because I (and others) felt sorry for him and he WAS trying. Very marginal and nothing changed 20 years later). And these guys that I am talking about hold their position ONLY because they are "yes men" and drink and drink and drink from the company Kool-Aid trough:icon_drin .. They serve at the pleasure of management ..... the pilots don't "elect" them.

But I am still telling you -- and them -- CRAF was NOT the problem with Continental or NWA. NWA for sure ... I ain't gonna change my mind on this one. Period. It was a convenient excuse -- I was "there" (and I don't mean just in the cockpit) and saw the hard numbers. Period. Exclamation point. Harrruuuumph. So there. :)

BUT: you just gotta' ask yourself one thing ... and I don't mean "do you feel lucky??? If CRAF flying is such a "bad" thing --- financially --- why are airlines (those who have the "correct" aircraft) climbing over each other today to scrape up some of the available taxpayer $$$$ that CRAF brings home ?? Hmmmmmm ..... ???? Good discussion --- you, Sir, are an Officer and a Gentleman.

updatba.gif
ROGER BALL !!
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
OPPORTUNITY FLYING LOA APPROVED
The NWA MEC approved the AMC Charter Flying LOA discussed.
features_plane.jpg


The LOA provides NWA with limited staffing flexibility necessary to bid on
and perform military charter flights during the remainder of February and
in March, April, and May of this year. If awarded to NWA, most of the
additional flying would be performed with the DC-10, with some flying in
February in the A330 and the remainder in the 747-400.

(Note: This is a huge change for NWA, as nearly ALL previous CRAF/MAC -- now AMC -- charter flying was performed by the 747-200. And the A330 -- what kind of trash is that .... ?? :confused: )

updatba.gif
ROGER BALL !!
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
(Note: I cannot format and reproduce a comparative chart on this site to document the assertion that the 747-200 and especially the F model make the C-5 and C-17 look pretty weak by nearly any yardstick of performance. But "trust me" on this -- in payload, range, speed, ferry range, max pallet load, wartime payload delivered ... any measurement you choose to use --- the 747 "Whale" is the name of the game in delivering military cargo. The ONLY thing the G.I. transports can do better is take-off and land in slightly shorter distances.

I know I am going to disagree with an expert but I would say that the C-5 and C-17 provide several advantages when it comes to what they can deliver. First and foremost, the military cargo planes are lower to the ground and much more easily accessible than a 747 and are easier to use in more primitive conditions that are often found at less established airfields that the military often uses, like Tallil, Iraq. Just roll the stuff on or off. I would also doubt, though I may be wrong, that the C-17 and C-5 can carry outsize and heavy cargo like helos and Armored Vehicles like the Stryker while the 747 cannot. And I think the cargo decks on a military transport are strengthened more than a civil transport, though I may be wrong again.

Finally, can a 747 do this?

http://www.parachutehistory.com/military/lapes.html (C-17 at the bottom)

or this?

http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Military/ParaDrop_1.html
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Flash said:
I know I am going to disagree with an expert but .....
willard.jpg
The HORROR! THE HORROR !!!
brando04.jpg

Wrong? WRONG? M-WROng-NG-NG ??? WR ONG-NG-NG ??!? :icon_rage
You are calling
ME WRONG !?!!? :icon_rage :hot_anima You are sitting there, all NFO smug and NFO smart (*gasp* wheeze*), and NFO pretty (**wheeze*gasp**), in DC with your little NFO computer and, and, ...and call MEEEEEE wrong ??!! ...(please insert **"breathless"** ...crash** thud...) ........ silence ...
kurtz.jpg
*sigh * THE HORROR ... * sigh*

Sorry, I just came to after passing out .... YOU ARE RIGHT, FLASH !!! God, I hate it when the B/N outsmarts me. The disgusting C-5 and equally disgusting C-17 CAN "DO" many things that my Beautiful, somewhat graceful "WHALE" cannot --- but there are reasons. You are speaking from a position of the here and now; "reality", if you will --- and we cannot have any of that, can we?

The ability to "squat" was one of the big selling points for the C-5 in the original competition, as was the aft ramp configuration. But several little known "mods" were in the works for the B747 that never came to fruition when McNamara chose the C-5 after he tried to burden the Navy with his flying Edsel, the F-111. The F-111 = Maybe good for the AF, but terrible aboard ship ... :captain_1 And Airborne troopers ?? Piece of cake -- with the rear doors that were planned for the WHALE-combat, ne'e military starship freighter. If Performance is the measurement: the WHALE's still the name of the game.

The C-17 ??? A good aircraft --and a purpose-designed airplane, at that. The "operational" stuff it can do was designed into it from the get-go and planners in the halcyon years of the Whale and C-5 never seriously (?) envisioned all the possibilities -- not planning on taking a "big" transport in close to the front lines in a tactical, combat-style delivery .... a different generation in thinking. But the "WHALE": total payload, range, speed, ferry range, max pallet load, total wartime payload delivered --- Game, set, match: Whale wins, IMHO.

an37.jpg

And what now, Flash-Man ??? I am going to pray for your eternal NFO / ECMO soul .... that's what now.

updatba.gif
ROGER BALL !!
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Wow A4sforever, you really know how to be, what is the word? SUBTLE? I won't disagree with you about the overall size, payload and range between the Whale and and AMC's finest but I still think that the C-5/17 trump the 747 for the reasons I stated above. Blame it on the corruption of my mind by the Pentagon but I will respectfully agree to disagree. Being stuck on the Rock, I just think you need more sunshine :icon_smil .

As for my appearance and psyche, it won't be too long before I start looking and acting like Colonel Kurtz if I stay in DC much longer :tongue2_1 .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top