Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NW - Why Not Do Military Charters W/ 742, D10?  
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Seems like ATA and World have a sweet deal with troop contracts. Since NW has plenty of DC-10s and 747-200s lying around, why didn't they apply to perform lucrative charter work?

Or did the US military favor the smaller carriers for some reason?

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7567 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

NW does do many charters with the DC-10's and 747-200's as well as some 400's, also done with 757's. I havea pic on jp.net with a NW 742 charter troop from about 2 years ago.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineFavre From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2681 times:

Military Charter this past week with DC-10, We have been using A330-300's..


BAE 146 ARJ CV-580 YS-11 SH360 DASH8 SAAB340 EMB 120-135-145-175 DC9/10/30/40/50 MD80/90 DC10 717 727 737 747 757 767 77
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Oh cool, had not heard anything about NW charters. Thanks.

User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7438 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Supa7E7 (Thread starter):
Seems like ATA and World have a sweet deal with troop contracts. Since NW has plenty of DC-10s and 747-200s lying around, why didn't they apply to perform lucrative charter work?

The reason that scheduled carriers rarely do AMC charters is because of companies like World, and Omni. ATA isn't doing nearly the number of charters they used to do. When NW picks up a charter, it's mainly because the others aren't able to supply an aircraft for a charter pattern. NW mostly get's AdHoc's, ones that popup. We had a few last Febuary from TCM-BOS-AMS-KWI and back. But other than that there isn't enough sustained business for us to dedicate aircraft to charters anymore. We used to have one or two charter configured 747's a few years back, but not anymore.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

so NW does a tech stop in AMS............where does TZ/AA/DL/UA/WO do their tech stops on the way to KWI??? NW is lucky...I saw one of their 333s overnighting in KWI!!!


okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlineFRA2DTW From Germany, joined Feb 2004, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

TZ like Budapest and Shannon for their tech stops while World are often seen at FRA and SNN. As far as military charters by scheduled carriers is concerned, you can't make money unless you can dedicate the aircraft to it and there just isn't enough dependable business to be had from the military.

User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Thread starter):
Seems like ATA and World have a sweet deal with troop contracts.

You forgot OAI and North American!  sarcastic 


KAHALA777


User currently offlineMDW22L31C From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 218 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Driving up to Vegas I saw NW DC10's flying into VCV for Military Charters. It is cool to see a DC10 flying low over the desert

User currently offlineTokyoNarita From Palau, joined Aug 2003, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

Back in 1995 I flew NW a B747-200 from Osan AB in Korea to Yokota AB in Japan. Then the flight continued to LAX. I believe this military charter operated weekly. They had PTV in coach. It was revolutionary back in the days.

TokyoNarita.

[Edited 2005-12-02 02:45:12]

User currently offlineAirAmericaC46 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 590 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

So what are the other previous 747 military charters? airline, 747 type, routing and year of service. Thanks for the info.

User currently offlineAASTEW From Dominican Republic, joined Oct 2001, 447 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

AA's staging point in Europe is FRA. On the 29th of Nov. AA did a CRAF flight from GRK-KWI-FRA-JFK-WRI. I worked the B777 on the JFK-WRI. The next day the flight was routed GRK-KWI-FRA-JFK-FOE-DFW all B777.

AASTEW


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

There are some threads on this but the answer to the initial poster's question goes like this:

(1) It is expensive to maintain the infastructure necessary to service the military on a regular basis. But, if there were sufficient money in it, presumably the majors would do it. But they make money a different, better way from the military business.

(2) All the majors and most minor carriers "commit" a certain array of aircraft to a government program called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. They actually do it by registering aircraft by tail number with the CRAF. By doing so, they promise that the government can, in an emergency, call up those aircraft to provide lift to the military. Hundreds of aircraft are committed to the program. In an emergency, the program is activated in stages, I, II and III. In each stage, the military can order the airline to provide a certain percentage of its committed aircraft to run certain routes. The Air Mobility Command will "activate" certain aircraft after declaring a Stage I, etc., emergency. When an aircraft is activated, it and a specified number of crews must be available to undertake certain gov't missions on (I think), 4 hours' notice. Activation of any stage is rare -- it happened in the second gulf war for a period of time -- and only takes place when the regular charter carriers, supplemented by VOLUNTARY offers of aircraft for charter by the majors, is insufficient to meet the military's needs. Activations are disruptive to a carrier's business, so when the need exceeds the ability of the charter guys, the majors usually work with the military to accept a few charters, lest they be forced to do it. When you see AA flying a military mission, it means that World, Omni, North American, Ryan, and ATA are fully committed on that day and couldn't take the mission. Right now, after the holidays and leading to the election in Iraq, you'll see several charters by NW, UA, AA, CO and DL, but not a massive amount.

(3) In return for committing aircraft to the Long Range International portion of the CRAF, the goverment offers all committing airlines a proportionate right (based on the number of seats available for military use aboard the committed aircraft) to peacetime military charter work. So, in theory, AA could commit all its appropriate aircraft to the CRAF, and would in return be entitled to a certain number of charters in peacetime. However, it doesn't really want that business, so the government has a nifty system to compensate AA, UA, etc. for their commitment of aircraft without them actually having to fly very often. It's called a "teaming arrangement". Airline's form teams to pool their charter entitlements. One is called the Alliance Contractor team, another is called the FedEx team, and this year, there is a UPS team. Some other carriers go it alone, but virtually all majors belong to a team. The government adds up the seats (and tonnage for cargo aircraft) committed to the team and translates those into what it calls "Mobilization Value Points". Those points (and the rights to charter work that they represent) belong to the TEAM. Each team has an agreement among its members that designates a certain member (or members) to do the cargo flying for that team and another to do the passenger flying. When it comes to passenger flying, ATA does the flying for the FedEx team, World does the flying for the Alliance Team, Omni does flying for one of those, and North American does the flying for the UPS Team. The airline that does the flying then pays cash "commissions" back to the team members for the right to do the flying. So the members get cash from the designated flying carriers in return for the rights to the charter work represented by the aircraft they have committed. (In an activation, no commissions are paid. When there is no activation but AA does a charter, it still gets its commissions from the team members plus payment for the charters, so there is an incentive to do those charters when requested without an activation; that way it still gets it commissions from the team as well as reimbursement for the charters that it voluntarily flies with its own aircraft.)

(4) Changes in the cost of fuel are cushioned by the military. It doesn't actually buy the fuel, but it adjusts its per mile reimbursements based upon differences between actual average fuel prices and the fuel prices used in its reimbursement methodology.

(5) Here's an interesting fact: the reimbursement rate is based upon the average cost to fly a mile for all large and all small pax or cargo aircraft committed to the fleet. (There are only a couple of categories into which the aircraft fall.) So, if AA, UA, NW, etc. all have new large aircraft that have a high capital cost and have high crew wages, those high costs get factored into the average cost upon which the military bases its reimbursements.
As those high costs of the majors (excepting fuel) are driven downwards, the average reimbursement to the flying carriers will actually FALL in the following year when the new rates are calculated. It has traditionally been the case that carriers like World, Omni, North American, and ATA can do these charters at a lower cost than can the majors, so they can make money based upon the spread between the reimbursement rate and their actual (lower) cost. Of course, part of this profit goes towards commissions to the major carriers on their teams. It is interesting to see that it is actually to ATA's advantage, for example, for UA, AA, NW, DL, etc. to be paying much higher wages and flying much more expensive metal.

(6) The allocation of flying actually works like this: each month, the military looks at its expected requirements and allocates them proportionally to each team. If one flying carrier on that can't do a particular flight, then it goes to another flying member of that team, and then to another team that has unused entitlements and if they can't do it then to any team; the military tries to give the guy who couldn't fly another opportunity later in the month so that at the end of the month, each team gets its proportionate share. If by the end of the month there is a wide discrepancy between what a team was entitled to and what it actually could do, they are stuck; the slate gets wiped clean at the beginning of the next month. If no flying member can do the charter, then it goes to any CRAF participant who can do the mission. How much of its entitlements a given flying carrier can actually do affects how much the rest of the team gets in commissions, so there is pressure on that carrier to get those missions done; otherwise, its team members may go somewhere else the next year, and there have been shifts over the years. ATA's team will likely be happy that they're getting their aircraft serviced and back in the air and are refocusing on accomodating the military; I'm guessing that they had more entitlements over the past several months than they could fly, with various aircraft down for C and D checks.

So, in short, NW doesn't really want those charters unless it has available aircraft and crew; it makes money by letting its team members do the actual flying at a lower cost than it can do the charters, and the reimbursement that it would get to do the flying itself is the same as its team members get. However, it will do its share of charters when the flying team members can't, because it wants to prevent an activation which would then make the charters INvoluntary rather than voluntary, and would cut off its commission stream during the activation.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Bill


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NW And The 767: Why Not? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 08:32:13 by Centrair
NW RJ-85: Why Not Mainline? posted Wed Oct 8 2003 19:49:49 by Aviatortj
Why Not More Winglets? posted Wed Dec 13 2006 07:57:28 by JetSet777
Ryanair: Why Not Charleroi-Stansted? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 17:46:46 by Spantax
Coloured Wings, Why Not More? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 22:00:21 by DHHornet
US-Russia; Why Not More US Airlines? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 13:49:15 by Ualcsr
Why Not Many BA To S. America posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:29:14 by Amirs
British Airways @ Heathrow T3 Why Not Also At T2? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:52:08 by 8herveg
Why NOT -- AA To GEO And PMB? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 01:34:08 by AJMIA
LGW -why Not A Tunnel To Pier 2, North Terminal posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:22:31 by TimRees