What's Life Like on Atlas?

[vim_fuego]

In some cases it’s well thought out, others are thoroughly baffling. It’s a challenging beast, everything just seems to take a lot longer than on other platforms and If you weren’t a fan of LITS you’d be begging to go back to it after MDS. We are hamstrung by Airbus on what we can and can’t do as a civvy 145, we don’t even have full access to the manuals because of ITAR. We have two 145’s working together alongside the RAF, if we all came under one umbrella life would be so much easier for everyone. That said, I actually enjoy working on it, there is always something different that pops up, even in base maintenance.

So why don’t they change to a single part 145?

 

[80grade]

That article.

“ZM410 could be one of the aircraft affected by this”

Could but isn’t. What a load of crap.

 

[The Bowmeister]

Any blue suiters out there spanner on Atlas? What's it like? fun? nause? a frame to apply for?

Not after state secrets...just some good old fashioned liney thought

ATLAS - Could be a great aircraft once it matures, they iron out the "Teething Problems" & they get rid of AIrbus & just have "Blue Suits" (Just my own opinion)

 

[The Bowmeister]

ATLAS is not all that bad - it is just misunderstood, also everyone seems to forget just how bad the C130J was when that entered service, luckily the C130K was still flying around to mask the problems. That being said i have broken down in some lovely places

 

[Cornish_Pikey]

Aircraft all make a special effort to break down in lovely places from my recollections.

 

[Rigga]

ATLAS - Could be a great aircraft once it matures, they iron out the "Teething Problems" & they get rid of AIrbus & just have "Blue Suits" (Just my own opinion)

Normally, aircraft that are ‘in use’ are cured of their teething troubles in about 5 years of service. Gazelles and BAe146 (troublesome engines) were particularly difficult as new aircraft to my knowledge, However the A400 seems to be creating new troubles as it ages. How long has it been issue to EU nations? And still with significant troubles?

 

[Cat Techie]

The SAAB 2K was a pain in the arse. Only people working on the A400M know the issues

I’m having to change my IAA license back to CAA from October because the MAA are no longer recognising EASA licenses, so I’m told. Company pays for it so I’ll just do as they say.

92 quid and keep your IAA one active. You don't lose it. You have both. The EASA one makes you employable with anything not G as well. You are laughing. Wish I had done so.

 

[Cat Techie]

Normally, aircraft that are ‘in use’ are cured of their teething troubles in about 5 years of service. Gazelles and BAe146 (troublesome engines) were particularly difficult as new aircraft to my knowledge, However the A400 seems to be creating new troubles as it ages. How long has it been issue to EU nations? And still with significant troubles?

Nobody with any sense will tell you. SAAB 2K was a nightmare that got worse. High powered Turboprops are shite. AE2100 powered ones as mentioned were botheration's. Not some nancy F27/50. Jetty 41s give me nightmares. British shite turboprops. Stick to audits.

 

[Max Reheat]

So why don’t they change to a single part 145?

Different companies. Might have been different if Airbus took over Flybe operations when they went bust but they missed the boat.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Different companies. Might have been different if Airbus took over Flybe operations when they went bust but they missed the boat.

Without wishing to drift too much away from Atlas, I'm not getting your drift with the theorem of Flybe being taken over by Airbus.
Considering they now have a fleet of dash 8's which are not connected to either of the two major Airframers, (okay, Boeing was involved some years ago), I'm not sure of the point you are wishing to convey.

Even before they collapsed, the fleet was a majority of dash 8 and a minority of Embraer 175. I'm struggling to understand the connection between
a predominantly design and manufacturing company, taking over the revenue business end of an airline with no affiliated airframes.

 

[Rigga]

Nobody with any sense will tell you. SAAB 2K was a nightmare that got worse. High powered Turboprops are shite. AE2100 powered ones as mentioned were botheration's. Not some nancy F27/50. Jetty 41s give me nightmares. British shite turboprops. Stick to audits.

F27s and F50s lasted for many years and had good production runs. P&W 125s and 127s were also good engines and are still in production. As for J41’s you’re right - they were well past their shelf life some 20 years ago and only survive because of one ‘airline’s” cannibalisation. They’ll be gone very soon.

 

[Cat Techie]

F27s and F50s lasted for many years and had good production runs. P&W 125s and 127s were also good engines and are still in production. As for J41’s you’re right - they were well past their shelf life some 20 years ago and only survive because of one ‘airline’s” cannibalisation. They’ll be gone very soon.

F27s and F50s were shite as well. Just slightly better than the British stuff. The pack system was almost as bad as a 146.

 

[Rigga]

F27s and F50s were shite as well. Just slightly better than the British stuff. The pack system was almost as bad as a 146.

I suppose nothing will beat the tinsel and locking wire built Jaguar?

 

[Max Reheat]

Without wishing to drift too much away from Atlas, I'm not getting your drift with the theorem of Flybe being taken over by Airbus.
Considering they now have a fleet of dash 8's which are not connected to either of the two major Airframers, (okay, Boeing was involved some years ago), I'm not sure of the point you are wishing to convey.

Even before they collapsed, the fleet was a majority of dash 8 and a minority of Embraer 175. I'm struggling to understand the connection between
a predominantly design and manufacturing company, taking over the revenue business end of an airline with no affiliated airframes.

The point being, if Airbus took over Flybe Aviation Services when they went into administration, then Atlas would be working under a single part 145 which would make everything simpler. FAS was a separate part of the Flybe business and sold off to AAGDS as a separate entity.

 

[Talk Wrench]

The point being, if Airbus took over Flybe Aviation Services when they went into administration, then Atlas would be working under a single part 145 which would make everything simpler. FAS was a separate part of the Flybe business and sold off to AAGDS as a separate entity.

I'm sort of getting this...I think.

You'll have to correct me if my take on this is skewed but this is how I read it.

Flybe Aviation Services, which were/are a subsidiary of Flybe were contracted by Airbus to provide specific clusters of MRO services on behalf of Airbus as a non-core business.

Part of FAS provides some MRO services to the Atlas project. Flybe goes into administration taking FAS with it.

I doubt Airbus would have wanted to take on a failed business model and extend far beyond the conditions that applied to the subcontractor and it's obligations at Atlas.

It's subcontracting. No pensions, no healthcare, no HR etc for Airbus to worry about. If one subcontractor goes bust, there'll be another one waiting in the wings to take a bite of the cherry...and AAG enters the room.

 

[Max Reheat]

I'm sort of getting this...I think.

You'll have to correct me if my take on this is skewed but this is how I read it.

Flybe Aviation Services, which were/are a subsidiary of Flybe were contracted by Airbus to provide specific clusters of MRO services on behalf of Airbus as a non-core business.

Part of FAS provides some MRO services to the Atlas project. Flybe goes into administration taking FAS with it.

I doubt Airbus would have wanted to take on a failed business model and extend far beyond the conditions that applied to the subcontractor and it's obligations at Atlas.

It's subcontracting. No pensions, no healthcare, no HR etc for Airbus to worry about. If one subcontractor goes bust, there'll be another one waiting in the wings to take a bite of the cherry...and AAG

I'm sort of getting this...I think.

You'll have to correct me if my take on this is skewed but this is how I read it.

Flybe Aviation Services, which were/are a subsidiary of Flybe were contracted by Airbus to provide specific clusters of MRO services on behalf of Airbus as a non-core business.

Part of FAS provides some MRO services to the Atlas project. Flybe goes into administration taking FAS with it.

I doubt Airbus would have wanted to take on a failed business model and extend far beyond the conditions that applied to the subcontractor and it's obligations at Atlas.

It's subcontracting. No pensions, no healthcare, no HR etc for Airbus to worry about. If one subcontractor goes bust, there'll be another one waiting in the wings to take a bite of the cherry...and AAG enters the room.

enters the room.

That pretty much sums it up. FAS had to be a separate entity to Flybe so they could continue operating in the event they went under was my understanding. I’m told that Airbus had, or were preparing a bid for FAS but were too slow off the mark. If nobody made a bid then we would be TUPE’d across to Airbus in the interim.

 

[Rigga]

In my opinion ‘dangerous” business models are those that have all their ‘organisations’ (Parts Ops, 145, M, etc.) all under one Company umbrella. Sensible companies (unlike the one I work for) have maintenance and CAMOs separated as stand-alone Ltd’s under a Group heading where cash may be transferred between them if needed but can be sold/lost as an entity as/when needed.
I know of one maintenance company that kept its sister airline afloat for years before it was eventually ‘collapsed’ - the MRO is still going and stronger than ever.

 

[The Bowmeister]

Without wishing to drift too much away from Atlas, I'm not getting your drift with the theorem of Flybe being taken over by Airbus.
Considering they now have a fleet of dash 8's which are not connected to either of the two major Airframers, (okay, Boeing was involved some years ago), I'm not sure of the point you are wishing to convey.

Even before they collapsed, the fleet was a majority of dash 8 and a minority of Embraer 175. I'm struggling to understand the connection between
a predominantly design and manufacturing company, taking over the revenue business end of an airline with no affiliated airframes.

FlyBe Engineering were intially sub contracted by Airbus to carry out A400M 'Depth' maint before AAG got the new contract. Nothing to do with FlyBe Aviation