Polar Arbitration III(a)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: KLAX
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FE arbitration now seems to resume again in February.
I suspect it's result may somehow integrate with the closely re-scheduled merger arbitration. A logical arbitrator remedy (if Polar is forced to merge) would be to back pay Polar's FE's again, and dissolve the "no bump no flush" clause as pertains to Polar FE's returning on the FE merge list.
Such conclusion would almost certainly peak Atlas MEC interest.
I suspect it's result may somehow integrate with the closely re-scheduled merger arbitration. A logical arbitrator remedy (if Polar is forced to merge) would be to back pay Polar's FE's again, and dissolve the "no bump no flush" clause as pertains to Polar FE's returning on the FE merge list.
Such conclusion would almost certainly peak Atlas MEC interest.
Last edited by L-38; 23rd Dec 2007 at 16:17.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool - dissolve the "no bump-no flush" and we can dissolve the whole list. Then the Atlas Pilots can take their rightful seniority.
Just out of curiosity, how many more times are the Atlas pilots going to catch one of the Polar MEC trying to call in to one of their quarterly meetings? Or catch one of the Polar pilots trying to attend in person? The Atlas negotiating chair was merely at the arbitration to observe. Regardless of what Bobbrobbin are telling you he was not there at the Behest of the company. I doubt the company cares, or would need, an Atlas council person there to testify on their behalf. You guys are really whacked. Better than half of you do not even still work for Polar.
Just out of curiosity, how many more times are the Atlas pilots going to catch one of the Polar MEC trying to call in to one of their quarterly meetings? Or catch one of the Polar pilots trying to attend in person? The Atlas negotiating chair was merely at the arbitration to observe. Regardless of what Bobbrobbin are telling you he was not there at the Behest of the company. I doubt the company cares, or would need, an Atlas council person there to testify on their behalf. You guys are really whacked. Better than half of you do not even still work for Polar.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NM
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that the Polar MEC (Bobb) and Robin Hair are losing control of their little house of cards or this is just getting under their skin. Looks like a full court press of disinformation is going on again to cover themselves. So I see that Bobb and Robin have been making the usual calls and emails to the normal Polar crowd resulting in the previous posts with seeded lies. They like that since it is not a public disclosure they can be held to. Using select members to spread what they want heard - not what is the truth and then deny that they ever said it to anyone.
You have to sit back and think about who has the better track record of honesty, the Polar MEC or the Atlas council. Just one fine, recent, and more publicly obvious example of typical Polar MEC and council behavior is found here with the alternative dispute resolution here https://crewroom.alpa.org/AAI072/Des...cumentID=41172 in which the ALPA President Captain Prater had to apologize on Polars behalf for their actions of falsely accusing Atlas and 160 named as "scabs". These lies were also encouraged by the Polar MEC/council prior to the Polar strike and continue to this day without remorse for over two years. Since Polar,by majority action, seems to have no moral principles, then it is not much of a leap for more lies to enter here on this thread.
Another note on the attendance of one of the Atlas council observing. Bobb and/or Robin didn't mention that the arbiter was willing to sequester the Atlas crewmember outside the hearing. That would have put the Atlas member outside the hearing to sit around waiting for any leaked info or just go home. The arbiter then said if he did that, he would have to sequester the Polar members not directly engaged or testifying in the hearing until called from outside also. I guess Bobb and Robin didn't want that. Maybe they didn't get a chance to rehearse everything they wanted them to say, needing them to hear the previous persons testimony before giving their own.
But as a the devils advocate. If the Atlas member was to testify (which he was not there for that - just to observe the proceedings since its results may affect the Atlas council), just what could he say but the truth and facts? Is the Polar case that weak?
As to being in bed with management. Polar has a lot to answer for themselves when they were willing to fly struck A/C and freight as denoted HERE in the ADR Presented Evidence (Flash Slide Show-Click on each image to forward).
In all, the transcripts will come out at some point down the road. At which time the Polar contingent will care less if we caught them lying again. Just like in the alternative dispute resolution above along with the other cases.
You have to sit back and think about who has the better track record of honesty, the Polar MEC or the Atlas council. Just one fine, recent, and more publicly obvious example of typical Polar MEC and council behavior is found here with the alternative dispute resolution here https://crewroom.alpa.org/AAI072/Des...cumentID=41172 in which the ALPA President Captain Prater had to apologize on Polars behalf for their actions of falsely accusing Atlas and 160 named as "scabs". These lies were also encouraged by the Polar MEC/council prior to the Polar strike and continue to this day without remorse for over two years. Since Polar,by majority action, seems to have no moral principles, then it is not much of a leap for more lies to enter here on this thread.
Another note on the attendance of one of the Atlas council observing. Bobb and/or Robin didn't mention that the arbiter was willing to sequester the Atlas crewmember outside the hearing. That would have put the Atlas member outside the hearing to sit around waiting for any leaked info or just go home. The arbiter then said if he did that, he would have to sequester the Polar members not directly engaged or testifying in the hearing until called from outside also. I guess Bobb and Robin didn't want that. Maybe they didn't get a chance to rehearse everything they wanted them to say, needing them to hear the previous persons testimony before giving their own.
But as a the devils advocate. If the Atlas member was to testify (which he was not there for that - just to observe the proceedings since its results may affect the Atlas council), just what could he say but the truth and facts? Is the Polar case that weak?
As to being in bed with management. Polar has a lot to answer for themselves when they were willing to fly struck A/C and freight as denoted HERE in the ADR Presented Evidence (Flash Slide Show-Click on each image to forward).
In all, the transcripts will come out at some point down the road. At which time the Polar contingent will care less if we caught them lying again. Just like in the alternative dispute resolution above along with the other cases.
Last edited by fuegolibre; 23rd Dec 2007 at 18:33.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Whale, I just finished reviewing the transcripts:
When Paul's presence was objected to, the Company attorney (Siegel) indicated that Paul's function was as a Company witness.
In Solidarity,
When Paul's presence was objected to, the Company attorney (Siegel) indicated that Paul's function was as a Company witness.
In Solidarity,
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and who objected? The Polar attorney? (is it Katz?) Bobb was OK with it - as he really doesn't have anything to hide. Robin on the other hand was royally PO'd (makes one wonder what kind of machinations he actually was planning).
Katz and Siegel were sparring and anything that Katz didn't want Siegel did.
I would think that you would know better than to believe ANYTHING an attorney says in the heat of battle.
Only took two days to argue about what to argue about - delay delay delay.
I thought you had a life and weren't going to post here until after Christmas. And here you are reading arbitration transcripts. hmmmmm.....
Katz and Siegel were sparring and anything that Katz didn't want Siegel did.
I would think that you would know better than to believe ANYTHING an attorney says in the heat of battle.
Only took two days to argue about what to argue about - delay delay delay.
I thought you had a life and weren't going to post here until after Christmas. And here you are reading arbitration transcripts. hmmmmm.....
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NM
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transcripts, so early? Do put them up like the Atlas guys have done in the past or should we just go on your word?
It would be refreshing to hear what actually happened, in whole, instead of just what Robin and Bobb wants everyone to hear. As an example, Bobb's VARS message of 12-22-2007 in which he chose selectively only certain parts to emphasize vs the whole story which says it all. I can pick apart most of that VARS. As can ex-ALPA President Duane Woerth to what really happened as he did in the ADR hearing against Polar.
If the present ALPA President has to apologize for a councils actions (Polar), that in itself says it all for that councils character and morals.
It would be refreshing to hear what actually happened, in whole, instead of just what Robin and Bobb wants everyone to hear. As an example, Bobb's VARS message of 12-22-2007 in which he chose selectively only certain parts to emphasize vs the whole story which says it all. I can pick apart most of that VARS. As can ex-ALPA President Duane Woerth to what really happened as he did in the ADR hearing against Polar.
If the present ALPA President has to apologize for a councils actions (Polar), that in itself says it all for that councils character and morals.
Last edited by fuegolibre; 23rd Dec 2007 at 22:07.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whale
The Company attorney stated to the arbitrator that Paul Alves, the Chairman of the Negotiating Committee for Atlas Air's Crewmembers was present at a Polar vs. Company arbitration as a Company witness. Paul arrived with the Company, sat with the Company, and left with the Company while Polar Flight Engineers suffer...
I made a special exception to bring you the truth, Whale.
The Company attorney stated to the arbitrator that Paul Alves, the Chairman of the Negotiating Committee for Atlas Air's Crewmembers was present at a Polar vs. Company arbitration as a Company witness. Paul arrived with the Company, sat with the Company, and left with the Company while Polar Flight Engineers suffer...
I made a special exception to bring you the truth, Whale.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NM
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the Atlas MEC statement on the Polar arbitration and the remedy sought by the Polar council. Has a link inside to a PDF of the requested remedy Polar is seeking. Also touches on why Paul was there.
https://crewroom.alpa.org/AAI072/Des...cumentID=41286
In RealMedia Audio Click Here
https://crewroom.alpa.org/AAI072/Des...cumentID=41286
In RealMedia Audio Click Here
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: new york
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008
My prediction for 2008 is the polar union will win its merger arbitration and then polar air cargo will be sold off. Then the rest of us can get back to business as usual.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NM
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lowrider2
Paul Alves was the Atlas crew member that was fired for not crossing the Polar pick line at the training center.
Like those Atlas crews that walked with Polar on their picket lines and found themselves charged with Article VIII's and named as "Scabs" for their efforts. Spending over two years clearing their names. Just recently cleared in the Alternative Dispute Resolution.
I see a pattern here!
And everyone wonders why we can't get along.
Last edited by fuegolibre; 24th Dec 2007 at 21:54.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joetommy
Fact for 2008 remains the same as for 2007, AAWH is the majority shareholder of PACW with 51% and 75% of PAC certificate due to foreign ownership regulation. Why would AAWH after years of having PAC on live support sell of the golden goose with a recovery in sight. Furthermore, in writing to BB, Randy Clark strongly supports the merger. Both AAWH and DHL want the merger. Also, don't you think if any realistic legal chance existed to stop this from happening that UPS and FedEx would send their lawyers?
I wish both Pilot groups prosperity and growth for 2008 which is realistically, possible, and achievable - TOGETHER.
Fact for 2008 remains the same as for 2007, AAWH is the majority shareholder of PACW with 51% and 75% of PAC certificate due to foreign ownership regulation. Why would AAWH after years of having PAC on live support sell of the golden goose with a recovery in sight. Furthermore, in writing to BB, Randy Clark strongly supports the merger. Both AAWH and DHL want the merger. Also, don't you think if any realistic legal chance existed to stop this from happening that UPS and FedEx would send their lawyers?
I wish both Pilot groups prosperity and growth for 2008 which is realistically, possible, and achievable - TOGETHER.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: atlanta
Age: 58
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V1
You said PAC is on "life support" and the "golden goose" all in one sentence(you must be a democrat). Dont kid yourself,, If PAC lost so much money year after year DHL would not have bought half the thing.
Your damn right the lawyers of ALL the airlines are going to be running to this arbitrator if he's stupid enough to rule against an iron clad scope clause in a contract. If I were UPS management I would be at his desk the next day wanting my pilots scope thrown out as well.
I as well wish growth and prosperity for both companys in 08. But not together.
You said PAC is on "life support" and the "golden goose" all in one sentence(you must be a democrat). Dont kid yourself,, If PAC lost so much money year after year DHL would not have bought half the thing.
Your damn right the lawyers of ALL the airlines are going to be running to this arbitrator if he's stupid enough to rule against an iron clad scope clause in a contract. If I were UPS management I would be at his desk the next day wanting my pilots scope thrown out as well.
I as well wish growth and prosperity for both companys in 08. But not together.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whaledriver101
The companies will not be together in 2008. Only the pilot group will be one entity. The single pilot groups (to be) negotiated contract will be linked to what? PACW?, ATLAS AIR?, AAWH?. No one knows and thats the rub. If the contract is linked to AAWH, then the single pilot group
has exclusive rights to all the flying done by AAWH. WHICH IS NONE.
The companies will not be together in 2008. Only the pilot group will be one entity. The single pilot groups (to be) negotiated contract will be linked to what? PACW?, ATLAS AIR?, AAWH?. No one knows and thats the rub. If the contract is linked to AAWH, then the single pilot group
has exclusive rights to all the flying done by AAWH. WHICH IS NONE.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whaledriver
at 24 to 26 cent a pound, which is the based on a 65% load factor at a 40 cent per pound market rate as published, PAC did hardly cover its operational costs.
DHL made an investment into PACW because of the China and Japan routes. This business transaction creates a Block space/ ACMI hyprite for the next 20years worth several billion dollars. The new rate under this contract is 50 to 60 cent per pound with a load guarantee. Hence the comment. AAWH had PAC on life support for years now the potential golden goose is showing signs of recovery.
at 24 to 26 cent a pound, which is the based on a 65% load factor at a 40 cent per pound market rate as published, PAC did hardly cover its operational costs.
DHL made an investment into PACW because of the China and Japan routes. This business transaction creates a Block space/ ACMI hyprite for the next 20years worth several billion dollars. The new rate under this contract is 50 to 60 cent per pound with a load guarantee. Hence the comment. AAWH had PAC on life support for years now the potential golden goose is showing signs of recovery.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belowmins:
The contact will be with AAWH and cover all certificates of the holding.
Look at the MESA or Republic Airways Holdings. Their single CBA states that all flying done by any certificate owned by the holding will be done by Pilots on the single seniority list.
Asked the ALPA lawyers. This is a much better solution than having two separate lists and CBAs owned by one holding company.
Example:
Trans States Holdings GoJet and Trans States Airlines. Playing one group against the other.
The contact will be with AAWH and cover all certificates of the holding.
Look at the MESA or Republic Airways Holdings. Their single CBA states that all flying done by any certificate owned by the holding will be done by Pilots on the single seniority list.
Asked the ALPA lawyers. This is a much better solution than having two separate lists and CBAs owned by one holding company.
Example:
Trans States Holdings GoJet and Trans States Airlines. Playing one group against the other.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has significance with RAH, let me interject some differences.
RAH started out as one company that became 3. There was always one pilot group. The sole addition was in the addition of the Shuttle America Certificate, which brought about 90 pilots into the group of about 1200 at the time. This is significantly different than acquiring a second airline intending to merge it into one, then, changing mid-course and desiring to maintain the separate certificates.
Even thought the RAH group is under one contract, that does not mean a unified pilot group. There are pilots from each company that won't speak because "grey is gay" (meaning the S5 pilots ID colors) and "red is dead" (CHQ ID) and alot of pilots at RW won't speak to anyone because a lot have a "holier-than-thou" attitude since they are J4J captains. Also, the way the contract is worded, and the IND FSDO's inability to read the 8400.10, it is far more difficult to transfer certificates than you think.
As someone who's operated under both circumstances, it matters not whether there are 2 independant airlines or 1 under an umbrealla. What really matters is that pilots look out for other pilots. In fighting is exactly what the management wants. The problems that exist now would not be any different than if a merger were to come to pass. There will still be fragmented groups. Even if there is one list, but still two certificates, inspite of what is being sent from the Pulpit in Purchase, you will be tied to one certificate or the other for a long, long time. The "seamless" transition does not exist yet (at least at RAH or MESA). I'm well studied in the subject matter from an academic side as well as personal experience.
Until both groups quit acting like school kids fighting over a pile of dirt, we can have one carrier, one certificate and one list for a long time before anything changes. What MGT is proposing is unique to the industry. It is unlike any previous merger, and it would be wise for us to debate on here all the angles, whether one list is the best or two lists with protected CBAs are best. Don't forget what we do WILL have many future impacts. Right now, I bet ATA-World-NorthAmerican MGT is watching what happens here so they can manipulate their groups.
There's a reason 49% Equity and 25% control was sold to DHL. Polar is a hedge fund proposal away from being sold. Don't forget the institutional investors don't give a rat's ass about "operational integrity" or anything else. They care about ROI. If some rich Harvard kids can make a case to buy if from AAWH, guess what's going to happen? They will buy it then "contract" services from AAWH to run the show
RAH started out as one company that became 3. There was always one pilot group. The sole addition was in the addition of the Shuttle America Certificate, which brought about 90 pilots into the group of about 1200 at the time. This is significantly different than acquiring a second airline intending to merge it into one, then, changing mid-course and desiring to maintain the separate certificates.
Even thought the RAH group is under one contract, that does not mean a unified pilot group. There are pilots from each company that won't speak because "grey is gay" (meaning the S5 pilots ID colors) and "red is dead" (CHQ ID) and alot of pilots at RW won't speak to anyone because a lot have a "holier-than-thou" attitude since they are J4J captains. Also, the way the contract is worded, and the IND FSDO's inability to read the 8400.10, it is far more difficult to transfer certificates than you think.
As someone who's operated under both circumstances, it matters not whether there are 2 independant airlines or 1 under an umbrealla. What really matters is that pilots look out for other pilots. In fighting is exactly what the management wants. The problems that exist now would not be any different than if a merger were to come to pass. There will still be fragmented groups. Even if there is one list, but still two certificates, inspite of what is being sent from the Pulpit in Purchase, you will be tied to one certificate or the other for a long, long time. The "seamless" transition does not exist yet (at least at RAH or MESA). I'm well studied in the subject matter from an academic side as well as personal experience.
Until both groups quit acting like school kids fighting over a pile of dirt, we can have one carrier, one certificate and one list for a long time before anything changes. What MGT is proposing is unique to the industry. It is unlike any previous merger, and it would be wise for us to debate on here all the angles, whether one list is the best or two lists with protected CBAs are best. Don't forget what we do WILL have many future impacts. Right now, I bet ATA-World-NorthAmerican MGT is watching what happens here so they can manipulate their groups.
There's a reason 49% Equity and 25% control was sold to DHL. Polar is a hedge fund proposal away from being sold. Don't forget the institutional investors don't give a rat's ass about "operational integrity" or anything else. They care about ROI. If some rich Harvard kids can make a case to buy if from AAWH, guess what's going to happen? They will buy it then "contract" services from AAWH to run the show