Polar Arbitration III(a)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so we are clear....
What you are talking about is a “remedy” case pending before the Holden System Board. In that case, ALPA previously obtained an award in favor of the Polar pilots. This award held that the Company was in violation of the Polar CBA’s scope clause when it furloughed and downgraded pilots during the time period that Atlas was performing Polar flying – flying Polar cargo for Polar revenue – pursuant to an “Alliance Agreement” between the two airlines. The Holden Board concluded that the Company was contractually precluded from furloughing while this subcontracted flying was occurring and ordered the Company to reinstate and/or upgrade the affected Polar pilots and make them whole for their loses. The Company complied with the Award by pay protecting the affected pilots in the positions they would have held but for the violation. The Atlas MEC has no quarrel with either that claim or remedy.
The Polar MEC did not appear to care, nor did they complain, about the failure to actually recall or upgrade Polar pilots while they were being pay protected. On or about June 2007, the Company cancelled the Alliance Agreement and Atlas stopped flying Polar cargo for Polar revenue. When it did that, the Company apparently concluded that it could then furlough and downgrade the excess Polar pilots, because those furloughs and downgrades were not the result of flying under an Alliance Agreement. The Polar pilots disagreed and ALPA went back to the Holden Board to complain about the Company’s conduct.
It is at this point that Polar's arguments and requested remedies are seriously out of line and improperly impinge on Atlas pilots. We recognize that Atlas is flying a small number of contracted charters for Polar such as the "maintenance spare" flying that Atlas has historically done for many airlines. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Atlas is no longer regularly flying Polar cargo for Polar revenue. Polar is asserting that certain flying that Atlas is doing, carrying Atlas cargo for Atlas revenue on Atlas Aircraft, is really Polar flying because this flying just happens to be between city pairs that Polar had served at one time in the past, or is a type of flying (i.e. military charter) that Polar has also done in the past. In other words; even though the flying at issue is flying Atlas is entitled to do between city pairs it is entitled to serve; and is flying cargo consigned to Atlas that produces revenue for Atlas, Polar is asserting that this is really their flying because they once flew similar routes or similar cargo.
As astonishing as this assertion is, the Atlas pilots would have no objection to Polar making that claim were it not for the remedy Bobbrobin is seeking. This unprecedented remedy would order the company to transfer Atlas flying – flying cargo consigned to Atlas for Atlas revenue – to Polar in sufficient amount to result in the upgrade of 37 Polar First Officers to Captain. That result, were the Holden Board to order it, would almost certainly require Polar hire additional First Officers both to replace the upgraded FOs and to fill the additional FO positions required to staff the added aircraft. The aircraft required for that flying will necessarily come from the Atlas fleet which of course will result in the furlough of Atlas pilots. As you might guess, the Atlas MEC is strongly opposed to any remedy that results in the furlough of Atlas pilots even if it is limited to a transfer of flying sufficient only to protect the allegedly “injured” Polar pilots (who are far fewer than 37).
The remedy Polar is seeking is a punitive remedy against the Company, but – in truth – the only entity or group that would be “punished" were the Holden board to order such a remedy is the Atlas pilots who will be furloughed when Atlas aircraft and Atlas flying is transferred to Polar. It is outrageous for Polar/ALPA to advance a remedy that will result in the furlough of Atlas pilots so that Polar can promote FO’s to Captain who were never Captains prior to the violation addressed by the original Holden remedy. A remedy such as Polar is seeking would also result in hiring at Polar even while furloughs would be happening at Atlas. These new hire Polar pilots would be pilots who were obviously not even on the property when the violation occurred.
Is THAT the arbitration you are talking about?
The Polar MEC did not appear to care, nor did they complain, about the failure to actually recall or upgrade Polar pilots while they were being pay protected. On or about June 2007, the Company cancelled the Alliance Agreement and Atlas stopped flying Polar cargo for Polar revenue. When it did that, the Company apparently concluded that it could then furlough and downgrade the excess Polar pilots, because those furloughs and downgrades were not the result of flying under an Alliance Agreement. The Polar pilots disagreed and ALPA went back to the Holden Board to complain about the Company’s conduct.
It is at this point that Polar's arguments and requested remedies are seriously out of line and improperly impinge on Atlas pilots. We recognize that Atlas is flying a small number of contracted charters for Polar such as the "maintenance spare" flying that Atlas has historically done for many airlines. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Atlas is no longer regularly flying Polar cargo for Polar revenue. Polar is asserting that certain flying that Atlas is doing, carrying Atlas cargo for Atlas revenue on Atlas Aircraft, is really Polar flying because this flying just happens to be between city pairs that Polar had served at one time in the past, or is a type of flying (i.e. military charter) that Polar has also done in the past. In other words; even though the flying at issue is flying Atlas is entitled to do between city pairs it is entitled to serve; and is flying cargo consigned to Atlas that produces revenue for Atlas, Polar is asserting that this is really their flying because they once flew similar routes or similar cargo.
As astonishing as this assertion is, the Atlas pilots would have no objection to Polar making that claim were it not for the remedy Bobbrobin is seeking. This unprecedented remedy would order the company to transfer Atlas flying – flying cargo consigned to Atlas for Atlas revenue – to Polar in sufficient amount to result in the upgrade of 37 Polar First Officers to Captain. That result, were the Holden Board to order it, would almost certainly require Polar hire additional First Officers both to replace the upgraded FOs and to fill the additional FO positions required to staff the added aircraft. The aircraft required for that flying will necessarily come from the Atlas fleet which of course will result in the furlough of Atlas pilots. As you might guess, the Atlas MEC is strongly opposed to any remedy that results in the furlough of Atlas pilots even if it is limited to a transfer of flying sufficient only to protect the allegedly “injured” Polar pilots (who are far fewer than 37).
The remedy Polar is seeking is a punitive remedy against the Company, but – in truth – the only entity or group that would be “punished" were the Holden board to order such a remedy is the Atlas pilots who will be furloughed when Atlas aircraft and Atlas flying is transferred to Polar. It is outrageous for Polar/ALPA to advance a remedy that will result in the furlough of Atlas pilots so that Polar can promote FO’s to Captain who were never Captains prior to the violation addressed by the original Holden remedy. A remedy such as Polar is seeking would also result in hiring at Polar even while furloughs would be happening at Atlas. These new hire Polar pilots would be pilots who were obviously not even on the property when the violation occurred.
Is THAT the arbitration you are talking about?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see - when the truth comes out Atlas is picking a fight. When you are posting the half-truths and innuendo (like the one that started this thread) then it is ok. hmmmm..... Some of you even want Atlas pilots to argue your point of view for you. What I posted above is simply the truth - and the feelings of the ATlas MEC. If you don't like it then don't read it! Or you could always level your empty threats at the PPRUNE mods again.
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not closing thread.
I see nothing wrong with WhaleFR8's post. Instead of closing this thread, how about someone posts a counterpoint? I'm sure there are two sides (at least) to every issue.
I would like to re-iterate my previous comment about staying on-topic. In this case that means:
I would like to re-iterate my previous comment about staying on-topic. In this case that means:
Polar Arbitration of remaining 40+ FE furloughs (Holden) to be heard this week. . . Dec 11.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vanuatu
Age: 74
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polaroids ?
Quote :God forbid we post facts...something the Polaroids are devoid of, and bored with. If it conflicts with their fairy tale, oh well, you know.
Rebut: Guess we just sit back and let the Altoids Spew. That ought to be fun. You always like to kick Polar, but never sweep your back porch. You proved my point about picking. Thanks.
Rebut: Guess we just sit back and let the Altoids Spew. That ought to be fun. You always like to kick Polar, but never sweep your back porch. You proved my point about picking. Thanks.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post a rebuttal then. What in my post is untrue? Or are you embarrassed that the industry might actually find out what your MEC is really doing?
Last edited by WhaleFR8; 11th Dec 2007 at 00:20.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whale
What you actually "said"...
1) The Polar Pilots (and Engineers) are indeed being injured, 2) The Polar flying has been re-labeled, 3) The Company claims it will have to injure the Atlas Pilots to make this right (and you are in bed with the Company and anti-Polar so you adopt this claim), 4) The Polar Crewmembers are directed to bleed (and like it) when it benefits you, 5) The Polar MEC is damned if they do and damned if they don't (by you-and your MEC). Always.
New day, same garbage.
What you actually "said"...
1) The Polar Pilots (and Engineers) are indeed being injured, 2) The Polar flying has been re-labeled, 3) The Company claims it will have to injure the Atlas Pilots to make this right (and you are in bed with the Company and anti-Polar so you adopt this claim), 4) The Polar Crewmembers are directed to bleed (and like it) when it benefits you, 5) The Polar MEC is damned if they do and damned if they don't (by you-and your MEC). Always.
New day, same garbage.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) The Polar Pilots (and Engineers) are indeed being injured
2) The Polar flying has been re-labeled,
3) The Company claims it will have to injure the Atlas Pilots to make this right (and you are in bed with the Company and anti-Polar so you adopt this claim),
4) The Polar Crewmembers are directed to bleed (and like it) when it benefits you,
5) The Polar MEC is damned if they do and damned if they don't (by you-and your MEC). Always.
Those five points do not even come close. Tell us that the relief you are requesting is not what I posted. Tell us where in the world you came up with the 37 captains that were harmed. Simply put, your math is as whacked as your idea of a strike or your idea that any city pairs you used to serve are to be considered "Polar" flying. I guess you probably STILL think Revenue is better than profits.
Whoo boy!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh please. Your section VIII is an empty threat - bring it on. This is way off the topic but since you brought it up and since I am pretty sure you don't even work for Polar any more - and most probably are not even an ALPA member, it would be hard for you to initiate.
But by all means go right ahead. Nothing I have posted is untrue. It can all be substantiated by others who were in the same room or negotiations. So lets get it all out in the open there guccijet. Better yet lets continue this on the ALPA site. There is a thread there that would probably be a better venue for your section VIII threats. See you there....
But by all means go right ahead. Nothing I have posted is untrue. It can all be substantiated by others who were in the same room or negotiations. So lets get it all out in the open there guccijet. Better yet lets continue this on the ALPA site. There is a thread there that would probably be a better venue for your section VIII threats. See you there....
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NM
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second that since this is really an ALPA to ALPA issue. Everyone can go over there and complain using their real names if they have the cojones to do it.
Looking at who has posted over there so far, it would be a one sided argument. Only one ex-Polar guy and a Polar ex-MEC Vice Chairman so far from that side and a number of Atlas guys.
Looking at who has posted over there so far, it would be a one sided argument. Only one ex-Polar guy and a Polar ex-MEC Vice Chairman so far from that side and a number of Atlas guys.
Last edited by fuegolibre; 11th Dec 2007 at 02:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: KLAX
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref reply #4, line 33 - "Is THAT the arbitration you are talking about?"
No whale, that is not the arbitration that I am talking about.
Tomorrow's arbitration simply revolves around Polar's flight engineers and that of no other (FE furloughs due to AAWW's violation of scope's intent, FE furloughs out of order - from a "one"/pilot seniority list, ect).
Your disputant invective (admittedly well written) appears to mainly detail the controversy over the many downgraded Polar captains who continue to suffer seat loss due to the perceived and continuing theft of Polar's work (how these scope violations are conjured should be covered over at the ALPA site).
While the "seat pay loss" arbitration was combined with that of Polar's Flight Engineer's during October/November of 06, it is my understanding that this time they have been separated (seat pay loss to be arbitrated early in 2008, FE's on Dec 11/12, 2007).
When all is said and done whale, I'm sure it is safe to say that tomorrow, no Polar flight engineer will displace an Atlas airman.
Tomorrow's arbitration simply revolves around Polar's flight engineers and that of no other (FE furloughs due to AAWW's violation of scope's intent, FE furloughs out of order - from a "one"/pilot seniority list, ect).
Your disputant invective (admittedly well written) appears to mainly detail the controversy over the many downgraded Polar captains who continue to suffer seat loss due to the perceived and continuing theft of Polar's work (how these scope violations are conjured should be covered over at the ALPA site).
While the "seat pay loss" arbitration was combined with that of Polar's Flight Engineer's during October/November of 06, it is my understanding that this time they have been separated (seat pay loss to be arbitrated early in 2008, FE's on Dec 11/12, 2007).
When all is said and done whale, I'm sure it is safe to say that tomorrow, no Polar flight engineer will displace an Atlas airman.
Last edited by L-38; 11th Dec 2007 at 14:37.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NM
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(how these scope violations are conjured should be covered over at the ALPA site)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: texas
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Atlas is no longer regularly flying Polar cargo for Polar revenue. Polar is asserting that certain flying that Atlas is doing, carrying Atlas cargo for Atlas revenue on Atlas Aircraft, is really Polar flying because this flying just happens to be between city pairs that Polar had served at one time in the past, or is a type of flying (i.e. military charter) that Polar has also done in the past.
Now ain't that just simply astonishing. Polar customers, Polar freight, on Polar scheduled service one day and then with a flick of the magic wand, SHEZAMM, out of the smoke and mirrors, the same freight just magically arises out of the dust cloud as Atlas freight. Just frigging amazing.
But what would one expect out of Atlas ACMI. After all, that is your business by definition, isn't it? Showing up on other airline and operators property and flying their freight. Their crews, jobs, and upgrades be damned, especially if they don't have scope protection in their contracts to protect them from scavengers.
To all the other operators out there, you might want to pay attention, cause Atlas crews have no beef at all showing up on your doorstep and flying your freight, but then afterall, according to Atlas crews it wasn't really your freight to begin with, ITS ALL THEIRS, their just doing their jobs.
Now ain't that just simply astonishing. Polar customers, Polar freight, on Polar scheduled service one day and then with a flick of the magic wand, SHEZAMM, out of the smoke and mirrors, the same freight just magically arises out of the dust cloud as Atlas freight. Just frigging amazing.
But what would one expect out of Atlas ACMI. After all, that is your business by definition, isn't it? Showing up on other airline and operators property and flying their freight. Their crews, jobs, and upgrades be damned, especially if they don't have scope protection in their contracts to protect them from scavengers.
To all the other operators out there, you might want to pay attention, cause Atlas crews have no beef at all showing up on your doorstep and flying your freight, but then afterall, according to Atlas crews it wasn't really your freight to begin with, ITS ALL THEIRS, their just doing their jobs.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is getting a little hard to follow.
Did Atlas and Polar not merge?
Both are Alpa?
Then why was the Polar F/E's not merged with the company according to hire dates.
Must be missing something here.
Did Atlas and Polar not merge?
Both are Alpa?
Then why was the Polar F/E's not merged with the company according to hire dates.
Must be missing something here.