Polar/Atlas The Saga Continues

[BillyBob521]

Oh, by the way your spelling is great, its' the rest of what you say that leads me to believe you stupid or a pawn.

[cptvac]

Originally posted 28 April:


This is about a favorable outcome for Bourne and his inner circle, as engineered by Cato to end Polar. Period.

Honorable representation of his crewmembers is not on Bournes list of To Do items. Look for the following:

1...HARD press for Teamster representation (w/ Cato support).

2...Move for Single Carrier (w/ Cato support).

3...Subsequent vote to pull Polar from ALPA (w/Cato support).

4...Bourne installed at Teamster National.

5...Caputo/Alves/Allen Atlas Teamster positions.

6...Continuous blame of ALPA and Polar for concessionary contract from all of the above (and WhaleFr8) rings suddenly hollow with Atlas membership-

AND THE REGRET AND DISAPPOINTMENT WILL CONTINUE...

At least Dave will still be eating in the same expensive DC restaurants on the membership dime.
************************************************** *****

Add Fr8Dog and NITTY-GRITTY to WhaleFr8...
The list? It will be attacked and a staple job will be attempted.
**************************************************

Nitty

You are right about two things...

1)I am scared of the Teamster move, because it is not about improving the lot of the Crewmemberss (see above) AND it has some very real downsides for all involved.

2) I, for one, was happy (giddy would be an overstatement) to merge under the Polar Certificate. And not because of the name on it. You see, the Polar Certificate has certain elements that are valuable for crewmembers to be attached to.

As one who has tried every which way to bring the protections we Polar pilots have to the Atlas pilots (because we all benefit by doing so), I find it interesting that you are (to use your own word) "giddy" at the prospect of the better Polar Certificate elements being lost as some sort of sick revenge. Guess you never considered trying to gain the same protection for your Crewmembers.

We seem to be moving right down the list...

Don't see any mention of the DHL announcement regarding UPS...
Does anyone really wonder why the Polar Crewmembers do not want to be seperated from their Operating Certificate?

[nitty-gritty]

Billybobb,

The RLA and NMB oversees labor issues for other modes of transportation. Not just airlines alone. A common mistake of the uninformed.

How did you put it -

Originally Posted by billybobb521

its' the rest of what you say that leads me to believe you stupid or a pawn.

-seems to fit as a proper response to yourself and not others.



cptvac,

You make a very good parrot. Probably why you are on the negotiating committee at Polar. You can repeat a message without understanding any of it, which is preferred among your leadership.

I agree, bringing the protections that are contained in the Polar contract would be beneficial to the whole of both groups as would the Atlas pay scales. It's just that your group wanted to take that a step further and be "more protected" of the combined group with a add on "follow the flying" exposing the Atlas crew contingent. It was really just another attempt to get more of the seniortiy arbitrated award Polar mostly won. Lets not get started on the scope portion also. The company stated that Polar's scope could remain in the combined contract, but the Polar union chose to stop the negotiation process instead. I'm certain that can now be revisited with the recent reinitiation of the merger, but not because of anything Polar's leadership has done.

[WhaleFR8]

We seem to be moving right down the list...

As long as we are discussing lists, lets visit the things the NMB apparently considers as indications of a merged carrier (carrier means AIRLINE Billybob)

(1) published combined schedules or combined routes; - Yup got 'em
(2) standardized uniforms; - getting those
(3) common marketing, markings or insignia; - yup got that (btw. anyone seen the insignia with the Atlas guy holding up the circle "P")
(4) integrated essential operations such as scheduling or dispatching; - really got that
(5) centralized labor and personnel operations; - yup got that too!
(6) combined or common management, corporate officers, and board of directors; - I'm curious, does Polar have their own board of directors - NOPE!
(7) combined workforce; and, - got this one too!
(8) common or overlapping ownership. - and this one!

Sounds like a merged single carrier to me.

[Fr8Dog]

"Oh, by the way your spelling is great, its' the rest of what you say that leads me to believe you stupid or a pawn"

And Billy Bob does it once again!

I was curious, how many dead cars are in your backyard?

They actually let you fly a jet?

[L-38]

"This is about a favorable outcome for Bourne and his inner circle, as engineered by Cato to end Polar. Period."


That would be "Plan B", cptvac . . . . That damn Cato, he sure seems to earn his money.

[nitty-gritty]

Originally Posted by cptvac

This is about a favorable outcome for Bourne and his inner circle, as engineered by Cato to end Polar. Period

This repeated implication with Cato makes for a good sound bite to the Polar crews, but it would mean so much more if it came from the mouths of those that do not have the blood of past Atlas crew jobs dripping from their hands. When the tide turns, how quickly one forgets what happened.

The same implications can easily be made of Polar when those Atlas jobs and A/C moved to Polar and the later requests by the Polar MEC for relief from the Atlas struck work agreement. Polar reeks of complicity with Mr. Cato themselves, but we realize that it is more greed (Polars-we have scope so we get to keep the ill gotten gains forever) than complicity of the Polar group with Cato. Mr. Cato just knows how to throw the food out in front of two hungry dogs to watch the fight begin. There is no intended complicity on either part. Just greed for the individual group at best. Not in standing with Trade Unionism at all.

[EJetCA]

Originally Posted by nitty gritty

The company stated that Polar's scope could remain in the combined contract, but the Polar union chose to stop the negotiation process instead.

So you believe what the company tells you? I mean, that's how I read it, what with your underlining for emphasis and all.

I'm just checking. These are the same people that brought you AACS, a "gateway basing" agreement that has you travel on days off and pay tax, and brags about how much they can involuntarily stretch their "crew resources" to the investors.

I personally would have a hard time believing anything they said if the above points were true.

[Intruder]

As long as we are discussing lists, lets visit the things the NMB apparently considers as indications of a merged carrier (carrier means AIRLINE Billybob)

(1) published combined schedules or combined routes; - Yup got 'em
(2) standardized uniforms; - getting those
(3) common marketing, markings or insignia; - yup got that (btw. anyone seen the insignia with the Atlas guy holding up the circle "P")
(4) integrated essential operations such as scheduling or dispatching; - really got that
(5) centralized labor and personnel operations; - yup got that too!
(6) combined or common management, corporate officers, and board of directors; - I'm curious, does Polar have their own board of directors - NOPE!
(7) combined workforce; and, - got this one too!
(8) common or overlapping ownership. - and this one!

Sounds like a merged single carrier to me.

Not to me... Note first your own definition of "carrier" -- it does NOT mean the holding company!

Virtually every one of those factors is open to interpretation. I suspect a pair of lawyers could make a long and convoluted argument on each side of the issue in front of the NMB or an arbitrator:

(1) Don't see them "published" on the public web site. Only Polar schedules are shown at all!

(2) Don't have 'em yet.

(3) Not quite... Depending on the context, Polar and/or Atlas logo may be found in marketing materials. Note that they have separate web sites within the AAWW site, and the marketing is directed to significantly different customer bases. Once off the AAWW page or the Atlas or Polar main page, the distinct airline-specific logos predominate.

(4) They may be in the same room, but there are distinct, separate groups of people who handle each airline.

(5) They may have that to a larger degree, but they still advertise separate Atlas and Polar job opportunities.

(6) Only AAWH had a board of directors -- neither Atlas nor Polar has one! Other than a common VP of Flight Ops, there are VERY distinct upper-level officers at Polar and Atlas. The 2 DHL guys at the top of Polar have NO Atlas duties, AFAIK.

(7) Again, it depends where you look... Some of the work force (e.g., HR) serves all of AAWH. OTOH, with the EXCEPTION of a few upper-level managers, there are distinct, separate work forces in most of the flight ops departments: Crews, Scheduling, Dispatchers, Training...

(8) This is one place where they have actually DIVERGED in recent history! Both Atlas and Polar used to be wholly owned by AAWH. Now Atlas is owned by AAWH; but Polar is owned by PAWH, which is owned by DHL and AAWH, and directed on a day-to-day basis by 2 DHL transplants. It is clear that in the future DHL will, for all practical purposes (despite the legal fiction of 49% ownership and 25% control), control Polar's schedule, but Atlas and their various ACMI customers will control Atlas' schedule. I think this is one place where a convincing argument can be made that they are NOT "common" any more...

[layinlow]

Ditto intruder. There's an old saying "Figures don't lie, but liars figure", and that is exactly what AAWWH puts out and the Atlas guys lick it up. If they would just look back at all the crap the company has dumped on them......
But no, they go in and fight and after a year the company gives them a little (the operative word here is little) of what they want and they think they have won. Think Stanstead. One post bragged about how it is shrinking. Hell, it never should have come into being in the first place. Not to mention Gateway basing. They thought they won , but the company figured out a way to punish them for using it. Same with travel. Polar fights, maybe loses a battle or two, but the fight goes on and on. If the Atlas CBA had the same scope clause we have, would they put up the fight we are? I doubt it.
I wish the Atlas crews would:
1. Remember all the shenanigans the company has dumped on them
2. Took at good look at their council and see if they really did any good other than to salve over any wounds and finally
3. Realize that management is not their friend and could care less about the crews, only how to line their pockets.
Believe this, if AAWWH could get along without pilots they would and not think twice about it.
There is only so much one can take. I guess Atlas hasn't reached that point yet, we have.

[nitty-gritty]

Originally Posted by EJetCA

So you believe what the company tells you? I mean, that's how I read it, what with your underlining for emphasis and all.

It was said by the company, Bill Flynn in particular, in front of the Polar Neg. Chair and MEC with the Atlas MEC and Neg. Committee Chair in attendance. Polar, after that meeting continued the "we are not mergering" stance.

If it is still on the table or not, I do not know.

[EJetCA]

nitty-gritty

You do realize that the Polar scope, as it is written, does not bind AAWH nor what you desire to be the "Atlas" pilot group to all or any flying commited by PACWW.

Without a parent/subsidary binder scope, a CBA will be worthless. I have seen a parent/subsidary scope binder for an "ACMI-like" operation. It would prevent another AACS fiasco from happening when the dollar gains strength again or any amendable period of a RLA CBA.

The very fact that the Polar CBA is being undermined should cause serious questions of AAWH's intentions of any future direction that the crewing scenario should unfold. A CBA without a parent/subsidary binder should not even be considered.

Best of luck to all of us, cause we all need it.

[cptvac]

Actually...Bill Flynn did not say any such thing. What was said was that Polar was "uncomfortable" and unwilling to continue without assurances that would protect the Crewmembers and bind them to the flying--since the Company changed the business plan after Polar and ALPA committed to a merger. Jim Cato responded that the Company was not seeking to "undermine Polars scope either purposefully nor accidentally" and that Polar, Atlas and ALPA should develop some joint "language" that the Company could look at to make everyone more comfortable. Atlas indicated that it did not matter to them...Bill Flynn then chimed in that the issue was scope. Everyone agreed and off they went to waste alot of time and money developing a Scope Proposal that was rejected.

Subsequently, Paul Alves referred to the situation as a "conglomeration, anything but a merger" with Dave Bourne present and nodding his head in agreement. Jim Cato since has testified, under oath, that he was in daily contact with the Atlas MEC and Negotiators and that they did not support the Scope--so he saw no reason to.

I'm sure further joint negotiations will go much better.

[nitty-gritty]

More - he said she said - again. At best, I believe what you refer to was tied to the "follow the flying" rhetoric exposing Atlas crews to first dismissal that was the center of the issue. More of the "more equal than others" scenario.

I doubt that we will get the at hand parties posting here, except for you Mark. While your MEC does view this site regularly and directs many posts by others, your reputation is at minimal suspect here.

In the end, both groups Atlas and Polar continue to stand empty handed.





Thanks go out to XXXXpc9 for his forwarded logs and other info.

[cptvac]

My thanks to Mercpc9 as well...

What happens will happen, the truth won't change.

[EJetCA]

Since I dislike having PM's relevant to a discussion that can show other possiblities, I post the follwing:

You are very correct. Unfortunately, ALPA attorney's (2 separate ones) have advised that we can't tie the holding company to the Atlas or Polar certificates and associated labor contracts.

Subsidiary language would have to be totally voluntary on the holding company. Not likely to happen. It would be a first. I could see that as workable, but not likely when all they have to do is dance an advantage out in front of the other crew force to secure leverage against the other.

Good idea, but unworkable unless you have been given different advice/orders from National.

The same response I sent: It has been done. I worked under such a scope clause and it prevented a whipsaw startup endorsed by the other union, and prevented them from taking a 49% ownership in another carrier to circumvent the CBA.

To you, I submit: https://www.republicpilots.org/CBA.pdf Section 1 Para. D is a good read.

To the lawyers that say it's impossible, I say no. It's impossible to vote "Yes" on any contract that doesn't have a binder scope.

[nitty-gritty]

After reading through some of that, I can see how it got done. Didn't have ALPA National and Legal directing it.

It is an IBT (Teamsters) driven contract. Good thing Atlas and Polar are going Teamsters if Atlas for Teamsters have anything to do with it. Keep the cards coming. They are needed now! Priority mail if possible due to the filing date. Numbers count in how National will fight back. Polar crews, yours will count also when we file despite previous comments of others here. The Card in PDF

But back at ALPA National now, they are now saying that there really isn't a 270 day clock ticking on the current merger. Despite what they said before and policy. Kind of figured that ALPA National would try to find a way to back out of it just to subvert the decertification of ALPA vote. I think the ALPA National attitude is "Oh yeah, well sue us if you don't like it!" Of course that fits with the attitude of the Polar MEC whom said in the past that it will be a cold day in Hell before we merged.

Rules are rules until they get in the way at ALPA National.

I want to take a moment to say good-by to the ALPA staff I've worked with at National that are now being dismissed June 15th because of the budget cuts. Thanks for all of you past support and help. Good luck and blue skies.

[EJetCA]

That one scope clause was all we got out of IBT.

And that was due to an MEC that fought the IBT and the company both.

You can be sick of ALPA's business tactics and scoff the contracts they are producing. How ALPA let the scope genie out of the bottle in the 70's is laughable.

However, the Teamsters have no Aeromedical staff. They have no aviation lawyers, well one, but he's also president of the 747 local. There is no aviation safety staff. Who knows. Maybe they have these postions. If they do, I never heard about them in 9 years.

Any World pilots care to comment?

[Intruder]

But back at ALPA National now, they are now saying that there really isn't a 270 day clock ticking on the current merger. Despite what they said before and policy.

Now that's an interesting one... How can Prater or Helling just say "Never mind!" when the policy is written and referenced in CBAs? Seems an arbitrator would make quick work of a cato grievance on that one...

[bpp]

Polar Pilots

I understand effective June 1 Polar's new crew base will be Anchorage. Does your CBA allow base changes with no company paid travel to and from? How will this impact your company if, unlike Atlas, there is NO GATEWAY travel. I traveled on Alaska Air last week and the entire aircraft was full including the jumpseats (Alaska Air Flight Crew).

Good Luck to all.

bpp