Polar Arbitration III(a)
 

Polar Arbitration of remaining 40+ FE furloughs (Holden) to be heard this week. . . Dec 11.

(I know top dog mod, - lock er up)

I give up....

Let us know what happens.

Just post on topic and nothing will be deleted.

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?

You were right CR 2
 

Shut it down, these Atlas boys just love to pick fights !!!:ugh::mad:

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.

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.

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:

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.:ugh::mad::eek:

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?



http://cptaudio.com/cgi-bin/p3a/logs.pl

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.

Quite possibly - but your MEC forced this issue
So just because Polar flew between two city pairs in 1985 you think this should be your flying? Just like you think because you had a minor code-share agreement with another airline that should be your flying too - get a clue. This is simply business and the Polar MEC cannot dictate to the company how to do business.
No one said the company claimed that. With the dearth of -400s in the market that is simple reality. As far as being in bed with the company, if that is how you describe having meaningful dialog and being able to negotiate on behalf of 700 crewmembers then I guess you are right.
Your MEC took this battle to its conclusion - furloughs are furloughs. We have all been through them. The PFEs could have stayed on furlough, gotten their ratings, gotten some flight time and been first in line for re-hire. Bobbrobin blew that up with the Holden Arb
As I have said before - not true. But when they tell half truths and innuendo, and try to tell an arbitrator that Atlas has no scheduled route authority, as well as telling him that ANY city pairs that Polar used to serve were "Polar flying" it borders on the ridiculous. This is all Bobbrobin trying to prove that the battle they won was the entire war. Post some decent rebuttal material Vac.

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!

Thanks WhaleFR8, you proved my point too. Section VIII, anyone ?:ugh::mad:

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.... :)

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.

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.

Let's make that the ALPA National Boards. Not AAI or PO individual council boards so we can have dual access and debate among our union peers. I noticed on a quick search that Polar is mentioned rarely their except on the recent ADR issue.

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.

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.

Just a simple power struggle. Now there are two MECs, after the merger there will only be one.

Spot on Uncle !:mad:

Ahh, the point of view you have heard from your leadership, so it must be true??
Let's see. Ask the folks at China Airlines. They had no cargo operation before we showed up, or Qantas, or Emirates or Air New Zealand or China Southern. All company's that didn't want to mess with all cargo until Atlas gave them an option to put their toes in the water without major investments. China now operates a large fleet of 747-400's on their own, all owed to Atlas showing them how. Emirates now has an order in for their own 747-8's to run their own operation. Qantas just extended their contract out six more years. Not TAKING a single pilot job because they never had a all cargo operation to begin with.
As far as taking jobs, normally when we show up, the company is trying new markets that they normally wouldn't try. We give them the ability to test markets before spending huge capital for maybe a dead end.
As far as flying other peoples freight, look no further than Polar. Someone was flying between your city pairs before you showed up, so the cargo is actually theirs (by your way of thinking), so your doing the same thing. Freight forwarders go between carriers all the time. Deal with it....
When Polar took the first bribe to extend your contract for 18 months for 3 1/2 %, the whole process was set in motion. Cato and company knew they had us where they wanted us.....again, deal with it.

What's so amazing about it? That's simply the way Scheduled Service works: An airline offers a service to Freight Forwarders. The Freight Forwarders consign freight to the airline to be moved. Until that consignment, the freight "belongs to" the Freight Forwarder, not the airline. It wouldn't matter if you replace "Atlas" with "Kalitta" or "Southern" -- the airline doesn't "own" the freight until it is consigned by the Freight Forwarder; the airline doesn't "own" the route unless it has been given exclusive rights to the city pairs by the countries involved.

So, Polar withdraws from a market. Atlas gets the appropriate approvals and enters the market. The Freight Forwarders consign their freight to Atlas. The ONLY "magic" thing about the deal is that "Polar" and "Atlas" happen to be the same people at the top.

Funny how Atlas never thanked Tower for getting them started ! Funny how Evergreen has had a Quantas contract for over 16 years ! Polar has had a Quantas contract for over 8 years. Now ask Bournputo to give you some truths. :ugh:

How does who did our proving runs have to do with anything, and just how are we suppose to thank Tower and you to thank the original Southern?

The deal Polar had with Qantas was a space block agreement. Or were you ACMI for Qantas? I have no idea about Evergreen. Haven't seen one of their planes in Sydney in years. If they were so what, it's called competition. Are you proposing that a carrier can never change who they go with?

Just a simple power struggle. Now there are two MECs, after the merger there will only be one.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
Thats what the Atlas MEC wants you to believe. The merger has not happened and whether it ever happens is currently in the hands of an arbitrator to decide. The entire question comes down to whether or not Polar's scope clause in their currrent contract will be honored and complied with. Nothing more, nothing less. Polar wants their contract to be abided by and Atlas wants to strip Polars scope clause out, merge and get the seats out of the projected DHL windfall.

Getting pretty thick.

I've worked for Evergreen and Atlas. Flown the same customers QF, BA , NZ routes and flight numbers at both places. Back and fourth depending on who was screwing up at the time or cheaper. If any of it touches Polar whether through block space, charter or ACMI then everyone after Polar is subsequently taking "Polar" freight and flying the way it sounds here. Not very realistic.

I guess DHL USA and Europe better look out. All of their freight becomes Polar freight by devine right under that logic.
Polar crews didn't seem to have a problem with taking Atlas A/C and customers resulting in Atlas furloughs while Polar hired off the street when the company was making a negotiating point to the Atlas union.


http://cptaudio.com/cgi-bin/p3a/logs.pl

Just a couple of points.

The first is that Polar had a code-share agreement with Qantas not block space and not ACMI. They were ill equipped to do what Atlas is doing now which is to open up markets that Qantas would not have access to.

Secondly, Polar NEVER would have gotten started themselves if it were not for Southern Air Transport.

Next is the fact that the original Polar was never designed to make money. It was designed to generate revenue from some old clapped out lease returns to Polaris leasing which was part of GE capital. Old Jack Welch decided to put the airframes to work instead of letting them rot in the desert.

Another point of fact is that NO non-integrated cargo carrier has ever made money unless they were also heavy into ACMI which Polar never was and which the Polaroids think is terrible (unless of course they want it).

Finally, as a stand alone Polar was within a month of bankruptcy when Atlas bailed them out - the Polar pilots have had jobs for the last six years that they would not have had and they haven't thanked Atlas - so why is it they want Atlas pilots to thank Tower?

Just another example of the whacked out thinking coming from Green Turtle Key.

Uncle Bobo Wrote:Not true. The merger is GOING to happen. Whether the Polar pilots will be a part of it is in the hands of the arbitrator
Actually not true either. The ENTIRE question rests in the definition of complete operational merger. The Polar scope clause says nothing about certificates - so the arbitrator gets to decided what is a complete operational merger. To date Atlas has combined virtually every aspect of the operations with the exception of the pilots. I would say that is a complete operational merger.

The Atlas pilots want nothing of the sort. If you make it to the combined seniority list the windfall will be yours also. Also keep in mind that the DHL contract was negotiated by and for ATLAS AIR Worldwide Holdings. As far as I know no Polar management official was even involved. Why - oh yeah that whole complete merger thingy. Sorry Bobo - you lose this arguement.

They did actually; think it was 3 -200 full freighters.

You are right about China Airlines, I stand corrected.

Whale

FYI Polar was started by Ned Wallace (ex Flying Tiger).
The way it was explained to me by those who were there at the beginning, Ned originally wanted to keep the name Flying Tiger and Fed Ex said no; then he tried Polaris but there was a company already named Polaris. He finally settled on Polar and the call sign was originally "Polar-Tiger" and later the Tiger was dropped.
GE didn't become involved until many years later.

Beg to differ, layinlow.
GE was a partner (49%) with Uncle Ned from the beginning - thru a partnership with Polaris Leasing, a subsidiary of GE.

Because FedEx was moving in a different direction with their acquisition of Tiger's at the time, Ned then tried to copy old Flying Tiger's with every detail inclusive of routes ect - right down to their logo (he used a a rope circle "P" instead of the Tiger's rope circle "T"). . . . Uncle Ned defaulted on a loan back in 98, and that's when GE took over 100%.

(Trivia - I am told that Polar's "circle P" logo was an initial insult to some Japanese with WWII remembrance, because of it's design similarity which mimicked occupied Japan's POW logo that was printed on the uniformed shirt backs of many Jap detainees).

So, what about the arbitration?

:hmm:

Yes what happened with the arbitration.
Does Atlas have a few new F/E's?

Cato and company had meeting delayed till Dec. 19..........

:= Not having that x CR2

L-38

I stand corrected. Thanks, after 7 years since basic indoc, the mind goes fuzzy, especially at 63!

". . .meeting delayed till Dec. 19"
 

I understand that Polar's FE arbitration had actually gone it's distance over the scheduled two days, however the company then requested a third day - Dec 19.

Any thoughts?

To be honest, I haven't a clue. I would hope they are trying to work out a compromise.

What would be a compromise in your mind?

Is a compromise any of your concern ?! I really didn't think so. But go ahead and make up your own. Seems like that always happens.:ugh: