Depends on which part of AMC flying you are talking about. There are regulations from the CARB for AMC passenger carrying flights. Not sure what they are for pure cargo. When I worked pt 135 and AMC needed cargo hauled, they just called us. When it was for AMC or Government passengers they had a list of CARB qualified carriers they had to stick with.

If that is true, then since Polar and Atlas were founded about the same time, the rule (and the AMC start) would have been the same for both, then...

He did obtain citizenship
 

Michael A. Chowdry (1955-2001) was a Pakistani American businessman who became the founder of American-based cargo carrier Atlas Air in 1992. He made the Forbes 400 list and with a net worth of $920 million, ranked among the richest American businessmen of Pakistani heritage before his death in a plane crash in 2001.

I knew he was a citizen, just wanted to find reference material.

A shrinking company dealing with a shrinking world economy. Asian lift is saturated, and AAWW capital stock is tanking again. The -800 delivery's are also delayed (probably a good thing). No Gov/ AMC rescue in sight (as with a breif bleak market just prior to 9/11 when cargo B-747's were parked everywhere at JFK).
What are the bare bones of this company?

L-38 --

It's not saturation anymore. World cargo traffic down over 20% in December 2008 vs. 2007. Forecast for 2009 is yet another 6% decrease for the year. JAL reducing flights ( I think two per week) out of LAX.

Bottom line nobody is buying and nobody is shipping. Aircargoworld.com has the exact numbers if you subscribe.

On a side note, what did ground ops do and where were they located? I take it Purchase?

Musical Chairs Over Pacific
Oz Starts As Kiwi Stops
For a sector that long seemed a haven of stability and strong yields, the US-Australia/New Zealand market is uncharacteristically lively at the moment.
On the heels of one freighter operator joining the game, one of the incumbents is scrapping its freighter lease, only for another player to field a freighter on the suspended route.
Air New Zealand is going to return a B747-400F aircraft leased from Atlas Air, a step that marks the end of the airline's round-the-world freighter operation from its home base via Europe to the U.S. and back to New Zealand. This eliminates two B747-400F flights a week from the U.S. to the South Pacific.
According to some observers, the carrier had tried unsuccessfully to obtain more advantageous leasing rates in light of a weakening market and decided to pull the plug on the operation when Atlas stood firm. Air New Zealand confirmed that the lease would be terminated at the end of March, leading to the suspension of the transpacific freighter service, but declined to discuss any details. It indicated that management is looking for alternative options for a U.S.-New Zealand freighter.
The gap left by the Kiwi carrier's withdrawal will be short-lived. "We are about to commence a twice weekly B747-400F freighter service between the U.S. and New Zealand. This new service will provide mid-week and weekend capacity from the U.S. to New Zealand and from New Zealand into Australia," announced Stephen Cleary, group general manager of Qantas Freight.
So far, Qantas has supplemented its 43 weekly passenger flights between the U.S. and its home market with three weekly 747 freighters to Sydney and one to Melbourne. Those freighters reach the U.S. market via Shanghai, where Qantas has built up a hub operation for both passenger and cargo flights. On the transpacific sector the airline's bellyhold capacity changed slightly in the fourth quarter, when it introduced A380 aircraft.
Air New Zealand's decision to suspend the U.S.-New Zealand freighter run reflects the recent deterioration of the U.S.-South Pacific market, which had long seemed impervious to chronic weakness of U.S. exports.

It appears that the management of Atlas has made a business decision to operate aircraft at a profit and not to cut a contract to the bone just to ensure an airplane flies. While that may seem odd at first blush; it is clear that should they have renegotiated at a lower rate, every other Atlas customer would have demanded the same. You simply cannot operate a business and charge less for a service than it costs to provide.

No doubt other operators will be jumping at the chance to fly cheap and hope to make it up with the profits or cash flow from other customers. Soon more will follow suit and eventually they will all end up cutting wages and benefits. Job losses will follow. We've seen this model repeat itself since the Deregulation Act of 1978, when the government refused to keep up the oversight required.

Atlas' most important move may well have been going outside the revolving door of airline management to find someone who is not steeped in the old airline operations theories.

Well Atlas Operate for Qantas on routes that compete with ANZ. They could not give ANZ a commercial advantage over the larger customer, QF.

Regarding Air New Zealand . . . you better keep an eye on Titan Leasing. Seems as though you could get more bang for your buck as AAWW to lease a plane and let them deal with everything else. PLEASE stand strong on scope dealing with the negotiations . . . we need to stand strong on scope. Just in case you didn't get it stand strong on scope.

Remember the old saying of keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

You need to look no further than Polar than to see what this company thinks of scope. The FE's won the arbitration, now the company want to arbitrate the arbitration. Bottom line, there is no scope strong enough when the company is as dishonest as AAWWH

You might want to correct that to "CBA strong enough" vs "scope strong enough". We on the labor side have always had an uphill battle with federal labor laws and companies complying with collective bargaining agreements made under them. Polar is no exception to it.

Written Law has always favored management in the past leaving little for labor. Arbitration just adds one more layer to the smoke an mirrors.

I absolutely agree with you nitty, but evidently this scope was strong enough to win the arbitration. AAWWH just doesn't want to abide by it. How the IBT is going to handle it is another question for another day but it doesn't look good.

Quote:

---

. . . but evidently this scope was strong enough to win the arbitration

---

If referring to Arbitrator Bloch's 11/08 decision, it was actually won on black and white CBA language (furlough out of seniority). This verbage clearly could not be interpreted in any other way. The FE's award was not given for violating scope. Regardless, the company is coming up way short on Bloch's carelessly worded but intended remedy, so we must again wrestle some more with AAWW management.

L-38 is correct. The scope part of the arbitration was found in AAWH's favor. The IBT is considering taking this Bloc finding to another arbitrator to get a solution. This would only be to solve how the FE's are to be made whole.

I guess I don't understand. If the company (Polar) has nothing that you could fly as a PFE (ie. no Classics) but you are senior to pilots who are needed to fly the -400, what do you expect the company to do?

They (Polar) signed the contract knowing this. They can try to buy the FE's out with a severance package, offer those interested some training, or just keep paying them to sit at home. Another option, furlough everyone, pilots included, then recall only those qualified. That would lead to a grounding of the fleet for at least two weeks.

Quote:

---

I don't understand. If the company (Polar) has nothing that you could fly as a PFE

---

That's the rub. Polar management agreed to this by signing it, and AAWW thus inherited it.

Actually, back in 1998 when Polar's CBA was authored, Polar's FE's and pilots were put on the same seniority list for reasons of job protection. In those days, everyone knew that the expensive -400's were coming, however they were considered to be at least 10 years out for Polar's use.

Also at that time, ICAO standards had not been established for "cruise pilots" on the ultra long range -400. Some airlines (Lufty and Qantas included) re-assigned their FE's as cruise pilots to save their jobs. This was the intention of Polar's labor, however today, ICAO cruise pilot standards have been established and the FE's as cruise pilot concept is now obsolete.

Polar, when they received their first -400 much earlier than forecasted, had this option but did not run with it. It was also very ironic at the time that after crying poor for months, management reversed, and orderd their first -400. All within a few weeks of it's contested first CBA becoming ratified.

Poor Jim Cato and company. They overlooked and/or did not realize the implication's of Polar's little CBA clause. They were by then stuck with it . . . oh well.

So do you honestly think that PFEs could possibly just be "qualified" to be a cruise pilot?

Seems to me that if a PFE wanted to protect his job he would go out and get a rating (which I am sure many of them did - many at Atlas certainly did) and then actually fly an airplane - not a pen - to get the 1000 or 1500 hours required for an ATP. I wonder how many PFEs, high on the seniority list, simply sat back and waited, putting their faith in a scope clause that no arbitrator in the land would honor if there were no airplanes for the PFEs to fly.

Even to fly as a cruise captain (assuming the insurance companies and the FAA would buy off on the program) you need a commercial license as well as an instrument and multiengine rating. Did the PFEs that were not rated expect the company to pay for that also?

Most rated pilots either gave up their lives for 12 years to get military training or they paid tens of thousands of dollars for the training and then gave up their lives to crappy little commuters or air taxi flying to gain the experience needed to get a job at Polar or Atlas.

Granted the PFEs gained their FE experience through much the same amount of hard knocks - but now they expect to lateral over to a much different path with no experience or training? Flying a multi million dollar asset through thunderstorms, CAT, with company managers watching fuel burns to the teaspoon, and crappy HF comms with foreign controllers who are at best garbled and stupid?
Seems like a chance for another "San Bruno Mountain" and that guy was a rated pilot.

A lot of verbiage there, WhaleFr8.

Truth be known, Polar's then chief pilot even turned away a high senority FE guy that had a B-737 type rating (his reasoning was that this FE was a little rusty)! Another high senority FE that was accepted to the -400 program (but later suddenly dismissed) had flown as a qualified Polar classic FO just a few years earlier.

I believe that it became political, as the choice on which of the qualified FE's to send to the -400 was actually made by a committee of one. . . (Note - The then chief pilot was even heard to exclaim "think of all of the current -400 FO's those senior FE guys will displace"!).

Again FR8, - The basic reasoning of 1998, was that the FE's had about 10 years to aquire basic certificates, and thus Polar's CBA clause was intended to save jobs. . . . . BUT - With the more recently established ICAO standards, the "FE as cruise pilot" concept has now become obsolete. . . Do not deny that this concept was at one time used by the world's most major airlines during that time of transition years ago.

OK WhaleFR8 - You have now been armed with the facts. . . So what would you do now?

Just take out your trusty eraser and erase the legal, agreed on, and accepted part of this aged, lawful, legitimate, and binding document simply because you don't like it?

ahahahahahaha "armed with the facts" just because you said it? ahahahahahaha

What part do you dispute? What are your facts to present? I doubt that you were at Polar then.

Anyway, this pointless diatribe with you has become silly.

L-38 out

Whalefr8
A "few words on a piece of paper" result in you getting a paycheck on a regular basis. Can we void those few words or are only the words that service your needs applicable.

The part where you provide zero documentation.

Nope, but neither do I trust my entire livelihood to them. Instead many of us spent the time and effort to go out and get our ratings, on our time and dime, gained the experience needed, and bid for the seat. How well is that ironclad scope clause serving the Polar FEs now? Is the hassle worth it? Wouldn't it have been better to do it the way many before you have done?

Look, as L38 said - the Polar PFEs have known for 10 years that this day was coming. Assuming that they have enough time as an FE to use the FAR allowed max of 500 hours towards their ATP, that is only 100 hours a year they would have needed to fly to gain the time needed. Take away their training time for Private, commercial, and Instrument and they really only needed to find time to fly about 60 hours a year or a bit over one hour a week to get that experience. I am sorry that they are in this situation but it didn't take a college edumacation to read the handwriting on this wall.

Why is it the company's fault? Or the Atlas Pilot's fault? Or even the junior Polar Pilots fault?

Just a little accountability would be great here - and yet some seem to think they are qualified to fly as a cruise captain?

I know I am generalizing, and I know there are a few special situations, but as Spock says "The good of the many outweighs the good of the one (or few)."

How well the ironclad scope clause is serving the Polar PFE's is yet to be determined. Is the hassle worth it compared to what..rolling over and playing dead. When your pushing sixty, or more, as many of the PFE's are, doing it the way so many have done it before isn't much of an option

Let's be clear, this has NOTHING to do with scope. It is part of the rules for your one list seniority.

Very true.

See Bill's post above - I know, I know, he no longer works for AAWH so he can't be held responsible.

But the bottom line is Scope or seniority list, sitting back and trusting your future to a few words on a document in this day and age of crooked, tax evading, lawmakers and staffers; as well as predatory CEOs and VPs shows a cognitive unawareness that makes one wonder if you could really handle a cruise captain job.

Out of one side of their mouth the company tells us we are their most important asset. Out of the other they tell the media and the board of directors that we are their biggest liability.

One only has to look as far as the headlines to see how many are out of work these days. And yet some want to sit back and trust an, at best, poorly worded CBA; and a company not known for its care of workers, to retrain them, or pay them in perpetuity?

Come on - get a clue.

I think WFR8 would squeel just as loudly if he were sitting on the other side of the fence.

• It would demonstrate the compulsorily-ness(sp?) of a CBA to management.
• It would put financial pressure on management in pushing them to reach a new CBA agreement in a more timely manner. . . thus finally being rid of paying Polar's FE's.
• It would help demonstrate to other's that as an aviation union, the IBT really does have teeth.

And still no documentation ...

But what does "made whole" mean. This sounds like the weasel words in the Atlas CBA? What exactly do the Polar FEs want?

Do you want to be paid to sit on your butt for life?
Do you want Atlas to spend 20-50K to get you all your licenses then allow you a couple of years sabbatical while you gain the flight time needed to move forward?
What is it that you want?

And I was on the other side of the fence but I saw the handwriting on the wall and spent the time and money to get my ratings. Took a few years off from FEing and worked for a Pt 135 company then another scum bag freighter outfit, then a regional and finally back to the cream of the crap freight flying. So I and many others did it and didn't spend 10 years sitting on our collective butts. I guess that is why I have no patience for this - at least it is not delaying our negotiations any more.

I think folks need to take a least a modicum of responsibility for their lives. It isn't like you didn't have any notice that the classics were going away. Everyone hoped that it wasn't going to happen on their watch - and I feel bad for those who tried to stick it out until they retired in this proud profession. But in fact, they guessed wrong and now they don't want to be held accountable for their poor guess. And they want others to pay for their choice; whether it be Atlas, Polar, Junior Polar pilots, Atlas Pilots - or the poor Captain that has to stay in the seat the whole time because he doesn't trust the minimal training that we all know Atlas would give to the PFE-Cruise Captains.

Bravo WFR8 . . . :D:D For management to honor, and abide by their agreement - The Polar CBA - retroactive, and for the duration of it's remaining life, pure, plain, and simple.

Not going to be possible with no airplanes to fly and PFEs unwilling or unable to man-up and get their ratings in time. Unless of course you want Atlas to fire all the pilots junior to the most senior FE just to get to him.

Section 22 A 2

In order to exercise seniority rights under this Agreement, a Crewmember must have sufficient qualifications, as established unilaterally by the Company and published and disseminated to the Crewmembers, for the applicable position, vacancy, assignment or operation. The Crewmember also must be available to assume the position, vacancy, assignment or operation within any applicable time limits in this Agreement, and, if none, within reasonable time limits established by the Company.Next choice.

And Section 23 A 1

A Pilot will be furloughed in reverse order of placement on the Polar Air Cargo Crewmembers System Seniority List, as determined by reference to all of the Company’s Captains and First Officers as a whole. A Flight Engineer will be furloughed in reverse order of placement on the Polar Air Cargo Crewmembers System Seniority List, as determined by reference to all of the Company’s Flight Engineers.

And Section 22 D

1. A Flight Engineer may bid for a vacant First Officer position under the circumstances specified in this Paragraph.

2. In order to be eligible to submit such a bid, the Flight Engineer must possess the minimum qualifications for the First Officer position, as established unilaterally by the Company and published and disseminated to the Crewmembers, and have successfully completed the simulator evaluation required by the Company of First Officer applicants.

3. It is the Flight Engineer’s sole responsibility to obtain the minimum qualifications for the First Officer position and to complete the required simulator evaluation. The Flight Engineer will not receive any compensation for time spent, or reimbursement of any expenses incurred, in obtaining such minimum qualifications or completing such simulator evaluation

Did I miss something? You want the company to honor the CBA but you don't have to?

Yes, WFR8 - Polar CBA section - 22.A.1

mmack
Interesting comment but could we try it again. This time in english.

Do you mean this?

Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, placement on the Polar Air Cargo Crewmembers System Seniority List shall govern all Crewmembers with respect to upgrade and downgrade, retention, furlough and recall in case of reduction in force, award of domicile vacancies and displacements from domiciles, and any other assignments or awards.

So "otherwise provided in this agreement" is just one paragraph down as well as 23 A 1 - correct?

You guys were sold a bill of goods by Dan Katz, who was the only person to really make out on this whole debacle. He tried to make this about scope and the Atlas flying while Polar Engineers were furloughed. Bloch turned it right back to the seniority issue, which is where it really belongs. Yet your CBA is pretty specific don't you think. PFEs furloughed shall be done in order with respect to all the other PFEs on the list. Your CBA gives the PFEs an opportunity to bid to FO once they get themselves qualified. The fact that many decided not to should not be a reason for a grievance.

WFR8
From the Bloch award.

"Management violated Section22.A.1 and related sections of the Labor Agreement by furloughing Flight Engineers while retaining junior pilots."


As far as the meaning of the legal term "make whole", Google 'arbitration award make whole" and you'll find enough documentation to keep your printer busy for a while.

Having taken many days to peruse the transcripts of the seniority arbitration, it appears upon reading that while Mr. Katz in fact presented a very weak and ineffective case (as also noted in the manner in which he also represented the pilots of USAirways), it appears in both cases he also had direction from leadership that was less than stellar.

That he did not produce expert testimony on bankruptcy or other matters, relying on the Polar MEC Chairmans "expertise" which was quickly discounted as not founded in sound industry experience, but anecdotal backround, and that of Captain Hair, who also did not posess credentials of an expert witness, indicates either a lack of preparation or someone who was directed to take a specific position and damn the torpedo's.

If one was a Polar crewmember, it would beg the question as to what the funds collected for this case were spent upon? It's apparent that on the Atlas side, based upon the transcripts, that they spent money finding accredited experts with specific knowledge and the only defense mounted by Polar's attorney, Mr. Katz, was to attempt to professionally attack the Atlas experts witness.

Something that was equally fended off by the expert, and clearly seen by the arbitrator as a desparate attempt by Mr. Katz to make up for his obvious shortcomings.

Flyer
I would suggest you re read the position taken by both sides on remedy, then re read the actual award. Once that is complete, see which side came closer to the remedy requested.
There are no style points in an arbitration.