...and your basis for your facts is??

Press releases and other industry articles floating around at the time.

References would be nice - not just something you think you read.

As I said in a previous post no one of us will probably ever know what the real story is. And I have NO references - only rumor and my reading the balance sheet and listening to the analysts calls. I guess that is why this is called a "rumor" board.

In any case the 600Mil in cash that Schyuler said Atlas had, is now thought to be due to an overinflated balance sheet which didn't exactly follow GAAP. This would seem like the logical (criminal?) thing to do to attract financing and to convince the Street that buying Polar was a good thing. It seems like the reporting and the balance sheet is what the SEC was investigating. However, without proof - such as 8130 tags for the parts off of the two Japan birds (that they valued as new but were actually not), there was no way for the auditors to tell if the balance sheet was correct.

I doubt they actually stole the money and I doubt you will find any article or reference that says they did. The "lost" records were most probably never there in the first place.

But lead on McDuff - we would love to see your references. Otherwise you run the risk of....

I'm not going to re-research the references for this forum. I'll put my spin on the information I've obtained in the past, just as you put your spin on the information you have. You can juggle the proportions of stealing/hiding/laundering any way you want to define them. They're much the same from my perspective.

In any case, the fact remains that the Polar acquisition is NOT the primary cause of the Atlas bankruptcy.

Why did I expect any thing else.

Sorry but if you put something forward as fact then you need a reference. Being an engineer and as well educated as you are you should know that. What you mean to say is that in your OPINION the Polar purchase is not the primary reason for the AAWW bankruptcy.

Just as in my OPINION (as inferred earlier) the need to upstream money and form a holding company was the reason for the improper GAAP on the balance sheet. And why did they need to do this - oh yeah, to purchase Polar.

I stand by my opinion.

I can't resist jumping in on this debate over Schuyler, being around at the time and following the events closely.

I recall (but cannot prove as my source has long become stale) that Chowdry had little respect for R.Schuyler. I believe that Chowdry's intention was to keep Schuyler around solely to tap his proven financial skills. Skills that would be contained as long as Chowdry was around to hold Schuyler's leash. After the sad tragedy of 01/01, the fox then entered the chicken coop unsupervised. Schuyler was razor sharp, not stupid. He knew what he was doing.

Sadly, it would have been interesting to know what Chowdry would have done otherwise later that year, if only he were alive back then. Atlas Air was Chowdry's baby, and he like any proud father, would never dare to jeopardize it .. My worthless two cents. . . now please back to the topic.

OK... for some of the facts regarding the required (but never completed) re-audits, you can start with par. 45 on page 20 of the Atlas Treasurer's first-day affidavit in the bankruptcy proceedings. All that stuff is still available at www.atlasreorg.com

I guess it's "too hard" to simply search for "affidavit" on the Pleadings page and find the second instance on line 46... For those incapable of figuring that out, it's http://www.atlasreorg.com/pdfs/4A_FI..._AFFIDAVIT.pdf

My reference was not meant to "prove out" any assumption. It is meant ONLY -- as stated -- as as starting point for EVIDENCE that the lack of audits and pursuit of "fresh start accounting" was a major reason behind the bankruptcy.

EVIDENCE was the request; EVIDENCE is the response. You can choose to believe or pursue it further, or not. It is more evidence than that [not] provided by whaleFR8 (though I don't care if he provides any or not) to substantiate his opinion regarding the role/significance of the Polar purchase in the bankruptcy. My opinion is based on evidence that includes the reference, but the single reference was not all the evidence available at the time.

Yet you never said it was an opinion - I did. You said "the FACT remains" etc etc....

The elections were over long ago. You don't have to position yourself in this manner.

Merc9 and Whale
 

Your are both pathetic, a real embarrasment to our profession. I read your posts and get sick to my stomach. Your accusations are so slanted and one sided as to be moronic. If you want a new contract tell your MEC to get out of Mgmts butt and start negotiating. You have (for some time now) the legal right to begin negotiations, what are you waiting for!!! I'm tired of hearing about who did what to who, you sound like children of fools. Why is it everytime I meet an Atlas pilot they tell me the same thing, they want an MEC that is not afraid to stand up to Mgmt like the Polar MEC! A few of you senior Atlas types are getting rich on your profit sharing checks, so don't rock the boat, and screw everyone else, right.

LancerDVR RE- Scope
 

U need to ask you'r ask ur MEC chairman about scope since, since his last job scope was thrown out the window and the "radical" types failed and at the end were out of work. It looks like from this threat a good meeting of the mind would greatly improve everyones position. Looks to me chasticing other posters on this thread shows people that good information has not been made available to you.:):)

Really - at least I use a spell checker and a grammar checker so that I don't embarrass my profession. Do you really? Or does Bobbrobin have to read them to you?
So our accusations should be TWO sided? hmmmm.....
Well Einstein, it takes two to negotiate. How can we force the company to the table? THEY seem to think a merger is on and are unwilling to negotiate. Is there some legal way you know of to force them to talk to us - we are all ears. Then go away and don't listen - that is totally your right on this board. Yeah that is true - especially the thought of having to fly with some of you all; but unfortunately in this case neither union council owns or runs the company. So if the company wants to merge then we have to go along - or quit. Quitting is an option you might consider if you are so upset. Nope. I just want them to quit lying and to have some integrity for a change. hmmmm.... your professionalism is showing again -- the word is FOUGHT.

If having a relationship that allows discussion and negotiation is what you call being up management's butt then I guess the MEC is guilty. Personally I would rather have them able to talk with management than be ostracized like Bobbrobin are.

Because you are lying again.

Yup that is why our MEC is on 82 hours UB a month and yours is on 100. Profit sharing is based on hours worked so the MEC takes a hit there too.

Nice post - you must be feeling the heat.

By the way, how are those article VIII charges coming - I can hardly wait to get my letter.

QB is gonna love this
 

I got a copy of the neutrals decision.

Pretty clear, Polar MEC is run by dorks.

Hee, next QB meeting, I know where the jokes are going to focus.

What a bunch of loons.

There you go again
 

As I said before you two are foolish. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your b.s. except to say that you have a legal right under the RLA to negotiate a new contract. Of course they don't want to meet with you, did you think they were going to come to the table voluntarily. If the company does not want to meet, I suggest you take it to the RLA for resolution/mediation. Although I am a little confused, in your post you boast on how your MEC has such a good working relationship with mgmt. Oh yeah, as long as you are doing what they want it's all hugs and kisses. How can you say you have a good working relationship with mgmt if mgmt refuses to engage in good faith negotiations towards a new contract.

As for the Article VIII charges, we will be pressing for an MEC resolution to do just that in our next quarterly meeting. We may not succeed, or the MEC may not want to use valuable time on it, but at least the rest of the industry will begin to learn what you have been up to and how the results of your actions could be used to negate there contracts going forward. Sorry if my spelling isn't up to your high standards. I won't be responding to any more of your propaganda, in fact I wish I hadn't wasted my time in the first place. The two of you are hopeless.

Guys stop double posting.......and that includes the links.

Mercs distortions
 

Just to set straight for those who are not privy to the real story, not the one Merc wants you to believe. Polar was cooperating with the merger when it was in fact a legal merger, two companies becoming one company, two operating certificates becoming one certificate One company, operating under one certificate with one work force. This is covered by the Polar CBA. There is nothing in the CBA which allows the company to remove the Polar pilot group from its operating certificate to merge with another companies work force and then be leased back to operate under its former certificate. Merc, do you not understand what the company is trying to do here? Eliminate scope provisions amongst many other things, eliminate the labor groups attachment to its company, and make it much easier to sell the remaining 51% of Polar to DHL should DHL become eligble for 100% ownership next year. It may also be the companies way to stall both groups from negotiating new CBAs. It's all good for the company and no good for the labor groups.

When the company announced its new plan to maintain both companies and both certificates the Polar MEC responded by calling a foul. The MEC, at the direction of the pilot group, and the advice of ALPA national, responded that they would not entertain this so-called crew merger without first negotiating sound job protections. The Polar MEC insisted on negotiating work protection provisions before agreeing to move any further forward toward a pilot group merger. The Polar MEC asked for 42 months of follow the certificate protections, the Atlas MEC (who offered 12 months) declined this in unison with the company (surprise). ALPA national mediated the time frame and asked both sides to meet at 22 months. The Polar MEC, in good faith, agreed to 22 months, the Atlas MEC then moved further away to zero months, the company then balked at the whole idea and declined to negotiate scope as asked prior to proceeding with this illegal merger. Merc you keep distorting the truth and I'm sure your imagination will try to distort these facts with your propaganda.

By the way why hasn't Captain Bourne informed Atlas Mgmt of his intent to enter negotiations. He stated to the ALPA executive board in its last quarterly meeting that he would do this "if forced by the Polar MEC". I guess Mgmt would prefer that he hold off for a while, right? The Atlas pilots want and deserve a new contract, what is he waiting for. Oh yeah it's the Polar MECs fault, right? The Polar MEC has already filed its intent for section six and recently completed an extensive survey of the pilot group in preparation for contract negotiations. Why hasn't the Atlas MEC been working parallel paths as has the Polar MEC?

Hope to see you before the executive board very soon Merc!

From what I understand on these threads, all postponed until March '08. Let's take a break from all this until then (or some new news).