Dear EjetCa:
I support your notion to debate and discuss the issue like adults 100%.
Indeed the long-term ramification of our action today are critical for our future. Hence, the Union leadership from both sides needs to engage into meaningful dialog with each other and not against each other.
Unifying, the groups is not a matter of one seniority but rather a lengthy process after the single CAB is in place and may take years. But the process will never start unless we have one seniority list and one CBA. Otherwise operating two independent pilot groups with two CBAs under one umbrella organization will make contract negotiations for either party more difficult.
Isn't it true that after the Atlas/Polar transaction, either side accuses the other of undermining their respective CBA negotiations. Atlas in 00/01 and Polar in 05.
Followed by aircraft transfer and furloughs, in both directions. EjetCa correct me, this will not happen at RAH or Mesa under their one seniority and one CBA.

On the other hand, I do not believe you will operate a Polar flight and tomorrow fly an Atlas airplane nor will we ever have these groups sing together cumbyja. But the childishness needs to stop and we need to look forward. Matter of fact, you never have a 100% unified love all pilot group.
For 2008, I can only hope we can engage into a meaningful exchange of ideas on this board. Let's discuss concerns, possibilities, real opportunities and real threads ( no imaginary ).

EJetCA -
"Even thought the RAH group is under one contract, that does not mean a unified pilot group . . .There are pilots from each company that won't speak. . . . The problems that exist now (Atlas/ Polar) would not be any different than if a merger were to come to pass. . . and - Don't forget the institutional investors don't give a rat's ass about "operational integrity".

V1andgo -
"Unifying, the groups is not a matter of one seniority but rather a lengthy process after the single CAB is in place and may take years."

These are all very pertinent and very astute comments. Human nature, being what it is, will not make the Atlas/Polar situation promising after a merger. A few pilot generations must pass after unification. History dictates so - ie Northwest/Republic.

We are our own worst enemy!

I believe even ALPA President Captain Prater stated that the final outcome of the combined carriers as planned would be like the Air Micronesia (?) - Continental scenario. Two certificates and one pilot group. Which was fine with Polar up until the "follow the flying" didn't happen for Polar. Then all of a sudden there was "no merger" from the Polar camp.

Yes, it will take a thinning of the ranks over time to get rid of the animosity.

The current arbitration being discussed is a further example of "getting mine" council mentality, forgetting those that originally lost jobs to the others benefit in the beginning.

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

I'm Wondering

Can’t Atlas management just decide to get rid of polar?

I don’t mean sell it or declaring bankruptcy. I’m wondering if management can just say that they are stopping all polar Air Inc. operations.

I don’t know of any law that requires a company to stay in business if that business is losing money. Wouldn’t it be a wise business decision to terminate a losing proposition before being forced to declaring bankruptcy?

That way, Atlas Air World Wide can use those freed up airplanes for money making customers at their other operations.

I think the stock holders would like that.

?

Ahhh. there's the rub. AAWH says Polar is losing money and a lot of people buy into it; hook, line, and sinker, particularly some of the Atlas people. The problem is the books are closed. DHL wouldn't buy into a company just for the routes because if it was losing money, the routes wouldn't matter.
There is something going on and the managemnt is keeping it close to their greedy little vests. But what ever it is it is the crews that will take it in the shorts.

This whole "making money" and "losing money" argument is tiring. I'll bet the only thing that can be proven is AAWH is making or losing money. AAWH hires accountants and tax lawyers to show what they want to show. Through special "one-time" writeoffs or credits, and many, many other devices, AAWH can show each subsidiary as "making" or "losing" money. I'll bet the end of the 1Q they'll show a 1-time writeoff for the 3 Classics being parked, and claim 5Y is posting a loss.

The real deal will begin when foreign ownership is allowed and DHL buys the remaining 51% of PO.

My $.02

You are exactly right!!!

"The real deal will begin when foreign ownership is allowed and DHL buys the remaining 51% of PO."

DHL don't have 49% of PO.
They have 49% of Polar Air Worldwide Holdings.
PAWW have no airplanes, no aircrew and no problems.

When Criss Angel plays the shell game, he doesn't do it as well
as AAWH Management can, but the result is the same and it's a
MINDFREAK!

PAWW is the successor to PO, no? So the PO CBA and operation belong to PAWW.....At least that's the way AAWH MGT explains it.....

Yes, for the short term they do explain it that way , however mngmt simultaneously professes that the PO CBA and operation is intended to be merged.

Perhaps mngmnt placed the cart before the horse.

L-38,
The funny thing is it will not be merged operationally. They do have a "future provision" in the DHL agreement to provide the "crews". Right now 5Y only provides Maintenance and Insurance, Aircraft and Crews are provided by PO(the agreement is, I believe the first link.). They anticiapte providing crews when the SCBA is effective. Making it, in their words, a CMI agreement. Must be where they get the "ACMI-like" phrase from they constantly spout.

At RAH, each airline still has its own operational control facility.

The only merger that can be proposed under the current set-up (keeping 5Y and PO certificates to satisfy DHL), will be administrative, seniority list and CBA. Each certificate will STILL be required to have all required Part 119 positions. So, PO will still have A DO, DOM, CP, dispatchers, schedulers, certain MX positions, it's own ID's and airplanes that say "Operated by Polar Air Cargo" somewhere by the door.

Please don't take my word for it, do your own research, as I can be as wrong as can be. Look up Part 119 and required personnel, as well as requirements for maintaining operational control. Bear in mind that maintaining 2 certificates will have to meet required staffing. Certain things can, and will be combined, but those functions are already combined. Right now, sans pilots bidding back and forth, the company is as integrated as it will be, unless they merge certificates.

A definition of PACWW's relationship to PO. From the 30 JUN 07 10Q "Holdings is the parent company of two principal operating subsidiaries, Atlas Air, Inc. (“Atlas”), which is wholly owned, and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. (“Polar”), of which Holdings has a 51% economic interest and 75% voting interest as of June 28, 2007. On June 28, 2007, Polar issued shares representing a 49% economic interest and a 25% voting interest to DHL Network Operations (USA), Inc. (“DHL”), a subsidiary of Deutsche Post AG (“DP”), (see Note 10 for additional discussion of the transaction). Prior to that date, Polar was wholly owned by Holdings and was the parent company of Polar Air Cargo, Inc. (“Polar LLC”). Holdings, Atlas, Polar and Polar LLC are referred to collectively as the “Company”. The Company provides air cargo and related services throughout the world, serving Asia, Australia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, South America and the United States through: (i) contractual lease arrangements in which the Company provides the aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance (“ACMI”); (ii) airport-to-airport scheduled air cargo service (“Scheduled Service”); (iii) military charter (“AMC Charter”); and (iv) seasonal, commercial and ad-hoc charter services (“Commercial Charter”). The Company operates only Boeing 747 freighter aircraft. "

Some addtional reading: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...085exv10w3.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...085exv10w1.htm

For lack of a better place to put this, I heard that Atlas just bought 2 more 747-400Fs (well one is a conversion) and there are two more coming? Any truth to that? One wonders why they didn't go to the Polar side if Polar is doing so well. Also heard the former Polar MEC chair may have resigned. Anyone? Beuhler? Also heard that since this board is now owned by a US company that there is a subpoena in the works to force them to reveal the identity of the "scab announcer."

I've been away for a while so someone clue me in please.

Latest from ALPA
 

The Atlas Council side came out with this. Wasn't sure where to put it since it covers a little of the arbitration to compel Polar to merge and how the recent ALPA Executive Board decision ordering Polar to start negotiating might be entered as evidence in it. A few other things also.

Looks like the "Battle Stars" came through from ALPA National reinforcing the ADR that the Polar MEC thumbed their nose at in their message. One side of this equation is losing a lot of support and allies..

Sure if you want to believe the Bourne-Caputo Spin. You hear a different messege from both sides. If you are an outsider, you have to keep your eyes open to see what really happens. Polar and Atlas are always 180 degrees out in their VARS. Go figure! Not taking sides, just stating the facts....All Crewmembers were sent a letter from Capt. Prater saying the whole problem is with Management (ie J.C.)! DUH !

I know what you mean.

If nothing else, they did pass out the ALPA issued "Battle Stars" at the last council meeting in MIA.

Just got this pdf file from Pres. Prater on the Executive council resolution to start negotiating despite the company arbitration scheduled later this month.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/AAI072/Des...cumentID=41658

You'll have to cut and past it into your browser since I've noticed the mods have been yanking posts with active links on them. Don't know if you can upload a file here..

Correction Note....

Select persons are now required moderators approval before posting. I hope I'm not the only one.

No comments just facts
 

Not that I think PPRUNE will allow this to be posted to anyone as they have censored most of the Atlas guys but here goes......Dear Atlas and Polar Crewmembers:

I am writing pursuant to the instruction of the ALPA Executive Council last week “that the President report to the AAI and PAC pilots on 2007–2008 developments including the terms of this resolution.” The full Executive Council resolution is attached to read at your convenience. This letter will review with you the activities of the Association over the past year involving the many issues facing your groups, the most recent action taken by the ALPA Executive Council, and my view on where things go from here.

Early last year, after the announcement of the complex DHL transaction involving Polar, ALPA worked with both MECs and negotiating committees to craft a joint transition proposal to the Company. This proposal included significant scope enhancements to address this new corporate structure, as a framework for the negotiation of an integrated collective bargaining agreement and an interest arbitration process for the resolution of contract issues on which the parties could not reach timely agreement.

This was done after management indicated that it would consider scope as well as bargaining framework issues as part of reaching a merger transition agreement. Unfortunately, these good-faith efforts were derailed when management changed its position and refused to consider bargaining over scope. My staff and both MECs met with company management several times to try to work out compromises that would jump-start the bargaining process, but management remained steadfast in its refusal to consider scope negotiations, except to indicate a willingness to assure that the current scope protection in both agreements would be a baseline for scope provisions to be included in the integrated collective bargaining agreement. This about-face on the part of management, combined with management’s legal tactics, has impeded and delayed ALPA’s ability to bring this process to a conclusion.

On the legal front, management further complicated matters by filing grievances against ALPA under both collective bargaining agreements, attempting to force joint bargaining and interest arbitration to proceed on its terms, without first addressing scope improvements. Management then filed a lawsuit to attempt to force the Polar management grievance on that issue to proceed on an expedited basis, over the objection of the Polar MEC, rather than having this determined by System Board arbitration. The result of the lawsuit was a consent order providing that the System Board arbitrator would determine how soon the grievance would be heard. That was done, and the hearing on the merits of that grievance, which will determine whether the post-DHL financial investment and corporate structure of your carriers constitutes a merger within the meaning of the Polar CBA, is scheduled in late March. I think it is fair to say that it is the view of all sides that the result of that key arbitration, which should be known by mid-year, will go a long way to bring resolution to the merger issue.

It is also unfortunate that these events have been accompanied by differences between the Atlas and Polar MECs. The ALPA Executive Council has sought to resolve these differences, passing a resolution in October 2007 urging the MECs to meet to work out their differences and report to the Council this month. Per the Executive Council resolution, I convened several discussions with representatives of both MECs, my Executive Administrator, general counsel, ALPA staff, and other national officers.

Last week, after hearing from both MECs that an agreement had not been reached, the Executive Council directed the MECs to meet and work together on negotiations preparations, without prejudice to the position of the Polar MEC in the pending arbitration, and to report on the results at the April 2008 Executive Council meeting, or at an earlier date if I believe that appropriate. You should also be aware that, over the past 12 months, the Executive Council has approved approximately $673,000 to support your two MECs in finding solutions and resolving their differences.

The Council and I believe that this process has taken far longer than it should have, for a variety of reasons, but regardless of the outcome of the Polar System Board arbitration and whether the two groups end up in joint contract bargaining or separate Section 6 negotiations, it is critical that the bargaining processes begin promptly. It is my and the Council’s expectation that the time over the next few months will be used wisely by both groups for negotiations preparations, so that regardless of the outcome of the legal dispute on the merger issue, our members at both Atlas and Polar are timely and well served with new, improved pay rates and working conditions.

The pilots who serve on the Executive Council and I fully understand that issues emanating from corporate transactions, strikes, mergers, arbitrations, and litigation can create problems among our members. But, as union officers, it is our responsibility and our sincere desire that the open issues that divide you be addressed and resolved face to face in the very near future. That is the reason for the Executive Council’s resolution, which allows the Polar MEC position on the merger question to be arbitrated and directs that the two negotiating committees simultaneously prepare for submission of their contract opener(s).AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL
101ST REGULAR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING
January 15-17, 2008
SUBJECT
AAI-PAC Merger
SOURCE
President John Prater (10/07 EXCL, AI #37)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In October 2007, the AAI MEC adopted a resolution requesting the President to present the AAI/PAC merged seniority list (the Harris Award) to Atlas Air, Polar Air Cargo, and Atlas Air Worldwide. They further requested that joint contract negotiations with the PAC MEC commence no later than December 14, 2007.

In November 2006, the Executive Council established a program with respect to the AAI-PAC merger and has continued to review the status of developments with respect to the merger.

At the October 2007 meeting, the Executive Council stated its desire to consider whether management would take constructive action to assist both pilot groups in resolving their differences through a negotiated transition agreement which protects the legitimate interests of both pilot groups. They determined that the AAI MEC and PAC MEC should be provided with an opportunity to resolve their differences. Barring resolution, both MECs could appear before the Executive Council before it considers whether additional action is appropriate.

The Executive Council restated its request that the AAI MEC and PAC MEC confer with respect to resolving their differences, with the assistance of the Executive Administrator, and if so directed by the President, report at the January 2008 Executive Council meeting.

FINAL RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the Executive Council on November 30, 2006, established a program with respect to the AAI-PAC merger, and

WHEREAS the Executive Council, at its October 2007 meeting, restated its request that the AAI MEC and PAC MEC confer with respect to resolving their differences, and report at the January 2008 Executive Council meeting, and

WHEREAS the Executive Council has received reports from the respective MECs and considered the issues arising from the inability of the MECs to resolve their differences, and

WHEREAS the Executive Council has determined that the best interests of the pilots will be served by working together on negotiations preparation, without prejudice to the position of the PAC MEC in PAC System Board proceedings concerning the merger,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the AAI and PAC negotiating committee members, together with the Executive Administrator, jointly convene as soon as possible and prepare for negotiations, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the President report to the AAI and PAC pilots on 2007-2008 developments including the terms of this resolution, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the AAI and PAC MEC Chairmen report to the Executive Council at its April 2008 meeting, or at an earlier date if so directed by the President, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution and the action taken pursuant to its directives shall be without prejudice to the positions of the PAC MEC in pending System Board proceedings and shall not be introduced into or referred to in any way in pending System Board proceedings.

Prater's play nice letter. He must have read our pprune discussions :}

Cheers and beers :ok:

ALPA is not in a postion to order anything.

The two MEC's have already sat down and talked and negotiated a couple years ago. Atlas threw in the towel when they didnt want to agree on a "time line fence" for the purchase of PAC. Prater knows this. He sat in on the talks himself.

Again and again and again(for all the pee brains out there) Polar has an iron clad scope clause TIED TO A CERTIFICATE and we expect it to be honored. It really doesnt get any more simple than that.

Atlas,,,, good luck on your future section 6 neg.

i donot what universe you live in, scope clause means nothing, ask ur self an old timer, and anybody that has lost senority, jobs, retirement, :)

101 - you must have missed the several dozen posts that say that it is not the "certificate" that is in question. What IS the question is whether this is a "complete operational merger." And indeed it is. Every aspect of the company has been merged with the exception of the pilot groups. Your version of the talks between the two MECs is also quite simply wrong, and there have been many many posts that contain the actual facts that refute your statement. It is pointless to continue to spout your disingenuous rhetoric.

"complete operational merger." "with the exception of the pilot groups. "

?????????????????????????????????:confused::confused::confus ed:

Every aspect has been merged except those required to maintain two certificates .

"i donot what universe you live in, scope clause means nothing, ask ur afterall,self an old timer, and anybody that has lost senority, jobs, retirement"

A scope clause should mean at least something. It's part of a contract and after all, it does show intent. If the scope is proven worthless, then a big sorry woe be unto all of labor!!

Grow up guys and gals!
 

I don't know why I get a kick out of these two groups? Kind of like two seven year olds fighting in the back seat. And one of them yells, Mommy he's on my side! And the other yells, she hit me!

The two cerificates under FAR 121/119 each require appointed and approved management positions. Such as a Director of Operation, Director of Maintenance, Chief Pilot, etc... There is no reason why John Jones could not be the DO for "A" and "B" airline and the same for the other approved positions. All the manuals could be the same maybe even having both logo/company names on the header of each page. The aircrews could also all come from the same group or for that matter a third crew providing company. No where in the FAR's does it direct an airline to even have a seniority list. It is as simple as each seat must be trained for that seat.

The reason for maintaining two certificates has more to do with route awards than anything else and maybe brand idenity.

The longer the two groups keep throwing rocks at each others window, the long it will take to have a cohesive group. Grow up guys and gals and you both will be way ahead at the end of the day.

mustang
Better reread 119.65 (a). All those positions mentioned must be full time.

Life is to short for this bull
 

Below,

Don't really want to join all this BS. I'll give you the credit for FAR 119.65. The positions are "full time." With that said, both the Atlas and Polar corporate sites, list a Mr. Kelly as Director of Safety. So one man, one position the same at both companies. Since this is the case, then why not the other required positions?

With in the FAA oversight how many POI's or PMI's oversee the company?

If it is so bad, why not move on? Life is just to short to be behaving badly.

:=

Hmmm,

I believe that Pres. Prater and his legal staff made a statement to the combined Atlas/Polar MEC that the Atlas/Polar merged model will mirror the Air Micronesia and Continental (two certificates - one pilot group) model. Not unexpected since many of the upper Atlas management that initiated the Atlas/Polar merger are from Continental and Eastern.

So I would say there is some basis to the merger already in place despite our resident experts opinions.

Exactly! Lets move on already.

Atlas Profits
Atlas Air Worlwide Holdings is flying more profitably thanks to its scheduled freighter service but the carrier says it plans to put more of its aircraft into its core ACMI business. emphasis added
The parent of Atlas Air and Polar Air Cargo showed a $32.4 million net profit in the third quarter, a four-fold improvement over last year, and revenue grew nearly 10 percent to $395.9 million.
Most of that improvement came in Polar's forwarder-focused scheduled business, as well as a big jump in commercial charters.more added emphasis Revenue from ACMI operations was down nearly 12 percent in the first nine months of the year and makes up only about 22 percent of AAWH's overall revenue.
But Atlas says six 747-400s coming to the carrier through DHL's $150 million investment in Polar will take a role in the ACMI business. WTF, over? Six coming?

"(The 747s) will migrate from the scheduled service platform they are operating in today to a platform that will generate a profit contribution more consistent with our traditional ACMI operations, while mitigating traditional scheduled-service risks such as fuel," said Atlas President and CEO William J. Flynn.

Just so I understand: The big improvement was in Polar's scheduled service, and they are going to move airplanes from this "profit center" to (C - if we get hosed)MI service to get a profit margin more consistent?:ugh:

Scope
 

Scope is the most valuable aspect of any labor contract. Without scope a labor contract is worthless. Polars crewmembers faught hard for its labor protective provisions, calling a strike in 1999 to get it and a fair quality of life contract. Cato and AAWH want nothing to do with such a contract and have worked diligently to pit these two pilot groups against each other. Prater and the Atlas MEC have no business mettling in the Polar pilots rights. Shame on them. The Atlas MEC needs to get some coconuts and fight for a respectable contract on there own and stop kissing managements bums. An piece of the Polar scope provision follows and seems very clear.

D. LABOR PROTECTIONS.

1. In the event of a complete operational merger between the Company and another air carrier (i.e., the combination of all the assets of the two carriers), the following seniority-integration procedures will apply:

Polar remaining Polar and Atlas remaining Atlas does not constitute a "complete operational merger".

I'll try and work thru this, but it is with limited knowledge and some assumptions.



First, both Atlas and Polar have scheduled service now. Atlas's has a good profit with theirs because the US government usually pays to get the plane to HKG or ICN, so very few loads of unpaid sailboat fuel to Asia. Polars profits are there because it has been trimmed to just a few better margin cities, but the loads back to Asia are limited. This is where the DHL deal is huge. They will be a fixed amount of pallet space paid for by DHL, used or not. Kinda like ACMI, paid for no matter what.



It does not say, "The big improvement was in Polars scheduled service". Read it again. "Most of that improvement" was Polar AND big jump in commercial charters.



Only one -200 doing ACMI now. Used to be more.


When the Polar planes start flying for DHL, they won't be considered schedule service anymore? The six are the Polar -400's and maybe they will be considered ACMI (ref. the first quoted sentence) once DHL pulls the strings, using Polars landing rights? Atlas got China Airlines into a lot of US cities, because Atlas was a flag carrier, that CAL's could not have gotten into as easily on their own.

This has been said before. The ACMI -400's are the big money makers. The pure scheduled service -400's, don't clear the profit the ACMI planes do, so by guaranteeing loads with DHL, the scheduled service planes (now ACMI) will be making closer to the ACMI ones and have less risk than scheduled-service with fuel prices, as an example.

Scope, I don't disagree. Let's see. A strike in 1999. Yep, for a couple hours. Your right. But, you were dealing with a management that knew they were going to sell you pretty soon. That was tough? We on the other hand were dealing with an anti-labor management and a guy named Cato, post 9/11, and had some folks talking about flying our planes. Yep, our contract ended up with nice pay, s**ty work rules.


I think Prater is paying the bills, so yes, he has some rights. If Polar was paying assessments, I bet the Polar MEC would work a little harder at making deals vs going to arbitration on everything. I believe he mentioned that the Polar/Atlas stuff was over $670K. BTW, how are your sec. 6 negotiations going? Your contract has been open for amendment now for almost a year?

With regards to Polar's scope - I recall a negotiating committee member explaining it back in 99 when he had exclaimed - "Gentleman, we may not have acquired the wage improvements that we were aiming for, however be assured that our new scope agreement is about the best in the industry, big boys included". . .
I also recall his exuberant exclamation "I can't believe that management had accepted it".

It's this same scope that is under fire today. Jagernaught Cato and company may think they have discovered the Northwest passage around it, however they have yet to sail.


Also, unless Polarioids have actually experienced / lived through "Atlas eyes", it would be impossible for them to fully understand what Atlas crewmember's have historically been going through.

Get real Whale
 

Yes Polar went on strike in 1999, for 4.5 hours, and refused to fly airplanes as ordered under threat, to achieve a reasonable first contract. The Atlas MEC on the other hand flinched and accepted a lousy contract. The Atlas MEC then tried to place the blame on a group of pilots who were understaffed to fly there own 15 airplanes and somehow going to fly 30+ additional aircraft inorder to undermine the Atlas strike. It was never going to happen, the Polar crew force was counting on the Atlas MEC to achieve an industry leading contract to be piggy backed on by Polars own upcoming bargaining. You really need to give up blaming Polar for the Atlas MECs weak actions.

The Polar pilot group is a solid, staunch, unified group. Not one Polar pilot has ever crossed a picket line and never will. If the Atlas MEC ever gets the nuts to pull the trigger the Polar pilot group will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them to ensure success.

To answer your question on Polars section 6 preparations. They are well under way. The group has been surveyed and the openers are being prepared. The Atlas negotiators, under the direction of the Atlas MEC and JC have refused to actively participate with the Polar negotiators. The smart thing to do would be to prepare identical openers and stand strong together. The Atlas MEC would rather merge to make it easier, not realizing that the company will just aquire another airline and start the same game all over again. The Atlas MEC needs to step down and allow a strong, uncomprimised MEC to take the lead. Great gains are to be had when these two bozos (DB and JC) step aside.

Two more things Whale, how is it you seem to know who or what entity is making money. You don't have a clue. And as for Atlas scheduled service, give me a break, a huge amount of scheduled service Polar was doing is now being flown by Atlas. Markets that Polar have been in since its inception in the early 90s are now being flown on Giant call signs. Atlas does not even have a scheduled frieght sales team. The frieght is being aquired by Polar and shipped on Atlas in numerous markets, they haven't even changed the flight numbers. This is copied and pasted from the companies own Q@A board:


Title: SUB Flights? </B>

Item Number: 3735</B>

Updated: 1/24/2008 11:55:00 AM</B>

Question: Just looked on AIMS at the flight schedule for a particular day, and noticed that there are many flights (Polar)that don't have a tail number assigned to them, but the word SUB next to those flights, who's operating these flights???? </B>
Response: The "SUB" fleet is the modification to AIMS that allows Crew Scheduling and Travel to see and list Atlas crew on Polar flights and visa versa.

I hope you enjoy your profit sharing checks made off the back of Polars business. Spend them proudly with your battle star stuck in your chest. Funny, I walked the line in LAX for three weeks and never saw one Atlas pilot walking beside me. Saw an awful lot of Atlas aircraft flying by me though. The Atlas MEC changed its position by the minute throughout the Polar 05 strike. I don't blame the Atlas pilots for the Polar strike failure, I blame the Atlas MECs lack of backbone and solidarity. I and every other Polar pilot have thrown there battle stars in the recycle bin where they now belong. I thank the few Atlas pilots that did stand with Polar, you have my deepest respect and appreciation, its the rest I pity.

Praters latest actions, in conjunction with the Atlas MEC and executive board, are sickening. It's not about what's right, wrong or contractual. It's all about the amighty dollar. It cost $673,000 so far to enforce the rights of the Polar contract, better to just ignore the contract and save the money, isn't that what you (whale), the Atlas MEC, and ALPA national are saying?

Lance, Now I know you are full of %&#$.
John Prater has had to force the Polar NC to cooperate w/ the Atlas NC, not the other way around. No one at Atlas would ever believe the Polar pilots would stand "Shoulder to Shoulder" with them. If that is the case why not just merge the list and fight for an industry leading contract together? But this is not about unity in your eyes, it's greed and selfishness.

OK genius.....the "SUB" are just on AIMS for the Atlas schedulers to see the POLAR flights for the option to DH ATLAS crews on them. Duhhhhh.

I assume all Atlas's flights are shown on Polar AIMS for the same reason, so your schedulers can easily see Atlas flights for DHing Polar crews. DID you really think each sub was your flights that we were flying, boy your gullible? Take a look at departures out of DXB. Are those "SUB" EK flights yours as well?

BTW, you might not want to make a habit of posting company rumor board posts in public forums.

Pathetic
 

You are Whale. I notice you have no good answers for my post so you take to some kind of stupid threat, get real. By the way, that is how little you know about Polar Pilots. The day the Atlas MEC gets a backbone is the day this entire mess will move forward. Neither group has anything to gain by merging they have everything to lose. Don't you understand that the day AAWH gets both groups under there crew leasing scheme will be the day they start hiring contractors to fly all of our aircraft. There will be nothing to stop them from doing what they have already demonstrated in Stansted.

Atlas pilots have everything to gain by going it alone, and the same goes for Polar pilots. Polar pilots have nothing to gain by Atlas accepting sub par contracts and vice versa. You just don't understand solidarity. We can stand together without sleeping together. AAWH is going to have to drag Polar pilots away with clubs from our scope clause. If the arbitration goes against us, the Atlas MEC and JC will have won and enslaved us all. Wake Up already!!!

Lance, your post was so full of holes, that have been gone over again and again, I just chose the latest attempt at BS, with the "sub" flights.

Another example is that Fell agreed to fly SIX not 30, planes. They were on the China Air contract, our ace in the hole! Four extra days by each Polaroid could have covered it. It was very regular scheduled flying.

The 2005 strike was as much a lockout as a srike. All Polar planes were parked, so of course you had 100%. Kinda like a whore bragging about giving up sex but not mentioning she had moved to a deserted island.

Your MEC might want to actually invole your vice-chairman and hear what the FO's really think. They might disagree with "The Polar pilot group is a solid, staunch, unified group." Most are "afraid " to say anything, or don't have a clue about what is taking place.

NOONE at Atlas or Polar is or will ever be enslaved....:bored:

This thread has lost direction again....sorry.

Arbitration or something like that wasn't it? :hmm:

6 or 30
 

Doesn't really matter, none would have flown. Funny how you make this stuff up to fit your responses. No Polar pilot would have worked one extra day to fly an Atlas aircraft... Again you don't seem to get it, it was in all of our best interests for you to have won an industry leading contract.

Now I see in your latest post you are adapting JCs tactics, lets split the group. (FOs not being represented) Your insinuations are total BS, as usual. We just had an MEC meeting, many FOs were present, none objected to the MECs position and direction. Infact everyone was encouraged and onboard. Polars group is 100% behind there MEC chairman.

You state that none will be enslaved, so are you saying JC is above subcontracting out our jobs?? You have some crystal ball. If you are correct then why would the company not agree to negotiate scope prior to proceeding down the path of a single CBA? I suppose you are going to say it was the Polar MECs fault again.

As for your stupidity as to why no Polar pilot crossed a picket line. 99.8% of Polars pilot group voted to strike if necessary. None of the aircraft flew because no one would fly them and management knew better than to even ask.

Now for the upcoming arbitration. The arbitrator will decide our fates, unfortunately arbitrations are always a flip of the coin. Polars case is strong, hopefully the arbitrator rules based on a legal interpretation of the CBAs scope protection. Personally I'm all for a merger, with job protections. Without job protections there will be no more jobs. Again you Whale, just don't understand the gravity of the situation and most likely have fallen unders JCs spell like your MEC. They buy you every year with there profit sharing checks, doesn't matter that you end up spending all the money on divorce lawyers, while watching your kids grow up on skype. I don't expect you to answer any of my questions, as you have not previously. Take all the shots at me you want, you just solidify my views.