Dave,

I've got no beef with you. I'm honestly just trying to understand your position.

What would you proposed solution be going forward? Or how do you think that this process should have been handled differently?

 

This is a generalization. You assume that those that are critical don't volunteer. I am sure there are those that fall into the category of "critical non-helpers" but there are also those that are critical and still volunteer, i.e., P2P, flying the CBA to the letter at a minimum.



I understand what you are saying and I agree. If one is going to be critical, at the very least they should NOT be doing anything to circumvent one of the very few tools we have: The CBA. But at the same time, if unity is our message how is bashing other Atlas pilots on this forum helping our cause?

 

Nor I with you, or anybody for that matter. I have ad nauseum explained what I do, what I have done, what I will continue to do and what I would have done differently. I emplore you to do a search in previous posts. But the short answer; Diplomacy and transparency.....but I get it....that doesn't get the base riled up like good ol' fashioned brute force politics.

 

For those who think the union is delaying a contract so that they can keep the extra assessment in place......

Would the union not make more money even if all we got was the Kalitta pay scale and the extra assessment went way?

 

I suppose I may be looking for more specifics though. I'm all for diplomacy. But would you have preferred that the Union simply have accepted the company's push for binding arbitration for our new CBA, leaving the membership with yet another contract that they have no chance to vote on?

 

How did the union jointly decide to take this labor group down the legal path?

It is the company that is trying to shove amalgamation down our throats. It is the company that has not negotiated in good faith. It is the company that has sued US.

I believe this is a make or break contract for Atlas Pilots. It will determine whether we are a second tier pilot group in terms of compensation and benefits or whether we are a 3rd rate group like Omni, ATI and Kalitta, etc. etc.

We need to fight for a negotiated contract that we vote on. The time is now. Conditions may never be this good again.

 

I don't think that it is so simple. From my understanding, you don't just jump to binding arbitration to get a contract while in discussions whether is be via RLA section 6 or CBA successorship. Aren't you missing a few steps? Besides, the point is moot. The union made their position clear as did the company during those talks which were intentionally untenable from both sides forcing our legal path.

I agree that it appears as though the company is doing what it can to prolong this effort but it matters not the reason. It is their company and it is obvious that they feel they can do whatever they want to achieve their business goals.

But I don't think we'll get to vote. The company knows this as does the union. The union is right. We did embark down the section 6 path. The company is right too. There is a viable successorship clause. But I am not sure that there is legal precedent to determine that once a negotiation path was started it must be finished as the union is trying to argue. I hope so, but I doubt it. Every thing else you said has no legal weight. It is just emotion.

 

Right. So, I'll admit right from the get-go that I'm no expert on this and I may be completely incorrect in this, however, *as far as I understand the situation*:

My understanding was that the Company's position is that we should not be continuing under section 6 negotiations because the successorship section of the CBA is now applicable. Most importantly, this would imply that CBA 1.F.2.b.iii would be applicable. This is where the company comes up with the "you'll have a new CBA in 9 months" number. However, that section requires that after the Union and Company negotiate for a period of 9 months, "the parties shall jointly submit the outstanding issues to binding interest arbitration".

The long and short of it being, the Company refused to take any path forward with this process other than the one in which we would all be handed a new CBA by an Arbitrator (after they presumably would be unable to get a new CBA hammered out in 9 months time). So, I'm all for diplomacy (and I'm sure that there have been many opportunities on both sides where discussions could have been handled more diplomatically), but if we, the Membership, want a TA that we actually have a chance to vote on, I fail to see what other option that Union had besides fighting to keep us from being bound by this successorship language.

Just my two cents. I am completely open to being corrected if I misunderstand the process.

 

We went backwards on work rules on the last contract. Ask the Polar guys. Ask them. Any one of them. I've talked to several whose W-2s went backwards the first year on this contract because of the work rules despite a $40 an hour bump in rate. All of our rules wouldn't get worse but some would. None would be better than the best of Atlas or Southern. That's what's in our contract in the SCOPE section for a merger. Are you claiming they're going to "give" us those things out of the good of their hearts?

I know you fancy yourself to be quite the strategist but Amalgamating contracts with a Bankruptcy contract from Southern isn't a good deal for you. The 1% you'd get in ending the Strike Assessment would pale in comparison to the two extra days of work you'd owe Atlas a month. It'd probably be worth 1% of your pay to not be riding Coach from Dubai to Hong Kong. I'm a 747 Captain and I'd be leaving for Spirit or Jet Blue in that scenario due to the difference in retirement.

Agree to disagree but you wouldn't be getting my vote running a slate on a platform of "Let's Amalgamate so we can save 1% in Union Dues".

 

I can tell you why... So you wanted to Amalgamate 2.4 years ago? Ok... I hope you enjoy your 2.5% match on your 401k (Southern had no retirement at that time). Accept a 50-50 merger on work rules 2 years ago because that's all you were getting before mass attrition started. A 5 year deal with the Amalgamation clause still in there so they can buy Centurion.

All of that would've been in there if we'd agreed to merge rules with Southern 2+ years ago and we'd have been riding coach on those long international flights as those weren't "(ACMI) Industry Standard" prior to Kalitta getting their new contract. That certainly would've been pulled as we were the only ACMI carrier to have it and it started to cost the company a ton of money that year. If you go back and read earnings calls Flynn was pressed on the travel costs and blamed them on new hires going to training when we had record open time that Spring due to a strike on the West Coast that shut down shipping.

By the way... Did I mention Kalitta's new contract wasn't here? So... Merge with Southern's rates... Now you're getting $120 an hour on the 767 as a Captain... Until we Merge with Centurion or Amerijet in 2021...

That was the deal 2+ years ago. But why delay things...

Right now Southern is at least on our retirement plan and the company may (probably will) eventually put them on our contract and we'd force them into Section 6 whether they like it or not. We're very close to that right now as nobody will work at Southern as a new hire. Heck... We're having trouble filling classes at Atlas and as we speak a 767 Captain who recently upgraded just texted me his CJO from FedEx.

That's why you don't agree to Amalgamate.