I think this question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening here. This just would not happen. Ever. That's why the whole "conflict of interest" thing you're pushing is one big red herring.

You are literally, as already stated, searching for a problem that does not exist. It is in fact very suspscious and corrosive to solidarity as we have lots of members who are new to union work and look to more senior members for guidance and perspective. Your guidance and perspective is not helpful to be frank.

First of all, off the top of my head, I can think of two former chief pilots who actually did resign their positions and came over to do lots of union work. One was the former chairman of 1224 (and I'm not talking about the former trustee of 2750; the other is quite active in these threads helping out with recruiting new hires. Maybe you should ask him what he thinks of his possible conflicts of interest.

This is the other problem you're having. You seem to think all union work, no matter what role, is "against company interests". Absolutely incorrect. One of the many benefits of dealing with a "collective" is EFFICIENCY. It's actually in the COMPANY'S interest to engage with ONE "representative" rather than dozens, or even hundreds of individuals. These interactions are not always adversarial. Issues involving Training, Safety, Fatigue and COVID come to mind. There are all highly COOPERATIVE.

So once again, your deep seated suspicions are misplaced and not helpful.

Honestly, I don't follow your question here. The company creates the vacancies by playing with the fleets and their hiring requirements. The bids of senior crew members are almost irrelevent in my opinion but this is not my area of expertise so I'm not going to suggest anything new. We work under the current CBA and that's all that matters to me at this point in time. It behooves all of us to understand and enforce the current CBA.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Something I've seen repeatedly over the years, if not almost universally, is the sentiment regarding the chief pilot (insert other management positions): "he used to be a great guy." Numerous assumptions are interwoven with this approach, all of which must be stripped of their inherent fallacies to have any significance.

One cannot assume that because of a prior affiliation, one cannot be good at one's job. One is not a better or worse pilot as a function of having been a union member, or union leadership or staff. Certainly that experience may influence an individual, but most of us who have been around very long have seen good union staff and bad, and let's be honest: union solidarity or even a group mentality regarding the CBA, negotiations, or any other aspect of union position, action, support, etc, is very seldom close to universal. As a former union steward, business agent, etc, I can attest all too well to the lack of cohesion in supporting a union position, and to the individuality of the membership. That's just a fact of life. One ought not assume that becuase individual A was formerly a union member, steward, negotiating committee member, chairman, business agent, or participant in any role, that he or she is good, bad, or indifferent to the rank and file, the union, or the company. Nor does union participation presispose one to work for or against that union, upon separation. Individuality, personality, beliefs, habits, etc, all determine how one will view the union, it's activities and positions, and its membership.

A chief pilot cannot be a union steward.

A chief pilot can be former union staff, including a steward. This does not make the chief pilot a good chief pilot or a bad one. It does not imbue the chief pilot with secret insight or insider information. When the individual becomes management, he becomes an inactive member of the union, and is no longer privy to union internal communications. A chief pilot can be a former union steward.

A chief pilot is not automatically the enemy. A chief pilot is not automatically a company lacky or stooge. A good chief pilot can efficiently manage and act as an intermediary between the company and the pilot body, but this comes down to the chief pilot's management skills and experience, personality, wisdom, and also the corporate culture and framework within which he is constrained. Some companies see the chief pilot office as little more than a sewer-outlet mouthpiece for the corporate machine. Some don't.

Can a company retain a former steward, MEC chairman, yada, yada, as a chief pilot (pick favorite management position) in hopes of gaining an upper hand in negotiations, relations, or control of union membership? Maybe. Does it actually buy the company anything in that respect? Not really; the CBA is an open book. Grievances pass through stewards and to the chief pilot and settlement representatives quarterly at a minimum. Disciplinary and other interactions are dynamic and ongoing and no secret to management or to the union. Any ongoing union business only becomes known to former union management, as the union may choose; internal decisions, strategies, are no longer open information for former union staff. Does retaining former union staff buy an employer a position of strength? Not really. Can the former union staff-turned-management act agaisnt the union? Of course; that's an individual action, just as a former union staff-turned-management might also strive for increased cooperation. Good managers fullfill all their duties to their employer will striving to foster good relations with those they manage; the managed need to understand that it's a job and not a friendship.

Can an external management person be introduced to the chief pilot office, with no former experience with that employer, or with that union? Sure. It happens. This will naturally increase suspicion, and a sense that "he doesn't understand us," which may or may not be true...but most commonly over many years (decades), I've seen former long-time pilot employees who eventually became management (chief pilot, etc) who had the same sentiments thrown at them. Sometimes justified, sometimes not. I've also had several chief pilots who made clear that their door was always open, and I've been comfortable enough to call them at work, and at home, directly, because of a good working relationship and trust that went both ways. I was also smart enough to understand that they had their job to do and I had mine; one should never mistake a professional working relationship for anything else. Use some sense. This has been true as a pilot in the unwashed masses of the company, and as a union representative.

It's not uncommon for a new management appointee to attempt to "change the world" to make his or her mark, or to distinguish themself. How often have we seen someone new in a poisition begin to introduce all manner of new policies, checklist changes, etc? An inherent nature of the corporate ladder, from the lowest to the top, is that each individual tries to make himself or herself look good to the person(s) above them, and those below are often wise to keep that in mind. It's axiomatic that the upwardly-mobile curtain climber should attempt to make one's boss look good; it' endears one to the boss. That approach sometimes poisons what lays below, waste products rolling downhill and all, and gives a sometimes-justified, sometimes-unjustified perception (or result) that the boss is working against the masses. Sometimes it's true, sometimes its not; the masses seldom have the big picture, and let's face it: we all have our own best interests at heart.

It's incorrect to suggest that fomer union staff-turned-management have a conflict of interest. It might be true (would be ethically true) if a chief pilot were to continue to be a steward, for example, but that isn't possible. One can't accept a management position and still retain one's union office. One can't be a chief pilot, and a steward. One can only be a chief pilot, and a former steward, and whether that impacts the performance of the chief pilot in a positive, or negative way is really a function of the individual. Being former union staff does not make one a good or bad chief pilot. Being a former first officer or captain does not make one a good or bad chief pilot. Being a former company pilot does not make one a good or bad chief pilot. Each may serve to provide experience and understanding and background, but an external-hire can read the CBA as well as one who applied it as a steward, first officer, or captain. Sympathies and human foibles can run either way.

I've seen many times when that "pilots pilot," a former beloved line pilot, even union rep, became management (eg, chief pilot, etc), and shortly thereafter was regarded as the great satan. Sometimes justified, sometimes not, but simply accepting the mantle often carries the stink, whether justified or not. It takes two to tango, and perception doesn't equate to reality. It goes both ways. It's incorrect, and fraught with assumption, however, to suggest that a former union staff position carries with it a conflict of interest, for an individual that moves into management. As for a "management pipeline," either one is management, or one is not. I've seen excellent stewards (and other management staff/committee leadership or participation) that were first officers, captains, check airmen, etc...some of whom later moved into assistant chief pilot, chief pilot, DO, and other positions.

I'll add too, that perception of the masses can run quite different to the effort expended on behalf of the masses. As a former steward who worked very hard to serve in that role, gratitude was seldom returned for the effort made. There was an individual for whom I had a great deal of respect (and still do), who sought union help via a greivance. I worked hard to see that resolved, and ultimately it could not be resolved in that persons favor. He approached me one morning at a hotel, at breakfast, and said he wanted to say he knew how hard I'd worked to get him what he wanted, but ultimately he didn't get it. He said he wanted me to know that he hated me, and always would, and he walked away. It took every last ounce of wind out of my sails. I didn't expect a thank-you, but I didn't expect that, either. Never the less perception is not the same as reality, and we're all indviduals, not rubber stamps. We think, act, and behave for ourselves. We see colors and in differing shades. We are not the same. I understand that pilot's feelings, and perspective. I don't hate him. I regret that I wasn't able to achieve his aims, and it's been many years, now. I think anyone who has served as a steward, or any other union role, probably understands that, very well. The same might be said of those who take management positions.

Don't paint the individual with one brush; he or she has his or her own brush, and color. It won't necessarily match yours. The chief pilot doesn't need to be former union staff. Former union staff aren't entering a conflict of interest if they become management, however much we like to think of them as drifting to the dark side. Ideally, we should all get along. It's not a perfect world.

Not my company but I've found this thread interesting. The two best managers I ever worked for came from two radically different backgrounds. One was a retired AF Colonel. Usually this is not the best recipe for the DO position of a 135 airline maned mostly by 20 somethings back in the days when we were thrown the keys to an airplane, with little to no supervision, and told to bring it back in a few days. He consitantly had our backs and gave support in ways large and small. This included buying food and diapers for employees who got into binds due to our horrible pay. We would have walked on burning glass barefoot for that man.

The other was a former Union MEC chairperson who became a chief pilot and then DO. They once asked me when I was going to unionize the workforce and how they could quietly help me do it. This was done while doing an excellent job running the company and protecting the companies intrest. You see, they realized it was easier and more efficient to deal with one entity (ALPA) than hundereds of individual pilots. They knew our needs but were able to balance those against the needs of the company to be profitable while having a workforce that was as happy as possible.

What inevitably happens with managment pilots is that it becomes an "US" and "THEM". They can't help it. They stay locked up in the managment building for months on end and lose touch with line operations. They always promise themselves and others that it won't happen to them but the economies of time managment always interfere with the best laid plans. Then they have to deal with the same 2-5% moroons that every airline has for about 80% of their work time. (Failed training events, poor behavior in hotels, general whining, etcetera, etcetera) Eventually they begin to feel that all pilots are idiots and only the hours of uncredited and thankless work they do in the office keeps the airline from crashing and burning. It's just human nature.

All things considered I'd rather have a former EXCO or MEC chair as managment than an outsider from another airline or an insider who has manuvered for one of those jobs with no experience dealing with a large and diverse pilot group. Just my 2 cents.

There is a fundamental difference between the two positions.
As a MEC you answer to and will be held responsible by the pilot group.
As CP you answer to and will be held responsible by Management.
When push comes to shove you will be expected and you will choose the side of Management. Part of the job description, that’s how the cookie crumbles and if not you will be replaced.
The “ I’d rather have someone who knows the Union” arguments are a fallacy.
They also know the weaknesses and where the skeletons are buried.
Food for thought.

As a line pilot, who cares?

QOL is good you stay

QOL sucks and you leave

Wow! Great perspectives, all! Thanks for taking the time to frame your thoughts as you have.

John Burke, can you explain your position where you a say a steward would have a COI becoming a chief, but a MEC chair wouldn't? What is the difference that I'm missing?

Generally, what am I failing to see here?

I don't know what "COI" means, so don't know what you're asking. If you're asking why a shop steward would be unable to remain a steward if assigned as Chief Pilot, but why a MEC chair could remain MEC chair as chief pilot, the simple answer is that the MEC chair can't retain his position while filing a management roll. I'm not sure what you're asking.

Asking about conflict of interest (COI)I. If I read you properly you were saying there is a conflict if a steward applies for a CP role, but not for an MEC chair. Did I read you correctly? If I did what is the difference between the two positions that I am not seeing?

A steward does not have a conflict of interest as a chief pilot: a steward cannot be a chief pilot.

A MEC chariman does not have a conflict of interest as a chief pilot: a MEC chariman cannot be a chief pilot.

A former steward can be a chief pilot.

A former MEC chairman can be a chief pilot.

IF a steward could be chief pilot, concurrent with serving as steward, it might represent a conflict of interest in both roles, but this is irrelevant. A steward cannot be a chief pilot.

IF a MEC chairman could be a chief pilot, concurrent with serving as MEC chairman, it might represent a conflict of interest in both roles, but this is irrelevant. A MEC chairman cannot be a chief pilot.

If a union officer such as a steward is no longer serving in the capacity of steward, there is no conflict of interest, should that former-steward serve as chief pilot. The chief pilot cannot be a steward.

If a union officer such a MEC chairman is no longer serving in the capacity of MEC chairman, there is no conflict of interest, should the former MEC chairman serve as chief pilot. The chief pilot cannot be a MEC chairman.

A steward may be a former chief pilot.

A MEC chariman be a former chief pilot.

A chief pilot may not serve as a steward, concurrent with his or her role as chief pilot.

A chief pilot may not serve as MEC chairman, concurrent with his or her role as chief pilot.

A chief pilot serving as a steward while serving as chief pilot is irrelevant, becasue a chief pilot cannot be a steward. A steward can be a former chief pilot. A chief pilot can be a former steward.

A chief pilot serving as a MEC chairman while serving as chief pilot is irrelevant, becasue a chief pilot cannot be a MEC chairman. A MEC chairman can be a former chief pilot. A chief pilot can be a former MEC chairman.

A conflict of interest only exists between a chief pilot position, and a union officer position, if the individual fills both positions at the same time.

A conflict of interest does not exist between a chief pilot position, and a union officer position, if the individual has left management and moved to a union officer position. This only makes the individual an experienced union officer (eg, MEC chairman, steward, business agent, committee member, etc).

A conflict of interest does not exist between a union officer and a chief pilot position, if the individual has left the union officer position and moved to the chief pilot position. This only makes the individual an experienced chief pilot (or assistatn chief, director of operations, director of training, yada, yada, yada).

lol.

You're missing that Burke is making MY point, but with more words.

But hey, if an outsider's words are more valuable than mine, run with it.

A chief pilot is expected to place the interests of the organization foremost. Any pilot who expects the CP to be their "friend" and give them quarter that others don't get is poorly informed. A good CP will be a great mediator between non flight management and his pilots. A great CP will be able to convince both sides to accept reasonable compromise on issues that otherwise could impact QOL of the crew force and the companies reputation and bottom line. In my experience, just about every pilot who ever held a prominent position in flight management eventually ran afoul of the popularity contest with the crew force. Some flamed out so bad, they were the source of ridicule long after they left their post (or even retired). In all fairness, MEC chairs and LEC members have been held in equally, if not more, distain by their constituency. Pilots admiration, once lost, usually ends in bitterness.

So you DO see a conflict of interest if they hold/are appointed to these positions. What I am saying is a conflict of interest DOES exists when they are in the application and screening pipeline. As many have laid out, the offices answer to different sets with different responsibilities. The actions and motivations of any officer change when they apply for a role. It's not like the effect of the new position on a person changes instantly. This is why none of us have sat at an interview and heard "Your company is stupid!" from successful candidates. People are already saying and doing what they expect us to like before they are awarded a slot. The same standards are applied outside of our industry as well.

So we agree on whether conflicts exist, but we disagree about when those conflicts become a factor. I'm saying the convicts are a factor as soon as an application is made and definitely by the time a position is offered.

What I am NOT saying is that we should close this pathway off. These are the people the company knows with experience with the company's affairs and rhe local group's corporate culture. I am just saying we have to acknowledge and manage the impacts. That can be as simple as reassignment or delegation of roles during the application process.

No, I do not. I can't say it any more plainly or clearly than has been said. THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

A UNION OFFICER CANNOT HOLD A UNION OFFICE, AND BE COMPANY MANAGEMENT AT THE SAME TIME.

THE ONLY WAY THAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST COULD OCCUR WOULD BE IF THE UNION OFFICER HELD A MANAGEMENT POSITION AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Thus, there is NO conflict of interest.

A "pipeline" is not a conflict of interest.

If a union believes a union officer is acting contrary to his duties, in his position, it is up to the union to remove that person from his or her union position. A union officer, however, CANNOT serve as management while serving the collective as a union officer.

I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest.

So timing is the crux of the matter here. You see no conflict until the person holds the office; their responsibilities and authorities are adequately separated. I see a conflict when people start the application process or sometime shortly thereafter; their responsibilities are conflicted defacto due to their interest in pleasing their prospective superior. We've repreated ourselves sufficiently to outline our perspectives. I don't think we're going to convince each other, but at least we can articulate each other's point of view.

I bold-faced a sentence of yours because I think it drives at a key difference in assumptions we're making about the human factors here. Because you don't see a conflict until after people hold office, a conflict can only arise if there is some degree of malfeasance. So saying there's a conflict of interest is the same as saying someone has a character flaw. From my perspective it seems like we're asking our people to be super-human every time one of them makes the switch from union leadership to management. A "normal" person's decisions are affected by their future career progression, investments, etc. even before something untoward occurs if at all. I'm not tying this into a failure of someone's character.

Again, I'm not sure we're going to resolve our differences, but at least we can articulate them.

Fine.

A college professor of mine would simply describe this entire exercise as "mental masturbation".

Are you satisfied yet? Because the rest of us are all done here.

It's not mental masturbation. We built an understanding of each other's perspectives. That's the foundation of a working relationship. A lot of people aren't happy with the flow of union leadership to company management, and you're still trying to downplay valid concerns. If you're done here, stop.

Actually, I'll stop too.

Hey all, hope everyone had a happy new year. I'm a current 121 purple feeder FO looking at Atlas and I had a couple questions.

1. Curious how the gateway travel works? My wife and I have an apartment in Medellin Colombia. From my understanding they can you fly you up to $1200 to your base
if you live outside the US. Is that how it works?

2. Are the days off chunked together like 16 on and 13 off? This would work well for QOL because I commute from SA.

3. How is the flying like? what would be a tyipcal layover like for hotel, food, and transportation that sort of stuff.

I would appreciate it if anyone can help me out and lets keep it positive in 2024. Have a good year.

1. They will pay for up to $1250 one way from your gateway airport to your base, only if your address on file is outside the US. If it's above 1250, you'll pay for it yourself and then get it reimbursed.

2. Depends on fleet, there's more and more split lines coming out where it can be in 2 chunks of time, but the majority of lines on the 747/777 are still 17/14.

3. 1 leg a day, 20+ hour layover, usually pretty decent hotels especially international. Picked up by drivers to and from the hotel, and food options are usually good. Catered on board with okay-ish food.

1. Just to add to the $1250 one way limit on international as I now use it commuting from Frankfurt to Portland. I found a round trip FRA - PDX - FRA that was around $1100 total. A one way FRA was about $1600. I asked for the round trip and the company purchased it straight away. I also found a one way in December just over $1000, three weeks before traveling home, asked for it and it was immediately purchased.

Lesson here is, look out for your best interest, let the company know how much they are saving off the cap, and travel easy.

2. I am making a big assumption here but if you are a lower time turbo-prop driver, you may get offered the 767 or 737. (Commuting to 747 or 777 MIA is your best Gateway). If offered the 767 or 737, don't panic as the seat lock is a short 2 years. But please know that these fleets have a lot of split lines, meaning 2 commutes per month. There are some single blocks, but right now they are definitely the minority.

3. Domestic Amazon on the 767 and 737 is one or maybe two legs per day. Lots of day time or evening trips. 1.5 to 6 block hours, 12 to 54 hour layovers (you read that right, I have three 54s in a 13 day period this month). Hilton or Marriott properties, mostly. Lots of downtown locations. Hilton let's you keep the HHonors points. Very easy life.

Is there a chance the MEM base will ever return? I'm a CFI in Memphis and was banking on hopefully flying for Atlas within the next five years on the 747.

MEM existed for a contract with FedEx that no longer exists. Anything is possible, but I wouldn't count on it.

With Gateway travel, paid tickets to and from base and hotels paid for pre and post duty, living in base only carries a few benefits. Sure, it is easier to pickup OpenTime, you can sit R2 Hotel reserve from home, and you don't lose time off commuting. Aside from that, Memphis would be a short commute to any base on Atlas's dime (Aside from.ANC, LAX/ONT, and PDX).

Apply, it is a terrific job. If you get the 737 or 767 it is only a 2 year seat lock. Stop being CFI as soon as possible and get into a ME Turbine anything.

So in my example I would use Medellin as my gateway travel address and I have a US mailing address that I would use for mail and tax purposes is that how it works. Thanks for the reply.

I have about 1000 121 SIC time in a turboprop and flew a C208 single pilot prior to that for a while. When you say two commutes per month, what days on and days off would it look like on the 767 and 737? Thanks for the reply.

Please review these strings, this has been answered several times, even recently.

I've been through this thread looking for an answer, but would like some clarification. I'm not at Atlas, I'm a CA at my regional. But recently have flown with a couple FOs who were interested in Atlas, but we're unsure about training pay. Being a former CFI I told them I wasn't sure, but I was curious as well and that I would ask around and let them know.

I've seen in a few threads where training pay was $1600/mo. But I also see talk of an LOA from 2022 that training pay was negotiated out and day 1 of training starts min guarantee.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

From this website on the airline profiles.

New hire pay begins on first day of training at 64 hours of guarantee per a month plus per diem (Conus) $2.85/hour x 24 hours a day

First Year Pay All Fleets: $97.60 / HR (Increases to $100.53 on September 1st, 2024)

64 Hour MMG from Day 1 (MMG is pro rated your first month).

CONUS Per Diem, paid out every day while in training: $3.05 / HR.or $73.20 per day.

A full 30 days in MIA will Gross $8442.40

(EDIT: Plus $749.56 DC into your 401k)

Long Stay (Resident) Hotel paid for (no roommates). All lunches and 2 dinners during Indoc are covered. Breakfast is included, but after indoc meals are covered under per diem.

Awesome. I'll relay the message. Thanks a bunch!

For the 747 they say to expect 90 days in Miami...I know it will vary by class, but are there generally a few days off where you can sneak out of town? Obviously being back with a buffer before you're needed. Or are things constantly changing and you could have a sim thrown on the next day kind of thing? Thanks!

It is a 90 day footprint in Miami. Its pretty much an everyday training schedule until the oral which is about a month in, but there are basic weekends off thrown in. Once you start sims the schedule is more open. Often you'll have multiple days off between sims which can afford some time away.
The sim schedule can change but it is usually time of day, not randomly dropping or adding days. If you plan to go away from MIA in your down time you just need to email scheduling so they can give you a heads up as early as possible if a change occurs. It's easy to manage.

Thanks! At my current spot we weren't "allowed" to leave at all so you had to stay close.

It's "big boy" rules here. Be an adult. Show up prepared. Otherwise you are on your own. I know some in my class that had prior experience in the 121 world complained about the training environment, but for me coming from the DoD world I thought the training was the most relaxed that I've seen.

We make some assumptions about your baseline knowledge. Some things which are covered at other carriers aren't covered here, and that occasionally leads to some gaps in knowledge in the field. That said, there's nothing uniquely challenging about the training environment here. We don't have an abnormally high wash rate or anything to raise your blood pressure. If you do the routine preparations you'll make it through.

NGPA 2024
 

Will Atlas be doing interviews at NGPA 2024 in Palm Springs California? I see it listed as a “Atlas Air Corporate Presentation” on the recruitment website.

don’t want to travel to Palm Springs to just sit through a PowerPoint

TIA

Not according to what HR / TA posted on the FB recruiting page. Best you should hope for is the pre-screen done on site vice via phone call and getting your resume in a humans hand.

Pathway Hiring
 

Anyone hear about the status of the Pathway Program lately? I applied in early October and did the phone screen + HR presentation shortly after and was told I was recommended for interview, but haven't gotten the invite for a technical interview yet. I contacted my recruiter and he basically told me to sit tight and keep waiting without any more detail. I've been hearing of non-pathways applicants lately getting interviewed and hired pretty quickly on wide-bodies, so I'm wondering if the 737 process is normally slower or if maybe they're still debating even interviewing me. Anyone in the same boat/know anything? Thanks!

If I wanto be home more often is 767 the best fleet for that?
I live near the CVG area and considering Atlas.

Yes. You could easily spend 20+ days a month home. Maybe every day some months. Lots of same day or two day out-and-backs.

And how many credits can you do by doing this. Will I ever able to break min guarrantee?