1)Ran into a 767 Captain on a flight to CVG this week. They upgraded in September and still haven't completed OE. It's not contract disputes or lack of flying, it's just Atlas ineptness.

2)I'm an eight year Captain on the -400. Before upgrading last year I was bidding single digits and had control over what days I worked and where the first couple days of my trips went. (I look at it as there is a 50/50 chance the legs will remain as published after the first leg as so by the fifth leg who knows where I'll be.) Now I'm just a few numbers up from the bottom of the Captain list in base and I will be lucky if my first full year of Captain pay beats what I was making as a 727 Captain TWENTY years ago.

I recently retired from the USAF Reserve so I no longer have that supplemental income to augment my Atlas pay. Now, as a five year 747 FO, I'm back to the pay I made as a Captain on Active Duty TEN YEARS AGO (not even looking at taxes and inflation). I can bid #3 or 4 in base and am exactly 50% seniority on the pilot list. You can bet I'm very mobile and looking to start over somewhere else.

“We hired about 370 pilots last year across all of our aircraft types. We think we have an attractive contract in place and certainly believe we’’ll be able to hire the additional pilots we need in 2017 and 2018, as we grow for Amazon and other customers.”

This is the definition of denial.

How is it denial? The seniority list seems to keep growing every year and people like you keep telling potential pilots "come on in, the water's fine", even though places like Kalitta and Allegiant have far more attractive contracts. The company seems to think the contract is good enough to attract, at least, the dregs of the pilot world and enough of them to continue growing.. So, so far, have they been proven wrong?

Our wages and our overall compensation package are significantly lower compared to our peers in the industry and yet the company publicly claims that our contract is "competitive"....hence denial.

Furthermore, I have never, NEVER recommended Atlas to anyone. So please don't categorize me in with the "people like me, saying, come on in, the water is fine".

Moreover, even if you have a copy of K4 and G4 contracts in front of you, unless you work there and get to know how scheduling and the respective company treats crew members with regards to work rules, how can you say they "have far more attractive contracts"? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know how you quantify your statement.

As for the last part of your question, whether the company believes they can staff for 2017 and 2018 or whether they believe that they have a competitive contract or not is irrelevant to the statistical fact that they have serious attrition and retirement issues that may potentially outpace seniority list growth. Anybody have some numbers they can put up?

Note the Teamsters excerpts:

....staffing problems are widespread at AAWW. Attrition data compiled by the pilots’ union shows that pilot turnover more than tripled over the last three years. In a recent survey of Atlas Air pilots, 65 percent of surveyed pilots said they are planning to apply to another airline in the coming year. Eighty-eight percent of respondents said their carrier does not have enough pilots to meet the long-term needs of Amazon and other major customer DHL.

I did some rough math for Jan 2016 to Jan 2017 and I saw approximately 330 hired against a net gain of approximately 180.

Also, only looking at those hired for Jan 2016 to Jan 2017, the attrition is about 10%.

Overall attrition during that period averaged about 12 per month. I know of at least one 20 year CA who has his apps out and is committed to leaving.

I compared the Dec. 2016 list to the Feb. 2017 and I show net loss of 7. It will probably get worse this year.

Dave,
1-31-2016 seniority list shows 1273. 1-31-2017 shows 1451. That's a net GAIN of 178.

They hired 330 in your example time frame to add 180. Dave said from Dec '16 to now. In that period we have had negative attrition, even with classes ongoing. So if we need 300+ for Amazon they better hire 600+ at a minimum. Not going to happen. They gambled that it wouldn't get worse and lost that bet.