Atlas Interview Dec 1,2 and forward

Subscribe
2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  22 
Page 12 of 26
Go to
Quote: It's 22 pages but the long and short of it is this... The issue as to whether we will merge (amalgamate... whatever) the Southern Bankruptcy Contract and Atlas/Polar Merger Contract goes to a Management Grievance where it will likely end up in Step 3 Arbitration. That process will probably take the rest of 2018 to resolve. Maybe longer.

All that is confusing so I'll just break down what it means... It means that the Atlas/Southern Pilot NC and Company are so far apart on what they think the new work rules should be that it will all likely go to arbitration. Getting to that point will take several years.

Once we get to Arbitration we can expect that the company's argument will be what it was last time in Arbitration. The company will likely argue that the court is bound by the limits of the Southern Bankruptcy Contract and the Atlas/Polar Merged contracts and win. SO... The best you will see is current Atlas Book on Work Rules and retirement. There's even the possibility that the rates could be current book or even less if they end up in Arbitration. Atlas's current work rules/retirement are some of the worst in aviation and will be merged with Southern's Bankruptcy rules that are even worse.

You will not get to vote on the TA when it comes to determine if it compensates you what you're worth. It will be dictated to you by an Arbitrator. There will be no possibility of Self Help either. Those are at least 10 years away now. If you've got 20 years left that's 50% of your career. If you accept a job at Omni, Kalitta, Alegient, Spirit, or ATI they've got new contracts and are closer to voting on a new TA than Atlas.

This is not bias. It is fact. If you choose to come here expect a new contract 3 years from now and very few gains (if any). We were all sent a letter by management less than 2 years ago bragging that they gave Atlas a 10% pay raise in the last contract. Ask yourself... Is a 10% raise 2 or 3 years from now in exchange for a 5 year contract enough to support your family and pay off the debts you've incurred getting your ratings and fighting up the ranks of lesser airlines? That's your decision.

This is absolutely NOT what this latest ruling was about! The latest decision was to determine if this court was going to rule whether or not we will be allowed to negotiate our contracts separately or if we must arbitrate our contracts. The court decided that this motion was a "minor dispute" as defined by the RLA and as such minor disputes are subject to arbitration. Consequently, that decision (whether we will arbitrate our next contract or separately negotiate) will be decided by an arbitrator.

The court made zero reference to how "far apart" the company and the union are in work rules. In fact, the court even said that it is undisputed that the Atlas and Polar pilots are subject to their respective CBA's. The judge even went on to say that the terms of the JCBA are not at issue and neither Southern nor Atlas are seeking to change the provisions of the CBA!

The APC forum is so infested with union plants that will say anything to further an irresponsible and ineffective narrative to drive an attrition based tactic to force the company into negotiating a contract. Even THE JUDGE said that in this latest filing that the UNION position to argue against this latest motion that the company filed was ineffective!

If you are going to quote lawsuits, at least keep it FACTUAL!
Reply
Quote: This is absolutely NOT what this latest ruling was about! The latest decision was to determine if this court was going to rule whether or not we will be allowed to negotiate our contracts separately or if we must arbitrate our contracts. The court decided that this motion was a "minor dispute" as defined by the RLA and as such minor disputes are subject to arbitration. Consequently, that decision (whether we will arbitrate our next contract or separately negotiate) will be decided by an arbitrator.

The court made zero reference to how "far apart" the company and the union are in work rules. In fact, the court even said that it is undisputed that the Atlas and Polar pilots are subject to their respective CBA's. The judge even went on to say that the terms of the JCBA are not at issue and neither Southern nor Atlas are seeking to change the provisions of the CBA!

The APC forum is so infested with union plants that will say anything to further an irresponsible and ineffective narrative to drive an attrition based tactic to force the company into negotiating a contract. Even THE JUDGE said that in this latest filing that the UNION position to argue against this latest motion that the company filed was ineffective!

If you are going to quote lawsuits, at least keep it FACTUAL!
Actually, what the APC forums are infested with are opinions.

Globemaster's opinion is the same opinion that the vast majority of pro-union supporters believe. Your opinion is what the few anti-union people believe.

Readers can clearly see from your stubborn, unceasing posts which side of that fence you sit on.
Reply
Quote: Actually, what the APC forums are infested with are opinions.

Globemaster's opinion is the same opinion that the vast majority of pro-union supporters believe. Your opinion is what the few anti-union people believe.

Readers can clearly see from your stubborn, unceasing posts which side of that fence you sit on.

I don't sit on any side of a fence. I am just pointing out that if one is going to be inclined to quote a judges ruling then it is not going to do anyone any good to unintentionally or intentionally misguide readers. That is not my opinion but rather duty to the truth. And it is obvious once again 8 that you are unceasingly going to continue to throw mud at me instead of yield to the truth! I don't care which way anyone decides to opine but I do care about the truth.

And once again, I AGREE with you.....APC is infested with opinions.....but if those opinions are riddled with misguided figures, as in this case from a judges ruling, then I will be inclined to point them out.
Reply
Quote: .... the attempts to re-open and alter the current CBA through appealing to the old arbitrator....

Atlas is not trying to open and alter anything. The judge in the latest ruling even stated that terms in our CBA are not in dispute. This thinking is why pilots without legal backgrounds make horrible negotiators. It is this type of thinking that has seeped into our collective consciousness as a voting body. The union has been very successful in getting our pilot group to believe this sort of misinformation to garner support. It is not to say that the company didn't sue us or didn't sue the wife of a deceased pilot on a layover (btw, in that case, the company sued because it is a business and it has insurance.....it is not personal....it is about loss mitigation), but rather it is about the legal path to a contract. The notion about toxic this and that is great for politics but it means NOTHING legally about securing a contract. If you can wrap your mind around that concept, then you are ready to decide if Atlas is the choice for you! This is the contract we have and if you can live with how our union and company decide how to legally navigate an avenue to amend our contract or how to get gains in this era then you will be fully informed.

I think someone even said in an earlier post that it is about which side has the best lawyers! I agree.
Reply
Deleted. I give up.
Reply
Quote: I don't sit on any side of a fence.
Interesting comment from someone who finds constant fault in union tactics, but only excuses the company.

"Boys will be boys..."
Reply
Quote: Interesting comment from someone who finds constant fault in union tactics, but only excuses the company.

"Boys will be boys..."

Of course it is easy for you to take my words out of context to come up with such a comment. I don't "excuse" the company, nor do I blindly follow the union line. I read, educate myself and formulate an opinion based on facts. What I have discovered is that NOTHING that I can do or say will affect the outcome. Since this is a forum for prospective pilots there is ONLY pilot opinion here. If there were a pro-company forum, that was as slanted as this pro-pilot forum, you can surely bet that I'd be on that forum too calling out the B.S.
Reply
Quote: ... It is not to say that the company didn't sue us or didn't sue the wife of a deceased pilot on a layover (btw, in that case, the company sued because it is a business and it has insurance.....it is not personal....it is about loss mitigation), ...
Companies that have good relationships with their employees do not deny widows the legal benefits due to them for their deceased spouses work related death. Especially companies that have a net worth north of 4 billion dollars.

That is the sort of thing that creates a toxic work environment.

Unless, of course, your goal is to defend the company at all costs.

Loss mitigation ... really ??

WTF?
Reply
Quote: Companies that have good relationships with their employees do not deny widows the legal benefits due to them for their deceased spouses work related death. Especially companies that have a net worth north of 4 billion dollars.

That is the sort of thing that creates a toxic work environment.

Unless, of course, your goal is to defend the company at all costs.

Loss mitigation ... really ??

WTF?
Why are you so persistent and hysterical in arguing about my opinion? Why does that matter to you SO much that are constantly trying to force me to your point of view? All I have done here on this forum is put up rebuttals to quotes posters have made about court cases or other facts and opine about why the company does what it does. I am not defending them or anybody.

Furthermore, you can't possibly discuss the case of the deceased widow because you don't nor do I have all the facts. So it is all speculation as to what happened. You sound desperate when you use that case or other emotionally based arguments to get others to see your point of view because NONE of them have any bearing on our negotiations.
Reply
Quote: Furthermore, you can't possibly discuss the case of the deceased widow because you don't nor do I have all the facts. So it is all speculation as to what happened. You sound desperate when you use that case or other emotionally based arguments to get others to see your point of view because NONE of them have any bearing on our negotiations.
Both of you need to just stop.

Both of you are intentionally muddying the waters with your personal bitterness. It reminds me of Bourne and Henderson.

But let me help you with THE FACTS. The whole story is right here:
The Death of Frank O?Donnell | AtlasFacts.org

You can clearly see the company was trying to recoup 401k contributions after paying a worker's comp claim.

Plain as day.
Signed. Sealed. And delivered.

Let's MOVE TF ON.
Reply
2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  22 
Page 12 of 26
Go to