ABX Air to Acquire CHI

[kaveman9]

"Nobody's trying to take their jobs. What we'd like to do it get them onto our seniority list. I would think that the CCI and ATI guys would want that as well."


Uhmmm,........you might think that. I'm not so sure. Just where on that seniority list do you propose putting us?

We've got a pretty stable crew force over at ATI. I would guess the median would be 10-12yrs service with 18-20 at the upper end. Most of us are perfectly happy with life over here(but of course, like anyone, we have our gripes). For the time being, I'm quite content to stick with the devil I know, flying our freight in our A/C. If I wanted someone else's job, I'd have asked for it years ago.

If I was asked directly, I think I'd prefer not to be merged into a seniority list even if based on doh, let alone tagged onto the bottom of one. Your pay means less to me than my QOL. OTOH, I'm open to suggestions. But then again, I don't think anyone's ever going to ask me anything, so it's a moot point.

We have all sorts of time to work these things out. I think what's important here is that we quickly learn to work together for the common good and resist the temptation to side up against one another. Management is sure to agitate if history is any guide. I'll state this right here, right now. Nobody is going to use me against another crewmember, no matter who he works for or what equipment he flies. No way-no how. If that's what they've got in mind, they had better think again.

There's a constant rumble over at ATI about switching locals. Always has been. I would say a majority over here are hugely disappointed with 747 and the one alternative that is consistently brought up is a switch over to your local. I think that might have some legs.

To be honest, I don't know much more about ABX than what I've picked up here on this forum in the last day and a half, but from what I've been reading I think we have a lot in common. At any rate, it's obvious that someone somewhere is cloning management teams. Peas in a pod, these guys are. While reading about your troubles, I keep getting that 'deja vu all over again' feeling. Looks like we're in it together for now.

 

[Box-Hauler]

kaveman,

Excellent point, most of us like our current stations in life, me included. That said you should take a look at our current contract and pay scales. One unionized voice is a lot better than 3 separate ones.

I will second, third, and fourth your opinion, "Nobody is going to use me against another crew member" I agree and will stand with you 100% on this issue.

Look forward to meeting your pilot group and ensuring a long stable career for all of us.

 

[MrSky]

Nobody's trying to take their jobs. What we'd like to do it get them onto our seniority list. I would think that the CCI and ATI guys would want that as well.

We are not interested in your work. As far as being on a 600+ Seniority list, I'm not so sure I'm interested in that either. I've worked here nearly 10 years, depending on Reduction in Force I'm either a Very High seniority F/O or a Fairly Low seniority CA. I'm sure as Hell not interested in being stapled to the bottom of a seniority list I would never climb anywhere near the middle of for a few extra bucks and loose all the QOL (what there is of it) to some new-hire at ABX.

Believe me there is NO OFFENSE MEANT by my statement. I'm sure you have a great bunch of guy's in your pilot group, in fact at one time I was going to interview there, but you announced hiring a freeze the day before my interview. But to give up the QOL I have now for a few extra shillings, not too sure about that one. I'd much rather have an increase in my pay (something closer to yours) and stay on my own puny list than be put on the bottom of yours, like American did to TWA. And reading some of your guys posts in the past I think you probably have small radical element in your pilot group that would be pushing to do just that! Thanks,,,, but No Thanks!

 

[LarryinTN]

Just where on that seniority list do you propose putting us?

Date of hire with fences on existing equipment so that you won't have pilots from either side bumping guys down on their current equipment.

We will all be a much stronger if we are a single group instead of three separate groups.

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

Tricky business merging seniority lists, lots of pitfalls with the devil being in the details. Uniting under one union though shouldn't be too difficult with the goal of a common CBA to remove the low cost carrier element from the equation.

 

[penguin22]

Date of hire with fences on existing equipment so that you won't have pilots from either side bumping guys down on their current equipment.

We will all be a much stronger if we are a single group instead of three separate groups.

That sounds reasonable.

Nobody should get stapled. That's a recipe for constant infighting and nobody needs that.

 

[erichartmann]

"Nobody's trying to take their jobs. What we'd like to do it get them onto our seniority list. I would think that the CCI and ATI guys would want that as well."


Uhmmm,........you might think that. I'm not so sure. Just where on that seniority list do you propose putting us?

We've got a pretty stable crew force over at ATI. I would guess the median would be 10-12yrs service with 18-20 at the upper end. Most of us are perfectly happy with life over here(but of course, like anyone, we have our gripes). For the time being, I'm quite content to stick with the devil I know, flying our freight in our A/C. If I wanted someone else's job, I'd have asked for it years ago.

If I was asked directly, I think I'd prefer not to be merged into a seniority list even if based on doh, let alone tagged onto the bottom of one. Your pay means less to me than my QOL. OTOH, I'm open to suggestions. But then again, I don't think anyone's ever going to ask me anything, so it's a moot point.

We have all sorts of time to work these things out. I think what's important here is that we quickly learn to work together for the common good and resist the temptation to side up against one another. Management is sure to agitate if history is any guide. I'll state this right here, right now. Nobody is going to use me against another crewmember, no matter who he works for or what equipment he flies. No way-no how. If that's what they've got in mind, they had better think again.

There's a constant rumble over at ATI about switching locals. Always has been. I would say a majority over here are hugely disappointed with 747 and the one alternative that is consistently brought up is a switch over to your local. I think that might have some legs.

To be honest, I don't know much more about ABX than what I've picked up here on this forum in the last day and a half, but from what I've been reading I think we have a lot in common. At any rate, it's obvious that someone somewhere is cloning management teams. Peas in a pod, these guys are. While reading about your troubles, I keep getting that 'deja vu all over again' feeling. Looks like we're in it together for now.

How about DOH, everybody stays in the seat their in? Any future upgrades posted for bid and awarded by seniority. Same with furloughs. Maybe some sort of fence agreement that would prevent cross bidding unless the seat would otherwise go to the street. Then we see about negotiating one master contract with Joe & Co. We are currently in negotiations, as I believe are the folks at ATI. Don't know about CCI. The goal would be to speak with one voice to management, just as they will to us. Keep them from whipsawing us.

 

[erichartmann]

..... And so I don't have to continue this childish convo with you, apparently the courts feel we have a valid claim otherwise it would have been thrown out, yet it wasn't.

Enough said, enjoy your day.

Unless something new has occured I'm unaware of that not how I read what the courts have so far done. To date, in so far as I know, they have ruled against you and you have appealed. That is not quite the same as having a valid claim.

 

[erichartmann]

Shoes on the other foot now baby, lets see how you walk with it. Hell, your already quoting your scope. :laugh:

The above sure looks like a nice warm welcome to your brohters and sisters at ATI and CHI. As long as they remember it everything should be OK!

While the E-board has been diligent in trying to keep our scope language up to date I doubt the average line pilot had recently read it. What's going on here is us trying to figure out how Joe might use this against us. None of us want ATI or CCI jobs. Our approach will more than likely be to try and get them to join with us under one union roof, one master seniority list, and negotiate one master CBA.

 

[Flyer8]

DC8's

I can't speak for all the guys at ATI,but it would seem that most are very pleased to be part of the group. I am sure that many would welcome a change to your Local. Does anyone know what they would like to do with our DC'8's? New markets? contracts,etc...Thanks for the info

 

[shooter]

If you want to get on one seniority list or not is not really the long sight all 3 groups should be thinking about. If ABX holdings decides its easier to run all 3 groups under 1 ops specs, you will be forced to merge lists. You don't want to go through what USA/AmWest are going through, so a friendly sit down by leaders of all 3 groups is in the best interest of all involved to hammer out the right thing now or what some Washington suit picks for you later. It may not be an issue if they decide to run 3 separate airlines, but be prepared.

Just my nickel from the peanut gallery.

 

[shooter]

I can't speak for all the guys at ATI,but it would seem that most are very pleased to be part of the group. I am sure that many would welcome a change to your Local. Does anyone know what they would like to do with our DC'8's? New markets? contracts,etc...Thanks for the info

Not sure Flyer because we have no idea how your company was selling your product. But I can tell you that ABX has had offers for more work than we have aircraft for.

 

[niteflyr1]

Not sure Flyer because we have no idea how your company was selling your product. But I can tell you that ABX has had offers for more work than we have aircraft for.

Not entirely correct. We've had more offers for work than we have pilots for.

 

[LarryinTN]

Does anyone know what they would like to do with our DC'8's?

What kind of shape are the ATI DC8s in? How is their dispatch reliability?

What's a -71 or -73 burn an hour when heavy?

The 767s have just about replaced our DC8 fleet which once numbered 35 (-61, -62, & -63). We only have two (maybe three) -63s remaining in operation. I believe that we'll be down to one by the end of the year and it's due for a major phase check in early Spring so it might not survive past year end, either.

 

[Flyer8]

Our DC8's are in fair shape with a little decline in Mx during the past few months due to a lot of mx. folks leaving.Bax reliability is 97.53%,AMC freighter is 95% and Combi is at 90%..Latest year to date figures..Burn when heavy is 13,500 to 14000 per hour (just a quick guess)...All in all, not a bad fleet with some very good reliability..

 

[b707guy]

What I'll add to that is that a -73 can be loaded with 40K of you-name-it and still make a destination 11 hours away with reserve. Add weight to subtract time and vice versa, but you get the point. A -71 can go maybe 8 hours with such a load. Despite the fact that our mx group has lost a number of great people, the planes are still doing well. Nothing like the darkest of dark days of the YIP group when every plane was "yellow-sticker city". The only reason the combi reliability rate is lower is that they operate in such a way that replacing one with a spare (we have two scheduled combi runs, and 4 aircraft) isn't practical because of the places they fly. If I were king for a day, I'm sure I'd find out just how little I know about it all, but, I think we could do better. Either way, the reliability rates are fantastic for such a jet.

One other thing we may be losing sight of with talk of merging lists and all, is that there are still two major customer bases here, one being the work ABX is doing, the other being BAX as served by us and Cappy. Unless there are other super secret plans on the part of perhaps Deutche Post (DHL) and Deutche Bahn (BAX), the operations seem to be in competition with each other. We just provide our services to BAX, as I guess Astar does for DHL. Has ABX made any indication of wanting to support BAX's operations? The press release and conference call seemed to indicate that ABX Holdings is interested in our combi and other military work, with no mention of the rest. There was also great interest in the age of our fleet, but no feel for how the provided answer (38-40 yrs) was taken. The point is that there are a lot of outside considerations that would be affected by the three of us merging lists that would complicate the operations while keeping things on the level for us. I feel there's a lot more coming that will change things entirely.

BTW, I'm one who has been pushing for a change to IBT 1224 for a long time.

 

[xspud]

Does anyone know what they would like to do with our DC'8's? New markets? contracts,etc...Thanks for the info

I think ABX is planning to keep doing the same thing for the most part, they are looking to expand their reach into the charter/ACMI market by tapping into the contacts and expertise you already have. But I know we've seen a lot of possible trips come and go because they didn't fit our operation--I'm sure mgt is hoping & assuming they'll be a fit for someone else in the group.

Given that business model, I do think it's essential that the pilot groups work together, one representative body and possibly one master seniority list. Like Mr. Sky, I also don't want to lose QOL, but we need to take whatever steps it takes to prevent new aircraft/flying from being granted to the "lowest bidder" of the group.

I think it was Mr. Sky that referred to a "small radical element" in the ABX pilot group. I know we have them, just as every group does, but it would be a tiny minority here that thinks we should staple anyone to the bottom of the list. I know the majority here understands that we'll have to work together or we'll be worked against each other whether intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[AV8OR]

It appears that sec. A1.F.1 Merger Protections of the contract spells out that ABX Holdings is bound by the contract if they are defined as a successor, assign, assignee, transferee, administrator, executor, and/or trustee. So if that is the case the companies can be operated separately but the flying must be done by those on the abx seniority list. And any future flying must also be done by those on the seniority list. So it looks like separate companies, one contract, one seniority list?

And since the Holding company did not come into effect now, I would say the dhl acmi is with abx air, inc.

And I am not wanting to put anyone out of a job. I just dont want to be cannabilized again and see our ops shrink and others grow at the expense of us.

You have got to be friggin kidding me. Pot...kettle. Kettle.....pot.

 

[AV8OR]

And before DHL bought Airborne, our freight was Airborne Express. (not DHL freight)

Yes, but then DHL did actually BUY your freight. They bought your freight. Airborne sold it's freight. Airborne freight ceased to exist. Airborne freight became DHL freight.

Bottom line coming here is, Astar pilots are bas***ds for filing a scope grievance against DHL protecting their claim on DHL freight, but if 1224 does it claiming ABX holding's freight, it'll be fully justifiable by 1224 standards. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it.

And by the way, I know, I know, 1224 pilots aren't trying to take CHI jobs from CAC or ATI, but, what if, say Holdings decides to transfer some CHI flying to ABX Air and CAC or ATI files a scope grievance claiming that flying is rightly theirs? I'll bet the hugs and kisses go the way of the dodo.

Alright, done with my rant. Looks like yall are gonna finally have something to do for a while other than tell AStar pilots how sorry we are for filing a grievance. Best of luck to all.

 

[SkyMiles]

AV8OR,
Kidding you, no not kidding you. And what would I be kidding you about? Can you tell me what would be wrong about getting the 3 airlines under one roof and one contract? Love the little "kettle,pot" analogy though. Very creative, wrong in this case,but creative.

I did say this: "Once again, in my understanding, by adhering to our scope no one will loose a job and all boats will be lifted by the tide. Unlike astars grievance. And yes it is a warm welcome. Played correctly, by both management and the unions, all 3 airlines could be in great shape in the years to come."

 

[hvydriver]

AV8OR,
Kidding you, no not kidding you. And what would I be kidding you about? Can you tell me what would be wrong about getting the 3 airlines under one roof and one contract? Love the little "kettle,pot" analogy though. Very creative, wrong in this case,but creative.

SM,

I'd listen to the conference call regarding the CHI purchase. Anytime a CEO talks about "Cost Synergies", it's not good for employees. According to Fox/Hete, there is no intention of merging the companies. All 3 operate separately. If that is their intention, your chances of getting a "one roof one contract" are exactly zero. I think it sucks, but that's the way it is. Welcome to DHL world.

 

[SkyMiles]

I know hvy, I heard that over and over as well during the call. Time will tell. We just have to hope that the money spent on our scope attorney was worth it and somehow he managed to weave a little strength into the contract language pertaining to these matters.

 

[ABXbooger]

mgmt can say all they want about how they are going to run things, they say things all the time. Anyone else think this is going to play big on the contract front?

 

[rotor&wing]

We just have to hope that the money spent on our scope attorney was worth it and somehow he managed to weave a little strength into the contract language pertaining to these matters.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha..................

OK, that was good for a laugh.......Keep 'em coming!

 

[TWA]

Well, unfortunately, the scope clause may not cover this type of acquisition. In a way, ABX was also just sold/bought because it is now owned by a holding company, which also bought two more airlines. As long as the three operational companies stay separate, there is no scope grievance. Now if any of the airlines are merged within, or work/contracts get moved around, then the games begin.

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

Yes, but then DHL did actually BUY your freight. They bought your freight. Airborne sold it's freight. Airborne freight ceased to exist. Airborne freight became DHL freight.

And in a simultaneous wink of the eye, hey presto - DHL Airways by a cunning act of corporate sorcery gets flung into the ACMI void to subsequently rise from the ashes as Astar. In one swift move the scope claim to carry said freight becomes a mute point.

Bottom line coming here is, Astar pilots are bas***ds for filing a scope grievance against DHL protecting their claim on DHL freight, but if 1224 does it claiming ABX holding's freight, it'll be fully justifiable by 1224 standards. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it.

Being a bit hard on yourselves there. You're not *Astar*s, just a little backward about making friends and influencing people. You'd have thought we had mutual interests tied up in this, it's honestly regrettable that the failing union you're affiliated with couldn't rise to the occasion. I,and I sincerely believe the majority of the ABX group, will be disappointed if 1224 follows a similar path. Such opportunities aren't to be spoiled by infighting. There's plenty of freight for everyone and division between the players simply results in a net gain for management at the expense of the employees.

 

[SkyMiles]

TWA,
The scope section specifically addresses a holding company transaction via definitions of affiliate. I am no lawyer but it is my understanding that provisions were drawn up for exactly this type of scenario.

 

[hvydriver]

TWA,
The scope section specifically addresses a holding company transaction via definitions of affiliate. I am no lawyer but it is my understanding that provisions were drawn up for exactly this type of scenario.

SM,

Last one on this, as the Colts/Pats game is about to start. Our scope language was even tighter than yours is. And our case was more straightforward. See where we are? Welcome to DHL world.

 

[TWA]

TWA,
The scope section specifically addresses a holding company transaction via definitions of affiliate. I am no lawyer but it is my understanding that provisions were drawn up for exactly this type of scenario.

In that case, please disregard everything I just said. Thanks!

 

[penguin22]

Bottom line coming here is, Astar pilots are bas***ds for filing a scope grievance against DHL protecting their claim on DHL freight, but if 1224 does it claiming ABX holding's freight, it'll be fully justifiable by 1224 standards. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it.

AV8OR has done a great job lately of showing us all the narrow-minded arrogance of ALPA 017.

They see the only solution to a scope grievance is to file injunctions to shut down the other airline and take their jobs. The only people on here claiming thats what we'll do is Astar pilots. Not one ABX pilot has.