Polar Air Cargo, 30 days out from possible strike.

[Xfr8dog]

Wait, I thought Kalitta Air pilots were the lowest paid 747 operators?

 

[B747-300]

You are not the lowest paid 747 operators! That must be something your MEC invented to get you guys to strike. Who are you comparing yourself to, Northwest??

You have the lowest number of duty days available to the company of any airline in your category (like Atlas, Kalitta, Tradewinds, Southern, Evergreen or Focus). When you consider the number of days worked to earn "guarantee", then your pay seems well above most other carriers in your category. When you do a comparison, look at number of days worked versus monthly earnings and not just the hourly rate.

It is unrealistic to believe that you can get top pay and top terms and conditions at this point in time. The carriers you compare yourself to got their hourly rates where they are by reducing their demands in other areas of their contracts. If you wanted Atlas pay, you should have accepted the full Atlas CBA!!

 

[Jolly]

747-300 Using your "logic" you must expect the Atlas pilot group opener 3 months from now to be an extension of the current contract. Following your logic further you are willing to take a 20% pay cut to get the Polar contract.

Funny thing though is that you just said you would go on strike if you were offered a pay cut.

Let's compare Polar and Atlas "costs" in addition to hourly pay rates. Both have the same medical, the same dental, the same pass privilidges. The company pays 60% LESS to the Polar pilots for retirement and lower domestic per diem.

So where are the Polar pilots higher costs? Well the "Guarantee" is 3 hours a month higher at Polar and the company has one less day a month in which to schedule at LEAST the guarantee number of hours. Since the company routinely builds lines well over guarantee (specially on the 400) there is no COST to the company in having that higher guarantee (Ditto for the number of days scheduled to work).

Granted it is no great accomplishment with airplanes that can and routinely do fly 10-14 hour legs to schedule crews over 65 hours in 16 days.

One thing that can raise the company costs at Polar is running the operation short staffed and having to pay overtime to have crew members come out and fly on their days OFF.

The bottom line is when the company schedules properly they are receiving the services of a Polar pilot for 32% less than when they receive that same service from an Atlas pilot.

Why do you think Polar pilots should be payed LESS than you to do the same job?

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Why do you think Polar pilots should be payed LESS than you to do the same job?

My guess would be that he (300) is mgmt. and if Polar is paid what Atlas is, they have no leg to stand on next year when they come after the Atlas pilots.

Whatever Polar ends up with WILL be what Atlas is paid after their contract neg. Either by contract or binding arbitration during the merger.

All this assumes of course that there is a Polar left, if not, then Atlas is in bad shape. With the loss of the scheduled service and associated revenue should Polar shut down, Atlas loses a huge percentage of their income. Just looking at the sec filings it appears that most (50+%...some say as high as 69%) of the companies total revenue comes from the 12 airplanes on the Polar side. Working the numbers to make one side or the other appear profitable or not, does not change the fact that the scheduled side brings in huge amounts of cash. Additionally with the explosive growth in the asian market, those scheduled slots will be worth 10 times their current amount in a few years.

Together, Polar and Atlas can become something huge and very very good......either one alone is just another third rate freight outfit.

Everybody else out there is just frothing at the mouth to get those asian route authorities.

 

[B747-300]

"747-300 Using your "logic" you must expect the Atlas pilot group opener 3 months from now to be an extension of the current contract. Following your logic further you are willing to take a 20% pay cut to get the Polar contract."

It's really just common sense, something that seems to be missing from your negotiations. If fuel prices are still at record levels and if the company hasn't made a profit, then yes, we'd be happy to accept a 10.5% raise and an 18 month extension to our current CBA.

I think Polar (the name, the planes, the crews and the CBA) are gone for good, so there's really no reason to speculate about us getting your contract.

"All this assumes of course that there is a Polar left, if not, then Atlas is in bad shape. With the loss of the scheduled service and associated revenue should Polar shut down, Atlas loses a huge percentage of their income."

Atlas will be in great shape! AAWW can always use Atlas as a scheduled and ACMI carrier if they feel that would contribute to our profitability. Atlas crews will likely get a much improved contract amendment without the Polar MEC around to knife us in the back.

"Why do you think Polar pilots should be payed LESS than you to do the same job?"

You should be "paid" less because of B. Fell. And because your membership accepted the last contract extension and pay raise rather than negotiate with AAWW at the same time as Atlas. We could have had better QOL and you could have had better pay if you hadn't sold out last time.


Speaking of Bob F., what's that idiot doing up in ANC. I'm hearing stories of dirty tricks and intimidation. Hasn't this guy done enough damage to your union? It sure looks like he's still running the show.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

You should be "paid" less because of B. Fell. And because your membership accepted the last contract extension and pay raise rather than negotiate with AAWW at the same time as Atlas. We could have had better QOL and you could have had better pay if you hadn't sold out last time.


Speaking of Bob F., what's that idiot doing up in ANC. I'm hearing stories of dirty tricks and intimidation. Hasn't this guy done enough damage to your union? It sure looks like he's still running the show.

You do realize that this is 2005 right?

I would say that you are probably mgmt. No one else has anything to gain from the position that you are taking. You are trying to take something that happened in the past and use it to drive a wedge in between the Polar and Atlas pilot groups.

My guess is that you did not expect the two groups to be working together and now that they are, you (mgmt) are at a loss on how play them against each other.

Looks to me like Polar and Atlas are standing together right now....and will continue to do so next year when the Atlas contract is due.

Funny thing about sibling rivalry, the two will fight among themselves endlessly until some bully (mgmt.) tries to start a fight and pick on one of them, then they will band together against the common foe.

I guess you do not have any brothers huh 300? If you did you would know exactly what I am talking about.

Polar may be gone as you say, but it will cost the Atlas mgmt dearly in revenue and image. Firing all the new hires a month before any strike ever happened let their true colors shine. The school yard bully couldn't do anything to the kids in his own class, instead he had to pick on the ones that had nothing to do with, or any vote in the fight.

Yep real class act that crowd is.

 

[V1andgo]

-300
I am sorry you feel cheated by the last contract neg. you had at Atlas. For your heart rate and health do yourself a favour and let the past rest. I really don't understand why you are so fired-up about what happens to the Polar guys and girls and their strike. Somehow your posts seem to be full of jealousy, that they have the strength and unity to pull-off a strike in the present economic environement.
Since we are talking economics and strategy, and you believe to have a keen understanding about the business, I encourage you to read the following article in the latest Air Cargo World magazine. http://www.aircargoworld.com/features/0905_3.htm
The title of the piece is "Connecting Capacity, Globally", in it the problem of uneven cargo flow is addressed. May I remind you, very sucessful carriers in Europe and Asia have no Military contracts and still make money in this market environment while facing the same high fuel costs. Shocking that profitabilty in the airline industry is a matter of planning rather than labor prostitution. Also, ACMI, Altas's core business, is done on scheduled cargo runs that yield profits for the contracting airlines and operators that have the necessary skills in airline management. To top it all, most of the players that fly most of their freight on their own aircraft have much higher labor costs i.e. CargoLux, Lufthansa, KLM, and MartinAir.
Furthermore, if Polar goes away would you not upgrade? So what is it to you, if these folks go out of business? However, with this Clueless in Purchase management, the longterm future for anyone at AAWH is in jeopardy---- I understand. So, better warm up the resume!!!

 

[Jolly]

Ah the truth comes out 747-300.

You say: "You should be "paid" less because of B."

So all your writings have just been a smoke screen for your desire to hurt the Polar pilots. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about you. It is pretty sad to think someone can live such a bitter existence. You have my pity.

 

[Whale Rider]

You know what Mr.-300? You need to be more like Paul!

 

[b747dogg]

All this assumes of course that there is a Polar left, if not, then Atlas is in bad shape. With the loss of the scheduled service and associated revenue should Polar shut down, Atlas loses a huge percentage of their income. Just looking at the sec filings it appears that most (50+%...some say as high as 69%) of the companies total revenue comes from the 12 airplanes on the Polar side.

Please enlighten me on where in the sec filings it states Polar makes 50% to 69% of the companies total revenue. That is a load of crap. Why post crap you make up, stick to the facts, they are bad enough. ACMI makes money, planes are paid for whether they are moving or not. Get a clue!!! Enjoy!

 

[heilhaavir]

-300, you say <<You are not the lowest paid 747 operators!>> and you add <<You have the lowest number of duty days available to the company of any airline in your category (like Atlas, Kalitta, Tradewinds, Southern, Evergreen or Focus). When you consider the number of days worked to earn "guarantee", then your pay seems well above most other carriers in your category. When you do a comparison, look at number of days worked versus monthly earnings and not just the hourly rate>>. You are absolutely correct And why would that stop anybody from asking more ROFLMAO!

As I've already told you before,they can shut the place down anytime they want, really doesn't bother me. Why E&C even made an offer at all is aboslutely amazing, especially with the lack of PO's profitability. And you call this "management"?

Let's continue with your alledged hear say <<Speaking of Bob F., what's that idiot doing up in ANC. I'm hearing stories of dirty tricks and intimidation>> Really? You know that for a fact? You've seen/heard that yourself? So tell us, what exactly did he do?

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Please enlighten me on where in the sec filings it states Polar makes 50% to 69% of the companies total revenue. That is a load of crap. Why post crap you make up, stick to the facts, they are bad enough. ACMI makes money, planes are paid for whether they are moving or not. Get a clue!!! Enjoy!

10Q filing dated 7-08-05 Figures rounded to nearest million

Scheduled service (Polar) 117 million
ACMI (Atlas) 63 million
AMC (military, Both Atlas and Polar) 52 Million
Charter (both again) 9 million'
other 8 million

Total revenue July 28th to sept 30 2004 251 million

Polar scheduled service accounts for 46.8% of total revenue for the period. Add in their share of charter and AMC and you have the 50 to 69% (no way to tell the exact number from AMC and charter)

10k report dated 7-6-05

Scheduled service (polar) accounted for 45.3% of total revenue in 2004
(does not account for their share of AMC and charter)

 

[B747-300]

You guys have lost your grip on reality! You think that anyone who disagrees with your position must be management. A long period of unemployment might help you see things more clearly.

The simplistic revenue comparisons aren't going to cut it either. It is expected that Polar would have higher revenue, as they have to PAY FOR THE FUEL they use. Atlas has lower revenue, but the fuel costs are borne by the customer.

The two groups working together??? What a laugh. Taking pictures of Atlas crews reporting for duty is the fastest way possible to alienate the few guys who did support you.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

You guys have lost your grip on reality! You think that anyone who disagrees with your position must be management. A long period of unemployment might help you see things more clearly.

The simplistic revenue comparisons aren't going to cut it either. It is expected that Polar would have higher revenue, as they have to PAY FOR THE FUEL they use. Atlas has lower revenue, but the fuel costs are borne by the customer.

The two groups working together??? What a laugh. Taking pictures of Atlas crews reporting for duty is the fastest way possible to alienate the few guys who did support you.

Revenue is revenue, past that the numbers can be made to show profit and loss however they want. Fact is that Polar accounts for at least half of the total money coming in to the company and doing it with only 12 airplanes. Atlas air world wide can hardly dismiss the loss of nearly 120 million dollars every quarter from scheduled service. Sure Polar pays for their fuel, but Atlas pays 31% more hourly to their pilot group, a group that numbers some 350 or so more pilots than the Polar side does. That alone wipes out a large percentage of Polars fuel bill difference. 12 airplanes with Polar paint are bringing in much more than the 30 or so with Atlas paint. Not an easily dismissed number.

As to the working together, heard from my buddy on the line yesterday, seems there were numerous Atlas pilots walking the line with them on their day off. Looks like co-operation to me. Not to mention the guys removing the Polar cargo from their airplanes.

 

[B747-300]

Revenue doesn't mean much if your expenses are greater than what you take in.

This is what you should be focusing on:

"The reallocation of capacity out of Scheduled Service and into ACMI operations had a beneficial impact on direct operating expenses during the quarter, including ground handling, landing and overfly fees. Total fuel consumption declined by approximately 13%, reflecting a roughly 13% reduction in non-ACMI block hours. The reduction in consumption was more than offset by a 44% increase in average fuel prices. The net impact was a 25% increase in fuel expense."

"We expect to continue to optimize capacity allocations among our service types."

WAKE UP!!