World Doing "Struck Work" Against ATA???

[Tristar]

I'm going against my own better judgement here, but what the heck . . .

You are showing your true colors. What would have happened if you won? Explain to us how you would have structured the seniority list, with fences, with the loss of ATA business? Pay attention to his answer WOA and NAA pilots.

I'll try to type slowly and use small words, since you obviously don't have a tremendously high comprehension level (oops, big words - you aren't too swift).

I would have expected it to be done by mutual agreement of the MEC and the EXCO. By the way, the result wouldn't benefit me no matter how you slice it, I was far too junior (unless World suddenly doubles it's fleet size and staffing - unlikely even with the growth World is currently experiencing).

The most likely scenario I personally imagine would have involved bringing on ATA pilots in seniority order (if they wanted to come) to fill vacancies due to attrition and growth. What is the a problem with that? And yes, I would have expected them to be paid in accordance with the appropriate longevity for the seat they are occupying (eg - tenth year pay for a new hire ATA FO). ATAH/GAL was well aware of the merger/aquisition clause of ATA's CBA when they went through the WAH acquisition, so that is a non-starter. Does it just get your goat to think of someone coming in at a higher pay level than what you recieved?

(in fact, most I spoke with thought North American would be the first whipping boy). Are you listening to this NAA pilots?

Okay, twist the obvious to suit your agenda. It was theorized that GAL would hang NAA out to dry first since they were in the midst of contract talks - not that WOA and/or ATA pilots would screw them. In fact, the feeling was that the NAA pilots had the most to gain from a combined seniority list (again due to the aforementioned contract talks and the increased leverage which a common list would have afforded). Perhaps you are showing YOUR true colors that with these assumptions.

So instead of saying, "Hey sorry about getting the shaft ATA pilots," you say "Time to shut the door." I along with most WOA pilots were saying that right up until we found out about your lawsuit.

Point one - not my lawsuit, it was the MEC's decision. Personally I felt the funds could have been better used elsewhere, but that's moot point now. I do however support the MEC for at least attempting to enforce our contract.

Two - If things were reversed, and again given that no one was going to take anyone's seat at World, what is the issue?

Three - as I already said, I know a substantial number of ATA pilots want nothing to do with another GAL company (their choice, which I can understand), so it's not like the entire seniority list even wants to be added.

Fourth - If that's really all this comes down to, than some more research on your part is in order before declaring all ATA pilots persona non grata. I'm trying to enlighten you on this whole issue which you are so ill informed on, and you aren't listening to a bloody word. Open your mind a bit before declaring "Time to close the door."

Oh damn, there goes Bel's theory about HIS God given seat

Not God given seat, Bel given seat. Bel applied to WOA, succesfully interviewed and then moved up the seniority list to where he is today. Bel did not need a lawsuit or fast track interview.

Well congratulations! I'm glad you chose so well. However, I can remember in the not too distant past when World was teetering on the brink of extinction. I'm glad things have worked out well for you, but your arrogance leads me to believe you really haven't been at World all that long (I could be mistaken), or you would recognize that your good fortune has a lot more to due with luck on your part than any skill at picking an airline. If you possess a crystal ball which works that well, I suggest you post the winning numbers to next weeks Mega-Millions lottery drawing. Otherwise, there are a number of Eastern, Pan Am, TWA, and United pilots who will most likely testify that picking a winner is more a matter of luck than brilliance on your part.

Again, Bel has his, so forget any refugees from another GAL company who need a job to stay above water. Again the arrogance is appalling.

Do what you want it does not matter to me.

Obviously it does, or you wouldn't be so eager to make sure no ATA pilots get hired at World. It does matter to me - I have a number of friends who still need jobs through no fault of their own. I take offense that someone with only a superficial knowledge of the situation would seek to bar entry to highly qualified candidates.

I also notice you failed to address a few rather significant items:

If the situation were reversed, then where would you be and how would you want to be treated?

What would you want/expect the EXCO to do if the situation was reversed?

Neither do you address the section of ATA's CBA which required a common seniority list. How would you propose to have dealt with this? Just ignore it? Which sections of World's CBA would you propose to just ignore or do away with? Or is there a double standard at work here? Ignore ATA's CBA because in my ignorance it appears to threaten me (though in reality it does not), but mine is sacred (again, I've got mine, forget everyone else).

I also notice that rather than admitting "Gee, maybe all of the ATA pilots don't all want to screw me out of my seat, you continue with your original line of rhetoric. Why is this?

I've always tried to be guided by the simple idea that what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong - very much along the lines of the Golden Rule. My experience has been that it's usually not that hard to figure out what is right and fair. It often amazes me the lengths people will go to attempting to justify doing otherwise.

I will also state for the record (not that it matters at this point):

I do not, would not, will not, and never have been in favor of any sort of integration which takes pay or status away from any crewmember on any GAL seniority list. I do/did support a system by which crewmembers would be transferred (in the event of a furlough or cession of operations) to the bottom of another carriers seniority list while retaining longevity for pay purposes. This took from no one, and would have benefitted everyone.

I believe, based on numerous conversations with my fellow ATA pilots, that this was the basic premise shared by the vast majority (again, the few hardcases previously excepted). I know this was the viewpoint shared by several members of the MEC based on my personal conversations with them.

Is it possible I have been lied to by everyone I've spoken with? Well yes I suppose that is a possibility, but I find that highly improbable. Particularly given that I've spent quite a bit of time with some of these gentlemen during training - I don't believe that they have all sat across the table from me and lied straight to my face.

Pay attention to his answer WOA and NAA pilots.

If I have failed to address any concerns or issues, please bring them to my attention. I would challenge you to heed your own advice - pay attention to my answers Bel, and not just the voices in your head. The bottom line is most ATA pilots just want a break right now, not to hose anyone else. I don't know what it is that makes you so myopic on this issue.

Having had the pleasure of meeting a number of World pilots, I'm happy to say they have all displayed a much higher level of both compassion and comprehension than you display.

Now I challenge you to address the points I have made if you are able.

 

[Bellerophon]

Read your scope clause. WOA was not on your AMC team, did not fly SW code share and did not fly ATA branded schedued service. Your observation that GAL must combine the lists because of ATA scope was by no means a slam dunk.

Does it just get your goat to think of someone coming in at a higher pay level than what you recieved?

Did you get a pay raise over and above the Max $145/hr posted on APC? Do you know WOA pay rates?

In fact, the feeling was that the NAA pilots had the most to gain from a combined seniority list

Any NAA pilots on flight info feel that way? lol

Well congratulations! I'm glad you chose so well. What follows is a worthless rant.

If the situation were reversed, then where would you be and how would you want to be treated? Take my type ratings and move on. Not sit around and track where the aircraft I used to fly are going.

I do not, would not, will not, and never have been in favor of any sort of integration which takes pay or status away from any crewmember on any GAL seniority list. I do/did support a system by which crewmembers would be transferred (in the event of a furlough or cession of operations) to the bottom of another carriers seniority list while retaining longevity for pay purposes. This took from no one, and would have benefitted everyone. I am talking about the lawsuit heard in June. Are you saying this was the ATA proposed remedy? Focus try not to fly off on so many rants.

I await your answers and insults,

Bel

 

[Tristar]

Once again I will extend you the courtesy of addressing the points you raise, I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

I await your answers and insults

I'm still awaiting your answers to the points I have raised. Nonetheless, I shall endeavor to address your points:

Read your scope clause. WOA was not on your AMC team, did not fly SW code share and did not fly ATA branded schedued service. Your observation that GAL must combine the lists because of ATA scope was by no means a slam dunk.

Well, that’s all delightful, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND! Both World’s and ATA’s Scope/Merger/Acquisition clauses are very similar. Have you bothered to read either?

Just so everyone is on the same playing field, here are the relevant sections of both World’s and ATA’s CBA’s: (sorry for the length here):

Excerpt from World Airways CBA:

Section C. Mergers and Acquisitions

1. Notice of Acquisition or Merger.
(a) If World Airways, Inc. or its parent, or any other subsidiary of its parent enters into any agreement of acquisition or merger with any other air carrier or any entity which has control of or acquires control of another air carrier, it shall notify the IBT in writing of the proposed acquisition or merger within three (3) days after the execution of such agreement.

(b) If World Airways, Inc., World Air Holdings, Inc., or any wholly owned subsidiary of World Airways Inc., World Air Holdings, Inc., acquires by purchase or lease B-747, MD-11 or DC-10 aircraft for the purpose of revenue operations for the benefit of World Air Holdings, any such aircraft will be placed on the World Airways operating certificate.

(c) If World Airways, Inc., World Air Holdings, Inc., or any wholly owned subsidiary of World Airways or World Air Holdings, Inc., acquires another air carrier that operates B-747, MD-11 or DC-10 aircraft, that air carrier (or, at the acquirer’s option, the portion thereof engaged in operation of B-747, MD-11 or DC-10 aircraft), will be operationally merged with and into World Airways, Inc. pursuant to Sections C.1. through C.4 of this Article 1.

(d) World Airways, Inc. must give written notice of the existence of this Article of the Agreement to any carrier or any other entity which has control of or acquires control of another air carrier with which World Airways or its parent enters into an agreement of acquisition or merger. A copy of this written notice shall be given to the IBT within three (3) days after the parties have signed the agreement of acquisition or merger.

2. Assumption Agreement.
World Airways, Inc. and/or its parent agree to obligate the surviving air carrier with which World enters an agreement of merger to assume the obligations of this section. World Airways and/or its parent shall be liable to the employees covered by this section for all damages as a result of the failure to require assumption of the terms of this Agreement, but shall not be liable after the other party to the agreement of merger has agreed in writing to assume the obligations of this section.

3. Integration of Seniority List(s).
(a) If World Airways, Inc., and another air carrier are to be merged in such a manner as to result in a single carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, the air carrier that will survive such merger will initiate proceedings to integrate the seniority lists of the Cockpit Crewmembers of World Airways, Inc., and the Cockpit Crewmembers of such other carrier in accordance with Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions (“LPPs”).

(b) Unless and until an operational merger is finally effectuated, the Union will continue to be recognized as the representative of the pre-merger flight deck crewmember craft or class. In the event of an operational merger, the representative of the post-merger craft or class will be established pursuant to Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

4. Integration of Equipment and Operations.
In the event of the merger of World Airways, Inc, with another air carrier, the equipment and operations of World Airways, Inc., as they existed prior to the merger shall not be integrated or intermingled with the equipment and operations of the other air carrier until either the Seniority List(s) of the Crewmembers have been integrated in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph C of this section or until one hundred fifty (150) days have passed from the date the surviving carrier initiated the seniority integration proceedings, which first occurs. As pertains to World Airways, Inc., equipment represents aircraft operated by World Airways, Inc., and operations means the cockpit crews of World Airways, Inc.


[continued]

 

[Tristar]

[continuation]
​

Excerpt from ATA CBA:​

SECTION 1 - RECOGNITION AND SCOPE​

B. Scope
1. This Agreement shall cover all services performed by Crewmembers for the Company on all its operations and operations on any additional Part 121 airline operating certificate acquired or controlled by the Company, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all present and future revenue and non-revenue flying performed by or for the Company shall be performed by Crewmembers on the ATA Crewmember System Seniority List in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement including flying (1) on the Company’s aircraft (whether leased or owned), (2) under the Company’s operational control, including wet leases and contracting for other Air Carriers or entities(government, military or commercial), or (3) conducted by any other Air Carrier under the Company’s name, logo or marks.
3. The Company shall not create or acquire an alter ego Air Carrier.
4. Nothing in this Section shall preclude the Company from entering into a code-share agreement, a marketing agreement, an interline agreement, or a pro-rate or block space agreement, so long as such agreements do not result in the Furlough of any Crewmember on the System Seniority List.
C. Exceptions to Paragraph B Above [Nothing in this section applies to the issue in discussion - it is essentially wet leasing, over 60 pilots, ect. If anyone doubts this I will happily post the text for your edification]
D. Successorship

This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor, including without limitation, any merged Company or companies, assignee, purchaser, transferee, administrator, receiver, executor, and/or trustee of the Company (such Entity to be deemed a ”successor”). The Company and Global Aero Logistics, Inc. Corporation shall require a successor to assume and be bound by all the terms of this Agreement as a condition of any transaction that results in a successor. In the event the Company enters into an agreement that could lead to a successorship transaction, the Company shall (a) notify the Association, in writing, of the agreement within three (3) business days after the execution of such agreement; and (b) provide the Association with a copy of the provisions of the agreement that bind the successor to the terms of the Agreement.

E. Labor Protection
Unless otherwise agreed, the following provisions shall apply in the event of a successor transaction in which the successor is an Air Carrier or is an affiliate of an Air Carrier, or one in which the Company or an affiliate acquires control of another Air Carrier.
1. The integration of the seniority list of the respective Crewmember groups shall be governed by Association merger policy if both Crewmember groups are represented by the Association. If the other group is not represented by the Association, Sections 2, 3, 12 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions (”r;LPPs”) shall apply provided, however, that for purposes of this Agreement, the "20 days" provision in Section 13(a) of the LPPs shall be replaced with "10 days" and the "90 days" provision shall be replaced with "30 days". The implementation of an integrated seniority list shall not result in a "system flush" (the rebid of all Positions) or any other action, which would substantially increase the Company's training costs. Further, any seniority integration agreement shall not contain provisions that would require the Company to maintain staffing in any Status greater than what it decides is necessary for the operation.
2. The successor or the Company will not accept or implement an integrated seniority list unless it has been established pursuant to this Section.
3. The respective Crewmember Agreements shall be integrated into one (1) agreement as the result of negotiations among the Crewmember groups and the successor or Company. If a fully integrated agreement is not executed by the time a final and binding integrated seniority list is issued, the parties shall jointly invoke expedited interest arbitration under the timeline set out in paragraph G below to resolve the dispute. Each party shall submit no more than ten (10) specific remaining open items for adjustment by the System Board. All elements of compensation (e.g., hourly rates, minimum guarantees, longevity scales, overrides, premiums, etc.) shall be considered one item. As to other issues, each specific proposed change shall be considered one item. For example, maximum on Duty Period, Trip length limitation, and vacation accrual rate would each be a separate item. The System Board shall be limited in its award to the open issues, and within the offers or Positions of the parties.
4. Representation of the Crewmembers of the successor shall be determined by representatives of the employees in accordance with the Railway Labor Act.
5. The aircraft (including orders and options to purchase aircraft) and the operations of each airline forming the successor shall remain separated until such time as both the Crewmember seniority lists are integrated and the Crewmember Agreements are integrated in accordance with paragraphs E.1 and E.3.
6. Pending the merger of the carriers and the integration of the Crewmember Agreements and seniority lists, no Crewmember on the Seniority List shall be Furloughed or reduced in Status as a result of the merger.
F. Fragmentation [Again not applicable - omitted for brevity]
G. Remedies
Any grievance filed by the Association or the Company alleging a violation of Section 1 shall bypass the initial steps of the grievance process and shall be heard and resolved through binding arbitration on an expedited basis directly before the Crewmember's System Board of Adjustment sitting with a neutral arbitrator. The dispute shall be heard no later than fifteen (15) Calendar Days following the submission to the System Board and decided no later than thirty (30) Calendar Days after submission, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.


Now after all of that, I once again ask you – what is so difficult about allowing out of work ATA pilots a position at the bottom of World’s list?


[continued]

 

[Tristar]

[continuation]

Did you get a pay raise over and above the Max $145/hr posted on APC? Do you know WOA pay rates?

Yes I do, though I find it interesting that you only cite the numbers published on APC rather than more accurate information. Regardless - though it’s rather difficult to compare and contrast the ultimate pay yields for the two companies, as the overall compensation scheme differs and there are many other factors to be considered, such as days off, vacation, availability of overtime, ect. But since you bring it up:

12 year ATA L-1011/DC-10 Captain: 75 hour monthly guarantee x 12 months = 900 hours.
900 hours x $157.28/hour = $141,552 annually, without overtime or per diem.

12 year World MD-11 Captain: 65 hour monthly guarantee x 12 months = 780 hours.
780 hours x $159.25 (Including longevity) = $124,215 annually, again without overtime or per diem.

Again, this doesn’t account for overtime (as I understand it, almost a given at World). Additionally, World's payscale continues to increase until year 15. Given all that, I think with that factored in World probably has a slight advantage, but that’s hard to account for given the variety of bidding preferences, so for simplicity I’ve compared base rates and guarantees. Ultimately, I think they aren’t too awful far off each other.

Now that we've been though that, to clarify what I though was obvious: I was asking was do you have an issue with someone coming in at a higher pay rate than what you started at as a new hire? If no, then what's the issue if ATA guys had come in at 8-12th year FO pay? If yes, then please elaborate as to why.

In fact, the feeling was that the NAA pilots had the most to gain from a combined seniority list
Any NAA pilots on flight info feel that way? lol

I do not claim to speak for NAA pilots, I only represent the thoughts shared by ATA crewmembers. I have not heard one way or another regarding the opinions of NAA crews.

Well congratulations! I'm glad you chose so well. What follows is a worthless rant.

I’ll grant you it was a rant – that said it was no less reasoned than anything you have posted thus far.

If the situation were reversed, then where would you be and how would you want to be treated? Take my type ratings and move on. Not sit around and track where the aircraft I used to fly are going.

Well, I guess good for you then if you indeed are so fortunate at to be able to move on. I do wonder how you would feel after nearly six months of unemployment with no real prospects on the horizon, but let’s give you that one and presume that you’ll buck up and be just fine.

More importantly – you are choosing to focus on one or two people out of a group that once number ever 1000 (slightly over 500 when the lights were turned out). You are condemning an entire group based on less than 0.2% of that group. If someone else took exception to you, would it be fair to condemn all World pilots based on a similar percentage (again, roughly 1 out of 500)?

I do not, would not, will not, and never have been in favor of any sort of integration which takes pay or status away from any crewmember on any GAL seniority list. I do/did support a system by which crewmembers would be transferred (in the event of a furlough or cession of operations) to the bottom of another carriers seniority list while retaining longevity for pay purposes. This took from no one, and would have benefitted everyone. I am talking about the lawsuit heard in June. Are you saying this was the ATA proposed remedy? Focus try not to fly off on so many rants.

To the very best of my knowledge, the June lawsuit was about the entire scope/merger/acquisition section going being resolved according to the ATA CBA (previously posted). As I’ve already stated, based on all conversations I personally have had with those involved with the process prior to the shutdown, the intent of the intended seniority list integration was exactly as I have described. In the years I spent at ATA, I never heard anyone (again 1%-2% excepted) who advocated anything other than what was right and fair for all. ATA had too many refugees from failed airlines for most to wish for anything else. The ATA seniority list read like a roll call of failed airlines – Eastern, Pan Am, Braniff, TWA, ect. No one wanted to stick it to anyone else – they’d experienced it too many times themselves.

I await your answers and insults.

I have provided you with the answers you sought. Now, will you extend the same courtesy to me and address my questions?

1) If the situation were reversed, then where would you be and how would you want to be treated? If I understand you correctly, in spite of the above cited language of the World CBA you would not want any consideration for employment from the surviving carrier? I want to be crystal clear on this, as I find it a bit hard to believe.

2) What would you want/expect the EXCO to do if the situation was reversed? Again, I refer to Section C of World’s CBA. Am I to understand that you would not want the EXCO to attempt to enforce the provisions of the CBA? Remember when you answer this the Matlin Patterson is NOT in the business of owning companies long term – in all likelihood GAL will eventually be either sold off or subject to an IPO. Be EXTREMELY careful about what you wish for in this instance.

3) Similar to the above, how would you propose to address the Section 1 of ATA's CBA?

4) Would you consider that the majority of ATA’s still unemployed pilots simply want a job, and aren’t out to take anything that is yours?

I’ve tried to keep it focused and rant free for your benefit. Now it’s your turn to focus and actually address the points I’ve once again raised.

In closing, here is my brief rant:

The real bottom line is this: There are a lot of ATA pilots still out on the street, and they have a tremendous amount of experience which they will bring with them to their next employer.

I think World would be a great place for some of these folks to end up – for a variety of reasons.

I also think it is tremendously unfair of you to brand an entire pilot group based on a few individuals and a dose of misinformation. I am asking you to reconsider your position.

 

[Bellerophon]

To answer your points:

1. I would work towards a lifeline for me and my fellow out of work ATA pilots. I would know that since WOA did not assume any ATA business that I would be hired to conduct flights under WOA scope. Therefore I would expect to go to the bottom of the list. If your union has the leverage to get you that deal with longevity pay that is fine by me. That will only give my union the leverage to match those rates for everyone senior to those former ATA pilots. As for me personally, I would seek contract empoyment with the ratings I have (thats why I gave up damn good seniority to get a 747-400 type rating on a one airplane fleet)

 

[Bellerophon]

2.I would expect the WOA EXCO to enforce the contract right up until shutdown (provided ATA did not assume any former WOA scope flying) In a merger you need to bring some kind of flying to the table. Its all gone. WOA did not take it. So the June lawsuit became a threat to WOA pilots. You have to see that.

 

[Bellerophon]

3. WOA/NAA were addressing it in a proper manner. The shutdown of ATA and loss of all AMC team flying and SW code share changed the landscape. There is nothing left of ATA to merge with.

 

[Bellerophon]

4. Agree to a point. You say its only the ATA 1% that blame WOA/NAA for part of the ATA shutdown. Judging from all the attacks and name calling on WOA pilots on this forum instead of attacking your 1% is not helping your "blaming it on the 1% theory. Maybe its more like 30%. We at WOA do not know. What we know is that we do not want any of those angry ATA pilots here. We like the ones we have at WOA now.

After the shutdown of ATA and loss of all ATA flying the merger ended. You have to have an airline to merge with. ATA brings nothing, its all gone. So the June lawsuit to continue the merger is seen as a threat by the WOA pilots, you have to see that.

 

[Bellerophon]

My bottom line is that the availble flying at WOA is all under WOA scope. It is all ours and ATA pilots are not entitled to it. It will be flown by pilots on our list. We have fast tracked many ATA pilots to that list. I feel as many WOA pilots feel we do not want the 1% or 30% of bitter towards any GAL employment, pilots causing trouble here at WOA. Aviation is a small community and we at WOA hear what is being said on your boards. You need to address that instead of attacking WOA pilots. You must realize that we are a small pilot group. We can call the V.P. of flight ops and he will take the time to talk to us. So guess what? If he gets too many complaints the fast track will shutdown. Management does not want that 1% or 30% here either. Remember ATA pilots are being hired here not merged. You and your fellow pilots trashing us on these boards need to remember that for the benefit of those ATA pilots wanting employment at WOA. The name calling does no good at all.

Thats my rant,

Bel