Article 33: A Response & Clarification

We have tried throughout this campaign to focus on our record, our plans, and the changes we believe will improve representation for the pilot group. We do not intend to respond to every disagreement or criticism from another slate. But when our actions as stewards are characterized in a way that does not match the documented record, we believe members deserve the facts.

The recent 2750 Members First material suggests that its Article 33 concerns were brought to the stewards and that the stewards failed to act. That is not what happened. The Article 33 issue had already been identified and grieved months before John Corcoran and Jesse Johansen submitted their March 2026 correspondence. On August 15, 2025, the Union sent the Company an Article 20.A notice after hostile-area locations were removed from the September bid package. That notice specifically stated that Article 25.F.5 required Hostile Area locations to be listed and referenced locations designated by the Department of Defense. That timing matters because Article 20.B.1.a requires a grievance to be submitted no more than thirty days after the date the Crew Member knew or should have known of the act or omission giving rise to the grievance. Had the Union not acted when the Company removed those locations in August 2025, a later grievance based on that same removal could have faced a serious timeliness problem. The stewards did not wait until March 2026. They acted when the disputed Company action occurred.

Grievance AAI-2025-203 was then filed. The grievance alleged that the Company had excluded cities designated as hostile areas under Article 33.A.3, that those cities continued to be designated as presenting imminent danger by the Department of Defense, and that crew members could be losing Article 33.C protections as a result. The Company denied the grievance at Step 1, taking the position that nothing in the CBA required Union concurrence before the Company determined whether an area remained hostile. The grievance was advanced to Step 2, where the Company again denied it while maintaining essentially the same position. On December 30, 2025, the grievance was submitted to the System Board of Adjustment, where the Union continued to challenge whether the Company could unilaterally remove Article 33 locations from the bid package without following the contractual process.

That grievance remains active and awaiting arbitration. We have not published the grievance itself because it is still a pending arbitration matter. We do not believe it is appropriate to publicly distribute an active grievance, the Union’s arbitration position, and supporting materials simply to answer a campaign accusation. We can, however, explain the issue and the timeline being advanced on behalf of the pilot group. AAI-2025-203 is also one of nearly 50 grievances currently awaiting arbitration. That backlog is one of the reasons our slate has talked so much about strengthening the grievance process, empowering trained stewards to carry more issues toward resolution, and requiring meaningful engagement earlier in the process instead of allowing disputes to accumulate at Step 3 for extended periods of time.

It was not until March 19, 2026, months after AAI-2025-203 had already been filed and advanced to Step 3, that Corcoran and Johansen submitted their Notice of Intended Grievance concerning Article 33.A.3. That submission was sent from the Atlas Flight Deck Crewmembers Association email address and requested information, clarification, and the grievance form. The following morning, the stewards responded that the Union was already aware of the issue and had already filed a grievance concerning the blanket removal of Article 33 designations, which was at Step 3 awaiting arbitration. Corcoran and Johansen then acknowledged that fact in their March 22 response and asked whether the pending grievance was broad enough to encompass the additional interpretive questions they were raising. That follow-up matters because the Notice now being circulated does not include the March 20 steward response or the March 22 acknowledgment that a grievance was already pending.

Their later submission did raise a broader theory, including whether Article 33.A.3 allowed the Company to rely on its own internal assessment rather than a Department of Defense designation or agreement of the parties. That was a legitimate disagreement over the scope and interpretation of Article 33. It was not evidence that the stewards had failed to act on the underlying issue.

Some of the Union correspondence that followed could certainly have been handled differently in tone. Those responses were not written by the members of the Larkin/Montgomery Slate now being criticized, and disagreement with their tone does not change the chronology. Not every concern raised with a steward results in a separate grievance, as noted in the Members First’s own campaign material. Sometimes the issue is already being addressed, a different contractual process applies, or the proposed theory is not the best way to pursue the dispute. The responsibility of representation is to determine the appropriate contractual path, not simply to file every grievance requested. In this case, the Union already had an active Article 33 grievance moving through the process before the March submission was ever received.

AAI-2025-203 had already been filed, heard at Step 1, advanced through Step 2, and submitted to the System Board before the March 2026 request was ever received. The grievance remains pending today.

We believe members deserve the complete record and the opportunity to make their own judgment based on the documents and the actual timeline. This statement is our response to the issue. We do not intend to turn this campaign into an ongoing exchange of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. If genuinely new factual information is presented, we will address it as appropriate. Otherwise, we will remain focused on our record, our plans, and the changes we believe will improve representation for the pilot group.