Originally Posted by
Probe
We must absolutely demand "retro" instead of a signing bonus, and here is why. It is a history refresher for UAL pilots, and a for the CAL side a lesson in what has been "played" on us before, recently.
In our exit from bankruptcy contract, we received a 550 million dollar convertible note, supposedly in lieu of the vested portion of our A fund. But it was not called that, just a note. If they called it retirement, it should have been doled out according to what we all had vested at the time.
Instead, our MEC, without allowing membership ratification, came up with a BS methodology to distribute the money unevenly with some getting a huge windfall, and others getting the shaft. (For me I got about what my vested A fund was. Just luck)
I asked out LEC members why they would not let us vote on this distribution plan. They said "you allowed us too. It is in the contract"
Sure as SH$#@, I read the contract, and the language in there said "to be distributed at the discretion of the MEC". That is a paraphrase. I don't remember the exact language. They had put this language in the TA draft on purpose.
IMHO, if they call this a "signing bonus" instead of retro, this will allow some to get more than they deserve, and penalize others. When the TA comes out, I recommend we all read what it says about the money, and if we get membership ratification on how it is distributed.
On the UAL side, we have been "played" a lot, to the financial dismay of many of us.
The bond allocation looked at each persons A fund benefit at retirement.
Then that retirement was put into a present value.
Then that present value was offset, by the present value of the PBGC benefit that he pilot would receive, and the present value of future C fund contributions.
That left everyone with a gap.
That gap was paid at the same percentage for every pilot. (roughly 50%)
The pilots that got "screwed" and didn't get much money had a small gap. In other words, those pilots were basically made whole by PBGC and C fund contributions.
If the formula was changed to reflect age 65, there would have been very little change, as it would affect all pilots the same. Bigger gap, but roughly the same ratios.
There were some assumptions, like everybody bid the highest paying seat they could. The stovepipe method gavee pilots heartburn, but they could not understand the fact that they may be a 767 captain now, but couldn't possibly hold that position if people senior to them had not bypassed.
Under a retro check scenario, what assumptions will be used?
Rumors of banding, will they look at 767 hours vs 757. Intl. vs domestic?
What payrate, when.
Retro calculations could easily equal the bond for complexity
