TonyC,
Open, honest discussion is good. Sometimes people are correct, sometimes they are wrong. I do not claim to be an expert at anything. But I do read the CBA, Union correspondence, research issues. There needs to be better communication, as has been stated since ALPA was formed. It is better to provide good information with pros and cons than "read the TA" type response.

Union email a few months back detailing the legal limitations and how the union created the retirement strategy was EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED for big ticket items like retirement, healthcare, etc. Makes it easier to understand and defend, or at least accept if not in favor.

I disagree with some of the strategic decisions the union made, but I have a right to a different opinion. I also try and provide options for improvement. We are in more agreement than disagreement in reality. And discussion of improvements is always good, even if it doesn't change anything. It keeps the dialogue open.

When you are asked a question about something you agree with, you generally answer directly and in detail.

When asked a question about something you don't agree with or something you don't want to state, you post pages of CBA language, espouse law (ERISA), etc. ….so it gives the impression you have an agenda. Your statement in a previous thread, "I wish it were that simple. It is, really, until you start talking to the ERISA attorney." I read that to imply you know the answer, it was a discussion about age 53 and age discrimination. You have just now said you don't know one way or the other. So...

The simple answer to my previous question that generated the "agenda" statement was about using the $0.50/CH VEBA contribution to offset Tricare expenses. I would have preferred the answer, "No, the pilot would have to choose between Post-Medicare Healthcare as defined in the CBA or Tricare. You don't get both."

Now the last sentence of Sec 27.I.3 states, "The purpose of this provision is to allow the ongoing monthly VEBA contributions of 50 cents per paid credit hour to be funded out of compensation that would otherwise be paid directly to pilots in cash."

Sounds like money earned by all pilots for a benefit that not all pilots will use. But can't opt out of the payment. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT THING FOR ALPA TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON TO ALL. Did Retiree Healthcare prior to this work like active pilot healthcare, WRT Tricare? (I don't know what retiree healthcare consisted of before CBA 2006) Would it ruin ALPA to research using the VEBA trust to offset healthcare expense unto the limit of those who do use the post medicare healthcare?

The $25K HRA VEBA would not be an issue for me if it did not include the scope penalty. Using that money to remove an impediment to retirement when it could have helped pilots pay for family medical bills, etc instead. That was money obligated by the CBA to everyone. I received a payment the year prior! I have no problem with money negotiated from the company going to the $25K. I would prefer the DSA be turned into the HRA instead.

Enough discussion on the past, time to move forward.

Happy 4th of July!