The facts that stand out are;

The premiums paid by the pilots who are now out were for coverage to age 65. They had no expectation to continued payments beyond their 65th birthday.The plan stated coverage was stated for age 65.

The company is throwing up the possibility of an extension of the retiremnt age. There was no liability in the plan for payments beyond 65. If the company wanted to sell the liabilities to only 65 they could, but that would require returning our money.

Since when did the union care about some possibility of increased costs or liabilities to the COMPANY? That is managements job.

As quoted, the company"flatly refused". How many times have we heard that before, prior to a grievance, like the mil leave or profit sharing?

Such details of possible changes in actuary tables used for insurance plans are never included in labor contracts, but does not obviate the ability for grievances or law suit. Yes, ALPA could sue on behalf of the pilots, but there is no financial upside, on!y expense.