fdx retro bonus package
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,173
So in reality, he/she is suing all of us.
Is it the Companies decision or Alpa's about not paying "Active" pilots the bonus. In reality if it represents a "retro" then if they weren't active, they wouldn't have "earned" the retro.....as LTD is based on work history prior to going on LTD, any active months that they work after LTD would earn the retro.
That is just a short look at it.
I sure hope it's not a "Non-Member not on dues checkoff" that is suing us (if sit rumor is true). That would be some pretty distasteful icing on the cake. Somehow I could stomach it better if it is a dues paying member suing us.
Is it the Companies decision or Alpa's about not paying "Active" pilots the bonus. In reality if it represents a "retro" then if they weren't active, they wouldn't have "earned" the retro.....as LTD is based on work history prior to going on LTD, any active months that they work after LTD would earn the retro.
That is just a short look at it.
I sure hope it's not a "Non-Member not on dues checkoff" that is suing us (if sit rumor is true). That would be some pretty distasteful icing on the cake. Somehow I could stomach it better if it is a dues paying member suing us.
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Depends. I think the formula and the recipients in 2006 was exactly the same as 2015. Don't remember much about our bridge bonus and I am much to lazy to look it up. Now is it relevant that the 2006 payout matches the 2015 payout, probably if you are trying to dispute it. Wouldn't you say?
#15
Depends. I think the formula and the recipients in 2006 was exactly the same as 2015. Don't remember much about our bridge bonus and I am much to lazy to look it up. Now is it relevant that the 2006 payout matches the 2015 payout, probably if you are trying to dispute it. Wouldn't you say?
The 2011 "bonus" was 1% of CY2010 Pensionable Wages, capped at $2,600 bonus. It was a lump sum, it was treated as pensionable wages (ALPA dues-able), and eligible for B-Plan contributions.
Here's the biggest difference. In 2006, there was no dispute process to challenge the methodology of the distribution. Since then, pilots sued ALPA for distributions they believed were unfair. ALPA has since created the dispute resolution process. It's not a "take it or leave it" situation anymore, or a case where a pilot would have to commit to a major undertaking to engage in a lawsuit. There is, in a Festivus sort of way, a described avenue for the "airing of grievances" that anyone can easily access.
.
#16
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Bus
Posts: 60
[QUOTE=TonyC;2006642]
A subcommittee of the MEC Reps decided who would be included, and they tried to be as inclusive as possible. They included pilots who had already retired. They included pilots on military leave (had to by law). They included management pilots. According to the ALPA National attorneys who assisted, they supposedly had the most inclusive policy of anyone making similar lump-sum distributions.
I agree military leave was included because of federal law. For those affected, I wonder why military leave pilots were excluded in 2011?
A subcommittee of the MEC Reps decided who would be included, and they tried to be as inclusive as possible. They included pilots who had already retired. They included pilots on military leave (had to by law). They included management pilots. According to the ALPA National attorneys who assisted, they supposedly had the most inclusive policy of anyone making similar lump-sum distributions.
I agree military leave was included because of federal law. For those affected, I wonder why military leave pilots were excluded in 2011?
#17
Goodo points Tony
I know all about the dispute resolution process because I read my packet. Doesn't stop someone from trying to file a suit regardless if it there is a dispute resolution process. I believe the rumor was that someone was suing ALPA over the amount.
I too surmised that there was an argument to be made in the case of someone who went on LTD AFTER the period in which the "retro" covered, then his LTD payments would be reduced unless he hit the LTD limits anyway.......I thought about including it in my original message but thought twice about it.....mainly because he/she will be cutting into my share! I have a brand new high end speed boat to fund for crying out loud....I don't want all these LTD guys to ruin my good deal ;-)
I just really hope it's not a non-member not on dues checkoff.
I too surmised that there was an argument to be made in the case of someone who went on LTD AFTER the period in which the "retro" covered, then his LTD payments would be reduced unless he hit the LTD limits anyway.......I thought about including it in my original message but thought twice about it.....mainly because he/she will be cutting into my share! I have a brand new high end speed boat to fund for crying out loud....I don't want all these LTD guys to ruin my good deal ;-)
I just really hope it's not a non-member not on dues checkoff.
#19
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,368
Tony said:
"Many pilots, myself included, upgraded during the period between TA and DOS." In reference to the 2006 contract.
So why didn't they use DOS this time? Do you know? If yes, please explain.
Your statement above sounds an awful lot like "I got mine", especially to those of us that didn't.
I'd like to hear a justification for changing the dates from historical precedence.
"Many pilots, myself included, upgraded during the period between TA and DOS." In reference to the 2006 contract.
So why didn't they use DOS this time? Do you know? If yes, please explain.
Your statement above sounds an awful lot like "I got mine", especially to those of us that didn't.
I'd like to hear a justification for changing the dates from historical precedence.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post