Anyone else not receive the package ALPA is talking about? Couldn't find a link on ALPA site either

 

I received mine in an email. Received my letter about a week ago too.

 

Probably in your email junk folder.

But they also sent a letter in the mail.

 

you can verify your status online http://www.alpa.org/fdxverification

 

Heard someone is suing because he didn't get the full amount due to some time on LTD.

 

What are the implications of that (assuming the rumor is true)? Does that mean everybody's checks will be delayed? Until when?

The Court System in some parts of the country are VERY backed up. I had a recent minor traffic violation dismissed because it took nearly 2 years to go to court (Right to a speedy trail)!

And ... if all of this is true, why hasn't the union mentioned it? Could we all be assessed damages? Why / when / how much? Enquiring minds want to know,

 

That's why they're paying it in 3 installments. Last ~5% or so will be held back to deal with lawsuits. Once those are settled, final payment (what's left) will go out.

 

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.

 

It's not retro, unless you call it retro. It comes no where close to the amount needed for it to be retro.

It is a signing bonus, plain and simple.

You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and the date should be date of signing. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lawsuit over that as well.

 

It's not suing anybody -- it is using the expedited dispute resolution procedures to contest the allocation methodology, as described in the package everyone should have received. Is it asking too much to read that? It's kinda important.

ALPA's Executive Council (the EVPs) will render a decision.


This was discussed at the Council 7 Meeting this past Wednesday. (I noticed, nobody here asked about the Joint Council Meeting, no, "I won't be able to make it -- somebody please take notes" or "Hey, I couldn't be there, what did they say?" posts. I guess the care factor has gone down a bit.)

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.



If a pilot went on LTD prior to the amendable date of the previous CBA, his payments would not have been affected by any pay raise that should have occurred then, so there is no retroactive harm. However, if he went on LTD a year after there should have been a pay raise, his LTD payments were based on a pay rate that should have been raised. A solid argument could be made that his LTD payments would have been higher, and some retro pay would be due to compensate for the loss.

More complicated still is the effect some payments made to the pilot might affect the LTD amounts to which he is entitled. Would receipt of a retro signing bonus decrease the amount of LTD benefits he would therefore receive? I don't know, but I acknowledge it's not a simple calculation.

I'll refer you again to the materials you were sent via e-mail and USPS.
Looks like they call it retro. Yeah, I agree the amount comes nowhere close, but shouldn't the amounts then be proportional?



Dispute, not lawsuit. Since we agree it's retro, why are not the months of September and October 2015 included? The "retro amendable lookback period" should be February 24, 2013 to November 1, 2015, so there should be 32 months in the equation instead of 30 months. This would mean that some people who were active for a portion of those 32 months should receive more, some should receive less, and those who were active for the entire 32 months should receive more or less depending on how much remains after the prorated pilots amounts are adjusted.

Since it's retro, and it should therefore address and seek to compensate those pilots who were harmed by delayed pay raises, consider the case of a pilot who was a narrow-body Captain for the entire 32 months compared to a pilot who was a narrow-body First Officer for 31 months, and who then upgraded to narrow-body Captain during the 32nd month. Were they harmed equally? I would submit that the Former was harmed more, and should receive a larger portion of the retro signing bonus, and the latter should receive a prorated portion of the retro bonus based on his narrow-body First Officer position for 31 of 32 months, and a prorated portion of the retro bonus based on his narrow-body Captain position for 1 of 32 months.

Since it is far more common for pilots to upgrade than to downgrade, particularly during the period of time in question here, the recalculation of the retro bonus to account for upgrading would likely result in reduced amounts for anyone who upgraded, and increased amounts for everyone who did not.


Discuss.






.