I met at least one of the people who plans to sue. He was on LTD for most of the period involved. He plans to file a class action lawsuit saying he is being discriminated against. I don't believe he is a non-member as he kept talking about how his rep kept lying to him about how the decision to not pay people on LTD was reached.

I am sure Tony can tell us the difference between this payout and the rules for 2006 and 2011.

Is there a relevant point there somewhere?






.

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?

If the 2006 payout matched the 2015 payout, it might be relevant. It matched in some ways; in some ways, it did not. It was a "lump sum signing bonus" -- different terminology. It considered the entire amendable period, June 1, 2004 through DOS, October 31, 2006 - 29 months. Active pilots received cash, pensionable, dues-able, and eligible for B-Plan contributions. Pilots on military leave were treated as if they were active. Retired pilots received a prorated bonus in the form of an HRA contribution. The amounts of the individual bonuses were based on the highest crew status in which he was active during the amendable period. This included the time after the TA was reached, the time required for ratification, and the time up until "DOS." Many pilots, myself included, upgraded during the period between TA and DOS.

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.






.

[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?

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.

Your sadistic gloating wasn't funny the first time.






.

Does it include a pole and require feats of strength?

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.