The Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”), the Continental Airlines Chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Air Lines, Inc., and Continental Airlines, Inc.... were all named defendants in the suit.

United has settled on the "Pension Contribution.

ALPA, did not go to trial but instead did agree to a settle with $1.7 million of the Continental Pilots retro lump sum, to be paid to Duffer , et al. (Pretty generous of them)


No monies will be paid from the ALPA treasury or insurance carrier.

ALPA maintains that . deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability against them whatsoever and further contend that their conduct was lawful.

So it took them 5 years to cave in and pay it out of our pocket?? Brilliant. LOL

Yeah, the the Continental Airlines Chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association no longer exists, so ALPA was generous enough to step in and generously pay out 1.7 million of the Continental Pilots wages.

I thought there were only about two dozen pilots in that suit, can't recall. Now that would be a "real" bonus! (in addition to the 95% they already got for the time they were actually on property)

So glad they have our backs.:confused:

Oh yeah, for those of you old enough to recognize the name "Duffer", check your list for Don Duffer.

Major irony.

ALPA wasn't sued (Unless suit was amended to include the CAL MEC), so ALPA didn't win or lose. Legacy Contiental was sued. CAL management was playing fast and loose with the CAL military pilots B fund contributions.

I think there was only 5. However, the suit demonstrated that many folks who were on military status (not just those in the suit) were improperly treated. So, the reason for the hold back was that CAL figured, that if and when they lost the suit, they had to air on the conservative side and determine an estimate that would cover all of their transgressions if the award went against them. So, why hold back 5% if only 5 pilots filed a suit? Because, if management lost, they knew they would have to make it right for everyone they screwed.

Those original 5 pilots were only owed about $2K each. And, they tried to get management to make it right for them before the suit was filed. The CAL MEC wasn't interested in making it right for them.

And, the lawfirm that ran the suit (pilot law), is run by a legacy UAL pilot, and ALPA member in good-standing. I am sure he had mixed feelings about bringing ALPA into it, but likely had not choice as the CAL MEC had a joint role in enforcing the R&I components of the cba.

The interesting thing is this: ALPA was taking dues money from all pilots, to include those CAL ALPA members in good standing who were paying dues money to insure that the CBA was being enforced and maintained properly. The CAL MEC owed a duty of fair representation and enforcement to those military dues paying members in good standing. They should not have their rights abrogated in any way.

Keep in mind, that pre-merger the legacy UAL MEC and legacy UAL were in deed keeping up with their obligations under the law and under the cba. So, one way to look at it is this: Kudos to legacy UAL MEC and UAL for enforcing the cba and insuring their military dues paying members in good-standing were being properly compensated in their retirement fund. Way to set the example and way to go for showing legacy CAL needed to fix their accounting scheme.

I believe something else learned during discovery was this: those on leave, not just military leave (some pilots), were treated improperly as it relates to B fund contributions. All kinds of incongruities and irregularities were discovered during the audit of the B funds (contract '02) of pilots on leave. maternity leave, military leave, medical leave. If you had a leave of absence and were a legacy CAL pilot I would audit my B fund to see if you were shorted.

Wrong Duffer. Suit was brought by Mark Duffer.

Do you have a Major link?

From the 2/14 MEC Update

The Conclusion of The Duffer Litigation and Impending Release of The Holdback Monies from the 2012 Retro/Lump Sum Bonus

In 2012, Mark Duffer, a LCAL pilot and military reservist, sued ALPA and United on behalf of Continental Military Leave pilots under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") concerning the LCAL MEC retro/lump sum allocation methodology and other issues. This case is known as the Duffer litigation. While this lawsuit was pending, the ALPA Executive Council passed a resolution, per ALPA Policy (Section 40.3.J of ALPA's Administrative Manual) requiring that the existing 5% holdback from the first tranche payment of the $400 million combined retro/lump sum amount be maintained pending the resolution of the Duffer case. In passing this resolution, the Executive Council noted in part that the Company, as a co-defendant, in accordance with LOA 24, was insisting that ALPA maintain this holdback until the Duffer litigation was resolved.

Yes, ALPA was named as a defendant in the suit. The list I posted is copied directly from the Plaintiffs lawyers web notice.

If you actually read the original complaint and responses you will read that ALPA executive committee had reviewed the CAL ALPA accounting procedure and approved it. It was done the same way it had always been, if you are not on preoperty for a period, you don't get paid for that time, unless on paid sick leave.

The fact that the law firm is run by an L-UAL pilot explains a lot. He will likely get to keep a large portion of the "settlement".

Keep in mind, that no court judged the process illegal under USERRA- it never got to court. So any determination that the accounting was illegal is bogus.

This settlement amounts to hush money to the L-UAL pilot and his law firm, that lets United, and ALPA off the hook, at the expense of L-CAL line pilots, who had no say in the accounting practices of Continental.

If, big IF, the process was illegal, UNITED CONTINENTAL should be on the hook for a lot of money for past pay practices. UAL won't pay a dime, except for B fund (Which is entirely different matter)

It's his dad. I've flown with both.