Well, I wouldn't agree with the "bogus" statement.

It didn't get to court because it was settled, the fact that it wasn't litigated doesn't make anything bogus or non-bogus.

Legacy UAL certainly had a different mind-set on the B fund. Come to think of it, AA got hit with a nearly identical suit. Maybe the big corporations that had these types of plans all learned their lesson along the way and decided to get into compliance. I haven't seen any corporation "win" by cheating the military reservists. They either get their plans into compliance or settle it in some sort of agreement.

The CAL MEC was universally regarded as the "Milk & Cookies" wing of ALPA. Very non confrontational and fairly cooperative with CAL management. CAL Management decided to interpret their B fund policies and procedures a certain way, in favor of the company, and therefore not in favor of the military member/ALPA member in good standing. The CAL MEC made a strategic decision to agree with CAL Management.

It may have been settled because it was likely apparent that all former CAL MEC reps (contract '02 to merger), R&I reps, and attorneys would likely be forced to testify and/or give depositions. Those relationships as well as the company/union communications on all that stuff would be discoverable. It was more than likely going to be ugly. Better to settle.

It is my hope that from now on, the union represents and defends the contract for all pilots (reservists and non reservists), and that while doing so, is not overly cooperative and collaborative with management. When the union needs to represent the pilots, it can and should do so, and that sometimes means being adversarial instead of friendly with management.

Abbot, et al, used union relationships to get his agenda accomplished at CAL, this B fund computation stuff was part of that agenda (my opinion). I think Larry Kellner and Jacques Lapointe on the company side would be most familiar with what they were doing and why. They would likely be called to testify as well.

Lots of innuendo, and broad brush characterizations about the nature of the CAL MEC relationship to management, ignore the issue that it is a settlement agreeed to NOT by the CAL MEC and the blessings of the CAL pilots, but in their stead, by a group looking to protect ALPA and the company at the expense of the CAL pilots.

There probably were some individual cases of harsh treatment of reservists at CAL in the past. Again, that had nothing to do with this suit.

I guess you think that invoking the name of Abbott gives extra validation to your innuendo that this was the result of the Continental Pilots' character, it does not. But hey, you forgot Frank Lorenzo, and while you're at it why not mention Carl Icahn?!

You can imply that this was a contract compliance issue, but it certainly was not. Duffer himself refused arbitration and stated he is not bound by ALPA procedures. This has nothing to do do with an MEC forcing the company to compliance with the contract.

The B fund is an entirely different case. Neither MEC's were named as defendants on that. It's of no help to confuse the two.

As an aside from the settlement (remember no ruling of what is right under the law),...

What a sweet deal for guard and reserve members! Never in history has an employer been judged to be responsible for pay or incentive for Reservist back wages while he is on deployment. Still hasn't.

So I could take a voluntary 3 month deployment to Hickham and stand alert, sit on the beach, play a little golf all winter instead of being a reserve 37 FO in EWR, and build credits for mil retirement, airline retirement, as well as the next contract signing bonus. (If my mil days weren't behind me).

Meanwhile, the pilots actually flying the line get paid the same to fly more to cover for me (since we know there is no contract requirements to staff for "possible mil leaves").

I personally believe Duffer would have lost in court, had it made it there.

However, since ALPA decided to settle with their bud at Pilot Law P.C. , we'll never know.

But as I said, no skin off ALPA's nose. They aren't paying, even though they approved the contract language--- which is why they were named in the original suit.

The law says that any benefit, or privilege of employment given to an active employee shall also be given to a military member on a qualifying military leave of absence. So, the company would have lost.

Your knowledge of the law is inaccurate. Also, the statement "never in history has an employer been judged to be responsible for incentive for reservist backwages while he is on deployment" is also inaccurate". Incentive pay, regular pay, or back wages was not the issue. I am not sure what you are speaking of.

Of particular concern to me is why did United Airlines make the strategic decision, along with the UAL MEC to actually comply with the law? Did they decide to just do it right for some nefarious reason, or did they simply read the law and decide to comply with it?

When you examine the two different approaches taken, one by UAL and one by CAL, you can easily see two different methodologies. One was wrong, and one was right.

The military reservists, who are also ALPA members were depending on the same treatment as their peer ALPA brothers and sisters were enjoying at other companies. Why would the ALPA members at CAL be discriminated upon? Weren't their dues money's good enough? No way you can justify disparative and discriminatory treatment by a CAL pilot who was a military reservist and then compare that to a UAL pilot, or a DAL pilot, or a Fed Ex pilot who all had B plans, and who were all getting treated fairly and correctly under the law. The CAL military-CAL ALPA members were not being treated the same way, under the same law, and with the same type of B plan. Shame on Continental, and yes, shame on Abbot, Kellner, and Lapointe. And, yes, shame on the CAL MEC for ignoring the law, as well as their military liaison committee, to include Duffer who was the vice chairman on it.

Incorrect. it wasn't the original suit. Original suit filed in San Diego. Duffer's was filed in Illinois. Original suit moved to Houston at the company's request, and then appeals court, and then to US Supreme Court. Date of Original suit was 2007. This has been going on for 11 years now.

My opinion only, but ALPA likely brought into it, not because they approved the contract language, but because they have a DOL/DOJ mandate to enforce the contract language on behalf of both military and non military members (all members). All union contract compliance functions to include DFR is under federal jurisdiction.

If you read all the briefs, there is adequate case law (actual rulings) as to what is right under the law. This was headed to trial. All the motions to quash, suppress, and dismiss were used and overturned and it was docketed to trial. Once docketed, the parties got to the table, and actually had an incentive to negotiate a settlement.

If adequate case law and rulings did not exist and adequate precedent not present, then the plaintiffs case would have been dismissed. The company's hired lawyers were amazing. Never before have I seen a legal team manage to stiff arm a legal proceeding for 11 years and keep something this big out of a court room. Typically companies this big get their way and out muscle the little guy. That didn't happen here. One guy against an entire company. Amazing. Interesting, original plaintiff only wanted approximately $2K to make up for lost B fund contributions. Amazing 2K turned into over 11 million. So, I disagree with your interpretative reading of the tea leaves.

He could have accepted arbitration, but only on behalf of himself, not the class. So, in one part of you state it was not a contract compliance issue. Why would the company offer him arbitration if it wasn't, at least in part a contract compliance issue? Your statement contradicts the company's profer of arbitration. Surely the company is smart enough not to offer arbitration in which it does not have a legal obligation to participate in, much less offer......

He wasn't bound by ALPA procedures because of the Supremacy Clause. US Federal Code trumps ALPA's CBL's. So, Duffer, or his lawyers were correct. Federal law as it relates to both USSERA, and DB plans will and should outweigh contractural language. Furthermore, those negotiating contracts should insure their contract language is in compliance with the Federal law at issue.

Furthermore, The R&I committee at legacy UAL must have decided to read up on USSERA and enforce the law. Odd that CAL did not. It had to be, at least in part, a contract compliance issue because the R&I committee is the committee assigned to monitor the B fund and it's contributions, to insure their accuracy, and demand proper reimbursement if a MIGS is underpaid. Odd that the R&I committee at CAL decided to do it a different way.....Odd or was it some sort of coincidence? I believe (opinion only) that relationships and friendships at CAL filtered into the CAL MEC and it made a material difference as to how and why the contract was interpreted and enforced in a particular manner.

Post merger, I am very happy as to how the new MEC enforces the CBA. I personally will never vote for a former member of the CAL MEC to any ALPA office.

You keep going back to the retirement fund issue and confuse it with the retro issue. Two different suits, and defendants.

The "company", did not offer arbitration. ALPA national claimed Duffer (and his class) were subject to ALPA administrative procedures (arbitration), with ALPA because of his naming ALPA as a defendant. Had nothing to do with contract. Maybe you'd like to point out the section of the previous CBA that was violated. You won't, because it does not exist.

Don't you get that or maybe you just insist on mixing the two issues to detract from the point that ALPA sold out some of their members to protect themselves and incidentally the company (retro pay).

The retro pay issue is certainly not 11 years old.

There used to be a saying that a pilot contract was necessary to protect pilots from each other.

Who is going to protect us from ALPA and their lawyer buddies?

So the hold back was held back why?

Was it not held back because of the B fund problem?

That is a valid question. However, I think the difference may have been in the two different MEC's policy manuals. Two different Contracts, two different set of National assigned attorneys, same Constitution and Bylaws, but different policy manuals.

The guys who really got screwed were those who took voluntary leave to avoid additional furloughs. These guys/gals got nothing. I had a junior reservist tell me, prior to the merger that he was getting out of here(going active duty by choice) before he had to sit 756 reserve in IAH or have to commute. He stated he would be back when “things settled down “. He gets “retro” for this while the pilot that also took another job and left the property for years and years doesn’t? What a crock. Not feeling particularly patriotic right now, sorry. These are the same guys that often shout the loudest about not wanting/needing a VHEBA (they have tricare) and not wanting “socialist healthcare”(they have it already) etc.