Next week? It almost says
10-22-2012 | 07:38 PM
#51
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
Every now and then, I get the idea that maybe I am a bit too negative on ALPA, and its leadership.
Then, after given a small glimpse of what goes on, reality sets in, and my worse nightmares aren't even close to how stupid it really is...........
Then, after given a small glimpse of what goes on, reality sets in, and my worse nightmares aren't even close to how stupid it really is...........
10-22-2012 | 09:35 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Next week? It almost says
"We walked right into the company's hands on this one"
After more than 25 years in ALPA, the company has already set "traps" that we won't figure out for two years. ALPA and we pilots just keep walking into them.
After more than 25 years in ALPA, the company has already set "traps" that we won't figure out for two years. ALPA and we pilots just keep walking into them.
10-23-2012 | 02:58 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: 777 Cap
We must absolutely demand "retro" instead of a signing bonus, and here is why. It is a history refresher for UAL pilots, and a for the CAL side a lesson in what has been "played" on us before, recently.
In our exit from bankruptcy contract, we received a 550 million dollar convertible note, supposedly in lieu of the vested portion of our A fund. But it was not called that, just a note. If they called it retirement, it should have been doled out according to what we all had vested at the time.
Instead, our MEC, without allowing membership ratification, came up with a BS methodology to distribute the money unevenly with some getting a huge windfall, and others getting the shaft. (For me I got about what my vested A fund was. Just luck)
I asked out LEC members why they would not let us vote on this distribution plan. They said "you allowed us too. It is in the contract"
Sure as SH$#@, I read the contract, and the language in there said "to be distributed at the discretion of the MEC". That is a paraphrase. I don't remember the exact language. They had put this language in the TA draft on purpose.
IMHO, if they call this a "signing bonus" instead of retro, this will allow some to get more than they deserve, and penalize others. When the TA comes out, I recommend we all read what it says about the money, and if we get membership ratification on how it is distributed.
On the UAL side, we have been "played" a lot, to the financial dismay of many of us.
In our exit from bankruptcy contract, we received a 550 million dollar convertible note, supposedly in lieu of the vested portion of our A fund. But it was not called that, just a note. If they called it retirement, it should have been doled out according to what we all had vested at the time.
Instead, our MEC, without allowing membership ratification, came up with a BS methodology to distribute the money unevenly with some getting a huge windfall, and others getting the shaft. (For me I got about what my vested A fund was. Just luck)
I asked out LEC members why they would not let us vote on this distribution plan. They said "you allowed us too. It is in the contract"
Sure as SH$#@, I read the contract, and the language in there said "to be distributed at the discretion of the MEC". That is a paraphrase. I don't remember the exact language. They had put this language in the TA draft on purpose.
IMHO, if they call this a "signing bonus" instead of retro, this will allow some to get more than they deserve, and penalize others. When the TA comes out, I recommend we all read what it says about the money, and if we get membership ratification on how it is distributed.
On the UAL side, we have been "played" a lot, to the financial dismay of many of us.
Then that retirement was put into a present value.
Then that present value was offset, by the present value of the PBGC benefit that he pilot would receive, and the present value of future C fund contributions.
That left everyone with a gap.
That gap was paid at the same percentage for every pilot. (roughly 50%)
The pilots that got "screwed" and didn't get much money had a small gap. In other words, those pilots were basically made whole by PBGC and C fund contributions.
If the formula was changed to reflect age 65, there would have been very little change, as it would affect all pilots the same. Bigger gap, but roughly the same ratios.
There were some assumptions, like everybody bid the highest paying seat they could. The stovepipe method gavee pilots heartburn, but they could not understand the fact that they may be a 767 captain now, but couldn't possibly hold that position if people senior to them had not bypassed.
Under a retro check scenario, what assumptions will be used?
Rumors of banding, will they look at 767 hours vs 757. Intl. vs domestic?
What payrate, when.
Retro calculations could easily equal the bond for complexity
10-23-2012 | 04:46 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Capt
The bond allocation looked at each persons A fund benefit at retirement.
Then that retirement was put into a present value.
Then that present value was offset, by the present value of the PBGC benefit that he pilot would receive, and the present value of future C fund contributions.
That left everyone with a gap.
That gap was paid at the same percentage for every pilot. (roughly 50%)
The pilots that got "screwed" and didn't get much money had a small gap. In other words, those pilots were basically made whole by PBGC and C fund contributions.
If the formula was changed to reflect age 65, there would have been very little change, as it would affect all pilots the same. Bigger gap, but roughly the same ratios.
There were some assumptions, like everybody bid the highest paying seat they could. The stovepipe method gavee pilots heartburn, but they could not understand the fact that they may be a 767 captain now, but couldn't possibly hold that position if people senior to them had not bypassed.
Under a retro check scenario, what assumptions will be used?
Rumors of banding, will they look at 767 hours vs 757. Intl. vs domestic?
What payrate, when.
Retro calculations could easily equal the bond for complexity
Then that retirement was put into a present value.
Then that present value was offset, by the present value of the PBGC benefit that he pilot would receive, and the present value of future C fund contributions.
That left everyone with a gap.
That gap was paid at the same percentage for every pilot. (roughly 50%)
The pilots that got "screwed" and didn't get much money had a small gap. In other words, those pilots were basically made whole by PBGC and C fund contributions.
If the formula was changed to reflect age 65, there would have been very little change, as it would affect all pilots the same. Bigger gap, but roughly the same ratios.
There were some assumptions, like everybody bid the highest paying seat they could. The stovepipe method gavee pilots heartburn, but they could not understand the fact that they may be a 767 captain now, but couldn't possibly hold that position if people senior to them had not bypassed.
Under a retro check scenario, what assumptions will be used?
Rumors of banding, will they look at 767 hours vs 757. Intl. vs domestic?
What payrate, when.
Retro calculations could easily equal the bond for complexity
10-23-2012 | 05:04 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
There is a very simple way to distribute the "retro" portion of the contract. The delays present themselves when ulterior motives and social redistribution are involved. Jay Pierce is a prime example. The assumption that each group is to get a percentage split is another.
This is just but a mere sideshow of what the sli is going to be like.
This is just but a mere sideshow of what the sli is going to be like.
10-23-2012 | 05:13 AM
#58
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
10-23-2012 | 05:23 AM
#59
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
Actually "retro pay" is fantastically simple, and has a literal definition.
It only starts to get complicated, corrupted, and stupid when they call it something else. It will get criminal if the membership doesn't get to ratify by vote. Same Same the bond BS.
The only ones, ever, to defend to bond distribution, and those that came up with it, are amazingly enough, the ones that came up with it or the few that got a huge windfall.
If I get a vote, and I won't because I am furloughed, I would vote for pure retro pay. If they want to come up with a different option, as long as the membership ratifies it - so be it.
This means the TA needs to spell out the distribution, or if they decide to sort it out later, it needs to say, in the TA, that it will be voted on by the membership, not "at the discretion of the MEC". That is how we got scammed on the bond. The TA we voted on had this language.
But first we have to wait until they get to this game. Sounds like they are playing a game even stupider than this as a warm up.
BOHECA
It only starts to get complicated, corrupted, and stupid when they call it something else. It will get criminal if the membership doesn't get to ratify by vote. Same Same the bond BS.
The only ones, ever, to defend to bond distribution, and those that came up with it, are amazingly enough, the ones that came up with it or the few that got a huge windfall.
If I get a vote, and I won't because I am furloughed, I would vote for pure retro pay. If they want to come up with a different option, as long as the membership ratifies it - so be it.
This means the TA needs to spell out the distribution, or if they decide to sort it out later, it needs to say, in the TA, that it will be voted on by the membership, not "at the discretion of the MEC". That is how we got scammed on the bond. The TA we voted on had this language.
But first we have to wait until they get to this game. Sounds like they are playing a game even stupider than this as a warm up.
BOHECA
10-23-2012 | 05:35 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
In my opinion, the moment that retro pay becomes anything other than retro is the moment we allow the company to trump us again. If you're tired of waiting this long for a contract, just wait until the next one. They'll drag it out over a decade and find a way to gin up another TRO to keep us on a tight leash. We've been subsidizing UAL since 2002 and we'd be setting ourselves up to do it again. NO MORE.
There is no way I'll vote yes for an ALPA distributed signing bonus.
(OK, I lied. There is a way but it would involve the distribution of a monumental pile of cash by girls in Hot Pants. Once the pay rates are on paper, everyone ought to be able to quickly figure out what they've been shorted since the amendable date. Add a kicker for COLA and B/C contributions and that's what it would take. But, one would have to be smoking crack to think we'd ever see that!)
There's only way I'll vote yes for this TA. It's got to have:
1) Ironclad Scope
2) Retroactive pay.
3) Highly competitive work rules
4) Highly competitive compensation.
Call it keyboard bravado, call it fertilizer I don't care. Absent the above its NO.
I fully expect to get screwed in the SLI. But I won't vote for a double helix.
Sorry for the TD. This week, next week, I'm willing to send it back and wait.
There is no way I'll vote yes for an ALPA distributed signing bonus.
(OK, I lied. There is a way but it would involve the distribution of a monumental pile of cash by girls in Hot Pants. Once the pay rates are on paper, everyone ought to be able to quickly figure out what they've been shorted since the amendable date. Add a kicker for COLA and B/C contributions and that's what it would take. But, one would have to be smoking crack to think we'd ever see that!)
There's only way I'll vote yes for this TA. It's got to have:
1) Ironclad Scope
2) Retroactive pay.
3) Highly competitive work rules
4) Highly competitive compensation.
Call it keyboard bravado, call it fertilizer I don't care. Absent the above its NO.
I fully expect to get screwed in the SLI. But I won't vote for a double helix.
Sorry for the TD. This week, next week, I'm willing to send it back and wait.
Last edited by oldmako; 10-23-2012 at 05:48 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
