Signing bonus
06-12-2013 | 06:20 AM
#51
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
June 11, 2013
Dear Continental & United Pilots,
This message is about the remainder of the first tranche of Retro/Lump Sum Payments negotiated as a part of the United Pilots Agreement.
As you have been advised, ALPA’s internal dispute-resolution process, which consisted of an internal review by ALPA’s Executive Council and an arbitration, has been concluded with a finding by the arbitrator that all appeals are denied. This has prompted inquiries asking when the remaining 5% holdback from the first tranche payment will be released.
Although ALPA’s internal dispute-resolution process has been completed, one lawsuit and two administrative claims have been filed and are pending. Other actions have been threatened.
The Executive Council must weigh the importance of releasing the funds to the pilot group versus the legal risks from lawsuits and other challenges. As of today’s message, the 5% holdback will continue.
The next meeting of the Executive Council will be on July 9-11. We expect to have more to report after the Council’s review of these issues at that meeting.
Recall that the second tranche is expected to be paid in its entirety upon completion of the Integrated Seniority List.
Respectfully,
Capt. Lee Moak
Dear Continental & United Pilots,
This message is about the remainder of the first tranche of Retro/Lump Sum Payments negotiated as a part of the United Pilots Agreement.
As you have been advised, ALPA’s internal dispute-resolution process, which consisted of an internal review by ALPA’s Executive Council and an arbitration, has been concluded with a finding by the arbitrator that all appeals are denied. This has prompted inquiries asking when the remaining 5% holdback from the first tranche payment will be released.
Although ALPA’s internal dispute-resolution process has been completed, one lawsuit and two administrative claims have been filed and are pending. Other actions have been threatened.
The Executive Council must weigh the importance of releasing the funds to the pilot group versus the legal risks from lawsuits and other challenges. As of today’s message, the 5% holdback will continue.
The next meeting of the Executive Council will be on July 9-11. We expect to have more to report after the Council’s review of these issues at that meeting.
Recall that the second tranche is expected to be paid in its entirety upon completion of the Integrated Seniority List.
Respectfully,
Capt. Lee Moak
Now I'm emotionally impacted.
06-12-2013 | 06:57 AM
#52
SLI best wishes!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: B767 Capt
This is public Record/information:
Looks like the suit its from the CAL side.
Brian J. Lawler, CA SBN 221488
PILOT LAW, P.C.
701 B Street, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 512-2465 Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
Gene J. Stonebarger, CA SBN 209461
STONEBARGER LAW
A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK DUFFER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity; THE CONTINENTAL AIRLINES CHAPTER OF THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: '13CV0318 GPC WVG CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(1) VIOLATIONS OF 38 U.S.C. §4301 ET SEQ;
(2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE §394; AND
(3) NEGLIGENCE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Kirk Koenig Posts: 214Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:36 pm
Looks like the suit its from the CAL side.
Brian J. Lawler, CA SBN 221488
PILOT LAW, P.C.
701 B Street, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 512-2465 Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
Gene J. Stonebarger, CA SBN 209461
STONEBARGER LAW
A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK DUFFER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity; THE CONTINENTAL AIRLINES CHAPTER OF THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: '13CV0318 GPC WVG CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(1) VIOLATIONS OF 38 U.S.C. §4301 ET SEQ;
(2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE §394; AND
(3) NEGLIGENCE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Kirk Koenig Posts: 214Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:36 pm
06-12-2013 | 07:06 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
This is public Record/information:
Looks like the suit its from the CAL side.
Brian J. Lawler, CA SBN 221488
PILOT LAW, P.C.
701 B Street, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 512-2465 Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
Gene J. Stonebarger, CA SBN 209461
STONEBARGER LAW
A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK DUFFER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity; THE CONTINENTAL AIRLINES CHAPTER OF THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: '13CV0318 GPC WVG CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(1) VIOLATIONS OF 38 U.S.C. §4301 ET SEQ;
(2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE §394; AND
(3) NEGLIGENCE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Kirk Koenig Posts: 214Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:36 pm
Looks like the suit its from the CAL side.
Brian J. Lawler, CA SBN 221488
PILOT LAW, P.C.
701 B Street, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 512-2465 Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
Gene J. Stonebarger, CA SBN 209461
STONEBARGER LAW
A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK DUFFER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity; THE CONTINENTAL AIRLINES CHAPTER OF THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: '13CV0318 GPC WVG CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(1) VIOLATIONS OF 38 U.S.C. §4301 ET SEQ;
(2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE §394; AND
(3) NEGLIGENCE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Kirk Koenig Posts: 214Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:36 pm
Waaaah. I was in the military, and thus not working during the contact amendable period, and I didn't get a cut of the RETRO pay.....waaaah.
Sled
06-12-2013 | 07:25 AM
#54
Banned
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
You are correct - surprised the well informed cal people didn't understand the process. Must just be the ones with their heads in the sand posting here.
06-12-2013 | 07:29 AM
#56
SLI best wishes!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: B767 Capt
"Well, well. Say it ain't so! I thought it was the UAL side that was sooo litigious.
Waaaah. I was in the military, and thus not working during the contact amendable period, and I didn't get a cut of the RETRO pay.....waaaah.
Sled "
Waaaah. I was in the military, and thus not working during the contact amendable period, and I didn't get a cut of the RETRO pay.....waaaah.
Sled "
06-12-2013 | 07:39 AM
#57
Banned
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
You are one sad cal pilot - I don't know if it because you never made command or possibility just A/C Commander but whatever the reason you need to let it go. You have my support.
06-12-2013 | 08:40 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
If only to expose the CAL MEC for what they did during negotiations as to how to split the pot, I hope these guys can actually get a ruling in their favor. It is my understanding the some went to great lengths to EXCLUDE as many pilots as possible out of the retro/bonus as to maximize payouts for others. The Military guys out on leave got hit pretty hard by the CAL MEC actions. The vote as to what method to use was split as well.
I suspect our "Delta Differential" method was not kind to anyone who did not actually work during the contract amendable period, including military guys. No workee, no payee. That's the breaks.
Sled
06-13-2013 | 05:51 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
As I have a few folks posting here on ignore, I am not reading all the posts. Thanks for posting that info. I am probably included in that law suit de facto since I've been on mil leave for a while. From what I read in USERRA, I got exactly what I was required to get by law. I think others read it differently, hence the suit. There is history here, I know, as we (CAL mil guys) had a law suit against the company about 2 years ago for violating federal law. The lawsuit was a push as no damages were awarded, but the company also had to change many of it's practices. I don't think they'll/we'll get anything in this case. It's up to ALPA whether they hold back money for this.
BTW, many of us took mil leave when they were furloughing to try and keep guys without that option on the property. They didn't officially count against the numbers, but when you drop a 4 year tour on them, they have to staff for your absence. I was not even close to furlough, but had the option and took it.
Again, I don't think this case will go any where as the distribution looked to me to be in accordance with the USERRA directives.
BTW, many of us took mil leave when they were furloughing to try and keep guys without that option on the property. They didn't officially count against the numbers, but when you drop a 4 year tour on them, they have to staff for your absence. I was not even close to furlough, but had the option and took it.
Again, I don't think this case will go any where as the distribution looked to me to be in accordance with the USERRA directives.
06-13-2013 | 06:15 AM
#60
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
As I have a few folks posting here on ignore, I am not reading all the posts. Thanks for posting that info. I am probably included in that law suit de facto since I've been on mil leave for a while. From what I read in USERRA, I got exactly what I was required to get by law. I think others read it differently, hence the suit. There is history here, I know, as we (CAL mil guys) had a law suit against the company about 2 years ago for violating federal law. The lawsuit was a push as no damages were awarded, but the company also had to change many of it's practices. I don't think they'll/we'll get anything in this case. It's up to ALPA whether they hold back money for this.
BTW, many of us took mil leave when they were furloughing to try and keep guys without that option on the property. They didn't officially count against the numbers, but when you drop a 4 year tour on them, they have to staff for your absence. I was not even close to furlough, but had the option and took it.
Again, I don't think this case will go any where as the distribution looked to me to be in accordance with the USERRA directives.
BTW, many of us took mil leave when they were furloughing to try and keep guys without that option on the property. They didn't officially count against the numbers, but when you drop a 4 year tour on them, they have to staff for your absence. I was not even close to furlough, but had the option and took it.
Again, I don't think this case will go any where as the distribution looked to me to be in accordance with the USERRA directives.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
