Could you post the171 update, thanks.

 

I can't find it. But, the LC 171 update went out to everyone explaining what is going on with regard to the pay out of the lump sum distribution.

It's a signing bonus, it's a retro payment, it's a carrot and stick, it's everything and anything you want it to be.

But, the 48 bid period look back discriminates against military dues paying members in good standing. Problems ahead, perhaps just for L CAL pilots, but problems indeed.

I am glad that Pierces last blastmail stated that the pilots lump sum total would not be used for grievance, protest, or litigation defense.

I also understand big problems abound for those on LTD during the 48 bid period look back. Perhaps the L CAL MEC should have been doing what the L UAL MEC was doing.

These morons think they are so smart they just disregard federal law because (likely) their CAL counterparts at the table told them it was OK to do so. I can see it now, Stivala saying "don't worry.....be happy."

 

I think The LC 171 Vice Chiar is on this board. His name is Salley (Sally)??

Email or PM him and see if he can post it all. All of the chronological updates would be enlightening indeed.

 

Big mess...at least on the L UAL side it was distributed based on Retro. Hours worked x difference in pay etc.

 

Correct: on the L UAL side there is a history of a good working relationship between L UAL legal and the L UAL MEC. They seem to do what is required and seem to communicate and share info.

They also seem to both listen to their Military Relations Committee within ALPA (UAL MEC).

At CAL MEC, they traditionally ignore, marginalize, and minimize the input of their military laison chair.

The previous problems with B fund, etc occurred on ALPA's watch. They left their members to fend for themselves and their military members had to represent themselves. Now, new military chair, new MEC, same MEC Chairman and same legal advisors on both sides of the table, same result. Military members who pay dues get screwed again.

I don't think it's gonna fly this time. This bird is grounded.

 

UAL MEC was either very, very smart, or they followed good advice.

 

Starting to sound like they go hand-in-hand with the EWR CPO from the last 3 years.

 

Well, they may or may not be smart.
But they did predict exactly this scenario for CAL during the TA presentation I went to in DEC.

 

So I'm certainly not trying to drive a wedge here, but the question that I haven't seen answered is this: it seems the majority of the retro distribution challenges and issues are coming from the L-CAL side. Since the amounts are separate for the two sides, will both pilot groups see further delay in distribution, or will it be confined to the side where the challenges have been levied? Again, no hidden meaning here, just trying to do a little financial planning

 

The UA side is having about the same number of disputes as the CAL side, albeit for different reasons stemming from their different payment methodology.

CAL can expect the next 40% of the first tranche to be paid out at the end of Feb, leaving a 20% (of the first 60%) holdback fund to deal with these disputes.