ALPA does not provide adequate means for those ALPA members who are not being fairly and adequately represented by ALPA.

You tell me, what is someone to do, when ALPA ignores its members and its members? If the goal is to limit litigation, there needs to be some means and mechanism for ALPA members to get issues resolved such as this.

 

Extended leaves over 5 years are excluded from many USSERA protections. However, war on terrorism, and all presidential activations nullify those limitations.

Their retro would have been reduced, but not eliminated, however, if it had not been for the longevity component their checks would have been higher. Could be up to 5K higher.

Wide body pilots already have a higher hourly pay rate than narrow body pilots, and their trips are far more productive, so they would have enjoyed a higher pay out anyway, as their w-2 wages are higher.

The union negotiated voluntary junior man provisions in the cba (contract 02), and while no CAL pilot is on furlough, pilots have a right to pick up VJM. The MEC would not (and is on the record as such) penalize anyone who utilized provisions in the cba to maximize income; as long as no CAL pilots were furloughed. It didn't reduce the windfall, because those who were actively flying full bid periods over the 48 month look back were already getting full credit for that period of time. It's like giving those VJM pilots "extra credit." It actually enhanced them to some degree.

 

Can you name one organization that pays for lawyers so you can turn around and sue it?

 

As my good trade unionist friend says, ALPA is the only union where the members sue the union. If a longshoreman tries to sue his union, [Begin Boston accent] They send a guy around.










.

 

Pure retro is the difference between what you made and what you would have made under the new contract. The pay raise for LCAL's 737/757 was about half of what it was for the WB fleets, thus the retro would have been about half. You can argue 737/757 pilots were overpaid relative to the WB pilots and thus only deserved half of the retro, but there would have been some very vocal disagreement. BTW, how does productivity increase payout?

VJM goes back to C97 and there were no restrictions while pilots were on furlough. Just 'cause it's legal doesn't make it right. Scabbing is legal, but we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror each morning.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how our retro formula worked. My understanding is half was based on income earned and half was based on the time flying on property. I don't see how a longevity element could possibly help those who were out only for themselves.

I don't know enough about the mil pilots cause to say yea or nay. If their cause is just, I hope they get it. However, there are valid reasons for the method of calculation of the retro. My bet is the lawyers will make money and anything recovered from CALALPA by the plaintiffs won't even cover the legal fees.

 

Don't lump them all into one basket Otto. I know for a fact that the CAL IAH and LAX Reps, besides voting no on the TA, were against this for the very reasons you quoted.

 

Not true. Delta pilots out during the entire time on military leave received retro pay. I don't know what they used as a calculation or whether it was called a signing bonus or retro payout, but they all received checks, many of them quite fat, but they also receive annual profit sharing checks for their entire mil leave time.

ALPA national needs to make a uniform policy on this. It would be a significant difference to have 48 months used in the calculation vs 0 or few months.

 

I think of pure retro as the difference between what you would have made had the new contract been in effect on the amendable date of the previous contract and what you actually made. You need pay rates that go back to the first year after the last amendable date to do that. If you didn't turn a wheel for UniCal, you weren't harmed by the lack of a new contract over that time period, since they weren't paying you anyway.

It sounds like DAL/NWA, like us, had a signing bonus. The terms of that bonus apparently included significant pay for those on mil leave. Our bonus was structured differently. I'm not making a judgement on what's right or wrong, I don't know the case at all. My bet is that the plaintiffs will not recover their legal fees.

Maybe, but ALPA seems to steer clear of boilerplate in contracts and I'd guess it doesn't want to step into the retro business either.

 

The CAL MEC allowed themselves to be backed into a corner on this. Since the 2009 amenable date we were demanding full retro in the new contract. Out of political motive they promised "retro." Retro is the difference between the new and old pay rate multiplied by hours worked. There is no partial retro. It's all or none. However, when we failed to negotiate full retro the MEC couldn't then call it a "signing bonus," so they called it "retro" even though it was not. But having called it retro, it had to be calculated like retro in which hours flown is part of the equation, which harmed military and LTD pilots. They should have called it what it really was, a signing bonus, and given it to anyone (in some measure) who had been on the seniority list since 1/1/09.

 

Correct,
but the entire MEC has a "body" owns it. You, unfortunately have to lump the whole MEC together, because the whole MEC owns the outcome.

How in Gods holy name did the entire MEC not see this coming? How did four guys, who I don't think are very smart in the first place get this right, and the entire rest of the MEC and the NC get it wrong? How did the ALPA legal advisors get this wrong? Did they not go to law school?