A letter from Lee Moak
02-25-2013 | 04:07 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
.
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.
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.
If you were on property earning a pay check do you need this 48 month look back at all? It essentially makes no difference to a guy who was here for 48 bid months working. He still gets paid, his w-2 earnings are likely fairly good, unless he didn't fly at all (reserve???). But, most of our reserves hump it, so maybe not....
Anyway, no need for a 48 month look back, unless you are specifically trying to exclude and penalize military and LTD pilots. Why else would you include it? Why did UAL not include it? The 48 month look back is an unnecessary complexity designed to penalize some; and of course if you penalize one group, you do give to another.
02-25-2013 | 04:31 PM
#62
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
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?
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?
Speaking personally with the former L-CAL Military Rep regarding the Law Suit, the retained council pursuing the issue at hand "may" name those specific MEC member's who supported/voted for "look-back" method of distribution in any future filing. Should be interesting if this takes traction.
Either way, I'm sure we'll be hearing something soon since the next rumored payment is supposed to be coming soon at the beginning of March.....Further delay??
Stay tuned.
02-26-2013 | 07:13 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
FWIW......
Speaking personally with the former L-CAL Military Rep regarding the Law Suit, the retained council pursuing the issue at hand "may" name those specific MEC member's who supported/voted for "look-back" method of distribution in any future filing. Should be interesting if this takes traction.
Either way, I'm sure we'll be hearing something soon since the next rumored payment is supposed to be coming soon at the beginning of March.....Further delay??
Stay tuned.
Speaking personally with the former L-CAL Military Rep regarding the Law Suit, the retained council pursuing the issue at hand "may" name those specific MEC member's who supported/voted for "look-back" method of distribution in any future filing. Should be interesting if this takes traction.
Either way, I'm sure we'll be hearing something soon since the next rumored payment is supposed to be coming soon at the beginning of March.....Further delay??
Stay tuned.
Not sure why the CAL MEC even has a military laison committee. They never listen to their advice/input. Just a way to stroke the military guys and let them feel like they have a voice and an input into the process, when in reality they are just ignored. Your dues money going to waste. Now more dues money going to waste.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
