A letter from Lee Moak
01-19-2013 | 01:56 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
A letter from Lee Moak
Dear Jay,
I am in receipt of your latest brief to your members as well as your appeal letter to me linked in the brief. I am disappointed in the approach you took and the rhetoric chosen, as well as the serious omissions in both documents.
As you well know, every time our members have been responsible for allocation of a lump sum distribution at a major carrier our members have been subject to litigation, and in some cases that litigation has led to tens of millions in liability. The liability is typically imposed after the money has been distributed and, therefore, has to be satisfied out of the "the members" treasury. These types of suits can fundamentally threaten the Association and its resources, the same resources our members depend upon. Notwithstanding this ongoing exposure, we have continued to support each pilot groups right to decide how to allocate the lump sum payments achieved in JCBA. However, in order to protect the interests of the all pilots – and by extension the resources our members depend on – the pilots have adopted a policy to allow for mandatory internal appeals on MEC allocation decisions potentially inclusive of arbitration. These procedures give us a chance to assess its potential liability and help protect us from the claims of those who would question the fairness of an MEC allocation decision. The adoption of such procedures was crucial to our ability to secure liability insurance and significant departures from the explicit procedures of the policy could jeopardize our insurance coverage or undermine our position in court if we are sued. In addition, you failed to communicate that we were unable to secure the same indemnity provisions from UHC in previous contracts due to ongoing litigation.
As you also know, I made clear to you in December that the CAL group was eligible for the advance/early payment, you turned me down. I stand as a fiduciary with respect to our members resources and I am not willing to authorize further departures from a unanimously adopted, mandatory policy without having better knowledge of how the Pilots are exposed. To be clear this is a policy you supported and helped adopt. In this respect, I am not nearly as comfortable about the appeals we have or have yet to receive as you. As you know and did not communicate to your members we already have forty-five appeals with forty-four being from Continental Pilots. We respect their right to appeal and to the process as outlined to them. I never underestimate the potential of a large pool of money to draw attorneys with demands that their clients receive more. In any case, we are not talking about depriving any member of payments they are owed –we are, rather, talking about what will likely be just a few weeks-long delay in the final payment of the first tranche to meet the requirements of the policy. You also failed to communicate that we do not have the money, the money resides in the United Airlines Treasury.
You, of course, are free to criticize me for this decision. I except your criticism. That goes with the Office of the President and the responsibility and accountability of making tough responsible decisions for the benefit of our pilots. However, I take strong exception to your attack on the Association and its staff. The CAL pilots now have one of the very finest agreements in this industry, an agreement which is far better than any previous contract with CAL and which will provide increasingly better pay and working conditions every month into the foreseeable future. You well know that the staff resources provided by ALPA in support of the negotiation of the JCBA as well as our influence in securing the continuing assistance of the NMB at its highest levels were crucial in obtaining this contract. Without such resources and influence I have little doubt that CAL pilots would be in the same never-never land experienced by US Airways pilots for the last seven years.
I want the pilots to have their money now! I will work aggressively to expedite distribution while at the same time protecting all of our member from the potential liability created by the decisions (democratic governance) of the Continental Master Executive Council.
Best,
Lee Moak
I am in receipt of your latest brief to your members as well as your appeal letter to me linked in the brief. I am disappointed in the approach you took and the rhetoric chosen, as well as the serious omissions in both documents.
As you well know, every time our members have been responsible for allocation of a lump sum distribution at a major carrier our members have been subject to litigation, and in some cases that litigation has led to tens of millions in liability. The liability is typically imposed after the money has been distributed and, therefore, has to be satisfied out of the "the members" treasury. These types of suits can fundamentally threaten the Association and its resources, the same resources our members depend upon. Notwithstanding this ongoing exposure, we have continued to support each pilot groups right to decide how to allocate the lump sum payments achieved in JCBA. However, in order to protect the interests of the all pilots – and by extension the resources our members depend on – the pilots have adopted a policy to allow for mandatory internal appeals on MEC allocation decisions potentially inclusive of arbitration. These procedures give us a chance to assess its potential liability and help protect us from the claims of those who would question the fairness of an MEC allocation decision. The adoption of such procedures was crucial to our ability to secure liability insurance and significant departures from the explicit procedures of the policy could jeopardize our insurance coverage or undermine our position in court if we are sued. In addition, you failed to communicate that we were unable to secure the same indemnity provisions from UHC in previous contracts due to ongoing litigation.
As you also know, I made clear to you in December that the CAL group was eligible for the advance/early payment, you turned me down. I stand as a fiduciary with respect to our members resources and I am not willing to authorize further departures from a unanimously adopted, mandatory policy without having better knowledge of how the Pilots are exposed. To be clear this is a policy you supported and helped adopt. In this respect, I am not nearly as comfortable about the appeals we have or have yet to receive as you. As you know and did not communicate to your members we already have forty-five appeals with forty-four being from Continental Pilots. We respect their right to appeal and to the process as outlined to them. I never underestimate the potential of a large pool of money to draw attorneys with demands that their clients receive more. In any case, we are not talking about depriving any member of payments they are owed –we are, rather, talking about what will likely be just a few weeks-long delay in the final payment of the first tranche to meet the requirements of the policy. You also failed to communicate that we do not have the money, the money resides in the United Airlines Treasury.
You, of course, are free to criticize me for this decision. I except your criticism. That goes with the Office of the President and the responsibility and accountability of making tough responsible decisions for the benefit of our pilots. However, I take strong exception to your attack on the Association and its staff. The CAL pilots now have one of the very finest agreements in this industry, an agreement which is far better than any previous contract with CAL and which will provide increasingly better pay and working conditions every month into the foreseeable future. You well know that the staff resources provided by ALPA in support of the negotiation of the JCBA as well as our influence in securing the continuing assistance of the NMB at its highest levels were crucial in obtaining this contract. Without such resources and influence I have little doubt that CAL pilots would be in the same never-never land experienced by US Airways pilots for the last seven years.
I want the pilots to have their money now! I will work aggressively to expedite distribution while at the same time protecting all of our member from the potential liability created by the decisions (democratic governance) of the Continental Master Executive Council.
Best,
Lee Moak
01-19-2013 | 03:57 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Mr Moak your term in office has done nothing but push me towards decertification. Bite me! This association is flat out rotten!
Pierce's response:
Lee,
We have known each other and fought too many battles together to BS one another. Of course, most of those battles came while you were an MEC chair. I understand that you do not like to be criticized so let just work off the facts. First off, let me be very clear about one major point. Until Tuesday, January 16, 2013 it was never suggested that the 40% option was available to us. You did not communicate that in December and you never made that offer prior to your letter this week. I challenge you to show me one email or letter suggesting otherwise. It did not happen. From a practical standpoint, based on the distribution method established for the CAL pilots such an option was not even possible until after the January 8th pay close.
Second, I never said or implied that ALPA has the money. As a matter of fact, when asked I have been very quick to point out that the company is holding on to it and will until you and I authorize its release. I am ready, how about you? And third, I have not attacked our staff. I have the utmost respect for their dedication and work. Our lawyers and those we hire from outside ALPA are paid to be cautious to the extreme. But, just as I do every day leading our pilots, I would expect you to listen to legal advice but to make the decision yourself.
Let’s also spend a moment on omissions and disappointment. I was pretty disappointed that, following our phone conversation last week, in which I spelled out our reasons for you to consider my request to approve distribution of 95% of the first tranche you have not returned my call or answered my email except to have someone from legal forward your denial letter.
On omissions let’s start with your assertion that the reason for risk management caution comes from your belief that every time a large carrier has had a lump sum distributed it has led to litigation. If my memory serves me right, there has been only one such case where there was litigation resulting in substantive losses incurred by ALPA. That came from the Mansfield case. I would like to remind you of another time where there was a large distribution (approximately $400M) of equity to pilots. I do not think there was any loss from litigation on that one. Granted equity and lump sum payments are not exactly the same but I think they are both covered under the same ALPA Policy now. That one occurred at DAL while you were MEC Chairman there, I would think that you would have remembered it.
I am not sure if your claim that CAL pilots have submitted 44 claims to the methodology dispute process should fall into the omission or rhetoric category. I do know that it is misleading as heck. As you well know, all but one of the disputes received are over a single issue; exclusion of months of availability for military pilots. The other one is for exclusion of months on availability for pilots receiving LTD. Both of these were expected and analyzed by ALPA legal prior to the CALMEC method of distribution being accepted. This is the irony I refer to in my Friday brief.
Lee, you can be disappointed that I do not always tow the ALPA line all you want. I can live with that. Our pilots want advocates, not puppets. You should also be mindful that I have a pretty good idea of the CAL pilots desires in this situation. I will reiterate my request for you to reconsider increasing the initial lump sum payment amount. It is in all ALPA pilots interest to see that the President understands the need to protect the Association, but also understands the needs of pilots.
Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this further. While it is not the optimum way for us to do business, I felt I had no choice but to advise our pilots of where the holdup to their lump sum money was. That is why I published both our letters on Friday. I do not think it is appropriate to continue this in public. I did not sign up to fight with pilots, only for pilots.
Fraternally,
Jay
Pierce's response:
Lee,
We have known each other and fought too many battles together to BS one another. Of course, most of those battles came while you were an MEC chair. I understand that you do not like to be criticized so let just work off the facts. First off, let me be very clear about one major point. Until Tuesday, January 16, 2013 it was never suggested that the 40% option was available to us. You did not communicate that in December and you never made that offer prior to your letter this week. I challenge you to show me one email or letter suggesting otherwise. It did not happen. From a practical standpoint, based on the distribution method established for the CAL pilots such an option was not even possible until after the January 8th pay close.
Second, I never said or implied that ALPA has the money. As a matter of fact, when asked I have been very quick to point out that the company is holding on to it and will until you and I authorize its release. I am ready, how about you? And third, I have not attacked our staff. I have the utmost respect for their dedication and work. Our lawyers and those we hire from outside ALPA are paid to be cautious to the extreme. But, just as I do every day leading our pilots, I would expect you to listen to legal advice but to make the decision yourself.
Let’s also spend a moment on omissions and disappointment. I was pretty disappointed that, following our phone conversation last week, in which I spelled out our reasons for you to consider my request to approve distribution of 95% of the first tranche you have not returned my call or answered my email except to have someone from legal forward your denial letter.
On omissions let’s start with your assertion that the reason for risk management caution comes from your belief that every time a large carrier has had a lump sum distributed it has led to litigation. If my memory serves me right, there has been only one such case where there was litigation resulting in substantive losses incurred by ALPA. That came from the Mansfield case. I would like to remind you of another time where there was a large distribution (approximately $400M) of equity to pilots. I do not think there was any loss from litigation on that one. Granted equity and lump sum payments are not exactly the same but I think they are both covered under the same ALPA Policy now. That one occurred at DAL while you were MEC Chairman there, I would think that you would have remembered it.
I am not sure if your claim that CAL pilots have submitted 44 claims to the methodology dispute process should fall into the omission or rhetoric category. I do know that it is misleading as heck. As you well know, all but one of the disputes received are over a single issue; exclusion of months of availability for military pilots. The other one is for exclusion of months on availability for pilots receiving LTD. Both of these were expected and analyzed by ALPA legal prior to the CALMEC method of distribution being accepted. This is the irony I refer to in my Friday brief.
Lee, you can be disappointed that I do not always tow the ALPA line all you want. I can live with that. Our pilots want advocates, not puppets. You should also be mindful that I have a pretty good idea of the CAL pilots desires in this situation. I will reiterate my request for you to reconsider increasing the initial lump sum payment amount. It is in all ALPA pilots interest to see that the President understands the need to protect the Association, but also understands the needs of pilots.
Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this further. While it is not the optimum way for us to do business, I felt I had no choice but to advise our pilots of where the holdup to their lump sum money was. That is why I published both our letters on Friday. I do not think it is appropriate to continue this in public. I did not sign up to fight with pilots, only for pilots.
Fraternally,
Jay
01-19-2013 | 04:09 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
From: 320A
Mr Moak your term in office has done nothing but push me towards decertification. Bite me! This association is flat out rotten!
Pierce's response:
Lee,
We have known each other and fought too many battles together to BS one another. Of course, most of those battles came while you were an MEC chair. I understand that you do not like to be criticized so let just work off the facts. First off, let me be very clear about one major point. Until Tuesday, January 16, 2013 it was never suggested that the 40% option was available to us. You did not communicate that in December and you never made that offer prior to your letter this week. I challenge you to show me one email or letter suggesting otherwise. It did not happen. From a practical standpoint, based on the distribution method established for the CAL pilots such an option was not even possible until after the January 8th pay close.
Second, I never said or implied that ALPA has the money. As a matter of fact, when asked I have been very quick to point out that the company is holding on to it and will until you and I authorize its release. I am ready, how about you? And third, I have not attacked our staff. I have the utmost respect for their dedication and work. Our lawyers and those we hire from outside ALPA are paid to be cautious to the extreme. But, just as I do every day leading our pilots, I would expect you to listen to legal advice but to make the decision yourself.
Let’s also spend a moment on omissions and disappointment. I was pretty disappointed that, following our phone conversation last week, in which I spelled out our reasons for you to consider my request to approve distribution of 95% of the first tranche you have not returned my call or answered my email except to have someone from legal forward your denial letter.
On omissions let’s start with your assertion that the reason for risk management caution comes from your belief that every time a large carrier has had a lump sum distributed it has led to litigation. If my memory serves me right, there has been only one such case where there was litigation resulting in substantive losses incurred by ALPA. That came from the Mansfield case. I would like to remind you of another time where there was a large distribution (approximately $400M) of equity to pilots. I do not think there was any loss from litigation on that one. Granted equity and lump sum payments are not exactly the same but I think they are both covered under the same ALPA Policy now. That one occurred at DAL while you were MEC Chairman there, I would think that you would have remembered it.
I am not sure if your claim that CAL pilots have submitted 44 claims to the methodology dispute process should fall into the omission or rhetoric category. I do know that it is misleading as heck. As you well know, all but one of the disputes received are over a single issue; exclusion of months of availability for military pilots. The other one is for exclusion of months on availability for pilots receiving LTD. Both of these were expected and analyzed by ALPA legal prior to the CALMEC method of distribution being accepted. This is the irony I refer to in my Friday brief.
Lee, you can be disappointed that I do not always tow the ALPA line all you want. I can live with that. Our pilots want advocates, not puppets. You should also be mindful that I have a pretty good idea of the CAL pilots desires in this situation. I will reiterate my request for you to reconsider increasing the initial lump sum payment amount. It is in all ALPA pilots interest to see that the President understands the need to protect the Association, but also understands the needs of pilots.
Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this further. While it is not the optimum way for us to do business, I felt I had no choice but to advise our pilots of where the holdup to their lump sum money was. That is why I published both our letters on Friday. I do not think it is appropriate to continue this in public. I did not sign up to fight with pilots, only for pilots.
Fraternally,
Jay
Pierce's response:
Lee,
We have known each other and fought too many battles together to BS one another. Of course, most of those battles came while you were an MEC chair. I understand that you do not like to be criticized so let just work off the facts. First off, let me be very clear about one major point. Until Tuesday, January 16, 2013 it was never suggested that the 40% option was available to us. You did not communicate that in December and you never made that offer prior to your letter this week. I challenge you to show me one email or letter suggesting otherwise. It did not happen. From a practical standpoint, based on the distribution method established for the CAL pilots such an option was not even possible until after the January 8th pay close.
Second, I never said or implied that ALPA has the money. As a matter of fact, when asked I have been very quick to point out that the company is holding on to it and will until you and I authorize its release. I am ready, how about you? And third, I have not attacked our staff. I have the utmost respect for their dedication and work. Our lawyers and those we hire from outside ALPA are paid to be cautious to the extreme. But, just as I do every day leading our pilots, I would expect you to listen to legal advice but to make the decision yourself.
Let’s also spend a moment on omissions and disappointment. I was pretty disappointed that, following our phone conversation last week, in which I spelled out our reasons for you to consider my request to approve distribution of 95% of the first tranche you have not returned my call or answered my email except to have someone from legal forward your denial letter.
On omissions let’s start with your assertion that the reason for risk management caution comes from your belief that every time a large carrier has had a lump sum distributed it has led to litigation. If my memory serves me right, there has been only one such case where there was litigation resulting in substantive losses incurred by ALPA. That came from the Mansfield case. I would like to remind you of another time where there was a large distribution (approximately $400M) of equity to pilots. I do not think there was any loss from litigation on that one. Granted equity and lump sum payments are not exactly the same but I think they are both covered under the same ALPA Policy now. That one occurred at DAL while you were MEC Chairman there, I would think that you would have remembered it.
I am not sure if your claim that CAL pilots have submitted 44 claims to the methodology dispute process should fall into the omission or rhetoric category. I do know that it is misleading as heck. As you well know, all but one of the disputes received are over a single issue; exclusion of months of availability for military pilots. The other one is for exclusion of months on availability for pilots receiving LTD. Both of these were expected and analyzed by ALPA legal prior to the CALMEC method of distribution being accepted. This is the irony I refer to in my Friday brief.
Lee, you can be disappointed that I do not always tow the ALPA line all you want. I can live with that. Our pilots want advocates, not puppets. You should also be mindful that I have a pretty good idea of the CAL pilots desires in this situation. I will reiterate my request for you to reconsider increasing the initial lump sum payment amount. It is in all ALPA pilots interest to see that the President understands the need to protect the Association, but also understands the needs of pilots.
Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this further. While it is not the optimum way for us to do business, I felt I had no choice but to advise our pilots of where the holdup to their lump sum money was. That is why I published both our letters on Friday. I do not think it is appropriate to continue this in public. I did not sign up to fight with pilots, only for pilots.
Fraternally,
Jay
01-20-2013 | 08:05 AM
#4
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
I do find it ironic that the same advisers who were OK with the distribution method on the CAL side are now saying to ALPA National that there could be a problem to the method used. Wasn't this what the 5% hold back was supposed to be out??
Mr. Moak excepts (actually, it's ACCEPTS) that certain criticism comes with the job. That's good to know because they are supposed to be fighting for us to get us our money as fast as possible...especially since it is well past-due. Now it just sits in the company coffers earning interest. Which brings up another point...
Nowhere did Jay indicate that ALPA National has the money and they are holding on to it. In the original blastmail on Friday he clearly stated that ALPA National has refused to all the COMPANY to distribute the money. That's pretty clear who has the money: UCH, Inc. Though, I just flew with a captain who was ranting that the company gave us $400 million for signing-bonuses and that ALPA National has been holding onto the money this entire time. I even asked where he got this information. He said when we agreed to the dollar figure the company handed over the money and reported it as a special charge in Q3. Clearly he didn't understand the difference between putting the money aside, taking a charge and actually paying it out.
Mr. Moak excepts (actually, it's ACCEPTS) that certain criticism comes with the job. That's good to know because they are supposed to be fighting for us to get us our money as fast as possible...especially since it is well past-due. Now it just sits in the company coffers earning interest. Which brings up another point...
Nowhere did Jay indicate that ALPA National has the money and they are holding on to it. In the original blastmail on Friday he clearly stated that ALPA National has refused to all the COMPANY to distribute the money. That's pretty clear who has the money: UCH, Inc. Though, I just flew with a captain who was ranting that the company gave us $400 million for signing-bonuses and that ALPA National has been holding onto the money this entire time. I even asked where he got this information. He said when we agreed to the dollar figure the company handed over the money and reported it as a special charge in Q3. Clearly he didn't understand the difference between putting the money aside, taking a charge and actually paying it out.
01-21-2013 | 04:49 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Pierce could have done the same thing Heppner did and asked for a partial early distribution. Pierce didn't and now he's running for cover and trying to blame someone else. Pierce knew what the Lual MEC was doing with an early partial distribution.
Pierce is a piece!
Pierce is a piece!
01-21-2013 | 05:33 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
From: Capt. B737
However, I take strong exception to your attack on the Association and its staff. The CAL pilots now have one of the very finest agreements in this industry, an agreement which is far better than any previous contract with CAL and which will provide increasingly better pay and working conditions every month into the foreseeable future.
Despite all the shin kicks alpa gave Smizek.
01-21-2013 | 08:28 PM
#8
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Riddle me this Coach.....
The L-CAL payment was such......"HOLD-back" + distribution (Via the FULL Trench #1 payment) equals "PARTIAL/early distribution".
The tongue/cheek comment made earlier was direct strictly to that of Moak acting to that of his real name, "The Donald".
Read the L-CAL format before your 'kind suggestions'.......Thanks.
The L-CAL payment was such......"HOLD-back" + distribution (Via the FULL Trench #1 payment) equals "PARTIAL/early distribution".
The tongue/cheek comment made earlier was direct strictly to that of Moak acting to that of his real name, "The Donald".
Read the L-CAL format before your 'kind suggestions'.......Thanks.
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 01-21-2013 at 08:41 PM.
02-18-2013 | 04:51 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
ALPA ignores US Federal code
Same lawyers that advise L CAL MEC also advise ALPA National.
The decision to ignore federal law with respect to military members, who are also dues paying members in good standing of ALPA was made by the ALPA lawyers, who undoubtedly advised the negotiating committee and the MEC that it was ok to ignore federal law.
Don't be surprised if an inunction takes place prohibiting further payouts of retro-signing bonus-lump sum moneys.
Looking at the "blame game" emails coming out of ALPA National and the CAL MEC it looks like were in for a tug o war. I thought the LC 171 update on the lump sums was good.
ALPA bafoonery at its best.
The decision to ignore federal law with respect to military members, who are also dues paying members in good standing of ALPA was made by the ALPA lawyers, who undoubtedly advised the negotiating committee and the MEC that it was ok to ignore federal law.
Don't be surprised if an inunction takes place prohibiting further payouts of retro-signing bonus-lump sum moneys.
Looking at the "blame game" emails coming out of ALPA National and the CAL MEC it looks like were in for a tug o war. I thought the LC 171 update on the lump sums was good.
ALPA bafoonery at its best.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
