SONORA PASS

Ben,

Thanks for the updates and background information on this issue.

You are absolutely right that this excess should be pursued. The sooner it happens helps return the money to the most pilots, while waiting might offer more to return but less pilots would be around to return it to.

The real challenge will be adopting a "fair" plan to decide who to return to the excess funds to, and how much each should get.

Once again thanks for the updates!

V/R
SP

A320fumes

Already done Sonora. The allocation methodology was contractually completed every 2 years. This is incorporated into the UPA in 24-H-18-c. I can't post the allocation because it's not redacted. But I'd be happy to reply individually. Everyone knows how much of the pie is theirs. We need to figure out how big the pie is.

-Ben

SONORA PASS

Ben,

After reading the contract and the C-171 July resolution it looks like section 24-H-18-b and 24-H-18-d are controlling and applicable for the CAL LOL/LTD VEBA excess assets.

When you say the list has been made, I have not seen it. Does it include CAL retirees who were active on the UPA DOS, U-Hires active at CAL on the UPA DOS, and CAL LTD pilots who paid premiums before going out?

Section 24-H-18-d says "the assets allocated to the RHAs of each Pilot who was a participant in the CAL LOL/LTD Plan immediately prior to the effective date of the Agreement. . . "

BTW - What part of the resolution did the MEC not adopt?

Thanks again for the info!

V/R
SP

BMEP100

Whenever I see something like this, where a subset group of union members stands to receive something of value, I look for the national leadership to try and turn it into a negotiating point for the next contract.

Not saying that will happen here, but reason for the stall and the disagreement on the over-funding, where there is no fiduciary risk for the fund management to make the payout causes me to be skeptical.

The recipients- former L-cal, are viewed as rugs, so don't expect a return of the funds any time soon, without legal action.

My opinion.
YMMV

baseball

You are correct. and that was my opinion that I shared with the author of at least one of the group emails that floated about Houston a few months ago. No incentive and no mandate; therefore no action without other more forceful actions.

baseball

One of the reasons that the legacy CAL LTD plan was so good was it's cost. It mandated us "over pay" into it. That is what gave us great benefits.

I do agree the company likely has no dog in this fight, and therefore won't growl it's teeth.

The bigger problem is that the moneys are already paid out and we don't actually have a good mechanism to collect the overpayments, otherwise we would have already received a check.

It's really just a matter of finding the right lawyer. ALPA should actually do this for us. They should open the ALPA tool box, bust one a top knotch layer and tell him or her to handle it.

No tooth pulling involved.....Unless that is.....There is another agenda. That's when ALPA starts pushing back, ignoring the pilots, or drags their feet.

My guess is ALPA is doing a combination of ignoring the pilots and dragging their feet.

I would set a deadline for action, and then act. Don't let anyone, ALPA, nor the actuaries push you or the pilots around. If no action by the deadline, and make sure it's reasonable, then be decisive.

Every year my insurance company sends me a check for over payments. It's automatic. If everything balanced out, and they are happy, it's just an "automatic" thing that just happens. Why is this so different?