Flytolive

Are you kidding? You do yourself no favors by making claims that are demonstrably false.

baseball

If the numbers that he briefed are incorrect in your interpretation, then where did those numbers come from? He was briefed by someone with knowledge and authority over them. If multiple ALPA and company peeps have different views on this issue, then it's far from settled. That doesn't make him dishonest, that makes him incorrect at the worst, or misinformed at the least.

baseball

No, I don't.

I have heard that management thinks CLE is a great RJ base and that's it. I have heard it from the manpower planning guy who was in my cockpit and told me this in person. I don't know or can't control what happens to CLE, but I also personally don't think it's a good fit due to its close proximity to ORD.

baseball

Your knowledge of the military law suit, and ALPA's role in it is flawed. You should call Chuck Billy and get the real scoop.

The lawsuit happened because ALPA National wouldn't force the CAL MEC to really play by the rules. Even when educated as to how the UAL MEC was enforcing contractural provisions that affected mil pilots and educated on how other ALPA MEC's were doing things right, CAL MEC chose to do it wrong.

The lawsuit has five named plaintiffs, each alleging different causes of action. CAL MEC's position and get this: If we agree to back our military pilots, we are doing so at the expense of our non military pilots. So, the B fund portion to which the 5% hold back was just one fifth of the law suit. The other four fifths also included causes of action that relate to PBS. CAL MEC couldn't bear to see their precious PBS system fall apart.

You obviously haven't gotten fully or properly briefed on the lawsuit. Let's just say I have a higher fidelity and degree of knowledge on the matter. If you care to look it up, it's Carder, et al VS. Continental Airlines. It's still going on right now. ALPA chose to look the other way. Two ALPA lawyers told CAL MEC that there would be trouble ahead if the CAL MEC didn't do more to protect their military dues paying members contractural rights. I am and remain puzzled as to why National didn't do more to educate the CAL MEC and JP as to what the ramifications would be if this issue didn't receive proper attention.

The real answers here lie in "the relationships" between CAL MEC, ALPA National, and CAL management. Too many folks didn't want to see PBS fail. And there is a part of this that relates to the B fund that actually has tentacles into the divorce/QDDRO lawsuit. In this suit, pilots were getting their A fund payouts who's spouse filed for divorce. Completely legal. ALPA didn't do much to protect these pilots and essentially picked their "winner", the company at the dues paying pilots expense. The same logic, and the same players were involved in the B fund military dilemma as were involved in the QDDRO issue.

The relationships were manipulated to drive an outcome that was unfavorable to those QDDRO pilots. Ultimately they sued and won. It should have never come to this. It would have been great if ALPA had stepped in and prevented the train wreck in the first place. The problem that I see is ALPA's lack of institutional control at the MEC level. If an MEC goes off the reservation and ignores members issues or concerns then it does a great disservice to ALPA as a whole. It discredits ALPA, and not just the MEC. Ultimately it could put pilots against and upset with ALPA, and that surely can't be a good thing. ALPA has a duty to fairly represent all of its dues paying members, military and non military. It doesn't represent one class of pilots OVER the other, or UNDER the other. There isn't a two-tiered representational scheme. It's gotta be fair and fairly perceived. The military folks simply have some additional protections affored to them under USSERA, and these don't diminish or take away from the non military pilots. Both pilots, military and non military pay dues. They deserve fair representation from their union.

AllenAllert

Baseball,

The things you speak of were not an ALPA national problem, they were a CAL ALPA problem. National cannot force any MEC to do anything other than comply with the ALPA constitution and bylaws. You need to start accepting responsibility for the things the people you elected did and failed to do.

As far as being fairly represented by ALPA, there has never been a time post Leronzo that the ex-CAL pilots have been treated more fairly and represented more uniformly. Most of your claims and arguments are pre-merger based and yet you continue to support a person that promises more of the same.

BTW, post merger, it was a UAL military affairs guy that helped fix the military/retirement pay issue at CAL. Don't recall his name but he was JFK based.

30west

Nice deflection, I'm quite knowledgeable on ALPA lawsuits, the point was CAL ALPA was told by National (yes I know, I was consulted on how it would affect LUAL) CAL ALPA decided not to listen, how is that NATIONAL OR UAL ALPAs fault, its 100% CAL ALPAs fault and the pilots that let that MEC run amuck. You have a misunderstanding of Nationals authority over the MECs legally, the only real option after in depth explanations was the Nuclear option at the time it was for Moak to refuse to sign off on the new JCBA, can you imagine the Sh** storm that would have caused.

Now back on point to the LTD just so you can't say I haven't seen the ALPA briefing document here it is and here is Fred Greene's (R & I Chair) email, take the 2 minutes and ask him how much money each pilot hypothetically might get back if the company were to agree to change the terms of the plan out of the goodness of their heart

[email protected]


Legacy Continental Long-Term Disability Plan (CAL LTD)

The following is some history of the CAL LTD plan from UPA negotiations till the present day focusing on the provision in 24-H-18-d regarding a return of excess funds.

The Negotiation
When negotiating the UPA, ALPA was able to attain contractual language that benefited and protected L-CAL pilots who were on CAL LTD and/or had paid into the CAL LTD plan. The language includes provisions that:
· Stopped future contributions to the CAL LTD plan even if there is a shortfall
· Makes the company solely responsible for any future shortfall
· Provides that future Company/pilot contributions to the new UAL LTD Plan be reset to 65%/35%, compared to 55%/45% under the CAL LTD plan
· Quarantines the assets of the CAL LTD Plan in a separate Subtrust and prohibits the use of those assets for any purpose other than paying benefits to L-CAL pilots who were disabled prior to the UPA, paying expenses of administering those benefits, and distributing excess assets to L-CAL pilots
· Makes the trust irrevocable and prohibits any amendment that would change the restriction on permitted use of the CAL LTD assets
· When all benefits had been paid or provided for, apply all remaining assets of the CAL Subtrust for the benefit of the CAL pilots that had paid into the fund, in contrast to the former CAL LTD Trust Agreement with Frank Russell Trust Company (which left the decision regarding disposition of excess assets to the Administrative Committee, which was controlled by the Company)

ALPA also negotiated an increased benefit duration for pilots on CAL LTD that became disabled after the effective date of CAL Contract 2002. Details are in LOA-7. In basic terms:
· Pilots that were disabled between 4/1/2005, the effective date of Contract 2002, and 12/13/2007, the date the FAA retirement age moved to age 65,will now have their benefit duration tied to the benefit duration of the L-UAL Pilot Disability Income pilots that were disabled prior to 12/13/2007. The Company will continue to pay these pilots till the FAA mandatory age unless a Federal Court issues a declaratory judgment reducing their benefit.
· All other pilots on L-CAL LTD would have their benefit duration be the legally mandated retirement age. For pilots disabled after 12/13/2007 this was a possible increase to their benefit as their benefit would have expired at age 65 without this provision.
· The position taken by the JNC and JRI in the JCBA negotiations (that disability benefits should continue until FAA mandatory retirement age) was the same as that taken by both CAL ALPA and UAL ALPA pre-merger.

While there was no basis of fact then or now that the FAA mandatory retirement age would change, the benefit duration change allowed for a possible increase in benefit if the retirement age does change. The view at the time was the Company was responsible for any shortfall, and the average benefit was approximately $70,000 per year with no retirement benefits. These pilots have had career ending disabilities, and this was a way to give these pilots a little financial boost to help them have a modestly better retirement. The downside for active L-CAL pilots was that if there was a surplus, the amount returned to CAL pilots would be reduced if the FAA retirement age increased. The CAL members of the R&I Committee realized this but thought this was the right thing to do as it was helping pilots in need and they believed the majority of CAL pilots would want this change.

In addition, the Committees were advised that, in light of the change in the mandatory retirement age, there were potentially significant legal issues that might arise if the duration of disability benefits under the pre-merger pilot LTD plans was not extended to the new retirement age.

The UPA LTD plan was able to achieve a benefit duration of FAA retirement age as well and this change to the CAL LTD plan would ensure no pilot group would be treated as second class citizens when it came to benefit duration. Also, all CAL pilots that paid into the LTD fund had received the insurance protection this benefit was designed to deliver.

When negotiating the provision regarding distribution of excess assets, it was anticipated that this process would take place many years in the future when the number of pilots on CAL LTD had decreased substantially. This was, in fact, one reason for including the elaborate, permanent protections associated with the L-CAL LTD Subtrust. An actual timeframe was never discussed but both ALPA and UAL did not foresee this process taking place in the near future as the number of pilots on CAL LTD was substantial and the surplus was estimated to be non-existent if an insurance company was to take over the plan when we were negotiating.

L-CAL Pilots Return to Work
Since the effective date of the UPA, pilots on CAL LTD have returned to work at a greater rate than the actuaries anticipated. This has increased the projected surplus even if all remaining disabled pilots were paid to age 65. The MEC was interested in returning the surplus to CAL pilots as soon as possible and chose to proceed down this path.

ALPA Hires an Actuary Firm for Due Diligence
As a first step, the MEC hired an independent actuary firm as a due diligence step. This step was to understand administrative issues that pilots on LTD might experience and ways to make the transition easier for them. It was also to understand how the projected surplus would be impacted by an insurance company taking over the plan and to get an understanding of the insurance market in this area. One of the main concerns was ensuring pilots on LTD would not have administrative hassles whereby insurance firms would try to kick pilots off LTD just to increase their profits at the disabled pilot’s expense. The eventual goal was for disabled pilots to be provided for, UAL would get out of the time and expense for administrating CAL LTD, CAL pilots would have the surplus paid out to them and an insurance company would make a reasonable profit by taking over the plan. R&I was hopeful that the insurance company would take over the increased liability risk if the FAA retirement age was to increase sometime in the future. Our actuary told us that insurance companies would not take on this risk. Insurance companies viewed this risk as an uncertainty that they cannot price appropriately and therefore would only take on the liabilities for pilots being paid to age 65. United would have to take on the risk of the FAA retirement age increasing and the associated increase in liabilities.

ALPA Approaches UAL to Return the Surplus
The MEC passed a resolution directing the R&I Committee to reach out to the Company to sell the liabilities, also known as a reserve buyout, and return the surplus. The Company responded that “we believe the significant time, expense, uncertainty, and residual liability for both the Company and ALPA weigh strongly against any consideration of pursuing a reserve buyout at this time. The Company continues to view a reserve buyout as something to consider closer to the time that all liabilities under the CAL LTD Plan will be met.” The Company provided a copy of its outside counsel’s legal memorandum on the subject, and the memorandum was shared on a confidential basis with all MEC members and officers at the January 2016 MEC meeting. With the Company’s permission, a copy of the letter is attached. It also can be accessed by Clicking Here.

The UPA does not mandate the Company sell the liabilities and return the surplus at this time. In order to begin the process that would ultimately lead to a sale of liabilities, the first requirement is to get agreement of the Company. The Company has stated flatly that it will not agree at this time.

The FAA retirement age increase risk is probably the biggest impediment for selling the liabilities at this time. UAL does not want to sell the liabilities to age 65 to an insurance company, distribute the surplus then be financially responsible millions of dollars if the FAA retirement age changes. Since UAL is responsible for any shortfall, their current view is that they should not distribute any surplus while they have the exposure for making greater payments if the FAA retirement age changes. As the number of pilots on LTD decreases, a solution might be achievable that would not have so much monetary exposure for the Company. Currently there are 136 pilots on L-CAL LTD and each year about 10-15 will be retiring. Historically more have come off LTD each year by returning to work or unfortunately passing away. The youngest pilot on CAL LTD was born in 1977, though that pilot’s benefit coming from the trust is currently less than $300/month, and the next youngest pilot was born in 1973.

LOA-7
Occasionally R&I hears that there should be a grievance filed against the Company because they are not filing in Federal Court to reduce the PDI benefit duration for certain UAL pilots and therefore also decreasing the CAL LTD benefit for the 12 CAL pilots affected by this provision. ALPA’s view is that the Company must pay all these pilots till FAA retirement age due to age discrimination rules. We also believe that UAL has reviewed this case and either the expense and/or merits make filing not in their benefit at this time. Lastly, there is no time limit associated with the provision. This was deliberate because, the more time it takes for the Company to get a suit on file and decided, the fewer disabled L-UAL and L-CAL pilots who would be harmed if the Company suit actually succeeded in getting a court to approve cutting their benefits off. However, ALPA believes the Company would lose its case.

Filing a grievance would set in motion the steps to reduce the benefit of approximately 130 pilots on PDI and 12 pilots on CAL LTD affected by this provision. The only reason that some are pushing or recommending this grievance is to kick 12 pilots off CAL LTD so that the refund due to CAL pilots is modestly increased. Basically, sell out over 140 pilots on disability so that the refund due CAL pilots can be increased by the 12 CAL pilots that would be cut off. If the case takes six years, as ALPA expects, only 6 CAL pilots would be affected. Even if, at the end of the day, 6 pilots are cut off before age 65, that would not materially accelerate distribution of the excess. We think it is important to understand the dynamic in place when you hear about certain pilots wanting to file a grievance over LOA-7.

Going Forward
ALPA understands that any surplus is L-CAL pilots’ money and ALPA has been working to get this money for you. The assets of the CAL LTD are in a trust that cannot be accessed by UAL or ALPA. L-CAL pilots can view the distribution methodology and their allocation percentage on the R&I portion of the UAL MEC website. To free up the money ALPA has enlisted and paid for independent actuaries to review the CAL LTD plan. UAL has contracted and paid for outside counsel to review their exposure and give them advice on proceeding with this plan. There have been several meetings between UAL and ALPA on trying to return the excess to CAL pilots. Unfortunately, due to issues described previously, there has not been a solution. ALPA understands this is a very important issue for CAL pilots and their desire to have the excess returned as soon as possible, consistent with protecting the benefits of disabled L-CAL pilots. ALPA will continue to review possible solutions with the Company in the future. At this time, we do not see an avenue to return this money in the near future but we understand this is a high priority item for CAL pilots.

cadetdrivr

Yikes, 30West, that was certainly the nuclear option.

Cue...."That's great, but Chuck said I can get my $$$" in 3...2...1...

AllenAllert

30West,

I think you overestimate his attention span. He'll continue to parrot the Cummins drivel no matter how bad it gets and inspite of the facts presented to him.

30west

Just the facts guys, the interesting thing is why no one has publicly asked nor has Chuck explained why he's no longer on the CASC under Bob Sisk....

There is no denying Chucks vast experience and long background in fighting/defending the line pilots who stepped into a pile of it either accidentally or by other means, so that has to bring up the question as to why after the MECs merged and Chuck got the number 2 position why is he no longer on the CASC ? This was his passion according to him.

He resigned, some will say was fired/asked to resign, but why ?????



P.S. Yes I know why, lets see who else does

AllenAllert

Does it really matter at this point? Chuck is out for revenge and his way to enact that revenge is thru the Houston LEC. I don't think the pilots of council #171 will let him use them for his game of revenge.

Does it matter that he did or didn't resign or get fired - NO! What does matter is his willingness to sacrifice the Houston pilots for his petty revenge. It's important how you vote - read what Chuck has written and spoken and compare that to the facts presented.