Delta Snap Up
12-23-2016, 05:52 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
According to the numbers put out by the IAH reps, which are really just a guess until the fund is actually valued, I am owed around $8000. The reason no grievance has been filed is because the company has not violated any sections of the contract, there is no way to force the company to assume any liability that they are not required to assume. I'd like the money tomorrow but I don't see it happening until more guys retire which reduces the liability.
12-23-2016, 07:06 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by El10
These the numbers from past LEC leaders or from MEC R&I?
12-23-2016, 08:10 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
The red highlight is why the company currently chooses to do nothing.
MEC UPDATE March 30th, 2016
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
MEC UPDATE March 30th, 2016
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
12-24-2016, 03:54 PM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by 757Driver
How old is the youngest Pilot that is on the old LTD plan might be a better question? You won't see one dime until he/she retires and even then its a big maybe.
12-24-2016, 05:58 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,882
Got to love the internet. This "myth" of L-CAL pilots over-paying premiums is one of the rumors that won't die.
When the L-CAL pilots were on the separate LTD plan, each year a rate adjustment was calculated to take into account market performance of investments, the number of pilots on LTD, the liabilities for the pilots and other actuarial assumptions. That resulted in rates that changed in various years. The new UAL LTD plan does this today as is evidenced by the R&I Committee's announcement this week that 2017 LTD premiums will drop due to better than expected market performance of plan investments and lower rates of disability.
Back to the L-CAL plan though. When that plan was frozen upon signing of the new UPA, those premiums were still invested to cover the L-CAL pilots who were part of that LTD plan. Anyone want to guess what's happened to those investments since the signing of the UPA in 2012? Rates of return on those investments have gone up and the liabilities have gone down steadily. This does not mean L-CAL pilots, including me, over-paid at the time we were part of that plan. We paid the appropriate amount for the conditions that existed at the time. The plan is now over-funded "on-paper" because of the market returns. That doesn't mean the value of the excess money won't go down if the economy and markets go down the toilet.
Did all United pilots over-pay/over-fund the LTD plan this year because our premiums are going down NEXT year? No, but that's the essential argument that is being made by some on here.
In this case it is not semantics: over-paying and over-funding are not synonymous. Just an observation and clarification.
When the L-CAL pilots were on the separate LTD plan, each year a rate adjustment was calculated to take into account market performance of investments, the number of pilots on LTD, the liabilities for the pilots and other actuarial assumptions. That resulted in rates that changed in various years. The new UAL LTD plan does this today as is evidenced by the R&I Committee's announcement this week that 2017 LTD premiums will drop due to better than expected market performance of plan investments and lower rates of disability.
Back to the L-CAL plan though. When that plan was frozen upon signing of the new UPA, those premiums were still invested to cover the L-CAL pilots who were part of that LTD plan. Anyone want to guess what's happened to those investments since the signing of the UPA in 2012? Rates of return on those investments have gone up and the liabilities have gone down steadily. This does not mean L-CAL pilots, including me, over-paid at the time we were part of that plan. We paid the appropriate amount for the conditions that existed at the time. The plan is now over-funded "on-paper" because of the market returns. That doesn't mean the value of the excess money won't go down if the economy and markets go down the toilet.
Did all United pilots over-pay/over-fund the LTD plan this year because our premiums are going down NEXT year? No, but that's the essential argument that is being made by some on here.
In this case it is not semantics: over-paying and over-funding are not synonymous. Just an observation and clarification.
12-24-2016, 07:02 PM
#107
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
The facts that stand out are;
The premiums paid by the pilots who are now out were for coverage to age 65. They had no expectation to continued payments beyond their 65th birthday.The plan stated coverage was stated for age 65.
The company is throwing up the possibility of an extension of the retiremnt age. There was no liability in the plan for payments beyond 65. If the company wanted to sell the liabilities to only 65 they could, but that would require returning our money.
Since when did the union care about some possibility of increased costs or liabilities to the COMPANY? That is managements job.
As quoted, the company"flatly refused". How many times have we heard that before, prior to a grievance, like the mil leave or profit sharing?
Such details of possible changes in actuary tables used for insurance plans are never included in labor contracts, but does not obviate the ability for grievances or law suit. Yes, ALPA could sue on behalf of the pilots, but there is no financial upside, on!y expense.
The premiums paid by the pilots who are now out were for coverage to age 65. They had no expectation to continued payments beyond their 65th birthday.The plan stated coverage was stated for age 65.
The company is throwing up the possibility of an extension of the retiremnt age. There was no liability in the plan for payments beyond 65. If the company wanted to sell the liabilities to only 65 they could, but that would require returning our money.
Since when did the union care about some possibility of increased costs or liabilities to the COMPANY? That is managements job.
As quoted, the company"flatly refused". How many times have we heard that before, prior to a grievance, like the mil leave or profit sharing?
Such details of possible changes in actuary tables used for insurance plans are never included in labor contracts, but does not obviate the ability for grievances or law suit. Yes, ALPA could sue on behalf of the pilots, but there is no financial upside, on!y expense.
12-24-2016, 07:19 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Originally Posted by BMEP100
The company is throwing up the possibility of an extension of the retiremnt age. There was no liability in the plan for payments beyond 65. If the company wanted to sell the liabilities to only 65 they could, but that would require returning our money.
Since when did the union care about some possibility of increased costs or liabilities to the COMPANY? That is managements job.
.
Since when did the union care about some possibility of increased costs or liabilities to the COMPANY? That is managements job.
.
There are times that ALPA doesn't act like a union, and for some reason ALPA dances when the company plays the music on age 65 related issues.
With ALPA NOT taking an aggressive stance against the company on this and other "possibilities" it leaves the door open for ALPA to potentially cave in on age 65 and let either the industry, the FAA, or the winds of change just dictate the terms and conditions of the industry.
I really wish ALPA would man up on this one. No reason to just "wait" for a possibility and no real reason to just allow the company to dictate the situation.
12-24-2016, 08:53 PM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by BMEP100
The facts that stand out are;
The premiums paid by the pilots who are now out were for coverage to age 65. They had no expectation to continued payments beyond their 65th birthday.The plan stated coverage was stated for age 65.
The company is throwing up the possibility of an extension of the retiremnt age. There was no liability in the plan for payments beyond 65. If the company wanted to sell the liabilities to only 65 they could, but that would require returning our money.
Since when did the union care about some possibility of increased costs or liabilities to the COMPANY? That is managements job.
As quoted, the company"flatly refused". How many times have we heard that before, prior to a grievance, like the mil leave or profit sharing?
Such details of possible changes in actuary tables used for insurance plans are never included in labor contracts, but does not obviate the ability for grievances or law suit. Yes, ALPA could sue on behalf of the pilots, but there is no financial upside, on!y expense.
The premiums paid by the pilots who are now out were for coverage to age 65. They had no expectation to continued payments beyond their 65th birthday.The plan stated coverage was stated for age 65.
The company is throwing up the possibility of an extension of the retiremnt age. There was no liability in the plan for payments beyond 65. If the company wanted to sell the liabilities to only 65 they could, but that would require returning our money.
Since when did the union care about some possibility of increased costs or liabilities to the COMPANY? That is managements job.
As quoted, the company"flatly refused". How many times have we heard that before, prior to a grievance, like the mil leave or profit sharing?
Such details of possible changes in actuary tables used for insurance plans are never included in labor contracts, but does not obviate the ability for grievances or law suit. Yes, ALPA could sue on behalf of the pilots, but there is no financial upside, on!y expense.
12-25-2016, 06:49 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
the flip side of that potential is the company gets to call the shots when it comes to returning excess funds.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
