![]() |
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
(Post 2269279)
Are you sure this is correct? The excess funds already collected were largely (if not all) collected under a previous contract and a previous (now nonexistent) airline. I do think if ALPA negotiated a deal with the company, and the company has collected excess funds, ALPA has a fiduciary obligation to represent those pilots to insure their funds that are misappropriated are repatriated. I would like to be remunerated for my share of the overpayments. I don't care about any future possibilities of age changes. That seems to be the company's argument for keeping my money.
Hate to burst your bubble, but not a penny of the money in the trust is yours. It all belongs to the CAL pilots on LTD until the last guy leaves the plan. Contractual language opens the POSSIBILITY of a quicker distribution but language allows the company to say when it is administratively feasible. This will get the excess to CAL pilots quicker, but it should not be done at the expense of the pilots that are disabled. Sluffing off the liability to an insurance company might add a level of risk to benefits that would result in litigation and other potential administrative and contractual responsibilities. It's not as easy as some suggest. |
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
(Post 2269279)
Are you sure this is correct? The excess funds already collected were largely (if not all) collected under a previous contract and a previous (now nonexistent) airline. I do think if ALPA negotiated a deal with the company, and the company has collected excess funds, ALPA has a fiduciary obligation to represent those pilots to insure their funds that are misappropriated are repatriated. I would like to be remunerated for my share of the overpayments. I don't care about any future possibilities of age changes. That seems to be the company's argument for keeping my money.
|
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
(Post 2269395)
the process has to involve outside parties and the company decides whether or not to move forward. It .
|
Originally Posted by flap
(Post 2269354)
Hate to burst your bubble, but not a penny of the money in the trust is yours. It all belongs to the CAL pilots on LTD until the last guy leaves the plan.
Contractual language opens the POSSIBILITY of a quicker distribution but language allows the company to say when it is administratively feasible. This will get the excess to CAL pilots quicker, but it should not be done at the expense of the pilots that are disabled. Sluffing off the liability to an insurance company might add a level of risk to benefits that would result in litigation and other potential administrative and contractual responsibilities. It's not as easy as some suggest. |
Holy thread drift.......
Any updates on the snap up? |
Originally Posted by Shrek
(Post 2269732)
Holy thread drift.......
Any updates on the snap up? |
Originally Posted by jsled
(Post 2269735)
well sir...the company says in addition to the 3% Jan 17, we get 4.42% effective Feb 17, 3% Jan 18 (vs 2%), and 4% Jan 19. Anything else is pie in the sky.
I complete support their efforts and hope they are successful with the arbitrator. |
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
(Post 2269720)
I gotcha. Does anyone supervise the company on this? Another words, does the language preclude the association from getting involved to insure the pilots rights are being protected? For some reason, I am just not trusting of the company and feel better when my union is keeping an eye on the money.
|
Originally Posted by 757Driver
(Post 2269742)
Not according to the Negotiating Committee. As the company was salivating over Delta's profit sharing changes dragging those figures down, the same can be said for the increase they're to receive which in turn should lift our rates even higher.
I complete support their efforts and hope they are successful with the arbitrator. |
Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
(Post 2269723)
That seems reasonable to me. I just don't want the company holding the money longer than necessary, and/or for the purposes of providing additional self-insurance should any further age changes occur. An age increase, or further law changes in my opinion should trigger new negotiations and any over-payments or over-funded plans should not be used in those calculations.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:45 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands