pilot64golfer

So I guess the MEC didn't think they were the same thing as the MOUs.

AllenAllert

I agree with you. You'd think A320Fumes aka BenS would be more vocal. You think his trash talking is coming home to haunt him?

baseball

what's up with the lunatic fringe, almost nonsensical communiqe's about the LTD overfunding?

If ALPA won't get us the money back the only thing there is to do is litigate.

The LC 171 council doesn't have the authority, the moxy, or the wherewithal to drive results regarding the LTD issue.

I've even seen emails from former CAL MEC leadership on the subject. I think that's who is pulling the strings here.

It's the same with regard to the 5 percent holdback. ALPA National needs to do the right thing. Otherwise it's just another example of ALPA National being a part of the problem instead of being a part of the solution.

Maybe it's just a case of the LC 171 trying to influence the membership of their council in order for them to pressue reps from other councils.

Love to hear opinions on this: LTD and the 5% holdback. Is LC 171 out to lunch, or are they right as rain?

Birddog

There was across the board support at all C-171 meetings from both L-UA and L-CA groups on the LTD issue. This is not a black vs blue issue. It seems a more wonkish holdup of the R&I committee about establishing a value of the over funding which is not comforting. I don't know MEC politics but for some reason EWR opposes C-171 on this issue. Another ball of worms that should be a simple fix.

Funny we always complain about the company's inability to implement the contract and forget ALPA can't even pay us the full retro from the same contract.

Dogg

baseball

So group A says the value is X

And group B says the value is Y


So, why does ALPA care? Does the R and I committee get to unilaterally establish the dollar amount or does the company have the right to refute it? Or, does a third party company, say group C get to value it as Z? Or is this something that will go to arbitration to group D in order to come to a valuation somewhere between X, Y and Z?

Why wouldn't ALPA go with the most beneficial figure to the pilot group?

Birddog

I'd suggest you call Ben Salley or Mike Drebo. They can answer all those questions better than anyone on this forum.

Dogg

SONORA PASS

Baseball,

If I understood the issue right, it is the variable aspect of paying LTD benefits that is the issue. Those unknowns either require maintaining a buffer, or paying a fee to a third party company to handle the risks versus rewards of taking that obligation.

Knowing exactly how much money they need to hold back is not a blue v.s. black and not a company vs. union the way I understand it. The R&I will have to do an awesome job predicting the future or pay "insurance" to cover that variable for the old CAL plan.

V/R
SP

A320fumes

To the contrary Sonora, the cost of the payouts are the only factor that is a known entity; it's known to the penny how much the LTD guys will take from the fund until they reach retirement age and the benefit expires. The tricky part is negotiating a commercial insurance policy. And we are in a very good position; as with most plans, the Continental was contractually mandated to keep the plan fully funded with a 3 year buffer; conversely, the A-Plan funding was legally changed from 7 to 17 years post 9/11 (Continental kept the 7 years funding). They also went to 7 year funding on the LTD trust, instead of the mandated 3.

In short, the plan is severely "overfunded"; the Tower Actuarial firm estimates overfunding by $38Mil, the Company and R&I Committee took a far more conservative view at approx $15Mil overfunding. Whatever the case might be, the estimates have significantly fallen, and 171, with ALL it's moxy, decided that it was time to farm the fund out and see what we could sell it for. That resolution passed 171 unanimously, and with minor modification passed the MEC unanimously as well.

The overwhelming majority of our Pilot group supports our obligation to the ltd Pilots, then returning the rest to the plan participants.

Thanks for being rational in your line of questioning.

Frats,

Ben

SONORA PASS

Ben,

Thanks for the post and great explanation of the issue.

Knowing to the penny? Does this assume any of those pilots might return from LTD? I thought the reason the plan would be sold (which will contain some fees or a margin for the insurance company) was the fact that it is not known to the exact penny…

Either way the excess funding should be returned to those that paid it. That will also mean creating a method to decide which CAL pilots will be included and how it is divided.

All the best,

SP

A320fumes

Good Point. The "Maximum" liability of the plan is a known entity. Under current law, the plan liabilities cannot increase, plan assets increase whenever a Pilot returns to work (thus entering our current plan), retires or expires. You would believe how good the historic predictions are in that regard.

These are exactly the type of questions that we need to ask the experts; Miliman in this case.

Milliman - United States

It would be irresponsible for us not to pursue these monies.

Once again, thanks for your insight.

-Ben