JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[NYer]

And what happens when they all reach 65 in the event there are funds left over? I am not making any predictions on chances of an outcome, but Koziatek, who was part of the arbitration said during the meeting and after, that all avenues for appealing or asking to look into it again have not been exhausted. He was very clear. Now that could change like many other things have, but he was specifically asked twice.

It sounds like Weez may have some more information? Why do you say it is not over? I know you were not at the same meeting I was at.

According to the Trust, any value that remains in the account is to be used for future Retiree Medical coverage. The arbitration decision was clear that no active employee is eligible to receive the Match outside the agreement from the 2012 CBA.

As an example, the arbitrator made note of all the TWU Members that have separated from the Company over a 20 year period received their Pre-funding convention, but no one person had ever received the Company Match and that fact was never challenged by the union.

Therefore, the argument of the Company Match being "our" money was refuted by the arbitrator in his written decision.

 

[WeAAsles]

Exactly what Doug said in a Town Hall. That being the case, Doug followed up by saying the prefunding
match WOULD be used to pay current retiree's medical. Someone quoted or mentioned Ed K.

There's a huge difference in it "not being over" and a chance in hell of winning.

I'm not looking to "win" something in particular.

 

[WeAAsles]

They can bring it up, but there is no vehicle there to make a payout. The Trust which holds the funds is written so that those funds are for the exclusive use of the participants, which are the Retiree's, and therefore protected.

Never asked for a "payout"

The Prefunding Match issue is NOT over.

 

[gulfcoast1]

According to the Trust, any value that remains in the account is to be used for future Retiree Medical coverage. The arbitration decision was clear that no active employee is eligible to receive the Match outside the agreement from the 2012 CBA.

As an example, the arbitrator made note of all the TWU Members that have separated from the Company over a 20 year period received their Pre-funding convention, but no one person had ever received the Company Match and that fact was never challenged by the union.

Therefore, the argument of the Company Match being "our" money was refuted by the arbitrator in his written decision.

Can you explain what is meant by future retirees? I was under the impression that all future retirees had their early retiree medical plan terminated. I was also under the impression that the plan will terminate at age 65 for employees who did retire and were eligible for the plan at the time.

So if there are no new retirees allowed into the plan, and if there is money leftover when the last employee reaches 65, I don't understand what future retirees will get access to it?

 

[WeAAsles]

And what happens when they all reach 65 in the event there are funds left over? I am not making any predictions on chances of an outcome, but Koziatek, who was part of the arbitration said during the meeting and after, that all avenues for appealing or asking to look into it again have not been exhausted. He was very clear. Now that could change like many other things have, but he was specifically asked twice.

It sounds like Weez may have some more information? Why do you say it is not over? I know you were not at the same meeting I was at.

I was not at the same meeting as you. And Ed Koziatek would be someone I would listen to. I'll simply repeat what was told to me by someone WAY higher up the ladder than NYer,

"The Prefunding Match issue is NOT over"

 

[gulfcoast1]

I was not at the same meeting as you. And Ed Koziatek would be someone I would listen to. I'll simply repeat what was told to me by someone WAY higher up the ladder than NYer,

"The Prefunding Match issue is NOT over"

Are you planning on asking about the apparent discrepancy between what you were first told at the town hall and later statements? Just curious.

 

[NYer]

Can you explain what is meant by future retirees? I was under the impression that all future retirees had their early retiree medical plan terminated. I was also under the impression that the plan will terminate at age 65 for employees who did retire and were eligible for the plan at the time.

So if there are no new retirees allowed into the plan, and if there is money leftover when the last employee reaches 65, I don't understand what future retirees will get access to it?

They don't, unless a new Retiree Medical program is created or if the current plan is resurrected.

 

[gulfcoast1]

I was not at the same meeting as you. And Ed Koziatek would be someone I would listen to. I'll simply repeat what was told to me by someone WAY higher up the ladder than NYer,

"The Prefunding Match issue is NOT over"

And just to be clear, Koziatek did not guarantee any sort of outcome. Just that it would be brought up again and all avenues had not been exhausted. I don't want to make it sound like he said we will get the match. He just said about what it sounds like someone told Weez.

 

[gulfcoast1]

They don't, unless a new Retiree Medical program is created or if the current plan is resurrected.

The gist of my question is what happens to the money? It has to go somewhere and if it has to go to the benefit of employees as opposed to the company, I don't see how the company can just keep it.

 

[WeAAsles]

Are you planning on asking about the apparent discrepancy between what you were first told at the town hall and later statements? Just curious.

Don't know if I'd need to? This issue is still in motion (confirmed to me just last week)

 

[NYer]

The gist of my question is what happens to the money? It has to go somewhere and if it has to go to the benefit of employees as opposed to the company, I don't see how the company can just keep it.

The Arbitrator made it clear in his decision that the Company matching funds is for the Retiree, or the beneficiary, and not for the distribution to non-retiree.

The only vehicle for non-retiree to receive the Company match is by the BK process and only if it leads to the termination of the Trust.

The TWU can make appearances of fighting, but there is no viable argument to make. It's over.

If the draw down concludes and the Trust remains, the funds also remain. If the Trust is dissolved any remaining funds would go to the Company unless they agree to a different outcome.

 

[WeAAsles]

The Arbitrator made it clear in his decision that the Company matching funds is for the Retiree, or the beneficiary, and not for the distribution to non-retiree.

The only vehicle for non-retiree to receive the Company match is by the BK process and only if it leads to the termination of the Trust.

The TWU can make appearances of fighting, but there is no viable argument to make. It's over.

The TWU's main argument is not to have $$CASH$$ dispersed out to Members.

And you do not have a Law degree. You went to Hillcrest High School in Queens.

 

[NYer]

The TWU's main argument is not to have $$CASH$$ dispersed out to Members.

And you do not have a Law degree. You went to Hillcrest High School in Queens.

Neither do you, but it doesn't stop you from contributing to the subject.

I've learned to read and the documents are clear and I can explain them in detail.

Your argument is, "someone told me."

(you realize that by trying to insult me, you've also insulted many others on these pages - - that's pretty condescending)

 

[WeAAsles]

Neither do you, but it doesn't stop you from contributing to the subject.

I've learned to read and the documents are clear and I can explain them in detail.

Your argument is, "someone told me."

(you realize that by trying to insult me, you've also insulted many others on these pages - - that's pretty condescending)

I'm tired of these arguments with you, especially on this subject.

You claim an "absolute" on a Legal issue that has NOT had a complete conclusion yet.

You are NOT a Lawyer, you are a High School graduate.
I am NOT a Lawyer, I am a High School graduate.

Those are NOT insults, those are facts.

You are not involved in any high level discussions on the issue. You have no vested interest in the issue. And lastly if it really is over or not has yet to be determined. (I don't "believe" it is)

 

[NYer]

I'm tired of these arguments with you, especially on this subject.

You claim an "absolute" on a Legal issue that has NOT had a complete conclusion yet.

You are NOT a Lawyer, you are a High School graduate.
I am NOT a Lawyer, I am a High School graduate.

Those are NOT insults, those are facts.

You are not involved in any high level discussions on the issue. You have no vested interest in the issue. And lastly if it really is over or not has yet to be determined. (I don't "believe" it is)

You haven't read the documents and you rely on others telling you what may or may not be happening.

I read the documents and researched the subject in detail. It's done. There is no viable argument to make and win.

Do you have one? I'll give you time to call someone, involved in high level discussions, so you can get the answers you need.