Pilot Post Retirement Medical Benefits

[BoeingBoy]

"Pilots should be aware that US Airways has indicated that it will seek to modify retiree health insurance through a Section 1114 motion, although it has not done so yet. While pilots retiring on or before January 1, 2005 will not be subject to the retiree health provisions of LOA 93, there is no guarantee that retiree health insurance benefits will not be changed during bankruptcy."

That sounds like what I was saying above......

USA320Pilot, does that make Jack one of those "naysayers" who try to discredit the messenger(s)?

USA320Pilot, do "ALPA MEC chairman Bill Pollock and communication committee chairman Jack Stephen regularly have to correct misinformation" when you try to impart your slant on things?

Jim

 

[Seatacus]

Same old stuff from 320...........you know,pilots good everyone else bad.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I find it interesting that "naysayers", who continue to support union leaders who have and continue to get worse and worse company proposals, try to discredit the messenger(s).

The "just say no" and "concession stand is closed" crowd has badly hurt rank-and-file union members and continue to do so, instead of posting the facts. I find it sad that ALPA MEC chairman Bill Pollock and communication committee chairman Jack Stephen regularly have to correct misinformation made by fellow pilots.

[post="197993"][/post]​

From company letter to ALPA employees:

As you can see, there are significant differences between the retiree medical benefits being offered to pilots who retire effective on or by January 1, 2005, and those who retire after that date. As we move through the bankruptcy process, further changes to retiree medical benefits may be required. Additionally, the Company reserves the right to seek to change or terminate retiree medical benefits at any time. You should keep these factors in mind when making retirement decisions.

From the company letter to AFA, CWA, IAM, and non-union employees:

Please note that, in most cases, these changes cannot be made without the approval of the bankruptcy court. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that the retiree medical benefits described above will be the ultimate result. Furthermore, additional changes to retiree medical benefits may be required as we move through the bankruptcy process, and the Company reserves the right to seek to change or terminate retiree medical benefits at any time. You should keep these factors in mind when making retirement decisions.

From company letter to TWU:

Please note that additional changes to retiree medical benefits may be required as we move through the bankruptcy process. Additionally, the Company reserves the right to seek to change or terminate retiree medical benefits at any time. You should keep these factors in mind when making retirement decisions.


So, USA320Pilot, what was that about "naysayers" who try to "discredit the messenger(s)?

As for who posts facts, well - let's just say that the facts speak for themselves. But it does look like the "just say yes" crowd strayed away from the facts a little.

Jim

ps - USA320Pilot, how could you be so wrong, again....

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

I posted information from two MEC Reps verbatim. How is that wrong? Again, Doug Mowrey, the “hardlineâ€￾ Negotiating Committee chairman, who is the first NC chairman in the history of ALPA to reach a TA worse than the company's proposals, put the information out on a ASPEN message. Did you miss that too?

Does it make you feel good or important to be a smart aleck?

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

BoeingBoy:

I posted information from two MEC Reps verbatim. How is that wrong?

[post="198613"][/post]​

And I posted information from the company's motion on the retiree committee. Yet you took exception to that. Let me see if I can quote a few of your remarks in reply to my post....

"naysayers"
"discredit the messenger(s)"
"instead of posting the facts"
"have to correct misinformation made by fellow pilots"

Jim

ps - subsequent communications from the MEC and company have justified what I posted. Can you say the same...

 

[aafsc]

According to New York Captain Rep Leo Guerrero, "11am, Nov 4, have just been advised by the negotiating committee that the company WILL NOT attempt to 1114 the post retirement medical for any pilot leaving before Jan. 01, 2005. That means that anyone retiring before that date will be getting medical benefits until age 65. The company will NOT go to the bankruptcy judge and attempt to overturn that benefit. This only covers the pilots that retire by Jan 01, 2005," he said.

"The company WILL attempt to 1114 any post age 65 pilots, who are eligible at that age for Medicare," Guerrero noted.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="197845"][/post]​

Isn't this similar to what UA told it's employees. If you retire before a certain date that you will not be subject to the increase in retiree medical? Look what happened there.

 

[PITbull]

Earlier today BOS F/O Rep Garalnd Jones wrote, "Just got a message from the NC that the company has told them that they do not plan to go after the retired pilot's medical benefits for those who are already retired and are under 65, including any pilot who retires before Jan.1, 2005.

In other words, the company has no plan to use the 1114 process (same as the 1113, but pertains to retiree's benefits) while in bankruptcy to change the current benefits that our under 65 retired pilots are now receiving.

Additionally, as the changeover to the LOA # 93 provisions start post Jan. 1, 2005, all pilots who retire before that date will thus be eligible for full retiree medical benefits as well."

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

[post="197931"][/post]​

Keep in mind, the compnay sets the premiums every year...so what has anyone gained? You will end up with retiree medical that will take your entire pension to pay for.

 

[PITbull]

deleted by me.

 

[Seatacus]

I've got news for all of you pilots. If the retiree benefits are not similar between all work groups then there will be some angry people in this company. It would behoove all unions to make sure everyone is treated the same. If one group is treated worse they may try to keep others from getting what they are expecting. You know how it goes, if we can't have it then no one can. :huh:

 

[PITbull]

Seatacus,

This is very true.

Giving one group a provision that benfits members and not another, also causes division among the groups...which htis mangment thrives on.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The pilot agreement breaks it down to retirement date and age (since we must retire at 60 and aren't eligible for Medicare till 65):

Retire no later than 1/1/05:

Past provisions

Retire after 1/1/05:

-Catastrophic coverage employee funded.
-Can maintain medical coverage to age 65 but employee funded (use sick bank to offset about $400 per month).
-No dental coverage.
-Prescription coverage till 1/1/06 if over 65 (Medicare drug coverage starts)

Obviously, this is the condensed version....

Jim

ps - and subject to change as long as we're in BK.

[edit by me]

Sick bank used to offset post-retirement medical cost is valued at $18.50 per hour and up to $462.50 can be used per month (25 hours of sick time). Thus someone having 1000 hours of sick bank at retirement would have 40 months of offset available.

 

[RedOne]

Better than what some of us have. As a lowly agent, I have approx 165 sick days in the bank, which I "give" back to the company with no compensation when we fold or when I retire.
.
I wish my work ethics weren't so good. But that's the way I was raised. Look what it is gonna cost me.

 

[Seatacus]

Better than what some of us have. As a lowly agent, I have approx 165 sick days in the bank, which I "give" back to the company with no compensation when we fold or when I retire.
.
I wish my work ethics weren't so good. But that's the way I was raised. Look what it is gonna cost me.

[post="198788"][/post]​

Redone
You are an old school employee. Nowadays employees are not suppose to stick around. The modern employee works for for a company for 5 years, moves on for a higher wage and builds up their 401k. Sad isn't it. No company wants to build loyalty. :unsure:

 

[UseYourHead]

USA320Pilot,

I agree and continue to be amazed at the lack of some folks to put a few simple facts together....

PitBull was woefully incorrect, the RC4 and their supporters here were completely incorrect as well, and it is ruining many lives...shame on them.

Muster some courage, and do the right thing, get the agreements in place, limiting any more damage to your groups.

Quit hiding behind misinformation to justify your flawed plan, everyone can see right through you hardliners, the only person your fooling is yourselves, thinking that you fool anyone at all.

Shame on all of you!

I find it interesting that "naysayers", who continue to support union leaders who have and continue to get worse and worse company proposals, try to discredit the messenger(s).

The "just say no" and "concession stand is closed" crowd has badly hurt rank-and-file union members and continue to do so, instead of posting the facts. I find it sad that ALPA MEC chairman Bill Pollock and communication committee chairman Jack Stephen regularly have to correct misinformation made by fellow pilots.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

[post="197993"][/post]​