TWU gets 4.8% equity

[Bob Owens]

For your own reasons you seem to be determined to make retirees the spoilers on this issue and it is unfortunate and false. Any change to retiree medical coverage is part of the 1114 process. The termination of the trust changes retiree medical coverage because many retirees still have money in the trust, both their own and the employer match, which is drawn down over a ten year period. So the question of how the trust is dissolved would be part of the 1114 process whether it was in the contract or not. The APFA contract has the same provision. But, what is really unfortunate is your attempt to argue that the retirees are somehow trying to take control of the active employee’s money to fund their retiree medical. I’ve looked at the docket, I’ve tracked the proceedings of the retiree committee, and no one has attempted to interfere with the distribution of the active employee’s money or the employer matching funds. This is nothing more than your usual speculation.

I've been here for over 25 years. I saw where we were told "dont worry guys, we have a "Me Too" clause, whatever the pilots get we will get too. Well it turns out there was a little clause attached to the "Me Too" that really wasnt clear when the deal was ratified but turned out to make the language worthless. I was here when we were told that in 2006 we would get everything back with the early opener clause, that didnt happen either, now we have another little pesky clause that says "subject to successful conclusion of the 1114 process" we will get the match. well what exactly does that mean? Successful in what way? Successful from the retirees view or the companys view or the unions view?

I have nothing against the retirees, I have something against puting the fate of my funds in the 1114 committee and the ambiguity of the statement. The fact is that bankruptcy is not required as a condition to terminate the Prefunding of Retiree Medical, so there is no reason why the funds of currently working participants should even be a part of the 1114 process, as you said those funds are designated for each participant individually. If you recall terminating prefunding was part of the rejected TA, some groups already did, and they did not get back the match because they agreed to it. My concern is, as we have seen so many times before, that this langauge will eventuate in us not getting the matching funds, sure a greivance would be filed, we would lose and once again we would be told what a tough break that was. Just like the "Me Too" clause in 1995. That language is there for a reason and its not for our benefit. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so, but experience has made me this way.

 

[Realityck]

I've been here for over 25 years. I saw where we were told "dont worry guys, we have a "Me Too" clause, whatever the pilots get we will get too. Well it turns out there was a little clause attached to the "Me Too" that really wasnt clear when the deal was ratified but turned out to make the language worthless. I was here when we were told that in 2006 we would get everything back with the early opener clause, that didnt happen either, now we have another little pesky clause that says "subject to successful conclusion of the 1114 process" we will get the match. well what exactly does that mean? Successful in what way? Successful from the retirees view or the companys view or the unions view?

I have nothing against the retirees, I have something against puting the fate of my funds in the 1114 committee and the ambiguity of the statement. The fact is that bankruptcy is not required as a condition to terminate the Prefunding of Retiree Medical, so there is no reason why the funds of currently working participants should even be a part of the 1114 process, as you said those funds are designated for each participant individually. If you recall terminating prefunding was part of the rejected TA, some groups already did, and they did not get back the match because they agreed to it. My concern is, as we have seen so many times before, that this langauge will eventuate in us not getting the matching funds, sure a greivance would be filed, we would lose and once again we would be told what a tough break that was. Just like the "Me Too" clause in 1995. That language is there for a reason and its not for our benefit. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so, but experience has made me this way.

You're wrong, end of story.

 

[TWU informer]

You're wrong, end of story.

I have a feeling we are far from the "end of story" on anything to do with AA and the TWU.

 

[Bob Owens]

You're wrong, end of story.

I guess thats the best counterpoint you can come up with. Where did you get that powerful response-Hannity or O'Rielly?

 

[TWU informer]

I guess thats the best counterpoint you can come up with. Where did you get that powerful response-Hannity or O'Rielly?

And where did you get that pathetic response? From Axelrod?

By the way, how is that "One single Local" Change from within the TWU moving along these days?

 

[Bob Owens]

And where did you get that pathetic response? From Axelrod?

Who is Axelrod?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY

FYI Bill OReilly grew up on the same block I lived on, my mother (and his) still lives on in Westbury NY, not Levittown like he writes in his book (they are Levitt style homes but its Westbury not Levittown). One of my Moms neighbors who is very far Right wing knew ORielly and said he was an ass and a bully then as well.

 

[AC Tynker]

Who is Axelrod?

FYI Bill OReilly grew up on the same block I lived on, my mother (and his) still lives on in Westbury NY, not Levittown like he writes in his book (they are Levitt style homes but its Westbury not Levittown). One of my Moms neighbors who is very far Right wing knew ORielly and said he was an ass and a bully then as well.

So we are supposed to be impressed that your childhood neighborhood has produced 2 Class "A" Asses ?

 

[Bob Owens]

So we are supposed to be impressed that your childhood neighborhood has produced 2 Class "A" Asses ?

Touche.

Not at all, only that I have good reason to say he is one, as for the other one of course you are entitled your opinion. At least you gave a Class A rating, I wouldnt be as generous when it comes to rating you.

 

[Buck]

Axelrod is the current presidents"s handler...

 

[Bob Owens]

Axelrod is the current presidents"s handler...

Ok, I've been acused of having Lee Seham be my ghost writer, I guess I'm moving up.

 

[AC Tynker]

Touche.

Not at all, only that I have good reason to say he is one, as for the other one of course you are entitled your opinion. At least you gave a Class A rating, I wouldnt be as generous when it comes to rating you.

Mr Guru of everything Legal & Aviation,
I would venture to guess that your Rating System for me would change (flipflop) so frequently we could probably cover the whole alphabet in a matter of days. Your Opinion from your pulpit means a lot less these days so no worries.

 

[nbmcg01]

I wonder if AA will divide up the 13% that the APA turned down and give it to the TWU and the APFA?

 

[jacfrost]

I wonder if AA will divide up the 13% that the APA turned down and give it to the TWU and the APFA?

that's funny!!

 

[nbmcg01]

LOL....think how that would tick off the pilots.. fun to thinks of what might be in labor relations mind...

 

[Bob Owens]

Your Opinion from your pulpit means a lot less these days so no worries.

Means enough to keep you busy.