TWU Headcount Changes

[TWU informer]

I thought it was obvious that there are a lot of people that don't care about facts and rather spin. Maybe just a glut of trolls. Who knows it is the internet

 
I always thought forums were more about opinions.
 
Can you understand the "board rules" here?
 
I am sure you can TRUST everything the TWU or the IAM tells you, go ask them.
 
Board Rules

Considering the real-time nature of the AirlineForums.com Message Boards, it is impossible for us to review messages or confirm the validity of information posted.

Please remember that we do not actively monitor the contents of and are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of AirlineForums.com or any entity associated with AirlineForums.com. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by using the REPORT feature that is visible to members and is located under every post.

We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the AirlineForums.com Message Boards to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by AirlineForums.com.

 

 

[OldGuy@AA]

 
          I know you're going to be disappointed, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time answering the rest of your mental ramblings. 
    
 
 Yeah good idea since there was a lump sum retirement option offered to A scalers (Probably a letter of agreement)  there was also 2 $500 lump sum payments (before taxes).  I believe it was paid in January of 86 and then again in June or July of 86.  I'm sure it's in the contract but you probably (Omitted) missed it.  Lots of stuff happened and there were lots of letters of agreement that we were not permitted to see, but I'm sure you don't remember any of those either or the promise by the TWU that there would be no more secret letters of agreement.  Here's a clue........  If the TWU promised no more secret letters of agreement then obviously there were secret letters of agreement previously.  I guess that does make me a genius compared to you.  Thank you for sharing your copy/paste skills though Your Greatness, or should I say Your NonReality.............  Tag you're it.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

 
I always thought forums were more about opinions.
 
Can you understand the "board rules" here?
 
I am sure you can TRUST everything the TWU or the IAM tells you, go ask them.
 
Board Rules

Considering the real-time nature of the AirlineForums.com Message Boards, it is impossible for us to review messages or confirm the validity of information posted.

Please remember that we do not actively monitor the contents of and are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of AirlineForums.com or any entity associated with AirlineForums.com. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by using the REPORT feature that is visible to members and is located under every post.

We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the AirlineForums.com Message Boards to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by AirlineForums.com.

 

Yeah and for sure trust everything the Amfa supporters shoot out. Oh Yeah  Just ask yourself

 

[DNTULSA]

After reading the rules it seems that it is ok if I say that the twu sucks, right?

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

After reading the rules it seems that it is ok if I say that the twu sucks, right?

Suire does. I think it ok for me to question the facts that AMFA hasn't been able to get in in how long? and it all a conspiracy.

 

[Bob Owens]

 The company match is currently held up because of the Bankruptcy Courts section 1114 provision. I believe, however, that participating members are entitled to that as well.

Clarification, its not the Bankruptcy Courts Provision thats tying up the match, its the BS language that the Little team inserted, and we warned about, that ties our match to the 1114 process thats holding it up. 

 

[Realityck]

Clarification, its not the Bankruptcy Courts Provision thats tying up the match, its the BS language that the Little team inserted, and we warned about, that ties our match to the 1114 process thats holding it up. 

 
 
 
I may not agree with you very often but in this case I do. The Gless letter was absurd. Lets hope common sense prevails and the company prefund match goes to the members as it was intended to do in the contract.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

For Reality:
  I am impressed that you actually refrained from a reply to my last post.  You are to be commended for not taking the bait.  Always remember that we can debate stuff on this board and we can disagree but we are still on the same team.  I don't have to agree with you but I do have to respect your right to post what you want and I do.  Just keep the dialog going.  Take care my friend.

 

[AANOTOK]

 
 
 
I may not agree with you very often but in this case I do. The Gless letter was absurd. Lets hope common sense prevails and the company prefund match goes to the members as it was intended to do in the contract.

Oh really Realityck, you lambasted many here who questioned on whether we would ever see that match or not. You criticized many for not knowing the contract and how it pertains to the prefunding match and how we would absolutely get it, just a matter of time. Now it's "LET'S HOPE" the company prefund match goes to it's members.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Oh really Realityck, you lambasted many here who questioned on whether we would ever see that match or not. You criticized many for not knowing the contract and how it pertains to the prefunding match and how we would absolutely get it, just a matter of time. Now it's "LET'S HOPE" the company prefund match goes to it's members.

I fear that every month that goes by the company's chance of keeping our money increases.  I am betting it is a low priority at the international.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

On another note, Seymore and Collins were in Tulsa yesterday to dictate........... Errr discuss the movement of people in Tulsa.  There were numbers going around for months and the rumor was that Seymore was going to demand more people moved out of the back shops.  As of quitting time yesterday there was no word as to what the result of the meeting was.  Anyone get any news?

 

[WeAAsles]

Although it's off topic and there is a currently running thread to discuss the issue. Maybe you all missed this Supreme Court ruling last month? How or if it might be applied to the current case between AA and the retirees is obviously too early to tell, if it winds up reaching that stage?

 
"The appeals court erred, Justice Thomas wrote, “by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits in all collective bargaining agreements.”
"The case concerned a union contract at the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant in Apple Grove, W.Va. Like many other collective bargaining agreements, it did not directly say whether health benefits for retirees would vest for life."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/business/supreme-court-rules-against-retirees-in-health-benefits-case.html?_r=0

 

[AANOTOK]

So the word "lifetime" needs to be written in the contract. So, what does the TWU contract state?

 

[WeAAsles]

So the word "lifetime" needs to be written in the contract. So, what does the TWU contract state?

Well you see that's where the issue became confusing to the court. The company believed it was in their right to just cancel the benefits and dissolve the trust holding the monies. Judge Lane ruled that they couldn't and an argument can be made in past contracts that the benefits were vested (Lifetime) So the companies options are to take it to an Adversarial Proceeding (Argue their case in court) come to an agreement with active retirees who are utilizing the trust, or just back away and maintain the benefit (Unlikely) No matter what the Trust holds the monies. It isn't and can't be transferred into the hands of AA.

The argument we have is if and or when the trust is dissolved are we entitled to our matching portion? Tying it in language to a procedure of the BK process (1114) yes was a mistake since AA didn't use that procedure, but the intention has never changed. That money is still individually held in your name and the agreement of the trust is that it is to be used for the sole purpose of funding medical when you retire. If the trust does continue in any way shape or form the argument by our Union will have to be that we should also continue to be a part of the trust in whatever fashion is ultimately either agreed to or arbitrated.

Seeing that Supreme Court ruling will probably embolden the company to move forward with the Adversarial Proceeding after the lower appeals court makes it's new ruling I suspect (unfortunately) the trust will be dissolved? So can the company take the money back from the trust is the question? I highly doubt it but I'm not a lawyer. What I do believe though is if they tried (Doubt that too) the TWU would prevail in Arbitration. The simplest thing is that #1 the money does not belong to them and #2 the argument can be made that the company was required in their agreement with us to go through the 1114 process and because they chose not to they are in violation of our agreement with them, 1114 language notwithstanding.

And AANOTOK this is all just my opinion but I have read and been reading a lot of issues involving our match and think I can make a pretty good guess on it by now.

 

[Realityck]

 

 
          I know you're going to be disappointed, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time answering the rest of your mental ramblings. 
    
 
 Yeah good idea since there was a lump sum retirement option offered to A scalers (Probably a letter of agreement)  there was also 2 $500 lump sum payments (before taxes).  I believe it was paid in January of 86 and then again in June or July of 86.  I'm sure it's in the contract but you probably (Omitted) missed it.  Lots of stuff happened and there were lots of letters of agreement that we were not permitted to see, but I'm sure you don't remember any of those either or the promise by the TWU that there would be no more secret letters of agreement.  Here's a clue........  If the TWU promised no more secret letters of agreement then obviously there were secret letters of agreement previously.  I guess that does make me a genius compared to you.  Thank you for sharing your copy/paste skills though Your Greatness, or should I say Your NonReality.............  Tag you're it.

 

 
 
 
In the spirit of your last post, I’ll attempt to enlighten you.
 
A. Prior to the Bankruptcy the APA Pilots were the only group that had Lump Sum Pensions in their contract, although I don’t know if that’s still true. I think there was a very brief period when American extended that to other groups but it was never negotiated, a letter of Agreement, nor an option offered as part of our contract.
 
B. The 1985 Contract had 3 Bonus Payments. I believe it was $500 on 9/85, $500 on 3/86, and $1,000 on 3/87. See page 126 of the 1985 Contract titled “Lump Sum Payments”.
 
C. To my knowledge from 1983 until 2001, there were no Letters of Agreement that were not in either the Contract as Letters of Memorandum, or sent to all the Locals by the International who directed that they be maintained in an “ATD Letters of Agreement” Manual. The purpose of this was to insure that any change in interpretation or application of contract articles would be available to the then current local officers, as well as future officers as they took office. Any Local President who served during this period of time should be able to substantiate this.
 
Unfortunately, in the 2001 Negotiations the parties agreed to review all Letters of Agreement and dispose of them by either (1) Removing them, (2) Removing them and incorporating them into Contract Articles, (3) Retain them in the Contract, or (4) Retain them outside of the Contract. See page 216 of the 2001 Contract titled “Disposition of Letters of Agreement”.