IF he/she is a pedophile, what does that make you ?
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
IF he/she is a pedophile, what does that make you ?
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Yeah but how many days off does the Horizon capt get? DH pay? Cancellation pay? How's his health insurance?
They are all pathetic and it shows in the desperation of their posts here. $125 for an A320 captain is embarrassing.
Eventually this will right itself and they will get what they deserve... the relative position they came to the table with. LOA 93 will continue to be the salt in their wounds. Their DOH cram down and union experiment has been a complete and utter failure. They are choking on crow and desperate to cover their tracks. What a sad bunch. They can't talk about or dispute the facts, so they resort to attacks and name calling. How juvenile. I'm truly embarrassed to wear the same uniform as the "easticles" on this forum. It's no wonder UA and DL wanted nothing to do with you.
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
I like the idea of fried Spud better. Lightly salted.
Stay out of trouble if you ever come to Phoenix. Sheriff Joe would love to dress you and your pals flyPG & NYC in pink underwear and let you fry in the 115 degree heat in a tent.
I can see y'all like pink underwear and would fit right in with your new boyfriends
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
No flyPG, I get even.
I had really good day yesterday.
Woke up this morning in a really good mood.
Tick Tock :unsure:
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
I can see y'all like pink underwear and would fit right in with your new boyfriends
Can you believe there has been over 1000 pages of venom and not one thing of legal substance has been discussed? The east pilots behavior on this forum wreaks of desperation as they have no where left to go with their ambitions, and have resorted to their last option... name calling and bullying. It's a true sign of defeat, and obvious that LOA 93 is taking it's toll.
I must disagree with the "eastilce" name coined above. While humorous on it's surface in light of the east's penchant for their "westicle" comments, it is too masculine for the group of cowards and malcontents. At least the "westicles" have a pair, for successfully standing up to the playground bully. The pink underwear brigade obviously are under duress, either due to LOA 93 or perhaps they are all suffering from perpetual PMS or even a nasty "east-infection" that just won't clear up. Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, (it's just a piece of helpful advice) but perhaps a prescription dose of vagisil might be in order!
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
Like I said BS, you are full of bs. If you were there, what was the name that cafe all of us would gather during lunch breaks? Hurry, run around the Usapian office, find Cleary and ask him. He was there, I sat at a table next to him outside in the courtyard while he buddied up to Seham.
I was there for the GUILTY verdict. It is in the books. Can't change history. I watched as your team slithered out of the courtroom and huddled by the elevator. I was all smiles. So what, the 9th only made a pass which gives me the opportunity to revisit that scene all over again.
So keep doing that job in the Usapian spin room while the rest of you do the important job of finding a new office in a "safe" area.
I would not sign any long term leases if I were you
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
Can you believe there has been over 1000 pages of venom and not one thing of legal substance has been discussed? The east pilots behavior on this forum wreaks of desperation as they have no where left to go with their ambitions, and have resorted to their last option... name calling and bullying. It's a true sign of defeat, and obvious that LOA 93 is taking it's toll.
I must disagree with the "eastilce" name coined above. While humorous on it's surface in light of the east's penchant for their "westicle" comments, it is too masculine for the group of cowards and malcontents. At least the "westicles" have a pair, for successfully standing up to the playground bully. The pink underwear brigade obviously are under duress, either due to LOA 93 or perhaps they are all suffering from perpetual PMS or even a nasty "east-infection" that just won't clear up. Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, (it's just a piece of helpful advice) but perhaps a prescription dose of vagisil might be in order!
I've never backed down from a bully, Jetz. I'm not going to start now. You can't make threats of bodily harm and transmit those electrons as a tool of intimidation.
You might just find that those electrons can be put in a file and just may bite you back.
Retired United Pilots Seeking Equitable Pension Treatment.
UPDATE: UPFJ FILES LEGAL COMPLAINT AGAINST UNITED AIRLINES
Join us by clicking "Join United Pilots for Justice" on the left
March 5, 2011
PBGC Appeal Process
· New Appeal Deadline. The deadline for filing our consolidated appeal has been extended to July 8, 2011. We will look at this date again in May to see if it should hold, or whether it should be extended again. This is also the deadline for any individual appeal for, e.g., math errors, etc. UPFJ needs to determine in the coming weeks how to best handle individual appeals.
Please note that PBGC will NOT be sending notification of the appeal extension to individual pilots. Instead, PBGC has asked us to notify each member of UPFJ about this extension deadline.
· Estimated Benefit Payments / Final Benefit Payments. Some pilots have received an FDL showing final payments lower than the estimated payments they have been receiving. These pilots are expecting, therefore, to receive lower monthly payments, but the original estimated amount (the higher amount) continues to be paid by PBGC. According to PBGC, the higher estimated payments will continue to be made to each pilot who is part of our consolidated appeal for the duration of the appeal process. I recommend that the excess payment amounts be held in some kind of savings account for the time being, pending final resolution of the appeal. Also, if any pilot who is part of the consolidated appeal has received reductions in payments, they should notify us and we will address the discrepancy with PBGC.
· Math Errors. We are starting to hear from individual pilots that math errors have been made in their FDL showing, e.g., an incorrect time in service. These kind of math errors will almost certainly be fixed by PBGC as part of an individual appeal. UPFJ has not yet decided how to handle individual appeals– whether UPFJ should appeal for each pilot with errors, or whether that pilot should handle the appeal individually. We will have a better idea of how to address this question in the coming weeks as we start to use our internal software that will replicate the PBGC benefit determination process. Once we understand this internal process better, we will let you know the best way for handling individual appeals. If you think a math error has been made in calculating your benefits, please make note of that and forward an email to UPFJ or to legal counsel.
· FDL Timetable. PBGC has issued all but about 80 FDLs for pilots who do not have quadro distributions. They expect to issue these remaining 80 FDLs by the end of March. After that, they will turn to determination of FDLs for pilots who have quadro allocation issues because of a divorce situation. It is very important that you forward us a copy of your FDL as soon as you receive it, so we can notify PBGC that you are a UPFJ member and your appeal extension can be formally acknowledged. Do not assume that just because you joined UPFJ that your extension request has automatically been granted. We still need to forward your FDL to PBGC within 45 days of receipt.
PBGC Discovery Process
· Discovery re: Mileage Plus. Thus far, we have received one completed discovery response from PBGC regarding filings made by UAL Corp. addressing valuation of United Loyalty Services, LLC and Mileage Plus. The upshot is that UAL Corp. disclosed Mileage Plus as a liability, not an asset, notwithstanding PBGC's Reg. 4062 that requires complete fair market valuation information, and otwithstanding that Mileage Plus had obvious value from a FMV standpoint. As asserted in our litigation against UAL, we believe UAL failed in its reporting requirements to PBGC on this issue, and it is a problem that UPFJ, and its members, can address in a lawsuit under ERISA s.4070.
· Discovery re: Benefits Analysis. We also have received a partial discovery response from PBGC that is designed to uncover and understand how PBGC calculated benefits for pilots in various classes. Thus far we have received the PBGC Operating Policy Manual and the PBGC Actuarial Technical Manual. We expect to receive next week the Actuarial Case Memorandum that identifies the various classes of payments and the pilots of our group that belong to each class. We expect to see from these documents, together, the process PBGC used to calculate benefits and arrive at the various formulas that show up in Benefit Calculation Statements. We will also shortly thereafter receive individual Benefits Statements for each pilots showing the calculation formulas for each pilot. These are things we will look at closely to see if a proper appeal challenge exists on one or more of these formulas.
· Discovery re: Master Trust and UAL Recover Money. After the above information is received, we will then obtain the Master Trust Asset Audit Report and the Recovery Allocation Memorandum to see, exactly, how money from the Master Trust and the UAL Recovery Money was divided among the various UAL Trusts. If it turns out that a proper share of money was not paid to the UAL Pilot Plan from either the Master Trust or the Recovery Money, these are areas that will carefully evaluated for appeal.
I am aware that another lawyer for retired UAL Pilots earlier asked for documents re: the Master Trust and Recovery Money allocation. Apparently this request was not honored by PBGC for lack of standing–in other words, an active appeal was not on file. However, it was confirmed today that because we have a formal PBGC appeal in process, information about the Master Trust and UAL Recovery Money will now be properly disclosed.
· Miscellaneous Discovery. Miscellaneous discovery items include things such as Inspector General Batts' Asset Valuation Report, meeting notes for the 11 meetings among UAL, ALPA and PBGC regarding plan termination and documents re: consideration given to a s.4047. restoration. Those will be the last items requested and disclosed.
After we have received and analyzed the PBGC discovery, we will prepare a consolidated appeal addressing any issue that is ripe for appeal. At this point in time, the issues we are looking most closely for are: (a) allocation of the Master Trust, (B) allocation of the UAL Recovery Money, (c) design of the various formulas used in benefits calculations. We are also considering a challenge based on the Age 60 Rule, considering that PBGC regulations do not account for the unusually harsh effect that the FAA Age 60 Rule had on airline pilot retirees. This challenge may be presented as a regulatory error (similar to the argument presented by US Air Pilots in the Davis case) or as an equal protection and due process argument under the Constitution (similar to the argument presented in a non-pension case, Adams v. FAA, pending in US District Court, District of Columbia). While these issues are in the very preliminary formulation stage, we wanted to pass on to UPFJ membership what we are currently viewing as potential areas for consolidated appeal. We are, of course, also closely following the Davis v. PBGC case brought by US Air pilots to see how their arguments are accepted by the District Court judge. Also, suggestion for appeal avenues from UPFJ members or any individual counsel knowledgeable in PBGC law or process are welcome at this preliminary stage.
Kevin McBride
McBride Law, PC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
March 2, 2011
Post from Capt. Barry Butler (UAL Retired), Legal Affairs – United Pilots for Justice (UPFJ):
Recent comments have been made by Denis O'Malley on the RETUP Forum (Retired United Pilots) regarding the efforts of UPFJ and possible ramifications of those actions. In an effort to provide transparency and understanding of our legal filing against United Airlines, we have posted the following response here and will be posted on our website,
www.unitedpilotsforjustice.com.
I urge members and other interested parties to read the Complaint on the UPFJ website. Further questions may be directed to the UPFJ board, if necessary.
UPFJ's lead legal counsel, Kevin McBride, has reviewed the March 1, 2011 RETUP post by Denis O'Malley. Mr. McBride's response follows:
1. The UPFJ complaint against UAL does not accuse UAL of criminal activity. Rather, the complaint accuses UAL and its Board of violations of ERISA for (a) failing to comply with ERISA disclosure regulations regarding value of UAL's subsidiaries and (B) engineering the plan termination in violation of their respective ERISA fiduciary duties. These allegations are all civil (ERISA) violations, not accusations of criminal activity.
2. ERISA fiduciary and disclosure duties are different than bankruptcy court disclosure obligations. As the Seventh Circuit Court explained, the bankruptcy judge did not have jurisdiction to terminate the UAL Pilot Plan. Rather, plan termination was outside of, and separate from, the bankruptcy process. As such, ERISA law governs termination of the plan, not bankruptcy law.
3. Individual plaintiffs have NO risk of personal liability for being part of this lawsuit. Actually, I don't think Mr. O'Malley is even suggesting that is the case. As Mr. O'Malley correctly points out, any lawyer who signs a complaint that is deemed by the Court to be "frivolous" may be subject to sanctions for brining that claim. The complaint is signed by UPFJ lawyers. We signed it because we believe this case has strong merit. This lawsuit is certainly not frivolous.
4. I believe this case has strong merit. United Airlines did a masterful job of tap dancing around UAL enterprise value at the time of plan termination and in bankruptcy, but none of the judges had any idea that so much value was hidden in the Mileage Plus program. We have received discovery from PBGC on this topic, and it is clear that PBGC had no idea how valuable Mileage Plus was because UAL never disclosed that potential value to PBGC. That failure to disclose value to PBGC is at the heart of this lawsuit. PBGC Reg. 4062 requires disclosure of all potential value of subsidiaries, and UAL failed to make a proper disclosure. Therefore, the Plan was terminated based on incorrect information and incorrect assumptions of value. This lawsuit is designed to rectify those mistakes.
In the end, the facts are the facts–Mileage Plus had material value before, during and after plan termination and bankruptcy. This value was required to be independently disclosed under PBGC regulations 4062, and UAL failed to do that. PBGC regulations are entirely independent from the bankruptcy process. Our case is straight-forward and common sense. I think our action will be easier to
understand and accept than the various convoluted arguments that UAL will need to present in order to offer a contrary opinion. For this reason, I like our chances.
5. Mr. O'Malley's suggestion to have this case reviewed by your own personal lawyer, for a second opinion, is a good one. I have already received one such call from a UPFJ member's personal lawyer, and am happy to field any and all other calls from lawyers seeking to understand the case better in behalf of a UPFJ member, as a second opinion. This is always a good idea. Further, if any UPFJ member is not comfortable being part of the plaintiff group, he or she should feel free to drop out of UPFJ membership. We expect to file an amended complaint by approximately March 18 and a final list of plaintiffs by April 30, 2011. If anyone wants to drop out of UPFJ membership, I would ask that they do it before then.
6. The goal of this litigation is to restore the Plan benefits to each individual plaintiff. We are representing only UPFJ members in this case, not the entire pilot group. As I read the law, the statute of limitations may expire on these ERISA claims sometime in May, 2011. Therefore, any pilot who is not part of the group by April 30, 2011 will not be represented, and that pilot's claims will probably (in my view) be barred by the statute of limitations. So if anyone new wants to join UPFJ, this would be the time to join. We will try to obtain a settlement or verdict only in behalf of our limited group–a settlement or verdict amount that will be easily affordable to United Airlines.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Progress Update and Funding Request: February 28, 2011
The Officers and Directors of UPFJ thank our members for their support. The first round of UPFJ funding has accomplished a great deal in research and now preliminary legal action. We continue to implement the legal challenge to United's handling of the United Pilots Defined Benefit Pension Plan (A Plan) at the time of Plan termination. We are also continuing to prepare our consolidated appeal to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) Final Determination Letters, which represent their final assessment of the PBGC benefits due to us.
Legal Complaint against United:
UPFJ filed a complaint in the Federal District Court in Washington DC alleging that United Airlines misrepresented the nature and value of its asset base when asserting its claim to the PBGC that it could no longer support our A Plan. The Complaint filed against United for alleged violations of ERISA law is posted at: UPFJ Complaint against United on the www.unitedpilotsforjustice.com web site.
Among other things, UPFJ alleges that the Frequent Flyer Program known as Mileage Plus was actually a valuable asset as opposed to United's assertion that it was a liability. It appears that United did not follow PBGC reporting regulations when seeking Plan termination. PBGC regulations require complete disclosure of fair market value of all subsidiaries of UAL Corp. Fair market value estimates must include the economic outlook for each subsidiary and the industry and market served by that subsidiary.
In our case, at the exact same time UAL was seeking Plan termination, Air Canada was spinning off partial ownership of its own mileage program, Aeroplan, in a public IPO. The public markets valued the Aeroplan program at US $325 per-member. Based on the number of members in the Mileage Plus program at the time, a comparable per-member valuation would have equated to (approximately) $15 billion for United's Mileage Plus program. Also, a year after the final order terminating our Pension Plan, US investment banks actually disclosed public value estimates for United's Mileage Plus of (approximately) $7.5 billion. We believe this value also existed at the time of Plan termination and should have been disclosed to PBGC.
We have now received back written discovery from PBGC showing that United failed to attach any value to the Mileage Plus program in the Plan termination process and, instead, represented to PBGC that the Mileage Plus subsidiary was a liability.
Our lawsuit against United asserts, among other things, that the Aeroplan IPO value provided clear guidance for the economic outlook for the mileage program industry and markets, and that United's failure to disclose this comparable value was violation of ERISA during the Plan termination process.
The next step in the legal process is for UPFJ to formally "serve" or present the complaint to United. As expected, United's response is professional and will no doubt result in legal challenges to our complaint. UPFJ is prepared for this process. And while PBGC has the right to intervene in our case on one side or the other, we currently do not expect PBGC to intervene.
Ultimately, we believe United will have a hard time explaining to a judge why it failed to disclose the actual fair market value (and comparable valuations) for Mileage Plus when it was seeking Plan termination. For this reason, we are optimistic about our chances in the lawsuit.
PBGC Appeal:
We have an ongoing dialogue with the PBGC regarding issues surrounding our consolidated appeal.
UPFJ continues preparation for the appeal of the PBGC distributions that will challenge the PBGC's application of ERISA Statutes and possible errors in PBGC allocations. As Final Determination letters continue to arrive, a data base is being developed to categorize the multitude of payment levels the PBGC application of ERISA rules has created. This data base will also allow an analysis of individual pilot payouts that may have been in error using the PBGC's own rules. This analysis is needed for UPFJ efforts in both the United Complaint and the PBGC Appeal.
Many of our actions for the PBGC Appeal parallel the US Air retired and flying pilot actions that may be completed in Federal Court in 2011, potentially saving UPFJ large amounts of legal time and effort as their judgments will set legal precedent for our own appeal.
We still need to receive a large number of documents from PBGC that explain how and why benefits were determined. We don't expect to receive all these documents for another few months. Once we have received these documents and analyzed all possible errors in PBGC allocations, we will be able to tell better how the PBGC consolidated appeal will be framed.
Our current deadline for filing a consolidated appeal is April 8, 2011. However, we fully expect this deadline to be moved again, since we cannot prepare and file the appeal until all relevant documents are received from PBGC.
READ THE LAST 3 PARAGRAPHS, USAPA ROCKS! MM! alpa sux! MM!
UPDATE: UPFJ FILES LEGAL COMPLAINT AGAINST UNITED AIRLINES
Join us by clicking "Join United Pilots for Justice" on the left
March 5, 2011
PBGC Appeal Process
· New Appeal Deadline. The deadline for filing our consolidated appeal has been extended to July 8, 2011. We will look at this date again in May to see if it should hold, or whether it should be extended again. This is also the deadline for any individual appeal for, e.g., math errors, etc. UPFJ needs to determine in the coming weeks how to best handle individual appeals.
Please note that PBGC will NOT be sending notification of the appeal extension to individual pilots. Instead, PBGC has asked us to notify each member of UPFJ about this extension deadline.
· Estimated Benefit Payments / Final Benefit Payments. Some pilots have received an FDL showing final payments lower than the estimated payments they have been receiving. These pilots are expecting, therefore, to receive lower monthly payments, but the original estimated amount (the higher amount) continues to be paid by PBGC. According to PBGC, the higher estimated payments will continue to be made to each pilot who is part of our consolidated appeal for the duration of the appeal process. I recommend that the excess payment amounts be held in some kind of savings account for the time being, pending final resolution of the appeal. Also, if any pilot who is part of the consolidated appeal has received reductions in payments, they should notify us and we will address the discrepancy with PBGC.
· Math Errors. We are starting to hear from individual pilots that math errors have been made in their FDL showing, e.g., an incorrect time in service. These kind of math errors will almost certainly be fixed by PBGC as part of an individual appeal. UPFJ has not yet decided how to handle individual appeals– whether UPFJ should appeal for each pilot with errors, or whether that pilot should handle the appeal individually. We will have a better idea of how to address this question in the coming weeks as we start to use our internal software that will replicate the PBGC benefit determination process. Once we understand this internal process better, we will let you know the best way for handling individual appeals. If you think a math error has been made in calculating your benefits, please make note of that and forward an email to UPFJ or to legal counsel.
· FDL Timetable. PBGC has issued all but about 80 FDLs for pilots who do not have quadro distributions. They expect to issue these remaining 80 FDLs by the end of March. After that, they will turn to determination of FDLs for pilots who have quadro allocation issues because of a divorce situation. It is very important that you forward us a copy of your FDL as soon as you receive it, so we can notify PBGC that you are a UPFJ member and your appeal extension can be formally acknowledged. Do not assume that just because you joined UPFJ that your extension request has automatically been granted. We still need to forward your FDL to PBGC within 45 days of receipt.
PBGC Discovery Process
· Discovery re: Mileage Plus. Thus far, we have received one completed discovery response from PBGC regarding filings made by UAL Corp. addressing valuation of United Loyalty Services, LLC and Mileage Plus. The upshot is that UAL Corp. disclosed Mileage Plus as a liability, not an asset, notwithstanding PBGC's Reg. 4062 that requires complete fair market valuation information, and otwithstanding that Mileage Plus had obvious value from a FMV standpoint. As asserted in our litigation against UAL, we believe UAL failed in its reporting requirements to PBGC on this issue, and it is a problem that UPFJ, and its members, can address in a lawsuit under ERISA s.4070.
· Discovery re: Benefits Analysis. We also have received a partial discovery response from PBGC that is designed to uncover and understand how PBGC calculated benefits for pilots in various classes. Thus far we have received the PBGC Operating Policy Manual and the PBGC Actuarial Technical Manual. We expect to receive next week the Actuarial Case Memorandum that identifies the various classes of payments and the pilots of our group that belong to each class. We expect to see from these documents, together, the process PBGC used to calculate benefits and arrive at the various formulas that show up in Benefit Calculation Statements. We will also shortly thereafter receive individual Benefits Statements for each pilots showing the calculation formulas for each pilot. These are things we will look at closely to see if a proper appeal challenge exists on one or more of these formulas.
· Discovery re: Master Trust and UAL Recover Money. After the above information is received, we will then obtain the Master Trust Asset Audit Report and the Recovery Allocation Memorandum to see, exactly, how money from the Master Trust and the UAL Recovery Money was divided among the various UAL Trusts. If it turns out that a proper share of money was not paid to the UAL Pilot Plan from either the Master Trust or the Recovery Money, these are areas that will carefully evaluated for appeal.
I am aware that another lawyer for retired UAL Pilots earlier asked for documents re: the Master Trust and Recovery Money allocation. Apparently this request was not honored by PBGC for lack of standing–in other words, an active appeal was not on file. However, it was confirmed today that because we have a formal PBGC appeal in process, information about the Master Trust and UAL Recovery Money will now be properly disclosed.
· Miscellaneous Discovery. Miscellaneous discovery items include things such as Inspector General Batts' Asset Valuation Report, meeting notes for the 11 meetings among UAL, ALPA and PBGC regarding plan termination and documents re: consideration given to a s.4047. restoration. Those will be the last items requested and disclosed.
After we have received and analyzed the PBGC discovery, we will prepare a consolidated appeal addressing any issue that is ripe for appeal. At this point in time, the issues we are looking most closely for are: (a) allocation of the Master Trust, (B) allocation of the UAL Recovery Money, (c) design of the various formulas used in benefits calculations. We are also considering a challenge based on the Age 60 Rule, considering that PBGC regulations do not account for the unusually harsh effect that the FAA Age 60 Rule had on airline pilot retirees. This challenge may be presented as a regulatory error (similar to the argument presented by US Air Pilots in the Davis case) or as an equal protection and due process argument under the Constitution (similar to the argument presented in a non-pension case, Adams v. FAA, pending in US District Court, District of Columbia). While these issues are in the very preliminary formulation stage, we wanted to pass on to UPFJ membership what we are currently viewing as potential areas for consolidated appeal. We are, of course, also closely following the Davis v. PBGC case brought by US Air pilots to see how their arguments are accepted by the District Court judge. Also, suggestion for appeal avenues from UPFJ members or any individual counsel knowledgeable in PBGC law or process are welcome at this preliminary stage.
Kevin McBride
McBride Law, PC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
March 2, 2011
Post from Capt. Barry Butler (UAL Retired), Legal Affairs – United Pilots for Justice (UPFJ):
Recent comments have been made by Denis O'Malley on the RETUP Forum (Retired United Pilots) regarding the efforts of UPFJ and possible ramifications of those actions. In an effort to provide transparency and understanding of our legal filing against United Airlines, we have posted the following response here and will be posted on our website,
www.unitedpilotsforjustice.com.
I urge members and other interested parties to read the Complaint on the UPFJ website. Further questions may be directed to the UPFJ board, if necessary.
UPFJ's lead legal counsel, Kevin McBride, has reviewed the March 1, 2011 RETUP post by Denis O'Malley. Mr. McBride's response follows:
1. The UPFJ complaint against UAL does not accuse UAL of criminal activity. Rather, the complaint accuses UAL and its Board of violations of ERISA for (a) failing to comply with ERISA disclosure regulations regarding value of UAL's subsidiaries and (B) engineering the plan termination in violation of their respective ERISA fiduciary duties. These allegations are all civil (ERISA) violations, not accusations of criminal activity.
2. ERISA fiduciary and disclosure duties are different than bankruptcy court disclosure obligations. As the Seventh Circuit Court explained, the bankruptcy judge did not have jurisdiction to terminate the UAL Pilot Plan. Rather, plan termination was outside of, and separate from, the bankruptcy process. As such, ERISA law governs termination of the plan, not bankruptcy law.
3. Individual plaintiffs have NO risk of personal liability for being part of this lawsuit. Actually, I don't think Mr. O'Malley is even suggesting that is the case. As Mr. O'Malley correctly points out, any lawyer who signs a complaint that is deemed by the Court to be "frivolous" may be subject to sanctions for brining that claim. The complaint is signed by UPFJ lawyers. We signed it because we believe this case has strong merit. This lawsuit is certainly not frivolous.
4. I believe this case has strong merit. United Airlines did a masterful job of tap dancing around UAL enterprise value at the time of plan termination and in bankruptcy, but none of the judges had any idea that so much value was hidden in the Mileage Plus program. We have received discovery from PBGC on this topic, and it is clear that PBGC had no idea how valuable Mileage Plus was because UAL never disclosed that potential value to PBGC. That failure to disclose value to PBGC is at the heart of this lawsuit. PBGC Reg. 4062 requires disclosure of all potential value of subsidiaries, and UAL failed to make a proper disclosure. Therefore, the Plan was terminated based on incorrect information and incorrect assumptions of value. This lawsuit is designed to rectify those mistakes.
In the end, the facts are the facts–Mileage Plus had material value before, during and after plan termination and bankruptcy. This value was required to be independently disclosed under PBGC regulations 4062, and UAL failed to do that. PBGC regulations are entirely independent from the bankruptcy process. Our case is straight-forward and common sense. I think our action will be easier to
understand and accept than the various convoluted arguments that UAL will need to present in order to offer a contrary opinion. For this reason, I like our chances.
5. Mr. O'Malley's suggestion to have this case reviewed by your own personal lawyer, for a second opinion, is a good one. I have already received one such call from a UPFJ member's personal lawyer, and am happy to field any and all other calls from lawyers seeking to understand the case better in behalf of a UPFJ member, as a second opinion. This is always a good idea. Further, if any UPFJ member is not comfortable being part of the plaintiff group, he or she should feel free to drop out of UPFJ membership. We expect to file an amended complaint by approximately March 18 and a final list of plaintiffs by April 30, 2011. If anyone wants to drop out of UPFJ membership, I would ask that they do it before then.
6. The goal of this litigation is to restore the Plan benefits to each individual plaintiff. We are representing only UPFJ members in this case, not the entire pilot group. As I read the law, the statute of limitations may expire on these ERISA claims sometime in May, 2011. Therefore, any pilot who is not part of the group by April 30, 2011 will not be represented, and that pilot's claims will probably (in my view) be barred by the statute of limitations. So if anyone new wants to join UPFJ, this would be the time to join. We will try to obtain a settlement or verdict only in behalf of our limited group–a settlement or verdict amount that will be easily affordable to United Airlines.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Progress Update and Funding Request: February 28, 2011
The Officers and Directors of UPFJ thank our members for their support. The first round of UPFJ funding has accomplished a great deal in research and now preliminary legal action. We continue to implement the legal challenge to United's handling of the United Pilots Defined Benefit Pension Plan (A Plan) at the time of Plan termination. We are also continuing to prepare our consolidated appeal to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) Final Determination Letters, which represent their final assessment of the PBGC benefits due to us.
Legal Complaint against United:
UPFJ filed a complaint in the Federal District Court in Washington DC alleging that United Airlines misrepresented the nature and value of its asset base when asserting its claim to the PBGC that it could no longer support our A Plan. The Complaint filed against United for alleged violations of ERISA law is posted at: UPFJ Complaint against United on the www.unitedpilotsforjustice.com web site.
Among other things, UPFJ alleges that the Frequent Flyer Program known as Mileage Plus was actually a valuable asset as opposed to United's assertion that it was a liability. It appears that United did not follow PBGC reporting regulations when seeking Plan termination. PBGC regulations require complete disclosure of fair market value of all subsidiaries of UAL Corp. Fair market value estimates must include the economic outlook for each subsidiary and the industry and market served by that subsidiary.
In our case, at the exact same time UAL was seeking Plan termination, Air Canada was spinning off partial ownership of its own mileage program, Aeroplan, in a public IPO. The public markets valued the Aeroplan program at US $325 per-member. Based on the number of members in the Mileage Plus program at the time, a comparable per-member valuation would have equated to (approximately) $15 billion for United's Mileage Plus program. Also, a year after the final order terminating our Pension Plan, US investment banks actually disclosed public value estimates for United's Mileage Plus of (approximately) $7.5 billion. We believe this value also existed at the time of Plan termination and should have been disclosed to PBGC.
We have now received back written discovery from PBGC showing that United failed to attach any value to the Mileage Plus program in the Plan termination process and, instead, represented to PBGC that the Mileage Plus subsidiary was a liability.
Our lawsuit against United asserts, among other things, that the Aeroplan IPO value provided clear guidance for the economic outlook for the mileage program industry and markets, and that United's failure to disclose this comparable value was violation of ERISA during the Plan termination process.
The next step in the legal process is for UPFJ to formally "serve" or present the complaint to United. As expected, United's response is professional and will no doubt result in legal challenges to our complaint. UPFJ is prepared for this process. And while PBGC has the right to intervene in our case on one side or the other, we currently do not expect PBGC to intervene.
Ultimately, we believe United will have a hard time explaining to a judge why it failed to disclose the actual fair market value (and comparable valuations) for Mileage Plus when it was seeking Plan termination. For this reason, we are optimistic about our chances in the lawsuit.
PBGC Appeal:
We have an ongoing dialogue with the PBGC regarding issues surrounding our consolidated appeal.
UPFJ continues preparation for the appeal of the PBGC distributions that will challenge the PBGC's application of ERISA Statutes and possible errors in PBGC allocations. As Final Determination letters continue to arrive, a data base is being developed to categorize the multitude of payment levels the PBGC application of ERISA rules has created. This data base will also allow an analysis of individual pilot payouts that may have been in error using the PBGC's own rules. This analysis is needed for UPFJ efforts in both the United Complaint and the PBGC Appeal.
Many of our actions for the PBGC Appeal parallel the US Air retired and flying pilot actions that may be completed in Federal Court in 2011, potentially saving UPFJ large amounts of legal time and effort as their judgments will set legal precedent for our own appeal.
We still need to receive a large number of documents from PBGC that explain how and why benefits were determined. We don't expect to receive all these documents for another few months. Once we have received these documents and analyzed all possible errors in PBGC allocations, we will be able to tell better how the PBGC consolidated appeal will be framed.
Our current deadline for filing a consolidated appeal is April 8, 2011. However, we fully expect this deadline to be moved again, since we cannot prepare and file the appeal until all relevant documents are received from PBGC.
READ THE LAST 3 PARAGRAPHS, USAPA ROCKS! MM! alpa sux! MM!
cactusboy53
Veteran
- May 9, 2007
- 2,649
- 7,407
"In an unrelated story, Charlie Sheen is said to be considering an offer to be the USAPA spokesperson (as he has recently been released from the sitcom "Two and a Half Men"). Prime Minister of Communications Theuer has not been reached for comment."
This message has been brought to you by "Tiger Blood" energy drink; It's for WINNERS! WINNERS! WINNERS!
That's about the funniest thing I've ever read on here. That coming from a rusted, bent butter knife.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
Sorry Rep, you our misinformed our 125/hr was given to us by our fine ALPA representatives!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
