header links

___________________________For all Delta people who have truly touched the High Life!__________________________________
PCN Web Site____PCN FORUM___PCN Ads_____ About______ Calendar______ G-Group______ Links______ Sign Up______ FAQ______ Archives______ Contact ______________________High Life Theme Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adw772km7PQ&ob=av2e

Latest High Life Issue

Latest HL 373 published Sep 01, 2025. Not all sections of Blog are on first page. Click OLDER POSTS to view additional newsletter sections. For PDF version and all archived list CLICK HERE. Look for next issue soon!

Airlines news

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Pension - HL 200 (1)



On Feb 10, 2014 12:07 PM, "Tom Seever" <tomseever@mindspring.com> wrote:
Mark,               In the latest issue of your greatly appreciated newsletter there were a couple of letters that referenced DP3 and  warrant a response for the benefit of your readers.

On Feb 8, 2014 11:51 AM, "Mike Ward" <orcaspilot@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,

I read with great interest that TWA pilots just won a victory over ALPA as it was shown that ALPA did not equally represent the interest of all the pilots.  So.....do you think that decision impacts us at all?  Do we need to sue ALPA?

                 In the first letter, Mike Ward (a DP3 member in good standing) asked you why we don’t sue ALPA , and expressed “surprise that DP3 has not taken up the issue.”  We have answered this question so many times in the last 7 years that it sometimes seems like the movie “Groundhog Day”. But it does point up the difficulty in communicating sometimes boring subjects to a very large and diverse group. We know it is our failure that we have not figured out a way to do it perfectly. Here is the answer plus a bonus answer:
                The Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago that a union is not obligated to represent its retirees. That is about as cut and dried as it gets. We share the concern many have about ALPA’s actions in the past decade and  will not hesitate to take action against them if information comes to light of inappropriate actions that meet the level necessary to take successful legal action.
                A related question is “Why don’t we sue DAL”.  Action against DAL not only lacks a sound legal argument, it carries with it the risk of legal action against each DP3 member and our attorneys. To take any action against DAL would require reopening bankruptcy. To do so requires absolute proof of criminal actions or negligence that rises to that level. If you don’t have that kind of case the judge can take action against the plaintiffs and their lawyers. Our attorneys advised us of that years ago. A year later the United retirees hired a local lawyer who appealed in a way that got them pulled into the bankruptcy court and threatened with serious sanctions. They had to virtually abandon their appeals. You hire the best attorneys available for this sort of fight – and you listen to their advice even if you don’t like it. The DP3 attorneys discuss options and leave decisions to us on most issues – they did not on this particular issue. 

                In the second letter, Emile takes DP3 to task for not representing the PC4s. 

From: Emile Trash
Date: 02/06/14 12:46:13
Subject: [PCN High Life] New comment on Mark's Remarks - HL 198 (4).

I was one of the retirees that was a dues paying DP3 member in good standing that was ejected from DP3 because I was classified by PBGC as PC4. As a group, we PC4 retirees retained our own council at great expense and challenged the decision by DP3 to take actions that would have terminated my pension. I believe that type of hypocracy by DP3 leadership should be known by other members. This is exactly the type of divisive actions by the usual DALPA suspects that make me regret ever paying dues to that organization.

                The short answer is that once we began to develop our appeal issues 4 or 5 years ago we also realized that we could not predict with certainty that several combinations of successes would not reduce the benefits of the 30 or so PC4 members we had at the time. Our attorneys advised us they could not represent them and also represent the interests of the PC3 group. Will Buergey reached out to the  PC4s, explaining the situation and providing them with our list of PC4s so they could form their own organization. All of their DP3 contributions were returned to them immediately.
                A little more background:  The PC4s are pilots who were born after September 1, 1953.  Their choice to retire was clearly ill advised and, as Mark alluded to, was likely the result of a lack of good guidance and information regarding the ramifications of retiring prior to age 53 ( if you didn’t wait until age 53 to retire – and the company acted on their daily threat to terminate the plan – you ran the risk of becoming a PC4, which is supposed to be a lower priority for benefits). 
               It was DP3’s fervent hope that we could find a way to include them in our efforts and we spent a great deal of time trying to do so. When it was clear that we could not ethically continue to allow them to be members, we did all we could to separate in an honorable way. 
                As for the vague specifics in this gentleman’s angry letter, no legal challenge (or challenge of any kind for that matter) was ever made. We were aware they had retained counsel, but that was a long time ago and clearly there were no grounds for action.
               He speaks of hypocrisy but  it is difficult to discern from his letter the contradictory behavior this implies.
               Divisiveness is another issue – this entire bankruptcy process, exacerbated by the way ALPA has handled it, creates divisiveness. There are fewer resources than obligations in the wake of a bankruptcy. The termination of the plan is just one aspect of it. ALPA did a wonderful job of grabbing more than their share (it’s irrefutably obvious when you add their PBGC benefits to their bankruptcy settlements) and that has simply made a divisive process even worse.
              Tom Seever
               DP3 Litigation Committee Chairman

PS- If all of the 3500 negatively affected retirees had been willing to put in $1500 apiece 5 years ago we could have afforded to go “fishing” for bad acts on the part of ALPA or DAL as so many individuals keep suggesting. But research, investigations, depositions, and the like are very, very expensive to undertake, particularly without a smoking gun. DP3 recognized the need to have the best representation as our first priority and that is the limit that the retiree group was willing to commit to. As a result, we are financially able to undertake the much more winnable legal arguments against the PBGC procedures but not the far riskier and more expensive process of searching for illegal actions that may not exist. (Do not confuse the immoral and unjust actions with illegal actions. Illegal is the only thing that counts in court.)
 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Full post disclaimer in left column. PCN Home Page is located at: http://pcn.homestead.com/home01.html

No comments: