JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
YES it is.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
ALPA/401k revisited
- Thread starter Medeco
- Start date
- Watchers 24
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
YES it is.
mtsupilot376
happy to be alive
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Posts
- 156
See that just doesn't make sense. We bust our asses out on the line to make sure that our numbers are good. This, in turn, ensures that the company is in a good relationship with our one and only client. So what is the incentive now?
So let me get this straight, ALPA in an interest to protect our jobs wants more money from us, but they are going to take it from our retirement and our performance bonuses. This removes our incentives both to invest in the future and to post good numbers on the line.
Way to go ALPA.
So let me get this straight, ALPA in an interest to protect our jobs wants more money from us, but they are going to take it from our retirement and our performance bonuses. This removes our incentives both to invest in the future and to post good numbers on the line.
Way to go ALPA.
DoinTime
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 2,523
You do realize that regardless if you participate in your 401 that you will be paying the same amount of dues, right?
dojetdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Posts
- 1,998
I'm sure there were plenty of bright/glossy/shiny photos of some ALPA guys sitting around a table somewhere involved in some kind of "conference" or calling themselves some kind of "team" or "taskforce" resolving some issue.
If they wanted to save money, they could start by possibly spending LESS money on the magazine.
Yeah, there is SOME good info in there SOMETIMES, but good grief.
SaturnPilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Posts
- 229
honestly, what is the point of doing this above? Do you really think when the ALPA staffers get PAC cards back with nasty thoughts on them, the Executive Council is going to say, "well, we probably shouldn't change anything about the dues..." If you're really unhappy about this, I would suggest starting an education campaign at work and having everyone you know contact their rep and tell them to vote no.
Has anybody actually taken the time to see how much more money they will be paying? You'll find out that it is most likely going to be less than $10/month.
If you do things like cancel your checkoff, it is going to be pretty easy to fall behind and find your job in jeopardy with quite a large bill to pay. Meanwhile you won't be able to vote in any elections, participate in a recall of the reps that you are so mad at for voting in this <$10 increase, vote on any TAs, etc.
ALPA is not taking any body's retirement money. The amount of money going into your retirement fund will stay exactly the same.
What a bunch of whiney little cry babies. And all over $10 a month that hasn't even been approved yet. Get off your asses and start a campaign to convince the BOD not to approve it. If you still lose, then pay your damned dues and stop whining. You'll pay more on your crappy Starbucks coffee tomorrow than you'll pay in extra dues for the month, yet you b!tch about this. Unbelievable. 
Freight Dog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,232
Speedtape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
Let's see:
This is the story of two pilots that both work for the same company, both hired in the same class, both upgraded at the same time on the same equipment. Pilot A decides not to participate in the 401k--for what ever reason. Pilot B decides to participate in the 401k to the maximum that the law allows. Both pilots earn $80,000 in GROSS WAGES. Pilot A pays ALPA dues of .0195 of his GROSS WAGES of $80,000. Pilot B only pays .0195 on his Taxable Wages of $70,000(Gross Wages $80,0000 minus 401K contribution of $10,000). Is this fair?
Both pilots work under the same collective bargaining agreement. Their agreement was negotiated by the same collective bargaining agent. All pay and work rules that exist are a result of the efforts of that collective bargaining agent, which also include the efforts of the local pilot group. Most likely, their current collective bargaining contract evolved over time to a better contract with better work rules. AND, as time goes on, that contract should improve. Those improvementents usually include increased compensation in many forms.
The questions are:
In all fairness, should Pilot B pay less money in dues than Pilot A, based on the fact that he elects to participate in a 401K? Should those wages that he elects to contribute to the 401k be exempt from dues? Were those monies not part of the wage that he earned that were negotiated under the collective bargaining agreement that both Pilot B and Pilot A work under? Should all members not pay the same percentage on GROSS WAGES?
This is the story of two pilots that both work for the same company, both hired in the same class, both upgraded at the same time on the same equipment. Pilot A decides not to participate in the 401k--for what ever reason. Pilot B decides to participate in the 401k to the maximum that the law allows. Both pilots earn $80,000 in GROSS WAGES. Pilot A pays ALPA dues of .0195 of his GROSS WAGES of $80,000. Pilot B only pays .0195 on his Taxable Wages of $70,000(Gross Wages $80,0000 minus 401K contribution of $10,000). Is this fair?
Both pilots work under the same collective bargaining agreement. Their agreement was negotiated by the same collective bargaining agent. All pay and work rules that exist are a result of the efforts of that collective bargaining agent, which also include the efforts of the local pilot group. Most likely, their current collective bargaining contract evolved over time to a better contract with better work rules. AND, as time goes on, that contract should improve. Those improvementents usually include increased compensation in many forms.
The questions are:
In all fairness, should Pilot B pay less money in dues than Pilot A, based on the fact that he elects to participate in a 401K? Should those wages that he elects to contribute to the 401k be exempt from dues? Were those monies not part of the wage that he earned that were negotiated under the collective bargaining agreement that both Pilot B and Pilot A work under? Should all members not pay the same percentage on GROSS WAGES?
Last edited:
Eagle ALPA is voting NO. Who else's LEC/MEC is gonna stand up to this crap????
And if that's your attitude Speedtape and PCL, then should US taxpayers be penalized for the same type of actions? We reduce our taxable income by using Flex Spending Accounts, Dependent Daycare Accounts, 401k contributions, itemized deductions, etc, etc. Should those people pay an extra government tax because they were smarter with their money?
And if that's your attitude Speedtape and PCL, then should US taxpayers be penalized for the same type of actions? We reduce our taxable income by using Flex Spending Accounts, Dependent Daycare Accounts, 401k contributions, itemized deductions, etc, etc. Should those people pay an extra government tax because they were smarter with their money?
Last edited:
These are dues, not taxes. But since you asked, yes, I support a flat tax or a sales tax, so investments would be taxed in those tax structures.
Soverytired
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Posts
- 1,572
Yeah, those guys who took advantage of the 401(k) to save for their retirement and thereby deny ALPA dues money are FREELOADERS.
I think ALPA should not only close this loophole, but retroactively assess these selfish bastards who kept money out of ALPA's coffers. And they should pay interest, plus a penalty as well.
It's only "fair".
Nevets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Posts
- 2,431
June 13, 2008
Dear ALPA Board of Directors Member:
At the May 2008 Executive Board meeting, the National Officers and ALPA’s General Manager provided a thorough briefing on our union’s finances after the loss of US Airways, America West, Aloha, ATA, Champion, Kitty Hawk, and Skyway. We had to make some tough decisions to ensure that we retain the balance of services deserved by our members and the financial health and viability of our union. We could not continue with business as usual—immediate action was required to sustain our Association’s effectiveness after this sudden loss of $15 million in dues revenue.
One of those tough decisions was a recommendation to the Board of Directors by the Executive Board that a change be implemented regarding income exempt from dues. This was not a sudden decision, but one that has been studied and evaluated over the past several years. In September 2006, the Executive Board directed the Executive Council to study this matter. The study was to view the exemptions from the perspectives of fairness, simplicity, and clarity, as well as the implications on dues revenue.
Currently, the following incomes are exempt from dues:
However, retirement benefit plan structures have undergone significant changes over the past five years—including the freezing or terminating of many of our defined benefit plans and the increasing consolidation of defined contribution plans under the 401(k) umbrella. 401(k) plans are now being treated as interchangeable with other defined contribution plans, and have become a hybrid of deferred compensation and retirement plans. The pilot contributions are part of a pilot’s regular income but deferred by the pilot, largely for income tax reasons.
In reviewing this matter over the past several years, the Executive Council and Executive Board rejected two other approaches to addressing the issue of how dues are applied to pilot 401(k) contributions. The first was to exempt all 401(k) contributions from dues, which would reduce dues income by an additional $6 million a year and make it difficult for the union to deliver the services our members deserve. The other was to do nothing. If we choose not to take action, the inequality between some pilots having dues deducted from their contributions to 401(k)s and others not having dues deducted would continue. And, as defined contribution plans continue to be consolidated under the 401(k) umbrella, the dues base would continue to erode.
The study also showed that by making all 401(k) salary deferrals subject to dues, the increase in dues to the union would also provide greater funding to the MECs that currently need supplemental funding from the Operating Contingency Fund and Major Contingency Fund. Dues revenue for the union would increase by $1.5M—though a substantial portion of that amount would flow back to ALPA member groups for their use.
The analyses showed that, based on data from 2006 dues revenue, the additional dues revenue paid by a pilot who has a 401(k) deferral and an annual income of $25,000 or less would be $.81 per paycheck. Using the same data, the highest increase per paycheck was $11 for annual income between $150,000 and $175,000 with an average of $7 per paycheck.
Therefore, the Executive Board recommended to the Board of Directors that all 401(k) salary deferrals no longer be exempt from dues, and that the special bonus or merit award exemption be eliminated as well.
It is also important to emphasize that a significant change is under way across all aspects of the Association due to the loss of the aforementioned seven pilot groups and $15 million in dues revenue. A comprehensive plan to address the shortfall was presented to the Executive Board, which includes: retaining unused LEC funding (currently at $44/pilot per year) within our Administrative & Support account for an estimated savings of $900,000; elimination of home Internet expense reimbursement for a savings of more than $100,000; decrease in per capita expenses of $800,000, restructuring of national committees, a streamlining of activities and general cost reduction of $1.2 million; and finally, the elimination of more than 40 staff positions across the entire union along with other staff savings generating a savings of approximately $5.1 million. Since 9/11, ALPA has eliminated approximately 101 staff positions through attrition and job eliminations. That translates to a pre-9/11 staffing level of 454 to our expected staffing level (after the elimination of the more than 40 staff positions) of 353.
We are in the process of verifying the impact of this change on each ALPA airline along with developing applicable information regarding how it will impact each ALPA MEC budget. We will forward this information to you when this work has been finalized. Once such information has been disseminated, the Board of Directors’ ballot on this item will be distributed.
ALPA is changing—your union is focusing on the services and resources necessary to support core functions with a smaller footprint, more efficient use of funds and expenditures, and participation by all parts of the Association. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
William R. Couette
Vice President-Administration/Secretary
[email protected]
W. Randolph Helling
Vice President-Finance/Treasurer
[email protected]
Dear ALPA Board of Directors Member:
At the May 2008 Executive Board meeting, the National Officers and ALPA’s General Manager provided a thorough briefing on our union’s finances after the loss of US Airways, America West, Aloha, ATA, Champion, Kitty Hawk, and Skyway. We had to make some tough decisions to ensure that we retain the balance of services deserved by our members and the financial health and viability of our union. We could not continue with business as usual—immediate action was required to sustain our Association’s effectiveness after this sudden loss of $15 million in dues revenue.
One of those tough decisions was a recommendation to the Board of Directors by the Executive Board that a change be implemented regarding income exempt from dues. This was not a sudden decision, but one that has been studied and evaluated over the past several years. In September 2006, the Executive Board directed the Executive Council to study this matter. The study was to view the exemptions from the perspectives of fairness, simplicity, and clarity, as well as the implications on dues revenue.
Currently, the following incomes are exempt from dues:
- Sick leave income in excess of that provided by sick leave provisions in a CBA or Company sick leave policy
- Income received from the Company for services in a different job classification while physically unable to perform as a pilot or flight officer
- Special bonus or merit award, provided that a general bonus to all members of an airline is not exempt
- Income from the Company while on furlough not requiring flight crewman qualifications
- Foreign cost-of-living allowances
- Furlough income
- Premium payments by the Company on behalf of a member for specified excess life insurance coverage and the value of travel benefits provided to him or her
- Vacation pay received after retirement
- Income in the form of corporate securities
- 401(k) deferrals of income (or the Canadian equivalent) when that plan is the only pension program
- Company-paid moving expenses and allowances
- Per diem
However, retirement benefit plan structures have undergone significant changes over the past five years—including the freezing or terminating of many of our defined benefit plans and the increasing consolidation of defined contribution plans under the 401(k) umbrella. 401(k) plans are now being treated as interchangeable with other defined contribution plans, and have become a hybrid of deferred compensation and retirement plans. The pilot contributions are part of a pilot’s regular income but deferred by the pilot, largely for income tax reasons.
In reviewing this matter over the past several years, the Executive Council and Executive Board rejected two other approaches to addressing the issue of how dues are applied to pilot 401(k) contributions. The first was to exempt all 401(k) contributions from dues, which would reduce dues income by an additional $6 million a year and make it difficult for the union to deliver the services our members deserve. The other was to do nothing. If we choose not to take action, the inequality between some pilots having dues deducted from their contributions to 401(k)s and others not having dues deducted would continue. And, as defined contribution plans continue to be consolidated under the 401(k) umbrella, the dues base would continue to erode.
The study also showed that by making all 401(k) salary deferrals subject to dues, the increase in dues to the union would also provide greater funding to the MECs that currently need supplemental funding from the Operating Contingency Fund and Major Contingency Fund. Dues revenue for the union would increase by $1.5M—though a substantial portion of that amount would flow back to ALPA member groups for their use.
The analyses showed that, based on data from 2006 dues revenue, the additional dues revenue paid by a pilot who has a 401(k) deferral and an annual income of $25,000 or less would be $.81 per paycheck. Using the same data, the highest increase per paycheck was $11 for annual income between $150,000 and $175,000 with an average of $7 per paycheck.
Therefore, the Executive Board recommended to the Board of Directors that all 401(k) salary deferrals no longer be exempt from dues, and that the special bonus or merit award exemption be eliminated as well.
It is also important to emphasize that a significant change is under way across all aspects of the Association due to the loss of the aforementioned seven pilot groups and $15 million in dues revenue. A comprehensive plan to address the shortfall was presented to the Executive Board, which includes: retaining unused LEC funding (currently at $44/pilot per year) within our Administrative & Support account for an estimated savings of $900,000; elimination of home Internet expense reimbursement for a savings of more than $100,000; decrease in per capita expenses of $800,000, restructuring of national committees, a streamlining of activities and general cost reduction of $1.2 million; and finally, the elimination of more than 40 staff positions across the entire union along with other staff savings generating a savings of approximately $5.1 million. Since 9/11, ALPA has eliminated approximately 101 staff positions through attrition and job eliminations. That translates to a pre-9/11 staffing level of 454 to our expected staffing level (after the elimination of the more than 40 staff positions) of 353.
We are in the process of verifying the impact of this change on each ALPA airline along with developing applicable information regarding how it will impact each ALPA MEC budget. We will forward this information to you when this work has been finalized. Once such information has been disseminated, the Board of Directors’ ballot on this item will be distributed.
ALPA is changing—your union is focusing on the services and resources necessary to support core functions with a smaller footprint, more efficient use of funds and expenditures, and participation by all parts of the Association. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
William R. Couette
Vice President-Administration/Secretary
[email protected]
W. Randolph Helling
Vice President-Finance/Treasurer
[email protected]
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
