1114 Retiree Benefits Filing
- Thread starter Kellerguy
- Start date
- Banned
- #17
This is criminal, keep voting for the "right" and this is what happens.
After they terminated our pension at US, they eliminated retiree healthcare, and abrogated the mechanic and related CBA, we had left US HDQ and were at DCA flying back to CLT, and CEO Bruce Lakefield of US was there and came up to us and said hey guys how's it going?
I asked him how am I suppose to feel after we been raped, I lambasted him about terminating the pension and eliminating retiree healthcare, I was like you reduced a person's pension, then took away their healthcare? How do you expect them to survive after they gave 20 to 30 years on average of their life to this company?
After they terminated our pension at US, they eliminated retiree healthcare, and abrogated the mechanic and related CBA, we had left US HDQ and were at DCA flying back to CLT, and CEO Bruce Lakefield of US was there and came up to us and said hey guys how's it going?
I asked him how am I suppose to feel after we been raped, I lambasted him about terminating the pension and eliminating retiree healthcare, I was like you reduced a person's pension, then took away their healthcare? How do you expect them to survive after they gave 20 to 30 years on average of their life to this company?
"Retirement Heist" tells a good story about how corporations steal things like pensions and benefits. While there have been protections put in place as far as penions health benefits are not included. In one case that was cited the company had promised to provide benefits for life, they countered yes, but not for free, they raised the rtaes so high that some peoples entire pension checks didnt cover what they wanted to charge. That wasnt in BK either.
UAL was different in that they did not contribute to Prefund their retiree benefits like we have for the last twenty years. The Prefunding wasnt intended to pay 100% of the costs of the plan, but it provided AA with an offset to those costs that thier competitors didnt enjoy till BK. Prefunding was to pay the premiums for the coverage starting at 30 years of age, so we've been paying for coverage most of us will never see. Nobody else was paying this so they "sweetened" the deal by saying that whatever we contributed to the fund would be matched dollar for dollar by the company, then if the company should terminate all the money would be returned to us and we would have some money to buy coverage. I should get enough to cover about a year if I retire before Medicare, if I'm lucky. Continental and SWA use accumulated sick time to buy coverage, AA had offered something like that but our peers get 12 days a year to bank vs our 5 and they charged half as many hours per month for coverage. UAL also continues to pay a portion of the cost for coverage, AA wants us to pay it all. So for 20 years we paid what nobody else had to pay now they want to pay nothing even though others have some form of offset.
What the company is trying to do here is similar to what they did with the "Supplimental Medical". They sold the Supplimental as Supplimental retiree medical with the added benfit of adding a few million to the lifetime cap. While the odds of exceeding the retiree cap were so so the odds of exceeding the lifetime active employee cap were extremely slim so people agreed to purchase the coverage because they were told they had to purchase it when offered and could not purchase as they approached retirement. well after twenty years and seeing the fund build up to around $80 million, and a large number of people approaching retirement they decide to terminate the plan, and keep the money. Now because of tax laws they cant take that money and put it into the General fund, but what they can do is pay off medical expenses and leave funds in the General fund which otherwise would have had to be used to pay such expenses. So the people who started paying when they were in their 30s, paid for years thinking that the extra coverage would provide them some financial security in retirement, well they got screwed, their money went to AA. I was especially dissapointed that the International chose to do nothing and agreed with the company when they claimed it was a term plan. I felt they should have sued the company based upon the fact that the value of the plan didnt lie with the term part, the addition to the active employees cap but rather with the retirement component. I felt they should have had an actuary look at what claims were paid, and determine where the value was based on claims paid and those who paid into it would get that percentage times their share of the balance of the fund at termination and satisfaction of claims till ultimate termination of the plan.
UAL was different in that they did not contribute to Prefund their retiree benefits like we have for the last twenty years. The Prefunding wasnt intended to pay 100% of the costs of the plan, but it provided AA with an offset to those costs that thier competitors didnt enjoy till BK. Prefunding was to pay the premiums for the coverage starting at 30 years of age, so we've been paying for coverage most of us will never see. Nobody else was paying this so they "sweetened" the deal by saying that whatever we contributed to the fund would be matched dollar for dollar by the company, then if the company should terminate all the money would be returned to us and we would have some money to buy coverage. I should get enough to cover about a year if I retire before Medicare, if I'm lucky. Continental and SWA use accumulated sick time to buy coverage, AA had offered something like that but our peers get 12 days a year to bank vs our 5 and they charged half as many hours per month for coverage. UAL also continues to pay a portion of the cost for coverage, AA wants us to pay it all. So for 20 years we paid what nobody else had to pay now they want to pay nothing even though others have some form of offset.
What the company is trying to do here is similar to what they did with the "Supplimental Medical". They sold the Supplimental as Supplimental retiree medical with the added benfit of adding a few million to the lifetime cap. While the odds of exceeding the retiree cap were so so the odds of exceeding the lifetime active employee cap were extremely slim so people agreed to purchase the coverage because they were told they had to purchase it when offered and could not purchase as they approached retirement. well after twenty years and seeing the fund build up to around $80 million, and a large number of people approaching retirement they decide to terminate the plan, and keep the money. Now because of tax laws they cant take that money and put it into the General fund, but what they can do is pay off medical expenses and leave funds in the General fund which otherwise would have had to be used to pay such expenses. So the people who started paying when they were in their 30s, paid for years thinking that the extra coverage would provide them some financial security in retirement, well they got screwed, their money went to AA. I was especially dissapointed that the International chose to do nothing and agreed with the company when they claimed it was a term plan. I felt they should have sued the company based upon the fact that the value of the plan didnt lie with the term part, the addition to the active employees cap but rather with the retirement component. I felt they should have had an actuary look at what claims were paid, and determine where the value was based on claims paid and those who paid into it would get that percentage times their share of the balance of the fund at termination and satisfaction of claims till ultimate termination of the plan.
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
Keep hearing about how we can push this can down the road by voting no. Others have said that voting no would keep us negotiating. Some in the TWU have said that is not true, and now the APA has released this as part of the Q&A for their Members. It seems those that believe a contract is necessary to exit bankruptcy fail to mention that in past cases that may have been a requirement for those that needed "exit financing" and it was a requirement from the Lender. In AA's case, no "exit financing" is needed, therefore the requirement is not needed either.
Q(2): If we just vote no on the TA and take our chances with an abrogated contract, we should be able to get a shorter-term deal than the six-year deal duration in the TA, right?
A: In a post-abrogation scenario, management doesn’t create a new contract, they simply impose terms unilaterally. The “duration” of those terms would be until management decides to agree to a new contract with APA. Management would be free to impose pay, work rules and benefits that serve their needs. Once they have imposed below-market labor rates, it is unlikely that management would make significant improvements in pay and work rules that would increase their costs. They will have established a de-facto contract that solves their “cost” problem without having to bother with the collective bargaining process. In that environment, given the current state of the Railway Labor Act, it could be years before we could reach an agreement with management on another TA.
Q(3): Doesn’t management need a contract in place in order to get exit financing?
A: There is no statutory or administrative requirement in the bankruptcy process that states that management must have a contract in place in order to exit bankruptcy. AMR’s cash position has actually improved since their Nov. 29 filing and currently stands at more than $5 billion. As such, there is no need to obtain exit financing as most other carriers had to due to their poor cash position.
Therin lies the reason I've said that when the company filed for Abrogation the unions should have filed for a release. Abrogation esssentially gives the company the ability to resort to self help in that they can impose the terms they put before the BK court, but not the Unions. The restriction on self help essentially comes from the RLA, all other workers can strike if the company unilaterally imposes new terms, according to the court we have to get released to legally resort to self help should the company unilaterally impose terms we never agreed to if the BK court released the company from the contract.
Mr Red
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 612
- 182
It was implied !!
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
What about the guy that was offered the VBR and left early and now will have no medical?
I would think that offer would have implied that it included medical benefits until medicare age.
Do you think for a minute that those guys would have left if they thought they would be paying $450 per+ per month/per person for insurance?
Maybe nothing has implied insurance coverage for life, but at least until medicare age has been implied forever.
mike33
Veteran
- Nov 7, 2007
- 2,252
- 1,128
I think its rather sad that Horton and crew waited till the " Renegotioated LBO's " were somewhat accepted by the unions to throw this dagger at its retirees'. Yeah they may be able to do this but what a bunch of BS. The BK laws are suppose to help reorganize a company to move on in the future, which includes creditors, employees, communities , etc. By the end of the day you will see that it is managed, by Management, for the purpose of securing $$$ upwards of 30-40 Mil to the person or persons that are suppose to be making the decisions for the good of all.
A little bit more smell will be emitted around every corner of this process now that labors LBO was not a LBO at all but a way of securing a little more for $$$ for themselves.
I agree " informer " it has to be assumed that a buyout includes everything that it was intended as long as the company is still in business. BK or not !!
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
The RLA restricts the ability to seek Self Help, but even without that the strikes have been deemed illegal during this process. So even in the unlikely scenario the unions receive a life line from the NMB, the precendent of a past strike indicates that is not an option.
For years, posters here have said "If AA wants a bankruptcy contract, they'll have to file bankruptcy to get it." You had a CEO who, although he was universally despised by nearly every employee, had an inexplicable moral objection to bankruptcy. Probably the only CEO among the Fortune 500 with those beliefs.
After several years of trying not to, AA finally did what every other legacy airline has done at least once, and now y'all act surprised and enraged every time AA seeks to do what every company does in bankruptcy: cut costs by screwing creditors, employees and retirees.
After several years of trying not to, AA finally did what every other legacy airline has done at least once, and now y'all act surprised and enraged every time AA seeks to do what every company does in bankruptcy: cut costs by screwing creditors, employees and retirees.
xUT
Veteran
That's exactly what UA did. I know a couple of people that took the early out only to get hosed on the medical a couple of months later. I get 50% retiree medical from UA and that takes half of my PBGC cheese.
Many retirees on a fixed income saw their retirement reduced and medical increased. Double wammy!
When I hired on, the selling points were the great pension and medical benefits.
Had I known this lie, I would have kept working overseas as an expat.
What these companies are allowed to do is criminal.
B) xUT
jimntx
Veteran
Spare me your defense of Arpey. There isn't one. I would be a lot more ready to believe his protestations of moral outrage over bankruptcy if a few of those times when he had HIS hand in the till, he had refused those bonusses as being "morally wrong for me to accept a bonus when the company is losing money." And, don't tell me he was "forced" to take it by his contract. Others have refused their contractual bonusses because their company was not making money. It only requires a very polite, "No, thank you."
Very true; but the same way everyone cheats a bit on their 1040 forms, the same way you shop at non-union stores like Walmart and go standby on non-union jetBlue to save a buck.
AMR has gone the American Way : Bankruptcy. Then screw everyone...
mike33
Veteran
- Nov 7, 2007
- 2,252
- 1,128
So what are you saying?......its ok.....?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sun Country Airlines after first NMB Mediated session- Latest: CorvetteMan