OP
chipmunn
Guest
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #16
Mlt:
The pilot group does not want to see the other pension plans terminated and there is no "mugging" going on within the pilot group. We simply want what we agreed to becaause we have provided three different concessions to preserve.
Can you tell me how many other employee groups have taken three cuts to fund their pensions? Or asked another way, how many employee groups have taken just one cut to fund their pension?
ALPA has taken three cuts to fund their pension whereas the other employee groups have taken only one. Now the company wants the pilots to take a fourth cut by eliminating the defined benefit plan.
ALPA feels it has taken cuts to fund its pension, but the others employees have not.
According to the June 28 ALPA code-a-phone, "Although the pilots’ pension plan costs have remained the same because of concessions, as in the original plan conditionally approved by the ATSB, the costs for other employees’ pension benefits have increased substantially.
During the second restructuring negotiations, retirement benefit reductions were included in the pilots’ December 13 supplemental cost reduction agreement to help preserve the pilots’ pension plan. This included reducing the maximum benefit multiplier from 65 percent to 50 percent and the yearly multiplier from 2.4 percent to 1.8 percent over the first 25 years of benefit accrual. This, in turn, produced pension cost reductions and saved the Company approximately 77 million dollars average per year for seven years, or 500 million dollars for the seven-year period.
The pilot concessions to the retirement benefits nullified the impact that lower market performance and interest rates had on the pilots’ pension plan. As a result, despite the reduced market value of assets and the reduced interest rate assumptions, the pilot pension plan contribution costs for US Airways only slightly increased by about 38 million dollars over the seven-year period to about 1.69 billion dollars (up from about 1.66 billion dollars calculated in the summer of 2002).
However, the other employee pension plans’ combined contribution costs increased by about 582 million dollars to about 1.44 billion dollars (up from about 860 million dollars) due to the market and interest rate changes.
This cost increased because no other employee group agreed to benefit reductions to preserve their pension plans. The effect was that the 500 million dollar pilot cost reduction agreed to by ALPA was absorbed by the increased cost of the other employees’ pension plans, which to date suffer no benefit decrease.
The total for all employee pension plan contributions in the present plan contribution requirements as of January 2003 was about 3.14 billion dollars (1.697 billion + 1.44 billion). This cost was up from the previous business plan’s 2.52 billion dollars primarily because of the increased cost of the other employee pension plans, not the pilots.
Even after round two, with ALPA’s reduced pension benefits, management took the position that the Company could not meet the increased funding obligation for all employee pension plans and still meet ATSB conditions for a loan guarantee.
In an effort to preserve all employee pension plans, the Company petitioned the PBGC for a deferred payment schedule by requesting the seven-year funding contribution for the pilots’ plan be spread out over 30 years.
This request reduced the Company’s seven-year underfunding requirement for only the pilots’ pension plan from 1.69 billion dollars to about 852 million dollars, again making up for the increased cost of the other employee pension plans, which the Company included in its January 2003 ATSB business plan. The Company added the increased pension contribution of 1.44 billion dollars of the other employee pension plans in the January 2003 ATSB business plan, and promised other employees their pensions were secure as a result of their concessions."
Mlt, with all due respect, can you tell me were the ALPA MEC is wrong in their code-a-phone comments above?
Finally, what is your opinion of Roy Freundlich's comment of "US Airways pilots have provided significantly more concessions that any other employee group—in fact more than all combined—to help this company survive and emerge from bankruptcy. We are now being rewarded by solely facing the termination of our defined benefit retirement plan, while the cost reductions for our pension plan are in effect shifted to preserve the full benefits of all other employee groups’ pension plans at increased funding costs?"
Again, this is our fight and we do not want to see any defined benefit plan terminated for your employee group or for anybody else; however, the MEC believes ALPA has provided three concessions to fund its pension, the other employeees have not taken one cut to fund their pensions, and the pilots will not take another cut.
Chip
The pilot group does not want to see the other pension plans terminated and there is no "mugging" going on within the pilot group. We simply want what we agreed to becaause we have provided three different concessions to preserve.
Can you tell me how many other employee groups have taken three cuts to fund their pensions? Or asked another way, how many employee groups have taken just one cut to fund their pension?
ALPA has taken three cuts to fund their pension whereas the other employee groups have taken only one. Now the company wants the pilots to take a fourth cut by eliminating the defined benefit plan.
ALPA feels it has taken cuts to fund its pension, but the others employees have not.
According to the June 28 ALPA code-a-phone, "Although the pilots’ pension plan costs have remained the same because of concessions, as in the original plan conditionally approved by the ATSB, the costs for other employees’ pension benefits have increased substantially.
During the second restructuring negotiations, retirement benefit reductions were included in the pilots’ December 13 supplemental cost reduction agreement to help preserve the pilots’ pension plan. This included reducing the maximum benefit multiplier from 65 percent to 50 percent and the yearly multiplier from 2.4 percent to 1.8 percent over the first 25 years of benefit accrual. This, in turn, produced pension cost reductions and saved the Company approximately 77 million dollars average per year for seven years, or 500 million dollars for the seven-year period.
The pilot concessions to the retirement benefits nullified the impact that lower market performance and interest rates had on the pilots’ pension plan. As a result, despite the reduced market value of assets and the reduced interest rate assumptions, the pilot pension plan contribution costs for US Airways only slightly increased by about 38 million dollars over the seven-year period to about 1.69 billion dollars (up from about 1.66 billion dollars calculated in the summer of 2002).
However, the other employee pension plans’ combined contribution costs increased by about 582 million dollars to about 1.44 billion dollars (up from about 860 million dollars) due to the market and interest rate changes.
This cost increased because no other employee group agreed to benefit reductions to preserve their pension plans. The effect was that the 500 million dollar pilot cost reduction agreed to by ALPA was absorbed by the increased cost of the other employees’ pension plans, which to date suffer no benefit decrease.
The total for all employee pension plan contributions in the present plan contribution requirements as of January 2003 was about 3.14 billion dollars (1.697 billion + 1.44 billion). This cost was up from the previous business plan’s 2.52 billion dollars primarily because of the increased cost of the other employee pension plans, not the pilots.
Even after round two, with ALPA’s reduced pension benefits, management took the position that the Company could not meet the increased funding obligation for all employee pension plans and still meet ATSB conditions for a loan guarantee.
In an effort to preserve all employee pension plans, the Company petitioned the PBGC for a deferred payment schedule by requesting the seven-year funding contribution for the pilots’ plan be spread out over 30 years.
This request reduced the Company’s seven-year underfunding requirement for only the pilots’ pension plan from 1.69 billion dollars to about 852 million dollars, again making up for the increased cost of the other employee pension plans, which the Company included in its January 2003 ATSB business plan. The Company added the increased pension contribution of 1.44 billion dollars of the other employee pension plans in the January 2003 ATSB business plan, and promised other employees their pensions were secure as a result of their concessions."
Mlt, with all due respect, can you tell me were the ALPA MEC is wrong in their code-a-phone comments above?
Finally, what is your opinion of Roy Freundlich's comment of "US Airways pilots have provided significantly more concessions that any other employee group—in fact more than all combined—to help this company survive and emerge from bankruptcy. We are now being rewarded by solely facing the termination of our defined benefit retirement plan, while the cost reductions for our pension plan are in effect shifted to preserve the full benefits of all other employee groups’ pension plans at increased funding costs?"
Again, this is our fight and we do not want to see any defined benefit plan terminated for your employee group or for anybody else; however, the MEC believes ALPA has provided three concessions to fund its pension, the other employeees have not taken one cut to fund their pensions, and the pilots will not take another cut.
Chip
