Alpa's Letter To The Afa

[spacewaitress]

Ahhhh! So since it was in the newspapers, it must be factual and accurate. I get it now! 🙄

[post="235200"][/post]​

Why don't you interpret for us so we'll know what it is we're reading.

 

[spacewaitress]

I believe the PBGC is well aware of the weakness of their position in this case vis-a-vis the judge's ability to interpret and apply U.S. bankruptcy law as he deems appropriate, and their only hope is that an avalanche of court filings and a public relations campaign might sway the judge, which to me seems highly unlikely.

[post="235269"][/post]​

The judge will do whatever United asks. He's been doing it 2 years now.

 

[Borescope]

the judge's ability to interpret and apply U.S. bankruptcy law as he deems appropriate

[post="235269"][/post]​

He has a responsibility to apply the law as it is written the BK code, regardless of his personal thoughts. What it will come down to, is who can lay out the best line of BS.

 

[767jetz]

The judge will do whatever United asks. He's been doing it 2 years now.

[post="235283"][/post]​

Exactly. And if ALPA's TA is ratified, UAL will ask the judge to approve the contract, and will be legally bound on ALPA's side to fight the PBGC. They will maintain the pension intact and terminate it only if necessary to emerge from BK (Which is pretty much a forgone conclusion.) They will hand over the pension to the PBGC on our their own terms, and no sooner than May 2005. They will renegotiate with ALPA if they decide that financial circumstances have changed such that they are able to maintain the pension of any other employee, including management.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Exactly. And if ALPA's TA is ratified, UAL will ask the judge to approve the contract, and will be legally bound on ALPA's side to fight the PBGC. They will maintain the pension intact and terminate it only if necessary to emerge from BK (Which is pretty much a forgone conclusion.) They will hand over the pension to the PBGC on our their own terms, and no sooner than May 2005. They will renegotiate with ALPA if they decide that financial circumstances have changed such that they are able to maintain the pension of any other employee, including management.

[post="235293"][/post]​

View attachment 2385
Yea, tha's what I was thinking, er wha'? yea that's it!!!

B) UT

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

The PBGC is an insurance agency very much like the FDIC. When the FDIC goes in an takes over a failing bank, they don't work for the judge. The JUDGE works for them! The same thing with the pilot's pension at United. If the PBGC needed permission from the bankruptcy judge to take over the pilot's pension, I think they would have already asked for it. The ALPA can cry all it wants but their "A" plan is gone.

 

[Bob Owens]

The judge will do whatever United asks. He's been doing it 2 years now.

[post="235283"][/post]​

Only because the unions have made it easy to give the company whatever it wanted.

If the Judge was facing a strike his actions would have been different.

If the Unions had acted like unions we all would have been better off.

As long as the airlines keep moving people airline workers are screwed. Our power lies in the fact that the airlines are an intermediate good that is essential to other industries. WE NEED TO SHUT IT DOWN!!!!! We need to spread the economic burden that has been placed solely on our shoulders to those who profit off our labor.

 

[767jetz]

If the PBGC needed permission from the bankruptcy judge to take over the pilot's pension, I think they would have already asked for it. The ALPA can cry all it wants but their "A" plan is gone.

[post="235335"][/post]​

Uhhh.... Princess, I think you missed a few facts here. They do need permission from the judge. That's why all they have done is ASK to take over the pension now instead of later. The A plan is most certainly not gone yet. It's still where it's always been until the court makes a decision. What part of this are you not grasping?

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Yes, the PBGC might have to ask the Judge. This is just an act of courtesy. The thing about this is. The PBGC is a government agency. The government comes first before anybody, especially when it comes to money. Just look at the IRS. The government agency has acted in the manner in which will cost the taxpayers the least amount of money. What part of this do YOU fail to understand? 😛

 

[Cosmo]

Yes, the PBGC might have to ask the Judge. This is just an act of courtesy.

Sorry, that is simply not true. If the PBGC didn't have to ask the judge for permission, it wouldn't have done so. As I have commented previously, that's why the PBGC is asking Congress to change the laws with respect to defined benefit pension funding at bankrupt companies.

The thing about this is. The PBGC is a government agency. The government comes first before anybody, especially when it comes to money. Just look at the IRS.

The PBGC is not the IRS and doesn't have the same powers, especially in bankruptcy cases.

The government agency has acted in the manner in which will cost the taxpayers the least amount of money.

From the PBGC's own press release issued last week (view it here), you will find the following sentence at the end of the 7th paragraph:

The PBGC receives no general tax revenue and is not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

Why does this fact need to be repeated over and over again, and yet some folks still don't grasp the concept?

 

[UAL_TECH]

Sorry, that is simply not true. If the PBGC didn't have to ask the judge for permission, it wouldn't have done so. As I have commented previously, that's why the PBGC is asking Congress to change the laws with respect to defined benefit pension funding at bankrupt companies.
The PBGC is not the IRS and doesn't have the same powers, especially in bankruptcy cases.
From the PBGC's own press release issued last week (view it here), you will find the following sentence at the end of the 7th paragraph:
Why does this fact need to be repeated over and over again, and yet some folks still don't grasp the concept?

[post="235457"][/post]​

Cosmo,

Also, as the PBGC is not government funded entity, they will also file chapter 11 after the UAL pension dump. The 'a$$umption' that there will be a federally funded 'bail out' is also equally another 'a$$umption'.

We are in a real funky place now and uncertainty is................... uncertain 😛

The ALPA 'a$$umption' is that the PBGC has 'no choice' and will be bailed out by the tax payer.

JMHO, this is a foolhardy a$$umption that has no precedence and will cast us all into the mire of dependence on 'good will' by the government and tax payer populace. Given the record of both, we are $crewed, blued, and tattooed!!!

B) UT

 

[Cosmo]

Also, as the PBGC is not government funded entity, they will also file chapter 11 after the UAL pension dump.

No, it won't file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. You need to distinguish between those government agencies that are funded by taxes and those that are not. While the PBGC is indeed a U.S. government agency (it's actually a part of the U.S. Department of Labor), it's just not supported by annual Congressional appropriations. Instead, it receives its funds from two primary sources: (1) premium payments by companies with defined benefit pension plans and (2) investment income from the assets of those pension plans that have already been taken over by the PBGC.

And the large deficit number that the PBGC cites is actually the present value of the anticipated shortage in guaranteed payments that will be made over the next 40, 50 or more years, and it doesn't take into account any possible increase (or decrease) over time in the value of its asset holdings. The PBGC itself has stated that its potential "money crunch" is, similar to that of Social Security, likely to occur in the 2015-2020 timeframe. Thus, your "worries" are misplaced, at least for a decade or so -- even if the PBGC takes over all four of United's defined benefit pension plans. Only at that time will Congress and the American people have to decide if a Federal bailout of the PBGC is warranted.

I really didn't plan on making such a detailed response to the above post, but the amount of mis-information on this board regarding this subject is absolutely breathtaking. I just wanted to set the record straight.

 

[Skyhungry]

Cosmo is correct. Please continue the education. It is refreshing to see someone actually reading the information from the source. People, you need to stop making things up. There is plenty of information on the PBGC and ERISA. All you have to do is read it. Of course there are certain areas that lead to interpretation (we are entering uncharted waters), but that is up to the courts to decide. :unsure:

 

[Bob Owens]

No, it won't file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. You need to distinguish between those government agencies that are funded by taxes and those that are not. While the PBGC is indeed a U.S. government agency (it's actually a part of the U.S. Department of Labor), it's just not supported by annual Congressional appropriations. Instead, it receives its funds from two primary sources: (1) premium payments by companies with defined benefit pension plans and (2) investment income from the assets of those pension plans that have already been taken over by the PBGC.

And the large deficit number that the PBGC cites is actually the present value of the anticipated shortage in guaranteed payments that will be made over the next 40, 50 or more years, and it doesn't take into account any possible increase (or decrease) over time in the value of its asset holdings. The PBGC itself has stated that its potential "money crunch" is, similar to that of Social Security, likely to occur in the 2015-2020 timeframe. Thus, your "worries" are misplaced, at least for a decade or so -- even if the PBGC takes over all four of United's defined benefit pension plans. Only at that time will Congress and the American people have to decide if a Federal bailout of the PBGC is warranted.

I really didn't plan on making such a detailed response to the above post, but the amount of mis-information on this board regarding this subject is absolutely breathtaking. I just wanted to set the record straight.

[post="235610"][/post]​

Yea so when the PBGC is broke some Congressman or Senator attaches an amendment to some bill to fund the shortfall. Who is going to vote against saving someones pension, especially when those same people enjoy such a generous one?

 

[Borescope]

THE PBGC receives its funds from two primary sources: (1) premium payments by companies with defined benefit pension plans and (2) investment income from the assets of those pension plans.

And the large deficit number that the PBGC cites is actually the present value of the anticipated shortage in guaranteed payments that will be made over the next 40, 50 or more years, and it doesn't take into account any possible increase (or decrease) over time in the value of its asset holdings.

[post="235610"][/post]​

Why not just replace "UAL" where it says PBGC above and let the creditors bail out the pension instead of the tax payers. After all, the creditors are tied to this company monetarily and most of the tax payers are not. B)