Judge issues final ruling on retiree benefits.

[CMH_GSE]

The bankruptcy estate?... They get first dibs on all assets not tied up otherwise, and if the stated purpose for the trust is being eliminated, then there could be a valid claim by the estate to hold onto those funds.Had prefunding been changed over to VEBA like the UAW did with the Big Three, it would have been a little more cut and dry. But it didn't.

Again. Bankruptcy estate entitled to the trust fund in OUR name?
On what planet?

 

[wcs]

The bankruptcy estate?... They get first dibs on all assets not tied up otherwise 

Don't they then have to pay out those assets to creditors? Like us?

 

[eolesen]

If it were as cut and dried as you make it out to be, CMH, then it would have been done already.

Obviously, there's something still giving the court reason not to order a disbursement.

 

[CMH_GSE]

If it were as cut and dried as you make it out to be, CMH, then it would have been done already.Obviously, there's something still giving the court reason not to order a disbursement.

I do agree there is something , maybe someone in authority can spell it out to us as the trust funds are in our name, not AA's. We've certainly waited more than long enough.

 

[scorpion 2]

The company's contributions are already held in trust for the individual, so there's no legal basis for them to take that and fund others. It's held on your behalf, and yours only, to be untouched until you reach retirement age.

So again... if the benefits are being retained, why does anyone think they get the company's matching contributions back?

I wouldn't go do a Clark Griswold and put a down-payment on the pool just yet. The promises made in a letter between the two parties didn't envision a split decision (e.g. discontinuing pre-funding yet retaining the beneifts?...), and I'd guess that the employers contributions will remain in trust.

Who is the trustee? Does AA have the power to revoke or change the trust. Whoever had the ability to order checks cut for the first distribution has the authority to make the same call on the final balance. This is just more of the same old crap of treating the employees with contempt. As long as we still have money in the trust shouldnt we still have a foot in the door to be entitled to benefits from it?

 

[eolesen]

No, "whoever had the ability to order checks" doesn't have the ability to just issue checks for the company's contributions.

Checking another source tonight, it appears that as long as S.1114 isn't fully resolved (and apparently, it's not), then the trust holding the employer contributions hasn't been dissolved for distribution.

 

[Bob Owens]

The bankruptcy estate?... They get first dibs on all assets not tied up otherwise, and if the stated purpose for the trust is being eliminated, then there could be a valid claim by the estate to hold onto those funds.

Had prefunding been changed over to VEBA like the UAW did with the Big Three, it would have been a little more cut and dry. But it didn't.

You are wrong. It was set up like a VEBA with the purpose of protecting those funds in a liquidation. Originally it was not but in 1991 or 92 it was changed and the funds are separate and outside the company. 

 

[john john]

On Thursday he ruled that all non-union workers, about 40,000 ticket agents and ground crew, would lose all their medical and retirement."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hamill-american-airlines-workers-pay-cut-9-11-lose-privileges-article-1.1812900#ixzz33fQfDoQK
The class of retirees for whom American could cut off benefits included “those non-union retirees, regardless of whether they prefunded, who are not Early Out Retirees, 1980 Retirees, or TWA Retirees.

So why could American cut off benefits for non-union retirees and not be allow cutting of benefits of union retirees

 

[700UW]

Because the unionized workers retired under a CBA that had provisions for post-retiree healthcare, I hope you were being rhetorical and not for real.

 

[eolesen]

Since none of the unions were successful in saving future retiree health care, and it's unlikely that it will ever be negotiable in the future, the not-so-subtle argument you're making for having a union is a bit of a moot point.

 

[TWU informer]

Since none of the unions were successful in saving future retiree health care, and it's unlikely that it will ever be negotiable in the future, the not-so-subtle argument you're making for having a union is a bit of a moot point.

As long as the laws are against the working stiffs, and the Union leaders are content to comply with those laws, then yes belonging to one is rather moot.
 
The only time any laws have been passed to benefit the workers was when civil unrest threatened the Kings econimic well being. And even those were written to insure a win/win outcome to benefit the said King, as well as the worker.
 
One day, the shift in tolerance will again rise.

 

[DFWFSC]

Will the recent retirees who will now be covered by AA medical insurance, have to give their prefunding back?

 

[john john]

Since none of the unions were successful in saving future retiree health care, and it's unlikely that it will ever be negotiable in the future, the not-so-subtle argument you're making for having a union is a bit of a moot point.

Were the unions successful and saveing current retirees benefits as of now
Can the company cut off benefits for non-union retirees as of now?

 

[737823]

Were the unions successful and saveing current retirees benefits as of now
Can the company cut off benefits for non-union retirees as of now?

 
Go prove how AA MIA is more than 50% outsourced:
 
 

It probably can't be proven, but let him try...

When I was doing the staffing projections, there were a total of 577 agents in MIA at the time (2004) working in the terminal between ATO, FIS and gates.

The only jobs I know of that were outsourced since then were at bag-drop and the queue minders. Cargo wasn't part of the terminal headcount, but if you're including them, that would increase that by another 40.

 

 
 
Josh