My view on Senate hearing on US Airways pension problem

[chipmunn]

Dio:

Dio said: The company will force this upon you, BECAUSE THEY CAN.

Chip answers: ALPA & I agree with your comments; however, what I am hearing from most of the people I talk with, both on the MEC and within the rank-and-file is "enough is enough" because people believe Dave Siegel "torpedoed" the legislative effort, whether he did it accidentally or intentionally, by telling the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee he had an "alternative" plan.

You should have been in the room like I was, and heard the private ALPA conversations. Virtually all of the ALPA members present believe Siegel may have sabotaged the legislative effort and his comments should have been discussed behind closed doors, not in a public never mind a congressional forum.

The pilots are very, very angry and if the company distress terminates the pilot pension plan, especially if they do not do it to other labor groups, you could see a very unpleasant relationship exist on this property that will effect every employee.

Regardless, this issue will undoubtedly be addressed in court today and maybe we'll find out more.

Chip

 

[St. Leibowitz]

Wow

 

[AP Tech]

Every pilot realizes 4,700 ALPA members on average have given more in pay, benefits, and pensions than every US Airways employee.



----------------
[/blockquot
I seem to remember that when the first round of cuts came out it was based on what you make aka. percentage. So it is logical that a pilot making 200k vs a cleaner making 40k is going to give a larger amout of money. Just like taxes, the more you make the more you are supposed to pay! As for this solidarity thing ,back in 92 I seem to remember many pilots walking past me on their way to work when I was on a picket line and many others at home laughing collecting a check. This entire thing stinks with previous management to blame. One thing certain with "Dave" and his "labor friendly" management team...they have outsmarted all the groups!!

 

[repeet]

Chip, the Pilots led the way for the previous two give back campaigns. It's time for the Pilots to lead the way to save all of our jobs agian.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 8/29/2002 1147 PM chipmunn wrote:

US Airways and its employees are in a difficult situation, but for those who desire to obtain "full retirement" until the last day, if you're that dissatisfied with the Company maybe you should quit. Why be angry at work?

There are thousands of employees who want to work here and 90,000 furloughed airline employees who would love to come to this Company.

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]

Also

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/2/2002 10:32:40 PM chipmunn wrote:

The issue is not that Dave Siegel is the hammer, the cuts are required by the investors who provided the DIP, emergence, in the case of the government, the loan guarantee financing.

What everyone needs to recognize this negotiation is not about what we believe we are worth, how we believe we have been treated in the past, or who represents our CBA interests.

The issue is what are the required cuts to reach a 7 percent profit margin the loan guarantee, as well as the requirements to meet the TPG, CSFB, BOA requirements.

The company has no option but to meet these requirements or the creditors will likely seek to liquidate the company because they would likely obtain a higher ROR with asset divestiture.

Those stakeholders that are not willing to participate in the restructuring, from the Alabama Retirement Fund, KFW, or the unions are forcing Dave's hand to obtain court relief.

Without voluntary or court ordered accords, the DIP financing and loan guarantee will be in jeopardy and the likelihood of liquidation exponentially increases.

Chip

----------------
[/blockquote]

Now this one is all too true:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 12:55:00 AM chipmunn wrote:

Chip comments: Repeet, what people seem to not understand or refuse to accept are the questions I asked to start this thread. This is not a traditional RLA negotiation and but it might be better termed a discussion of the options available to meet the required labor expense cuts. Without the target cuts, the company will not meet the DIP/Emergence financing and loan guarantee agreements.

Without these liquidity and credit instruments, the company will likely liquidate. If the airline liquidates, the assets will be sold to other airlines. If this occurs there will likely not be employee job transfers because every major airline has furloughed employees in all job groups.

For those who believe they can simply start over, the problem with that thought is supply and demand. There are many workers willing to work for less money and every major airline has employees furloughed, so I believe it is logical for those airlines who acquire assets to recall their employees to fly, work on, and dispatch our aircraft, versus taking US Airways' employees in a fragmentation or as new hires.

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[diogenes]

Chip,

I understand and agree with the anger pilots have: Me and mine have walked that mile.

I caution ALPA against taking their rage out on other labor groups. In that scenario, cooler heads will NOT prevail. Every group on this property is rightfully looking to kick someone in the a$$; might I suggest it NOT be one another, but put the boot where it belongs - management.

 

[taylor01]

Hey Dave...
Call back the 1700 plus Furloughed guys
they want your jobs...


"Do it for Dave"

 

[Biffeman]

[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/16/2003 1:30:06 PM chipmunn wrote: [BR][BR]Repeet:[BR][BR]Repeet said: Chip, the Pilots led the way for the previous two give back campaigns. It's time for the Pilots to lead the way to save all of our jobs agian.[BR][BR]Chip answers: The current view of many pilots is "no", unless the other employees give up more first. Many pilots believe if their pension is terminated so should the other employee retirement plans, including management. Why should the pilots take deeper cuts than anybody else, again? The feeling is "all for one, one for all".[BR][BR]As Pitguy would say, "here we go again".[BR][BR]Again, do not "shoot the messenger" because I am only reporting what I am hearing.[BR][BR]Chip----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Chip it is YOUR pension, I did not see you pilots give anyone else a hand in this company ever, in fact you backstabbed organized labor when you made a sweetheart deal to not honor the IAM picket line in 1992 and all pilots will get paid regardless of flying or not. No other group had their salaries paid and they were furloughed. It is time to reap what you sew and deal with it. Now you ask us and ask other employees to save your million dollar lump sum payment of $150,000 a year retirement ask the CWA about their pension, oh wait, they dont have one, ask fleet service about there pension, oh wait they just got one two weeks ago.[BR][BR]Chip it it your pension, your problem, you won't get help or sympathy from anyother worker on us airways because your pension is in trouble. That takes a lot of chutzpah to ask someone who has no or little pension to help make your group millioniares or six figure income upon retirement.[BR][BR]And the best thing is when the PBGC terminates your pension there is nothing you can do to stop them, your pension liablity is 70% of the short fall and the other groups make up the 30%. We are safe, yours is gone.

 

[chipmunn]

Repeet:

Repeet said: Chip, the Pilots led the way for the previous two give back campaigns. It's time for the Pilots to lead the way to save all of our jobs agian.

Chip answers: The current view of many pilots is "no", unless the other employees give up more first. Many pilots believe if their pension is terminated so should the other employee retirement plans, including management. Why should the pilots take deeper cuts than anybody else, again? The feeling is "all for one, one for all".

As Pitguy would say, "here we go again".

Again, do not "shoot the messenger" because I am only reporting what I am hearing.

Chip

 

[kiloromeo]

if you guys want someone to blame...you can blame the 10$ an hour economy in the US. A 59$ ticket does not support a 3.1 Billion dollar pension liability...or any defined pension for that matter.. SWA,Jet Blu, Air tran , express jet etc do not have defined pensions...its to bad but defined pensions are going the way of the dinosaur..

so ALPA is going to inflict its wrath of anger upon the company (like the UAL summer of discontent)and put the reorg in jeopardy...what kind of plan is that?. He who runs away lives to fight another day...let the golden goose live so you can strangle it again later...

 

[diogenes]

repeet

What a sublime combination of irony and crow!

You certainly lived up to your handle on this one.

"Will that be one lump or two?"

ROTFLMFAO!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Chip Chip Chip Chip. Oh, that silly pension!

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 10:43:12 AM chipmunn wrote:

ClueByFour:

ClueByFour asked: I read somewhere that a pretty large percentage of U pilots are over 50. Where is a guy who is over 50 going to find a 6 figure job flying in today's environment?

Chip answers: Cathay Pacific, JAL, Eva, Air Jaimaca, ANA, Thai, Saudia, etc. The only reason pilots do not take these jobs is that there is no retirement, but they now pay more than US Airways, are tax free, provide free housing, and large bonus payments if you complete the contract.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Let's say the US domestic airline business has laid of 5k guys since 9/11. Let's further say that these are all relatively high time turbine/multi PIC guys/gals. This is before the 4,700 on the U property get angry, or the headhunting really begins over at UA. Something tells me those folks are not sitting on their hands.

And I hear the commute from Cranberry to NRT is a lot longer than the one to DCA . Or Greensboro to HKG. Surely you take my point.

It's not 1992, or even 2000 anymore.

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 1:30:06 PM chipmunn wrote:

Repeet:

Repeet said: Chip, the Pilots led the way for the previous two give back campaigns. It's time for the Pilots to lead the way to save all of our jobs agian.

Chip answers: The current view of many pilots is "no", unless the other employees give up more first. Many pilots believe if their pension is terminated so should the other employee retirement plans, including management. Why should the pilots take deeper cuts than anybody else, again? The feeling is "all for one, one for all".

------------------------------------------------------------

Not so fast, Chip. Where was ALPA's stance on 'brotherhood, liberty and equality' when agents were taking it in the shorts?

This one doesn't pass the hypocrisy test. Until ALPA acknowledges some groups have already lost their pensions, that the pain and anger was just as real and justified, and that on a percentage basis, the sacrifice was just as big, they can go pound sand. When ALPA says agents should be treated just the same as pilots, get back to me, and not until then. It's ok, and perfectly justified, for pilots to make more than agents. It's NOT ok to go by two different sets of rules.

The sooner ALPA gets over itself, the better off they'll be.

 

[Biffeman]

sorry old guy, it is Biffeman, I don't think they are qualified enough, the grocery stores don't have an auto-stocker to do all the work, great thing about my contract is I can go back to where I started.

 

[michael707767]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 1128 AM chipmunn wrote:

Chip answers: ALPA & I agree with your comments; however, what I am hearing from most of the people I talk with, both on the MEC and within the rank-and-file is "enough is enough" because people believe Dave Siegel "torpedoed" the legislative effort, whether he did it accidentally or intentionally, by telling the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee he had an "alternative" plan.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Chip,
first of all I want to say I have the utmost respect for you. You are very well informed and for the most part offer an unbiased presentation on the facts on this forum. I also have respect for the pilots as a whole. Sorry folks, but the pilots get paid more because they are worth more. And I readily admit, whether you figure it based on actuall dollars, or on a percentage basis, the pilots have taken the biggest cuts, by far.

However, I wish to point out that when we (IAM) were voting on the last round of cuts, and I was a no vote, I said to you that I was voting no because, "enough was enough". I pointed out several times that I believed that there would be more concessions asked for and that at some point you had to make a stand.

Now, even if you disagree with where/when I chose to make my stand, can you understand the philosophy behind it?
Michael