savyinvestor
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 0
Biff, that you for clarifying some erroneous assumptions! Savy
savyinvestor
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 0
Oldie, Dave's letter says there will be be a pension and he has no intention of liquidating the company. What don't you understand about that? Also, don't suggest I want a liquidation of U. I just don't want to fund your $1,000,000 pension and it doesn't appear your fellow employees do either. Sounds like it will all work out one way or the other if you can believe your CEO.
savyinvestor
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 6:31:23 PM skyflyr69 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 1
09 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Sorry Chip. 44,000,000 Americans aren't going to put their retirements at risk so U pilots can get their million dollar pensions. As one of those 44,000,000 I'm contacting the Finance committee and demanding they make no exceptions for U. If you make an exception for one than you have to make exceptions for all. If ALPA negotiated one of those" its not what your worth, but what you negotiate contracts" its ALPA's problem not ours. If U can't pay take less. Don't put others pensions at risk to save yours!
----------------
[/blockquote]
dear savvyinvestor , make sure you address congress also. As the federal government bailed out government pensions back in 1974!!!!
----------------
[/blockquote]
I've got a better idea. Why don't you take it before the american taxpayer and ask them to help you out with your $1,000,000 pension. I'd love to see/hear their response. Savy
----------------
On 1/16/2003 6:31:23 PM skyflyr69 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 1
09 PM savyinvestor wrote: Sorry Chip. 44,000,000 Americans aren't going to put their retirements at risk so U pilots can get their million dollar pensions. As one of those 44,000,000 I'm contacting the Finance committee and demanding they make no exceptions for U. If you make an exception for one than you have to make exceptions for all. If ALPA negotiated one of those" its not what your worth, but what you negotiate contracts" its ALPA's problem not ours. If U can't pay take less. Don't put others pensions at risk to save yours!
----------------
[/blockquote]
dear savvyinvestor , make sure you address congress also. As the federal government bailed out government pensions back in 1974!!!!
----------------
[/blockquote]
I've got a better idea. Why don't you take it before the american taxpayer and ask them to help you out with your $1,000,000 pension. I'd love to see/hear their response. Savy
R
retread
Guest
Any new on todays hearings?
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/16/2003 8:40:36 PM Biffeman wrote:
[P]Your welcome, I just love to prove someone wrong, lol[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]You're the one that's STILL WRONG. All that says is that it's not funded by GENERAL tax revenues. What happens in the situation where the PBGC fund becomes underfunded (like in the possible future of Social Security ). Then, the only way to make up the revenues is HIGHER TAXES. Either in the form of higher premiums for insurance, or increased federal funding. YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. And Savyinvestor must not have a clue about investing if he is invested in airline stocks right now. And, I still say, the biggest way to dump on the taxpayer is to liquidate the pension. You may like the idea of seeing a well respected group of employees take a hit like your airline investments did, but it's still only letting management out from under their obligation. How about this scenario: first U's pension, then UAL's then DAL's then GM's then Ford's then Chrysler's, then...where will it end? instead of having over 600,000 involved in PBGC retirements (most of whom's companies no longer exist) they wind up responsible for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people's pensions, and their companies are still around and should be funding them! I don't know what you two have against the pilots, but I think it's plain jealousy!
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/16/2003 8:40:36 PM Biffeman wrote:
[P]Your welcome, I just love to prove someone wrong, lol[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]You're the one that's STILL WRONG. All that says is that it's not funded by GENERAL tax revenues. What happens in the situation where the PBGC fund becomes underfunded (like in the possible future of Social Security ). Then, the only way to make up the revenues is HIGHER TAXES. Either in the form of higher premiums for insurance, or increased federal funding. YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. And Savyinvestor must not have a clue about investing if he is invested in airline stocks right now. And, I still say, the biggest way to dump on the taxpayer is to liquidate the pension. You may like the idea of seeing a well respected group of employees take a hit like your airline investments did, but it's still only letting management out from under their obligation. How about this scenario: first U's pension, then UAL's then DAL's then GM's then Ford's then Chrysler's, then...where will it end? instead of having over 600,000 involved in PBGC retirements (most of whom's companies no longer exist) they wind up responsible for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people's pensions, and their companies are still around and should be funding them! I don't know what you two have against the pilots, but I think it's plain jealousy!
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 802 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Goody,
First off, there is no way that this co. is going to liquidate over (1) labor groups pension delimma. This "Union busting management team" did not go through 9 months of very strategtic, scheming, diabolic planning to "lower costs, and chapter 11, to let all of it go down the "poop shoot" over a Labor group's pension issue. They will either force the pilots to think of a creative way to contribute to their own plan to save it (like health care) OR they will "terminate the pension". Simply put, Siegel addressed the International Aviation Club in September, and in front of Labor (ALPA) being present, and Siegel's airline CEO pals present that "If the employees want to keep their "Defined Pensions" they will have to pay for it". (quote)
The Company will give the pilots every advantage and benefit to come up with ideas, and even pretend they are patient; they may even pretend to help them with the exercise, but in the end, it will have to be the perfect plan the Co. wanted all along. I must say that the pilots gave NO protest during the 1st round or the 2ond, and I don't believe they will now. Personally, I feel bad for any group that still has to deal with this management now with the ultimate "sacrifice", the defined pension. It's with that "gut-wrenching" feeling that you know your trapped, and the one provision you tried to save as a group, the co. leaves it for last to make sure that they "rip" your heart out and then make you eat it for all to see.
No. There is no co. liquidation here, I don't believe there ever was. Just "The Perfect Diabolic Plan" of all time to bring Labor down and gut everything the unions fought hard to maintain. Yea, the Industry has changed forever, but I don't know how much of that was related to 9/11 or taking advantage of "the most perfect opportunity" of all time.
And, all the other major players are going to follow suit...they have no choice.
It's disqusting, but this is the bunch of "save your co. at all cost"
----------------
On 1/15/2003 802 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 802 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 8
02 PM oldiebutgoody wrote: [BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Goody,
First off, there is no way that this co. is going to liquidate over (1) labor groups pension delimma. This "Union busting management team" did not go through 9 months of very strategtic, scheming, diabolic planning to "lower costs, and chapter 11, to let all of it go down the "poop shoot" over a Labor group's pension issue. They will either force the pilots to think of a creative way to contribute to their own plan to save it (like health care) OR they will "terminate the pension". Simply put, Siegel addressed the International Aviation Club in September, and in front of Labor (ALPA) being present, and Siegel's airline CEO pals present that "If the employees want to keep their "Defined Pensions" they will have to pay for it". (quote)
The Company will give the pilots every advantage and benefit to come up with ideas, and even pretend they are patient; they may even pretend to help them with the exercise, but in the end, it will have to be the perfect plan the Co. wanted all along. I must say that the pilots gave NO protest during the 1st round or the 2ond, and I don't believe they will now. Personally, I feel bad for any group that still has to deal with this management now with the ultimate "sacrifice", the defined pension. It's with that "gut-wrenching" feeling that you know your trapped, and the one provision you tried to save as a group, the co. leaves it for last to make sure that they "rip" your heart out and then make you eat it for all to see.
No. There is no co. liquidation here, I don't believe there ever was. Just "The Perfect Diabolic Plan" of all time to bring Labor down and gut everything the unions fought hard to maintain. Yea, the Industry has changed forever, but I don't know how much of that was related to 9/11 or taking advantage of "the most perfect opportunity" of all time.
And, all the other major players are going to follow suit...they have no choice.
It's disqusting, but this is the bunch of "save your co. at all cost"
----------------
On 1/15/2003 8
02 PM oldiebutgoody wrote: [BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 8
02 PM oldiebutgoody wrote: [BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 802 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Goody,
First off, there is no way that this co. is going to liquidate over (1) labor groups pension delimma. This "Union busting management team" did not go through 9 months of very strategtic, scheming, diabolic planning to "lower costs, and chapter 11, to let all of it go down the "poop shoot" over a Labor group's pension issue. They will either force the pilots to think of a creative way to contribute to their own plan to save it (like health care) OR they will "terminate the pension". Simply put, Siegel addressed the International Aviation Club in September, and in front of Labor (ALPA) being present, and Siegel's airline CEO pals present that "If the employees want to keep their "Defined Pensions" they will have to pay for it". (quote)
The Company will give the pilots every advantage and benefit to come up with ideas, and even pretend they are patient; they may even pretend to help them with the exercise, but in the end, it will have to be the perfect plan the Co. wanted all along. I must say that the pilots gave NO protest during the 1st round or the 2ond, and I don't believe they will now. Personally, I feel bad for any group that still has to deal with this management now with the ultimate "sacrifice", the defined pension. It's with that "gut-wrenching" feeling that you know your trapped, and the one provision you tried to save as a group, the co. leaves it for last to make sure that they "rip" your heart out and then make you eat it for all to see.
No. There is no co. liquidation here, I don't believe there ever was. Just "The Perfect Diabolic Plan" of all time to bring Labor down and gut everything the unions fought hard to maintain. Yea, the Industry has changed forever, but I don't know how much of that was related to 9/11 or taking advantage of "the most perfect opportunity" of all time.
And, all the other major players are going to follow suit...they have no choice.
It's disqusting, but this is the bunch of "save your co. at all cost" tyrants who are not finished with us yet.
----------------
On 1/15/2003 8
02 PM oldiebutgoody wrote: [BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 7:54:12 PM savyinvestor wrote:
Chip, You fail to take into account that U deserves no special consideration. We could probably fill this entire page with a list of companies with underfunded pensions. An exception for U will create a stampede from all the others looking for the same treatment. Then what? Take off your blinders.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not Chip, but
What's wrong with new rules allowing companies to retain their responsibility to fund the pensions, rather than dump them on the taxpayers? By the way, this has been done before, and with very good results. What you are advocating is allowing companies to shed fiscal responsiblities onto the government, eventually to be paid by all taxpayers. The only other option is a liquidation of U, and if that's what you are advocating I'll tell you, that won't do anything but put more burden on the government, and not just in pensions. What think they're gonna do, make ALL the companies that are underfunded liquidate?
[FONT size=3]You need to get a grip and look at what you are saying. It doesn't make any sense from any angle![/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Goody,
First off, there is no way that this co. is going to liquidate over (1) labor groups pension delimma. This "Union busting management team" did not go through 9 months of very strategtic, scheming, diabolic planning to "lower costs, and chapter 11, to let all of it go down the "poop shoot" over a Labor group's pension issue. They will either force the pilots to think of a creative way to contribute to their own plan to save it (like health care) OR they will "terminate the pension". Simply put, Siegel addressed the International Aviation Club in September, and in front of Labor (ALPA) being present, and Siegel's airline CEO pals present that "If the employees want to keep their "Defined Pensions" they will have to pay for it". (quote)
The Company will give the pilots every advantage and benefit to come up with ideas, and even pretend they are patient; they may even pretend to help them with the exercise, but in the end, it will have to be the perfect plan the Co. wanted all along. I must say that the pilots gave NO protest during the 1st round or the 2ond, and I don't believe they will now. Personally, I feel bad for any group that still has to deal with this management now with the ultimate "sacrifice", the defined pension. It's with that "gut-wrenching" feeling that you know your trapped, and the one provision you tried to save as a group, the co. leaves it for last to make sure that they "rip" your heart out and then make you eat it for all to see.
No. There is no co. liquidation here, I don't believe there ever was. Just "The Perfect Diabolic Plan" of all time to bring Labor down and gut everything the unions fought hard to maintain. Yea, the Industry has changed forever, but I don't know how much of that was related to 9/11 or taking advantage of "the most perfect opportunity" of all time.
And, all the other major players are going to follow suit...they have no choice.
It's disqusting, but this is the bunch of "save your co. at all cost" tyrants who are not finished with us yet.
Similar threads
