No Ruling Till The 31st

[ualdriver]

First of all casual rat, you have some self esteem issues. Second, apparently I don't deserve more because somehow I ended up giving up MORE from a concessionary standpoint than ANY IAM employee, yet Mr. Canale seems to think it's OK to literally lie to his membership and say that they're faced with having to give up more than their "fair share." What a joke. And seemingly like a bunch of lemmings, not one IAM member on this forum questions statements like that. I question my leadership ALL THE TIME.

Do I want a monkey loading my airplane? Nope. But if my wages have to go down to less than the JetBlue level, and we're all "equal," why can't your wages go down to the JetBlue level? My argument is that if there are so many jobs out there that pay as well as the ones that 20,000 IAM employees have right now, then why are you still here? Like I said before, I don't care what your background is. For the vast majority of the IAM membership, if UAL becomes a ghost due to ANY job action, they will never find a job that pays or works like the job they're doing now (even after the paycuts they'll have to take). If there were so many jobs out there that paid as well or had as good a quality of life, they would have left a long time ago, just like our management folk did. If the truth offends you, then burn the place down and teach me a lesson!

 

[casual rat]

I don't think burning the place down solves anything. People are leaving for better jobs as we 'type'. I really wish that I was as well compensated as you are, so I could share in the pain equally, but that's not the case--at least you'll have some disposable income left to enjoy (you know-- to purchase cars, clothes, entertainment, savings accounts, education, etc). Oh, we question our Leadership constantly, let me assure you. They're a business just like UAL is, and 'in it' for their own profitability. So, Mr. Canale needs to make representative statements like that for 'positioning' reasons. It gets some of his people fired up, and it draws a line in the sand. What do you want me to say? Cut me more? I'm not friggen Rocky Balboa. Any Airline is going to have a hard time finding people to work for them under the current wage structure--at least in the expensive markets that UAL has major operations. I'm still here because I've got 20+ years here--a little time invested. Starting all over is an intriguing idea, and when the departure 'pluses' become equal to staying--I'll leap with a smile.

 

[kcabpilot]

If there were so many jobs out there that paid as well or had as good a quality of life, they would have left a long time ago, just like our management folk did.

[post="271970"][/post]​

huh?

I know this is none of my business anymore but I'm still following events. I remember when there were about 12,000 mechanics at UAL, now there are about 5800 but I couldn't use all the digits on one hand counting the number of 'managers' that have left. Are you talking about the same airline?

 

[aafsc]

First of all casual rat, you have some self esteem issues. Second, apparently I don't deserve more because somehow I ended up giving up MORE from a concessionary standpoint than ANY IAM employee, yet Mr. Canale seems to think it's OK to literally lie to his membership and say that they're faced with having to give up more than their "fair share." What a joke. And seemingly like a bunch of lemmings, not one IAM member on this forum questions statements like that. I question my leadership ALL THE TIME.

Do I want a monkey loading my airplane? Nope. But if my wages have to go down to less than the JetBlue level, and we're all "equal," why can't your wages go down to the JetBlue level? My argument is that if there are so many jobs out there that pay as well as the ones that 20,000 IAM employees have right now, then why are you still here? Like I said before, I don't care what your background is. For the vast majority of the IAM membership, if UAL becomes a ghost due to ANY job action, they will never find a job that pays or works like the job they're doing now (even after the paycuts they'll have to take). If there were so many jobs out there that paid as well or had as good a quality of life, they would have left a long time ago, just like our management folk did. If the truth offends you, then burn the place down and teach me a lesson!

[post="271970"][/post]​

I was talking to a ground person from Jetblue and asked what the pay was for ramp. From what he said, they top out in about 12 years and are .50/hr behind AA's scale. So that would put Jetblue's top out at about $19.50/hr. If UA ramp ends up with a US type scale, top out would be about $17/hr. So UA ramp would make about $2.50/hr less than their counterparts at Jetblue. Of course Jetblue is only about 6 years old so the most senior person is only half way up the payscale.

 

[Bob Owens]

I was talking to a ground person from Jetblue and asked what the pay was for ramp. From what he said, they top out in about 12 years and are .50/hr behind AA's scale. So that would put Jetblue's top out at about $19.50/hr. If UA ramp ends up with a US type scale, top out would be about $17/hr. So UA ramp would make about $2.50/hr less than their counterparts at Jetblue. Of course Jetblue is only about 6 years old so the most senior person is only half way up the payscale.

[post="272016"][/post]​

UAL driver should have checked into it before he made that statement. The fact is that pilots make much, much more than other workers and if he agreed to match Jet Blue if everyone else did then he would be hit much worse than most other workers.

While pilot pay has lost ground over the years the fact is it has performed better than any other workgroups.

Its not just the hourly pay where the pilots would lose on the deal but retirement too.

Pilots mandatory early retirement at 60 also makes the pilots much more expensive than any other group of workers. Not only do they make much more when they are actually productive but they are likely to collect pensions, which are larger, longer. I think the average life expectancy is now up to 78. That means, on average, pilots work around 35 years and collect a pension for 18 years.

We have a mechanic where I work whose seniority date is 1942. Any pilot born at that time retired three years ago! 79 years old and he is still productive, any pilot his age retired when Reagan was President!

While he is an extreme example the fact is that typically pilots collect not only much higher pensions but they collect them for much longer. I believe Jet Blue only has a 401K match. The average pilot collects a pension for about half as long as his carreer was. Its doubtful that a 4% match would even come close to replacing the traditional pension for a pilot.

Hmm, come to think of it didnt those guys just lose their pension too? I would think that UAL drivers would be even more pissed than the other workers, unless of course they figure that even with all that they have lost its still better than they would do anywhere else. The fact is that other workers are not in the same position, especially the mechanics, who are already voluntarily leaving the industry in droves.

From what I've heard out of JFK and SFO the mechanics will vote no. After putting in the years they would get more satisfaction out of shutting down the enterprise like the guys from EAL did than by simply quitting and allowing it to get away with ripping them off so badly. They know they had a life before UAL and will have one after, and probably make the same money and be home on the weekends and holidays. Will they miss working on the big birds? Sure, but at least they can take pride in the fact that they took out the company that #### on them. From what I heard they are voting to liquidate.

 

[Broke@SFO]

Winglet: "Management hit harder in pensions??? Yea sure. Prove it."

spacewaitress: "Where's the beef?"

Alright, here's the link yet again:

http://www.pbgc.gov/services/descriptions/...antee_table.htm

Imagine you're a "mangement" employee who spent a career at UAL making in the mid to high 5 figures and you retire at say, 62. Let's say that after a lifetime of work, you're eligible for a $4,000/month pension. But alas, assuming the pensions are terminated in 2004, the maximum guarantee is only $2900/month. This employee just took a 28% haircut.

Now imagine you're a flight attendant who spent a career at UAL topping out at around $40,000/year and you retire at say, 62, just like the management guy. You don't earn what a management guy earns, so therefore you will not be entitled to as high a pension. So let's say that 62 year old flight attendant's pension was $2000/month. Well, again looking at the same table, the max guarantee is $2900/month. All of your pension is covered, and you can continue to collect your $2000/month from the US government instead of UAL. You've lost little or nothing as far as your pension is concerned.

Now looking at the two above examples, who gets screwed harder when the PBGC takes over the pensions? The high earning management guy or the low earner flight attendant, ramper, or (insert other lower paid employee category here)? Actually it's kind of funny that the groups that are going to get hurt the LEAST by the cancellation of their pensions are the ones complaining the most.

disclaimer: I understand that the calculations that the PBGC makes are far more complicated then me pulling numbers out of the air and my numbers are probably off a bit, but I bet they're close!

[post="271758"][/post]​

With all the rhetoric over UAL pension termination in the news today I
thought it would be beneficial for all to see what this means for the
individual in dollars and cents. As a mechanic for over 35 years and
60 years of age, this is what it means to me personally. Under the
contractual UAL plan that was terminated I would have received
$3,045.00 per month. Under the new plan, i.e. PBGC, I will now only get
$2,173.00. This is a monthly reduction of $872. Or roughly 29%.
Our CEO Glenn Tilton will get a 5 million dollar pension that he has
opted not to terminate. His pension won't be terminated because he says
"I have a contract". Hey Glenn, I also had a "contract" until you
choose to terminate it! This is what Glenn Tilton refers to as "shared
sacrifice".
I would also like to point out that the PBGC is not a government entity
and is not funded by the government. It is seriously underfunded and
there exists a real possibility that it could declare bankruptcy
leaving me with nothing. The law says that United Airlines cannot
reinstate a defined pension plan for 10 years. This means that United
Airlines could go on to record profits and the PBGC goes bankrupt
leaving me with nothing and United could not even reinstate the pension
plan if they wanted to. This is a travesty and should be looked into by
our government agencies.

 

[Bob Owens]

[
Imagine you're a "mangement" employee who spent a career at UAL making in the mid to high 5 figures and you retire at say, 62.  Let's say that after a lifetime of work, you're eligible for a $4,000/month pension.  But alas, assuming the pensions are terminated in 2004, the maximum guarantee is only $2900/month.  This employee just took a 28% haircut.

Now imagine you're a flight attendant who spent a career at UAL topping out at around $40,000/year and you retire at say, 62, just like the management guy.  You don't earn what a management guy earns, so therefore you will not be entitled to as high a pension.  So let's say that 62 year old flight attendant's pension was $2000/month.  Well, again looking at the same table, the max guarantee is $2900/month.   All of your pension is covered, and you can continue to collect your $2000/month from the US government instead of UAL.   You've lost little or nothing as far as your pension is concerned.

Now looking at the two above examples, who gets screwed harder when the PBGC takes over the pensions?  The high earning management guy or the low earner flight attendant, ramper, or (insert other lower paid employee category here)?  Actually it's kind of funny that the groups that are going to get hurt the LEAST by the cancellation of their pensions are the ones complaining the most.

[post="271758"][/post]​

Ok look at it this way.Is the retired pilot producing any more than the retired ramper, FA etc? The fact is that he produces nothing yet he gets paid a lot more to produce nothing. In fact he gets paid more than most people who are producing get.

Retirement is for those who no longer produce. The idea is that as reward for what they produced during their producive years they will recieve payments that will allow them to survive.

Now even with the big cuts you are taking, if you adjust your lifestyle accordingly you will still enjoy a better than average lifestyle, however the same is not true for the other lower paid workers. Pilots will still recieve more than enough to cover the essentials, other workers will not and will be forced back to work. So despite the fact that raw numbers indicate that pilots and higher paid workers are losing more the real test to see who is really getting screwed worse would be to ask both parties if they would be willing to trade places with the other. My guess is that no pilot would rather trade places with an FA or other low paid worker but every FA or other low paid worker would gladly trade places with the pilot.

The fact of the matter is that pilots have been very well paid, in fact at the rate they were paid they should have been able to put enough away for retirement without any pension whatsoever, however the same is not true for most other workers whose earnings while working could just about cover the essentials. So after a lifetime of working and eeking by they counted on the pension, which is being reduced to the point where they will have to work in order to cover the essentials. Pilots may have to use the county greens and give up their Private Country Club memberships but they wont have to sweep the floors in McDonalds after a lifetime of working. So yes, the lower paid groups have every right to be pissed and for you to say they are being hurt the least is simply the revealation of your narcisistic arrogant ego.

Even with all the cuts pilots are still high earners and those same skills would not command more anywhere else. Thats not the same for other workers, so maybe thats the real reason why you are OK with the cuts, you are still making out.

 

[spacewaitress]

...and the PBGC goes bankrupt
leaving me with nothing...

That is the big picture and probably being mapped out as we speak.

 

[Skymess]

http://www.pbgc.gov/services/descriptions/...antee_table.htm

Imagine you're a "mangement" employee who spent a career at UAL making in the mid to high 5 figures and you retire at say, 62. Let's say that after a lifetime of work, you're eligible for a $4,000/month pension. But alas, assuming the pensions are terminated in 2004, the maximum guarantee is only $2900/month. This employee just took a 28% haircut.

Now imagine you're a flight attendant who spent a career at UAL topping out at around $40,000/year and you retire at say, 62, just like the management guy. You don't earn what a management guy earns, so therefore you will not be entitled to as high a pension. So let's say that 62 year old flight attendant's pension was $2000/month. Well, again looking at the same table, the max guarantee is $2900/month. All of your pension is covered, and you can continue to collect your $2000/month from the US government instead of UAL. You've lost little or nothing as far as your pension is concerned.

Now looking at the two above examples, who gets screwed harder when the PBGC takes over the pensions? The high earning management guy or the low earner flight attendant, ramper, or (insert other lower paid employee category here)? Actually it's kind of funny that the groups that are going to get hurt the LEAST by the cancellation of their pensions are the ones complaining the most.

disclaimer: I understand that the calculations that the PBGC makes are far more complicated then me pulling numbers out of the air and my numbers are probably off a bit, but I bet they're close!
[/quote]

To even imagine that management is relying on a pension is a joke. Management, especially those in the airline industry, skim so much off the top before retirement that any pension fund is chump change gravy.

The people being screwed the hardest are those that worked with the promise of a pension for all those years and then got screwed in the end. Every labor contract loses millions off the top wage scale in order to include their pensions in that contract. Is that fair? No. Had we all seen this was going to happen we all would have screwed the pensions ourselves in order to get our wages higher to take care of our own retirement.

Is it fair that people take early retirement to help out the company only to have their pension dumped into the PBGC? No. Those people can't come back from retirement and continue to work until they are 65.

Pilots aren't allowed to work until 65. They are hosed too.

The bottom line is that management for all companies need to have some sort of checks and balance system so that they can't bonus themselves up the wazoo while their companies burn down around them.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I agree Jungle. Crap or get off the pot! If the IAM thinks that their typical members' educational background and experice will allow them to command a $15-20/hr job with full benefits and a pension in the real world, have at it!
Strike away!

[post="271760"][/post]​

Hey Driver,

Was this you?

View attachment 2950

Your 'let them eat cake' attitude is abhorrent (unless they get the caramel nut topping).


UT

 

[UAL_TECH]

QUOTE(Skymess @ May 23 2005, 12:29 PM

Imagine you're a "mangement" employee who spent a career at UAL making in the mid to high 5 figures and you retire at say, 62. Let's say that after a lifetime of work, you're eligible for a $4,000/month pension. But alas, assuming the pensions are terminated in 2004, the maximum guarantee is only $2900/month. This employee just took a 28% haircut.

Now imagine you're a flight attendant who spent a career at UAL topping out at around $40,000/year and you retire at say, 62, just like the management guy. You don't earn what a management guy earns, so therefore you will not be entitled to as high a pension. So let's say that 62 year old flight attendant's pension was $2000/month. Well, again looking at the same table, the max guarantee is $2900/month. All of your pension is covered, and you can continue to collect your $2000/month from the US government instead of UAL. You've lost little or nothing as far as your pension is concerned.

Now looking at the two above examples, who gets screwed harder when the PBGC takes over the pensions? The high earning management guy or the low earner flight attendant, ramper, or (insert other lower paid employee category here)? Actually it's kind of funny that the groups that are going to get hurt the LEAST by the cancellation of their pensions are the ones complaining the most.

disclaimer: I understand that the calculations that the PBGC makes are far more complicated then me pulling numbers out of the air and my numbers are probably off a bit, but I bet they're close!
[/quote)

To even imagine that management is relying on a pension is a joke. Management, especially those in the airline industry, skim so much off the top before retirement that any pension fund is chump change gravy.

The people being screwed the hardest are those that worked with the promise of a pension for all those years and then got screwed in the end. Every labor contract loses millions off the top wage scale in order to include their pensions in that contract. Is that fair? No. Had we all seen this was going to happen we all would have screwed the pensions ourselves in order to get our wages higher to take care of our own retirement.

Is it fair that people take early retirement to help out the company only to have their pension dumped into the PBGC? No. Those people can't come back from retirement and continue to work until they are 65.

Pilots aren't allowed to work until 65. They are hosed too.

The bottom line is that management for all companies need to have some sort of checks and balance system so that they can't bonus themselves up the wazoo while their companies burn down around them.

[post="272271"][/post]​

[/quote]

There is a difference between SAM employees and the 'Executive Class'.
SAM will get the 'Jail House' love as much as the rest of us but the 'Executive Class' are untouchable. It is interesting to note that Tilton's retirement package is guaranteed because he has a 'contract'. However when it comes to honoring the 'contract' of the employee groups, we are not treated the same. We both have a contract and we are all in BK, however our contracts are open to the whims of the court but the 'Executive Class' are not.

All men are created equal but others are more equal (if we allow it)!!! :rant:

JMHO,
B) UT

 

[casual rat]

I think The Judge needs to impose a new contract on Glenn-Bob and Petey! Not to mention some of the others who speak directly to him. Where's Glenn going to go? The 2nd worst rated CEO (according to Forbes) after Micheal "I gave Mickey Mouse a Black Eye" Eisner? Although there's probably a profitable Corporation out there somewhere whose Directors want to steal all that they can, destroy the elderly, and pit it's workforce's departments against each other, that would want to retain Glenn-Bob. Who knows? Maybe an appointment as a Committee person in The House of Ethics under GW! He may have some options after all... :mf_boff:

 

[ualdriver]

UT-

What you're saying is not true.

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...07&#entry269307

Read post 48 in that link and you'll see why Tilton is the ONLY executive that is keeping his CHEVRON pension. If you don't believe me, contact your union leaders and ask them if it's true. In fact, some of UAL's past executives obtained lawyers to sue UAL for their retirement, stating that they "couldn't live" on the PBGC guarantees. I'm sure that those lawsuits were unsuccessful. Think Goodwin is still getting his car for life and his country club membership paid for per his original retirement agreement? Think again.

Now if you're stating that because many of these VP's/directors/CEO's earn more in pay and bonuses than you and me and therefore they are in a better financial position to handle the loss of the pensions and/or the loss of their UAL job, well, I'd agree with that. Then again, May 31st is coming quickly and a couple of unions have some decisions to make. Perhaps many people on this forum could use their unemployment benefits to obtain a business degree and get in on some of that huge money for themselves instead of being victims again?

 

[ualdriver]

Hey Driver,

Was this you?

View attachment 2950

Your 'let them eat cake' attitude is abhorrent (unless they get the caramel nut topping).
  UT

[post="272837"][/post]​

ANYBODY with Unimatic access could have made that document. I doubt its authenticity. If a pilot really wrote that, he should be disciplined.

So to answer your question- nope, it wasn't me. But UT, were you one of the guys involved in the ORD time card scandal a couple of years back? Were you one of the ones punching in your buddies so they could get paid while they were sitting at home on the couch drinking a six pack watching the football game? How many guys got fired over that one? I find what your co-workers did "abhorrent."

 

[ualdriver]

huh?

I know this is none of my business anymore but I'm still following events. I remember when there were about 12,000 mechanics at UAL, now there are about 5800 but I couldn't use all the digits on one hand counting the number of 'managers' that have left. Are you talking about the same airline?

[post="272006"][/post]​

Management people (SAM) aren't just the people like Tilton and Brace. WHQ has 100's of salaried/management people that are trying to make a living, just like everyone else. Many of them have left for greener pastures, along with MOST of our senior management.