No to the Alliance!
- Thread starter proAMT
- Start date
- Status
767 mechanic
Veteran
- Aug 8, 2004
- 544
- 527
Everybody needs to pay close attention to the wording in the post that 700 made about the questionnaire. It says that they have no PLAN to take over the AA pension. The key word is plan and that gives them an out,but the bottom line is PLANS change and it is usually not to the benefit of membership. If the membership wants to have answers to questions about the iam and the twu's intent with your pension and other benefits you need to sign an election card in order to force them to answer the memberships questions in a public forum and not hide behind a piece of paper with selected questions and answers. Lets remember who 700 is. He is an iam paid liar. The people who have been here over the years have witnessed this in the past by him first saying the iam was wrong for being scabs and crossing the picket line at NWA. Then he changes his mind or it was changed for him and he said that it was part of the language in there new contract. I forget off hand what his exact words were,but maybe somebody on the forums could refresh my memory. The iam pension fund has taken over approximately 38 pension funds. There track record speaks for itself so why wouldn't they take over the aa pension fund. I can see it now we are going to give you a 6 or 7 dollar an hour raise and let the membership vote with items to be negotiated at a later time. How many times have we seen this in the past. This looks like the old ROPE A DOPE to me. Do not fall for this scam sign a card in order for you to get your questions answered. Your families and their futures depend on you getting the answers to your questions. Again the only way to force the twu and the iam's hand is to sign a card.
Yes we know that. You keep repeating yourself to that point over and over just like those three numbers followed by _ _ _% funded.
I see your still hanging out at the airport hanging on to the fence fingers wrapped tightly on the chain links hoping someone will notice you.
Like a little boy fascinated by airplanes hoping someday he will get a job in aviation. How sad.
I see your still hanging out at the airport hanging on to the fence fingers wrapped tightly on the chain links hoping someone will notice you.
Like a little boy fascinated by airplanes hoping someday he will get a job in aviation. How sad.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
Do you have any proof that the IAMPF has taken over any pension funds that were as severely underfunded as the AA Pension currently is? Were any of those plans you say were taken over done after the 2005 pension law change which established the GREEN and RED zone status that requires the trust to modify payments to remain in GREEN zone status?767 mechanic said:
You do also know that IF the IAM took over our underfunded Pension that the funds trustees would have the balls sued off of them by all of the people who are in the IAMPF. Those are not just IAM US members but multiple members across multiple industries.
- Banned
- #336
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/77153/2015_Green_Zone_Status_Notice.pdf
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/21110/IAMNPFmagazine.pdf
The IAMNPF has never taken over a pension that is underfunded.
There has been mergers of pensions funds into the IAMNPF but those plans were solvent and not in the red.
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/21110/IAMNPFmagazine.pdf
The IAMNPF has never taken over a pension that is underfunded.
There has been mergers of pensions funds into the IAMNPF but those plans were solvent and not in the red.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
Thank you 700. AA has been lobbying Congress to allow it more time to make up for the frozen Pension shortfalls. If AA were to hand that fund over to the IAMPF they would be required by law to make up that shortfall at a much much faster clip. Essentially they would have to take a massive hit out of their current 10 Billion warchest to shore it up or the IAMPF would have to make drastic cuts to stay in the GREEN zone status.700UW said:
There is no way currently by law for AA to shirk their responsibilities to the frozen pension and there is no way currently by law that the IAMPF would not have to cut benefits if it were to accept our pensions either.
Common sense has to take root on here eventually?
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
Let me know when you start to advocate your elected officials to have those laws changed so they protect us from what's written currently?1AA said:
You do know why the 1113 part of the BK code was enacted right. "Lorenzo"
"Bankruptcy worked so well for Continental in 1983 that it went back again in 1990. In the early 1980s, dealing with recession and industry deregulation, the airline was in the midst of battle with its labor unions over wage reductions when it entered bankruptcy protection — a legal standing that let the company more forcefully negotiate, and then reneg on, its collective bargaining agreements. (Bankruptcy law was later changed to make it tougher for companies to break union agreements, partly because of the Continental case.)"
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1888946_1888944_1888942,00.html
scorpion 2
Veteran
- May 11, 2012
- 539
- 562
Ya and how did that work out for us? Concessions were the majority reason for filing BK which was not supposed happen anymore.WeAAsles said:
scorpion 2
Veteran
- May 11, 2012
- 539
- 562
You and 700 are nothing more than deceitful amateur spin doctors. 700 won't respond to the question on the funding status of our plan under iamnpf rules nor will he address how underfunded the iam plan would be under AA rules. There would be no shortfall if our trust fell under iamnpf guidelines. If you lump all AA pension plans together there is a huge shortfall. Separate our plan from the rest of the pack and the picture changes drastically. You are correct that AA cannot shirk their responsibility to our frozen plan and that's why it should stay right where it is. They cant rely on new blood to enter the plan nor cut benefits to keep it solvent. The iamnpf on the other hand would change our currentWeAAsles said:
rules day one and automatically we would be 100% plus funded. They won't and can't change the rules for their current participants to match our plan because it would create a shortfall.
When 700 admits that plans have merged but those plans were solvent he doesn't tell the whole story. You guys keep lumping our plan in with the rest of the labor groups to dispel the fear of ours being pillaged but fail to admit our plan would would be fully funded under the iamnpf guidelines. At first the proponents of the alliance say its not legal to move the trust now its not feasible. Whats it going to be next?
scorpion 2
Veteran
- May 11, 2012
- 539
- 562
Your the moron telling us the rules on pensions and that there are laws governing them now your saying reality is different than law. Shouldn't you wait until the next page at least to get wishy washy?WeAAsles said:
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
scorpion 2 said:
Oh I just can't wait. 17 more days and all the nonsense you guys keep trying to make stick on a wall don't mean jack anymore. 17 more days and after that all your huffing and puffing won't even blow down a paper house.
17 more days. Hallelujah.
Hackman
Veteran
- Sep 30, 2003
- 3,997
- 892
- Banned
- #345
Ask them? Remember, we AMTs work with many former Eastern (when the IAm had a spine) Pan Am (failed TWu) and TWA (failed IAm)WeAAsles said:
workers, and we have asked them. Except maybe for EAL, the industrial unions failed them time and again is what they have said.
You should stick to plying your TWu fantasies over on the Fleet Circus thread, you seem to be off the mark
here with the AMTs.
- Status
