No to the Alliance!

[Bob Owens]

The fact that it has never happened does not mean that they have not tried. You have carefully left something out. When United filed bankruptcy the iam tried to put fleets pension fund in the iam's slush fund,but were stopped by the PBGC. The PBGC is not here to stop them and the iam is in control of negotiations. Even if the twu and the iam vote down party lines 6-6 the iam is in control of negotiations and have the tiebreaker vote. So everyone can see how this is going to go.

Read the answers carefully, it says that it never happened with an Airline. Thats not the same as saying it never happened.

 

[Bob Owens]

Did any of you guys get the TWU letter or flyer about the pensions? It said it will not discuss the company frozen pension. I got it from local 591 but the letter was not signed by anybody. The letter did not even state who wrote it and who it was directed too. More assumptions and scare tactics to stop us from signing AMFA cards.

It doesnt say that, it says they have not discussed, not that they will not. It doesnt address any of my concerns. If our pension is fully funded that creates a huge pile of cash that I believe will be too temping for them not to tap into.

I read an article about how when they rolled Social Security from 65 to 67 it was effectively a 13% cut for those affected. Our full retirement is 60, and the IAMNPF would move that back to 65, five years or roughly 30%. That 30% cut would make our plan roughly 30% overfunded if it was fully funded and that money would be used to get us what we should be getting anyway. The company could give us back our Holidays, Vacation, Sick time and Delta plus seven and still net some cash. So while the US guys may not benefit as much as far as Holidays, Vacation, Sick etc our pension rollover would fund their raise.

This is why I'm against this Association. The TWU cant put out a letter saying that our AA pension is off the table, its up to the Association, and Jim Little signed over the lead for the first two years to the IAM. So we could have the IAM taking our pension by majority vote of the committee to give their guys a raise at no cost to AA. Lets not forget that the IAM settled for bottom of the industry pay with this management team despoite the fact that they were already reporting billions in profits, would you be surprised if they cut a deal to get a new contract paid for with our pension?

 

[scorpion 2]

http://www.local591.com/docs/Pension%20Flyer.pdf

That was very carefully worded. I like the emphasis on the word IF they choose to participate in the iamnpf. Now is it me or is the IF word never mentioned in the pension agreement? There is some serious scrambling going on here. Nice job weaasles if that was your work on getting something in writing. Have them put a John Henry on it.
In all seriousness though we are not out of the woods even though we are damn sure smoking out the vermin. If its this hard to get a legit response and that was the closest thing yet it's obvious there has been some very underhanded scheming going on. I heard today that a member was told by a 514 eboard officer that the union couldn't put out a letter. Supposedly AA lawyers said since its AA's pension and not the twu's that the union couldn't respond. WTF?  So now its WE WOULD RESPOND BUT THE COMPANY WONT LET US.   

 

[WeAAsles]

That sounds like a desperate move to obtain cash to me. Would those members receive a reduced payout to to match the deficit or would money (paid in by other members) be siphoned off to make up the difference? 
 
That post should be the poster child of why we should sign a card, thanks. 
 
If they will take on an underfunded plan (which you and 700 claim they wouldn't do) they will definitely come after ours!  Why would you post something like that? Now your saying that the reason they tried to get the UAL plan was to save it from the PBGC but since ours is flush with cash they are not interested. Make up your mind.
I hope and pray that the membership is reading this. 

The only people who are desperate are you guys who have no other choice but to tell all the readers on here that the Boogie Man is hiding in the closet and he's going to come out and get you if you fall asleep.

This is all just a FEAR tactic to try and BEG (pray) people to sign those AMFA cards because you only have another 11 days to make it happen.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

11 DAYS

 

[WeAAsles]

Underfunded?
My Annual Funding Notice that came in the mail last week says its 100.73% funded.

Go seek out someone who can explain the letter to you. You don't understand it.

 

[Bob Owens]

That was very carefully worded. I like the emphasis on the word IF they choose to participate in the iamnpf. Now is it me or is the IF word never mentioned in the pension agreement? There is some serious scrambling going on here.   

Simple, IF the members ratify the agreement they made their choice to be in the IAMNPF. IF that happens and IF the deal includes rolling our funds into the IAMNPF and lets say you retire right after the change over at 60 you just lost 22.5% of your pension, If your retire at 55 instead of a 15% reduction you would take a 45% reduction.

 

[Bob Owens]

The only people who are desperate are you guys who have no other choice but to tell all the readers on here that the Boogie Man is hiding in the closet and he's going to come out and get you if you fall asleep.

Similar things were being said when I expresssed concern over the "upon successful resolution of the 1114 process" language. Three year and still no matching funds.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Simple, IF the members ratify the agreement they made their choice to be in the IAMNPF. IF that happens and IF the deal includes rolling our funds into the IAMNPF and lets say you retire right after the change over at 60 you just lost 22.5% of your pension, If your retire at 55 instead of a 15% reduction you would take a 45% reduction.

I agree with Bob on this.
It is more likely that it would be in a TA that we get to vote on , up or down
THAT will be our big huge "choice/option" as weasels likes to call it.
In reality, it is no option or choice at all.

If this is not likely, then why can't Lombardo and the IAM make an agreement and sign it that our pensions will not be on the table, ever, and the only thing that will be is whatever level they will increase our matching funds for our 401k.

Until I see that in writing, I'll continue to believe that the pensions are an end game.

Prove me wrong Lombardo, step up and be seen and heard on the issue and put it in iron clad writing.

 

[Bob Owens]

I agree with Bob on this.
It is more likely that it would be in a TA that we get to vote on , up or down
THAT will be our big huge "choice/option" as weasels likes to call it.
In reality, it is no option or choice at all.
If this is not likely, then why can't Lombardo and the IAM make an agreement and sign it that our pensions will not be on the table, ever, and the only thing that will be is whatever level they will increase our matching funds for our 401k.
Until I see that in writing, I'll continue to believe that the pensions are an end game.
Prove me wrong Lombardo, step up and be seen and heard on the issue and put it in iron clad writing.

Its not up to him, its up to the Association so both would have to sign it.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Its not up to him, its up to the Association so both would have to sign it.

Certainly, he knows this is a problem, maybe THE problem right now,
I'm sure he has Buffy's number.

 

[WeAAsles]

Simple, IF the members ratify the agreement they made their choice to be in the IAMNPF. IF that happens and IF the deal includes rolling our funds into the IAMNPF and lets say you retire right after the change over at 60 you just lost 22.5% of your pension, If your retire at 55 instead of a 15% reduction you would take a 45% reduction.

Bob as a former President are you advocating that ANY type of conversations regarding our Frozen Pensions should be off the table? Let's go with a crazy idea here. Say that the company negotiators were on crack and proposed to give our pensions to the IAM in exchange for half of the money they currently have in the bank? Let's say that our pensions (TWU) are currently underfunded by 1 Billion and the company (On Crack) say they'll put 5 Billion into the IAMPF ALL earmarked for our benefit. And because of that the IAMPF is able to make up a new payment schedule 4 times the payouts of the current schedule? And they agree in writing to no reductions? What would we say to that?

I'm putting out a CRAZY example because it's just as crazy for anyone to want to tie the hands of their negotiators before they even get in the room with signed agreements to a possibility that at least in my mind is never going to take place?
 

Similar things were being said when I expresssed concern over the "upon successful resolution of the 1114 process" language. Three year and still no matching funds.

Yes I always had a problem with the way that was written from the day we found out that the company had no intention or decided not to go through the 1114. And that's exactly what the APFA has now argued before an arbitrator. 

 

[CMH_GSE]

Bob as a former President are you advocating that ANY type of conversations regarding our Frozen Pensions should be off the table? Let's go with a crazy idea here. Say that the company negotiators were on crack and proposed to give our pensions to the IAM in exchange for half of the money they currently have in the bank? Let's say that our pensions (TWU) are currently underfunded by 1 Billion and the company (On Crack) say they'll put 5 Billion into the IAMPF ALL earmarked for our benefit. And because of that the IAMPF is able to make up a new payment schedule 4 times the payouts of the current schedule? And they agree in writing to no reductions? What would we say to that?
I'm putting out a CRAZY example because it's just as crazy for anyone to want to tie the hands of their negotiators before they even get in the room with signed agreements to a possibility that at least in my mind is never going to take place?
 



Yes I always had a problem with the way that was written from the day we found out that the company had no intention or decided not to go through the 1114. And that's exactly what the APFA has now argued before an arbitrator.

lol
I've got a better idea.
While the company is in such a giving mood, let's just leave the pensions the way they are, change our company match to a Contribution, the same amount they give the pilots, and increase our pay to Fed Ex levels, you know, Industry leading , and include profit sharing.

There , no more far fetched than what you just proposed.

In other words, just leave our pensions alone and give us more money per hour and matching funds.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob as a former President are you advocating that ANY type of conversations regarding our Frozen Pensions should be off the table? Let's go with a crazy idea here. Say that the company negotiators were on crack and proposed to give our pensions to the IAM in exchange for half of the money they currently have in the bank? Let's say that our pensions (TWU) are currently underfunded by 1 Billion and the company (On Crack) say they'll put 5 Billion into the IAMPF ALL earmarked for our benefit. And because of that the IAMPF is able to make up a new payment schedule 4 times the payouts of the current schedule? And they agree in writing to no reductions? What would we say to that?
I'm putting out a CRAZY example because it's just as crazy for anyone to want to tie the hands of their negotiators before they even get in the room with signed agreements to a possibility that at least in my mind is never going to take place?
 


Yes I always had a problem with the way that was written from the day we found out that the company had no intention or decided not to go through the 1114. And that's exactly what the APFA has now argued before an arbitrator.

YES OFF THE TABLE, I WANT THE PILOTS 401K CONTRIBUTION.

Lets say the company did agree to what you have cited. How could that benefit us when their formula is defined as $85/yr? Besides, there has been no change at the IAM that would lead me to believe that their next deal will be any better than their last.

SO YES I WANT TO SEE A SIGNED LETTER THAT THE IAM DOMINATED ASSOCIATION IS NOT GOING TO TOUCH OUR FROZEN PENSION.

The APFA made the mistake of listening to Littles team and adopting the same language, but you have to remember, the APFA only started prefunding in 2000, they have half as much at stake because they were in it half as long. How convienient that if they lose that the APFA will get the blame.

What I think is crazy is saying that the much smaller IAM membership has control of the Association wher they can take our pension and use it to fund raises for their members. Its also crazy how you say you want the Association because it protects the pension of the guys in the IAMNPF and are OK with the thought that your frozen pension could be cashed in to fund benefits for the IAM guys. Nothing against them but I dont want to see my pension used to give them a raise.

 

[MetalMover]

The only people who are desperate are you guys who have no other choice but to tell all the readers on here that the Boogie Man is hiding in the closet and he's going to come out and get you if you fall asleep.

This is all just a FEAR tactic to try and BEG (pray) people to sign those AMFA cards because you only have another 11 days to make it happen.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

11 DAYS

Better than living as a TWU suckA$$.

 

[MetalMover]

The only people who are desperate are you guys who have no other choice but to tell all the readers on here that the Boogie Man is hiding in the closet and he's going to come out and get you if you fall asleep.

This is all just a FEAR tactic to try and BEG (pray) people to sign those AMFA cards because you only have another 11 days to make it happen.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

11 DAYS

But of course you don't care about AMFA and what the mechanics may or may not want. You are a TWU cheerleader because fleet service has done pretty good under the TWU. 
You have chosen the name WeAAsles wisely. It fits you to a tee