genejockey---The company does not have enough money or time to prepare for a strike. It would just cost too much to get this done, and i dont think Dr. Bronner is going to throw more good money after bad. Now the employee groups will fight with each other on this board as anyone is well aware. When you get down to it though it doesnt ring right to me when i think of pilots from other airlines flying these airplanes. I dont want to lose my medical insurance or get what small pension i have reduced by the PBGC if there is a chapter 7 so i hope something can be worked out.
Pilot Pension Issue - Just the Facts
- Thread starter ISN
- Start date
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/22/2003 9:17:32 AM chipmunn wrote:
[P][SPAN class=BodyFont]Chip comments: There is a difference in that ALPA took two cuts just like the other unions, but now is being asked to take a third and very deep cut, whereas no other employee group is asked to share the same sacrifice.If the other groups were asked to take a third cut and terminate their pension plan than we would have the same situation. Furthermore, there are some members within the union that are asking for all defined benefit pension plans be eliminated because the company should be fair to all and not single out just one group.[BR][BR]Chip [/SPAN][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P] I gave at the office 10 years ago and it was ok just because I didnt have a union? You cant keep having it both ways here Chip. How come its all or nothing only when the pilots are involved? Your comments above are innaccurate since one group already HAS given their pension plan. Now what?[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/22/2003 9:17:32 AM chipmunn wrote:
[P][SPAN class=BodyFont]Chip comments: There is a difference in that ALPA took two cuts just like the other unions, but now is being asked to take a third and very deep cut, whereas no other employee group is asked to share the same sacrifice.If the other groups were asked to take a third cut and terminate their pension plan than we would have the same situation. Furthermore, there are some members within the union that are asking for all defined benefit pension plans be eliminated because the company should be fair to all and not single out just one group.[BR][BR]Chip [/SPAN][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P] I gave at the office 10 years ago and it was ok just because I didnt have a union? You cant keep having it both ways here Chip. How come its all or nothing only when the pilots are involved? Your comments above are innaccurate since one group already HAS given their pension plan. Now what?[/P]
OldpropGuy
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 185
- 8
[P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 3.75in"][FONT color=#000000][FONT size=3][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]The arrogant, self-important, it's-all-about-me, attitude of some is more than mind-boggling[/SPAN][/B][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]![/SPAN][/B][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"] Those who think their positions are all-important and irreplaceable should be reminded that the contract carriers are using low-time pilots and RJ's to replace your flying. Unfortunately, this strategy seems to be destined to continue into the future. This type operation seems so attractive that Jets-for-Jobs was fashioned, by the pilot group, to attempt to allow U pilots positions in these entry-level aircraft, rather than stop the outsourcing.[?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /][o][/o][/SPAN][/FONT][/FONT][BR][BR][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"][FONT color=#000000][FONT size=3]Once the cockpit door is closed there seems to be little relevance whether there are four hundred or forty passengers in the back of one's aircraft. The view out the windshield is much the same! [SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"][/SPAN][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"]Each and every passenger requires the safest, best possible service,[/B] regardless of the salary and retirement plan on the flight deck. Some say the larger planes do seem to taxi much slower as they creep along. It could be because the meter is running and clicking off much larger numbers than on the smaller ones, but I hope not.[o][/o][/FONT][/FONT][/SPAN][BR][BR][FONT color=#000000][FONT size=3][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]Those who demand a legislative solution to the pension funding appear to think US Airways is capable of delivering such. [/SPAN][/B][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]This seems much the same as demanding management reduce our taxes, stop abortions, or cure cancer. It is not unimaginable that the group, who still makes the most, after all they have already given, will still have to give more. This group ultimately has the most to lose should the airline not survive.[o][/o][/SPAN][/FONT][/FONT][BR][BR][FONT color=#000000][FONT size=3][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]Then there is the final threat, a strike![/SPAN][/B][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"] That should do it! It would appear that if one is to use this ultimate intimidation, then one must be an alternate plan of action. Liquidation certainly emerges as the executioner of that arrangement. It's all over with this final blow. [B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"]The End![/B] Even if, by some wonder the company did persevere after a strike, there would be no problem getting replacement pilots, with all the unemployed individuals out there. [B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"]Scabs were made a thing of the past when ALPA welcomed those from Eastern/Continental with open arms[/B][/SPAN][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][FONT face=Arial].[BR][BR][/FONT][/B][/FONT][/FONT][o][SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"][FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=3][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"][FONT class=ImportantWords]What is the solution if the company is to survive and make everyone happy? I don't have the answer. But, If one makes unachievable demands, one should not expect much.[/FONT][/SPAN][BR][BR]
[P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"][o][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2][/FONT][/o][BR][BR][BR]
[P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"][STRONG][/STRONG][/FONT][/SPAN][/o][/P]
fficeffice" /][o][/o][/SPAN][/FONT][/FONT][BR][BR][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"][FONT color=#000000][FONT size=3]Once the cockpit door is closed there seems to be little relevance whether there are four hundred or forty passengers in the back of one's aircraft. The view out the windshield is much the same! [SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"][/SPAN][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"]Each and every passenger requires the safest, best possible service,[/B] regardless of the salary and retirement plan on the flight deck. Some say the larger planes do seem to taxi much slower as they creep along. It could be because the meter is running and clicking off much larger numbers than on the smaller ones, but I hope not.[o][/o][/FONT][/FONT][/SPAN][BR][BR][FONT color=#000000][FONT size=3][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]Those who demand a legislative solution to the pension funding appear to think US Airways is capable of delivering such. [/SPAN][/B][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]This seems much the same as demanding management reduce our taxes, stop abortions, or cure cancer. It is not unimaginable that the group, who still makes the most, after all they have already given, will still have to give more. This group ultimately has the most to lose should the airline not survive.[o][/o][/SPAN][/FONT][/FONT][BR][BR][FONT color=#000000][FONT size=3][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]Then there is the final threat, a strike![/SPAN][/B][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"] That should do it! It would appear that if one is to use this ultimate intimidation, then one must be an alternate plan of action. Liquidation certainly emerges as the executioner of that arrangement. It's all over with this final blow. [B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"]The End![/B] Even if, by some wonder the company did persevere after a strike, there would be no problem getting replacement pilots, with all the unemployed individuals out there. [B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"]Scabs were made a thing of the past when ALPA welcomed those from Eastern/Continental with open arms[/B][/SPAN][B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"][FONT face=Arial].[BR][BR][/FONT][/B][/FONT][/FONT][o][SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"][FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=3][SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"][FONT class=ImportantWords]What is the solution if the company is to survive and make everyone happy? I don't have the answer. But, If one makes unachievable demands, one should not expect much.[/FONT][/SPAN][BR][BR][P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"][o
][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2][/FONT][/o][BR][BR][BR][P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"][STRONG][/STRONG][/FONT][/SPAN][/o
][/P]
C
chipmunn
Guest
A&P Tech:[BR] [BR]A&P Tech said: [SPAN class=BodyFont]I find it ironic that just a few weeks ago the IAM, CWA and AFA were the selfish ones if they voted "NO" on their individual give back contracts. Now that the shoe is on the other foot!!!!![BR][BR]Chip comments: There is a difference in that ALPA took two cuts just like the other unions, but now is being asked to take a third and very deep cut, whereas no other employee group is asked to share the same sacrifice. If the other groups were asked to take a third cut and terminate their pension plan than we would have the same situation. Furthermore, there are some members within the union that are asking for all defined benefit pension plans be eliminated because the company should be fair to all and not single out just one group.[BR][BR]Chip [/SPAN]
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
If the company imposes a contract (which is what this would be, a major change in the contract) under section 1113 of the bankruptcy code, the group upon which it is imposed is free to 1) accept it, or 2) initiate some form of "self help" (read that "strike").
Justaramper
Advanced
- Dec 15, 2002
- 218
- 0
Please explain to me how you can STRIKE under the Railway Labor Act because of these Pension Problems...?
Just went back and looked at a couple of posts from before "the vote" and thought this one might be of interest. I'm not going to take the time to edit and fill in new names, but I'm sure you can all make it sound releveant to this thread. It was originally posted under the CWA leader may cause company to shut down thread.[BR][BR][BR][SPAN]Jim Root and his letter is interesting since I understand he was at the bargaining table, agreed to the changes, and then endorsed the agreement.[BR][BR]Then he goes back to CLT and apparently ponders his decision and goes against his unions recommendation and now may set in motion a chain of events that could lead to the liquidation of US Airways.[BR][BR]US Airways has fought hard to prevent a total shut down of the company and Bronner has given an ultimatum. Either the IAM, CWA, & AFA join ALPA, the TWU units, and management in taking more cuts or the airline will shut its doors for good...putting those naysayers to bed for good.[BR][BR]Brooner and the creditors do not give a damn about Jim Root or 30,000 other employees and in fact the new GECAS agreement to provide required financing mandates the company not default on its bankruptcy financing agreements, but Root and others have put this accord in jeopardy.[BR][BR]If Root and others are successful say good bye to 30,000 jobs, you can cash your last pay check, say good bye to severance pay, so good bye to your medical/dental plan (which is still one of the best in the country), term pass, and a better than PBGC retirement. J4J, and recall rights. [BR][BR]People like Jim Root are setting the airline up for certain liquidation.[BR][BR]If the TA's are rejected I suggest all current US Airways employees file out their unemployment claim, look for government or free clinic medical care, and put their homes up for sale to prevent a foreclosure.[BR][BR]What's interesting about this is that jobs could be lost with either a yes or no vote. However, a yes vote buys a person some time to seek another job, keep employed while in the job hunt, keep medical insurance for your family, creditors off of your door step, and a roof over your head. [BR][BR]If a person doesn't want to work at US Airways under the new agreements they have a choice: go get another job, but to vote no and contribute to certain liquidation makes no sense at all. [BR][BR]Vote no and you will lose everything.[BR][BR]Personally, I believe in today's economic environment it is a huge mistake to call Bronner's bluff, who is the only game in town.[BR][BR]Chip[BR][BR]I realize the situation in this thread is a little different than what caused this original thread, but the underlying sentiment is still the same. Better think long and hard.....[BR][BR][BR][/SPAN]
cockroach club
Newbie
- Dec 14, 2002
- 7
- 0
A legislative solution is not the answer here.
The taxpayers have already bailed out this company far more than they should have. Starting with the money after the terrorist attacks, and up through today, where my tax dollars are guaranteeing loans to bail out a company which went bankrupt through mismanagement. The same mismanagement will ultimately force my tax dollars to be used to bail out the secured lenders.
the whole situation is galling. In the latest press release from USAirways, they say "The company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Aug. 11, 2002, after the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks led to almost $2 billion in losses in the subsequent four quarters of operation." This is at best disingenuous, at worst fraudulent. While there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks impacted US, most of the $2 billion would have been lost anyway, as revenues couldn't keep pace with the exorbitant expenses. In short, Bin Ladin wasn't responsible for paying pilots $300K per year plus (huge) benefits, and he wasn't responsible for the terrible marketing decisions made by this company either.
The company can't afford the pension benefits currently being lavished on the pilots. Its not up to the taxpayers to make the pilots whole. Either negotiate or shut it down. As a consumer, I'll still have palatable alternatives. I don't know about the employees, but don't look for the taxpayers to make you whole (again).
The taxpayers have already bailed out this company far more than they should have. Starting with the money after the terrorist attacks, and up through today, where my tax dollars are guaranteeing loans to bail out a company which went bankrupt through mismanagement. The same mismanagement will ultimately force my tax dollars to be used to bail out the secured lenders.
the whole situation is galling. In the latest press release from USAirways, they say "The company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Aug. 11, 2002, after the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks led to almost $2 billion in losses in the subsequent four quarters of operation." This is at best disingenuous, at worst fraudulent. While there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks impacted US, most of the $2 billion would have been lost anyway, as revenues couldn't keep pace with the exorbitant expenses. In short, Bin Ladin wasn't responsible for paying pilots $300K per year plus (huge) benefits, and he wasn't responsible for the terrible marketing decisions made by this company either.
The company can't afford the pension benefits currently being lavished on the pilots. Its not up to the taxpayers to make the pilots whole. Either negotiate or shut it down. As a consumer, I'll still have palatable alternatives. I don't know about the employees, but don't look for the taxpayers to make you whole (again).
genejockey
Advanced
- Aug 22, 2002
- 157
- 0
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/22/2003 8:40:22 AM Retired1 wrote:
[P]genejockey---The company does not have enough money or time to prepare for a strike. It would just cost too much to get this done, and i dont think Dr. Bronner is going to throw more good money after bad. Now the employee groups will fight with each other on this board as anyone is well aware. When you get down to it though it doesnt ring right to me when i think of pilots from other airlines flying these airplanes. I dont want to lose my medical insurance or get what small pension i have reduced by the PBGC if there is a chapter 7 so i hope something can be worked out.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]At this point, I am sure everyone wants the pension issues to be resolved. Every labor group has already given so much that is would be a shame to end it this late in the game. As for preparation for a strike, you may be right, but I can guarantee you that my ex-Delta pilot buddy was told about U being in the process of "compiling a nationwide list of furloughed pilots". What does this mean? It sure sounds like some preparation to me. I believe that there are approximately 1,700 U pilots on furlough, and at least 10,000 nationwide. One must seriously consider the possiblities with that kind of eager talent pool. I personally believe that every pilot knew that the real monkey on U's back was the underfunded pension. Is that why ALPA was so quick to be the first union agreeing to enormous concessions? Who was it that constantly said "agree to concessions now and live to fight another day"? If you don't like it....leave. etc, etc, etc. My how the hypocracy and arogance has run amuck. Best of luck to all. This is going to get very interesting.
![P]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5B%2FP%5D&hash=87aeb4f47b95cce5872086cef0a1f699)
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/22/2003 8:40:22 AM Retired1 wrote:
[P]genejockey---The company does not have enough money or time to prepare for a strike. It would just cost too much to get this done, and i dont think Dr. Bronner is going to throw more good money after bad. Now the employee groups will fight with each other on this board as anyone is well aware. When you get down to it though it doesnt ring right to me when i think of pilots from other airlines flying these airplanes. I dont want to lose my medical insurance or get what small pension i have reduced by the PBGC if there is a chapter 7 so i hope something can be worked out.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]At this point, I am sure everyone wants the pension issues to be resolved. Every labor group has already given so much that is would be a shame to end it this late in the game. As for preparation for a strike, you may be right, but I can guarantee you that my ex-Delta pilot buddy was told about U being in the process of "compiling a nationwide list of furloughed pilots". What does this mean? It sure sounds like some preparation to me. I believe that there are approximately 1,700 U pilots on furlough, and at least 10,000 nationwide. One must seriously consider the possiblities with that kind of eager talent pool. I personally believe that every pilot knew that the real monkey on U's back was the underfunded pension. Is that why ALPA was so quick to be the first union agreeing to enormous concessions? Who was it that constantly said "agree to concessions now and live to fight another day"? If you don't like it....leave. etc, etc, etc. My how the hypocracy and arogance has run amuck. Best of luck to all. This is going to get very interesting.
savyinvestor
Senior
- Jan 15, 2003
- 494
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/22/2003 10:44:44 AM cockroach club wrote:
A legislative solution is not the answer here.
The taxpayers have already bailed out this company far more than they should have. Starting with the money after the terrorist attacks, and up through today, where my tax dollars are guaranteeing loans to bail out a company which went bankrupt through mismanagement. The same mismanagement will ultimately force my tax dollars to be used to bail out the secured lenders.
the whole situation is galling. In the latest press release from USAirways, they say "The company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Aug. 11, 2002, after the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks led to almost $2 billion in losses in the subsequent four quarters of operation." This is at best disingenuous, at worst fraudulent. While there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks impacted US, most of the $2 billion would have been lost anyway, as revenues couldn't keep pace with the exorbitant expenses. In short, Bin Ladin wasn't responsible for paying pilots $300K per year plus (huge) benefits, and he wasn't responsible for the terrible marketing decisions made by this company either.
The company can't afford the pension benefits currently being lavished on the pilots. Its not up to the taxpayers to make the pilots whole. Either negotiate or shut it down. As a consumer, I'll still have palatable alternatives. I don't know about the employees, but don't look for the taxpayers to make you whole (again).
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree 100%. Suggest you contact your senator if he is on the finance committee or senators Grassley and Baucus. They have e-mail addresses where you can voice your objections. This issue needs to be resolved within the company . Every time some company has a problem they shouldn't be able to have the Feds bail them out. I didn't disagree with the $billion dollar loan guarantee , but this is going too far. It will only encourage others to underfund and put other pensions at risk IMHO. The company has told them they will have a pension and even if its less its better than nothing. I see folks with no pensions or pensions so small they might as well not have one and they have been working for years with no nest egg available to them. I do hope this gets resolved, but only internally. Savy
----------------
On 1/22/2003 10:44:44 AM cockroach club wrote:
A legislative solution is not the answer here.
The taxpayers have already bailed out this company far more than they should have. Starting with the money after the terrorist attacks, and up through today, where my tax dollars are guaranteeing loans to bail out a company which went bankrupt through mismanagement. The same mismanagement will ultimately force my tax dollars to be used to bail out the secured lenders.
the whole situation is galling. In the latest press release from USAirways, they say "The company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Aug. 11, 2002, after the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks led to almost $2 billion in losses in the subsequent four quarters of operation." This is at best disingenuous, at worst fraudulent. While there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks impacted US, most of the $2 billion would have been lost anyway, as revenues couldn't keep pace with the exorbitant expenses. In short, Bin Ladin wasn't responsible for paying pilots $300K per year plus (huge) benefits, and he wasn't responsible for the terrible marketing decisions made by this company either.
The company can't afford the pension benefits currently being lavished on the pilots. Its not up to the taxpayers to make the pilots whole. Either negotiate or shut it down. As a consumer, I'll still have palatable alternatives. I don't know about the employees, but don't look for the taxpayers to make you whole (again).
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree 100%. Suggest you contact your senator if he is on the finance committee or senators Grassley and Baucus. They have e-mail addresses where you can voice your objections. This issue needs to be resolved within the company . Every time some company has a problem they shouldn't be able to have the Feds bail them out. I didn't disagree with the $billion dollar loan guarantee , but this is going too far. It will only encourage others to underfund and put other pensions at risk IMHO. The company has told them they will have a pension and even if its less its better than nothing. I see folks with no pensions or pensions so small they might as well not have one and they have been working for years with no nest egg available to them. I do hope this gets resolved, but only internally. Savy
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/21/2003 4
37 PM mrplanes wrote:
[P]Oldie:[BR][BR]pitguy is not buying it. He doesn't get the fact that we who have worked here for 25/35 years have plenty to fall back on if we lose the medical etc.... . I fully agree that this group has FINALLY found the galvanizing issue. If Dave does not honor his committment made in LOA 84 we WILL stop flying these jets. And then the ball is in his court. The MEC has told him they will NOT agree to a termination. UNANIMOUSLY. That is extremely strong because many of those guys were willing to give up most anything to keep this ship afloat. No longer. You, I and about 95% of the group still on this property will not fly these jets unless he lives up to his promise.[BR][BR]I hope Dave doesn't see the world the same way pitguy does. If he thinks we are bluffing the superb work he has done thus far will be lost. We (all employee groups) have given him the tools to have a serious airline. If he screws this pension issue up and doesn't live up to his committment he will find a bunch of airplanes that will be keeping company with the rest of our fleet in Mojave. And you and I and the other 95% will be retiring early. And those that think we won't do it are seriously underestimating us and our resolve.[BR][BR]mr[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]The only way you can stop flying is if you quit, you can'w wildcat, you cant sickout you cant cause a slowdown, let me just say AA, Reno and APA. You are backed into a corner and you can't win. Take your lumps like the rest of us and face it.
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/21/2003 4
37 PM mrplanes wrote: [P]Oldie:[BR][BR]pitguy is not buying it. He doesn't get the fact that we who have worked here for 25/35 years have plenty to fall back on if we lose the medical etc.... . I fully agree that this group has FINALLY found the galvanizing issue. If Dave does not honor his committment made in LOA 84 we WILL stop flying these jets. And then the ball is in his court. The MEC has told him they will NOT agree to a termination. UNANIMOUSLY. That is extremely strong because many of those guys were willing to give up most anything to keep this ship afloat. No longer. You, I and about 95% of the group still on this property will not fly these jets unless he lives up to his promise.[BR][BR]I hope Dave doesn't see the world the same way pitguy does. If he thinks we are bluffing the superb work he has done thus far will be lost. We (all employee groups) have given him the tools to have a serious airline. If he screws this pension issue up and doesn't live up to his committment he will find a bunch of airplanes that will be keeping company with the rest of our fleet in Mojave. And you and I and the other 95% will be retiring early. And those that think we won't do it are seriously underestimating us and our resolve.[BR][BR]mr[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]The only way you can stop flying is if you quit, you can'w wildcat, you cant sickout you cant cause a slowdown, let me just say AA, Reno and APA. You are backed into a corner and you can't win. Take your lumps like the rest of us and face it.
autofixer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,804
- 241
Biffeman, The pilots have taken their lumps...twice lately and many times in the last 10 years. So they wildcat? It will be ALPA's problem then. Assuming a wildcat walkout, if U pilots are out of work after U shuts down, how will ALPA get any assesment out of them? ALPA helped get the pilots into this situation by being stupid!
People on this board are fond of saying, "quit if you don't like it!" You may just see several thousand six figure pilots just do that. I hope you can replace your five figure income and benefits soon.
People on this board are fond of saying, "quit if you don't like it!" You may just see several thousand six figure pilots just do that. I hope you can replace your five figure income and benefits soon.
