spacewaitress
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 0
I wish the current retirees luck, but when is there going to be a decision on this? I can see it now...everyone BUT pilots and execs having their pensions cut. That is possible, yes? I can just see it now if that happens, it'll be jihad at UAL. The fun never ends here, or the surprises.
WEBSITE UPDATE 05/10/05
Judge Wedoff, on May 10, 2005 approved the United-Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) agreement regarding the need to terminate United Airlines’ four Defined Benefit Pension Plans. Judge Wedoff determined the United-PBGC agreement does not violate ERISA or the Railway Labor Act. He further concluded the agreement is in the best interests of United Airlines and that the benefits United will receive from the agreement balanced out what United agreed to provide to the PBGC.
This approval of the United-PBGC agreement does NOT terminate the Pilots’ Defined Benefit Pension Plan.
In fact, the United-PBGC agreement provides “the execution of the Trustee (PBGC) agreement with respect to the Pilots’ Defined Benefit Plan will occur only after the conclusion of the currently pending Pilot Plan involuntary termination litigation resulting in plan termination." This means URPBPA remains free to protect the plan and to contest the PBGC litigation to bring about a decision that does not result in termination.
No trial date has been scheduled for the involuntary plan termination litigation to commence. URPBPA will strongly defend the continuation of retired pilots' pension payments.
The 1113 hearings on United’s request to abrogate the IAM’s and AMFA’s collective bargaining agreements will commence on Wednesday, May 11, 2005.
May 12, 2005
Dear URPBPA Member,
We are receiving numerous questions concerning exactly what happened in Court on May 10. The confusion arises from reports in the press that all of United's Defined Benefit Pension Plans have been terminated as a result of the Judge's decision. THESE REPORTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! URPBPA's May 10, 2005 report to you via the website and e-mail is accurate. The United Airlines Pilots' Defined Benefit Pension Plan has NOT been terminated. It may be in the future, but not as of now. No one can predict the eventual outcome at this time.
The press walks out of a courtroom, phones in their version of the events, and has it on the air, in print, or on a website within minutes. They address only the major aspects of a court hearing, usually in a much-simplified form. Judge Wedoff's decision on May 10 covered a large number of issues; the press only reported on the most headline-worthy,
and they did not get those entirely correct. When URPBPA posts an update on our website or sends it to our members, we go to great lengths to make sure it is an accurate description of what happened and where we are. This is the reason it takes us several hours to get our website updates posted. They are being reviewed by our attorneys and Board members to insure their accuracy.
Judge Wedoff approved the UAL-PBGC agreement which permits the termination of the four plans. Absent reversal or stay by appeal of this ruling, UAL and the PBGC may administratively deal with the other plans, but the Pilot Plan will not be terminated unless there is a conclusion of the case (the "PBGC case") involving PBGC, United, ALPA and URPBPA which results in a termination of the Pilot Plan. In the PBGC case, the PBGC will attempt to prove that: 1) the pilot Plan should be terminated; and 2) the termination date should be effective as of December 30, 2004. URPBPA was allowed to intervene in the PBGC case and will fight the PBGC. URPBPA's position is that the Pilot Plan
should not be terminated. ALPA also intervened in the PBGC case and has indicated that it will "litigate forcefully" the December 30, 2004 termination date proposed by the PBGC and that United has agreed to support ALPA in that battle. No dates have been set yet for a resolution of the PBGC case, although we will be in court on May 20, 2005 to confer with the other parties and the Judge about the status of the case.
Your benefits will continue to be paid until and unless there is a resolution of the PBGC case that brings about a termination of the Pilot Plan. URPBPA will do everything it can to resist such a result and to protect the Pilot Plan.
Some of you have asked what URPBPA did to "vigorously defend" our position at the hearing on Tuesday. Two of our attorneys, Jack Carriglio and Frank Cummings, made oral arguments before the Judge. However, unlike Perry Mason stories, real cases, particularly civil cases, are largely resolved by submitting your arguments in written
form, called briefs. The judge reads the written material and frequently comes into court with a good idea of how he or she is going to rule. The oral arguments in open court focus on clarification of the judge's questions about the briefs, answering objections to other's briefs (most of Tuesday's session), last minute changes to positions, or
emotional appeals.
URPBPA filed a 14 page brief on 05-06-05 objecting to the PBGC agreement. (Judge Wedoff, like many judges, limits briefs to 15 pages unless special dispensation is given.) In addition, extensive reports from our actuary and investment advisor supporting our objections were filed with the court. These were filed "under seal", or without public
access, because they contain confidential data supplied by United. Our arguments, like the arguments of the AFA, IAM and AMFA, apparently were not persuasive, as the court found that the benefit to United's business from shifting pension obligations to the PBGC outweighed the damage to retirees and employees.
The URPBPA brief in its entirety is available on our website under the documents pull-down menu. It is labeled URPBPA Filing 05-06-2005. Finally, a number of you have asked why we can't report all of this in "simple, layman's language?" If you think this is complicated, it's because it is! These are complex legal issues, detailed in literally
hundreds of pages of written documents and hours of oral arguments. We try to make these communications understandable, but do not want to fall into the trap the media fell into in this case. We don't want to simplify at the risk of inaccurately reporting the situation.
WEBSITE UPDATE 05/10/05
Judge Wedoff, on May 10, 2005 approved the United-Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) agreement regarding the need to terminate United Airlines’ four Defined Benefit Pension Plans. Judge Wedoff determined the United-PBGC agreement does not violate ERISA or the Railway Labor Act. He further concluded the agreement is in the best interests of United Airlines and that the benefits United will receive from the agreement balanced out what United agreed to provide to the PBGC.
This approval of the United-PBGC agreement does NOT terminate the Pilots’ Defined Benefit Pension Plan.
In fact, the United-PBGC agreement provides “the execution of the Trustee (PBGC) agreement with respect to the Pilots’ Defined Benefit Plan will occur only after the conclusion of the currently pending Pilot Plan involuntary termination litigation resulting in plan termination." This means URPBPA remains free to protect the plan and to contest the PBGC litigation to bring about a decision that does not result in termination.
No trial date has been scheduled for the involuntary plan termination litigation to commence. URPBPA will strongly defend the continuation of retired pilots' pension payments.
The 1113 hearings on United’s request to abrogate the IAM’s and AMFA’s collective bargaining agreements will commence on Wednesday, May 11, 2005.
May 12, 2005
Dear URPBPA Member,
We are receiving numerous questions concerning exactly what happened in Court on May 10. The confusion arises from reports in the press that all of United's Defined Benefit Pension Plans have been terminated as a result of the Judge's decision. THESE REPORTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! URPBPA's May 10, 2005 report to you via the website and e-mail is accurate. The United Airlines Pilots' Defined Benefit Pension Plan has NOT been terminated. It may be in the future, but not as of now. No one can predict the eventual outcome at this time.
The press walks out of a courtroom, phones in their version of the events, and has it on the air, in print, or on a website within minutes. They address only the major aspects of a court hearing, usually in a much-simplified form. Judge Wedoff's decision on May 10 covered a large number of issues; the press only reported on the most headline-worthy,
and they did not get those entirely correct. When URPBPA posts an update on our website or sends it to our members, we go to great lengths to make sure it is an accurate description of what happened and where we are. This is the reason it takes us several hours to get our website updates posted. They are being reviewed by our attorneys and Board members to insure their accuracy.
Judge Wedoff approved the UAL-PBGC agreement which permits the termination of the four plans. Absent reversal or stay by appeal of this ruling, UAL and the PBGC may administratively deal with the other plans, but the Pilot Plan will not be terminated unless there is a conclusion of the case (the "PBGC case") involving PBGC, United, ALPA and URPBPA which results in a termination of the Pilot Plan. In the PBGC case, the PBGC will attempt to prove that: 1) the pilot Plan should be terminated; and 2) the termination date should be effective as of December 30, 2004. URPBPA was allowed to intervene in the PBGC case and will fight the PBGC. URPBPA's position is that the Pilot Plan
should not be terminated. ALPA also intervened in the PBGC case and has indicated that it will "litigate forcefully" the December 30, 2004 termination date proposed by the PBGC and that United has agreed to support ALPA in that battle. No dates have been set yet for a resolution of the PBGC case, although we will be in court on May 20, 2005 to confer with the other parties and the Judge about the status of the case.
Your benefits will continue to be paid until and unless there is a resolution of the PBGC case that brings about a termination of the Pilot Plan. URPBPA will do everything it can to resist such a result and to protect the Pilot Plan.
Some of you have asked what URPBPA did to "vigorously defend" our position at the hearing on Tuesday. Two of our attorneys, Jack Carriglio and Frank Cummings, made oral arguments before the Judge. However, unlike Perry Mason stories, real cases, particularly civil cases, are largely resolved by submitting your arguments in written
form, called briefs. The judge reads the written material and frequently comes into court with a good idea of how he or she is going to rule. The oral arguments in open court focus on clarification of the judge's questions about the briefs, answering objections to other's briefs (most of Tuesday's session), last minute changes to positions, or
emotional appeals.
URPBPA filed a 14 page brief on 05-06-05 objecting to the PBGC agreement. (Judge Wedoff, like many judges, limits briefs to 15 pages unless special dispensation is given.) In addition, extensive reports from our actuary and investment advisor supporting our objections were filed with the court. These were filed "under seal", or without public
access, because they contain confidential data supplied by United. Our arguments, like the arguments of the AFA, IAM and AMFA, apparently were not persuasive, as the court found that the benefit to United's business from shifting pension obligations to the PBGC outweighed the damage to retirees and employees.
The URPBPA brief in its entirety is available on our website under the documents pull-down menu. It is labeled URPBPA Filing 05-06-2005. Finally, a number of you have asked why we can't report all of this in "simple, layman's language?" If you think this is complicated, it's because it is! These are complex legal issues, detailed in literally
hundreds of pages of written documents and hours of oral arguments. We try to make these communications understandable, but do not want to fall into the trap the media fell into in this case. We don't want to simplify at the risk of inaccurately reporting the situation.
