I can't belive you UA guys have such a wackey Non-Rev program. A retiree whos gotta get home for his Tee time or tend to his rose bushes has prioity over an employee trying to get to his JOB!! Makes no sense at all! You need a system like ours of FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE!
Retirees Shafted :shock:
- Thread starter ualflynhi
- Start date
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
AAmech,AAmech said:
Thanks for your opinion, every one has one .... etc...
The 'Seniority System' is the best system that I can think of.
Your selfish 'First Come - First Serve' attitude would leave your PaPa at the buss stop.
Respect your Mentors!!!
You will be one some day.
JMHO,
UT
TravelDude
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
UAL TECH,
I have respect for seniority and believe strongly that employees should get on the aircraft based on their seniority.
But, I also strongly believe that retirees should maintain flight benefits, although they should get on after active employees. As AAmech so cerrectly stated "A retiree whos gotta get home for his Tee time or tend to his rose bushes has prioity over an employee trying to get to his JOB!!" Employees have very restrictive amounts of vacation to get away from work for a trip, yet retirees lets see have...um how do you say it have all the time in the world.
I have respect for seniority and believe strongly that employees should get on the aircraft based on their seniority.
But, I also strongly believe that retirees should maintain flight benefits, although they should get on after active employees. As AAmech so cerrectly stated "A retiree whos gotta get home for his Tee time or tend to his rose bushes has prioity over an employee trying to get to his JOB!!" Employees have very restrictive amounts of vacation to get away from work for a trip, yet retirees lets see have...um how do you say it have all the time in the world.
UAL Retirees - How saddening and disappointing it is to hear that UAL would do this you. The majority of you made United the high flying airline it is and will continue to be. How wrong it is for a company to adjust your benefits that you had been planning on for retirement.
The cost of providing health insurance benefits to retired or active employees is getting ridiculous. General Motors is the biggest buyer of Viagra in the world, a GM car has more health coast then steel cost.
Give people something for free and they will use it. Make them pay for part of it and they will be excercise discresion. I know today's retirees were promised the world when UA hired then in the 1960's and early 1970's, time have changed. The bargain included a clause they never told you about, " as long as its not cost prohibitive". Health today is "cost prohibibtive" and UA is Ch 11. Every one got to help the cause, with no airline evryone gets the shaft, retired or active. If UA goes the way of Pan Am and Eastern, every one will be actively searching for new job or how to pay for their medicare supllemental coverage. Good Luck UA, may you fly high.
Give people something for free and they will use it. Make them pay for part of it and they will be excercise discresion. I know today's retirees were promised the world when UA hired then in the 1960's and early 1970's, time have changed. The bargain included a clause they never told you about, " as long as its not cost prohibitive". Health today is "cost prohibibtive" and UA is Ch 11. Every one got to help the cause, with no airline evryone gets the shaft, retired or active. If UA goes the way of Pan Am and Eastern, every one will be actively searching for new job or how to pay for their medicare supllemental coverage. Good Luck UA, may you fly high.
firstamendment
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 0
I was wondering when the "everything is peachy with our bankruptcy" rhetoric was going to end. Just wait until the DIP's start making unreasonable demands...oh, and don't forget what the govt will demand for the loan guarentee. Believe me, it will get ugly before any judge signs this baby off. I truely hope I am wrong on this one.
firstamendment
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey my friend, don't get so offensive. Do you personally own UAL? Not anymore. Whether you want to hear it or not, you guys have been acting as if all is wonderful with your bankruptcy. My post was a warning that it will probably get ugly and you know, it probably will. Why do you assume I am attacking your company? You're actions and words were childish.boeing787 said:
Yes, US Airways...yes the name changed from USAir millions of dollars ago thank you very much...did "dick it up" (btw, nice mouth there) but was force out early because of the bank deadline of the credit card establisher for US Airways. US Airways would not have had a credit card provider had they waited, so get your facts straight. It wasn't the marathon to get out that you make it.
If you want to walk around fairy land with gold dust about and big fat United logos dancing around in your head, than great. Just remember that all these financers have the say..you do not. It seems to me you guys would want to learn from us what happened in our Chapter 11...the real side..and how nasty and demanding those providing credit will be...but NO, you want to make it personal. So fine, the hell with your chapter 11. Hopefully, you're coworkers will understand where I was coming from on this one.
In otherwords, Learn from our mistakes and prepare yourself for possible confrontations with your DIP's and govt officials about your possible loan guarantee. When the demands come in, I promise you that your ceo will put any pressures on you that are placed on him.
And finally, did I wish UAL to be in bad shape when they leave chapter 11? Was ANYTHING said attacking the livelihood of your company? I even said I hoped I was wrong on the possibilty of things getting ugly. Where is saying "feeling peachy" an attack that warrants your venom? I feel you owe me an apology.
TravelDude
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
Here is the printed version of NewsReal related to AFA & Retiree Changes. Exactly like I have been saying all along we were all warned, AFA's claims of company deceit are bogus!
----------------------------------------------------
United Files Response to AFA Request for an Examiner
----------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 3, the Association of Flight Attendants
(AFA) filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to ask
for the appointment of an examiner to review the
circumstances leading up to United's decision to
seek modifications to retiree medical benefits,
which was announced on Jan. 14.
United filed a response to the AFA request in
Bankruptcy Court this morning stating that while it
does not believe an examiner is appropriate, if the
Court decides to appoint one, the facts will quickly
show that the AFA has known all along that changes
to retiree benefits were possible.
As the record shows, United repeatedly and
unconditionally told the company's employees and
their union representatives that there could still
be changes to retiree benefits in the future, even
for those employees who retired before July 1, 2003.
Some examples of United's communications presented
in the brief include:
* On the day the company filed for Chapter 11 in
December 2002, United posted 'Q&As' on SkyNet
advising all current and retired employees that the
company might have to reduce its retiree health
benefits;
* In March 2003, United's Section 1113 motion was
straightforward in cautioning that United was
continuing to analyze whether it might be necessary
to reduce retirees' medical benefits and reserving
the right to revisit the issue in the future;
* Also in March, the motion to approve the
Restructuring Agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised and approved, expressly reserved United's
right to seek changes under Section 1114 in the
future;
* Again in March 2003, the Bankruptcy Court's Order
approving those agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised, approved and jointly presented to the
Court, unequivocally reserved United's right to seek
changes under Section 1114;
* A May 7, 2003, letter from United to all of its
employees plainly stated that the company could not
guarantee that retiree benefits would not change in
the future for employees who retired before July 1,
2003, and reminded employees that United was
"seriously reviewing" these costs; and
* In August 2003, five months before United made
and announced the decision to seek retiree benefit
changes, United reaffirmed in open court that the
company would likely need to address its retiree
health costs.
In today's filing, United underscores that "the
AFA's leadership heard United's message, loud and
clear. And they conveyed this message to the AFA's
membership." It is an important fact that the AFA
on March 26, 2003, posted on its own web site a
'Q&A' for its membership that says in part:
"...a decision to retire before changes go into
effect will not guarantee you protection from
changes to the retiree medical benefit if the
company decides to petition the court to reduce
medical benefits for all retirees under Section
1114."
This Q&A remains on the AFA website today at
http://www.unitedafa.org/res/bankruptcy/benefits/eri
sa_45.asp
United's response describes the accusations and
actions by AFA's leadership as "irresponsible" and a
"disservice" to everyone at such a critical juncture
in the company's reorganization and in the midst of
the ongoing weak industry environment.
The interests of retirees are protected by the
Section 1114 process. The Bankruptcy Court is the
proper venue for this issue and the AFA has agreed
to serve as the authorized representative of the
retiree flight attendants in this process.
Ultimately, the Court will determine whether these
changes are necessary for United to successfully
reorganize and whether they are fair and equitable.
The document also states that the AFA was well aware
of the fact that United repeatedly told flight
attendants that retiree benefits could be modified.
In conclusion, United's response states that the
appointment of an examiner and the process it
entails would serve no constructive purpose. On the
contrary, it will only distract everyone from the
business of responsibly reorganizing the company.
The deadline for the AFA to respond to United's
filing is Feb. 18, 2004. The Court has scheduled a
hearing on this matter for Feb. 20, 2004 -- the same
day as the February Omnibus Hearing before the
Bankruptcy Court.
----------------------------------------------------
United Files Response to AFA Request for an Examiner
----------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 3, the Association of Flight Attendants
(AFA) filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to ask
for the appointment of an examiner to review the
circumstances leading up to United's decision to
seek modifications to retiree medical benefits,
which was announced on Jan. 14.
United filed a response to the AFA request in
Bankruptcy Court this morning stating that while it
does not believe an examiner is appropriate, if the
Court decides to appoint one, the facts will quickly
show that the AFA has known all along that changes
to retiree benefits were possible.
As the record shows, United repeatedly and
unconditionally told the company's employees and
their union representatives that there could still
be changes to retiree benefits in the future, even
for those employees who retired before July 1, 2003.
Some examples of United's communications presented
in the brief include:
* On the day the company filed for Chapter 11 in
December 2002, United posted 'Q&As' on SkyNet
advising all current and retired employees that the
company might have to reduce its retiree health
benefits;
* In March 2003, United's Section 1113 motion was
straightforward in cautioning that United was
continuing to analyze whether it might be necessary
to reduce retirees' medical benefits and reserving
the right to revisit the issue in the future;
* Also in March, the motion to approve the
Restructuring Agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised and approved, expressly reserved United's
right to seek changes under Section 1114 in the
future;
* Again in March 2003, the Bankruptcy Court's Order
approving those agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised, approved and jointly presented to the
Court, unequivocally reserved United's right to seek
changes under Section 1114;
* A May 7, 2003, letter from United to all of its
employees plainly stated that the company could not
guarantee that retiree benefits would not change in
the future for employees who retired before July 1,
2003, and reminded employees that United was
"seriously reviewing" these costs; and
* In August 2003, five months before United made
and announced the decision to seek retiree benefit
changes, United reaffirmed in open court that the
company would likely need to address its retiree
health costs.
In today's filing, United underscores that "the
AFA's leadership heard United's message, loud and
clear. And they conveyed this message to the AFA's
membership." It is an important fact that the AFA
on March 26, 2003, posted on its own web site a
'Q&A' for its membership that says in part:
"...a decision to retire before changes go into
effect will not guarantee you protection from
changes to the retiree medical benefit if the
company decides to petition the court to reduce
medical benefits for all retirees under Section
1114."
This Q&A remains on the AFA website today at
http://www.unitedafa.org/res/bankruptcy/benefits/eri
sa_45.asp
United's response describes the accusations and
actions by AFA's leadership as "irresponsible" and a
"disservice" to everyone at such a critical juncture
in the company's reorganization and in the midst of
the ongoing weak industry environment.
The interests of retirees are protected by the
Section 1114 process. The Bankruptcy Court is the
proper venue for this issue and the AFA has agreed
to serve as the authorized representative of the
retiree flight attendants in this process.
Ultimately, the Court will determine whether these
changes are necessary for United to successfully
reorganize and whether they are fair and equitable.
The document also states that the AFA was well aware
of the fact that United repeatedly told flight
attendants that retiree benefits could be modified.
In conclusion, United's response states that the
appointment of an examiner and the process it
entails would serve no constructive purpose. On the
contrary, it will only distract everyone from the
business of responsibly reorganizing the company.
The deadline for the AFA to respond to United's
filing is Feb. 18, 2004. The Court has scheduled a
hearing on this matter for Feb. 20, 2004 -- the same
day as the February Omnibus Hearing before the
Bankruptcy Court.
firstamendment
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 0
Fly, please don't start your BS. The reason your coworker should apologize is that he twisted my info. Again, you are twisting the info I wrote as well. Did I in anyway state that you guys didn't get along? Where the hell are your off the wall comments coming from? Did I say you guys weren't working together? Considering you are a f/a, you should be pissed at what happened to your retired f/a's. You call that helping to make your company stronger? WOW, with friends like you out there in this industry, who needs enemies? I'm sure your fellow f/a's thank you for their support.Fly said:firstamendment Posted on Feb 9 2004, 08:11 PM
lmaooooooooooooooooooooooo😀 😛 For what?? Because we actually try to get along with each other and work together to make this company stronger?
TravelDude
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
Ugh, read 2 posts up, NOTHING happened to them that they were not warned about. Both the company and their own union warned them.firstamendment said:
firstamendment
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 0
Regardless, that has nothing to do with the point that I was making with fly.TravelDude said:
The company should honor the agreement with the retired f/a's. That was signed and sealed, and they retired in good faith. Now if the company needs relief, they should modify contracts going forward to get the concession they need.
BTW, Firstadmendment, you do have an honest beef!!
BTW, Firstadmendment, you do have an honest beef!!
F/A's you should always read the Safe Harbor Disclaimer. UA said that all those who retired before July 1, 2003 would receive the full medical benefits that were in tact at the time. The safe harbor agreements almost always say that everything is subject to change due to changing business climate. You always need to read the Safe Harbor Disclaimer in everything that United does. United, in Chap. 11, has to bring its cost structure down in order to emerge from bankruptcy. United has downsized, outsourced, renegotiated leases and brought wages down along with reduced medical. The current employees are already paying more for their for their traditional health insurance. United currently has approximate 35,000 retired employees they are expensing. It is obvious that the DIP financers, JP Morgan and Citibank and the new application to the ATSB for the loan guarantee are requiring ALL retirees to be brought in line with the rest of the company. Like it or not this is the times we live in.
