RETIREMENT

[JABORD]

Hey pal,its obvious your so blinded by your hate for Bob that you can't express yourself without sounding like a nutjob! Here's Bob supplying us with info that we all have an interest in and all you can contribute is some personal hate!?

 

[FWAAA]

Called th PBGC today and here is what they explained to me. First off is you cant go by the maximum tables to find out what you might get or if you are safe, you can only find out what you wont get. You will not get anything more than what the chart states. So if you are getting or have already earned more than $54000 you are SOL, you will not get a check for more than $4500/month from the PBGC and it could even be less than that.

Agree.

The Age column has nothing to do with your age when they terminate the plan, it has to do with when you start collecting, for instance for plans terminating in 2011 under Straight life annuity no one would get more than $2925 a month if they start collecting at 60, or more than $4500 a month if they wait till 65. Our plan only allows us to start collecting at 55 so for us the numbers under 55 are useless.

This info is correct unless you're already in pay status (retired and collecting a check) when the plan is deemed to terminate. If you have not yet begun collecting checks, then the PBGC info above is correct. But if you retired early and you're currently collecting a pension check from AA, your age in 2011 most certainly is relevant.

Now I'm 50 years old, under our current plan if I start collecting my pension at 60 or 65 and the plan is Frozen or terminate employment now, I would be entitled to $2317/month, way under both, ok, so I know I will not be affected by the cap, but that does not mean that I will get $2317 at 60 or 65. If the plan gets put in the PBGC we would all be sent an Estimated Benefit Letter, the figures in that letter would be based on a calcualtion that uses among other things,our age when the plan went to the PBGC AND may be reduced if the plan was underfunded. Depending on those things we could get much less. She said the PBGC could not state what we would get until they had the plans.

That's incorrect fear-mongering by the PBGC if that's what they told you. The PBGC guarantees regular retirement benefits up to the maximum guarantee caps. So if you're due a pension of $2,317/mo at 60 or 65, it doesn't matter how much or how little assets are in the plan's trusts: your basic benefit is guaranteed by the PBGC. Either someone is mistaken or the PBGC rep you spoke to is intentionally misleading in an attempt to fear-monger.

http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits.html

I dont know what the company is basing their claims on and the PBGC really cant tell us what we would get until they get the pension. So what it comes down to is do you trust American Airlines? We do know that those who went before us, and made around the same as us report that their pensions were reduced quite a bit.

That's because those employees at other airlines are confusing the amount they had projected they would get at 60 or 65 (had the plans not been frozen or terminated) with the amount they had already earned (obviously a much smaller, reduced monthly benefit). Their PBGC checks reflect the smaller amount (like your $2,317 example) which is the earned amount if you terminated employement or the plan terminated. I assume that your pension, if you worked to age 60 (and the plan continued ten more years) would be substantially larger than than the $2,317/mo amount that you have already earned. I think you understand the difference but I think the person you talked to at the PBGC is confusing the two (perhaps intentionally). Looks like intentional fear-mongering by the government.

The PBGC doesn't get to decide whether a plan is terminated in a distress termination. The PBGC even admits that on their own website:

a petition has been filed seeking reorganization in bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court (or an appropriate state court) has determined that the company will not be able to reorganize with the plan intact and approves the plan termination;

http://www.pbgc.gov/prac/terminations/distress-terminations.html

The bankruptcy court (not the PBGC) decides whether an employer is permitted to terminate their plan. Of course, the PBGC really doesn't want AA to terminate their plans, and so we've seen an intense public lobbying effort by the PBGC.

Note that 700UW is confusing the two. The fact is that his pension check will reflect the exact amount he would have received had he resigned employment the year the plan was terminated.

 

[TWU informer]

Hey pal,its obvious your so blinded by your hate for Bob that you can't express yourself without sounding like a nutjob! Here's Bob supplying us with info that we all have an interest in and all you can contribute is some personal hate!?

Ok so your opinion is that Bob should not have called the PBGC long ago and before making vote no videos when AA was telling everyone they would have to file Chapter 11 if they could not reduce cost.

Fine that is your opinion. But it damn sure is not HATE for Bob as I point out my belief that this is flawed leadership at its best.

Instead of accusing me of hate and being a nutjob, why not just explain why you do not think Bob should have called the PBGC long before today? It is a legitimate request from my keyboard. But I am not full of emotional ignorance. I am speaking from a simple logical perspective.

 

[Bob Owens]

GREAT... VOTE NO AND REQUEST A RELEASE.

They are bluffing

You should have called the PBGC, and knew that retirement at 55 would be costly or impossible, and any retirement age would be hit if underfunded, BEFORE you guided everyone to vote no and into this position to begin with.

So you are telling us that well after you lead us down this path, you finally called to get the facts.

UNREAL!
How in the hell can you sleep at night, knowing you guided us down this path, and did not get the PBGC facts until today.
That's criminal is you ask me!

My God man get a hold of yourself!!! You are ranting on every thread!

What does Vote No for the crappy TA have to do with whether or not the company filed BK?

Do you really think that Maint Labor costs are what put AA in BK? Do you believe that if the TA had passed that AA would not have filed?

When I look across from Hangar 10 at JFK to UPS I see guys making $50/hr, ok they are Freighters and some say we cant compare to them even though they are selling the same exact licenses and skillsets we are, ok then, lets look at an LLC, well just to the south of UPS is Jet Blue, they top out at $40/hr, UAL, well if the run an engine they get $38/hr, Delta, they are around, or soon will be, the same. We are the lowest paid on the airport and would have been if we signed that TA. If Jet Blue is a low cost carrier and they top out at $40/hr what does that make us?

If you believe that by turning down the TA that AA filed for Bankruptcy then why do you complain about the money you claim you lost because we rejected the TA? Or was it you figured that by taking all the money from the under 50 guys the company could avert BK?

 

[FWAAA]

If you believe that by turning down the TA that AA filed for Bankruptcy then why do you complain about the money you claim you lost because we rejected the TA? Or was it you figured that by taking all the money from the under 50 guys the company could avert BK?

Informer's position is not that the company filed Ch 11 because the TA was defeated; it's that the TA would have meant a payraise between the time of its ratification and the date the company gets what it wants in the bankruptcy (thru agreement or abrogation).

 

[FWAAA]

I had 17 Years at US when they terminated my pension as a Stock Clerk.

At age 50 I can collect $563 a month, as our plan had an 85 point plan and I could have retired then, if I wait till age 65 I will get around $900 a month, susbstantially reduced from what I would have collected if I retired and they didnt terminate the pension.

I am checking with my former Pension Rep to see what I actually lost and will post that info later.

You didn't lose anything. You simply weren't able to accrue additional benefits after the plan was terminated. Had you resigned from US when the plan was terminated, you would be entitled to the same $563 at 50 or around $900 at 65 - what 17 years of service were worth.

You're confusing what you had earned (the $563 or around $900) with what you would have earned IF you kept working for US until age 50 or 65 and IF the plans had not terminated.

 

[TWU informer]

Informer's position is not that the company filed Ch 11 because the TA was defeated; it's that the TA would have meant a payraise between the time of its ratification and the date the company gets what it wants in the bankruptcy (thru agreement or abrogation).

I wish I could understand why that point is impossible for some to grasp.
I have posted over and over and over, and they just keep twisting my point into their needed to position for defense of ignorance.

I was also wondering why Bob Owens just finally called the PBGC for the facts TODAY after all that has happened.
I would think that those PBGC facts should have been requested before you challenged AA to a Chalter 11 duel.
A defintely before you take your membership in this direction.

 

[JABORD]

Ok TI, wrap your'logical perpective' mind around this spot on post by the Oldguy:
OldGuy@AA Today, 02:22 PM

700UW, on 29 January 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Ok, who honestly believes if you voted the TA in, that AA would not have filed bankruptcy?

And do you actually believe if they did file that they wouldnt come after the Mechanic and Related?

If you answer yes to these questions, they you have no idea of how big business operates.

Exactly. I think the plan was to get the prefundingwith the T/A and then get the pension with BK. It is said our prefundingis protectedby language from BK so it seems the only way they can get that is if we agree to give it back. I can picture the fat cats in a roomat HDQgiving high fives and claiming total victory. I for one willvote to test the language and see if the prefunding is protected from BK. Justmy opinion.

 

[TWU informer]

Ok TI, wrap your'logical perpective' mind around this spot on post by the Oldguy:
OldGuy@AA Today, 02:22 PM

700UW, on 29 January 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Ok, who honestly believes if you voted the TA in, that AA would not have filed bankruptcy?

And do you actually believe if they did file that they wouldnt come after the Mechanic and Related?

If you answer yes to these questions, they you have no idea of how big business operates.

Exactly. I think the plan was to get the prefundingwith the T/A and then get the pension with BK. It is said our prefundingis protectedby language from BK so it seems the only way they can get that is if we agree to give it back. I can picture the fat cats in a roomat HDQgiving high fives and claiming total victory. I for one willvote to test the language and see if the prefunding is protected from BK. Justmy opinion.

They have no idea what would be different or not if the T/A had passed.
That is simple justification because they voted no and now the "S" hit the fan on them.

I have no idea what would or would not happen. I am simply stating my case and being honest about my thoughts, and those thoughts are being weighed against those are trying to tell people what they want to hear, regardless of not being factual information and nothing more than conjecture.

I have simply been telling them all along that voting NO was futile and they would not get a better deal than what was before them.
If you have not noticed, the company has all the cards at this table, we have nothing and never had.

That opinion without question has become true and is now fact, unlike their conjecture that it would not have mattered.

I will never accept that there was no difference either way. And I would have rather it been a YES vote and us be where we are now.

 

[Vortilon]

They have no idea what would be different or not if the T/A had passed.
That is simple justification because they voted no and now the "S" hit the fan on them.

I have no idea what would or would not happen. I am simply stating my case and being honest about my thoughts, and those thoughts are being weighed against those are trying to tell people what they want to hear, regardless of not being factual information and nothing more than conjecture.

I have simply been telling them all along that voting NO was futile and they would not get a better deal than what was before them.
If you have not noticed, the company has all the cards at this table, we have nothing and never had.

That opinion without question has become true and is now fact, unlike their conjecture that it would not have mattered.

I will never accept that there was no difference either way. And I would have rather it been a YES vote and us be where we are now.

We should take a vote to see if everybody that reads these boards understands TWU Informers position. In addition, if everybody understands that if they didn't vote yes on the last TA, then they were misinformed by Bob Owens!
Hang in there till Wednesday.........

 

[BoeingBoy]

You will not get anything more than what the chart states.

Not necessarily, but a better answer won't be available until sometime after the plan is terminated, the PBGC finds out exactly how much money is in the plan and they do the calculations. It depends on how much a given plan is underfunded and which PC class an individual employee is put in. Sounds like they were giving you the probable answer for your specific case and generalizing from that is a big mistake.

Also, a frozen plan is different than a terminated plan - the PBGC doesn't take over frozen plans so they are out of the equation. If an employee group has their plan frozen, they will get the benefit they've accrued up to the point the plan is frozen (barring a future bankruptcy or distress termination) + whatever they build up in any new DC plan.

Jim

 

[Mr Red]

I wish I could understand why that point is impossible for some to grasp.
I have posted over and over and over, and they just keep twisting my point into their needed to position for defense of ignorance.

I was also wondering why Bob Owens just finally called the PBGC for the facts TODAY after all that has happened.
I would think that those PBGC facts should have been requested before you challenged AA to a Chalter 11 duel.
A defintely before you take your membership in this direction.

Why don't you wonder why the International didn't get this info !!!!Like we've been telling you BOBs the one trying to get out!
One more time, the contract was more CONCESSIONS that would have hurt every airline union Negotiation!!!we are bottom feeders as far as pay and benifits,and we would still be if it had passed !

 

[enough already]

Why don't you wonder why the International didn't get this info !!!!Like we've been telling you BOBs the one trying to get out!
One more time, the contract was more CONCESSIONS that would have hurt every airline union Negotiation!!!we are bottom feeders as far as pay and benifits,and we would still be if it had passed !

But we would be bottom feeders with 16000 or so more in our pockets...

 

[700UW]

And dont you think the company's "ask" would be raised since you got that $16,000?

I have been through the process twice, we gave concessions in the first bankruptcy, only for them to ask for more three months later and threatened to shut us down if we didnt.

 

[700UW]

I suggest you read this:

Admin