mrfish3726
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 0
This Could Be Good Or Bad
- Thread starter mrfish3726
- Start date
Sorry Mr Fish, no real story here for United. This is what the actual pension board said yesterday😛ension pledge made
Insurer says airline employees, retirees to get basic benefits
By David Kesmodel, Rocky Mountain News
September 15, 2004
The nation's pension insurer said Tuesday it will guarantee basic pension benefits to employees and retirees at United Airlines and US Airways if their plans are dissolved, but it said the potential terminations point to a need for legal reforms.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a quasi-governmental agency, said it plans to ask Congress to revise the federal bankruptcy laws so workers' pensions are more secure.
Advertisement
Click Here!
The PBGC will propose such changes as allowing workers' pension claims to trump claims by unsecured creditors in bankruptcy-court proceedings. It also will call for companies to notify workers about the health of their pension plans within 30 days of a bankruptcy filing.
The agency "will protect workers' pensions, but we must have the tools going forward to require companies to meet their obligations," Executive Director Bradley Belt said in a statement. "We need fundamental reforms to improve the financial health of the defined-benefit pension system, to protect participants' benefits and to shore up the federal pension insurance program.
Mr Fish you will have to find something else to try and drag us down.
Insurer says airline employees, retirees to get basic benefits
By David Kesmodel, Rocky Mountain News
September 15, 2004
The nation's pension insurer said Tuesday it will guarantee basic pension benefits to employees and retirees at United Airlines and US Airways if their plans are dissolved, but it said the potential terminations point to a need for legal reforms.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a quasi-governmental agency, said it plans to ask Congress to revise the federal bankruptcy laws so workers' pensions are more secure.
Advertisement
Click Here!
The PBGC will propose such changes as allowing workers' pension claims to trump claims by unsecured creditors in bankruptcy-court proceedings. It also will call for companies to notify workers about the health of their pension plans within 30 days of a bankruptcy filing.
The agency "will protect workers' pensions, but we must have the tools going forward to require companies to meet their obligations," Executive Director Bradley Belt said in a statement. "We need fundamental reforms to improve the financial health of the defined-benefit pension system, to protect participants' benefits and to shore up the federal pension insurance program.
Mr Fish you will have to find something else to try and drag us down.
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 0
BASIC benefits, if UAL quits the pensions. Their only gauranteeing 6.8BL on 8.3BL owed is what I've seen. Best you can hope for is that they get this legislation in place before UAL does dump the pensions on the US taxpayer. Hold UAL's managements feet to the fire and tell them that enough is enough. But UAL will do all they can to do to get some relief thru the taxpayer since the government wouldn't bail them out. 
The PBGC is not an example of a "tax payer bailout." It is insurance. It's insurance that United Airlines didn't ask for, or even had a choice as to whether or not it could participate in it. It's an insurance policy that has the implied financial backing of the US Government. Every company with a pension had/has to pay a "premium" that is set by the PBGC. If the PBGC did not collect enough of a premium over the past decades to cover potential liabilities, then that is no one's fault except for the people that run the PBGC.
United is not asking for the US government to bail out their pensions or anyone elses'. The US government can choose not to do anything about the looming crisis over at the PBGC, just like they're doing nothing about the looming crisis, for example, concerning Social Security. That is their choice, not United's.
Congress can jump up and down, write letters, and get really, really mad. It doesn't matter. United's pensions are massively underfunded and there is simply no way a bankrupt airline can come up with the BILLIONS required to fund them. Congress can get mad at Tilton or the airline industry or whoever as much as they want. It still doesn't put a few extra billion dollars in United's coffers, and unfortuantely, in my opinion, the pensions will be greatly reduced if not terminated in the up and coming months.
By the way, an example of a tax payer bailout would be the ATSB loan that Frontier received (and United was denied), if you need an example of one. Claiming that the benefit of an insurance policy paid for by a beneficiary is a "bailout" is incorrect.
United is not asking for the US government to bail out their pensions or anyone elses'. The US government can choose not to do anything about the looming crisis over at the PBGC, just like they're doing nothing about the looming crisis, for example, concerning Social Security. That is their choice, not United's.
Congress can jump up and down, write letters, and get really, really mad. It doesn't matter. United's pensions are massively underfunded and there is simply no way a bankrupt airline can come up with the BILLIONS required to fund them. Congress can get mad at Tilton or the airline industry or whoever as much as they want. It still doesn't put a few extra billion dollars in United's coffers, and unfortuantely, in my opinion, the pensions will be greatly reduced if not terminated in the up and coming months.
By the way, an example of a tax payer bailout would be the ATSB loan that Frontier received (and United was denied), if you need an example of one. Claiming that the benefit of an insurance policy paid for by a beneficiary is a "bailout" is incorrect.
Sure they can UALDRIVER. They can get their millions back from Stephen Wolf and James Goodwin. These CEO's did not do their jobs or perform their fiduciary duties and the BOD's should not have honored their employment contracts when they were fired. Has anyone every heard of "nonperformance"? Let's see UA paid Stephen Wolf $12 million to leave United and $25 million for the failed merger with US Airways. United paid James Goodwin $5 million to leave, in addition to stock options to be cashed in at a certain price and and office with a secretary, plus a brand new white SUV. I think the return of these millions could go a long way in paying down the pensions. The employees should not be made to suffer at the hands of "corporate raiders". :angry: Another word for these men are "white collar criminals".
Dear MrsFish, I know how worried you are for all of us at United. I just want to put your little mind to rest and let you know that YES, those of us at United will be ok and that PBGC will guarantee our pensions (see, they even use the word: GUARANTEE in their name). I know this will ease your troubled soul.
_______________________________________________________________
Pension Benefit Guaranty Backs UAL, US Air Pensions >UAIR
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will guarantee the basic pension benefits for workers at UAL Corp. (NASDAQ-OTCBB:UALAQ)'s (UALAQ) United Air Lines (NASDAQ-OTCBB:UALAQ) and US Airways Group Inc. (NASDAQ-NMS:UAIR) (UAIR), if need be.
You can read the whole story here.
_______________________________________________________________
Pension Benefit Guaranty Backs UAL, US Air Pensions >UAIR
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will guarantee the basic pension benefits for workers at UAL Corp. (NASDAQ-OTCBB:UALAQ)'s (UALAQ) United Air Lines (NASDAQ-OTCBB:UALAQ) and US Airways Group Inc. (NASDAQ-NMS:UAIR) (UAIR), if need be.
You can read the whole story here.
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 0
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl...040915_8863.htm
By the way, an example of a tax payer bailout would be the ATSB loan that Frontier received (and United was denied), if you need an example of one. Claiming that the benefit of an insurance policy paid for by a beneficiary is a "bailout" is incorrect. If UAL quits their pension obligation, who else will back the nearly bankrupt PBGC?
Remember that every airline was given the same playing field and rules by the ATSB. They saw that F9 was not a risk, which by the way their loan was paid off years early. If United could have shown that they had a viable business plan then they would have gotten a loan also.
This is only MY opinion, but I think that the ATSB saw the inevetable return to BK at US and their possible default on the gauranteed loan. So they probably didn't want the embarassement of backing two arilines that were very good candidates of not repaying thier loan obligations.
They made two points in their final decision:
That due to what UAL had accomplished, they could probably emerge from BK without the ATSB loan. ????????????
And, denial of the loan to UAL is NOT a neccessary part of maintaining a safe, efficient, and viable commercial aviation system in the U.S. Put pretty bluntly UAL your on your OWN. Not many other ways to read that one.
By the way, an example of a tax payer bailout would be the ATSB loan that Frontier received (and United was denied), if you need an example of one. Claiming that the benefit of an insurance policy paid for by a beneficiary is a "bailout" is incorrect. If UAL quits their pension obligation, who else will back the nearly bankrupt PBGC?
Remember that every airline was given the same playing field and rules by the ATSB. They saw that F9 was not a risk, which by the way their loan was paid off years early. If United could have shown that they had a viable business plan then they would have gotten a loan also.
This is only MY opinion, but I think that the ATSB saw the inevetable return to BK at US and their possible default on the gauranteed loan. So they probably didn't want the embarassement of backing two arilines that were very good candidates of not repaying thier loan obligations.
They made two points in their final decision:
That due to what UAL had accomplished, they could probably emerge from BK without the ATSB loan. ????????????
And, denial of the loan to UAL is NOT a neccessary part of maintaining a safe, efficient, and viable commercial aviation system in the U.S. Put pretty bluntly UAL your on your OWN. Not many other ways to read that one.
😱ff: and your point is..........? You started this thread about PENSIONS...remember? You were proven wrong (AGAIN!), so you fell back on this garbage?
Only thing I can figure is that you're bitter because United furloughed you and now you have to work for a two bit airline that doesn't fly anywhere good. Regardless of what happens at United in the future, I can always remember all the wonderful places of the world I was fortunate enough to see. Where does F9 fly?
Only thing I can figure is that you're bitter because United furloughed you and now you have to work for a two bit airline that doesn't fly anywhere good. Regardless of what happens at United in the future, I can always remember all the wonderful places of the world I was fortunate enough to see. Where does F9 fly?
You're missing my point, Mr. Fish. I'm not arguing whether or not UAL deserved to be denied or approved for the ATSB loan approval. In fact, assuming that UAL exits bankruptcy one day, I think it is better for UAL long term that we were denied the loan guarantee. Now that we have been denied, it will make our management and the unions look at the long term viability of the airline and will force them to take the difficult steps necessary to accomplish the goal of avoiding the feast and famine cycles that have historically plagued our airline and the industry as a whole. If UAL exits bankruptcy, it will be a leaner machine in my opinion, due to the ATSB's denial.
You said this Fish: "Best you can hope for is that they get this legislation in place before UAL does dump the pensions on the US taxpayer. Hold UAL's managements feet to the fire and tell them that enough is enough. But UAL will do all they can to do to get some relief thru the taxpayer since the government wouldn't bail them out."
My point is that UAL did not dump the pensions on the US taxpayer. UAL dumped them on an insurance company, for which it paid a premium in order to cover this sort of catastrophe. UAL will not "do all they can to get some relief through the taxpayer." UAL (management and the judge overseeing the bankruptcy) could probably care less what happens to the pensioners or how their pensions are funded, and is certainly not looking to the taxpayer for any further relief as that has already been denied. That is the problem of a giant insurance company known as the PBGC.
If the taxpayer gets stuck bailing out the PBGC, so be it. The public has spoken. They want cheap seats with little restriction. The industry will have to change to meet the public's requirements, and there will be consequences. One of which may be to bail out the PBGC if they choose to. I think there will be other consequences for these market demands as time passes as airline operations are "outsourced to the lowest bidder who meets minimum FAA requirements" but I could be wrong. Time will tell I guess.
You said this Fish: "Best you can hope for is that they get this legislation in place before UAL does dump the pensions on the US taxpayer. Hold UAL's managements feet to the fire and tell them that enough is enough. But UAL will do all they can to do to get some relief thru the taxpayer since the government wouldn't bail them out."
My point is that UAL did not dump the pensions on the US taxpayer. UAL dumped them on an insurance company, for which it paid a premium in order to cover this sort of catastrophe. UAL will not "do all they can to get some relief through the taxpayer." UAL (management and the judge overseeing the bankruptcy) could probably care less what happens to the pensioners or how their pensions are funded, and is certainly not looking to the taxpayer for any further relief as that has already been denied. That is the problem of a giant insurance company known as the PBGC.
If the taxpayer gets stuck bailing out the PBGC, so be it. The public has spoken. They want cheap seats with little restriction. The industry will have to change to meet the public's requirements, and there will be consequences. One of which may be to bail out the PBGC if they choose to. I think there will be other consequences for these market demands as time passes as airline operations are "outsourced to the lowest bidder who meets minimum FAA requirements" but I could be wrong. Time will tell I guess.
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 0
Bus,
Thanks for the information!
Thanks for the information!
"Only thing I can figure is that you're bitter because United furloughed you and now you have to work for a two bit airline that doesn't fly anywhere good. Regardless of what happens at United in the future, I can always remember all the wonderful places of the world I was fortunate enough to see. Where does F9 fly?
Fly,
This was a very unclassy statement. If you have a beef with Mr. Fish, so be it, but there is no reason to slam a great little company that employs hundreds of furloughed UAL employees. BTW, you can find F-9's route map at www.flyfrontier.com, I think that you will find some fairly good destinations.
[post="180418"][/post]
[/quote]"Fly,
This was a very unclassy statement. If you have a beef with Mr. Fish, so be it, but there is no reason to slam a great little company that employs hundreds of furloughed UAL employees. BTW, you can find F-9's route map at www.flyfrontier.com, I think that you will find some fairly good destinations.
A pension bailout will come at a cost. First cost will be that those now working will get a substantial reduction in their benefit, the second cost could be the company itself. Anyone, that thinks the Fed's will gladly pay benefits to retired employee's and future retirements needs to reconsider. There is a lot at stake here. I for one think that Ual needs to look at a way of paying into the fund. It's funny how Tilton still gets his. What a jerk.
"If the taxpayer gets stuck bailing out the PBGC, so be it. The public has spoken. They want cheap seats with little restriction."
Somehow I fail to see, what the public has to do with this. Yes, they want cheap seats, so I guess the company will have to find a way to give them what they want, or offer such service that they are willing to pay more.
If a company is not able to offer seats that the public will pay for and still be able to pay its bills, then it must go to the big place in the sky.
The PBGC is indeed to insure pensions, but not to be used as a dumping ground for companies trying to cut cost, which is what UAL is trying to do. Now, if the UAL employees is willing to totally give up the retirement, ie divy up what remains between all, and cancel it going forward, that is certainly their choice.
Of course, UAL does have some very lucrative assets, that can be sold off for top dollar, however, as is understandable from UALs point of view, they are unwilling to do so. Having said that, it does remind you of someone wanting to keep both the Benz and the chalet in Aspen, but not being willing to pay the mortgage on the main house.
UAL aquired many of their most lucrative assets from carriers, that faced the exact same problem as UAL is now!
Somehow I fail to see, what the public has to do with this. Yes, they want cheap seats, so I guess the company will have to find a way to give them what they want, or offer such service that they are willing to pay more.
If a company is not able to offer seats that the public will pay for and still be able to pay its bills, then it must go to the big place in the sky.
The PBGC is indeed to insure pensions, but not to be used as a dumping ground for companies trying to cut cost, which is what UAL is trying to do. Now, if the UAL employees is willing to totally give up the retirement, ie divy up what remains between all, and cancel it going forward, that is certainly their choice.
Of course, UAL does have some very lucrative assets, that can be sold off for top dollar, however, as is understandable from UALs point of view, they are unwilling to do so. Having said that, it does remind you of someone wanting to keep both the Benz and the chalet in Aspen, but not being willing to pay the mortgage on the main house.
UAL aquired many of their most lucrative assets from carriers, that faced the exact same problem as UAL is now!
