OK, I'm seeing where you didn't understand the PBGC takeover of the pensions. For those of us on the bottom end of pay (basically, everyone except management and pilots), will receive just about the same pension as we had before. For the pilots, a totally different animal because of the A and B plans. The PBGC is giving us back the pension we would have received had we only flown for 20 years (or whatever amount a particular person had vested), but we stopped accruing from the time of takeover. The freezing of pensions at Delta are doing the exact same thing. They will retain what they have already earned but no more accrual. It will not be paid out until we hit retirement age, unless we were to specify differently which would make a big difference....just like the Delta pensions.
For the remaining years of service, we still have a 401K with company match (somewhat of a match).
My question for you is: what do you think the difference is between freezing a pension like they have at Delta and the PBGC freezing ours at the takeover of it? According to my sources (actual Delta flight attendants), there is no difference. If a 40 year old DL f/a has 20 years of service, although she may continue to work until 65, her pension accrual is locked in at 20 years. Same as UAL's. Neither group will be penalized for taking it early unless that person actually did request it earlier than 65 years of age.
Now let's talk about the potential UAL/CAL merger. Did you see this article yet? I'd post the whole article but it's by subscription only. You know how that is, right? 😀
Continental-United merger talk in the air
Analysts see advantages, but Cleveland could suffer
Peter Krouse
Plain Dealer Reporter
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The airline industry is ripe for consolidation, and one possible scenario has Continental Airlines merging with United Airlines.
At least that's the public speculation.
But does it make sense? And if it comes to pass, what would become of Continental's hub in Cleveland?
A merger between Continental and United "makes as much sense as any and more than most," says Michael Roach, an industry analyst and former founding president of America West Airlines.
It's a generally held belief, Roach said, that there are too many so-called legacy airlines still in business and that they're operating too many hubs. Legacy airlines are the large carriers that essentially predate deregulation and include Continental, United, U.S. Airways, American Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines.
A merger involving Continental makes sense, in part, because other combinations don't, Roach said. United and American won't fly because both are too big and have the only meaningful presence in Chicago.
And Northwest-United doesn't make sense because of their overlapping Pacific routes.
On the other hand, Continental and United appear to complement each other well from a route standpoint. Continental is strong in the South and into Latin America, while United has a powerful presence in the West and throughout Asia.
Neither Continental nor United would comment on the speculation. "We have repeatedly said that our preference is to grow alone and avoid some of the challenges of merging with other carriers," Continental spokeswoman Mary Clark said.
Still, talk of a Continental-United merger has "been kind of out there," said Helane Becker, an analyst with the Benchmark Co. in New York City, in part because United chairman Glenn Tilton has made it no secret that he believes the industry needs to consolidate.
So might the two airlines be discussing such a move now?