Understanding sentiment and reaching the point of indifference- Par II

[LavMan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:41:16 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:15:03 PM LavMan wrote:

Sorry I am not like the french, I fought with my group and did not fold like ALPA has done.

Explain to me how ALPA and the Pilots can win?

Lets see, the judge does not terminate your penison:
1. Bronner pulls the DIP and US goes chapter 7 and your pension and your salary paying six figures is gone along with it.

2. The judge terminates your pension, you wildcat, get a restraining order slapped on you and a fine for millions just like what happened to the APA over at AA.
And U goes chapter 7 maybe and you lose your pension or they stay in business and you get the PBGC and a new DCP.

3. The judge terminates your pension and you mutually agree to something.

So explain to me how you can win?
----------------
[/blockquote]
What about:
4. The judge keeps the pension intact, and management is forced to negotiate an agreeable way to finance the terms of it until the economy recovers, or section 6 negotiations change it.

Seems to me like this is the most likely outcome from all the news I've heard. U is NOT in this pension dilemma alone. Congress has got ot allow some kind of creative refinancing to ALL companies which have this problem. I'm sure that if the comapny were to approach ALPA with GOOD FAITH negotiations that something could be accomplished. Instead, they again threaten labor with the "liquidation" gun to it's head. Some "labor friendly" management this is!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, Oldie, Oldie,
Section 6 negotiations will not happen, your contract is not amendable until 2008 like the rest of the labor groups, the company does not have to negotiate under section 6.

I personally hope ALPA and U come to an agreement and both sides stop thumping their chests. The reality is US does not have the money to pay $2.1 billion over the next seven years to fund your pension and pay back $1 Billion in the ATSB loan, and operate the business, that is plain and simple.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:15:03 PM LavMan wrote:

Sorry I am not like the french, I fought with my group and did not fold like ALPA has done.

Explain to me how ALPA and the Pilots can win?

Lets see, the judge does not terminate your penison:
1. Bronner pulls the DIP and US goes chapter 7 and your pension and your salary paying six figures is gone along with it.

2. The judge terminates your pension, you wildcat, get a restraining order slapped on you and a fine for millions just like what happened to the APA over at AA.
And U goes chapter 7 maybe and you lose your pension or they stay in business and you get the PBGC and a new DCP.

3. The judge terminates your pension and you mutually agree to something.

So explain to me how you can win?
----------------
[/blockquote]
What about:
4. The judge keeps the pension intact, and management is forced to negotiate an agreeable way to finance the terms of it until the economy recovers, or section 6 negotiations change it.

Seems to me like this is the most likely outcome from all the news I've heard. U is NOT in this pension dilemma alone. Congress has got ot allow some kind of creative refinancing to ALL companies which have this problem. I'm sure that if the comapny were to approach ALPA with GOOD FAITH negotiations that something could be accomplished. Instead, they again threaten labor with the "liquidation" gun to it's head. Some "labor friendly" management this is!

 

[PITbull]

I think in our agreements, we can submit the "openers" 6 months in advance of the amendable date.

You know, as well as I, that this mangement has no incentive to come to the table. They took everything away; there in no hurry to give anything back.

 

[Zephyr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 1:27:41 PM pit76dr wrote:

Zephyr:

Agreed!

One very important thing I missed in my previous post -- we absolutely MUST -- MUST -- MUST hire a professional negotiating team when further talks become necessary.

Dana
----------------
[/blockquote]


To adopt the premise of “talksâ€￾ is to ignore what is written down already. The MEC needs to Quit buying the premise that your contracts are no longer valid, and therefore need to be amended. You have your contract (As pitiful as it is, do you even get AirTran wages?).

You don’t need professional negotiators. (You can’t negotiate with someone that offers to let your wife live if you will sacrifice your children.)

You need an MEC with cajones. Go fly the line.

Do what ya gotta do.

And don’t you ever answer your phone on your off day!!

 

[PITbull]

Amendable dates for all agreements is THROUGH 2008; Dec. 31, 2008.

 

[LavMan]

Pit, it actually becomes amendable 60 days prior to that date, both sides have to submit their section 6 openers to each other.

 

[LavMan]

PitBull, we actually have built in raises with higher percentages in the Mechanic and Related agreement for every year it goes past the amendable date.

 

[savyinvestor]

Oldie may be right. Look for congress to ride in on their white horses and save ALPA. I think the move would be wrong, but I'm sure they're working that angle night and day. Savy

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 212 PM LavMan wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:41:16 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 2:15:03 PM LavMan wrote:

Sorry I am not like the french, I fought with my group and did not fold like ALPA has done.

Explain to me how ALPA and the Pilots can win?

Lets see, the judge does not terminate your penison:
1. Bronner pulls the DIP and US goes chapter 7 and your pension and your salary paying six figures is gone along with it.

2. The judge terminates your pension, you wildcat, get a restraining order slapped on you and a fine for millions just like what happened to the APA over at AA.
And U goes chapter 7 maybe and you lose your pension or they stay in business and you get the PBGC and a new DCP.

3. The judge terminates your pension and you mutually agree to something.

So explain to me how you can win?
----------------
[/blockquote]
What about:
4. The judge keeps the pension intact, and management is forced to negotiate an agreeable way to finance the terms of it until the economy recovers, or section 6 negotiations change it.

Seems to me like this is the most likely outcome from all the news I've heard. U is NOT in this pension dilemma alone. Congress has got ot allow some kind of creative refinancing to ALL companies which have this problem. I'm sure that if the comapny were to approach ALPA with GOOD FAITH negotiations that something could be accomplished. Instead, they again threaten labor with the "liquidation" gun to it's head. Some "labor friendly" management this is!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, Oldie, Oldie,
Section 6 negotiations will not happen, your contract is not amendable until 2008 like the rest of the labor groups, the company does not have to negotiate under section 6.

I personally hope ALPA and U come to an agreement and both sides stop thumping their chests. The reality is US does not have the money to pay $2.1 billion over the next seven years to fund your pension and pay back $1 Billion in the ATSB loan, and operate the business, that is plain and simple.

----------------
[/blockquote]
UM, WRONG!
By mutual agreement the contract CAN be changed. It JUST HAPPENED! Where were you? Sorry, I still believe that negotiating something WILL happen. All that Judge Mitchell has to do is explain to management that they have to negotiate a change rather than impose one. You would see a quick change on the part of management, and it would probably be something on the lines of a video tape on Al-Jazeera. The world would be collapsing, and liquidation immenent, unless the pilots took a huge reduction in retirement. I'm not buying it. They knew all along that they were going to go after this, even while ensuring everyone that the carnage was over. What ever happened to honesty and integrity? I guess they stopped teaching those courses at the Harvard Business School. I think ALPA should, once they win this, approach the judge about the GOOD FAITH agreement management made not to pursue larger cuts from ANY labor group, and make 'em sweat by getting the earlier TA (now contract) set aside. The truth of this entire matter is that management is being opportunistic in it's approach on ALL of the labor issues. There has to be a creative solution to this problem, and getting ALPA and the company together could just find it. By the way, the PBGC, in their statement, says that just because THIS plan the company has prepared does not allow for funding, that if there is ANY plan that can, then the pension is NOT to be terminated. Therefore, even if 100% of ALL profits (after repayment of ATSB loan) go to the pension fund, it MUST NOT be terminated. So, all the judge has to do is insist that the pension be continued and either this Debtor-in-possession (Dave's management team) or the next one will have to find a way.

 

[PITbull]

Yea, we all do...3%.

Medcical will be so high by then, along with the co-pays and deductables, scripts as well, that those raises will be absorbed by the medical costs.

No, I don't see any real financial future in this business anymore. Longer I stay, the more I regress financially. I am staying for the three years of pension accrual left. However, doesn't stop me from looking for something else in the meantime. Somewhere down this road I will be participating in a Vol. furlough. Have a feeling U is going to be offering this every year. Currently, the f/a group is on VOL. furlough #4.

If I were wealthy, I would be a lobbyist for Labor on the HILL. I would love to spend my life giving them S%$#T. This management would love to see my ### gone, yesterday. Buttttttt, I ain't leaving yet.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 339 PM savyinvestor wrote:

Oldie may be right. Look for congress to ride in on their white horses and save ALPA. I think the move would be wrong, but I'm sure they're working that angle night and day. Savy
----------------
[/blockquote]
Congress wouldn't just be saving ALPA, but American Industry as well. The rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" is growing into a canyon. The company is basically trying to argue that pensions are not necessary for today's worker, and are therefore a "luxury" which the company cannot afford. Is the American approach to career employment supposed to be something analogous to the idea of once a person is too old to work, you just walk them onto the icecap and leave them to die? Apparently Dave and Mr. Bronner think so. My feeling is that, with the dire nature and deep impact of this situation (not just at U, but throughout the U.S.), Congress will eventually allow some "stretching out" of the pension obligations. This may include some kind of caveat requiring more a more rapid repayment schedule for certain levels of profitability.

 

[Upsgnr]

Oldie-

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the pilots making a decent wage and receiving some matching funds from the company to prepare for retirment.

I don't think corporate is telling anyone to take a "Snow Walk". I just think they are saying that they have a huge unfunded pension liability, and under no reasonable revenue forecast do they have a snowball's chance of coming up with the funds to make up this deficit.

Was the pension a promise, yes , a promise based on a revenue model that no longer exists.

 

[chipmunn]

Ups:

The restoration funding proposal is not for the government to take over, in fact it's just the opposite.

If on March 31 the pilot pension plan is "distress terminated", the federal government and the taxpayer would have to fund the PBGC payouts.

However, if the company's restoration funding proposal is approved then US Airways would fund the pilot retirement plan.

This is a valid argument and according to the PBGC's former General Counsel, who wrote the current statute, testified in front of a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing, the restoration funding proposal is permitted in current PBGC guidelines.

To bad the current PBGC Executive Director and General Counsel disagree, otherwise we would not have this debate.

Chip

 

[Upsgnr]

PineyBob-

Good point about waiting until the airline turns a profit before considering any hard line in negotiations - how much did USairways lose last quarter, was it $300 million?

Remember also that in bankruptcy USairways wiped out the value of its shares for the shareholders. Isn't that the fundamental goal that a corporation is supposed to promote?

If the company is doing well that should of course flow through to the employees. Accounting 101 tells us that Revenue - Cost = +profit or - loss. I'm just amazed that anyone can take a hard line when the company is losing money hand over fist.

Consider the lessons of the past:

U.S. Steel -Bankrupt - PBGC takes over pension
LTV - Bankrupt- PBGC takes over pension
Bethlehem Steel - Bankrupt - PBGC takes over pension

USairways was a great company and can be great again, but only if all the parties recognize the dire situation the airline industry is in.

Oh, and if you think Uncle Sam is going to come to the rescue, I'd think again. Not only does he have a war to fight but he has a $300 billion dollar deficit.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/22/2003 5:58:31 PM Upsgnr wrote:

Oldie-

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the pilots making a decent wage and receiving some matching funds from the company to prepare for retirment.

I don't think corporate is telling anyone to take a "Snow Walk". I just think they are saying that they have a huge unfunded pension liability, and under no reasonable revenue forecast do they have a snowball's chance of coming up with the funds to make up this deficit.

Was the pension a promise, yes , a promise based on a revenue model that no longer exists.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You know what? I would LOVE to have some kind of company funded defined contribution plan, even more than a DFP. That way, when I leave, or the company gets mismanaged into oblivion (Dave still hasn't proven to me that he has ANY idea of how to run an airline, in fact, from what I've seen I really doubt it), I take it and go. It's like a big lump sum retirement plan, only it's already invested. The only problem is, we were NOT given this option, and most pilots at U are well past the halfway mark in their careers. For the company to now start whining about it's obligations to the people who built this company is absolutely shameful. If the company wants to end this liability, all they have to do is transition ALL pilots, presently working and retired, to a DCP by depositing enough money into each one's account to bring them to an investment level which guarantees their PROMISED level of financial security. Then, go ahead and end the plan. The problem is, they want the level to be but a small fraction of what the pilots worked for, and ALPA rightfully objects. ALL workers, ALPA or not, should strenuously object to what management is trying to do. If they do it now to the pilots, what's to stop them from doing it in say, 10 to 15 years, to any other plan?