US Pilots' Labor Discussion 10/27-11/?

[oscarjazz]

Having lived through it, I can honestly say you are totally wrong. The bankruptcy judge said that in his opinion the pilots' pension met the criteria for a distress termination. However, he went on to say specifically that he did NOT have the authority to terminate the plan.

Did you get that? Can I repeat: A federal bankruptcy judge said he did NOT have the authority to terminate the pilots' defined benefits plan.

That is why it had to be given away in the (literally) dark of the night by a bunch of ALPA reps who within the preceding day or two SWORE that it wouldn't happen without a pilot vote.

By the way: A federal bankruptcy judge does NOT have the authority to terminate an ERISA defined benefit plan. At least in the opinion of a real federal bankruptcy judge.

I don't know what to say, go read the ERISA law. My pension was terminated by a federal judge with no vote and no agreement from the pilots. My guess is that the judge said he didn't have the authority to come up with a new POR or the authority to come up with a follow on retirement plan or the authority to open Section 6, but the law specifically says that the judge is the only one that can distress terminate a plan.

The only way a retirement plan can be terminated by the pilots is by agreeing with the company in a normal termination. That can only be done if the assets in the plan are sufficient to pay off everyone 100%.

There is an anti cutback rule that prohibits an employee group from taking away earned benefits, even for active employees. That is why at Delta we couldn't stop the lump sum distributions, even though we saw it was killing the plan. Pilots that had earned the right for a lump sum could not have that right taken away from them, even if it was in their best interest.

What is your source for the judge's comments? Did you hear them, read them in a transcript, or was it I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy?

Given the other urban legends running around the East pilot group, I imagine this is another urban legend. Hence my advice to look at real sources and real data and not the crew room wisdom. The amount of misinformation in this group is astounding.

 

[ClueByFour]

I got to ask, does anyone else see the company talking positive with the analysts, but talking gloom & doom with the company? How can they have it both ways? Is that even legal under Oxley-Sarbanes?Is this the good-cop, bad-cop routine, with Kirby telling the analysts what they want to hear & Bular almost declaring BK?

Three things to consider:

1. At the beginning of every conversation with the analysts, you will see/hear some verbiage about "forward looking statements." They are instantly covered.

2. That said, there are consequences for intentionally misleading analysts.

3. There are no consequences for intentionally misleading employees. So they do.