Why hasn''t anyone posted the Mar 1 codaphone?

[PITbull]

Bob,


This issue WILL be resolved. U has come a long, long way and it will be here for infinity. We are way ahead of ALL the majors. In the front of the pack. I have conceded to align myself with those employees who have said "live to fight another day". And we will, but not now. We will first soar to the top!


We will suck this up for now, continue to work hard, be the best, because we are THE best. Pilots are intelligent men and women, they will work out a solution that will not be everything management wanted or hoped for, but it will work out. You can take that to the bank, and stay away from CO. And I mean it!

 

[ITRADE]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 2:46:56 PM PineyBob wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 256 PM Hula Girl wrote:

Mr. PineyBob, you need to take your disgusting stories with weirdo 'morals' somewhere else. Today is a hard day for the employees of USAirways and frankly, I would like for you to take your 'important' diatribes to another board. Thank you.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You are not welcome,

I'll post here when I choose. We still have a First Amendment last time I looked. And you know what?? Every day is a hard day when you work for someone other than yourself! And please tell me exactly who annointed you Goddess of the Board?

[/blockquote]

Ummmm, Bob, the First Amendment does not apply to message boards.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

Unless you're attributing the moderators the power of congress, you're on ground that you should not be on.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 1:03:27 PM friendlypup wrote:

I wonder where the retirees will fare out on this. ALPA and the company are going to negotiate for the active pilots but as far as I can determine, the retired people are going to be thrown overboard. Is that correct?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Boy, it would be seriously bad karma, no matter what your view of social and economic justice might be, to take from already retired pensioners. Seriously, does PitBULL really advocate HALFING or WORSE a 65 year old or a 70 year old's pension? Just to avoid a rather inconsequential hit to a future pension? From what I hear on these boards, FREEZING a pension doesn't hurt the individual employee anything like TERMINATING it. Of course, freezing a pension might hurt the union, because it has less leverage over it's members.

Look, I"m the leftiest of the posters here, but that's beyond the pale for me.

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 11:57:50 PM PITbull wrote:

Bob,


This issue WILL be resolved. U has come a long, long way and it will be here for infinity. We are way ahead of ALL the majors. In the front of the pack. I have conceded to align myself with those employees who have said "live to fight another day". And we will, but not now. We will first soar to the top!


We will suck this up for now, continue to work hard, be the best, because we are THE best. Pilots are intelligent men and women, they will work out a solution that will not be everything management wanted or hoped for, but it will work out. You can take that to the bank, and stay away from CO. And I mean it!

----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi PITbull. Agree...but I wonder where the retirees will flare out on this. ALPA and the company are going to negotiate for the active pilots but as far as I can determine, the retired people are going to be thrown overboard. Is that correct?

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 8:33:28 PM 757fixer wrote:

Hey friendlypup did you call yourself hugmekissme way back when on the aol boards?She is a disgruntled exwife of a U pilot.Sounds like you could be her.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sorry; that's not me.

 

[bigbusdrvr]

The already retired will get PBGC guarranties when the DBP is terminated by the company. ALPA fought to keep the plan, the company terminated it!

This will leave ALPA no option except to bargain, under the eye of an arbitrator, for a replacement plan for the remaining pilots not already retired.

Thus the advantage of the Lump Sum patout when it was available!!!

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 1251 PM ITRADE wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 2:46:56 PM PineyBob wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 256 PM Hula Girl wrote:

Mr. PineyBob, you need to take your disgusting stories with weirdo 'morals' somewhere else. Today is a hard day for the employees of USAirways and frankly, I would like for you to take your 'important' diatribes to another board. Thank you.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You are not welcome,

I'll post here when I choose. We still have a First Amendment last time I looked. And you know what?? Every day is a hard day when you work for someone other than yourself! And please tell me exactly who annointed you Goddess of the Board?

[/blockquote]

Ummmm, Bob, the First Amendment does not apply to message boards.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

Unless you're attributing the moderators the power of congress, you're on ground that you should not be on.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You're right, Itrade. One of the problems with our culture is that people think they have "the right" to this and "the right" to that.......say and do whatever they wish because they are "free" to do so. The only freedoms we have are in the US Constitution. People can't make up their own set of "rights". "Rights" can certainly make people become very rude and crude. But they are mistaken. There are libel laws to remind them of that fact. Of course, there is Miss Manners to remind them of the social graces.
Miss Manners must be posting on another forum; she sure isn't here. People have come perilously close to comitting libel here. As they come ever closer to that line, they will see that it is actually a snake that can bite very swiftly and very hard.

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 1:51:06 PM bigbusdrvr wrote:

The already retired will get PBGC guarranties when the DBP is terminated by the company. ALPA fought to keep the plan, the company terminated it!

This will leave ALPA no option except to bargain, under the eye of an arbitrator, for a replacement plan for the remaining pilots not already retired.

Thus the advantage of the Lump Sum patout when it was available!!!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Thanks for the info. My condo goes up for sale tomorrow.
However, choosing the annuity was also a good choice. Actuarially speaking of course.
It was not wrong at the time to choose that and hindsight is 20/20. Those who did choose the lump are only as well off as their broker's skill or their own ability to invest wisely.
The real kicker is that next year, the market could be booming and probably will be and all of this will be moot for all but those of us who retired with the choice of the annuity.

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 109 PM RowUnderDCA wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/2/2003 1:03:27 PM friendlypup wrote:

I wonder where the retirees will fare out on this. ALPA and the company are going to negotiate for the active pilots but as far as I can determine, the retired people are going to be thrown overboard. Is that correct?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Boy, it would be seriously bad karma, no matter what your view of social and economic justice might be, to take from already retired pensioners. Seriously, does PitBULL really advocate HALFING or WORSE a 65 year old or a 70 year old's pension? Just to avoid a rather inconsequential hit to a future pension? From what I hear on these boards, FREEZING a pension doesn't hurt the individual employee anything like TERMINATING it. Of course, freezing a pension might hurt the union, because it has less leverage over it's members.

Look, I"m the leftiest of the posters here, but that's beyond the pale for me.

----------------
[/blockquote]
From one of those near "65 year olds", I thankyou for the sentiment, but I still haven't read a thing that makes me think I shouldn't put my condo on the market tomorrow. We don't get told squat. I truly do not know what to do or which way to turn. I have not been living a lavish lifestyle that most of the posters here surmise. Quite to the contrary. I'll figure something out, but had I known this 8 years ago, I would have definately factored it in. My ex husband won't be much better off than I am. He spent 37 years flying for U. He did a good job and was always a loyal company man. He gave a hard days work for a day's pay. I told him this morning that no matter how this turns out, he can be proud of the job he did all of his life and it is NOT his fault that it is ending this badly. We both wish we weren't each other's ex'es now. But what is, is.

 

[PITbull]

Sorry Row,

IAM and AFA pensions are not in question. Please read other posts and threads on what I've written.

The co. has not approached any other Labor group to terminate or freeze. Our pension liability is low. Less than 100 f/as are actively on retirement as we speak.

The discussion came up because ALPA brought it up as one of their motions presented to the Judge.

There were no choices posed here for us to make one or the other, or what would be better. Presently, this debate is only for ALPA to work out with the co.

Here is a gross analogy of what some folks are presenting:

If all kinds of folks are claiming BK, because they have been told it is the only solution for them; and your approached (even though you don't have a financial problem) to ALSO file BK, as it would be better for you in the long run... is that any reason to go ahead and file BK?

So, there is no reason to debate that issue, cause its not our issue.

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 3:57:22 PM chipmunn wrote:

PineyBob:

Unlike the IAM, each individual ALPA unit is independent and each pilot group negotiates their own agreement.
----------------
[/blockquote]

This statement is false. ALPA National screwed the CCair ALPA unit by not signing their negotiated contract due to the presence of 70 and (IIRC) 90 seat RJ pay rates.

Thus, ALPA took the interests of one unit and placed those ahead of another unit, in effect derailing the negotiation and collective bargaining process.

ALPA is facing another Duty of Fair Representation suit currently (Ford v. ALPA). See http://www.rjdefense.com.

In short, things like scope clauses and the jets for jobs "protocol" keep individual ALPA units from collectively bargaining in an independant manner, and to suggest otherwise is blatently false.