Listened to 800-eye-onua this morning for an update (missed newsreal) and from what I heard it sounds to me that the AFA leadership and all the employees knew at the time and still know that retirement benefits could (most certainly did) get changed. Any time a company is in chapter 11 stuff can get changed. My take on it is that it's better to pay more than have to pay it all and have absolutely nothing. C11 is no fun because you can't predict the future but I think UAL will come out lean and mean and be ready to kick some butt.
Afa Gets Silenced!
- Thread starter boeing787
- Start date
TravelDude
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
Here is the printed version of NewsReal related to AFA & Retiree Changes. Exactly like I have been saying all along we were all warned, AFA's claims of company deceit are bogus!
----------------------------------------------------
United Files Response to AFA Request for an Examiner
----------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 3, the Association of Flight Attendants
(AFA) filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to ask
for the appointment of an examiner to review the
circumstances leading up to United's decision to
seek modifications to retiree medical benefits,
which was announced on Jan. 14.
United filed a response to the AFA request in
Bankruptcy Court this morning stating that while it
does not believe an examiner is appropriate, if the
Court decides to appoint one, the facts will quickly
show that the AFA has known all along that changes
to retiree benefits were possible.
As the record shows, United repeatedly and
unconditionally told the company's employees and
their union representatives that there could still
be changes to retiree benefits in the future, even
for those employees who retired before July 1, 2003.
Some examples of United's communications presented
in the brief include:
* On the day the company filed for Chapter 11 in
December 2002, United posted 'Q&As' on SkyNet
advising all current and retired employees that the
company might have to reduce its retiree health
benefits;
* In March 2003, United's Section 1113 motion was
straightforward in cautioning that United was
continuing to analyze whether it might be necessary
to reduce retirees' medical benefits and reserving
the right to revisit the issue in the future;
* Also in March, the motion to approve the
Restructuring Agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised and approved, expressly reserved United's
right to seek changes under Section 1114 in the
future;
* Again in March 2003, the Bankruptcy Court's Order
approving those agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised, approved and jointly presented to the
Court, unequivocally reserved United's right to seek
changes under Section 1114;
* A May 7, 2003, letter from United to all of its
employees plainly stated that the company could not
guarantee that retiree benefits would not change in
the future for employees who retired before July 1,
2003, and reminded employees that United was
"seriously reviewing" these costs; and
* In August 2003, five months before United made
and announced the decision to seek retiree benefit
changes, United reaffirmed in open court that the
company would likely need to address its retiree
health costs.
In today's filing, United underscores that "the
AFA's leadership heard United's message, loud and
clear. And they conveyed this message to the AFA's
membership." It is an important fact that the AFA
on March 26, 2003, posted on its own web site a
'Q&A' for its membership that says in part:
"...a decision to retire before changes go into
effect will not guarantee you protection from
changes to the retiree medical benefit if the
company decides to petition the court to reduce
medical benefits for all retirees under Section
1114."
This Q&A remains on the AFA website today at
http://www.unitedafa.org/res/bankruptcy/benefits/eri
sa_45.asp
United's response describes the accusations and
actions by AFA's leadership as "irresponsible" and a
"disservice" to everyone at such a critical juncture
in the company's reorganization and in the midst of
the ongoing weak industry environment.
The interests of retirees are protected by the
Section 1114 process. The Bankruptcy Court is the
proper venue for this issue and the AFA has agreed
to serve as the authorized representative of the
retiree flight attendants in this process.
Ultimately, the Court will determine whether these
changes are necessary for United to successfully
reorganize and whether they are fair and equitable.
The document also states that the AFA was well aware
of the fact that United repeatedly told flight
attendants that retiree benefits could be modified.
In conclusion, United's response states that the
appointment of an examiner and the process it
entails would serve no constructive purpose. On the
contrary, it will only distract everyone from the
business of responsibly reorganizing the company.
The deadline for the AFA to respond to United's
filing is Feb. 18, 2004. The Court has scheduled a
hearing on this matter for Feb. 20, 2004 -- the same
day as the February Omnibus Hearing before the
Bankruptcy Court.
----------------------------------------------------
United Files Response to AFA Request for an Examiner
----------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 3, the Association of Flight Attendants
(AFA) filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to ask
for the appointment of an examiner to review the
circumstances leading up to United's decision to
seek modifications to retiree medical benefits,
which was announced on Jan. 14.
United filed a response to the AFA request in
Bankruptcy Court this morning stating that while it
does not believe an examiner is appropriate, if the
Court decides to appoint one, the facts will quickly
show that the AFA has known all along that changes
to retiree benefits were possible.
As the record shows, United repeatedly and
unconditionally told the company's employees and
their union representatives that there could still
be changes to retiree benefits in the future, even
for those employees who retired before July 1, 2003.
Some examples of United's communications presented
in the brief include:
* On the day the company filed for Chapter 11 in
December 2002, United posted 'Q&As' on SkyNet
advising all current and retired employees that the
company might have to reduce its retiree health
benefits;
* In March 2003, United's Section 1113 motion was
straightforward in cautioning that United was
continuing to analyze whether it might be necessary
to reduce retirees' medical benefits and reserving
the right to revisit the issue in the future;
* Also in March, the motion to approve the
Restructuring Agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised and approved, expressly reserved United's
right to seek changes under Section 1114 in the
future;
* Again in March 2003, the Bankruptcy Court's Order
approving those agreements, which the AFA edited,
revised, approved and jointly presented to the
Court, unequivocally reserved United's right to seek
changes under Section 1114;
* A May 7, 2003, letter from United to all of its
employees plainly stated that the company could not
guarantee that retiree benefits would not change in
the future for employees who retired before July 1,
2003, and reminded employees that United was
"seriously reviewing" these costs; and
* In August 2003, five months before United made
and announced the decision to seek retiree benefit
changes, United reaffirmed in open court that the
company would likely need to address its retiree
health costs.
In today's filing, United underscores that "the
AFA's leadership heard United's message, loud and
clear. And they conveyed this message to the AFA's
membership." It is an important fact that the AFA
on March 26, 2003, posted on its own web site a
'Q&A' for its membership that says in part:
"...a decision to retire before changes go into
effect will not guarantee you protection from
changes to the retiree medical benefit if the
company decides to petition the court to reduce
medical benefits for all retirees under Section
1114."
This Q&A remains on the AFA website today at
http://www.unitedafa.org/res/bankruptcy/benefits/eri
sa_45.asp
United's response describes the accusations and
actions by AFA's leadership as "irresponsible" and a
"disservice" to everyone at such a critical juncture
in the company's reorganization and in the midst of
the ongoing weak industry environment.
The interests of retirees are protected by the
Section 1114 process. The Bankruptcy Court is the
proper venue for this issue and the AFA has agreed
to serve as the authorized representative of the
retiree flight attendants in this process.
Ultimately, the Court will determine whether these
changes are necessary for United to successfully
reorganize and whether they are fair and equitable.
The document also states that the AFA was well aware
of the fact that United repeatedly told flight
attendants that retiree benefits could be modified.
In conclusion, United's response states that the
appointment of an examiner and the process it
entails would serve no constructive purpose. On the
contrary, it will only distract everyone from the
business of responsibly reorganizing the company.
The deadline for the AFA to respond to United's
filing is Feb. 18, 2004. The Court has scheduled a
hearing on this matter for Feb. 20, 2004 -- the same
day as the February Omnibus Hearing before the
Bankruptcy Court.
767jetz
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,286
- Reaction score
- 2,779
This part is the most telling, IMO. The AFA can not claim that they were not aware of possible changes, if they posted that fact on their own web site.TravelDude said:
I know it hurts, but CH11 is no fun for anyone. We are all aware that until we emerge the company will continue to reducing costs where it can. Better that than end up like USAir. Our management is smart to leave no stone unturned while in BK, so we never have to revisit the court ever again.
FA4UA
Member
I think the underlying problem with this is that UAL spun it to the retiree's (or maybe it was AFA all along) that their benefits wouldn't be touched. Basically this all looks like a case of "Not reading the small print".
I think AFA needs a case like this for two reasons: 1. to flex it's new muscle after the union merger and 2. to make a case that they are working for us FA's as there continues to be rumblings of a new union starting up (the rumblings get louder as the murmurs over a US/UA merger get louder).
AFA should change it's slogan to "The lesser of all evils". At the end of the day it's just an organization built on the backs of volunteers just trying to do what they think is right or to stab UA in the back for some misdeed that they personally felt.
FA4UA
I think AFA needs a case like this for two reasons: 1. to flex it's new muscle after the union merger and 2. to make a case that they are working for us FA's as there continues to be rumblings of a new union starting up (the rumblings get louder as the murmurs over a US/UA merger get louder).
AFA should change it's slogan to "The lesser of all evils". At the end of the day it's just an organization built on the backs of volunteers just trying to do what they think is right or to stab UA in the back for some misdeed that they personally felt.
FA4UA
