ALPA will file objection to pension termination

Your logic is wrong, $500 million of the ATSB loan goes directly back to RSA to pay the DIP loan off.
 
ALPA, like any good union, is a master of spin.

MLT put part of it in perfect perspective:

[blockquote]
As I stated on a previous post, ALPA claims to have suffered a 46% cut in wages and benefits; yet, when anyone mentions the last parity increase of 17% associated with wages, ALPA immediately cries foul because the increase was only in effect 2 months. So with that reasoning the total cut is actually 29%. Still a lot, but proportionately within the range of all groups.
[/blockquote]

So, despite the number of rounds of concessions, ALPA is still on par with everybody else from a percentage basis. (this business about 10 percent of the workforce taking a large raw dollar value of cuts is bunk--the pilot group started out making dollars orders of magnitude higher than any other group on the property).

Further, this business of claiming that the terminated pension is funding others' pension is the biggest line of hubris of heard out of any union in the airline business. Ever. ALPA represents a majority (darned near 2/3rds) of U's outstanding pension balance. In fact, if you terminated all the other pensions on the property, the airline still would not make up the shortfall in the pilot pension fund.

By ALPA's logic, I could claim that the decreate in benefits I have as a VFF are going to fund the IAM pension. Nice try. Any good MEC has a good propoganda officer to stir the troops into a feeding frenzy, but this dog won't bark when you think about it for more than two seconds.

The business plan is not viable for the ATSB loan, RSA, or the creditors if it funds the ALPA plan. BTW, I find it interesting that the MEC propoganda officer proclaims that "ALPA is funding other's pensions" yet neglects to mention that half (or more) of the ATSB loan, for which all groups took several hits, will be used to pay for the "new" ALPA pension.

Nobody, including the U pilots, deserves the hit they are going to take on the pension issue. However, coming off as a group of arrogant and entitled throttle jockeys that are funding everybody else's pension will not generate any support from anyone (perhaps even including the judge who will rule on the matter). Something to think about.

For the record, I don't think all pilots are arrogant or entitled. That's the perception I get from reading what the U MEC publishes, tho.
 
Clue-

I just broke down and posted something, on another thread, about the illogic and poor public relations that the pilot's are pursuing... But just after I sent it, I realized that I am just being a foil for the irrational rhetoric. Maybe the pilots that post here pretend to care about reason, but are more interested in seeming irrational. Because irrationality is the strike-threateners' ally. It doesn't matter how logical or deserving their arguments are, their negotiating position is presumably enhanced by reacting against being called on the carpet by 'straight-men' like us.

Hey, random pilot poster, Who's in first?
 
Hey, maybe the target is Bronner... hmmm?

Who was it who answered, when asked why he robs banks, "that's where they keep the money"? (Jesse James?) Perhaps, the more apt analogy would be of the fisherman dropping his line where the fish are.

From the quotes in the other threads, maybe Bronner has caught airline impressario fever, the main symptom of which is an uncontrollable desire to throw money at airlines.

Hmm. Maybe the pilot group can sell 2% of their stock share to RSA (under threat of job action) for an immediate $200 million infusion into the pension program... either barely saving the current fund or sweatening the new pension. PBGC would probably have no problem with that (or would fudge it, with additional political pressure) Bronner underpaid for his original controlling share, why not overpay this time.
 
What I really don't understand is the pilots' seeming surprise at this turn of events. Of =COURSE= their pensions were going to be next. And as soon as management sees success with this strategy, the other groups will have their pensions abolished. Except the CWA pensions, of course.

It's just the way it is, guys. The target was way too juicy, and way too big. You HAD to see it coming.

I just hope that folks who were depending upon those pensions will still have enough time before retirement to build a self-funding pension. As much as I have deplored not having a "traditional" pension from USAir for my husband... after watching so many companies go down the tubes, give me a 401K account. It's portable, you're not tied to any one employer, and it's YOURS.
 
DELLDUDE, I don't think any pilot a U needs flying time. The average pilot at U is 50 years old with a minimum of 14 years at this third rate airline. The pilots will do just fine outside U, I hope others can say the same?
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 12:14:55 PM chipmunn wrote:

PineyBob:

PineyBob said: perhaps that's why some folks aren't real sympathetic.

Chip answers: PineyBob, the pilot group is not asking for sympathy. This is our fight and we will do what is necessary; therefore, as Sabre suggested it may not be necessary that "all unions must eventually support ALPA." In addition, in my opinion the majority of the pilot group does not believe in socialism.

Chip


----------------
[/blockquote]
like it or not,your sacrifice will come to pass..then your choice will be to stay or leave...or you can shut down the airline...then you are faced with the same option as you have with leaving for greener pastures...oh,some will do better or break even,but the vast majority will have to come to grips with the realization that this final cut is neccessary for both your and the company's survival.economic reality's dictate situations like we have found are selves in.like chip has said before:no one likes our situation".
AVIATION IN THE NEW WORLD:LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.
if you're looking for flying time,i know some outfits up at willow run looking for people to haul crankshafts...
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 9:02:14 AM autofixer wrote:

DELLDUDE, I don't think any pilot a U needs flying time. The average pilot at U is 50 years old with a minimum of 14 years at this third rate airline. The pilots will do just fine outside U, I hope others can say the same?
----------------
[/blockquote]
how you figure?with scads of your guys out of work..just like mine,there is only limited possibilities for GAINFUL employment.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #41
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 3:50:31 PM BottomFeeder wrote:



Tell me Chip, will it put hair on your chest to force the termination of your co-workers who have projected pensions of $15K annually?
****************************************

mlt( Robinhood )


I was going to respond, but your a waste of time.




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

I will respond. My projected pension will be about 9800 a year. All of you pilot bashers out there should get the facts.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #42
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 12:11:34 PM PineyBob wrote:

Just a thought. If you make four times as much as the folks who gave concessions twice, doesn't that equal a 2 to 1 concession ratio vs a 4 to 1 income ratio? perhaps that's why some folks aren't real sympathetic
----------------
[/blockquote]


You are correct. I feel everybody from toilet cleaner to the CEO should make exactly the same. If we did then I could of not wasted my time and money . I could stay at home every night, watch TV in the break room and complain about the pilots about something. We do not need your sympathy or support.
 
Back
Top