Not to mention eating all the time!!! What is the difference between a pilot and Jeffrey Dahlmer?
Jeffrey didn't eat every leg!
Jeffrey didn't eat every leg!
Alpa's Letter To The Afa
- Thread starter ualdriver
- Start date
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
I've never trashed the pilot's. I'd be trashing myself if I did. I just trashed your so-called "UNION" for selling out everyone else,thinking they were somehow "untouchable"! Now the PBGC has pissed in the ALPA's wheaties, and now the ALPA is crying FOUL! What goes around comes around!
How did ALPA sell you out? ALPA looks out for ALPA members, they are not charged with negotiating for your group. Are you saying that if AFA gets a better deal than ALPA got that you will refuse to support your union?
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
The ALPA sold out every worker(pilots,mechanics,F/As,bag handlers,agents,etc.) in the airline industry, including themselves with this pension "agreement" with UAL management. It ranks right up there with the TWU "B" scale of 1983! Even the PBGC is ticked off at the ALPA, because now every defined benefit pension that's left in the airline industry is now likely to be terminated,and the PBGC(which is insolvent) is going to have to pick up the tab! The ALPA should not have been dictating what the other employee groups were to accept on this pension issue! The EVIL plan has backfired on the ALPA, and UAL management will still come out smelling like a rose! Now that the pilot "A" retirement plan has been wiped out at United, American is preparing to clobber the APA retirement plan over here! The chain reaction has started and there is NO way to stop it! :rant:
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
First, UAL ALPA has NOT agreed to pension termination RTFAgreement. The agreement is that ALPA has the right to negotiate pension retention if the market changes and someone else gets to keep theirs. Does that mean ALPA is "forcing" other unions to lose pensions? NO, it means that if other work groups keep theirs, ALPA gets to go back to the bargaining table. ALPA also agrees that if AND ONLY IF, the Judge determines that pension termination is vital to BK exit, then we won't spend the next 5 years litigating it. The judge will get both sides, and he will make the call. The "ALPA bond" will cost the company very little (significantly less than U's DC pilot plan was costing). How UAL's plan can be illegal and U's not be is beyond comical.
Second, if you are an AMR pilot b1tching about "the bar", you need to catch a clue. the APA boys sat on their hands for a YEAR while the UAL and DAL guys held the line. We know the scoop. you (along with the NWA and CAL "company men") were told to just be patient, once UAL is gone, it'll be so great. you got what you asked for and deserved. Had you stood up with UAL and DAL, then maybe the industry would have recovered instead of this stupid "let's see who bleeds to death first" game you instigated with your pansy @ss contract negotiations. And don't forget the AMR B-scale that kept them alive after dereg (AMR was thought to be a sure fatality of Dereg). The ONLY pilot group who has ANY moral authority to say ANYTHING to UAL ALPA is DAL.
Does PGBC count as a creditor, under the Judge's control, or can they operate separately from the C11 process?
I.e. if the Pilots DB plan has already been assumed by PGBC, can the judge order PGBC to give it back?
To me looks as if ALPA/ management have negotiated a haircut for the creditor, without going through the court or discussing with the creditor? If I was the creditor, I would be narked in this case too...
Analogy would be if your tenant is long way in arrears, as you are to the bank on the mortgage. You negotiate that the tenant pays you 50% of the arrears, without discussing with the bank, and forgive the rest, but then it wouldn't be a surprise if the bank doesn't take the same deal from you?
I.e. if the Pilots DB plan has already been assumed by PGBC, can the judge order PGBC to give it back?
To me looks as if ALPA/ management have negotiated a haircut for the creditor, without going through the court or discussing with the creditor? If I was the creditor, I would be narked in this case too...
Analogy would be if your tenant is long way in arrears, as you are to the bank on the mortgage. You negotiate that the tenant pays you 50% of the arrears, without discussing with the bank, and forgive the rest, but then it wouldn't be a surprise if the bank doesn't take the same deal from you?
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
peasant said:
Not sure where the PBGC falls as far as being a creditor or not. I do know that the PBGC can not "assume" any pension. They can only request it throught the court. They don't have any powers above the court.
As for negotiating a "haircut" with out court aproval, that's not accurate. This TA is a TENTATIVE agreement. Once it is ratified it still has to be approved by the court as well. As with everything else throughout the BK process, it has to be blessed by the court before it actually happens. That goes for both sides.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
The PBGC is going to petition the court to allow the unpaid pension liabilities to date (approx $800M) to be classified as administrative expenses which would provide a higher priority than those claims are at present. The PBGC says such a move is allowed by law.
It was reported in the newspapers when the original story broke. You should be able to reference any newspaper story online and get the info.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
http://www.pbgc.gov/news/press_releases/2004/pr05_15.htm
technically, Independent Fiduciary Services is the petitioner on behalf of UAL's pension plans.
technically, Independent Fiduciary Services is the petitioner on behalf of UAL's pension plans.
Fly said:
Hey Fly, darling..what's up with the new avitar? How the hell are you? Send me a pm...oh what the hell, put it right here BABY!!
Cosmo
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 840
- 0
Let's be real clear on this issue -- the PBGC has not yet terminated the United pilots' pension plan, it has only asked the bankruptcy court for permission to do so. If you have any doubt, re-read the PBGC press release from last week (here) where you will find the following sentence in the 8th paragraph:
More broadly, there's been a lot of "spin" emanating from the PBGC in recent weeks, much of it IMHO being little more than brave talk to disguise their very real concern that the bankruptcy judge will not agree with their position, or that of Independent Fiduciary Services for that matter, if it would push United into a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. I believe the PBGC is well aware of the weakness of their position in this case vis-a-vis the judge's ability to interpret and apply U.S. bankruptcy law as he deems appropriate, and their only hope is that an avalanche of court filings and a public relations campaign might sway the judge, which to me seems highly unlikely. After all, why do you think that the PBGC wants the bankruptcy laws changed?
So before everyone gets their knickers all knotted up pontificating about what the PBGC "will" do in this case, let's wait and see what actually happens in the courtroom during the next few weeks before we assign United to the dustbin of history. That's not too much to ask, is it?
Rest assured that if the PBGC now controlled the pension plan, the above sentence definitely would not have been in that press release. The large number of recent quotes from PBGC officials regarding the agency's actions concerning the pilots' pension plan have ignored this "minor" technicality.
More broadly, there's been a lot of "spin" emanating from the PBGC in recent weeks, much of it IMHO being little more than brave talk to disguise their very real concern that the bankruptcy judge will not agree with their position, or that of Independent Fiduciary Services for that matter, if it would push United into a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. I believe the PBGC is well aware of the weakness of their position in this case vis-a-vis the judge's ability to interpret and apply U.S. bankruptcy law as he deems appropriate, and their only hope is that an avalanche of court filings and a public relations campaign might sway the judge, which to me seems highly unlikely. After all, why do you think that the PBGC wants the bankruptcy laws changed?
So before everyone gets their knickers all knotted up pontificating about what the PBGC "will" do in this case, let's wait and see what actually happens in the courtroom during the next few weeks before we assign United to the dustbin of history. That's not too much to ask, is it?
