spacewaitress
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 468
- 0
Why don't you interpret for us so we'll know what it is we're reading.767jetz said:Ahhhh! So since it was in the newspapers, it must be factual and accurate. I get it now!
[post="235200"][/post]
Why don't you interpret for us so we'll know what it is we're reading.767jetz said:Ahhhh! So since it was in the newspapers, it must be factual and accurate. I get it now!
[post="235200"][/post]
The judge will do whatever United asks. He's been doing it 2 years now.Cosmo said: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.[post="235269"][/post]
Cosmo said:the judge's ability to interpret and apply U.S. bankruptcy law as he deems appropriate[post="235269"][/post]
Exactly. And if ALPA's TA is ratified, UAL will ask the judge to approve the contract, and will be legally bound on ALPA's side to fight the PBGC. They will maintain the pension intact and terminate it only if necessary to emerge from BK (Which is pretty much a forgone conclusion.) They will hand over the pension to the PBGC on our their own terms, and no sooner than May 2005. They will renegotiate with ALPA if they decide that financial circumstances have changed such that they are able to maintain the pension of any other employee, including management.spacewaitress said:The judge will do whatever United asks. He's been doing it 2 years now.
[post="235283"][/post]
767jetz said:Exactly. And if ALPA's TA is ratified, UAL will ask the judge to approve the contract, and will be legally bound on ALPA's side to fight the PBGC. They will maintain the pension intact and terminate it only if necessary to emerge from BK (Which is pretty much a forgone conclusion.) They will hand over the pension to the PBGC on our their own terms, and no sooner than May 2005. They will renegotiate with ALPA if they decide that financial circumstances have changed such that they are able to maintain the pension of any other employee, including management.
[post="235293"][/post]
spacewaitress said:The judge will do whatever United asks. He's been doing it 2 years now.
[post="235283"][/post]
Uhhh.... Princess, I think you missed a few facts here. They do need permission from the judge. That's why all they have done is ASK to take over the pension now instead of later. The A plan is most certainly not gone yet. It's still where it's always been until the court makes a decision. What part of this are you not grasping?PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:If the PBGC needed permission from the bankruptcy judge to take over the pilot's pension, I think they would have already asked for it. The ALPA can cry all it wants but their "A" plan is gone.
[post="235335"][/post]
Sorry, that is simply not true. If the PBGC didn't have to ask the judge for permission, it wouldn't have done so. As I have commented previously, that's why the PBGC is asking Congress to change the laws with respect to defined benefit pension funding at bankrupt companies.PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:Yes, the PBGC might have to ask the Judge. This is just an act of courtesy.
The PBGC is not the IRS and doesn't have the same powers, especially in bankruptcy cases.PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:The thing about this is. The PBGC is a government agency. The government comes first before anybody, especially when it comes to money. Just look at the IRS.
From the PBGC's own press release issued last week (view it here), you will find the following sentence at the end of the 7th paragraph:PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:The government agency has acted in the manner in which will cost the taxpayers the least amount of money.
Why does this fact need to be repeated over and over again, and yet some folks still don't grasp the concept?The PBGC receives no general tax revenue and is not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
Cosmo said:Sorry, that is simply not true. If the PBGC didn't have to ask the judge for permission, it wouldn't have done so. As I have commented previously, that's why the PBGC is asking Congress to change the laws with respect to defined benefit pension funding at bankrupt companies.
The PBGC is not the IRS and doesn't have the same powers, especially in bankruptcy cases.
From the PBGC's own press release issued last week (view it here), you will find the following sentence at the end of the 7th paragraph:
Why does this fact need to be repeated over and over again, and yet some folks still don't grasp the concept?
[post="235457"][/post]
No, it won't file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. You need to distinguish between those government agencies that are funded by taxes and those that are not. While the PBGC is indeed a U.S. government agency (it's actually a part of the U.S. Department of Labor), it's just not supported by annual Congressional appropriations. Instead, it receives its funds from two primary sources: (1) premium payments by companies with defined benefit pension plans and (2) investment income from the assets of those pension plans that have already been taken over by the PBGC.UAL_TECH said:Also, as the PBGC is not government funded entity, they will also file chapter 11 after the UAL pension dump.
Cosmo said:No, it won't file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. You need to distinguish between those government agencies that are funded by taxes and those that are not. While the PBGC is indeed a U.S. government agency (it's actually a part of the U.S. Department of Labor), it's just not supported by annual Congressional appropriations. Instead, it receives its funds from two primary sources: (1) premium payments by companies with defined benefit pension plans and (2) investment income from the assets of those pension plans that have already been taken over by the PBGC.
And the large deficit number that the PBGC cites is actually the present value of the anticipated shortage in guaranteed payments that will be made over the next 40, 50 or more years, and it doesn't take into account any possible increase (or decrease) over time in the value of its asset holdings. The PBGC itself has stated that its potential "money crunch" is, similar to that of Social Security, likely to occur in the 2015-2020 timeframe. Thus, your "worries" are misplaced, at least for a decade or so -- even if the PBGC takes over all four of United's defined benefit pension plans. Only at that time will Congress and the American people have to decide if a Federal bailout of the PBGC is warranted.
I really didn't plan on making such a detailed response to the above post, but the amount of mis-information on this board regarding this subject is absolutely breathtaking. I just wanted to set the record straight.
[post="235610"][/post]
Cosmo said:THE PBGC receives its funds from two primary sources: (1) premium payments by companies with defined benefit pension plans and (2) investment income from the assets of those pension plans.
And the large deficit number that the PBGC cites is actually the present value of the anticipated shortage in guaranteed payments that will be made over the next 40, 50 or more years, and it doesn't take into account any possible increase (or decrease) over time in the value of its asset holdings.[post="235610"][/post]