Have you read the motion ALPA filed today? My synopsis of their argument:
1. The court does not have the authority to terminate the pension. Only through grievance or the PBGC distress terminates the plan.
2.The contingent letter was only valid if the PBGC distress terminated the plan.
3. They never agreed that a defined contribution plan was the solution if the above happened, only an alternative.
4. USAirways paid 15 million to Wolf & Gangwal in 1999.
5. USAirways spent 2 billion in cash to buy back stock in 1998 and 1999.
My non-lawyer opinion of the motion:
Strongest point:
Argument agains Defined Contribution (p.19)
Weakest point:
ALPA is funding other pensions (did not offer proof, only statement)
Most childish point:
They want freezes and/or reduction from all pension plans prior to terminating ALPA''s plan. (p.35)
1. The court does not have the authority to terminate the pension. Only through grievance or the PBGC distress terminates the plan.
2.The contingent letter was only valid if the PBGC distress terminated the plan.
3. They never agreed that a defined contribution plan was the solution if the above happened, only an alternative.
4. USAirways paid 15 million to Wolf & Gangwal in 1999.
5. USAirways spent 2 billion in cash to buy back stock in 1998 and 1999.
My non-lawyer opinion of the motion:
Strongest point:
Argument agains Defined Contribution (p.19)
Weakest point:
ALPA is funding other pensions (did not offer proof, only statement)
Most childish point:
They want freezes and/or reduction from all pension plans prior to terminating ALPA''s plan. (p.35)