American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[WeAAsles]

Thats exactly what I said. The company is going to have to reflect that cost. You say it could mean less of a 401k of 1%. I dont think that will cover the icing on the cake.
The surplus of 10% + 6% is about $6 million more a year (mx and fleet) + any additional higher interest rate that may be imposed by congress.
We are stuck, because of F Obama to pay for 200,000 pensioneers with our pension and wages now. This includes you.
To fully cover the ongoing known cost, the company would have to change the 401k base to 1% total base for all lus or allow twu members to subsidize us again. Then the 401k base for all will only take a 2% hit. That would mean a 3% base and 4% matching for all.
Thats more than you have now.
Thanks weez! Im loving soft Alex!

Are you seriously trying to get me to be concerned about an extra $6 Million a year being added to the overall Labor costs for our combined Groups? If your numbers are right I have to laugh and ask you why you’re even wasting my time in this conversation?

Maybe I should draw this for you in colored crayola crayons for you.

American Airlines in the last 5 years has spent roughly $13 BILLION DOLLARS on buying back their outstanding stock.

And you want me to work up a bead of water on my forehead for an extra $6 Million per year? C’mon man. Seriously, LMFAO. $6 Million.

 

[WeAAsles]

Thats exactly what I said. The company is going to have to reflect that cost. You say it could mean less of a 401k of 1%. I dont think that will cover the icing on the cake.
The surplus of 10% + 6% is about $6 million more a year (mx and fleet) + any additional higher interest rate that may be imposed by congress.
We are stuck, because of F Obama to pay for 200,000 pensioneers with our pension and wages now. This includes you.
To fully cover the ongoing known cost, the company would have to change the 401k base to 1% total base for all lus or allow twu members to subsidize us again. Then the 401k base for all will only take a 2% hit. That would mean a 3% base and 4% matching for all.
Thats more than you have now.
Thanks weez! Im loving soft Alex!

Hey Steve Austin (6 Million Dollar Man) here’s what the Company spent on Wages and Benefits just in the first quarter alone. (And this Dude is worried about 6 Million Dollars, LMAO)

That’s 3.1 Billion with a B Tim.

 

[WeAAsles]

Pretty much?
And we get stuck with a future benefit of $34 hereafter if FT and $12 if pt.
And now no new employers will touch this, so more retirees and less contributers.
Pensions cost some airlines bankruptcy.
This is going to be a monster blow to United Airlines since they have 20% or 20,000 in this fund.

I’m putting 25% into my 401K now. How much are you putting in?

 

[ALUS78]

Remember Tim. The Company is more than likely ultimately not going to drop out of the IAMNPF because of that withdrawal liability fee and it being technically a penalty fee which both you and the Company don’t get anything out of anyway.

The reality is they were going to bump up their Retirement costs anyway by going from the 3% Contribution 2.5% Match we were getting now to the 5% Contribution 4% Match they were offering.

It’s actually not going to be that difficult for the Company to just reset the numbers for those of you continuing on with the IAMNPF.

Even if you do ultimately get less of a deal for some type of 401K formula I highly recommend and suggest you put a healthy chunk of your wages into the 401K anyway.

I’m sure even Suze Orman would offer that advice to you.

Did the company know about this fee when asking us to switch to 401during negotiations

 

[WeAAsles]

Did the company know about this fee when asking us to switch to 401during negotiations

Of course they would or should have known. If they didn’t then I have to laugh at all those people who say that we have a bunch of High School graduates negotiating against high price Lawyers.

 

[ALUS78]

Of course they would or should have known. If they didn’t then I have to laugh at all those people who say that we have a bunch of High School graduates negotiating against high price Lawyers.

My.point is were they willing to pay the fee at that time or is the fee a result of the funds critical staus

 

[WeAAsles]

My.point is were they willing to pay the fee at that time or is the fee a result of the funds critical staus

It’s been underfunded for a few years now so just going by what I read in that 1980 ERISA update the Company still would have had to pay a fee. The more underfunded though the higher the fee becomes.

“Willing” doesn’t come into play since they have to pay a fee by Law.

The “Critical” status is part of the 2005 PPA Law. That seems to be something completely different.

 

[ALUS78]

It’s been underfunded for a few years now so just going by what I read in that 1980 ERISA update the Company still would have had to pay a fee. The more underfunded though the higher the fee becomes.

“Willing” doesn’t come into play since they have to pay a fee by Law.

The “Critical” status is part of the 2005 PPA Law. That seems to be something completely different.

If they wanted us out the must have been willing to pay fee or they would just leave us in it

 

[WeAAsles]

If they wanted us out the must have been willing to pay fee or they would just leave us in it

It’s not necessarily the fee that’s the issue Al. You read P. Rez talk about it here before. It’s about how they want to exchange and structure the 401K offer where the IAM knows they’re losing economic value for their members when they were getting a fixed contribution to the IAMNPF that has no bearing on how much you earn or contribute.

5% for a New Hire making only $14.00 per hour isn’t much not even talking about the unknown if they reach any of the 4% Match.

That’s why the Association has been asking for a full Contribution with no requirement to match anything at all.

They know that the way they’ve structured it costs them less than what they’re currently giving your group. Also without the liabilities they’re now on the hook for with the IAMNPF putting itself into the Res Zone.

 

[Buck]

Are these two funds entirely different vehicles? The IAMPF Multi-Corporate and the Frozen Pension at LAA?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Did the company know about this fee when asking us to switch to 401during negotiations

redzone surprised them. They knew nothing.

 

[WeAAsles]

Are these two funds entirely different vehicles? The IAMPF Multi-Corporate and the Frozen Pension at LAA?

Of course they are.

Our LAA Pension was a single Company “Defined Benefit Pension” for the Employees of AA only.

The IAMNPF is a “Multiple Employer Defined Benefit Pension” paid into by many different Companies.

 

[WeAAsles]

redzone surprised them. They knew nothing.

I doubt they did either since it was Green Last year and at worst the expectations were the next year it was headed to Yellow.

The Funds BOT decided to park it in the Red Zone.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I doubt they did either since it was Green Last year and at worst the expectations were the next year it was headed to Yellow.

The Funds BOT decided to park it in the Red Zone.

The actuaries said red zone in less than 5 years. That was 2 years ago. Am I the only one who reads around here?
Really bad that we didnt accept the company proposal before this. its really going to cost us.
The offer will now be less. I tell you guys but you dont listen.

 

[robbedagain]

Even if we were to vote on that proposal it appears as it would be rejected .So lets say it its rejected how much worse would the nxt one be? The company would or should say ought to know the penalties associated w getting out. If they truly wanted out then i thought they wld of long ago