A Win for the Employees? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amr-loses-bid-terminate-retiree-benefits-001416404--sector.html
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, but the article says AA's next step will be to go to trial.Hope777 said:
Bob, as a retiree,over 65, AA hasn't paid a penny on my family, or myself last year anyway. But it's nice to know it's there, if needed. And that is worth more to me than any one time equity payment which I may, or may not, qualify for anyway. But this is more a fight for what is right. it is tell AA to live up to promises made while we were still working. Keep in mind! We are what you will be in a few years!!!!Bob Owens said:AA didn't lose. We lost, because now we probably will never see the matching funds because there was no successful resolution of the 1114 process.
In the end the zero out of pocket plan will be terminated (or as NYER and Overspin say, "they arent losing their benefits, they are just changing the way they pay for it") but the Judge screwed them as well because instead of getting equity they will likely just get coverage for whatever time elapses till it is terminated. Its a joke how AA is complaining how much its costing them, $10 million a month to meet its obligations to people they underpaid over a lifetime of work while they are bringing in around $2.5 billion a month. So its costing them less than one half of one percent of their income to pay for retiree medical.
Glad to hear you are in good health, and yes its good that its there,. It wont be there for us. Thanks to some of the guys who when they left voted YES.MCI transplant said:Bob, as a retiree,over 65, AA hasn't paid a penny on my family, or myself last year anyway. But it's nice to know it's there, if needed. And that is worth more to me than any one time equity payment which I may, or may not, qualify for anyway. But this is more a fight for what is right. it is tell AA to live up to promises made while we were at work. Keep in mind! We are what you will be in a few years!!!!
Of course the lawyers want a settlement, so they can get their cut. If the retirees win their right to keep the benefit then how do the Lawyers get rich?WeAAsles said:The official committee representing AMR's retirees is "very pleased" with the judge's ruling and "hopes that AMR will reconsider" its efforts to terminate the benefits, committee attorney Catherine Steege, of Jenner & Block LLP, said Friday in an email.
Charles B. Sklarsky, another Jenner & Block attorney who represented the retiree committee, said the judge's ruling doesn't resolve AMR's claim that retiree benefits aren't vested. If the benefits were vested, then AMR wouldn't be able to alter them without retirees' consent.
As a result, the ruling "leaves open several paths, which of course could include negotiating a settlement," Mr. Sklarsky said Friday in an email.
Bob,Bob Owens said:AA didn't lose. We lost, because now we probably will never see the matching funds because there was no successful resolution of the 1114 process.
In the end the zero out of pocket plan will be terminated (or as NYER and Overspin say, "they arent losing their benefits, they are just changing the way they pay for it") but the Judge screwed them as well because instead of getting equity they will likely just get coverage for whatever time elapses till it is terminated. Its a joke how AA is complaining how much its costing them, $10 million a month to meet its obligations to people they underpaid over a lifetime of work while they are bringing in around $2.5 billion a month. So its costing them less than one half of one percent of their income to pay for retiree medical.
Hey, I'm no Lawyer, but my question to the company would be, how can they justify using your money to pay for our plan? Whatever shortcomes should come from the company, and not from a source deadicated for another group! And why wouldn't your Union take such a position?Bob Owens said:Glad to hear you are in good health, and yes its good that its there,. It wont be there for us. Thanks to some of the guys who when they left voted YES.
If you are retired, over 65 and haven't used AA to pay anything you could have argued in BK that you had $50,000 vested and sitting there to pay for Medical that you would otherwise have to lay out of pocket for and could have argued for equity based on that $50,000. If you were made 100% whole as AA claimed everyone was you could have recieved $50k in stock. That would pay for a lot of supplemental insurance. It probably would have been a nightmare figuring out who got what though as each person would be different.
Now the equity has been distributed, IIRC the Judge made a comment early on that the retiree medical did not have to be ruled on in BK. I guess when the retirees argued that it was a vested benefit because they actually paid into it he reconsidered.
The plan allows for the company to get out of it without going BK. Again, read the plan. If you retire at 55, day one, 100% of the company match reverts to the company, then from 55 to 65 your contribution is drawn down in 10% increments until there is nothing left, then your coverage is $50k max lifetime payout, which is Ok because medicare pays 80%.
I believe that AA will claim that they have the right to dissolve the plan, return whatever is left to those that have balances, for those under 65 it will only be what they have left of their contributions, the match having reverted to the company once they retired and started receiving benefits. Those are the people who are driving the $10 million a month that AA is complaining about, they will get screwed.
We will also likely get screwed as the company will say that there was no successful resolution of the 1114 process and we agreed to leave the plan and have the match contingent upon the 1114 process being "successful" which they will claim was not because they were still paying when the company left BK, that the 1114 process concluded without resolution and went to regular court. Hopefully I'm wrong, but that was my concern from day one with the language, we should have rejected it.
There is an argument that your coverage is a vested benefit, and I don't recall if the plan spells out what happens to those who are over 65 and on medicare. Because 80% is picked up by Medicare, and the pool of people covered would be shrinking at a pretty fast rate you may slide by and keep it. That would be the company's excuse for where our matched funds went.
I have no objections to the retirees getting what AA promised them, I only object to AA using my funds to do it.
Excellent question. The response for our group is that we have a Totally Worthless Union.MCI transplant said:Hey, I'm no Lawyer, but my question to the company would be, how can they justify using your money to pay for our plan? Whatever shortcomes should come from the company, and not from a source deadicated for another group! And why wouldn't your Union take such a position?
Read the plan, Sure we can fight for it and take a position on it but in the end the decision is put before a judge or arbitrator and he is going to make his determination based on what was written into the plan and the contract we agreed to. The Judge will likely say we defined our position in the contract-"upon successful resolution of the 1114 process". As I've said before, I hope I'm wrong.MCI transplant said:Hey, I'm no Lawyer, but my question to the company would be, how can they justify using your money to pay for our plan? Whatever shortcomes should come from the company, and not from a source deadicated for another group! And why wouldn't your Union take such a position?