It seems to be beyond anybodys capabilities because I asked and never got a straight answer.
Lets say AA terminates the DB and years down the road after half the people who are covered under the pllan die off and the plan still has billions in it, what happens to the rest of those funds? Could the company simply buy an annuity for the remaining participants and pocket the billions? Like they did with the Supplimental Medical?
If the plan is terminated, then all assets are turned over to the PBGC which would pay out the benefits subject to the maximums. If the plan were frozen (but not terminated), AA would still have to contribute cash unless the plan assets experienced remarkable investment returns. As far as I know, companies can no longer raid their pension plans and pull out excess assets; after the high-profile cases in the 1980s/early 1990s where corporate raiders did just that, the law was changed.
I don't see how the situation you posed above could ever happen, but if it did, it wouldn't bother me. As long as all participants receive the defined benefits they have earned, who cares whether they are provided via a commercial annuity or by the current method?
Well in the 90s there were years when AA didnt have to contribute anything, in fact IIRC they drew monies out because the plan outperformed expectations.
You may be right - I haven't dug out the old financials to look. If the plan assets are growing faster than the obligations, it used to be permissible to draw out excess assets and use them for other corporate purposes.
How long was the make up period? I ask this because lets say they have a 10 year make up period, they could allow a company to manipulate those payments to make their arguement that they need concessions. Last year our Union was telling us that we needed to get a contract in place because AA had a "billion dollar pension payment coming sue" and that could trigger a BK filing, well as you said they paid less than $500 million and they paid nothing into the plan the prior year.
I don't know the exact makeup period, but I think it was something like 17 years. I don't agree that the company can "manipulate" the requried contributions. The required minimum contributions are determined objectively by applying IRS regulations. That doesn't stop the worthless union from engaging in overly cautious fear-mongering, as you pointed out. The company certainly didn't say anything about a "billion dollar pension payment coming due," but your union might have. The 2010 and 2011 contributions will total about a billion dollars - perhaps someone added the two years together to try to convince everyone to vote yes on the substandard TA.
In 2008, the contributions were only $89 million and in 2009, only $10 million was contributed due to the high asset values prior to the stock market meltdown. The 2010 contribution was $466 million and the 2011 contribution will total about $520 million, for a two-year total of about a billion dollars. Maybe that was the source of the worthless union's confusion when it claimed that AA was facing a "billion dollar pension" contribution.
For workers who want the peace of mind of a fixed pension payment, the defined benefit pension still has a lot of value attached to it. Here in CA, teachers and other public employees have said that they will fight to the bitter end to protect their pensions. I'm a participant in the CA system, and I support continuation of the plans. I've been a consistent supporter of Arpey's dedication to the AA defined benefit plan.
For workers who want the chance for higher retirement income, 401(k) plans offer that chance. Ideally, workers would have both. In my opinion, nobody should rely on one or the other. Even if you have a DB plan, you should be saving more via 401(k) or IRA or other retirement savings vehicle.
Of the large legacy airlines other than AA, only CO is still funding DB pensions for maintenance personnel and FAs. AA is alone in funding DB pensions for pilots. While it's easy for someone to say "Go ahead and cancel my pension and let me invest the money in a 401(k) instead," I view that as a lot of big talk, and talk is cheap.
In the 1980s and 1990s, it was easy to win in the equities markets. Low expense index funds like the Vanguard S&P 500 made money nearly every year. For the past 10 years, however, the market has been flat overall with several periods of extreme volatility. Lots of working class people piled up a million or more in their 401(k)s in the 1980s and 1990s. I doubt the past 10 years has seen that kind of success repeated.