Economic meltdown forcing retired couple back to work

[BoeingBoy]

I can merely go back to my original statement....

There seems to be a lot of info missing in the article and accompanying video.

Because of that lack of info, the article and accompanying video raise more questions than they answer.

Apparently, UAL Tech took offense that anyone would question the info as presented and resorted to the last refuge of those who can't (or don't want to) debate the facts - attack the "opponent" personally.

As for the issue of execs lining their pockets with bonuses, stock options, etc, while extracting concessions from the workers, you'll get no argument from me. It is unconscionable at best and should be criminal. But that is a separate issue from the PBGC's process of calculating benefits once they take over a terminated pension.

Jim

 

[UAL_TECH]

I can merely go back to my original statement....



Because of that lack of info, the article and accompanying video raise more questions than they answer.

Apparently, UAL Tech took offense that anyone would question the info as presented and resorted to the last refuge of those who can't (or don't want to) debate the facts - attack the "opponent" personally.

As for the issue of execs lining their pockets with bonuses, stock options, etc, while extracting concessions from the workers, you'll get no argument from me. It is unconscionable at best and should be criminal. But that is a separate issue from the PBGC's process of calculating benefits once they take over a terminated pension.

Jim

Jim,

Funny thing about 'facts'...

I presented you with the facts in my case which is somewhat similar to the 'little' facts in the case of the article presented.

The 'scenario' of that which you have outlined may well be the situation for USAir and UAL pilots, but it is not all encompassing through out all trade groups on 'both' airlines. Unless you are willing to be my legal representation in getting the benefits that you think I lack to meet your ‘hypothesis’ then you might want to reevaluate your post.

Certainly, I have some anger issues concerning what was promised and what was delivered, but I have not misrepresented my situation.

Respectfully (So I stay out of the cornfield),
B) xUT

 

[BoeingBoy]

I presented you with the facts in my case which is somewhat similar to the 'little' facts in the case of the article presented.

Which is all I did - present the facts as I know them.

The PBGC doesn't determine a benefit based on what job you held - the calculations are cut and dry as I outlined earlier. In the case of the terminated US pilot pension plan, there were sufficient funds available to pay Group 3 98% of their calculated benefit. Pilots below that (Group 4, Group 5, etc) receive the minimum guarantee, which is available on the PBGC's website (although only for two payment options - straight life and joint with 50% survivor benefits).

The guarantee does depend on the year the pension was terminated and the recipients age at the time benefits commence, and possibly that's why your benefit is what it is - by law the maximum guarantee is for those that start receiving benefits at age 65 (a big complaint with the US pilots at the time since the mandatory retirement age was 60, resulting in a reduction in benefits that was inescapable, though later the change in retirement age negated that). There are also limits if your plan was "created or amended to increase benefits within 5 years of termination." Finally, the amount received will depend on what type of payout one chooses - there are 6 or 8 different options ranging from a a couple of term certain (pays for a given amount of time then ends) to a 100% survivor annuity (with a greater penalty the younger the spouse is relative to the retiree).

For example, the guarantee for a plan terminated in 2005 is:

$3801 for a straight life annuity with benefits starting at 65

$2470 for a straight life annuity with benefits starting at 60 (the big drop in guarantee that the pilots complained about at the time)

$1710 for a straight life annuity with benefits starting at 55

$1330 for a straight life annuity with benefits starting at 50

$950 for a straight life annuity with benefits starting at 45

As I said, however, the actual guarantee would depend on the payout option chosen and could be quite a bit lower than these figures.

From the facts presented in the article/video I just can't see how two retirees (as implied) who retired in their late 50's or early 60's (assumed from their current ages) could have a combined benefit as low as what was presented - less than $1000/month. There has to be more to the story that explains it, hence the unanswered questions. Perhaps one spouse didn't work for UA. Perhaps one spouse is choosing to wait before receiving benefits. Perhaps they retired at a younger age than implied. Perhaps they both chose the payout method that produced the lowest benefit. Etc.

Jim

 

[UAL_TECH]

Which is all I did - present the facts as I know them.

The PBGC doesn't determine a benefit based on what job you held - the calculations are cut and dry as I outlined earlier.

Well, that is simply untrue. The PBGC looks at each contract to determine what the retirement ‘was’ and in the case of UAL M&R the 5 year ‘look back’ clause cost us an additional 20% cut.

In the case of the terminated US pilot pension plan, there were sufficient funds available to pay Group 3 98% of their calculated benefit. Pilots below that (Group 4, Group 5, etc) receive the minimum guarantee, which is available on the PBGC's website (although only for two payment options - straight life and joint with 50% survivor benefits).

I think I see the disparity in this discussion. You are looking at the PBGC maximum guarantee, and in regards to this you are 100% correct. However, there are no other groups (besides upper management, executives and pilots) that have/will ever be faced with the opportunity to debate PBGC maximum benefits.

From the facts presented in the article/video I just can't see how two retirees (as implied) who retired in their late 50's or early 60's (assumed from their current ages) could have a combined benefit as low as what was presented - less than $1000/month. There has to be more to the story that explains it, hence the unanswered questions. Perhaps one spouse didn't work for UA. Perhaps one spouse is choosing to wait before receiving benefits. Perhaps they retired at a younger age than implied. Perhaps they both chose the payout method that produced the lowest benefit. Etc.

I can see it. Before the PBGC took over the pension, the contractors that were handling the pension offered a benefit outside of the contract. This benefit was referred to as ‘level-income life certain’ which paid out a higher monthly benefit until SS kicked in at 62, then reduced the payout to match the SS benefit to create a level income. This benefit was above and beyond contractual defined benefits and not recognized by the PBGC because it was not in the contract language.

If they had the unfortunate happenstance (which I do not know either) to retire close the time period that the pensions were given to the PBGC, then I see this scenario plausible as they may have taken the ‘level-income life certain’ option which was not in the AMFA, IAM, AFA contracts.

Respectfully (So I stay out of the cornfield),
B) xUT

 

[BoeingBoy]

Well, that is simply untrue. The PBGC looks at each contract to determine what the retirement ‘was’ and in the case of UAL M&R the 5 year ‘look back’ clause cost us an additional 20% cut.

Sorry, I thought I covered the contract provisions in the "calculated benefit" discussion. You're right, the PBGC does absolutely take the contractual pension language into account when determining that "calculated benefit".

I think I see the disparity in this discussion. You are looking at the PBGC maximum guarantee, and in regards to this you are 100% correct.

Boy do I have egg on my face. :wub: Somehow I misread that as saying minimum guarantee. I certainly apologize for my mistake.

Respectfully (So I stay out of the cornfield),

Learned that trick from USA320???

Jim

 

[UAL_TECH]

Sorry, I thought I covered the contract provisions in the "calculated benefit" discussion. You're right, the PBGC does absolutely take the contractual pension language into account when determining that "calculated benefit".

Boy do I have egg on my face. :wub: Somehow I misread that as saying minimum guarantee. I certainly apologize for my mistake.

Jim

Jim,

We were both looking at it from different perspectives. I probably could have been clearer in my position and had I not become irrationally exuberant, I would have pointed out our different perspectives earlier.

The week in the cornfield was probably what I needed (deleted by moderator)

Learned that trick from USA320???

(deleted by moderator) and yes… 😛

Best to you and yours!

Take Care,
B) xUT

 

[BoeingBoy]

Best to you and yours!

Take Care,
B) xUT

Likewise, and nothing you said directed at me was out of bounds as far as I'm concerned.

Jim

 

[Borescope]

Look, the bottom line here is...these people played by the rules and where CHEATED out of their pensions while the "system" allowed their pensions to pay for the pensions of "executive talent" responsible for bankrupting the airline (we mustn't leave out the tens of millions in bonuses paid out to that talent FOR BANKRUPTING the airline and dumping the pensions on the taxpayers).

Taxpayers in the richest nation on earth (USA..now run and operated by Corporate America.) should not be worried about working till they drop to retire when Europe, Japan and the rest of the damn world lives freely off of the money Americans pay for the Western world's defense...and they happily retire at 59 or 60 years of age.

People who VOTED for BUSH/ Reagan, and the present two Corporate dimwits McCain/ and Airhead are directly responsible. Ya just can't have it both ways...

I looking forward to joining the Japs and Europeans. After the election I plan to cut my work month to one week. Nobama, has promised to make up the rest. What a great country we live in.