Further Concession Demands to Fund Pilot Pension?

AP Tech

Veteran
Sep 4, 2002
1,661
246
I really do not think we want to go there! The giving is FINISHED!!!(Until the bombs start falling that is..).
 

OldpropGuy

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
185
8
Even though all employee groups and subsidiaries have already made extreme concessions to allow the company to survive, the outlook is bleak.
Almost all of the ATSB 900 million dollar loan is slated to go to the funding of the revised pension plan for the pilot group. David Siegel stated, Under that agreement with ALPA, the company will contribute $850 million over the next seven years to a new defined contribution plan. Amazingly, this appears to leave only 50 million of the proceeds for the restructuring process.
Even though the sacrifices made by all employee groups seem to be for the sole purpose of obtaining a loan to fund the pilot pension plan, ALPA will not agree to the new plan. Their creative response is, We are angered by the company''s shifting of the funding that was supposed to go into our plan being transferred into the plans of other employees, said Roy Freundlich, a spokesman for the US Airways Master Executive Council of Air Line Pilots Association. We find that, plus the desire to terminate our plan completely unacceptable, and we will be challenging it on all fronts.
It seems that a legislative solution to the pension problem is not very likely at this time. The other avenue is further concessions. It doesn''t appear there is much willingness or much remaining to give, as it seems that it was already given unknowingly, only for the pilots.
Good luck to all.
 

fatherabraham

Veteran
Sep 27, 2002
814
354
YGTBSM Of all the post I have read to date, this may be the worst.There is NO logic in stating that 850m of 900m will be going to the pilots pension fund. It would be equally absurd to sum the cost any other operating cost and claim the 900m is all going to that cause. Get real Oldpropguy, this is a ploy to take $ from a group that has already been earned. No diferent than going into a persons life long savings account at your local bank and making a 90% withdrawl. It would be theft by any rational. However many posters on this board ( for self serving reasons ) feel and advocate it is OK to rob the pilot group. Folks....it is WRONG and you should be ashamed of yourselves!
 

OldpropGuy

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
185
8
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 9:52:02 AM fatherabraham wrote:
YGTBSM Of all the post I have read to date, this may be the worst.There is NO logic in stating that 850m of 900m will be going to the pilots pension fund. It would be equally absurd to sum the cost any other operating cost and claim the 900m is all going to that cause. Get real Oldpropguy, this is a ploy to take $ from a group that has already been earned. No diferent than going into a persons life long savings account at your local bank and making a 90% withdrawl. It would be theft by any rational. However many posters on this board ( for self serving reasons ) feel and advocate it is OK to rob the pilot group. Folks....it is WRONG and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

----------------
[/blockquote]EXACTLY! I think you are starting to see my point! This is the same absurd logic ALPA used with the position: "We are angered by the company's shifting of the funding that was supposed to go into our plan being transferred into the plans of other employees," said Roy Freundlich.

I'm glad we agree on something. Why is OK for ALPA to use this "fuzzy logic" but not others? I agree it is a terrible situation and not right! There just seems to be a problem finding an answer without legislative support. Anyone have a solution?
 

fatherabraham

Veteran
Sep 27, 2002
814
354
oldpropguy,
Still unsure of your stance on the ethics of Mgt effectively demanding a retroactive pay cut (stealing earned retirement...not future retirement earnings) of one group of employees. If the $ had been in a employee account per a defined contribution plan and Mgt attempted this theft then all would understand the injustice.
I am sick and tired of anyone who EARNS less in our culture copping the attitude that their personal income level is adaquate for ALL and they (higher income employees) do not warrant a complaint without someone claiming they are overpaid and spoiled crybaby's.
The fact of the matter is: Only 2% of the worlds population has a car and a bank account. Those 98% could effectively argue (with the socialist posters mentality) that all in the USA are whiners.
As for "Roys" quotes. I do not know the true intent of his Quotes. I seldom do with the written word. Perhaps ALPA negotiated "round 2" with the language that those savings would fund the shortfall. Cannot speak for him, but can reply to your original post.
 

OldpropGuy

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
185
8
fatherabraham,

I have been careful not to discuss the "ethics," as you mention, of the whole situation. Unfortunately in this dog eat dog world that is not the point. I have agree that the pilot pension problem is a terrible thing and would like to hear a fair solution. Where is the money to come from to fund the original benefits as you demand?

I agree that there will always be the "haves" and "havenots." It just doesn't seem reasonable for the haves to expect much sympathy from the havenots in an issue such as this. I find myself somewhere in the middle.

The "fuzzy logic" I referred to is not only displayed in Roy's quote but originally in the MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE,
January 24, 2003. I think both of these make the absurd thinking apparent, even if you do appear to overlook it.

We do both agree that it's a terrible situation. Should the pilots decide to shut down the airline, what will be the advantage to anyone? Will the pilots or any other work group receive their desires then? Hopefully someone will come up with a workable solution.

Good luck to all.
 

fatherabraham

Veteran
Sep 27, 2002
814
354
Oldpropguy,

Sorry oldpropguy , but after 5 months of lurking your original post demanded my first post on this board. maybe I misunderstand your post. I assume those are your words not in quotation.

You conclude that ALL the employees gave to fund the the pilots pension and now they will not play ball. How foolish....did you or anyone you know sign a paper directing their pay cut go to fund a pilot pension or any particular cost item. Of course NOT!

Bottom line: U is trying to get their employee/vendor cost down. no one can cry " woe is me " unless they feel they are being unfairly targeted. I do note this is the first issue with the pilots where they are saying enough is enough. Only negotiations will determine the truth.

As far as the pilots asking for sympathy...NOT!! Stating their view of the truth...YES. Human nature dictates that you and I enjoy their misery. Still does'nt make it right.

Still going to hold your feet to the fire for your original post.
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 11:34:05 AM OldpropGuy wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 9:52:02 AM fatherabraham wrote:
YGTBSM Of all the post I have read to date, this may be the worst.There is NO logic in stating that 850m of 900m will be going to the pilots pension fund. It would be equally absurd to sum the cost any other operating cost and claim the 900m is all going to that cause. Get real Oldpropguy, this is a ploy to take $ from a group that has already been earned. No diferent than going into a persons life long savings account at your local bank and making a 90% withdrawl. It would be theft by any rational. However many posters on this board ( for self serving reasons ) feel and advocate it is OK to rob the pilot group. Folks....it is WRONG and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

----------------
[/blockquote]EXACTLY! I think you are starting to see my point! This is the same absurd logic ALPA used with the position: "We are angered by the company's shifting of the funding that was supposed to go into our plan being transferred into the plans of other employees," said Roy Freundlich.

I'm glad we agree on something. Why is OK for ALPA to use this "fuzzy logic" but not others? I agree it is a terrible situation and not right! There just seems to be a problem finding an answer without legislative support. Anyone have a solution?

----------------
[/blockquote]

Old guy,

I think you make a good point. Everytime this co. gets an invester or gets financing we can not use this logic and say, "well, than it's to pay for this group having this and that group getting that. That is just "stupidity". Tha'ts like saying if you compensate the executives with bonuses, then that could be applied to one groups pension fund...oop..did I say that?

No really, We ALL have contributed and made sacrifices to this company for it's survival, and WE ARE ALL INVESTORS, and rightly should receive any benefit that we can successfully negotiate.
 

OldpropGuy

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
185
8
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 1:26:19 PM fatherabraham wrote:

Oldpropguy,

Sorry oldpropguy , but after 5 months of lurking your original post demanded my first post on this board. maybe I misunderstand your post. I assume those are your words not in quotation.

You conclude that ALL the employees gave to fund the the pilots pension and now they will not play ball. How foolish....did you or anyone you know sign a paper directing their pay cut go to fund a pilot pension or any particular cost item. Of course NOT!
----------------
[/blockquote]
fatherabraham,

Glad you decided to come out of lurk. It's good for the soul occasionally! You are correct, those words not in quotation were mine.

I was implying that if ALPA could state that their cuts went to fund other groups pension plans, then other groups could with the same logic say that the money from the ATSB loan, which they took cuts for, was to cover the pilot pension plan.

I could likewise reply with: ....did you or anyone you know sign a paper directing their pay cut go to fund other groups pensions or any particular cost item. Of course NOT!

Hopefully this clarifies my post for you. We seem to agree on other matters.
 

fatherabraham

Veteran
Sep 27, 2002
814
354
Oldpropguy,

you post: I was implying that if ALPA could state that their cuts went to fund other groups pension plans, then other groups could with the same logic say that the money from the ATSB loan, which they took cuts for, was to cover the pilot pension plan.

Oldpropguy, I think you posted without thinking it through or you were looking for a fight. You quoted Roy and it would have been fair enough to question his statement. Or you could have posted the rebuttal of Roy's statement by other "in the know" union spokeman. (BTW, are there any?) However you posted a statement as fact that all gave for the atsb $ and not to fund the pilot pension. That is what I disagreed with.

Would you mind replying to any of my questions on ethics. I think that would be fair enough since you seem to be ever so willing to typecast the U pilots.

You are right, I seem to feel better getting this off my mind. To all, be content with what you have and give up your envy of what Siegle/Wolfe/pilot/bronner/etc have...for it is temporary at best . Below is a Quote of Authority to remember


Matt 20:1-15
1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.
2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 "About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing.
4 He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.'
5 So they went. "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing.
6 About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
7 "'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
8 "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
9 "The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius.
10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.
11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.
12 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
13 "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius?
14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you.
15 Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
(NIV)


+
 

Latest posts