Important MEC Code-a-Phone - Jan 24th

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 12:24:49 PM BottomFeeder wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 12:03:30 PM us10 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 11:34:20 AM real world wrote:


Two questions based on the Code-A-Phone statement:

"the MEC required that a confidential side letter be executed by the Company that legally obligated it to provide funding for pension benefits to pilots in the event the pilot pension plan was terminated"

Does this not constitute an agreement?


"We do not believe that alternatives being pursued by the Company at this time would prevent pilots from losing a substantial part of the benefits that they have earned"

So then what is the problem?
----------------
[/blockquote]


You left out the last three words of the your cited quote.The words; "by the PBGC" should have been included.The side letter did not cover a company requested termination or a joint company/ALPA requested termination.
If the PBGC should step in and terminate the plan ALPA wanted some protection.

Please re-read the second of your quotes.If you still can't see the problem, well, I don't think I can help you.
----------------
[/blockquote]



RealWorld,

You appear to be very informed on these matters.

What do you think of us10's answer?

Are the numbers in the MEC memo correct?

If this memo is correct. They do have a good point. The numbers do speak louder than words.


THEY WANT A TRUSTED LEADER

----------------
[/blockquote]
By the PBGC or not the letter still existed and I beleive the ALPA leadership never thought this would play out the way it has and now the are backpeddiling and trying to regain control of the situation so their membership doesn't belive they sold them down the river with the secret letter.

Secondly you need to re-read the second quote it states (albeit not that clearly) that the alternatives that are being proposed will leave the pilots in realitively the same positin as you are today.

"We do not believe that alternatives being pursued by the Company at this time would prevent pilots from losing a substantial part of the benefits that they have earned."
 
[BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 4:27:40 PM savyinvestor wrote: [BR][BR]Oldie, I see your attacking someone else now. They must have disagreed with your position. Remember you won't make any new friends that way and it appears you don't have too many to begin with. Tick, tock, Savy----------------[BR][BR]------------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 Oldiebutgoody wrote---[BR][BR]With friends like you two...I don't think I even need to finish that. Oh, did you see the article on MSNBC about the PBGC being something like 8 BILLION dollars in the red due to failed pensions. From companies that did exactly what you want U to do, dump their pensions on the taxpayers. Now, when you get your tax increase (or less of the GWB tax "decrease") you can thank guys like yourself for passing the pain to everybody, instead of making managements live up to their obligations. Maybe if U goes under, I could sell insurance. That might take me half a day to learn...Naah, It might make me bitter....By the way, it's hardly an attack, especially when the weapon is wit and knowledge and the opponent is undefended... [BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Update....another article says that the PBGC went from a surplus of 8 BILLION DOLLARS to a DEFICIT of 1 to 2 BILLION DOLLARS. That's up to 10 BILLION DOLLARS in 1 year. Taxpayers are gonna JUST LOVE your plan!
 
A320, Munn's post says ALPA and the company have met for the last two days and leads one to believe an agreement is near. You say there have been no meetings. Who is correct? Thanks, Savy
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 5:36:56 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:




[BLOCKQUOTE]

----------------
On 1/25/2003 4:27:40 PM savyinvestor wrote:

Oldie, I see your attacking someone else now. They must have disagreed with your position. Remember you won't make any new friends that way and it appears you don't have too many to begin with. Tick, tock, Savy----------------

------------------
On 1/25/2003 Oldiebutgoody wrote---

With friends like you two...I don't think I even need to finish that. Oh, did you see the article on MSNBC about the PBGC being something like 8 BILLION dollars in the red due to failed pensions. From companies that did exactly what you want U to do, dump their pensions on the taxpayers. Now, when you get your tax increase (or less of the GWB tax "decrease") you can thank guys like yourself for passing the pain to everybody, instead of making managements live up to their obligations. Maybe if U goes under, I could sell insurance. That might take me half a day to learn...Naah, It might make me bitter....By the way, it's hardly an attack, especially when the weapon is wit and knowledge and the opponent is undefended...

----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]

Update....another article says that the PBGC went from a surplus of 8 BILLION DOLLARS to a DEFICIT of 1 to 2 BILLION DOLLARS. That's up to 10 BILLION DOLLARS in 1 year. Taxpayers are gonna JUST LOVE your plan!
----------------
[/blockquote]
There you go with personal attacks again. What don't you understand about being bankrupt? Your pension is underfunded and the company is short of cash and needs to reduce debt to emerge. YOUR pension is like the anchor on the TITANIC and your taking the whole ship down with you. The company needs to reduce debt. EVEN you should be able to figure that out or do you need a simulator for that too? DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 6:29:51 PM A320 Driver wrote:

The only alternative plan being pursued by the company is the termination of the pension plan. If that occurs, our contract is violated... PERIOD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
We all have been violated.

Does the company even have other options?

If the company would benefit by dropping all plans and then giving us more than a 2 percent match on 401 plans, WAY more, I could live with that, but I am only one person.

This pension thing sure is erasing any good will between the company and employees or between the employees groups. Ugly, cruel, divisive, unfair would be some fitting adjectives, and I include myself in this fray.
 
Savy,[BR]Save the energy; your words are wasted on OBG. I believe there is a saying "attempting to reason logically with an unarmed individual is an unfair fight". After all, the next thing you know he may call you a brute.
 
The only alternative plan being pursued by the company is the termination of the pension plan. If that occurs, our contract is violated... PERIOD.

A320 Driver
 
All I know is what I was told today...
DAVE LIED. He lied to us and he lied to Congress. There is no plan B in the hand of the MEC or any negotiation going on.
That is what I was told. That is all I know.


A320 Driver
 
MLT, Thanks for the post. Yes, I'm afraid he is a lost cause. His condescending attitude and personal insults speak loads about him, but I know that not all pilots are like that. Savy
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 6:29:51 PM A320 Driver wrote:
We get a 33% raise that lasts for 14 months which followed TWO DECADES of concessionary contracts. Now, we have agreed to everything Dave wanted...and it wasn't enough. I've never felt so raped and betrayed as I do right now. We had a fighting chance in Congress to buy some time and the Dave shot it down. There are NO negotiations going on. The IAM and the AFA are entitled to their pensions. I do not believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul. I believe Dave has just become the hero of business management everywhere. Threaten them, beat them into submission, and when you have them thinking that the beating is over, you kick them in the head just for good measure.
I've reached my limit.

Biffman...you were right!

A320 Driver

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

A320 -

You are overstating the raise. It was about 15% for twelve months, then another 17% for two months. This after at least a decade of stagnation and below industry rates. Even with that last two months, we weren't even quite up to industry scale since the parity review was a "look back" arrangement.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 6:15:27 PM real world wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 12:24:49 PM BottomFeeder wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 12:03:30 PM us10 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
Secondly you need to re-read the second quote it states (albeit not that clearly) that the alternatives that are being proposed will leave the pilots in realitively the same positin as you are today.

"We do not believe that alternatives being pursued by the Company at this time would prevent pilots from losing a substantial part of the benefits that they have earned."


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

RealWorld,

Thanks for the reply.

I fear that the true meaning of the above quote is hidden.
It must have been drafted by a law type. The use of double negatives and other clever wording make it hard to understand unless you break it down and rebuild.

I am not sure that we are in agreement of the above quote. My understanding, leads me to believe the alternatives will allow substantial losses. The situation is going to be as it is at this very moment.

What did you think of the numbers in the MEC memo? Are these the factual numbers supplied to the unions by the company? Is there information to dispute these figures?


What kind of leader would you follow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
PILOTS pay for other employee pensions
Replies
4
Views
1K
Severed-N-Happy
S
C
ALPA MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE - January 28
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
JJRJ85
J
D
MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE
Replies
8
Views
2K
chipmunn
C
U
ALPA MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE - May 23, 2003
Replies
1
Views
871
dfw79
D
C
  • Locked
Understanding sentiment and reaching the point of indifference
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Webster
W

Latest posts

Back
Top