January 15 Airline News

C

chipmunn

Guest
[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Airlines' earnings may not take off - Analysts predict losses for 2003[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]CHICAGO (Tribune) - Wall Street analysts on Tuesday dispelled the notion that the nation's domestic airlines would begin their return to profitability this year.[BR][BR]Instead of an improving bottom line, as many had been predicting, two of the aviation industry's leading analysts now say that industry losses will be higher than they had predicted a little more than a month ago. Still, the industry's loss for 2003 will be lower than last year's estimated loss of $7.4 billion.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/printedition/chi-0301150382jan15,1,4252961.story?coll=chi%2Dprintbusiness%2Dhed][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/printedition/chi-0301150382jan15,1,4252961.story?coll=chi%2Dprintbusiness%2Dhed[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]UAL's Flight Attendants Oppose Planned Retention Plan[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]WASHINGTON -- The Association of Flight Attendants has opposed a request by United Airlines' parent company, UAL Corp., to implement a key employee- retention plan for some members of the carrier's management, saying the proposed plan lacks business judgment and has unreasonable terms.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030114/1328000561_1.html][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030114/1328000561_1.html[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Trustee Denies United Noteholders Request[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]CHICAGO (Reuters) - The U.S. Trustee overseeing bankrupt United Airlines said on Tuesday he denied a request from a group that holds secured aircraft bonds to form a committee to represent their interests in the restructuring.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030114/airlines_united_committee_2.html][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030114/airlines_united_committee_2.html[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]UAL will let State Street sell 13M employee shares: United hiding exec, Boston firm claims[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]CHICAGO (Boston Today) - UAL Corp. said it will allow State Street Bank & Trust Co. to sell as many as 12.9 million shares owned by the bankrupt airline's employees after the trust company warned that the workers' stock may become worthless.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Trading by large shareholders was stopped when UAL filed for bankruptcy protection on Dec. 9. The parent of United Airlines said the trading halt was needed to preserve future tax benefits. State Street wants to be free to sell the employees' remaining 32.5 million UAL shares so they don't share the fate of Enron Corp. workers who were left with valueless shares.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://www.businesstoday.com/business/business/ap_state01142003.htm][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://www.businesstoday.com/business/business/ap_state01142003.htm[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Continental Airlines Posts Narrower 4th-Quarter Loss[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]HOUSTON -- Continental Airlines Inc. trimmed its fourth-quarter loss on a 17% increase in revenue. The air carrier Wednesday posted a net loss of $109 million, or $1.67 a share, compared with a loss of $149 million, or $2.58 a share, a year earlier.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030115/0845000384_1.html][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030115/0845000384_1.html[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]US Airways Subsidiary Demands 600% Cost Increase in Health Care[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Allegheny Airlines/US Airways Breaks Promise to Workers [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Allegheny Airlines, a subsidiary of US Airways, is gutting the health care coverage of its 1,200 Teamster mechanics, fleet agents and passenger service agents. This recently announced act of corporate greed will result in up to $700 a month being taken from workers' paychecks to finance US Airways' bankruptcy reorganization.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Allegheny's conduct is despicable, said Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa. US Airways CEO Dave Siegel repeatedly promised that no worker making $30,000 per year or less would be asked to take a pay cut, but here they are trying to cut the wages of fleet and passenger service agents -- almost all of whom make less than $30,000 a year. Siegel has truly shown us how good his word is.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030114/dctu026_1.html][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030114/dctu026_1.html[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]US Airways Pilots Face Pension Cutbacks - Carrier's Request for Extension Is Denied [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]WASHINGTON (Washington Post) - US Airways will probably have to terminate its pilots' pension fund after a government agency refused yesterday to give the bankrupt company more time to meet its funding obligations.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57994-2003Jan15.html][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57994-2003Jan15.html[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Officials Say US Airways Bailout Plan Risks Pensions [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]WASHINGTON -- A plan to help bail US Airways Group Inc. out of bankruptcy by extending its employee-pension payments would risk retirement security for 44 million Americans, federal officials told a Senate hearing Tuesday.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/?story=NewsStory/dowJones/20030115/ON200301150311000176.var&p=UAWGQ][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/?story=NewsStory/dowJones/20030115/ON200301150311000176.var&p=UAWGQ[/FONT][/A][STRONG][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]US Airways Needs U.S. Help on Pilots' Pension Plan, Siegel Says[/FONT][/STRONG][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Washington, Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- US Airways Group Inc. needs federal legislation before the end of the month to be able to continue the pension plan for its pilots, Chief Executive Officer David Siegel said.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T=marketsquote99_relnews.ht&s=APiSj5xVPVVMgQWly][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T=marketsquote99_relnews.ht&s=APiSj5xVPVVMgQWly[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]US Airways pleads for pension stretchout [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman][FONT size=3]PITTSBURGH (Post-Gazette) - US Airways Chief Executive Officer David Siegel yesterday urged a Senate panel to approve legislation that would allow the bankrupt carrier to stretch out $3.1 billion in payments to its employee pension plan over 30 years.[/FONT][/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20030115usairbizp1.asp][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20030115usairbizp1.asp[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][STRONG][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]US Airways pilots ask Congress for mercy[/FONT][/STRONG][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]PITTSBURGH (Tribune-Review) - US Airways, pilots and key politicians united for a last-minute push Tuesday to convince Congress to let the bankrupt airline trim - rather than simply gut - a company pension covering more than 4,000 pilots. [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/business/s_112783.html][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/business/s_112783.html[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Siegel Testifies at Senate Hearing [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]ARLINGTON (theHub.com) - President and CEO Dave Siegel testified today before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and addressed the critical issue of the company’s pension obligations and its efforts to restructure employee pension plans.[BR][BR]Siegel told the committee that he and his management team have been and remain focused on executing a successful restructuring that would provide the company long-term success, save as many jobs as possible, and preserve as much pension and benefit compensation as possible, in combination with competitive wages.[BR][BR]We have committed to the unions representing our flight attendants and mechanics that we can work out the funding issues for their respective members and will not consider any plan to terminate those pension programs, Siegel said. At this point, the pilot pension plan is the only one at risk of being terminated.[BR][BR]Siegel also said that the company has made substantial progress in reducing its cost structure, including go-forward pension costs. In spite of those reductions, we still face the problem of funding the obligations of the current plan. US Airways faces a $3.1 billion pension obligation over the next seven years as a result of the dramatic drop in both the stock market and interest rates. The majority of that obligation is related to the pension program for pilots.[BR][BR]Siegel pointed out that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), an employer cannot do anything about obligations that have already been accrued, and it is the 2004 and 2005 pension contributions that are the most troubling for US Airways. We therefore proposed to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) a restoration-of-funding plan, by which we would amortize and smooth the $3.1 billion payment. Unfortunately, after several weeks of negotiation, the PBGC has concluded that it does not have the legal authority to implement this alternative, said Siegel. While I respect their decision, I cannot say that I agree with it. But I have advised the Air Line Pilots Association that for the sake of our company’s future, we must begin to consider the alternatives, and to work closely with the PBGC on that effort.[BR][BR]Siegel said that the company’s plan of reorganization and disclosure statement hopefully will be approved by the Bankruptcy Court on Jan. 16, and that the time needed to resolve this issue is very short. The date cannot be delayed and still allow the company to emerge from bankruptcy by the end of March, he said, pointing out that the timeline is set by requirement of our Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) financing and credit card processing agreements.[BR][BR]Siegel said that while the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee agreed to hold a hearing before the end of January to examine the funding problems that the U.S. industry has with its pensions, any protracted legislative process will simply be too late to accommodate the very tight timeline of our emergence plan. Our equity sponsor and DIP lender, as well as the ATSB, expect a resolution to this matter within days, not weeks or months, he said.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Statement of Steven A. Kandarian[BR]Executive Director[BR]Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation[BR]before the[BR]Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education[BR]Committee on Appropriations[BR]United States Senate[BR]January 14, 2003[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:[BR][BR]Good afternoon. I am Steven A. Kandarian, Executive Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). With me today is PBGC's General Counsel, James Keightley. We want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify on this very important matter.[BR][BR]You have asked me to address the PBGC General Counsel's legal opinion that PBGC may not terminate and immediately restore US Airways' pension plans in order to provide the company with a longer period over which to fund its plans. You have also asked me to address whether the law should be changed.[BR][BR]Before turning to those issues, I would like to provide some background on the role PBGC plays in ensuring a secure retirement for American workers, and on the relevant pension funding rules. [BR][BR]STRUCTURE OF PBGC[BR][BR]PBGC was created as a federal corporation by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). PBGC protects the pensions of about 44 million workers and retirees in about 35,000 private defined benefit pension plans. PBGC has a three-person Board of Directors -- the Secretaries of Commerce and the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor, who is the chair.[BR][BR]It is important to note that PBGC receives no taxpayer dollars. PBGC is funded by premiums paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans. Every company that sponsors a defined benefit plan pays to PBGC an annual flat-rate premium of $19 per participant. In addition, sponsors of certain underfunded plans, which pose a greater risk to the insurance system, pay an additional variable-rate premium based on the degree of their underfunding. [BR][BR]PAST CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO TIGHTEN FUNDING RULES[BR][BR]PBGC was in a deficit position for its first 21 years of existence. To address the causes of the deficit, Congress amended PBGC's governing law in 1986, 1987, and 1994 to increase premiums, to tie premiums more to exposure, to prevent ongoing companies from dumping their underfunded plans on PBGC, and to tighten the funding requirements for underfunded plans. Two key elements of the tighter funding requirements were:[BR][BR]Accelerated funding for plans that were generally less than 90 percent funded, and [BR]Stricter limits on the granting of waivers from the funding requirements. [BR][BR]Accelerated Funding Requirements[BR][BR]When ERISA was enacted in 1974, Congress allowed employers with existing pension plans 40 years to pay unfunded past service liabilities, and new plans were allowed 30 years to pay these liabilities. At that time, Congress viewed the funding rules and PBGC insurance as closely linked. As the Finance Committee stated: [BR][BR]The termination insurance program is intended to work hand-in-hand with the minimum funding standards imposed by the bill, since the latter will limit the losses due to plan termination by requiring more adequate funding of pension plans.[BR][BR]Report of the Committee on Finance on S. 1170, S. Rep. No. 93-383 at 26 (1973).[BR][BR]Since 1974, Congress has acted repeatedly to tighten the funding rules to require faster funding and greater protections for participants and the pension insurance system. In 1987, Congress added accelerated funding rules for certain underfunded plans. These rules require employers to fund pension liabilities over 5 to 7 years rather than over 30 to 40 years.[BR][BR]When Congress strengthened the funding requirements in 1987, the Finance Committee concluded:[BR][BR]An employer should not have the opportunity to make pension promises that exceed its financial capacity to meet its promises. In order to reduce the financial risk to plan participants and the PBGC, the amendment requires certain plans to be funded more rapidly depending on the funded status of the plan.[BR][BR]Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., Explanation of Provisions Approved by the Committee on December 3, 1987 for inclusion in leadership Deficit Reduction Amendment, p. 170.[BR][/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Funding Waivers[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT size=3][FONT face=Times New Roman]In addition to strengthening the funding requirements, Congress also placed stricter limits on the IRS's granting of waivers from the funding requirements. A funding waiver allows a company to defer payment of funding contributions in the event of temporary business hardship. When ERISA was enacted, the IRS was granted authority to give a funding waiver to an employer suffering from substantial business hardship. [BR][BR]In 1985 and again in 1987, Congress acted to tighten the requirements for funding waivers because of concern that funding waivers were being misused. As a result, Congress limited waivers to no more than 3 waivers in a 15-year period, reduced the 15-year waiver repayment period to a 5-year period, and required the IRS to consult with PBGC over proper security for any waiver over $1 million.[BR][BR]The Senate Finance Committee explained that these tighter waiver rules were necessary and appropriate because:[BR][BR]It is believed that employers have used funding waivers in the past to minimize plan contributions during the period immediately preceding the termination of a plan. The GAO report found that 30 percent of the claims against the PBGC arising during the period 1983-1985 resulted from the failure of employers to make required plan contributions prior to plan termination. The GAO concluded that significant percentages of the large claims represented required contributions that were overdue or had been waived by the IRS.[BR][BR]Under present law, funding waivers are equivalent to an extension of credit from a plan to the employer that normally would be treated as a prohibited transaction. It is believed that such an extension of credit is not appropriate unless adequate safeguards apply to protect participants' benefits. Plan participants should not be required to finance the continuing operations of an employer by placing their retirement benefits at risk. [BR][BR]Further it is believed that the integrity of the plan termination insurance program will be jeopardized if employers have the opportunity to avoid liability for their pension promises at the expense of other employers who moderated their promises or are more financially secure and remain in the defined benefit system. [EMPHASIS added.][BR][BR]Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., Explanation of Provisions Approved by the Committee on December 3, 1987 for inclusion in leadership Deficit Reduction Amendment, p. 181.[BR][BR]US AIRWAYS' REQUEST[BR][BR]US Airways is currently undergoing reorganization in bankruptcy court. It has applied for a loan guarantee from the Air Transportation Stabilization Board. To obtain a loan guarantee, US Airways must present a business plan that demonstrates that it can repay the loan based upon reasonable financial assumptions.[BR][BR]US Airways has asserted that it cannot satisfy the Board's conditions and also make required pension contributions. US Airways also has asserted that the existing funding waiver process would not provide sufficient financial relief. Consequently, US Airways came up with a creative solution: the functional equivalent of a super waiver. US Airways asked PBGC to terminate the company's pension plans, immediately restore those plans, and provide 30 years to fund them. US Airways asserts that PBGC has the authority to do this under section 4047 of ERISA.[BR][BR]Section 4047 authorizes PBGC to restore a plan to its pretermination status whenever PBGC determines that restoration of the plan is appropriate and consistent with its duties under Title IV of ERISA. The PBGC's General Counsel concluded that this authority is not broad enough to justify restoration solely for the purpose of giving an employer a liberalized funding schedule.[BR][BR]The 1974 Conference Report on ERISA made clear that the purpose of section 4047 was to allow PBGC to restore a plan if the employer and plan enjoyed a favorable reversal of business trends, or if some other factor made termination no longer advisable. This concept is inconsistent with the pre-packaged termination/restoration proposal by US Airways. [BR][BR]There is nothing in the statute, the legislative history, or the regulations that would give PBGC the power to terminate a plan and then immediately restore the plan with easier funding rules in order to assist an ailing corporation. In fact, IRS, not PBGC, has statutory authority for plan funding under ERISA, including waiving funding requirements for corporations in temporary financial difficulty.[BR][BR]US Airways also cites as precedent PBGC's restoration of three LTV steel plans with a modified funding schedule. Mr. Chairman, the LTV situation was very different. [BR][BR]PBGC terminated the LTV plans in January 1987. Immediately after PBGC terminated the plans, however, LTV set up follow-on benefit arrangements. In other words, an ongoing corporation dumped its pension liabilities on the insurance system and then attempted to provide its workers with substantially the same benefits (in combination with PBGC's guaranteed benefits) as if the plans had never terminated. [BR][BR]Almost a year later, PBGC used section 4047 to restore the plans to LTV because it found that the follow-on benefit arrangements were abusive to the pension insurance system. After three years of litigation, the Supreme Court upheld PBGC's restoration decision. [BR][BR]In October 1990, the IRS issued special funding regulations to address the problems of the LTV restoration, where the plans had been terminated for some time before being restored. The IRS provided these special funding rules because it concluded that, underfunding will be significantly increased if the plan has been administered as a terminated plan for an extended period of time. In no way do the regulations suggest that the usual funding rules should be disregarded, that the IRS's authority over plan funding should be transferred to PBGC, or that PBGC should terminate plans solely for the purpose of then restoring them with eased funding requirements.[BR][BR]EXPANDED AUTHORITY[BR][BR]Mr. Chairman, you also asked me to address the question of whether the PBGC should have expanded authority under section 4047 to terminate and then restore plans with a new, substantially lengthened funding schedule. The PBGC does not desire such expanded authority because it would put at risk the retirement security of 44 million Americans whose pensions are insured by PBGC. PBGC believes that terminating and restoring plans of corporations in financial distress would set a dangerous precedent for the pension insurance system. Moreover, the termination/restoration process proposed by US Airways would be inconsistent with Congress' enactment of strengthened funding schedules. [BR][BR]The US Airways proposal would in effect make the PBGC and the other workers and plan sponsors in the defined benefit system lenders to an ailing company. Providing this special relief to US Airways would give other financially distressed companies a blueprint for how to borrow from their pension plans at the expense of the pension insurance system. If US Airways, why not other financially troubled airlines? If airlines, why not companies in other industries?[BR][BR]In closing, I would like to repeat the point that the Senate Finance Committee made in 1987 when it limited waivers of the funding rules.[BR][BR]The integrity of the plan termination insurance program will be jeopardized if employers have the opportunity to avoid liability for their pension promises at the expense of other employers who moderated their promises or are more financially secure and remain in the defined benefit system. [BR]That was a sound observation then, and it is a sound observation today. [BR][BR]Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. I will be happy to answer your questions.[/FONT][FONT face=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT size=2][BR][/FONT]
 

us10

Advanced
Sep 11, 2002
138
0
Chip,

The pilot's recent MEC ratified pension changes effectively froze (no further accruals) all current pilots with at least 21 years with the company.If the pilots agree to freeze the plan for all pilots can the plan escape a distress termination?This would be a major hit but better than the alternative.

The fact that a 52 year old pilot, with 25 years, flying a group 2 a/c, would lose 75% of his accrued retirement benefit really sucks. I know other employee groups have had their pension frozen but to my knowledge none had their accrued (earned) benefit taken away.

I'm sure ALPA is looking into this alternative. Can you shed any light on this?
 

L1011Ret

Veteran
Oct 31, 2002
1,326
0
I guess I'm missing something. Lots of airline pension plans have been taken over by the PBGC. Pilots often got the PBGC max. Why should US Air pilots be any different? I guess maybe some of us should go back to Congress and revisit what happened to our plans!!!!Go guys so TWA, PAA and EAL pilots can get increased benefits.b
 

usfliboi

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,070
270
How many times does this LONG article have to be posted? How manyt threads has been started on this very topic?