What's new

Looks like the PBGC getting ready to argue!

On 12/31/07, prior to the equity markets meltdown, AA's pensions were funded to 96%.

Only if you believe the ROI figure that AA used.

And, Yes, I know it was legal, but it was hopelessly unrealistic, and was allowed by the feds as a "Business Friendly" stratagem. Congress is more interested in the success of a business than protecting the retirement plans for the rank and file.
 
Perhaps an outgrowth of this BK will be tougher pension funding compliance, using a mathematical calculation that penalizes companies for underfunding, but it would have to take into consideration market conditions and plan assumptions. In the end I'm not so sure the judge will listen to them either. He has two main constituencies, the secured creditors and the management's reorg plan, not so much the unsecured creditors.
Perhaps an outgrowth will be some changes in the structure of the TWU to be more business like and for it's members instead of themselves.
 
AA's underfunding has nothing to do with an absence of "tougher pension funding compliance" or a shortage of mathematical calculations. The ERISA and IRS regulations already contain myriad rules to govern the pension funding.

AA's underfunding was a direct result of the stock market crash of 2008, from which the markets have yet to fully recover - and, of course, the AA pension funds have yet to fully recover as well.

On 12/31/07, prior to the equity markets meltdown, AA's pensions were funded to 96%.
And just think theirs a group of scum bags out there that want to put social security into the big PONZI SCHEME !!!
 
AA's underfunding has nothing to do with an absence of "tougher pension funding compliance" or a shortage of mathematical calculations. The ERISA and IRS regulations already contain myriad rules to govern the pension funding.

AA's underfunding was a direct result of the stock market crash of 2008, from which the markets have yet to fully recover - and, of course, the AA pension funds have yet to fully recover as well.

On 12/31/07, prior to the equity markets meltdown, AA's pensions were funded to 96%.
Is it realistic to expect tht there won't be "market meltdowns"?
 
And just think theirs a group of scum bags out there that want to put social security into the big PONZI SCHEME !!!
While off topic, Social Security is a PONZI SCHEME,,,,,
 
While off topic, Social Security is a PONZI SCHEME,,,,,

Well that's BS! If the gooberment would keep their paws out of SS it would have been just fine.
Congress and the House are ponzi schemes that suck on the teat of American workers.
Doesn't matter if a rupubli-rat or a demo-rat, they all screw us.
 
I seem to remember the company skimming the excess pension money back in 1995 time frame.I believe it was over funded? This practice should be eliminated in all pension funds, just for this reason we're here discussing. Companies should just get a contribution holiday period...until their fund requires cash. If they couldn't afford pensions they shouldn't have offered them. Also this goes for executives should be the same standard,can't pay one fund no one gets paid full amount. Another note, If AA terminates the mechanic's pension it's about a 6 dollar hr pay cut alone...we will have to make up for retirement.
 
I seem to remember the company skimming the excess pension money back in 1995 time frame.I believe it was over funded? This practice should be eliminated in all pension funds, just for this reason we're here discussing. Companies should just get a contribution holiday period...until their fund requires cash. If they couldn't afford pensions they shouldn't have offered them. Also this goes for executives should be the same standard,can't pay one fund no one gets paid full amount. Another note, If AA terminates the mechanic's pension it's about a 6 dollar hr pay cut alone...we will have to make up for retirement.
I don't believe that AMR skimmed any money from the pension funds in 1995. Nothing about it in the 10-K:

http://edgar.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=1574641&SessionID=qfTRFjnBP1tnfP7

There was a proposal in Congress that fall to reduce the high excise taxes on pension fund raids (enacted in 1990 to keep corporate raiders from buying companies with excess pension funds).
 
Is it realistic to expect tht there won't be "market meltdowns"?
Nope, the markets are volatile and everyone knows that. 2008 was unusual in that the Dow lost almost half its value during that year, although it has recovered a big portion of those losses. Truth is, AMR's pensions probably don't have to be frozen/terminated as they would probably recover to fully funded status just like they did in 2007 (after being severely underfunded just a few years earlier). Healthy stock market plus several hundred million in contributions each year would likely see the pensions fully funded again. Thing is, since all the competitors froze or terminated their pensions in ch 11, AMR is going to try the same thing (even though it could probably fully fund the pensions again).
 
Nope, the markets are volatile and everyone knows that. 2008 was unusual in that the Dow lost almost half its value during that year, although it has recovered a big portion of those losses. Truth is, AMR's pensions probably don't have to be frozen/terminated as they would probably recover to fully funded status just like they did in 2007 (after being severely underfunded just a few years earlier. Healthy stock market plus several hundred million in contributions each year would likely see the pensions fully funded again. Thing is, since all the competitors froze or terminated their pensions in ch 11, AMR is going to try the same thing (even though it could probably fully fund the pensions again).

The unions need to grease both sides of the aisle. Republicans are as greedy as Democrats. Maybe we could get them to compete for our votes and create laws requiring full - funding for pensions, backed by an insurance plan, and maybe ice that cake with an FAR requiring all U.S. FAR-121 carrier aircraft to be overhauled inside the USA.

There's enough money in the MRO business to make some fat cats fatter HERE in the USA. B)
 
Oh, please. They can't even agree on the payroll tax extension, which affects just about everyone.

What makes you think that they'd take up something so targeted at just a couple thousand union employees?

Putting legislation in place requiring US aircraft to be maintained by US companies and US citizens might save your job, but it would kill off the US MRO business, because other countries would likely reciprocate..
 
Oh, please. They can't even agree on the payroll tax extension, which affects just about everyone.

What makes you think that they'd take up something so targeted at just a couple thousand union employees?

Putting legislation in place requiring US aircraft to be maintained by US companies and US citizens might save your job, but it would kill off the US MRO business, because other countries would likely reciprocate..
<_< ------- Hell! That wouldn't hurt my feelings none!!!----- But wouldn't all those returning U.S. Aircraft fill those vacant slots lift open buy all those "other countries"?
 
Oh, please. They can't even agree on the payroll tax extension, which affects just about everyone.

What makes you think that they'd take up something so targeted at just a couple thousand union employees?

Putting legislation in place requiring US aircraft to be maintained by US companies and US citizens might save your job, but it would kill off the US MRO business, because other countries would likely reciprocate..
The key to business and therefore benefits, is to urge business to bring the work back to the states and/or make it cheaper to operate hear. There is really only one way to do that in todays climate, that is to change the tax system.
 
The key to business and therefore benefits, is to urge business to bring the work back to the states and/or make it cheaper to operate hear. There is really only one way to do that in todays climate, that is to change the tax system.
[/quote

Has the money spent on lobbying really made a diff for the Co. ? Has it changed FAA scrutiny for the Co. ? Did it stop the law about pax trapped in the cabin on the ramp?
Has the money spent on lobbying really made a diff for the Union? Has it saved any jobs as a result on laws passed? Congress has a blind eye and a deaf ear. Hey, E is right, they can't even agree on a short term extension of middle class tax cuts. Seems like they have castrated themselves. Now the public is pissed at all the fat cats on the Hill. All they can do is throw rocks at the other party while slopping up the lumpy gravy in the trough.

The normally pro-union Dems don't seem to care about airline jobs, with the National Mediation Board's apparent approval of the Coroporate stalling strategy. Obama stopped in KC for a campaign speech at the maint. base there, and subsequently, the base was shut down. Seems like the GOP hates unions, and there is no hesitation to play the blame game, while protecting the wealthy from tax increases. Are most politicians like that?

Buck, you are right. We need tax incentives for insourcing of maintenance. Why can't congress figure that one out? Where is the mayor, the governor, and our bigshot senators and congressmen? Can't they apply some pressure? And the union? Well, ok, we'll see.

That judge has a huge pointy toed shoes, and we are like cockroaches in the corner. Big overseas MRO must be drooling like a St. Bernard dog.
Are the company execs drooling too? No, they are scared too, right? Could be some of them will be sent out to Pa, waiting in the woodshed.

When the Co. emerges from BK, they will be flush with $. Getting a nice price on the new common stock sales. Enough money to buy B6, even. Might tell Doug Parker to get lost. Remember when Kmart bought Sears?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top