Pbgc Takes Over United Pilots' Pension Plan

Cosmo

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
840
0
Read the PBGC press release here.

By taking over the plan today, United pilots will not qualify for the slightly higher payments that go into effect on January 1, 2005, for pension plans terminated in 2005. This seems somewhat punitive to me given that pilots must retire at age 60 and thus don't qualify for anywhere near the maximum payment anyway.
 
I think they are making their move to take over the pension obligation, but I don't think it will happen before next year. It was my understanding that according to the TA, UA will not terminate the pensions before May.
 
767jetz said:
I think they are making their move to take over the pension obligation, but I don't think it will happen before next year. It was my understanding that according to the TA, UA will not terminate the pensions before May.
Based on what I've read publicly, I believe you are correct regarding the language of the pilots' TA. But the PBGC has the authority to take over a pension plan at a time of its own choosing, and I think that's what has happened here. JMHO.
 
WASHINGTON—The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation announced today that it is moving to assume responsibility for the pensions of more than 14,000 active and retired pilots at United Airlines. Participants in the company’s other pension plans are unaffected. Today’s action follows the agreement the pilots union entered into with the company on Dec. 17 regarding the termination of the defined benefit plan in exchange for other benefits and considerations.

'Agreeing' to have your plan terminated was not a real smart move. Did you think the PBGC was going to sit on their hands to see the benefits increase without UAL adding cash?

ALPA should have put a 'PBGC' contingency in their TA too!!!

:blink: DOH!!!
B) UT
 
767jetz:

To support my post above, look at the fifth paragraph of the PBGC press release (which I linked in the initial post on this thread). It says:

By stepping in now to assume the pilots plan, the PBGC protects against the possibility of up to $140 million in additional losses. The termination of the pilots plan also gives the company a greater financial capacity to maintain the remaining plans.
Interestingly, it appears that the second sentence in that paragraph is a not-very-subtle attempt by the PBGC to place the pilots at odds with the other United employee unions who will now almost certainly argue that the termination of their pension plans should not be sought by United. Should United accept these arguments, that would (as I understand it) invalidate the pilots' TA, yet the pilots would still have lost their DB plan.

In fact, the more that I think about it, it appears that the PBGC's action and comments today are actually designed to get the United employee unions fighting with each other and the company at a critical time in United's restucturing process, which could dramatically increase the likelihood of the carrier's liquidation. Perhaps I'm imagining the PBGC as being too Machieavellian about this ... but perhaps not.
 
Cosmo said:
In fact, the more that I think about it, it appears that the PBGC's action and comments today are actually designed to get the United employee unions fighting with each other and the company at a critical time in United's restucturing process, which could dramatically increase the likelihood of the carrier's liquidation. Perhaps I'm imagining the PBGC as being too Machieavellian about this ... but perhaps not.
[post="233889"][/post]​

Cosmo,

Watch out for those black helicopters too!!! :p

As for 'designing' a plan to divide the unions, the ALPA TA pretty much did it on its own merit without help from anyone.

B) UT
 
Cosmo said:
767jetz:

To support my post above, look at the fifth paragraph of the PBGC press release (which I linked in the initial post on this thread). It says:
Interestingly, it appears that the second sentence in that paragraph is a not-very-subtle attempt by the PBGC to place the pilots at odds with the other United employee unions who will now almost certainly argue that the termination of their pension plans should not be sought by United. Should United accept these arguments, that would (as I understand it) invalidate the pilots' TA, yet the pilots would still have lost their DB plan.

In fact, the more that I think about it, it appears that the PBGC's action and comments today are actually designed to get the United employee unions fighting with each other and the company at a critical time in United's restucturing process, which could dramatically increase the likelihood of the carrier's liquidation. Perhaps I'm imagining the PBGC as being too Machieavellian about this ... but perhaps not.
[post="233889"][/post]​

I don't think you are that far off on that last part. Ironically, the pilot plan is the BEST funded of all the plans, and has the largest gap between plan benefits and PBGC payouts. The PBGC is trying to cherry pick the plan that will cost it the least. That's not the agency's mandate. The other ironic aspect is that the pilot plan is UP TO DATE on it's payments. The pilot's could conceivably go back to the table with a contract offer that "saves" the plan. This is the equivilent of losing your job one day and having the bank come get your cars and house the next, even if you haven't missed or been late on a single payment.
 
And take a look at this article from FT.com (the online version of the Financial Times) here. There's an interesting comment in the following excerpt from the article:

However, the PBGC's pre-emptive strike may jeopardise an agreement between the airline and its pilots union which assumed the extra money would cushion the blow of closing the scheme.

Mr Belt argued the sacrifice was necessary to protect the PBGC's own fragile balance sheet.
Clearly, the PBGC is more concerned about its own finances than those of the United employees. But I guess that shouldn't really surprise anyone.
 
UAL_TECH said:
Cosmo,

Watch out for those black helicopters too!!! :p
Heck, I live in the Washington area -- I see black helicopters all the time! :D :p :lol:
 
Here's another article to look at, this time from Reuters, here. This article gives a slightly different slant on the PBGC's action today:

The U.S. pension agency on Thursday said it had filed a motion in court asking for permission to take over the retirement plans of pilots at bankrupt United Airlines, which are underfunded by $2.9 billion.
So I believe this means that the pilots' pension plan won't be taken over by the PBGC until sometime in 2005, with the slightly higher payment maximums that will be in effect then. But more importantly, I suppose the bankruptcy judge could withhold such permission from the PBGC for a while if he thought it would cause the imminent liquidation of United, and that action would simultaneously weaken any potential arguments from the other unions that their pension plans should be retained. JMHO.
 
Cosmo said:
And take a look at this article from FT.com (the online version of the Financial Times) here. There's an interesting comment in the following excerpt from the article:
Clearly, the PBGC is more concerned about its own finances than those of the United employees. But I guess that shouldn't really surprise anyone.
[post="233894"][/post]​


I wonder if folks would be equally silent if insurance companies cancelled policies when a hurricane got close to a city to protect the "fragile balance sheet" of the insurer......
 
Cosmo said:
I suppose the bankruptcy judge could withhold such permission from the PBGC for a while if he thought it would cause the imminent liquidation of United, and that action would simultaneously weaken any potential arguments from the other unions that their pension plans should be retained. JMHO.
[post="233898"][/post]​

This was pretty much my take on the subject. If terminating the pension before May puts the pilot's concession package at risk, I believe the judge will not allow it until then.

And by the way, UAL_Tech, ALPA did not "agree" to the termination of our plan. That is what the company wanted. But ALPA specifically worded it to say we would not fight the termination IF it was decided by the judge that termination was necessary.
 
I don't know if it means anything but the timing of this is interesting.

For one thing, the ALPA agreement hasn't even been ratified yet.
 
kcabpilot said:
I don't know if it means anything but the timing of this is interesting.

For one thing, the ALPA agreement hasn't even been ratified yet.
[post="233943"][/post]​


Associated Press
Pension Agency to Take on United Funds
Thursday December 30, 12:31 pm ET
By Dave Carpenter, AP Business Writer
Government's Pension Agency to Assume Responsibility for United Airlines Pilots' Funds


CHICAGO (AP) -- The government's pension agency moved Thursday to assume responsibility for the pensions of United Airlines pilots, an action it already faced having to take next year when the bankrupt carrier dumps its defined-benefit pensions.

The move adds another huge burden to a federal agency already operating at a $23 billion deficit. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. estimated it will be responsible for about $1.4 billion of the plan's $2.9 billion in underfunded assets, making it the third-largest claim in the history of the insurance program.

The PBGC said it will be taking over the pensions of more than 14,000 active and retired pilots, many of whose benefits will now be sharply reduced from what they were promised from the airline -- a unit of Elk Grove Village, Ill.-based UAL Corp.

By acting now instead of when the pilots' pensions are formally terminated, the agency said it is protecting against the possibility of up to $140 million in additional losses.

"The PBGC will protect the pension benefits of United Airlines' pilots up to the limits set by law," said executive director Bradley Belt. "Retirees will continue to receive monthly benefit checks without interruption, and other pilots will receive benefits when they retire."

The agency's announcement comes in the wake of a tentative contract agreement between United and its pilots union earlier this month, part of United's effort to slash labor costs heavily for the second time in its two-year bankruptcy restructuring.

Facing $4.1 billion in required pension contributions by the end of 2008, cash-strapped United said earlier this year it would terminate all its existing employee pensions and replace them with much less expensive defined-contribution funds, similar to 401(k) plans.

"As we have indicated all along, we believe the termination and replacement of our defined-benefit pension plans is necessary for United to exit Chapter 11 as a profitable and sustainable enterprise," spokeswoman Jean Medina said Thursday.

The pension agency had objected to the tentative deal with pilots, who dropped their opposition to the pensions' elimination in exchange for additional financial considerations. But it might have little recourse if the deal is approved in bankruptcy court.

"The decision to take over a pension plan is never made lightly, especially in situations where participants won't get everything the company promised but failed to fund," Belt said. "I hope the plight of participants in airline pension plans puts an exclamation point on the need for Congress to strengthen the funding rules for defined benefit plans."
 
Busdrvr said:
I wonder if folks would be equally silent if insurance companies cancelled policies when a hurricane got close to a city to protect the "fragile balance sheet" of the insurer......
[post="233899"][/post]​

Well Bus, if the PBGC were to become insolvent....
Is it any different than United saying that it is no longer going to honor it's labor contracts?

I think we can all relate to the 'balance sheet' thing but when you take a big paycut and your management is suddenly hiring high dollar outside consultants, developing half assed business schemes, creating an entire new 'LCC', passing out free subway sandwiches, repainting and reconfiguring a fleet of aircraft and generally acting like they are just swimming in excess cash...

Somewhere along the line even you have to admit that they've lost all credibility. That's how most of us have come to feel. I mean, what is the point in making an agreement with these guys anyway? Have they done something to convince you that they would honor an agreement?

You could still vote NO, couldn't you?
 

Latest posts