Pension Deferral Extension Request.

We all should start contacting all our representatives on this. 
 
We must come out against this, our pensions need to be properly funded, there is no valid reason to extend the underfunding of our pensions with the company making record profits.
 
This only goes to show how evil and greedy Parker and his team are. They want to hold back on funding our pensions so they can maximize profits, profits that we are locked out of sharing in. 
 
We should demand that our pensions be funded using the same assumptions on return etc that the PBGC uses. 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
and more significantly, AA got part of the same benefit that the BK carriers got even though AA wasn't BK but now wants to get the rest of the benefits despite being largely profitable.

in contrast, the carrier that benefitted the most from the pension relief plan that AA also participated in (DL - was DL and NW at the time) is ACCELERATING their funding of their pension plan ABOVE levels required under the pension relief act.

I have a feeling AA will be told NO.
 
Nice spin, Skippy.... DL may be accelerating their payments NOW, but they have the ability to go back to the bare minimum for the next 9 years.

It's an unlevel playing field advantage by which DL was innovative for stiffing their employees before AA did, and where AA is held to a different standard for trying to do the right thing by not declaring bankruptcy.

Contact your representative, Bob, but at the end of the day, AA has to pay out the checks every month whether the funds are at 100% or 70%. Shortfalls simply have to come out of available cash if the pension funds aren't able to cover it.

If AA could get the seven year extension at the less aggressive rates of return, I'm sure it would still be a better deal than losing the 17 year sunset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
barf.... like I said about dogs returning....

AA was allowed to use a provision that was designed to be used in BK by airlines even though AA was not there.

AA's only interest was in protecting its shareholders... which ended up getting screwed anyway. AA employees took two round of cuts - one inside and one outside of BK and the pensions got frozen anyway.

try to convince us of AA's "righteousness" if you want but the end result was the same - except for AA's employees are paying a higher price than DL employees.

And DL IS paying more towards its pension obligations which likely will mean they will either need to pay less later or have their obligations paid off.

btw, given that interest rates are at record lows for extended periods of time, anyone with DB pensions will be paying more - so AA's request is not unexpected. however, just like with their other debt, they will not be reducing the principle but just trying to reduce the payments.

that concept never works out well.

AA simply doesn't need any relief from paying its pension obligations.
 
WorldTraveler said:
AA's only interest was in protecting its shareholders... which ended up getting screwed anyway. AA employees took two round of cuts - one inside and one outside of BK and the pensions got frozen anyway.
The bolded part is false. Shareholders of old AA stock (AMR, then AAMRQ) made out like bandits in the AA bankruptcy, losing nothing.

When you can't get such basic facts straight, it calls into question the accuracy/veracity of the rest of your diatribes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
AAL stock was worth far less than AMR stock would have been.

I know you work OT trying to defend AA, but to somehow argue that AMR stockholders fared just fine is nothing short of foolishness.

and you might also remember that it is the employees, not the stockholders, who have to deliver the product you also seem to defend to your death.

all the benefits for the stockholders while repeatedly screwing the employees will get you - wait, wait - USAir
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
AA's creditors were given 100% of their claims, did Delta do that?
 
no they did not.

you fail to realize that one of AA's biggest creditor groups was its employees -and they took it majorly in the shorts.

many, many suppliers came out far less than whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Bob Owens said:
We all should start contacting all our representatives on this.
Well, good luck with that. Parker's Republican roots are well-known and come January, they'll control the House and the Senate, and will likely give him what he seeks. 
 
Bob Owens said:
We must come out against this, our pensions need to be properly funded, there is no valid reason to extend the underfunding of our pensions with the company making record profits.
Parker isn't proposing reducing the funding while AA is makeng record profits - after all, AA contributed a lot more this year than the legal minimum. What AA seeks is the flexibility to make smaller minimum payments beyond 2016 in case the current record profits don't continue. The other airlines have a longer potential period of smaller minimum payments and AA simply wants the same potential flexibility.
 
Bob Owens said:
This only goes to show how evil and greedy Parker and his team are. They want to hold back on funding our pensions so they can maximize profits, profits that we are locked out of sharing in.
Here's where your ignorance really shines thru. I agree that Parker is an evil greedy bastard, but this pension funding relief isn't evidence of his evil greedy ways.

I've said it before - financial accounting concepts are not your strong suit, and the above quote demonstrates that weakness. If you're going to expound on financial accounting matters, you'd be well-served to learn more about accounting. Otherwise you make ridiculous statements like the one above - similar to how I'd sound if I talked about how to repair a turbine aircraft engine (a subject about which I know nothing).

AA's profits are determined without regard to the amount contributed to the pensions. If AA contributes one dollar or a billion dollars, those contributions don't affect the profits at all. Yes, Parker doesn't want to share the profits, but pension contributions don't impact those profits.

AA contributed several hundred billion dollars extra to the pensions this year (above and beyond the minimum) - and those contributions didn't reduce AA's profits by a single dime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
FWAAA said:
Well, good luck with that. Parker's Republican roots are well-known and come January, they'll control the House and the Senate, and will likely give him what he seeks.  Parker isn't proposing reducing the funding while AA is makeng record profits - after all, AA contributed a lot more this year than the legal minimum. What AA seeks is the flexibility to make smaller minimum payments beyond 2016 in case the current record profits don't continue. The other airlines have a longer potential period of smaller minimum payments and AA simply wants the same potential flexibility. Here's where your ignorance really shines thru. I agree that Parker is an evil greedy bastard, but this pension funding relief isn't evidence of his evil greedy ways.I've said it before - financial accounting concepts are not your strong suit, and the above quote demonstrates that weakness. If you're going to expound on financial accounting matters, you'd be well-served to learn more about accounting. Otherwise you make ridiculous statements like the one above - similar to how I'd sound if I talked about how to repair a turbine aircraft engine (a subject about which I know nothing).AA's profits are determined without regard to the amount contributed to the pensions. If AA contributes one dollar or a billion dollars, those contributions don't affect the profits at all. Yes, Parker doesn't want to share the profits, but pension contributions don't impact those profits.AA contributed several hundred billion dollars extra to the pensions this year (above and beyond the minimum) - and those contributions didn't reduce AA's profits by a single dime.
Accountants are usually very precise.

"Several hundred billion"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
FWAAA said:
Here's where your ignorance really shines thru. 


AA contributed several hundred billion dollars extra to the pensions this year (above and beyond the minimum) - and those contributions didn't reduce AA's profits by a single dime.
What was that you said to WT? Something about if one part of the post is wrong it makes the rest suspect? 
 
Beyond what minimum, the minimum set by the change in 2006 or the minimum as figured by the PBGC? Clearly the two use different assumptions, I'd rather go with what the PBGC says it needs to be fully funded.
 
FWAAA said:
The bolded part is false. Shareholders of old AA stock (AMR, then AAMRQ) made out like bandits in the AA bankruptcy, losing nothing.

When you can't get such basic facts straight, it calls into question the accuracy/veracity of the rest of your diatribes.
My AA stock didn't do so great.  I ended up with fewer shares and the total is far less than what I paid for it. It may be more than it went down to bit its not more than what it cost me. 
 
FWAAA aren't you the self proclaimed financial genius who claimed that I was nuts when I said AA was saying they expected to earn nearly $3 billion in profits out of BK? 
 
If payments to pensions don't affect profits, like it comes out of thin air, then why would airlines say they need to eliminate them to be profitable? You have a lot more used car salesman in you than anything else. 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

Latest posts