Pension Poop

fix_airplanes

Member
Dec 1, 2002
68
0
www.usaviation.com
TheStreet.com

April 5, 2005 Tuesday 10:08 AM Eastern Time

MARKETS; Ross Snel

Airlines Seek Way Out of Pension Squeeze

By Ross Snel, TheStreet.com Staff Reporter

Some U.S. airlines are hoping spring will bring relief for the industry's looming pension crisis in the form of government reform.

But while House and Senate committees could take up pension proposals this month, it remains to be seen whether they'll offer the specific industry help for which several carriers have been lobbying vigorously.

American Airlines' parent AMR (AMR:NYSE), Delta Air Lines (DAL:NYSE) and Northwest Airlines (NWAC:NYSE) have been asking lawmakers for more time -- in Delta's case, the request is for as long as 30 years -- to meet unfunded pension obligations. Delta, which has been particularly aggressive in its efforts, argues that such relief would allow airlines to meet their obligations, thus keeping promises to workers and saving government insurers from having to pick up the tab.

Handicapping the odds is tough, according to observers. "One would think that delegations from cities and states with large airline hubs would be most sympathetic," said Stuart Klaskin, a partner at KKC Aviation Consulting in Miami. "Not only do they have those companies as constituents, but also thousands of pension-deserving airline employees as voters." On the other hand, some lawmakers may wish to avoid the perception they're again extending special help to an industry that has already been offered billions of dollars of aid from the government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"I'm getting a sense that Congress made a major move a couple of years ago to assist the industry and that they have reservations about doing further reform," said John Kasarda, a professor of management at the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School who specializes in aviation issues. "There's a growing sense that we have excess capacity in the airline industry and that market forces need to play themselves out."

Network carriers face a huge gap between the value of their defined-benefit pension plans -- in which workers are promised specific payment amounts when they retire -- and future obligations. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the government's pension insurer, estimates that the industry's under-funding totaled $31 billion in 2003. (The agency is calculating 2004's number.) That's up from under-funding of only $3 billion in 2000.

During the 1990s technology boom in the stock market, investments in airline pension portfolios soared in value, allowing airlines to go without making fresh contributions, noted Robert Mann, founder of R.W. Mann & Co., an independent airline industry consulting firm. But the market decline that began in 2000 eroded the gains. Worse yet, the Fed's ensuing program of interest rate cuts only served to increase the amount of money airlines needed to set aside to meet future obligations.

Some airlines aren't facing such burdens because they don't have defined-benefit plans. For example, JetBlue Airways (JBLU:Nasdaq) and Southwest Airlines (LUV:NYSE) provide employees with profit-sharing, stock purchase and 401(k) plans.

For the large network carriers, pension under-funding is just one of several factors causing turbulence. Crude oil prices, which surged to record highs in October, have rallied again in recent weeks, setting new records, and analysts warn the rally is far from over. At the same time, individual airlines have found it difficult to raise fares to cover higher fuel costs because of overcapacity and fierce price competition.

Of the airlines seeking pension relief, Delta may need it the most, and that may explain the aggressiveness of its lobbying efforts. The Atlanta-based airline warned last month of a liquidity crisis if oil prices fail to decline significantly from recent levels. It expects to have to pay $450 million into its pension plan this year.

Scott Yohe, Delta's senior vice president of government affairs, characterizes the airline's proposal as a "solution" that would simply give the airline more time to meet obligations, not shirk them.

"The employees would realize benefits earned and accrued under their plans, and we would avoid the situation of other carriers in the industry of pushing those liabilities to the PBGC," Yohe said.

He was referring to network rivals US Airways (UAIRQ:OTC) and UAL's (UALAQ:OTC) United Airlines. Both have used the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process to try to terminate their pension plans and rid themselves of the accompanying obligations.

Earlier this year, the PBGC took over the last of US Airways' pension plans, leaving the government insurer with $3 billion in obligations, its second largest claim ever behind Bethlehem Steel's $3.7 billion one in 2003. The PBGC is also trying to take over plans for pilots and ground employees at United, which has said it wants to terminate its pension plans in order to help it exit bankruptcy.

United's pension obligations are even greater: $8 billion, of which the PBGC would likely be forced to cover $6 billion.

If it rids itself of all its pension plans, then United would have a significant competitive cost advantage over rivals such as Delta and Northwest. "If United walks out on $8 billion, it pretty much forces everybody else to consider walking out, too," Mann said.

If other airlines terminate their pension plans, that would simply increase the deficit of the PBGC, which faces a crisis of its own. The federal agency, which functions like an insurance company and receives premiums from companies providing defined-benefit plans, ended its fiscal year last September with a deficit of $23.3 billion. (This number accounts for US Airways' claims, but not United's.)

The airlines' woes prompted Bradley Belt, the PBGC's executive director, to call the industry the "most immediate threat" to the pension insurance program in congressional testimony in February.

The Bush administration has recognized the problems facing the federal program and has submitted a proposal to shore it up. Among other things, the White House would like to see companies' premiums rise to $30 for each covered employee from the current $19. Companies considered credit risks would have to pay an even higher, unspecified premium. The administration would also allow companies to contribute to their plans during good times, but companies would only have seven years to make up their funding gaps.

"The administration's proposal would be very damaging to the airlines," said Delta's Yohe, explaining that it would require contributions to be made in an unreasonably short period of time.

Congressional committees that will shape coming pension reform legislation include the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; the House Committee on Education and the Workforce; and the House Committee on Ways and Means.

A spokesman for the chairman of the Senate committee says committee members have yet to decide what ultimate reform they will propose.

A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said Boehner is preparing comprehensive pension reform legislation but "there are no plans to have airline-specific relief in that bill," the spokesman said.

Still, observers say lawmakers may end up helping the airlines as part of a broader package. "If you look at what's historically been the path of steel or automobiles or airlines, they're very capital-intensive and energy-intensive, with aging workforces and lots of competition," said Mann. "So the issue is, 'Why are we doing this just for the airlines?' Maybe an approach that would be less industry-specific would be to address the issues facing mature industries with lots of foreign or low-cost competition."
 
TO; Ipbrian.....

Answer: Only the 3 mentioned airlines in the article. And what’s your beef Brian.... ? Do you perhaps think the information is of NO VALUE to the affected folks?

WRONG Brian.

Since you obviously lack knowledge of the topic...I will help you out Brian.

Pensions at airlines were one of several “recruitment†tool used in past decades to get employees to work all hours in all parts of the world serving ungrateful customers.

And now in the last several years the crummy management at the “pension promised†airlines want to wiggle out of the expense. (A.K.A broken promise)

Those good-hard working folks from yesteryear are now being robbed of promises made by previous (better) management.

And now the current crummy management of the airlines are lobbying for laws to make it …“LEGAL†for them to under fund those future promised $$$ obligations.

And the current campaign by the airlines to do this legislative lobbying is their way of informing US government that they are prepared to dump their previous promises in the lap of the taxpayer unless they are allowed to legally become “remiss†on decades of pension promises to employees.

Hope you can now better understand the reason for posting at the affected airline employee forums … and Brian… don't be so snarky.

Sniping is not what is needed on this industry forum.

You know Brian….most of the folks doing the (day-to-day) work at the airlines still remain professional despite daunting odds.
 
The US laws on DB schemes are just stupid. How on earth companies were allowed to make such promises without backing them up with investments is odd. In UK, BA is well known as an pension fund with an airline attached - their pension funds AFAIK are about 20bn USD - far far more than the worth of the airline. Basically, the UK actuarial laws make it much tougher for companies not to put the money where the mouth is. This also means that they have to be much more realistic about the pensions offered

Agree with fix airplanes, in negotiations US airline management (IMHO) were far to quick to promise "jam tomorrow" (pensions/ medical plans) knowing it probably wouldn't be their problem to deliver it, but if it kept the immediate salaries paid lower, that made quarterly result better...

Unfortunately, it is now obvious the money just isn't there. I think the offending airlines should be properly bankrupted (chap 7) and the liquidation proceeds given to the pension funds, let everyone get there 60c on the pension dollar (or whatever it turns out to be) and start again
 
That's the problem with our illustrious CEO and finance people. They can't understand why they are fighting a major employee morale problem at AA while the employees at Jetblue are just tickled pink to work there.

The difference is EVERYONE of us currently employed by AA was told what we would get when we got hired. Most of us through contract negotiations WON better pay, healtchare, vacations, sick time, IOD, you name it, while the JetBlue employees were also told what they would get.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TAKEN AWAY WHEREAS WE DID!


I use Jetblue as an example here because several months ago, one of our VP's came through and said "if you are not happy here at AA, there are other alternatives such as Jetblue."
 
The Bush administration has recognized the problems facing the federal program and has submitted a proposal to shore it up. Among other things, the White House would like to see companies' premiums rise to $30 for each covered employee from the current $19. Companies considered credit risks would have to pay an even higher, unspecified premium. The administration would also allow companies to contribute to their plans during good times, but companies would only have seven years to make up their funding gaps.


Great idea from the administration. Its just like AA management. A solution about 6 years too late. :blink:
 
I use Jetblue as an example here because several months ago, one of our VP's came through and said "if you are not happy here at AA, there are other alternatives such as Jetblue."



That is when you politely say

"I'd rather stay so that when you are behind me on the unemployment line I can turn around and kick you in the balls and tell that you couldnt manage a lemonade stand " :lol:
 

Latest posts