MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
Pensions.......
- Thread starter ualdriver
- Start date
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< aa---- Why don't you just go back to the aa board? Can't you see they're ignoring you anywhy?aafsc said:
operaations
Veteran
- Jul 31, 2003
- 562
- 0
keep him here please we do not need his venom over on the aa board. good luck with the what the future holdsMCI transplant said:
- Thread Starter
- #34
JungleClone said:
And this statement, in my opinion, says much. You would be SHOCKED to believe how many flight attendants and rampers really believe their repsective union's rhetoric that they have actually "lost" their pension. I've had senior flight attendants on my aircraft with 20+ years of service who thought she was going to get absolutely nothing. I had a fueler (an older guy) on my aircraft the other day bringing the fuel sheet up who said he's going to have to work forever because his co-workers are telling him he is going to get ZERO. It's says much of their union's leadership when I have to explain to their membership that they need to get into contact with their respective union's leadership AND contact the PBGC directly so that they can get an estimate to the amount that they're really going to get and can plan their future accordingly with REALISTIC assumptions.
This is where I think the IAM and AFA are selling their people down the river, asking their people to strike because their pension just got "stolen", when in fact, the people who need the protection the most from the PBGC are actually going to get it (unless you're a pilot or high paid management). Go on the AFA website and take a look at the video they put up for their membership. They're basing their "gloomy" forecasts on a flight attendant who retires at 54! 54? Who the he!! gets to retire when they're 54 years old? Work AT LEAST 6 years more and delay withdrawls from your retirement account for AT LEAST 6 years more (like the rest of America) and you'd be surprised what the magic of delay and compound interest does for you.
KCFlyer
Veteran
Just out of curiosity - how much is this guarantee worth? With the move to get rid of the "burden" of pension funds, how soon before the non-bankrupt carriers "take advantage" of this decision..not to mention GM and Ford - how many pension plans going bust can this program fund?
If any Ua employee thinks they are going to retire at 55 or 60 and get $44,000 or $47,000 they better think again.
It doesn't matter the FULL pension benefit is now gone. The ones that retired early 2 years ago will be affected substantially. The present employee's with 8-20 years of service and less than 55 will be affected substanially.
If I were Amr, Cal, Nw, Dal and any other airline with a pension I would be considering what I would have to do to dump pensions as well. These other airlines are not as underfunded as Ua and they would not have to have as big a note as what Ua did. They couild be more competetive than Ua if they were to dump their pensions.
The judge did nothing but open the gate. With paycuts and no pension cost there is no reason why Ua can't be profitable in the second quarter.
And yes, the taxpayer will bear the brunt of any underfundings and guarantee by the pbgc.
It doesn't matter the FULL pension benefit is now gone. The ones that retired early 2 years ago will be affected substantially. The present employee's with 8-20 years of service and less than 55 will be affected substanially.
If I were Amr, Cal, Nw, Dal and any other airline with a pension I would be considering what I would have to do to dump pensions as well. These other airlines are not as underfunded as Ua and they would not have to have as big a note as what Ua did. They couild be more competetive than Ua if they were to dump their pensions.
The judge did nothing but open the gate. With paycuts and no pension cost there is no reason why Ua can't be profitable in the second quarter.
And yes, the taxpayer will bear the brunt of any underfundings and guarantee by the pbgc.
I got the exact same impression. He is writing what he wants to happen in a way to help it actually happen so the results help DL.Bear96 said:
I think in reality he is afraid that dumping the pensions is going to be the corner that UA turns and that without UA or US liquidating DL will have a date with a judge later this year.
Turning over the pensions to the PBGC doesn't mean the pensions are forever gone. The PBGC guarantees benefits up to about $44,000 per year I believe. So for most, they probably will not see much, if any reduction in benefits. Of course, the pilots and high level management will be the ones that take a bath.........
This is total Bull S***!!!!!!!!!!!! As a mechanic with 35 years of service and 60 years old I would have recieved $3,045.00 per month from the terminated plan. Under the PBGC now I will get $2,173.00 per month for a reduction of $879. per month. Or 29% reduction per month. This is a substantial reduction. CEO Glen Tilton has opted to keep his pension of 5 million because he states that he has a contract. What about our contract? This is what he considers as "equal sharing of the pain".
This is total Bull S***!!!!!!!!!!!! As a mechanic with 35 years of service and 60 years old I would have recieved $3,045.00 per month from the terminated plan. Under the PBGC now I will get $2,173.00 per month for a reduction of $879. per month. Or 29% reduction per month. This is a substantial reduction. CEO Glen Tilton has opted to keep his pension of 5 million because he states that he has a contract. What about our contract? This is what he considers as "equal sharing of the pain".
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
"With paycuts and no pension cost there is no reason why Ua can't be profitable in the second quarter. "
except that UA's costs are still in the top half of the industry despite having two years in bankruptcy to fix them. Terminating the pension plans will not reduce these costs because UAL hasn't been paying pensions for some time now. The pensions were terminated in an attempt to attract financing to get UA out of bankruptcy but that will only happen when UA's costs are competitive with other carriers and UA's revenues are no longer being reduced by low cost competition. At present, UA's costs are not competitive with other legacy carriers - let alone LCCs - and UA's revenues continue to shrink because of LCC competition and a decision to reduce domestic capacity. Despite UA's best intentions, international revenue cannot replace domestic revenue at the rate it is being lost. And having a half dozen or so international 767s on the verge of being repossessed or being forced to write a multimillion dollar check for rent-in-arrears doesn't help either.
except that UA's costs are still in the top half of the industry despite having two years in bankruptcy to fix them. Terminating the pension plans will not reduce these costs because UAL hasn't been paying pensions for some time now. The pensions were terminated in an attempt to attract financing to get UA out of bankruptcy but that will only happen when UA's costs are competitive with other carriers and UA's revenues are no longer being reduced by low cost competition. At present, UA's costs are not competitive with other legacy carriers - let alone LCCs - and UA's revenues continue to shrink because of LCC competition and a decision to reduce domestic capacity. Despite UA's best intentions, international revenue cannot replace domestic revenue at the rate it is being lost. And having a half dozen or so international 767s on the verge of being repossessed or being forced to write a multimillion dollar check for rent-in-arrears doesn't help either.
WorldTraveler said:
Exactly!
UAL just reported a $250 million Q1 Operating loss, even though it hasn't contributed to its pensions for over a year. Ditching the pensions isn't gonna clean up this pig one bit. Losses will continue until domestic capacity is reduced and/or fuel drops back to $25/bbl.
- Thread Starter
- #41
Man, I thought you were gone, but here you go again World.......
World says: "exept that UA's costs are still in the top half of the industry despite having two years in bankruptcy to fix them."
Well, according to Airline Forecasts LLC, UAL's CASM are in the bottom half of the industry, using data from the first 3 quarters of 2004. But I'll bite because maybe you have data that is more current. Please post your stage length adjusted CASM's for the industry and your source for the data. I'm sure you must have the data because you made the statement?
World says: "Terminating the pension plans will not reduce these costs because UAL hasn't been paying pensions for some time now."
Really? They haven't? Man, I guess the pilot's non-qualified portion (i.e. the portion that comes from UAL's treasury) has been paid with Monopoly money over the past months and years. I'll let ALPA know that they should warn those retirees that the money that's been deposited in their accounts over the past months really isn't there. It's all an illusion.
World says: The pensions were terminated in an attempt to attract financing to get UA out of bankruptcy but that will only happen when UA's costs are competitive with other carriers and UA's revenues are no longer being reduced by low cost competition.
Actually, just about EVERYTHING UAL is doing is to meet the requirements of the banks that HAVE ALREADY OFFERED US EXIT FINANCING. You're not trying to suggest, YET AGAIN, that we haven't found exit financing, are you? We've crossed this path before, have we not? And will you stop with your ridiculous revenue forecasts? Last year you were preaching how revenues at UAL were on the decline, yet they were UP over 10% year over year from 2003 to 2004.
World says: "exept that UA's costs are still in the top half of the industry despite having two years in bankruptcy to fix them."
Well, according to Airline Forecasts LLC, UAL's CASM are in the bottom half of the industry, using data from the first 3 quarters of 2004. But I'll bite because maybe you have data that is more current. Please post your stage length adjusted CASM's for the industry and your source for the data. I'm sure you must have the data because you made the statement?
World says: "Terminating the pension plans will not reduce these costs because UAL hasn't been paying pensions for some time now."
Really? They haven't? Man, I guess the pilot's non-qualified portion (i.e. the portion that comes from UAL's treasury) has been paid with Monopoly money over the past months and years. I'll let ALPA know that they should warn those retirees that the money that's been deposited in their accounts over the past months really isn't there. It's all an illusion.
World says: The pensions were terminated in an attempt to attract financing to get UA out of bankruptcy but that will only happen when UA's costs are competitive with other carriers and UA's revenues are no longer being reduced by low cost competition.
Actually, just about EVERYTHING UAL is doing is to meet the requirements of the banks that HAVE ALREADY OFFERED US EXIT FINANCING. You're not trying to suggest, YET AGAIN, that we haven't found exit financing, are you? We've crossed this path before, have we not? And will you stop with your ridiculous revenue forecasts? Last year you were preaching how revenues at UAL were on the decline, yet they were UP over 10% year over year from 2003 to 2004.
If only people were paying attention to U losing their pensions instead of cheering on that U is nothing but a losing company and needs to go... things might had been different for the rest of the industry. But instead, I am afraid this will be the norm. 
Unfortunately, even with the pay/benefit cuts and the pension turn-over, United isn't anywhere close to an operating profit. The sad reality is that unless the price of oil comes back down to historic levels, United won't see profitability anytime in the near future, if ever. And the general consensus seems to be that the price of oil is only going to rise over the long-term, save for a few minor reductions as prices fluctuate for short-term capacity changes. That is the bigger problem. Even given the enormous pay and benefit cuts we've all taken, it's not nearly enough to save this company. Considerably more must be done to get our costs low enough to survive. Where's it going to come from? I think it's safe to expect that another round of pay/benefit cuts are on the horizon.
This is why I firmly believe what another posted put up in another thread about the best course of action for labor would seem to be to attempt to force the bankruptcy judge to allow competing plans of reorganization. It's been nearly 2 1/2 years since we entered bankruptcy and we have yet to see one shred of a reorganization plan from Tilton. I think if Labor is really as steamed as they say they are, they'd band together with the creditors committee and attempt to force the judge to allow competing bids. But I think Labor is smart enough to realize that by doing that, they open themselves up to much more swift and painful cuts to their constituents.
It's ugly no matter how you look at it. And I'm afraid the worst isn't yet behind us. Not by a long shot.
This is why I firmly believe what another posted put up in another thread about the best course of action for labor would seem to be to attempt to force the bankruptcy judge to allow competing plans of reorganization. It's been nearly 2 1/2 years since we entered bankruptcy and we have yet to see one shred of a reorganization plan from Tilton. I think if Labor is really as steamed as they say they are, they'd band together with the creditors committee and attempt to force the judge to allow competing bids. But I think Labor is smart enough to realize that by doing that, they open themselves up to much more swift and painful cuts to their constituents.
It's ugly no matter how you look at it. And I'm afraid the worst isn't yet behind us. Not by a long shot.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
Mark Hulbert writes the following insightful article about the events of the week regarding UA's pension plans.
Houston, we've got a problem
By Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch
Last Update: 2:17 AM ET May 13, 2005
ANNANDALE, Va. (MarketWatch) -- As usual, most of Wall Street is missing the forest for the trees.
Consider the range of reactions to a judge's decision earlier this week to grant (UALAQ: news, chart, profile) United Airline's request to default on its pension obligations (See full story.) Just as in the famous parable of the blind men trying to determine an elephant's identity by touching different parts of its body, Wall Street has focused on only small parts of the big picture.
more here:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story...61DF4BF94B75%7D
driver,
let's put this revenue issue to bed once and for all. Refer to the link below, flip to item 6 (page 14) and you will see that UAL in 2004 generated just 79% (actually rounded up but I'm being generous) of the revenue they had in 2000. Only US has a number as low. I will grant you that 2004 was the first year in the last 5 that UA generated more revenue than the previous previous, but that was BEFORE the decision to cut system capacity by 3% and domestic capacity something like 10%. It was also before Independence entered the IAD transcon markets with fares as low as $69 and Delta/Song expanded/entered its presence in the JFK transcons. In one summer, Delta has gone from being a distant third in the market to being first in the market in terms of coach seat capacity and is now serving the market with a premium coach product superior to AA or UA's coach product and fares that are less than 1/3 of what AA and UA charged just a couple years ago. WN has trashed PHL transcon fares. BOS is the only major transcon market that doesn't have a direct low fare competitor (Song is included in that category). I'm sorry but an erosion of UA's revenue is inevitable and international revenue cannot make up for it when total system capacity is also falling. Depending on how your regional carrier agreements are set up, you will recapture some of that revenue but you that is costly revenue to acquire and you need almost entirely business type fares if you are going to connect regional passengers to UA mainline operations at your hubs and still make a profit in each entity after you divide up the revenue.
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/83...ALCORPDE10K.pdf
UA has not been paying towards its DB plans for months and you know that.
Houston, we've got a problem
By Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch
Last Update: 2:17 AM ET May 13, 2005
ANNANDALE, Va. (MarketWatch) -- As usual, most of Wall Street is missing the forest for the trees.
Consider the range of reactions to a judge's decision earlier this week to grant (UALAQ: news, chart, profile) United Airline's request to default on its pension obligations (See full story.) Just as in the famous parable of the blind men trying to determine an elephant's identity by touching different parts of its body, Wall Street has focused on only small parts of the big picture.
more here:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story...61DF4BF94B75%7D
driver,
let's put this revenue issue to bed once and for all. Refer to the link below, flip to item 6 (page 14) and you will see that UAL in 2004 generated just 79% (actually rounded up but I'm being generous) of the revenue they had in 2000. Only US has a number as low. I will grant you that 2004 was the first year in the last 5 that UA generated more revenue than the previous previous, but that was BEFORE the decision to cut system capacity by 3% and domestic capacity something like 10%. It was also before Independence entered the IAD transcon markets with fares as low as $69 and Delta/Song expanded/entered its presence in the JFK transcons. In one summer, Delta has gone from being a distant third in the market to being first in the market in terms of coach seat capacity and is now serving the market with a premium coach product superior to AA or UA's coach product and fares that are less than 1/3 of what AA and UA charged just a couple years ago. WN has trashed PHL transcon fares. BOS is the only major transcon market that doesn't have a direct low fare competitor (Song is included in that category). I'm sorry but an erosion of UA's revenue is inevitable and international revenue cannot make up for it when total system capacity is also falling. Depending on how your regional carrier agreements are set up, you will recapture some of that revenue but you that is costly revenue to acquire and you need almost entirely business type fares if you are going to connect regional passengers to UA mainline operations at your hubs and still make a profit in each entity after you divide up the revenue.
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/83...ALCORPDE10K.pdf
UA has not been paying towards its DB plans for months and you know that.
