Prefunding Koziatek Letter

[TWU informer]

Here is your Koziatek letter covering your Prefunding.

http://www.amfa-aa.com/docs/PrefundingKoziatek.pdf

 

[High Speed Steel]

Here is your Koziatek letter covering your Prefunding.

http://www.amfa-aa.c...ingKoziatek.pdf

Voting NO will not guarantee you the companies match. This letter was blended to the book in 2001. I'm of the opinion your best shot at getting the companies match is by voting YES. I know your too stubborn to face the truth, and also have noticed how you have thanked who you refer to as the apathetic for participating and voting YES.....you crack me up Informer, vote Yes, I won't tell B)

 

[TWU informer]

Voting NO will not guarantee you the companies match. This letter was blended to the book in 2001. I'm of the opinion your best shot at getting the companies match is by voting YES. I know your too stubborn to face the truth, and also have noticed how you have thanked who you refer to as the apathetic for participating and voting YES.....you crack me up Informer, vote Yes, I won't tell B)

Once you vote Yes, there is no longer a "unilateral termination" and under the T/A you are only given the company match upon successful completion of the 1114 process. What if during the 1114 process the company match becomes a court ordered fund to assist current retirees?

Depsite your claims, Voting No, does guarantee you the company match + interest because abborgation would be a unilateral termination as described in the Koziatek letter. Consensual agreement is not "unilateral termination"!

If what you say is true, then why does the company and the TWU use the company match as bait by claiming the refund is dependent upon a "consensual agreement" And 1114 completion?

 

[Realityck]

I guess I've missed something in the Company prefunding argument.

I'm not an Attorney, but it would seem the 1114 (Retiree Benefits) Committee must present it's arguments in Court, and the Judge is the only one with authority to approve American's plan to discontinue the retire medical plan, or not. Neither American nor the TWU can make that decision on their own. The T/A says that in the LOA (successful conclusion to the 1114 proceedings or something close to that).

Owens (and others) claim retired AMT's will benefit from a YES vote because AA will use their (Owens active AMT company contributions) to fund the retiree's medical plan once retirees have exhausted their personal and Company's prefunding match. When that happened in recent years to every retiree I know, the full cost of retiree medical was borne by the company - and didn't draw down any active participants contribution or company match. I have no idea where these guys dream this crap up?

I can understand the AMFA trying to generate a few more cards by creating confusion and dissent among the AMTs, but check your facts before you start shooting off your mouth Bob. I'm getting to the point that I'm starting to feel that I'm psychic since I can always tell when you're lying, it's when your lips are moving!

 

[AC Tynker]

Once you vote Yes, there is no longer a "unilateral termination" and under the T/A you are only given the company match upon successful completion of the 1114 process. What if during the 1114 process the company match becomes a court ordered fund to assist current retirees?

Depsite your claims, Voting No, does guarantee you the company match + interest because abborgation would be a unilateral termination as described in the Koziatek letter. Consensual agreement is not "unilateral termination"!

If what you say is true, then why does the company and the TWU use the company match as bait by claiming the refund is dependent upon a "consensual agreement" And 1114 completion?

That's not true, with the consensual agreement your agreeing to terminate prefunded retiree medical and AA will offer a post funded retiree medical.

Unilateral Termination means it will terminate for anyone using it.

 

[TWU informer]

That's not true, with the consensual agreement your agreeing to terminate prefunded retiree medical and AA will offer a post funded retiree medical.

Unilateral Termination means it will terminate for anyone using it.

What?
That is incorrect or a fabrication.

Unilateral Termination is Termination without your Consent.

And with ratification of the T/A, we are giving "consent" to terminate the plan.

Where do you get that AA will be offering a "post funded" medical plan to any retiree? Show me that one.

Either way the plan is being terminated.
One is consensual (Yes Vote) and the other is unilateral (No Vote)

 

[iluvaa]

Why is that plain language so hard for them to get they truly amaze me. Ya know a lot of things discussed on here is about what if or might and that's from both sides, but this is the first thing that appears to be really written in stone how could anyone argue with it.

 

[Overspeed]

Why is that plain language so hard for them to get they truly amaze me. Ya know a lot of things discussed on here is about what if or might and that's from both sides, but this is the first thing that appears to be really written in stone how could anyone argue with it.

The only legally binding documents on prefunding are the contract and the trust. Neither provide for distribution of the employer contributions to the pre funding trust to employees. They only state that the money must be used for the exclusive benefit of the participants, a phrase which clearly limits the use of the funds to pay retiree medical benefits. If you have any doubt, go look at the treatment of employee contributions-- as opposed to employer – in the trust and the contract. The language specifically states that employee contributions are returned to the employees in the event of trust termination. The trustees maintaining this money has no authority to distribute the employer contributions to employees and would not do so. It would take an agreement between the TWU and AA to allow this, and that is what the TA does.

The letter you quote is not a letter of agreement. It is an explanatory letter put out by Ed Koziatek in the early 1990s, which was never incorporated into the agreement. In any case, Ed gave explained his letter and the trust back then and he was always clear what the intent of the agreement was in the event of a bankruptcy and termination of the trust – the money would be used to secure alternative retiree medical for the participants. If you have any doubt go look at the contract which only states one approved use of the employer contributions ---- “use of the assets for the purpose of continuing retiree health coverage under an alternative program as may be agreed to by the parties.” This board is filled with unlicensed bankruptcy and benefits law experts. See if you can find any lawyer who would advise the trustees of the prefunding money that they had authority to distribute the employer contributions to employees under circumstances in which there is no assurance the money would be spent for retiree medical coverage.

 

[AC Tynker]

What?
That is incorrect or a fabrication.

Unilateral Termination is Termination without your Consent.

And with ratification of the T/A, we are giving "consent" to terminate the plan.

Where do you get that AA will be offering a "post funded" medical plan to any retiree? Show me that one.

Either way the plan is being terminated.
One is consensual (Yes Vote) and the other is unilateral (No Vote)

Post fund is for current retiree, if you want to see it in writing go get a copy of the TA. Whether you believe it or not I could care less really but You and your little parrot iluvaa are wrong.

 

[NYer]

Here is your Koziatek letter covering your Prefunding.

http://www.amfa-aa.c...ingKoziatek.pdf

That's cute, but how is a letter addressed to the Members and signed only by the TWU (no one from the AA) become a governing document over the CBA and the Memorandum of Understanding that is the actual legal frame work of the Retiree Medical Trust and WAS agreed to by both parties? Smoke screen!

 

[eolesen]

Didn't Bob post a link to the actual side letter between AA and the TWU? Don't recall if it went into that level of detail.

 

[aapitbull]

Well gentlemen in the eyes of the law intent is often the most important thing the two side often attempt to change things after the fact and going back and getting a clear understanding of the original intent is where the rubber meets the road but we will see.