Senior Management''s Bankrupcy-Exempt Irrevocable Trust Retirement Fund

FA Mikey

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
4,421
301
miami
Did we have any doubts? Count on emerging from BK and seeing Mr. Carty and the other SR executive getting huge stock options to make up for the losses they will incur now.
 
From the just-released April 14, 2003, AMR Securities and Exchange Commission filing, page 301, section 2.3 (NOTE: the retirement trust described below was founded on October 14, 2002, at the Wachovia Bank of Delaware):

...the fund shall not be subject to the claims of the creditors of the corporation in a bankruptcy or other insolvency proceeding under Federal or state law, but shall be maintained for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to Participants under the Plan.

Was this looking out for # 1 before they implied the threat of pension jeopardy for unionized employees in a bankruptcy proceeding?
 
I guess being financially prudent doesn't count for much anymore. Would you prefer that the company be able to pull money out at will from retirement funds to support day-to-day needs?...

This trust is just like the supplementary plans that exist for the pilots, and needed the same protection that existed for other retirement obligations.
 
I wanted so badly to point out this item when I posted the thread about the financial statement release, but I held my tongue hoping one of the employees would find it.

This should just go to show each and every employee of AA, that the AMR executive level has absolutely no confidence in itself, let alone the employees of the airline. The only thing they did was move quickly and covertly to cover their own perks, benefits and retirement.

I truly believe they have NO incentive whatsoever to try to bail this carrier out of it''s dire financial straights. . .there is no reason to, they got theirs and will continue to "get" theirs long after AA is gone.
 
You know buddy, I understand your role as a corporate propagandist, I really do. So don''t take it to heart when I say I believe you''ve missed the mark on this one. This is a pure and simple example of the executive level making sure that when this carrier is finished crashing down around them, they, and their families will be provided for . . .labor be damned!

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
 
----------------
On 4/16/2003 12:08:58 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:


True, but when they do it with someone else''s money . . . then the tune is a bit different.  Do you see executive doing anything to protect labor''s pension and benefits?  Of course not, those very things are part of what''s on YOUR chopping block.  NOT theirs.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****


----------------​

No, and I wouldn''t expect them to, especially not with all the antagonism that labor has towards management. It is the Union''s task to try to look after the workers in its membership.

TANSTAAFL
 
And in their shoes you wouldn't do the same thing? Riiight.

This is an another example of The Golden Rule: Them that has the gold makes the rules.

Nothing more, nothing less.

TANSTAAFL
 
Workingman, we are all in our own way out for "me, me, me."

Here's a question: Do management employees, when they are hired, sign a contract stating what their compensation will be? If they do, then in your Northwest example wouldn't it be ILLEGAL for a company not to pay them if they reach their contract-delineated goals?

Life is not fair, workingman. We all just do the best that we can with the unfairness.

TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
 
True, but when they do it with someone else''s money . . . then the tune is a bit different. Do you see executive doing anything to protect labor''s pension and benefits? Of course not, those very things are part of what''s on YOUR chopping block. NOT theirs.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
 
----------------
On 4/16/2003 11:12:14 AM eolesen wrote:

I guess being financially prudent doesn''t count for much anymore. Would you prefer that the company be able to pull money out at will from retirement funds to support day-to-day needs?...

This trust is just like the supplementary plans that exist for the pilots, and needed the same protection that existed for other retirement obligations.



----------------​
So who committed the greater sin AA''s top bunch or Iraqs top bunch they were all out for me, me, me. They were all "protecting themselves". Don''t you see it is just as bad you STEAL from the people under you to have your own be it an employee under you his wages or job or a citizen under them. Do you think Northwests top bunch had a right to their bonus when at the same time they laid off 159 mechanics in Duluth Mn. claiming they had it coming as they met their goals? Do not for a minute think this will be the end of what AA will STEAL from people under them. Just look at what Northwest is doing with just the mechanics. THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. That commend was not given to Moses, an employee or a citizen of a country but to all people or maybe some people think they are greater then the ONE who gave that commend.
 
----------------
On 4/16/2003 1:01:24 PM WXGuesser wrote:

Workingman, we are all in our own way out for "me, me, me."

Here''s a question: Do management employees, when they are hired, sign a contract stating what their compensation will be? If they do, then in your Northwest example wouldn''t it be ILLEGAL for a company not to pay them if they reach their contract-delineated goals?

Life is not fair, workingman. We all just do the best that we can with the unfairness.

TANSTAAFL (There Ain''t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)


----------------​
I agree we all are out for the ME at some time in our life but not all of us do that at the cost of anothers wages or anothers job.

A contract is a written or spoken agreement enforceable by law. I agree management did sign a contract with the company and so did all AAs employees that are in any union at AA. I do believe the unions renegotiate a contract at times over the years and the employees vote on the contract and that the management signs that contract also and that those union contracts are just as legal as the contracts the management have.

WXGuesser is it only ILLEGAL when a company breaks a contract with the top management and LEGAL to break it when the contract is with a union?

Oh I get it the top management are above the law they lie to the employees that already work for them, to the employees of a company they buy out, take jobs away from people, tell employees the company does not have enough money to operate and need givebacks from their unions but still have enough money to get their bonus, and tell lies or not the whole truth to congress that they need more money that the profits aren''t big enough. The goals of management have sure been met.
 
----------------
On 4/16/2003 2:15:22 PM Workingman wrote:

WXGuesser is it only ILLEGAL when a company breaks a contract with the top management and LEGAL to break it when the contract is with a union?

Oh I get it the top management are above the law they lie to the employees that already work for them, to the employees of a company they buy out, take jobs away from people, tell employees the company does not have enough money to operate and need givebacks from their unions but still have enough money to get their bonus, and tell lies or not the whole truth to congress that they need more money that the profits aren''t big enough. The goals of management have sure been met.

----------------​

Where has AA broken the contract? Where have the unions broken the contract? They haven''t. Changes to the contract have been proposed and accepted by the majority of the union member who voted in two of the three unions on the property thus far, and the third is still out.

Workingman, if someone on either side had broken the provisions of the contract, there would be more lawyers than we can count all over it. Like there was with the force majeure post-Sept. 11 furloughs. A court decided the language of the contract did apply in the way the company used it (at least in Delta''s pilot''s case... I''m not aware of other cases even coming to trial).

There is a distinction between illegal and unethical. While the company''s actions are certainly unethical, lack of ethics (like stupidity) is not yet a crime in ths country.

TANSTAAFL
 
Is that the best you can come up with anymore?

I guess I could go sit outside and have a smoke every 90 minutes instead, but that would only drive up health care expenses. So yes, this is financially prudent compared to smoking. Thanks for asking.

Good luck on your new career.
 
Im wondering if that clause will be labeled illegal and unenforceable by a BK judge anyway!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top