What's new

Things Are About To Get Ugly

United's Pensions on Increasingly Shaky Ground
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

Published: July 2, 2004

As United Airlines prepares to ask workers for a new round of cutbacks, its pension plans look increasingly vulnerable. The airline has four big plans, and shedding any one could lop off more than $1 billion in debt.

Such a drastic step could nudge other airlines to trim their pension plans as well, to keep their labor costs competitive. The long-term prospect could be a series of failed pension plans and lost benefits reminiscent of those in the steel industry, a costly outcome for the government.

Which workers' pensions at United are most at risk? Those with the biggest pensions - the pilots - might not, in fact, be first in the cross hairs.

Because the pilots' fund had good returns during the stock market boom, it built a big reserve of credits for funding purposes. That cushion has allowed United, a unit of the UAL Corporation, to contribute less cash to that plan than to the others since entering bankruptcy, even though the pilots have been promised by far the most benefits.

The most recent data suggest that the pension plan for United's mechanics has been consuming the most cash in the last two years. United's plan for administrative workers and managers appears to have required the second-largest amount of cash, followed by the plan for flight attendants.

As long as this pattern continues, United could conserve more cash in the short term - and make itself more attractive to lenders - by chopping one or more of its skimpier pension plans. It could either freeze the benefits at their current level, or terminate one or more plans outright - a far more drastic step that would require approval by the bankruptcy court.

A termination would save the airline more money but also cause an uproar in the workplace. To minimize the backlash, United might start with the plan that has promised the smallest benefits - the flight attendants' plan - because government insurance would cover more of those promises. The flight attendants have already agreed to pension reductions, and they are bitter about a new plan to cut retiree health insurance. United might ease the pain by giving them other retirement benefits, like an enriched 401(k) plan.

United declined to discuss any aspect of its pension plans, and officials of the unions that represent its employees said the airline had not yet contacted them for discussions. Just a few weeks ago, United said in a bankruptcy court filing that it viewed its pension plans "as untouchable unless there was no other choice." But that was before the government denied loan guarantees to United. O. V. Delle-Femine, national director of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, said he now feared the worst.

"You've got to gut the pension plans," he said. "I don't see any other way."

Whatever United does will be closely watched by the other major airlines and their employees, who have substantial pensions of their own to worry about. If United ultimately revives itself by terminating one or more of its pension plans, other airlines may also try to shed pension debt, to remain competitive.

This would not happen overnight. Pension terminations are difficult and costly. But over time, the industry could find itself in a long, slow race to the bottom - a succession of bankruptcies and pension defaults similar to those in the steel industry over the last quarter of a century. Steel maker after steel maker went bankrupt, and the only ones to bounce back were those that scuttled their pension plans.

In the process, the government had to take over $9.4 billion worth of pension obligations. Because pension insurance has limits, many steel workers had their benefits reduced.

A replay of those grim events in the aviation sector would be painful for airline employees, and ominous to workers in other mature industries, like automaking, where the pension obligations are also large and growing faster than revenues. And it would probably swamp the government's insurance program.

In May, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation disclosed that it was beginning to stabilize after two years of losses, but it warned that it had just classified $23.4 billion worth of airline pensions as "reasonably possible" to default.
 
How accurate this is, who is to say. But when the “grandâ€￾ poo-bah Del himself says you have to gut the pension, ya know it’s gonna hurt. I do know one thing, if one plan goes, they all go, or you are talking all out civil war….and that could be the LAST torpedo to finish off this battleship. :up:
 
I also believe that it would be befitting to our government, who felt assistance was un-necessary. Sort of “quid-pro-quoâ€￾ I’d venture to say……

“You like apples????….Well how do you like them apples!!!â€￾
:lol:
 
O. V. Delle-Femine, national director of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, said he now feared the worst.

"You've got to gut the pension plans," he said. "I don't see any other way."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Boy, that is a great way to start negotiations. Nice choice of union leaders. 🙄
 
The Ronin said:
How accurate this is, who is to say. But when the “grandâ€￾ poo-bah Del himself says you have to gut the pension, ya know it’s gonna hurt. I do know one thing, if one plan goes, they all go, or you are talking all out civil war….and that could be the LAST torpedo to finish off this battleship. :up:
I don't know Ronin.

At USAir they terminated only the pilot's pension, and there was no civil war.

I'm not convinced yet that pensions will be on the chopping block. But if they are, it is certainly reasonable to look at the expected retirement benefit and consider the options. If I were a F/A for instance, and the PBGC will guarantee 80% of my pension benefit, and UA contribites more to my 401K to make up the difference, I wouldn't be calling for a revolt. In the end it would be the same money in my pocket, and probably more secure at the same time.

In times like these you gotta think outside the box. If it comes down to it, UA will be looking at which plans cost them the most in the short term, not which ones pay out the most to participants.

I do think it's ironic that if the ATSB had approved the guarantee, all pensions would have been safe, and assuming UA paid the loan back, then ZERO tax dollars would have been spent. Now, if any pensions are terminated the PBGC WILL use tax dollars to cover the required insured amount.

I hope all the opponents of the ATSB loan who were crying about taxpayer's money choke on that fact.
 
I definitely wish Good Luck to all those involved. This is such an uncertain time, please stay positive. God Bless.
 
This is a sobering article but let's not forget that the government just provided hundreds of millions of dollars in pension deferrals to airlines on top of the funding changes that were given to nearly all pension plans. Pension plans are a cost, however, and they have to be paid eventually. Even if the ATSB loaned UAL $1.6B (or guaranteed it to be accurate), the money would have to be repaid. Whether the funding is from the ATSB, commercial banks, or pension deferrals, the only way to reduce the cost is to reduce benefits or to increase returns on the plans.

The Feds recent rate hike should help pension plans somewhat but not sure how much. The best thing that United employees can pray for this summer and fall is a bunch of rate hikes and a very strong stock market to bolster the plans and reduce the underfunding.
 
767jetz said:
I do think it's ironic that if the ATSB had approved the guarantee, all pensions would have been safe, and assuming UA paid the loan back, then ZERO tax dollars would have been spent. Now, if any pensions are terminated the PBGC WILL use tax dollars to cover the required insured amount.

I hope all the opponents of the ATSB loan who were crying about taxpayer's money choke on that fact.
Actually, jetz, it won't be taxpayers money. Or at least not directly. The PBGC is funded by user fees placed on defined benefit pension plans. The fees are assessed much like the FDIC does -- they go up when claims go up. So any underfunding in terminated plans will be made up by fees on other providers of DB plans.

As a side note, the cost to PBGC will not be the full amount of the underfunding of the plans. If the plans are terminated, the promised benefits will be less as many beneficiaries will have fewer years in. And then there are those nasty income limits. That alone will dramatically decrease the PBGC's exposure. But if UA goes down this path, it will certainly hit the PBGC and probably cause other carriers to follow suit.

As a 1K, I'd hate to see UA terminate their pensions, but it seems like the easiest way out of their current financial predicament. I suppose that significant pay cuts would work as well, but that seems less likely.
 
I'd venture a guess that concessions are going to be spread out over a wide spectrum (like taxes) to make them seem less visable - a little bit here, a little bit there... Kind of like when you were a kid and didn't want to eat those mushy green peas so you'd spread 'em out over the plate to try fool your Mom into thinking you had actually eaten some of them.

One thing we can find solace in; concessions will eventually make us stronger

That is why Pan Am and Eastern are the strongest airlines on Earth
 
Each person has different situations. Personally for myself I would rather of had matchiing 401k instead of a defined plan, at the rate I'm going I could walk in 15yrs at 55 and be fine. But there are many that don't have a pot to piss in and really need their retirement. The article and USAir's plight don't seem to match? Why did they go after pilots if the mechanics were costing them more? I do know that both the company and unions are trying to salvage scenes from the past, and that is exacty why we are, where we are, today. Its not I, nor the government, or the company stopping you guys from making 300k/yr...it's the public and your competition. The same goes for everyone. Did you see LUV's latest contract with it's F/A's? Now I think the darling LCC is going to be not such a darling anymore. Did the F/A's not deserve it? Of course they did, but will the economics support it? We shall see.

When Cortez arrived in the new world, he burned his ships to the dismay of the crews. But after that they knew only one thing, they would either survive together or perish together. Until United reaches that point, it will mull and meander along. If it EVER does, the industry will never know what hit it.
:up:
 
If UAL should give up at IAD, that probably would mean the loss of what's left of all the long Latin routes. I doubt that ORD as the only US gateway will support much more than MEX and the Caribbean. Of course, lots of people say South America should get cut anyway.

This thread is starting to sound like the US Airways' board a couple years ago. People were presenting logical reasons that NOTHING could be cut at a time when EVERY ROUTE was losing money. 🙂
 
If we push aside the emotional rhetoric, it's easy to see that once again, United is presented with a golden opportunity to make the tough, ugly, but necessary decisions to truly transform the airline into an efficient, low-cost-competitive force that will push the other legacy airlines to the brink. Whether you admit it or not, the ATSB did United a favor. Our cost structure simply is not yet low enough to profitably compete with the real force of the industry---the low cost carriers. That is what we must benchmark against.

Try as we will to talk tough about "no more concessions", the reality is that while in bankruptcy court, United Senior Mgmt holds a lot of leverage. True, they need to be VERY careful about the cuts they go after because the service levels that are only now starting to really rebound could take a death spiral again. But no matter how you cut it, I think it's safe to say that some form of additional salary and/or benefit cuts are coming. The pensions as we currently know them are probably in trouble. Except maybe ALPA's. Their plan is much more wisely invested and does not require the massive cash infusion that the IAM and Salaried/Mgmt plans do. But in order to attract outside investment in this company, more work must be done. All the low-hanging fruit is gone. The tough decisions now must be made. Although, one easy decision remains: toss Jake Brace out on his ear. Hopefully, anyone who steps up to the plate to invest capital in United will demand nothing less.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/business/02air.html

United's Pensions on Increasingly Shaky Ground
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

Published: July 2, 2004


s United Airlines prepares to ask workers for a new round of cutbacks, its pension plans look increasingly vulnerable. The airline has four big plans, and shedding any one could lop off more than $1 billion in debt.

Such a drastic step could nudge other airlines to trim their pension plans as well, to keep their labor costs competitive. The long-term prospect could be a series of failed pension plans and lost benefits reminiscent of those in the steel industry, a costly outcome for the government.

Which workers' pensions at United are most at risk? Those with the biggest pensions - the pilots - might not, in fact, be first in the cross hairs.

Because the pilots' fund had good returns during the stock market boom, it built a big reserve of credits for funding purposes. That cushion has allowed United, a unit of the UAL Corporation, to contribute less cash to that plan than to the others since entering bankruptcy, even though the pilots have been promised by far the most benefits.

The most recent data suggest that the pension plan for United's mechanics has been consuming the most cash in the last two years. United's plan for administrative workers and managers appears to have required the second-largest amount of cash, followed by the plan for flight attendants.

As long as this pattern continues, United could conserve more cash in the short term - and make itself more attractive to lenders - by chopping one or more of its skimpier pension plans. It could either freeze the benefits at their current level, or terminate one or more plans outright - a far more drastic step that would require approval by the bankruptcy court.

A termination would save the airline more money but also cause an uproar in the workplace. To minimize the backlash, United might start with the plan that has promised the smallest benefits - the flight attendants' plan - because government insurance would cover more of those promises. The flight attendants have already agreed to pension reductions, and they are bitter about a new plan to cut retiree health insurance. United might ease the pain by giving them other retirement benefits, like an enriched 401(k) plan.

United declined to discuss any aspect of its pension plans, and officials of the unions that represent its employees said the airline had not yet contacted them for discussions. Just a few weeks ago, United said in a bankruptcy court filing that it viewed its pension plans "as untouchable unless there was no other choice." But that was before the government denied loan guarantees to United. O. V. Delle-Femine, national director of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, said he now feared the worst.

"You've got to gut the pension plans," he said. "I don't see any other way."

Whatever United does will be closely watched by the other major airlines and their employees, who have substantial pensions of their own to worry about. If United ultimately revives itself by terminating one or more of its pension plans, other airlines may also try to shed pension debt, to remain competitive.

This would not happen overnight. Pension terminations are difficult and costly. But over time, the industry could find itself in a long, slow race to the bottom - a succession of bankruptcies and pension defaults similar to those in the steel industry over the last quarter of a century. Steel maker after steel maker went bankrupt, and the only ones to bounce back were those that scuttled their pension plans.

In the process, the government had to take over $9.4 billion worth of pension obligations. Because pension insurance has limits, many steel workers had their benefits reduced.

A replay of those grim events in the aviation sector would be painful for airline employees, and ominous to workers in other mature industries, like automaking, where the pension obligations are also large and growing faster than revenues. And it would probably swamp the government's insurance program.

In May, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation disclosed that it was beginning to stabilize after two years of losses, but it warned that it had just classified $23.4 billion worth of airline pensions as "reasonably possible" to default.
 
JungleClone said:
The pensions as we currently know them are probably in trouble. Except maybe ALPA's.
If they destroy the low folks pension but leave the pilots untouched, expect the airline to fail. The employees will destroy it.
 
If they destroy the low folks pension but leave the pilots untouched, expect the airline to fail. The employees will destroy it.

Aye, that will go over as well as a fart in church.

Here's a conversation...

MX person: Hi Captain. How is that pension of yours.

Captain: Intact. How is the plane?

MX person: Broken. It's gonna take a long time for me to find the maintenance manual, find the right topic and read the book and figure out what it is telling me to do. See ya in a few hours.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top