U to terminate pilot''s pension to fund other pensions !

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/10/2003 8:00:36 AM PITbull wrote:

I respect what you say. Putting this all in prospective, Corporations have a better chance of handling the risk than the individual. Most folks today depend on SS. My parents imigrated here in the 50s and had a restaurant for 40 years. They had to send money to my grandparents and relatives for them to survive as in many countries there is no ss, but there is socialized medicine; if there was not, they would not have survived.

A little bit of something guaranteed, is better than nothing. And thank god for the Erisa Act and the PBGC to protect retirements.

It seems now it is an epidemic to get rid of defined plans. Some part of that equation is related to the Stock Market, but most is related to an opportunity for Corporations with defined plans to rid themselves of them.

Thanks for sharing your persspective.
----------------
[/blockquote]
-------------------------------------------

Hi PITbull,

I used to think that, too and based it on two things. I'm not an investor type. If I was, I'd be doing that. And second, I thought some combination of DBRP's and SS, along with private savings, was about the best working stiffs could hope for. And certainly sufficient.

The tidal wave of failing DBRP's, the government bullhockey over SS, Enron, etc. is causing me to rethink my position.

My new basic premise is whenever there is a pile of money promised and due to working America, the powers that be, corporate or government, will screw us out of it. They cannot resist that big pile of cash. And more, they cannot stand the thought of a comfortable working class, with the means and time to put them to the question.

I'd like to see a retirement scheme that keeps the government's and company's hands out of the cookie jar. Perhaps some of the best elements of a 401k, IRA's and SS. Something like - private account. Portable. Company, government and individual make contributions. NOT easily or readily accessible by the individual prior to retirement. A basic account for the investment impaired, risk adjusted for age. Options.

They keep telling us it's a new economy. When is health care, pensions, access to education going to match up to the demands of that new economy?

Just a thought.

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/9/2003 900 PM autofixer wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/9/2003 6:54:20 PM diogenes wrote:

[blockquote]

----------------

On 2/7/2003 10:05:30 PM U 737 PILOT wrote:


As documented in a recent ALPA letter to all U pilot's, the terminated pilot pension plan will provide 850 million in savings of which 580 million will go to pension increase funding for all other labor groups. [/blockquote]

------------------------------------------


So, if we accept this logic, one would also be forced to conclude the savings the company realized when they froze agent pensions in 94 subsidized ALPA's pension from 94 - 2002.


A simple thank you will suffice.
----------------
[/blockquote]
diogenes, not quite. By your logic all of the pensions were subsidized--not just ALPA's. But it really is apples and oranges. ALPA gave twice this time to preserve their pension. AFA and IAM did not. The other pensions costs have dramatically increased--due to the erosion in the stock market and low interest rates--while ALPA's has remained constant. However, due to ALPA's huge giveback, there is a pot of cash for the company to rob.

When your pension was frozen (not stolen as with ALPA), what did your union do to preserve it? What kind of efforts were made by your union to keep your pension solvent?

In a way, you were "lucky". You were forced into a 401k with a company match 10 years ago. You have the power of componding on your side. At least with a 401k, the robber barons cannot get their evil hands on your retirement(but watch out for congress in the future). ALPA will not be so lucky, as 50% of the group is over 50 with a mandatory age 60 retirement looming.
----------------
[/blockquote]
-------------------------------------------

Hey 'fixer,

I mostly to somewhat agree with what you're saying.

The point, and obviously I made it poorly, was it is intellectually dishonest, as well as unhelpful, for ALPA to holler 'subsidy and socialism' now, and deny the same dynamic when agents took it in the shorts in 94.

Or, to be succinct, can't have it both ways.

I must commend ALPA for staying on message, however. Recently seen about a dozen pilots I've known over the years - they all had the subsidy story down cold. Led to some interesting discussions.

Hope y'all find some way out of this mess, and luck to us all.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/10/2003 6:58:06 PM diogenes wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/10/2003 8:00:36 AM PITbull wrote:

I respect what you say. Putting this all in prospective, Corporations have a better chance of handling the risk than the individual. Most folks today depend on SS. My parents imigrated here in the 50s and had a restaurant for 40 years. They had to send money to my grandparents and relatives for them to survive as in many countries there is no ss, but there is socialized medicine; if there was not, they would not have survived.

A little bit of something guaranteed, is better than nothing. And thank god for the Erisa Act and the PBGC to protect retirements.

It seems now it is an epidemic to get rid of defined plans. Some part of that equation is related to the Stock Market, but most is related to an opportunity for Corporations with defined plans to rid themselves of them.

Thanks for sharing your persspective.
----------------
[/blockquote]
-------------------------------------------

Hi PITbull,

I used to think that, too and based it on two things. I'm not an investor type. If I was, I'd be doing that. And second, I thought some combination of DBRP's and SS, along with private savings, was about the best working stiffs could hope for. And certainly sufficient.

The tidal wave of failing DBRP's, the government bullhockey over SS, Enron, etc. is causing me to rethink my position.

My new basic premise is whenever there is a pile of money promised and due to working America, the powers that be, corporate or government, will screw us out of it. They cannot resist that big pile of cash. And more, they cannot stand the thought of a comfortable working class, with the means and time to put them to the question.

I'd like to see a retirement scheme that keeps the government's and company's hands out of the cookie jar. Perhaps some of the best elements of a 401k, IRA's and SS. Something like - private account. Portable. Company, government and individual make contributions. NOT easily or readily accessible by the individual prior to retirement. A basic account for the investment impaired, risk adjusted for age. Options.

They keep telling us it's a new economy. When is health care, pensions, access to education going to match up to the demands of that new economy?

Just a thought.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Dio,

Hmmm, I'll ponder that. You may have something here...(combining contributers for the investment impaired and age adjusted). Liken it!
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif']

 

[stewbear]

Intelligent and factual information, A Leader to admire and believe. Thanks for your efforts Pit Bull...we are behind you.

 

[autofixer]

PineyBob, U management is ONLY dumping the pilots defined contribution plan. NOT freezing it, as was done to the agents plan 10 years ago. They are NOT dumping the grossly underfunded mechanics and flight attendant funds (YET!). I could agree with your assertation if all of the plans were being terminated, but as we know that is not the case. War is being waged against the pilot group by U management. Or maybe this is just the first shot? Management knows how wage warfare works in the U.S., so perhaps they thought that they would test their new strategy with the unpopular pilots first? They must be very pleased with the reation they are getting, all across the board rooms of America. "Suckers!"

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/12/2003 7:06:26 AM autofixer wrote:

PineyBob, U management is ONLY dumping the pilots defined contribution plan. NOT freezing it, as was done to the agents plan 10 years ago. They are NOT dumping the grossly underfunded mechanics and flight attendant funds (YET!). I could agree with your assertation if all of the plans were being terminated, but as we know that is not the case. War is being waged against the pilot group by U management. Or maybe this is just the first shot? Management knows how wage warfare works in the U.S., so perhaps they thought that they would test their new strategy with the unpopular pilots first? They must be very pleased with the reation they are getting, all across the board rooms of America. "Suckers!"
----------------
[/blockquote]
-------------------------------------------

'fixer,

I agree this is not the last shot in this battle. If (and that's a BIG if) any DBRP's are left standing now, they will be used as leverage in the future, just as it recently was done at ALPA.

 

[LavMan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/12/2003 7:06:26 AM autofixer wrote:

PineyBob, U management is ONLY dumping the pilots defined contribution plan. NOT freezing it, as was done to the agents plan 10 years ago. They are NOT dumping the grossly underfunded mechanics and flight attendant funds (YET!). I could agree with your assertation if all of the plans were being terminated, but as we know that is not the case. War is being waged against the pilot group by U management. Or maybe this is just the first shot? Management knows how wage warfare works in the U.S., so perhaps they thought that they would test their new strategy with the unpopular pilots first? They must be very pleased with the reation they are getting, all across the board rooms of America. "Suckers!"
----------------
[/blockquote]

Auto you need to get your facts straight, the company's liability to the pilots is over $2 billion, all the others plans combined is $1 billion, that is mechanics, stock clerks, utility, the flight attendants and management employees.

The mechanic and related pension is over 78% funded according to the plans actuaries, so our pension is not grossly underfunded. So get your facts straight.

 

[insp89]

Lavman,, I'm sure you are aware that some on this board will not let facts get in the way of a good story...

 

[autofixer]

Prior to the RA pilots' pension requirement rose to $2,18 billion and the other groups $1.44billion. After the RA the pilots' requirements to fund their pension was reduced $500 million to $1.69 billion.

All other groups did nothing and their requirements remained at $1.44 billion. This has raised the company's over all cost to ALL pension to $3.14 billion, up from $2.52 billion prior to the RAs (Due primarily to stock market levels and low interest rates--the real reason this whole problem is manifesting itself now.).

As you can see factually, the shortfalls in funding are nearly the same.

They WILL be coming for AFA and IAM next. FACTS