United's Pensions On Increasingly Shaky Ground

[Nightwatch]

Who are you talking about? Nightwatch, a TWU supporter who brought up the secretary thing, Fly- who I think is a female flight attendant for UAL -AFA/CWA, or me?

How come the TWU says that a mechanic in New York should be happy making the same $60,000 as a mechanic in Tulsa but the highest paid secretary in Tulsa makes $66,000, while the secretary in NY makes $105,000?

So what is the deal, does Sonny have a wife? If so how come he is always seen with his secretary? Its just a question based upon an observation. I'll admit its none of my business if Sonny messes around but if my dues are being misused for his jollies then it does become my business.

Bob, by the sounds of your post you are interested in Sonny as a possible significant other. Nice way to supplement your $60K/yr. job, you go boy.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, by the sounds of your post you are interested in Sonny as a possible significant other. Nice way to supplement your $60K/yr. job, you go boy.

Oh really? And what gave you that idea? PLease, go ahead, and be specific.

 

[Bob Owens]

And I state you are wrong, so go figure. Ask them boys up there if it was a strike issue. BTW...how many boys are up there with you?

Boys? None. We have around 30 or so left that were here in 1983.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, So What about the secretary! Who cares?

Hey, your boy in KC brought it up.

If your worried so much I believe you would be screaming about Seham and McCormick with their outrages fees! Convince us about the 2 million they have collected in the last year?

I'll worry about that when we get there. If I dont like the way the National runs things I can vote them out, unlike the TWUInternational.

It seems United has set the stage to spin off the maintenance and engineering section. They are going to go give the Mechanic's and related a choice in the near future! With delle caving in on the pension and the pending 12% wage reductions the Mechanic's may be going by the way of 3rd party maintenance. Separating from United all together!!

The rumor that I hear is that the company figures if they spin off OH they can bring your wages down to $9/hr. OH would simply become another subsidiary of AMR. They would allow the TWU to continue to represent you and not oppose having the TWU organize the gate agents. Now that much of the reservations agents work has been outsourced the gate agents would likely be able to get a union, and the company would much rather have the "corporate friendly, corporate structured, industry leading concessionary TWU than the much more effective militant CWA which is gearing up for another attempt at organizing the agents. For the TWU and the company its another win-win. If we go AMFA after you are spun off the gate agents will more than make up for the loss of dues. In fact since there are a lot of agents the International would probably give themselves another raise!

 

[Birdman]

CIO, you've once again been proven wrong. Here's your crow. Enjoy!

July 8, 2004
Dear AMFA members and supporters:

Reference is made to the NYT article dated July 2, 2004. I have asked them to retract or make corrections to their article concerning some of my quotes. They have refused but they have submitted the letter to me which is below for your reading.

AMFA has a proud history of no concessions and we have been consistent since 1964. In 1983 all of the industrial unions gave the airlines concessions. Ozark Airlines had asked AMFA for the same concessions. The membership voted not to discuss concessions that was the end of concessions. In 1986 Ozark Airlines merged with TWA and our members inherited an inferior IAM contract. In 2002-03 NWA asked for concessions and our members refused, thus there were no talks to negotiate concessions on that carrier. AMFA members are the only ones that can authorize AMFA to discuss concessions.

No AMFA officer can unilaterally discuss any changes in the contract without membership approval. Our history proves that this is true - something that the industrial unions cannot prove.

I apologize that the article has caused panic and discontent. Because of the Fourth of July holiday it has taken five days for me to answer the many questions plus the fact that I was waiting for their statement. I thank you for your patience and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
/s/
O. V. Delle-Femine
National Director

===================================

From: Mary Walsh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:19 PM

Mr. Delle-Femine:

Here's a copy of the recent article about United Airlines' pension funds. It's really very clear from my notes that when you spoke out about the pension funds, you were not in any way advocating that they be "gutted," but rather, giving a realistic appraisal of what could happen next, and how the unions might respond.
I should think that anyone concerned about their pension would appreciate your candor. If people would just take a few minutes and read the article to the end, they'd see that you are also thinking about possible joint action, and about the opportunity you and the others will have to test United's pension proposals in court.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would, in good faith, construe these remarks as an advocacy of givebacks. My notes (and, I thought, the story) make it clear that that wasn't what you were talking about.

Please let me know if we ought to discuss things further.

Mary Walsh
The New York Times
212-556-4271

 

[Nightwatch]

Boys? None. We have around 30 or so left that were here in 1983.

You mean to tell me that when you were boasting about being elected by over 90% you were speaking of under 30 votes? You are my hero....what a flippin laugh of a man you are.

 

[RUM@AA]

Listen guy, I truly believe delle can do no wrong.

I never said he could do no wrong, guy. But it is YOU who swears he can do no right.

I know 5 things for sure.

1) After 19 years at AA, I know for a fact from experience that the TWU is a lousy excuse for a union.

2) Due to the Communistic, anti-competition AFL-CIO "no raid" policy, AMFA is our only choice to replace the TWU.

3) AMFA's constitution is superior to the TWU's in terms of democracy and membership power over elected officials. In fact, as an associate member, I just voted for National Officers. Did you vote for Sonny, Jim Little or John Orlando? Of course not.

4) The TWU and the Company are working in concert to prevent a vote of the membership.

5) You and I will NEVER agree, and you will never submit to a vote of the membership because you know your precious TWU will be history.

 

[Nightwatch]

Well, I know this. I have read the constitutions, they are all about the same, minus or plus a couple of items.

AMFA's constitution is superior to the TWU's in terms of democracy and membership power over elected officials. In fact, as an associate member, I just voted for National Officers. Did you vote for Sonny, Jim Little or John Orlando? Of course not.

Did you get to vote for McCormick, he signs off on the contracts. Of course not. And how many of the National officers of AMFA were running unopposed? Delle have a lot of opponents, of course not. And how about the removal of officers? Recall itemsare explained in detail, seems AMFA isn't all it says it is.

The TWU and the Company are working in concert to prevent a vote of the membership.

This has got to be the most ignorant item I've read in a bit. There are guidelines set by the NMB to get your vote you want. Follow those guidelines and fulfill those guidelines and you'll have your vote. AA has bent over backwards for you AMFAites, turning their heads when they should have been acting, so do not attempt to state AA and the TWU are anything but what they represent.

You and I will NEVER agree, and you will never submit to a vote of the membership because you know your precious TWU will be history.

I wouldn't say you and I would never agree. Depends on what you want to agree on. Submit to a vote? I would never pass up chance to vote for the TWU, or any other union running against AMFA. You're probably right about me being gone if AMFA is in, you've done your homework there.

 

[James T. Kirk]

CIO, you've once again been proven wrong. Here's your crow. Enjoy!

July 8, 2004
Dear AMFA members and supporters:

Reference is made to the NYT article dated July 2, 2004. I have asked them to retract or make corrections to their article concerning some of my quotes. They have refused but they have submitted the letter to me which is below for your reading.

AMFA has a proud history of no concessions and we have been consistent since 1964. In 1983 all of the industrial unions gave the airlines concessions. Ozark Airlines had asked AMFA for the same concessions. The membership voted not to discuss concessions that was the end of concessions. In 1986 Ozark Airlines merged with TWA and our members inherited an inferior IAM contract. In 2002-03 NWA asked for concessions and our members refused, thus there were no talks to negotiate concessions on that carrier. AMFA members are the only ones that can authorize AMFA to discuss concessions.

No AMFA officer can unilaterally discuss any changes in the contract without membership approval. Our history proves that this is true - something that the industrial unions cannot prove.

I apologize that the article has caused panic and discontent. Because of the Fourth of July holiday it has taken five days for me to answer the many questions plus the fact that I was waiting for their statement. I thank you for your patience and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
/s/
O. V. Delle-Femine
National Director

===================================

From: Mary Walsh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:19 PM

Mr. Delle-Femine:

Here's a copy of the recent article about United Airlines' pension funds. It's really very clear from my notes that when you spoke out about the pension funds, you were not in any way advocating that they be "gutted," but rather, giving a realistic appraisal of what could happen next, and how the unions might respond.
I should think that anyone concerned about their pension would appreciate your candor. If people would just take a few minutes and read the article to the end, they'd see that you are also thinking about possible joint action, and about the opportunity you and the others will have to test United's pension proposals in court.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would, in good faith, construe these remarks as an advocacy of givebacks. My notes (and, I thought, the story) make it clear that that wasn't what you were talking about.

Please let me know if we ought to discuss things further.

Mary Walsh
The New York Times
212-556-4271

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

Let me see, YOU'VE TO GUT THE PENSION PLANS. Yep I think you could call that a quote.

 

[James T. Kirk]

NEWS ANALYSIS
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.


Amfa negotiated concessions for the retires and is now willing to get rid of your retirement while securing a retirement plan for himself during the last convention!

Is this what the Amfa wannabes want us to go to? You all better become educated before we are all sold down the street by these bunch of used car salesman!!!!!

Yep that's a quote.

 

[Rusty]

July 8, 2004
Dear AMFA members and supporters:

Reference is made to the NYT article dated July 2, 2004. I have asked them to retract or make corrections to their article concerning some of my quotes. They have refused but they have submitted the letter to me which is below for your reading.

AMFA has a proud history of no concessions and we have been consistent since 1964. In 1983 all of the industrial unions gave the airlines concessions. Ozark Airlines had asked AMFA for the same concessions. The membership voted not to discuss concessions that was the end of concessions. In 1986 Ozark Airlines merged with TWA and our members inherited an inferior IAM contract. In 2002-03 NWA asked for concessions and our members refused, thus there were no talks to negotiate concessions on that carrier. AMFA members are the only ones that can authorize AMFA to discuss concessions.

No AMFA officer can unilaterally discuss any changes in the contract without membership approval. Our history proves that this is true - something that the industrial unions cannot prove.

I apologize that the article has caused panic and discontent. Because of the Fourth of July holiday it has taken five days for me to answer the many questions plus the fact that I was waiting for their statement. I thank you for your patience and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
/s/
O. V. Delle-Femine
National Director

===================================

From: Mary Walsh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:19 PM

Mr. Delle-Femine:

Here's a copy of the recent article about United Airlines' pension funds. It's really very clear from my notes that when you spoke out about the pension funds, you were not in any way advocating that they be "gutted," but rather, giving a realistic appraisal of what could happen next, and how the unions might respond.
I should think that anyone concerned about their pension would appreciate your candor. If people would just take a few minutes and read the article to the end, they'd see that you are also thinking about possible joint action, and about the opportunity you and the others will have to test United's pension proposals in court.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would, in good faith, construe these remarks as an advocacy of givebacks. My notes (and, I thought, the story) make it clear that that wasn't what you were talking about.

Please let me know if we ought to discuss things further.

Mary Walsh
The New York Times
212-556-4271

 

[Checking it Out]

This isn't the first time Delle has made this kind of statements and wont be the last! He has already set the stage for United in BK with this reference and you can bet it wont be the last dumb comment! Go ahead and follow blindly with this organization! You will see what is happening in Indianapolis is very possibly the same scenario throughout the Amfa.

 

[Checking it Out]

Reference is made to the NYT article dated July 2, 2004. I have asked them to retract or make corrections to their article concerning some of my quotes. They have refused but they have submitted the letter to me which is below for your reading.

This says it ALL!!!!!

 

[Rusty]

Kevin, surely you can do a better spin job than that. Keep trying!!!

July 8, 2004
Dear AMFA members and supporters:

Reference is made to the NYT article dated July 2, 2004. I have asked them to retract or make corrections to their article concerning some of my quotes. They have refused but they have submitted the letter to me which is below for your reading.

AMFA has a proud history of no concessions and we have been consistent since 1964. In 1983 all of the industrial unions gave the airlines concessions. Ozark Airlines had asked AMFA for the same concessions. The membership voted not to discuss concessions that was the end of concessions. In 1986 Ozark Airlines merged with TWA and our members inherited an inferior IAM contract. In 2002-03 NWA asked for concessions and our members refused, thus there were no talks to negotiate concessions on that carrier. AMFA members are the only ones that can authorize AMFA to discuss concessions.

No AMFA officer can unilaterally discuss any changes in the contract without membership approval. Our history proves that this is true - something that the industrial unions cannot prove.

I apologize that the article has caused panic and discontent. Because of the Fourth of July holiday it has taken five days for me to answer the many questions plus the fact that I was waiting for their statement. I thank you for your patience and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
/s/
O. V. Delle-Femine
National Director

===================================

From: Mary Walsh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:19 PM

Mr. Delle-Femine:

Here's a copy of the recent article about United Airlines' pension funds. It's really very clear from my notes that when you spoke out about the pension funds, you were not in any way advocating that they be "gutted," but rather, giving a realistic appraisal of what could happen next, and how the unions might respond.
I should think that anyone concerned about their pension would appreciate your candor. If people would just take a few minutes and read the article to the end, they'd see that you are also thinking about possible joint action, and about the opportunity you and the others will have to test United's pension proposals in court.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would, in good faith, construe these remarks as an advocacy of givebacks. My notes (and, I thought, the story) make it clear that that wasn't what you were talking about.

Please let me know if we ought to discuss things further.

Mary Walsh
The New York Times
212-556-4271

 

[Checking it Out]

Note: No post submitted by those industrial union scam artists who made outrageous accusations regarding Delle-Femine and UAL pensions will be added to the BB unless the comment begins with an apology. - TM

This is also a good indication that the truth hurts, Dennis at the-mechanic site has decided to censor any questions or concerns regarding this issue! Apparently he has been instructed to delete any comments he believes is an adversity to Delle!!!!