- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Us Air Workers Should Not Count On Pension
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
A lawyer for the PBGC urged the bankruptcy judge to require US Airways to fully pay its obligations.
"As long as plans remain ongoing, they must be funded," said PBGC lawyer Susan Birenbaum.
is this argument strong enough for the judge to agree with pbgc?
"As long as plans remain ongoing, they must be funded," said PBGC lawyer Susan Birenbaum.
is this argument strong enough for the judge to agree with pbgc?
the judge isn't going to give a crap about what the PBGC thinks... if the company liquidates not only will the pensions go to the PBGC but so will government will be paying out to some 34K people unemployment ...cobra...etc...
jack mama
Senior
its all lawyer speak...
'as long as the plan is on going, it should be funded'
well that's simple enough...end the plan!
done.
'as long as the plan is on going, it should be funded'
well that's simple enough...end the plan!
done.
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
PITbull
Veteran
Crt OKs US Airways Plan To Make Future Pension Payments
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
October 7, 2004 4:21 p.m.
By Christopher Scinta
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A federal court judge said in a hearing Thursday that US Airways Group Inc. (UAIRQ) could make pension plan contributions due Oct. 15 and Jan. 15, 2005.
Judge Stephen Mitchell also said during the hearing he wouldn't rule immediately on the airline's plan to separate pension plan payments for its employees before and after it filed for Chapter 11.
Mitchell said legal issues related to pension obligations before and after the airline's Sept. 12 Chapter 11 filing were too complex to rule on immediately.
US Airways has two $14.5 million installment payments due in October and January on pension plans for its machinists and flight attendants.
Also during the hearing Thursday, Mitchell hinted that he may not rule immediately on US Airways' request to implement emergency labor wage cuts for its unionized workers.
In court papers, US Airways warned that it may have to liquidate by mid-February if it can't implement a 23% wage cut on its unionized labor.
The airline said the $38 million a month in temporary labor savings, along with $5 million a month in other cuts, would allow it to rebuild its cash position during the lean winter months
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
October 7, 2004 4:21 p.m.
By Christopher Scinta
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A federal court judge said in a hearing Thursday that US Airways Group Inc. (UAIRQ) could make pension plan contributions due Oct. 15 and Jan. 15, 2005.
Judge Stephen Mitchell also said during the hearing he wouldn't rule immediately on the airline's plan to separate pension plan payments for its employees before and after it filed for Chapter 11.
Mitchell said legal issues related to pension obligations before and after the airline's Sept. 12 Chapter 11 filing were too complex to rule on immediately.
US Airways has two $14.5 million installment payments due in October and January on pension plans for its machinists and flight attendants.
Also during the hearing Thursday, Mitchell hinted that he may not rule immediately on US Airways' request to implement emergency labor wage cuts for its unionized workers.
In court papers, US Airways warned that it may have to liquidate by mid-February if it can't implement a 23% wage cut on its unionized labor.
The airline said the $38 million a month in temporary labor savings, along with $5 million a month in other cuts, would allow it to rebuild its cash position during the lean winter months
PITbull
Veteran
If the company moves to terminate the pension plans to get rid of the obligations, they will have a tough fight not just from labor, but the PBGC..
The main argument presented was that the Debtor HAS a "statutory obligation to the defined pension plan and does not have "carte blanche" to disregard the obligation to fully fund the plan. A waiver can be obtained by the internal revenue service if the debtor can show substantial hardship. The amount is owed post petition and is an administrative expense to the estate, and the debtor must pay it.
The PBGC argued that the Debtor must comply with the law, whether it benefits the estate or not, and it must pay its taxes.
That IS the argument.
The main argument presented was that the Debtor HAS a "statutory obligation to the defined pension plan and does not have "carte blanche" to disregard the obligation to fully fund the plan. A waiver can be obtained by the internal revenue service if the debtor can show substantial hardship. The amount is owed post petition and is an administrative expense to the estate, and the debtor must pay it.
The PBGC argued that the Debtor must comply with the law, whether it benefits the estate or not, and it must pay its taxes.
That IS the argument.
I think we all should hire Beckett alias Tom Berenger and use his sniper skills on this bunch of entities who have the nerve to call themselves human, ice holes the whole bunch.PITbull said:
Why can't the Company simply pull out its arguments with respect to ALPA's terminated pension plan? Seems like the same arguments apply here only the economic situation is much worse.
ClueByFour
Veteran
USFlyer said:
I think part of the problem is that ALPA (well, the MEC, anyway) actually agreed to terminate the DB pension, thus making the valuation and tossing the thing on the PBGC to be the major questions to be decided by the court.
This time, I don't see the IAM or AFA going for it voluntarily.
Consider the fact pilots make more, WAY more, THIS makes it a DIFFERENT situation. Also the pilots rushed to the gas chamber willingly, so what the hell do you expect.USFlyer said:
Sorry, even though you are a pilot, I don’t feel your pain, you are to high to reach, and 92 is not far enough away.
OP
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Thread Starter
- #13
cav,
"Also the pilots rushed to the gas chamber willingly, so what the hell do you expect."
Actually it was the then MEC, but you've got the gist right. The judge did not eliminate our pension.
That was one of the actions by the then MEC that led to the resolution requiring a membership vote before any change in pay/working conditions could be effected.
Jim
"Also the pilots rushed to the gas chamber willingly, so what the hell do you expect."
Actually it was the then MEC, but you've got the gist right. The judge did not eliminate our pension.
That was one of the actions by the then MEC that led to the resolution requiring a membership vote before any change in pay/working conditions could be effected.
Jim
PITbull
Veteran
ClueByFour said:
You are exactly correct.
The company tried to pull the old saying ..." you won't get credit for the pension relief if we terminate it in bk, better to give us relief so we can give you the cost savings now"....BS.
They pulled that on the pilots and it worked. They tried it on AFA this time,
NO DICE! I personally deduced that the PBGC is going to take a stronger stand against these kinds of strategies used by this managment to get rid of pension obligation and contracts and use the court system to do it. PBGC argument was compelling and mving.
I suspect these rulings will be momumental cases and these new rulings will spark legislative reform.
Hey, welcome to justice, even in BK.
Similar threads
