US ALPA MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE #2 - January 28, 2003

C

chipmunn

Guest
MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE #2 - January 28, 2003
This is Roy Freundlich with US Airways MEC update number two for Tuesday, January 28, with four new items:
Item 1. The MEC convened its special meeting today at the ALPA offices in Herndon, Va., and received presentations on the pension issue from the Retirement and Insurance Committee, Negotiating Committee, and ALPA benefits and legal advisors in both open and closed sessions. The R&I and Negotiating committees provided an overview and assessment of management’s alternative pilot defined contribution plan that the Company recently proposed to the PBGC to replace the current pilot defined benefit plan. Management’s proposed alternative plan is excessively harmful to US Airways pilots’ retirement benefits. Deficiencies of the plan include:
· The pilot assumes all investment risk of the plan.
· The plan does not replicate current defined benefit plan benefits.
· There is no grandfathering of accrued formula percentage. Pilots lose already accrued and earned benefits. Management’s plan wipes the slate clean for pilots accrued benefits and then inadequately rebuilds at 1.8% per year instead of 2.4%.
· Plan redefines final average earning (FAE) to an assumed forward-looking target. The FAE would be based on last 36 months instead of best 3 out of last 10 years.
·Contribution limited to 50% of pay or $40,000, but might require more. Notational accounts to be maintained instead of direct payout for excess contribution requirements.
· The plan is an inequitable treatment of pilot group verses other employee groups.
· Defined contribution is fixed for duration of agreement, instead of yearly adjustments.
· The plan does not provide early retirement subsidies or joint & survivor subsidies.
· There is no contribution made for pilots on LTD in DC plan; so if you become sick you pay for it in retirement benefits.
· Decreasing cost for Company over time as new employees are hired and older employees retire, which is a financial windfall to Company.
· Management’s plan undercuts the funding in the restoration funding plan, providing a second financial windfall to the Company.
· Vast majority of pilots won’t get to 35.5% of accrued benefits.
ALPA has received reports that chief pilots have been instructed to act as crew room cheerleaders for management’s retirement plan, armed with inaccurate management talking points that suggest the Company is making 95% of active pilots whole. Such statements issued by the Company are aggressively misleading, especially since thousands of active pilots are facing major reductions in retirement benefits under management’s plan, let alone the impact this plan would have on retiring furloughed and already retired pilots.
Please rely on your ALPA retirement representatives, and not the chief pilots or management, to provide you with accurate facts concerning your retirement risks as this issue is dealt with by your MEC.
The MEC is scheduled to reconvene its meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. to address the pension issue.
 
A 401k, with company matching, would not have been bad 10 years ago. Now half of the pilot group is over 50 with no time to save enough in a 401k to provide for themselves in retirement. What exactly is Dave refering to here? Is it a 401k or what? The point is, no-one knows what Dave is demanding the pilots accept. It is a situation where Dave is saying, "Trust us...."
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 10:14:17 AM wts54 wrote:

The real question is are the pilots going to
fight it or bend over again?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It seems that if one is to fight, one must have a workable solution to fight for.
 
Braveheart,

Your analogy is slightly flawed. It seems that homebuilder went chapter 11 before he ever finished the roof (funded the pilot pension). Now you're stuck with an incomplete home. What do you do, burn it down? That will show him!

If we let you original analogy stand: Where does the workable solution problem start? With the homeowner or the builder?
If the builder goes chapter 7 it's irrelevant. You lose either way.

I'm just trying to see this from both sides and don't expect everyone to agree with me.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 12:02:29 PM OldpropGuy wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 10:14:17 AM wts54 wrote:

The real question is are the pilots going to
fight it or bend over again?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It seems that if one is to fight, one must have a workable solution to fight for.

----------------
[/blockquote]


GOOD PARTIAL SOLUTION!

However, if one builds a brand new home, signs a contract with the homebuilder, he/she expects all agreements to stand. When the home is finished the homeowner moves in and is happy. If the mortgage agreement is made with the homebuilder, the homeowner is responsible for a mortgage payment.

All of a sudden, the homebuilder returns 2-years later! Hey homeowner, I built your home but never anticipated September 11th to occur. I need to remove your roof that cost $75K and replace it with one that cost $25K so I can use your roof on a new home I underbid on. The homebuilder says you either agree to this or I am forced to move you out of your home because I will file bankruptcy and you will have no home anyhow

Where does the workable solution problem start? With the homeowner or the builder?

How many homeowners would actually agree to that? If they do, that homebuilder will be back for the stove, cabinets, sinks and whatever else can be taken until that homeowner finally makes a stand.

Conclusion: A workable solution starts with where the problem began, with holding management liable for all agreements. When a spouse or loved one dies and failed to have a death insurance policy; family members cannot go to insurance companies and ask to have a death insurance awarded to cover those expenses after the fact.

Why didn’t you ask Seigel what was he willing to give up on his contract first? Now he can go to any big corporation and negotiate in the millions of dollar salary range. Where will you be?

Every single airline employee from every single airline union should be working together on Seigel and his cutthroats.

Screw me once, shame on you! Screw me twice, shame on me!

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety – Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
 
OldpropGuy

The analogy is NOT slightly flawed, unless you are crosseyed and signed on the wrong line.

Your roof was built when your contract was signed.

Your contract is a legal document holding all parties responsible to abide by their end of the agreement.

What else you willing to give away? When Seigel negotiates his multi-million dollar contracts with other corporations, what will YOU be making and what benefits will you have? Did you ask him if he was willing to make the same salary as you?

BRAVEHEART