USAIR ALAP MEC commits Patricide

Zephyr

Advanced
Feb 11, 2003
108
0
The MEC has in the past agreed to many pay cuts and work rule adjustments of the active pilots, and agreed to the furlough of thousands of pilots. Only one time, did the MEC allow the active pilots to vote on the sweeping and deep pay cuts.

Several times the MEC has voted to capitulate to Mgt demands and not allowed active pilot members to vote, in defiance against those members who had elected them, those members they were to represent.

The MEC has now stooped to the lowest. They have agreed to partner with MGT in the confiscation of RETIRED pilots benefits. (and of course the retired pilots do not get to vote.)

It is one thing to agree to one’s own pay cut, it is a shameful thing to agree to other peoples pay cuts in opposition to their consent (especially when you are an elected REPRESENTATIVE), but I cannot think of any thing more shameful than to agree to the elimination of a man’s retirement.

There is no excuse to turn your guns on pilots who have gone before, at the behest of Seigel. There is no justification to sign away the right of MGT to confiscate what is not yours or theirs.

Wolf, Ichan, Lorenzo and scabs have more honor. They only steal from their contemporaries.
 
OP
Z

Zephyr

Advanced
Feb 11, 2003
108
0
----------------
On 3/22/2003 12:00:11 PM PineyBob wrote:

I assume the MEC was elected? By all the pilots? In a fair and open election?
If the answer above is YES, then your issue is with ALPA MEC, not Mr. Siegel or the management of US Airways. If I ask you for the sun moon and stars and you say "Sure PineyBob" whose fault is it?

Let's also apply a little human nature to the gumbo. You are on the MEC and you essentially have 2 choices, (A) Hold firm in negotiations and lose YOUR job! OR (B) Throw the group that is not at the bargaining table under the bus. Guess who ended up under the bus? It's human nature, survival of the fittest and all of those cliches, but they hold true. I am just surprised that you hadn't figured that out yet!


----------------​

PineyBob,

You may be a little too wound tight to the defense of MGT. You always assume I have a problem with them, even when my post doesn’t.
9.gif


Seigel and Wolf were the ones who told the MEC to buy the bullets to shoot the retirees. The MEC is the one who just wrote the check. ALPA MEC at USAIR (except for a small number who did not agree) have clearly eaten their young, and now eaten their old to stay alive.

They have far more blood on their hands than any MGT.

They had a choice. Throw their buddies under the buss as you say, or wake up in the morning with a clear conscience.

I can always find a new job. I figured that out a long time ago.

Zephyr
 

mlt

Senior
Dec 2, 2002
291
0
www.usaviation.com
Zephyr,
I won''t have access to the information until tonight. If you have the agreement will you post it or pm? Are you certain they gave away the retired pilots'' pensions? Do you know what kind of defined contribution for active pilots? Any accurate information you are able to provide is appreciated.

If my perception of your post is accurate, no wonder the push is on for congressional legislation to protect the elderly!
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 3/22/2003 12:30:23 PM Zephyr wrote:

----------------
On 3/22/2003 12:00:11 PM PineyBob wrote:

I assume the MEC was elected? By all the pilots? In a fair and open election?
If the answer above is YES, then your issue is with ALPA MEC, not Mr. Siegel or the management of US Airways. If I ask you for the sun moon and stars and you say "Sure PineyBob" whose fault is it?

Let's also apply a little human nature to the gumbo. You are on the MEC and you essentially have 2 choices, (A) Hold firm in negotiations and lose YOUR job! OR (B) Throw the group that is not at the bargaining table under the bus. Guess who ended up under the bus? It's human nature, survival of the fittest and all of those cliches, but they hold true. I am just surprised that you hadn't figured that out yet!


----------------​

PineyBob,

You may be a little too wound tight to the defense of MGT. You always assume I have a problem with them, even when my post doesn’t.
9.gif


Seigel and Wolf were the ones who told the MEC to buy the bullets to shoot the retirees. The MEC is the one who just wrote the check. ALPA MEC at USAIR (except for a small number who did not agree) have clearly eaten their young, and now eaten their old to stay alive.

They have far more blood on their hands than any MGT.

They had a choice. Throw their buddies under the buss as you say, or wake up in the morning with a clear conscience.

I can always find a new job. I figured that out a long time ago.

Zephyr


----------------​

Way I see this, is you throw the ALPA MEC under the bus. The membership MUST vote on this huge pension provision that will change ALL the pilots future for infinity....

No matter what the company's emergency "timeline" is (and they always have one) THE MEMBERSHIP MUST VOTE!

If ALPA MEC does not honor this, THEN UNDER THE BUS THEY GO, EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT VOTES "FOR"!


The MEC has no right to decide how or when to "save the world", or the damn airline.



11.gif
 

dfw79

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
308
0
I love how people still bring Wolf into all this. Thank god only a couple more weeks of him on the lame duck BOD. Then maybe people will quit trying to give him credit for the goings on that the union leadership and managemet are responsible for.
 
OP
Z

Zephyr

Advanced
Feb 11, 2003
108
0
----------------
On 3/22/2003 1:31:21 PM mlt wrote:

Zephyr,
I won''t have access to the information until tonight. If you have the agreement will you post it or pm? Are you certain they gave away the retired pilots'' pensions? Do you know what kind of defined contribution for active pilots? Any accurate information you are able to provide is appreciated.

If my perception of your post is accurate, no wonder the push is on for congressional legislation to protect the elderly!

----------------​
You may have already seen the MEC UPDATE below:


MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE
March 22, 2003

This is Roy Freundlich with US Airways MEC update for Saturday, March 22, with three new items.

Item 1. The Negotiating Committee presented the MEC with tentative agreements yesterday evening on LOA 85, Pilots Defined Contribution Plan and LOA 86, Adjustments to Restructuring Agreements.

The MEC ratified both letters of agreements by passing the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Company’s Plan of Reorganization and ability to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy requires final approval of the ATSB loan, and

WHEREAS the ATSB loan conditions require a resolution to the pension funding issue, and

WHEREAS the bankruptcy court judge has determined that the financial requirements set forth in ERISA for a distress termination of the Pilots DB Plan have been met, and

WHEREAS the bankruptcy judge has stated in his order that “unless the plan is terminated, the debtors will be unable to pay all of their debts pursuant to a plan of reorganization and will be unable to continue in business outside the chapter 11 reorganization process,†and

WHEREAS ALPA retained Hewitt Associates, an actuarial firm, to verify the accuracy of the company’s actuarial data, and to determine if savings from the current funding obligations were available to avoid termination of Pilots DB plan, and

WHEREAS the conclusion of Hewitt Associates and ALPA’s benefit professionals is that no reasonable scenario is available to avoid DB plan termination, and

WHEREAS the Negotiating Committee was charged with investigating a follow on retirement plan that achieves the maximum level of benefits, on an equitable basis, for the greatest number of US Airways Pilots, and

WHEREAS the negotiations concluded on the evening of Friday, March 21st, with a TA being reached between the Negotiating Committee and the Company, and

WHEREAS the MEC has reviewed the company’s current situation, and the relevant sections of the Policy Manual and concluded that it is in the best interests of the US Airways pilots to ratify LOA 85 and LOA 86 by the MEC on an expedited basis,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the MEC ratifies LOA 85, Pilots’ Defined Contribution Plan, and LOA 86, Adjustments to Restructuring Agreements, and associated documents.

Provisions of the LOA 85, Pilots Defined Contribution Plan, proposal include:

· ALPA’s consent to the distress termination of the pilots’ defined benefit pension plan on March 31, 2003.
· The Company agrees to pursue and support a legislative and regulatory solution to the pension funding problem for its defined benefit plans for the remainder of 2003, with the objective of restoring the defined benefit plan.
· Effective date of DC plan is April 1, 2003.
· Contributions effective as of April 1, 2003, unless a DB restoration occurs in 2003.
· 2003 plan contributions would be paid into escrow accounts. Absent a DB plan restoration by December 31, 2003, escrowed funds are to be paid to the new DC plan. DB plan restoration by Dec. 31 will cause these funds to be paid back to the Company. Repayment provisions will be made for pilots retiring in 2003.
· Contributions determined based on a target balance defined as approximately 1 million dollars, for age 60 pilot with 30 years of service.
· Final Average Earnings defined as the 36 consecutive months in last 120 months in which the pilot has the highest earnings
· Accrual rate is 1.8 % for first 25 years, and 1% for year 26-30
· Contributions assumed to earn 8% annually
· Requires PBGC approval. The PBGC review process will begin on March 22 and is expected to take up to five days. If it is approved, plan will be introduced in bankruptcy court next week for review.

Provisions of LOA 86, Adjustments to Restructuring Agreements, include:
· ALPA granted US Airways Inc. board of directors seat, and has at least one major Board committee position, for as long as ALPA has a seat on the US Airways Group board.
· Per modified Plan of Reorganization Stephen Wolf, Rakesh Gangwal and Larry Nagin’s 35 million-dollar lump sum payout will remain eligible for recovery by US Airways’ post-bankruptcy Board of Directors.
· Effective Jan. 1, 2004, pre-65 retiree pilots may purchase basic life insurance provided the Company determines that there is no adverse impact to costs.
· Elimination period for a disability covered by LTD program reduced from 6 months to 120 days.
· Midway Jets for Jobs -- Midway jets for jobs aircraft will be staffed by 100% APL pilots beyond 30 aircraft after all furloughed Midway pilot have been offered recall.
· Company budgets up to $500,000 to implement a special downgrade procedure for A330 F/Os to Group 2 Captain positions.
· ACARS dispute will be addressed in the manner previously agreed to by ALPA, if matter is not resolved, then referred to grievance process.
· ALPA agrees to withdraw the GATT calculations for lump sum distributions grievance.

A March 22 Fact Sheet and LOAs 85 and 86 are being posted on the pilots only section of the MEC website. A roadshow schedule to explain and discuss the agreements is expected to be considered by the MEC next week.

The MEC’s special meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m. this morning.

Item 2. The MEC has rescheduled its regular first quarter meeting in Annapolis, MD, to March 25-28 at the Annapolis Waterfront Marriott. The meeting is scheduled to now begin at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 25, and recess at 6:00 p.m. and then reconvene 9:30 a.m. Wednesday through Friday. The period for pilots in good standing to address the MEC on issues of their own choosing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 25, at 9:30 a.m. All US Airways pilots are encouraged to attend the meeting. The telephone number for transportation information is (410) 268-7555. Please be advised that portions of the meeting may be in closed session.

Item 3. New details are available for pilots wishing to participate in the airline industry event on Capitol Hill on March 25 and 26 to urge support of relief efforts for the airlines as they are impacted by the Iraq war. The airline industry will host rooms on Tuesday, March 25 and Wednesday, March 26, for pilots wishing to visit their members of Congress. Participants will be provided with position papers, maps of Capitol Hill and meal vouchers for Hill cafeterias.

The reception rooms are as follows:
Tues, March 25: 10 a.m.-3:30 p.m. - Capitol Hill Club, 300 1st St., S.E., directly across the street from the Capitol South Metro Station.
Wed., March 26: 10 a.m.-4 p.m. - Room 2237, House Rayburn Building, 1st & Independence Ave. (3rd building north of Capitol South Metro Station).

US Airways pilots are welcome to participate in this effort on their own time. A limited number of space positive seats will be provided. Pilots should attempt to travel space available, if possible. If bookings do not allow, please contact the MEC office at 800-USAIR MEC.

Please remember we have 1,827 pilots on furlough.

Thank you for listening.
 

wings396

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,672
1,122
They had the same choice that the rest of the unions had.........NONE....Bonner pulled his gun AGAIN and pointed at their heads and dangled the withdrawl of his $$$$ in front of them...the CH7 threat for one last time.
 
OP
Z

Zephyr

Advanced
Feb 11, 2003
108
0
----------------
On 3/22/2003 2:06:52 PM PITbull wrote:

... The membership MUST vote on this huge pension provision ...

If ALPA MEC does not honor this, THEN UNDER THE BUS THEY GO, EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT VOTES "FOR"!



----------------​

PITbull

I would buy you a bear anytime.

The vote is over. No membership vote. Not even a chance to vote a second time because of "confusion".


For the life of me I cannot identify with MEC members who voted for this. They can buy their big houses from retirees who are going to have to sell.

Maybe the retirees should start a thread for good houses on the cheap.


Zephyr
 

mlt

Senior
Dec 2, 2002
291
0
www.usaviation.com
Zephyr,
Thanks for responding. Yes, I read the MEC Code-a-Phone. What I was looking for is the information on the "Pilots only page". I assume it goes into greater detail. I had hoped to be able to read it tonight, but no luck. Anyone willing to post the information?
 

D3o2r8kdrvr

Member
Dec 13, 2002
50
0
So what does this mean? Is it a done deal or can the pilotgroup push through a midnight political motion to have LOA 85 & 86 come before membership for vote? The word on line is that Bonner is incredibly nervous about the state of affairs (economy/war).
 

AM49AAA

Member
Aug 20, 2002
92
0
It was ratified, end of story. The whole process was kept secret and confidential. None of the deliberation or debate was public. No details of alternate scenarios or risk assesments provided. So basicallly you had an elite group control the flow of information and the make a "informed" descision for the membership and ratify without membership vote. Legal, but it spit on the idea of what ALPA is supposed to be about. If it was such a clear choice it should have been an open process and as leaders they should have been able to lead the group to the best choice based on a group of factors incluing fairness, financial feasibility, risk assesments and economic reality and allowed the members to choose their own destiny. That is assuming the U mec has leaders. The contact is legally binding for thousands, not 12. The thousands should have had the right to self determination. That is the so called upside down pyramid philosophy(rank and file at the top of the orginization) ALPA operates under. But, apparently not.
8.gif
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
I can't believe the ALPA MEC didn't wait to even take this pension issue to arbitration. At least there it would have had a 50/50 chance. More than likely, it wouldn't have made it with an arbitrator, but it could have been argued for the sake of the members and retirees.

Wow.
8.gif
 

mlt

Senior
Dec 2, 2002
291
0
www.usaviation.com
During the last restructuring agreement (Dec 2002) didn''t ALPA state in writing that any future agreements involving pensions would be membership ratified? I briefly read the LOA''s this morning and it appears that not only did ALPA consent to the cessation of monthly benefits to the retirees, they also agreed in the event of litigation to support the company''s defense!!!

I understand the need to find an alternative plan. What I don''t understand is equitable fairness. It appears the group that is going to carry the weight of this are the retired pilots ages 60-66. The retirees over age 70 should realize an annual pension in the 70K range (according to the PBGC chart). However, the retirees at age 60 realize only 28K. My understanding of the PBGC is that their payout is predicated on the year the plan terminates and the age of the beneficiary when they begin to collect from the PBGC. So a pilot who begins to collect from the PBGC at age 60 will never see his/her pension increase. Granted the PBGC benefit is still greater than my ''fully-funded'' benefit, it is still a far cry from what they were promised.

Shame on ALPA!
 

us10

Advanced
Sep 11, 2002
138
0
MLT,

I can assure you pilots 60 to 66 will not be subject to the PBGC maximum (age 60) benefit of $28,585.20 per year.
In fact pilots 63 and older will only see a benefit reduction of 10% to 15% from their current benefit.
 

us10

Advanced
Sep 11, 2002
138
0
----------------
On 3/23/2003 10:40:38 AM AM49AAA wrote:

It was ratified, end of story. The whole process was kept secret and confidential. None of the deliberation or debate was public. No details of alternate scenarios or risk assesments provided. So basicallly you had an elite group control the flow of information and the make a "informed" descision for the membership and ratify without membership vote. Legal, but it spit on the idea of what ALPA is supposed to be about. If it was such a clear choice it should have been an open process and as leaders they should have been able to lead the group to the best choice based on a group of factors incluing fairness, financial feasibility, risk assesments and economic reality and allowed the members to choose their own destiny. That is assuming the U mec has leaders. The contact is legally binding for thousands, not 12. The thousands should have had the right to self determination. That is the so called upside down pyramid philosophy(rank and file at the top of the orginization) ALPA operates under. But, apparently not.

----------------​

am49aaa,

You may not have liked the information that was made available to the membership but there certainly was an effort to lay out the issues for the members.

The following was made available to the DCA pilots on
March 20th:



March 20, 2003



Special MEC Meeting


Two days ago the MEC received a briefing from the R&I Committee and the actuarial accounting firm that we, as ALPA, hired. At the same time, we await a briefing from the Negotiating Committee, which is currently preparing a counterproposal even though the company said their last offer was final and it should be taken to the MEC. The Company’s proposal is very disappointing. It offers to change the LTD waiting period from six months to four, but in exchange asks for further concessions by having ALPA drop its Improper Furlough, Minimum Benefit, four Disability, and Lump Sum Payment Calculation grievances. To characterize it as a nonstarter would be kind.



Actuarial Review
Rick Sartain of Hewitt Associates LLC, our professional actuary hired to evaluate the Towers/Perrin calculations, briefed the MEC. He and the R&I traveled to PHL to meet with Towers/Perrin. They verified the plan provisions and assumptions used and looked at test cases to illustrate the run. Hewitt matched the liabilities for this random sample but requested a larger sample. Hewitt found no discrepancies in the way the plan is being verified or planned. By using their own independent analysis, they found that the liabilities associated with the DB plan were within 1 percent of the Towers/Perrin numbers. Hewitt then went back to run six different models to see different impacts on the funding required. In each case, the cost of the plans were approximately $1 billion or more. The least expensive of these was a potential retroactive freeze of the DB plan. Such a freeze would require Company agreement and filing before the IRS for approval of such a plan.



Freezing the Defined Benefit Plan
While the MEC had not agreed on whether this would be an acceptable plan, it was interested in keeping this option open. This plan would freeze any future accrual and would provide only what had been earned. Those pilots who retired in 2002 would be subject to returning up to $50,000. While these problems are not small, such a freeze would have preserved benefits already accrued before January 2002. But this idea was short-circuited by the company. In negotiations last week, the company said it would not, under any circumstances, entertain a freeze of the plan. The Company formally rejected the retroactive freeze by not supporting an amendment to the plan to file for a potential freeze. Such a filing had to be done by the company by March 15, but the company did not file. It is apparent that restoration of the Defined Benefit Plan will only occur as the result of legislative action. This would only occur if US Airways is specifically named in the legislation for retroactive inclusion in pension relief.

Much has been said about using different mortality tables to adjust the numbers to save the Defined Benefit Plan. But, in each scenario, using a different mortality provides no more than a $50 million change to the liability over the entire seven-year period (about $7 million per year.) Consumer Price Index (CPI) percentages have also been questioned but this projects benefits paid from a qualified plan. It does not affect the total liability since that would also include the nonqualified (top hat). Thus, changing the CPI does not substantially reduce the total liability. Asked why Towers/Perrin didn’t use 0 percent inflation to help our numbers, Mr. Sartain said that Hewitt and Associates would also have included an inflationary assumption had they been administering the plan and that the number Towers/Perrin used is reasonable.



Bankruptcy Update
The MEC was also briefed by Richard Seltzer, ALPA’s bankruptcy attorney. It was not clear what presentation the Company would make in court, but the company did, in fact, amend the plan to exclude any release for claims against insiders for Wolf and Gangwal. This means that Wolf, Gangwal, and Nagin can be sued by the new Board of Directors to recoup the $35 million supplemental retirement paid to them. With regard to the Pilots’ Retirement Plan, the company has to have court approval for any funding above the restoration funding amount of $122 million per year. The company believes they must have agreement from ALPA and the PBGC by the last date open in the court calendar, which is March 28. Given the company’s last proposal, we believe liquidation rhetoric will increase. But we also know that cash reserves will indeed cause significant pressure on the company. The judge confirmed the company’s Plan of Reorganization (POR) with conditions. One of those will be the successful negotiation of a follow-on retirement plan for the pilots.



Pilot Pension Plan (Defined Benefit/Defined Contribution)
Some pilots believe that if we stop negotiations, the company will come up with the money to somehow fund the Defined Benefit Plan. Some mention RSA as a possible source of those millions. But this ignores the fact that RSA will have already paid $240 million for 38 percent of a company that may not be worth their break-even number of $600 million. That tends to discount additional infusion by RSA. Even though the company and the judge have said that to stop liquidation, an agreement is necessary, so far the company refuses to discuss alternatives that would save the airline, other than their take-it-or-leave-it stance on “Dave’s†original plan. Their proposal is unacceptable; it will not produce an agreement. But the Negotiating Committee has now returned to the meeting (March 19) and ALPA has proposed a counter to the company proposal, which is attached. It provides for a Final Average Earning level returned to the average of the best 3 consecutive years in the last 10 years, assumes only a 7 percent return, and increases the annual contribution cap from 50 percent of pay to 100 percent of annual pay. It reduces the pay cuts from the Restructuring Agreement, returns full furlough pay to a pilot displaced to an SJ position at US Airways, and gives vacation snapbacks in 2009. Reserve pilots would get eight immovable days rather than four, the elimination period for LTD is reduced from six to four months, and medical and dental coverage premiums will be the same as the AFA/IAM.



Our View
No one wants to end the Pilot’s Defined Benefit pension plan. We have repeatedly brought to light the unfairness of the issue, the insult to the pilot group who saved the company in December. This is what has caused so much outrage over the issue. What faces the pilot group is a decision as to whether any Defined Contribution plan can be acceptable. The company’s position, agreed to by Judge Mitchell in his lengthy opinion, is that without a Defined Contribution Plan, a Defined Benefit Plan would be forced on the company, which they could not pay for. The judge said that but for termination of the plan, the company “will be unable to continue in business outside the Chapter 11 reorganization process.†The message is that the pilot group’s turning down a Defined Contribution Plan does not preserve the Defined Benefit Plan. It would, in the judge’s opinion, force a liquidation that would terminate the DB Plan and the job itself.

What is really being asked here is this: “Is there any way we can force the company to fund a DB Plan?†The money does not just magically appear. We have no indication, under any analysis, that money to fund the DB Plan exists anywhere. As we said earlier, the company would not file by the March 15 deadline to freeze the plan because of the cost. To bet the airline, your job, future stock returns, and retirement on the hope that money will appear is not something we can recommend. The Negotiating Committee’s counterproposal presupposes more conservative return rates, which require higher contributions on the part of the company. We operate in an environment that is influenced by many high-profile factors. They include the ATSB, the PBGC, the bankruptcy court, and the credit card provider, with its call for cash against the company’s bottom line. In February, the company presented its cash position to the Creditor Committee. It highlighted critical cash reserves in a pre-war scenario. This estimate deteriorates once war begins. The question has been asked if the deadline is real. Much has been said about the credit card processing company, NPC. Their agreement allows them to terminate the deal for several reasons. If US Airways fails to arrange for a replacement company to process the credit cards by March 31 or if US Airways fails to take possession of the ATSB loan by April 15, NPC can walk away. Without credit card service, the company does not continue in business. US Airways has been in heavy negotiations with more than one company to provide this service. Even if US Airways is successful in these negotiations they still face other hurdles in early April.

US Airways CFO Neil Cohen testified at the pension hearing that the company’s unrestricted cash position was about $480M on February 28. He also testified that we are burning $2–$3M per day and that projected payments would bring us down to around $240 million in cash by early April, and this does not include any effects of the current war with Iraq. In the past, our advisors have told us, and we have reported to you, that the company will probably begin the liquidation process around the $300M dollar mark. There is another reason we believe the timetable is tight. If either RSA or ATSB determines that the investment they are planning to make in US Airways is no longer economically stable they can walk away with few to no consequences. Although RSA has invested $369M in DIP financing thus far, they would be the first to be repaid once the liquidation began. A similar scenario played out with Pan Am and Delta. Delta was the equity sponsor for Pan Am while they were in Chapter 11. At some point Delta realized that Pan Am’s business plan was not economically feasible and pulled out of the deal. Once we violate the DIP covenants, RSA would be free to walk away from its obligation to US Airways. That day may be rapidly approaching. Each of these influences the others. Cumulatively they present a scenario that each pilot must consider when deciding on what is achievable here and now. The company has not, as yet, responded to the last ALPA counter.



Ratification of an Agreement

Finally, one MEC member recently put out a letter telling pilots that he will vote NO on any agreement that terminates the Defined Benefit Plan. Ironically, he wrote that before we have received an agreement on which to vote. He feels that voting “No†is the only way to save the Defined Benefit Plan. In direct conversation with him, he admits it is a gut feeling and can offer no factual or empirical data as to where the money to save the DB plan would come from. Without a plan for funding, his proposed vote must be based on the unfairness and frustration we all feel. But while we all feel it, emotion cannot be the basis for this decision. And what is particularly unfair is that this same rep dismisses the commitment of other reps to find a solution that reduces the risk of liquidation as “ALPA rhetoric.†We do not agree that a “feeling†should be the basis for what is perhaps the most important decision any of us will make during our flying careers. On the issue of membership ratification, an MEC member has said that no rep wants the blood of this plan termination on his hands. That is most assuredly true. But we also do not want anyone to make this decision on innuendo and hype. We would like to have membership ratification to decide this. But you need time to make an informed vote based on real risk assessment, which may indeed not be available. That is why you elected us to represent you in countless meetings. And no matter how much we would rather have you make the call, we cannot escape from the responsibility of making this decision on your behalf if it is required.

One last thought: The rep who advocates a “No†vote was convinced, and went on record stating, that the company would not go into bankruptcy. He was wrong. You are now being asked to risk giving up everything—job, health care, future earnings, and retirement to make one final stand, here and now, in an all-or-nothing gamble. If the suggestion to vote “No†prevails, and if he is as wrong about liquidation as he was about bankruptcy, then all of our US Airways days are behind us.







Fraternally,





/s/ /s/ /s/



Donald R. Baier Paul W. Hocking Robert M. Sauer

Chairman, DCA Vice Chair, DCA Sec/Treasurer