Why hasn''t anyone posted the Mar 1 codaphone?

Guest
It''s a barn burner!!!! [img src=''http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif''] [img src=''http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif''] [img src=''http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif''] [img src=''http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/12.gif'']
[img src=''http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/13.gif''] kiss [img src=''http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/13.gif''] kiss
 
OP

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 9:21:34 AM gilbertguy wrote:

Because they are meeting today 3/01 Sat at 0900 EST..... [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/10.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/6.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/6.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/6.gif'] Well gee whiz, I wonder what that long treatise was that I read earlier this morning. I'm sure I didn't make it up. I had two cups of coffee before I read it. Aside from that, m'dear, March 1 started at midnight. So trust me, there IS a March 1 codaphone update.
It is not my place to post it, even if you hold a cybergun to mah' heyaaad.[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/13.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/13.gif'] kiss kiss
 

gilbertguy

Senior
Aug 29, 2002
368
0
Because they are meeting today 3/01 Sat at 0900 EST.....
10.gif']
 
OP

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 10:06:58 AM LavMan wrote:

WOW!

MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE

March 1, 2003


This is Roy Freundlich with a US Airways MEC update for Saturday, March 1.
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] and another[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] !
Thanks LavMan. That was my reaction too: WOW!
 

LavMan

Veteran
Feb 12, 2003
826
0
WOW!

MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE

March 1, 2003


This is Roy Freundlich with a US Airways MEC update for Saturday, March 1.
Friday’s bankruptcy court hearing on the Company’s motion to distress terminate the pilots defined benefit plan reconvened at 930 a.m. In Judge Mitchell’s opening remarks he commented on his frustration with the pace of the proceedings and stated that the hearing needed to be concluded quickly. After two full hearing days, the Company has called precisely two witnesses out of the five it identified, Duncan Darrow from RSA and CFO Neil Cohen. No objections to the Company’s motion had been heard prior to yesterday.

Judge Mitchell stated that he was not going to let the debtors, US Airways, take up all the time at the hearing and was frustrated at Company witnesses wasting the court’s time by not giving straight answers to straight questions on cross examination. He said that it was frustrating to listen to Neil Cohen’s testimony and his refusal to answer straightforward questions. The Judge commented that he makes credibility judgments based on such responses and that Neil Cohen’s approach to responding to the proceedings as if he was making a corporate boardroom presentation was inappropriate in a court of law, where questions are answered directly, under oath.

The Company called its final three witnesses yesterday and completed its presentation of its motion.

The Company’s actuary, Mark Duncan, from Towers-Perrin, provided testimony, under cross examination from an objector attorney representing retired pilots, on the IRS liability interest rates used by the Company to forecast funding obligations. The testimony centered on whether the interest rate used by the Company was appropriate for 2004 and following years where balloon funding requirements are currently projected and being used by the Company for justifying a distress termination of the pilots pension plan.

To project liabilities the IRS requires that a 4-year weighted average of the 30-year bond interest rate be utilized. Since 30-year bonds are no longer issued, as of February 2001, the rate is determined by bond yield. The rate is then increased by a factor of 1.05 or 105%. However, in 2001, in response to pension liability issues, legislation was passed to increase this factor to 1.2 or 120%, which has the effect of increasing the current IRS interest rate for projecting liabilities from 5.5% to 6.3% through 2003. This interest rate waver was meant to relax funding obligations by increasing the interest rate. This waver expires at the end of 2003.

Duncan testified that the Company decided not to extend the effect of the waver to 2004 and thereby project lower funding obligations, because the legislation that allows it is scheduled to expire in 2003.

The objecting position was that the legislation is expected to be extended by most industry experts. Or that the basis for the liability interest rate would be changed to a composite bond rate that would be significantly higher than 5.5% previously required by IRS conditions. An actuary witness for the objector attorney testified to the legitimacy of assuming that future legislation would produce the higher interest rate to reduce funding obligations for the pension plan, which he estimated to be 500-600 million dollars below the Company’s forecast over the seven-year period between 2003 – 2009. The objector actuary witness also testified that if the pension plans were frozen, as opposed to terminating one plan, the funding obligation would be reduced by 700-900 million dollars over the same period when combined with assuming that the higher interest rate from expected legislation is legitimate for forecasting pension funding requirements.

Under direct examination, President and CEO David Siegel’s testimony included comments on the restructuring negotiations, approval of the ATSB business plan, the Company’s attempt to receive an IRS super waiver, restoration funding for all employee pension plans, and the legislative relief for pilot pension plan funding.

When asked under direct examination if there was any chance that the Company could emerge from bankruptcy after March 31, 2003, Siegel testified that he believed that the Company runs an extremely high risk of not emerging from bankruptcy after March 31, as a result of the credit card processor agreement, which requires plan confirmation by that date.

Under cross-examination, Siegel testified that his current base is salary of $600,000, which includes a 20 percent pay cut and no incentive income. He will receive pay increases beginning in 2004 and by 2009 his base pay will be higher than his original pay prior to the reduction. Beginning in 2004 his annual compensation will include using his base salary plus an annual cash incentive, which he said he would begin receiving in 2005, that would double his base pay if performance targets are met. The performance targets have not yet been established by US Airways Board of Directors. Siegel further testified that he was not familiar with the details of management’s compensation plan, filed with the court Thursday night.

Under cross examination by ALPA’s attorney, Siegel testified that there has been no discussion with Company officials for recovering the 35 million dollar non-qualified lump sum payout provided to Stephen Wolf, Rakesh Gangwal, and Larry Nagin prior to the Company filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

When questioned on the Company’s position that ALPA agreed to a distress termination of the pension plan in the December 13, 2002, letter that addressed potential follow on plan funding minimums, Siegel testified that the letter was supposed to remain confidential until the final legislative decision on funding relief was issued. However he could not identify in the December 13 letter where that condition existed, since it is not the confidential condition of the letter.

He also testified on redirect examination that the final legislative decision was delivered on January 22, after his January 16 memo to all pilots breaching the confidential provisions of the letter. The Company also seemed to be suggesting to the court that a memo to thousands of US Airways pilots was a targeted communication, which somehow preserved some criteria of confidentiality while the pursuit of a legislative solution remained active.

ALPA questioned Siegel about his January 28, 2003, letter to all pilots, which contained a question and answer attachment on pension issues and stated that if we, ALPA, didn’t agree to the Company’s plan, which was to distress terminate the defined benefit plan and institute a replacement defied contribution plan, then the Company would be facing liquidation. Specifically, how could the Company have thought ALPA agreed to a distress termination on December 13, 2002, and then state to all pilots on January 28, 2003, that if ALPA does not agree with the Company’s plan, it would face liquidation?

Siegel responded that it meant that if the pilots were not "happy" with the follow on defined contribution plan, then the Company could not emerge from bankruptcy. However, ALPA has still not noticed in the Company’s disclose statement on its Plan of Reorganization that pilots being happy is condition for US Airways to emerge from bankruptcy.

The MEC will be attending tomorrow’s hearing in uniform, which will begin at 9:00 a.m. at the US Bankruptcy Court at 200 S. Washington Street in Alexandria, Va. A shuttle bus will be available to all pilots hourly from DCA baggage claim area, door 12, to the courthouse beginning at 8:30 a.m.


Thank you for listening.
 

LavMan

Veteran
Feb 12, 2003
826
0
It all boils down to the judge's responsibility.

Which is to ensure the company comes out of chapter 11 with a viable business plan and that the creditors get as much money back as possible.

What everyone seems to forget is that the court has no fidicuary responsiblity to the employees. This is not fair, but this is the law and this is life, bottom line.

So with that in mind do you think he is gonna screw the creditors? I think not, he will either grant the company's motion or alpa and us will have to reach some kind of agreement for us to acsess the rest of the money, including the ATSB loan and emerge bankruptcy.
 

mlt

Senior
Dec 2, 2002
291
0
www.usaviation.com
Don't get your hopes up! This is the MEC's perception (spin) of what happened yesterday. Remember this is one of the same sources of information that helps develop Chip's perception.
 

mlt

Senior
Dec 2, 2002
291
0
www.usaviation.com
Continuing on with the code-a-phone....

ALPA's actuaries stated the company had overestimated the pilot deficit by 500-600 million. However, the same actuary stated if they froze the pensions of all groups they would save 700-900 million. So, a savings for a group of 3,000 = 500-600 million. Let's add in the pensions of approximately 15,000 other employees and U will realize an additional savings of 200-300 million? Ruin the pensions of 5 times the number of ALPA member to save less than 35%? This is where you lose my support!

Anyone have US Airways response to this line of questioning? I continue to believe U is hoping to terminate the pensions of all.
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
ALPA code-a-phone:

"The objector actuary witness also testified that if the pension plans were frozen, as opposed to terminating one plan, the funding obligation would be reduced by 700-900 million dollars over the same period when combined with assuming that the higher interest rate from expected legislation is legitimate for forecasting pension funding requirements."



HOPE IAM IS PAYING ATTENTION to this very carefully!

ALPA IS TESTIFYING ON HOW THE COMPANY CAN SAVE MONEY BY FREEZING OTHER GROUPS PENSIONS, THEY HAVE LOST MY SUPPORT! Union leaders do NOT behave this way! Unions do not go to management and ask them to BURN everyone else's house down.

The co. may be trying to aggravate ALPA, and suckering US ALL INTO THIS. But, the judge could "split" his decision.

Chip,

You know who I am!
 

delldude

Veteran
Oct 29, 2002
28,358
5,890
Downrange
www.youtube.com
i liked the part about Cohen being,lets say not totally forth comming.makes you wonder about all kinds of crapola,eh?
come out of this and management has egg all over their face...hmmm..that would do wonders for their already tainted credibility.
 

oldcrow

Advanced
Aug 29, 2002
139
0
Can someone "in the know" answer this ? I was talking to a senior pilot yesterday and he said most pilots over 55 years old would fair better in retirement benefits if the company went chapter 7 . Of course he had to go before completely explaining this . Is he misinformed , or just blowing smoke up my @zz ?
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
Don't take this personally????

Your kidding.

I am not about to allow our pensions to be frozen when THE CO. stated THEY ARE NOT AT RISK!

If your talking about the 13 "me toos" we have with ALPA in our contracts, that is way different.

Keep in mind, once a judge rules, it's final. Unlike negotiations at a bargaining table.
 

RowUnderDCA

Veteran
Oct 6, 2002
2,123
1
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 12:24:08 PM PITbull wrote:

ALPA IS TESTIFYING ON HOW THE COMPANY CAN SAVE MONEY BY FREEZING OTHER GROUPS PENSIONS, THEY HAVE LOST MY SUPPORT! Union leaders do NOT behave this way! Unions do not go to management and ask them to BURN everyone else's house down.
----------------
[/blockquote]

But, I've been told on this board (consider the source) that freezing a pension plan is NOT the same as terminating it. PBGC wouldn't be involved. If "freezing" means what I think it means, how is that "burning everyone's house down." (and I'm not talking about the mixed metaphor-- so if you burn somebody's house down by freezing a pension, don't you just get a muddy pit?)


I understand that some employees would prefer to keep their DBP, but presumably some would prefer the freedom and portability of a DCP. Isn't 'freezing' the method to transition from DBP to DCP without burning anyone?

I understand that the DBP is what the unions negotiated, but is it really what the members want? I certainly would prefer to have money NOW rather than wait, and trust, an AIRLINE to pay me later. But that's just me.
 

LavMan

Veteran
Feb 12, 2003
826
0
PitBull, ALPA has always thrown their young to the wolves to save themselves, why would they not treat other groups the same?

Now you really see what ALPA is all about, take care of themselves and screw everyone else!