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

[sabre]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 12:24:08 PM PITbull wrote:

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!

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


Pitbull, I noticed it also but it isn't something for me or you to take personally. What ALPA said is understandable and reasonable since the IAM isn't being asked to terminate our plan.

The unions do this all the time. If they have this then we should get it to, or if you're asking us to take something then they should too.

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 12:48:23 PM PITbull wrote:

LavMan,

I am so sorry, I am speechless. I have never seen or heard a Labor group behave this way.

mrplanes,

Tell me I'm wrong.
----------------
[/blockquote]
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif']
I'm not LavMan, but I'll defend the rank and file in this. They have to pay more attention to their ballots!

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 1149 AM DELLDUDE wrote:

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

 

[PITbull]

Row,

The DPP are THE BIGGEST benefit to the members. You can attest just watching ALPA. The only reason why many folks stay with ONE co. is because they have a defined benefit. Those co.s who don't, have many employees who leave and seek better employement to make more money, and thus, have to contually "roll over" their 401ks.
IMO, if you have a decent DPP, there is no greater peace of mind. If you participate in DPP, and 401K, and SS, you can retire at an age that you can still enjoy life. Most co.s who have DPP don't look to terminate plans but freeze them, only if it is warranted, not as a "side point". Most co. do not terminate pension funds and emerge from BK too.

Co.s who terminate pensions are Co.s who went into BK and never come out. They liquidate. This is an unual situattion. However, if the Judge rules to terminate, this will send a message to all co. to attempt to rid themselves of DPP, one way or another.

Makes NO SENSE to freeze a pension, when mangement stated repeatedly that IAM and AFA pensions are not at risk.

So you ask why all the hublub? If you never had the benefit of DPP, after spending 25 years in a co., then I can understand your persepective.

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 11:25:43 AM mlt wrote:

Continuing on with the code-a-phone....


I continue to believe U is hoping to terminate the pensions of all.
----------------
[/blockquote]
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/8.gif']

 

[Hula Girl]

I can just see Mgmnt trying to keep a straight face, occasionally smirking behind their hands held over their mouths, while they tell the judge, "No, we didn't know the Disclosure Statement was left blank, we will liquidate if we can't get more from the other employee groups, hey, let's terminate ALL pensions across board except ours, did we mention we will liquidate if we don't?"

 

[Hula Girl]

Mr. PineyBob, sadly you have too much anger for me. I do have my private pilot's license but work in a completely different field with USAirways. I will skip over what you write and let you vent in in the flacid way you do oh so well. I hope you find some peace in this world and I will pray that you find some happiness. From your post it sure sounds like you could use some. God Bless You.

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 2:44:57 PM savyinvestor wrote:

ALPA, the altruistic association!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some say let them do their thing. Well it looks like they are at the expense of all. Surprise? I don't think so! Savy

----------------
[/blockquote]
That's the trouble with acronyms. They reduce living breathing human beings such as pilots, mechanics and flight attendents to mere letters of the alphabet. Savy, you are mean-spirited today. These are PEOPLE you are talking about! These are people who have have families and loved ones; people who contribute to their communities...people who bleed when they are cut.
And Savy, get this: No matter how hard you try to convince me, no matter what you say or do, I will NOT marry you![img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif']

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 3:00:23 PM chipmunn wrote:

Unfortunately I was unable to attend today's hearing because I am working, but a colleague of mine at the hearing relayed the following information.

Today’s hearing began promptly at 9:00 am when ALPA initiated its case. ALPA's first witness was Negotiating Committee Chairman Kelly Ison fol0lwed by Negotiating Committee member Donn Butkovic, who is an A320 Captain and an attorney.

Ison's testimony was very strong, he made a very good witness, and was well spoken, especially during John Butler's cross-examination. Next, ALPA's Counsel Richard Seltzer called Donn Butkovic to the witness stand to testify, followed by three line pilots who then testified on the effects the retirement change will have on their life.

Butler did not cross-examine the line pilots and simply thanked them for their service to the company, their enormous sacrifice, and their work on behalf of the flying public.

ALPA's next witness was an actuary who provided the court with other options to the company to save money, other than terminating the pilot pension plan.

Some of these options included delaying a pension decision until later 2003 in a way to meet ATSB/RSA requirements, provide greater time for legislative relief, and working with other retirement entities to be in position for relief when Congress takes action on the 30-year bond rate waiver. Some of the other options offered by the actuary included reducing the company's $3 to $4 billion RJ financing commitment, freezing ALPA and other pension plans, and recovering the $35 million in executive lump sum retirement payments, etc.

Much of the direct and cross-examination focused on the December 13 letter between the company and ALPA. A difference of opinion exists between the parties where the company has argued ALPA agreed to voluntarily terminate its pension without a legislative solution; however, ALPA has disputed this claim. Reports indicate ALPA demonstrated the letter is not an agreement by the MEC to terminate the pilot defined benefit pension, but instead was an agreement to commit the company to provide a replacement pension plan, only if the PBGC involuntarily terminated the plan, which has not occurred.

This is a very important point and Judge Mitchell may rule on this issue from the bench later today. ALPA's case is very strong and focuses on the point that the company cannot break a contractual item in bankruptcy court without going through the S.1113 process, which has not been done.

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
How do you do Captain Munn; it is nice to make your acquaintance. Thankyou for that update because it certainly soothes my stomach for the moment.

I've admired the way you have handled yourself on this board in spite of some rather nasty and meanspirited posters who come at you from time to time. I will never be one of them because I find the things you post to always be informative and usually correct, sooner or later. I am a recent memeber and I do have a vested interest in the outcome of today's hearing and the judge's ruling. I have my fingers and toes and eyes crossed and it's a might difficult to type this, but I just wanted to say "hey".
Sincerely,
Puppy [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif']

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 1:05:27 PM RowUnderDCA wrote:

[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.


Don't get me wrong, I do respect everyone's position here, but it's not exactly heinous to suggest such a thing. Certainly no more heinous than to retroactively reduce pilots pensions that have already retired. Admittedly, I don't know the financials, but is this SO far out of balance considering the circumstance?
----------------
[/blockquote]
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/5.gif'] I thought it was already determined by the PBGC that it won't get involved in this because they don't get involved in collective bargaining. I believe that refers to the Dec. 13 LOA. Correct me if I am wrong.
For the life of me, I don't understand why the pensions of pilots already retired and severed from the company for years, should be yanked away from them. Then there is the conundrum of those who took the "annuity" instead of the lump. Apparently those who took the lump are worried enough about having to give it back because they have legal representation in this matter. ALPA isn't the only group represented at this hearing. There are the Soaring Eagles, The Silver Eagles, a group of PSA pilots etc.

 

[Hula Girl]

Thanks Chip! I hope we know one way or another today. Are they still in court?

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 11:06:32 AM mlt wrote:

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

 

[chipmunn]

Unfortunately I was unable to attend today's hearing because I am working, but a colleague of mine at the hearing relayed the following information.

Today’s hearing began promptly at 9:00 am when ALPA initiated its case. ALPA's first witness was Negotiating Committee Chairman Kelly Ison followed by Negotiating Committee member Donn Butkovic, who is an A320 Captain and an attorney.

Ison's testimony was very strong, he made a very good witness, and was well spoken, especially during John Butler's cross-examination. Next, ALPA's Counsel Richard Seltzer called Donn Butkovic to the witness stand to testify, followed by three line pilots who then testified on the effects the retirement change will have on their life.

Butler did not cross-examine the line pilots and simply thanked them for their service to the company, their enormous sacrifice, and their work on behalf of the flying public.

ALPA's next witness was an actuary who provided the court with other options to the company to save money, other than terminating the pilot pension plan.

Some of these options included delaying a pension decision until later 2003 in a way to meet ATSB/RSA requirements, provide greater time for legislative relief, and working with other retirement entities to be in position for relief when Congress takes action on the 30-year bond rate waiver. Some of the other options offered by the actuary included reducing the company's $3 to $4 billion RJ financing commitment, freezing ALPA and other pension plans, and recovering the $35 million in executive lump sum retirement payments, etc.

Much of the direct and cross-examination focused on the December 13 letter between the company and ALPA. A difference of opinion exists between the parties where the company has argued ALPA agreed to voluntarily terminate its pension without a legislative solution; however, ALPA has disputed this claim. Reports indicate ALPA demonstrated the letter is not an agreement by the MEC to terminate the pilot defined benefit pension, but instead was an agreement to commit the company to provide a replacement pension plan, only if the PBGC involuntarily terminated the plan, which has not occurred.

This is a very important point and Judge Mitchell may rule on this issue from the bench later today. ALPA's case is very strong and focuses on the point that the company cannot break a contractual item in bankruptcy court without going through the S.1113 process, which has not been done.

Chip

 

[Hula Girl]

Mr. PineyBob, you need to take your disgusting stories with weirdo 'morals' somewhere else. Today is a hard day for the employees of USAirways and frankly, I would like for you to take your 'important' diatribes to another board. Thank you.

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/1/2003 12:42:49 PM LavMan wrote:

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!
----------------
[/blockquote]
LavMan, while I am not a fan of ALPA per se, I am solidly behind their membership in this one. I have personally seen how the ruling faction eats their young but the rank and file either don't pay attention or don't care. Now the Universal Ox is being gored and that has everyone's attention. If all goes well, I do hope there will be a change in paradigm in ALPA. It is long overdue for one.