CO pilots STICK IT TO THE MAN!

[vtwo]

OK can someone explain this to me?

1. This was THEIR pension money. Kind of like a savings account that would pay out AFTER they retired, right?

2. Managements have a history of using pension funds for other purposes leaving pilots high and dry while somehow rewarding themselves. Courts and politicians have a history of winking at these management schemes.

3. These pilots decide THEY wanted THEIR money BEFORE management gets to rape pensions to feather management bonuses.

4. CAL management is pissed off because these pilots found a way to prevent them from doing exactly that.

Do I have that right?

Yep it was theirs.
end of story.
they chose to research away to get at it before it could be Pilfered by Management.

Now there Are those of Us who have had our Stolen. The new me wants no benefits, I want cash to spend and invest as I wish. No health bene's, no vacation time, no sick time.
If I don't work, don't pay me. BUT when I do work Pay me it all right now. Including the price you say it cost for all those benefits above. How many times have Sick days been negotiated in a contract at some cost, only to be hassled when you use your Negotiated benefit? Just one example of fly now, they pay later maybe if they have to.

 

[EMBpilot]

It was their money,

the company took it away so they can pay their triple normal airline VP staff and buy the souls of Flt. Ops leadership over again,

they lied and got money back illegally,

they became as slimy as their leadership, but it is nothing new at CAL.

How do they sleep at night? I don't know, but those of us without principles hail them as heroes.

 

[FlyinGuy]

I think with $900,000 sitting in their bank accounts, they are sleeping just fine!!! It is the others who did not do this that are probably having trouble finding their ZZZZZ's.

 

[eyeamthechosen1]

Remind me never to depend on you or guys like you in a foxhole. I think you would frag me in a heartbeat if you felt you could get an extra step on some Al-Queda type who had a bead on us.

No matter how slimy management is, these guys were unethical liars and back-stabbers. They stole from the rest of the pilot group's pension in order to "get theirs."

In fact, I wouldn't doubt most of them thought of the idea from management in the first place!

When I first read the story I kind of felt like "good for the pilots for exploiting the system" but when I thought about it more it doesn't seem right.

Before we applaud this type of behavior what if every pilot did this just to exploit the system? What type of effect would it have on the pension system? If this provision was created for women that had "invested" in a marriage and now it is being exploited are the companies going to lobby to get this provision removed? And if so where does that live the women that this provision was supposed to protect?

These are the same pilots that continue to fly airplanes when the union decides to strike. They only think about themselves. And one last thing I wouldn't rely on these guys putting the gear up after takeoff so lets not even mention a foxhole.

 

[pilot05]

what's a pension?

 

[SFR]

Sean,

Please help. Headline WSJ today says Fear of Douple Dip in Housing! I've been scooping out rental properties like mad, but this could unwind my whole plan. WHAT DO I DO!?!

Don't worry about what the WSJ says. If the numbers on the investment meets your goals, keep buying. The ones that we are buying are homes in decent neighborhoods that were selling for 105-120k in 2004-2005. We are buying for 28k-40k and put about 3-5k in each. They still rent for $795-$895 per month.

The rents have not fallen as much as the purchase prices, therefore you amke a large spread on the PITI.

Good luck.

Check out www.hud.gov then pick your state and search for homes.

 

[SFR]

also, check out youtubue for: Chacarron

 

[NEDude]

It was their money,

the company took it away so they can pay their triple normal airline VP staff and buy the souls of Flt. Ops leadership over again,

they lied and got money back illegally,

they became as slimy as their leadership, but it is nothing new at CAL.

How do they sleep at night? I don't know, but those of us without principles hail them as heroes.

You overlook one VERY important fact - the reason they were not charged with a crime is because there was no crime commited. What they did was 100% legal. That is the definition of a loophole.

 

[Skyboy722]

These are the same pilots that continue to fly airplanes when the union decides to strike.

Whoa, dude. G0d dammmit. Did you just call these guys scabs?

Chosen one my ass.

 

[SFR]

Oh yeah, that strike in the 1980s......

 

[737Longhorn]

That is the definition of a loophole.

I'm even hesitant to refer to it as a "loophole". It's simply a condition that, when met, triggers the distribution of one's lump sum (put roughly). Doesn't say that you have to dislike/hate or stop living/sleeping/speaking with your former spouse.

Many argue the question of what would happen to the fund if "everyone" did this. Well, what would happen to the fund if everyone that were eligible to retire did? WTF is the difference? The bottom line is that neither will happen. I have a feeling though that Cal is now ripe for a nice, fat Wrongful Termination suit from this bunch because of the Court's ruling. Their legal department certainly is busy these days.

 

[JohnQ]

I'm even hesitant to refer to it as a "loophole". It's simply a condition that, when met, triggers the distribution of one's lump sum (put roughly). Doesn't say that you have to dislike/hate or stop living/sleeping/speaking with your former spouse.

Many argue the question of what would happen to the fund if "everyone" did this. Well, what would happen to the fund if everyone that were eligible to retire did? WTF is the difference? The bottom line is that neither will happen. I have a feeling though that Cal is now ripe for a nice, fat Wrongful Termination suit from this bunch because of the Court's ruling. Their legal department certainly is busy these days.

deleted

 

[SFR]

I'm even hesitant to refer to it as a "loophole". It's simply a condition that, when met, triggers the distribution of one's lump sum (put roughly). Doesn't say that you have to dislike/hate or stop living/sleeping/speaking with your former spouse.

Many argue the question of what would happen to the fund if "everyone" did this. Well, what would happen to the fund if everyone that were eligible to retire did? WTF is the difference? The bottom line is that neither will happen. I have a feeling though that Cal is now ripe for a nice, fat Wrongful Termination suit from this bunch because of the Court's ruling. Their legal department certainly is busy these days.

Agreed. Some people know how to play the game, while others just complain about it.

 

[igneousy2]

It screws the fellow pilots because it endangers the viability and solvency of the pension plan for all parties involved. CAL puts in a set amount of money, hopes for investment returns to make up the difference. All of this is based on projections of the participants following the rules, ie dying on time, certain percentages staying married, etc.

YES they DID follow the rules...CAL needs to put into their projections that some pilots may do just that...especially if they (through the ATA) keep lobbying congress to mess with the A plans (i.e., now including corporate bonds in the lump sum calculation so that we all get smaller lump sum pay outs) and airlines keep having sham-bankruptcies just to get rid of their pensions.

Additionally, an A plan as far as solvency is NOT a stand alone entity, you cannot bankrupt an A plan without first dragging the entire company into bankruptcy.

On Monday a couple determines it is in their best interest to no longer be married...they have every right to get a divorce...On Tuesday, 900k richer, hey, let's get re-married.

The "why" is really not any of the companies business.

If they don't like the law, CAL should write their Congressman.

 

[Full of LUV]

The rules....

YES they DID follow the rules...CAL needs to put into their projections that some pilots may do just that...especially if they (through the ATA) keep lobbying congress to mess with the A plans (i.e., now including corporate bonds in the lump sum calculation so that we all get smaller lump sum pay outs) and airlines keep having sham-bankruptcies just to get rid of their pensions.

Additionally, an A plan as far as solvency is NOT a stand alone entity, you cannot bankrupt an A plan without first dragging the entire company into bankruptcy.

On Monday a couple determines it is in their best interest to no longer be married...they have every right to get a divorce...On Tuesday, 900k richer, hey, let's get re-married.

The "why" is really not any of the companies business.

If they don't like the law, CAL should write their Congressman.

You think CAL cares if the pilot pension goes broke before it has the chance to recover from the market losses?
Somewhere the pilots signed as statement saying they were divorced, CAL says that was a sham, the pilots say, no we were divorced, just for a very short period.
What would happen if this were a major trend is that congress will remove the provision from the femenist 70's law that requires it in the first place and if a senior pilot gets a divorce (for real although we all know that rarely happens) instead of the pension fund kicking in the cash up front, the pilot will just have to pony up the cash on his own to make his spouse's interest in his retirement plan whole. That'll be fun~