Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Airline pensions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dizel8
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 3

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
TheStreet.com

April 5, 2005 Tuesday 10:08 AM Eastern Time

MARKETS; Ross Snel

Airlines Seek Way Out of Pension Squeeze

By Ross Snel, TheStreet.com Staff Reporter

Some U.S. airlines are hoping spring will bring relief for the industry's looming pension crisis in the form of government reform.

But while House and Senate committees could take up pension proposals this month, it remains to be seen whether they'll offer the specific industry help for which several carriers have been lobbying vigorously.

American Airlines' parent AMR (AMR:NYSE), Delta Air Lines (DAL:NYSE) and Northwest Airlines (NWAC:NYSE) have been asking lawmakers for more time -- in Delta's case, the request is for as long as 30 years -- to meet unfunded pension obligations. Delta, which has been particularly aggressive in its efforts, argues that such relief would allow airlines to meet their obligations, thus keeping promises to workers and saving government insurers from having to pick up the tab.

Handicapping the odds is tough, according to observers. "One would think that delegations from cities and states with large airline hubs would be most sympathetic," said Stuart Klaskin, a partner at KKC Aviation Consulting in Miami. "Not only do they have those companies as constituents, but also thousands of pension-deserving airline employees as voters." On the other hand, some lawmakers may wish to avoid the perception they're again extending special help to an industry that has already been offered billions of dollars of aid from the government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"I'm getting a sense that Congress made a major move a couple of years ago to assist the industry and that they have reservations about doing further reform," said John Kasarda, a professor of management at the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School who specializes in aviation issues. "There's a growing sense that we have excess capacity in the airline industry and that market forces need to play themselves out."

Network carriers face a huge gap between the value of their defined-benefit pension plans -- in which workers are promised specific payment amounts when they retire -- and future obligations. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the government's pension insurer, estimates that the industry's under-funding totaled $31 billion in 2003. (The agency is calculating 2004's number.) That's up from under-funding of only $3 billion in 2000.

During the 1990s technology boom in the stock market, investments in airline pension portfolios soared in value, allowing airlines to go without making fresh contributions, noted Robert Mann, founder of R.W. Mann & Co., an independent airline industry consulting firm. But the market decline that began in 2000 eroded the gains. Worse yet, the Fed's ensuing program of interest rate cuts only served to increase the amount of money airlines needed to set aside to meet future obligations.

Some airlines aren't facing such burdens because they don't have defined-benefit plans. For example, JetBlue Airways (JBLU:Nasdaq) and Southwest Airlines (LUV:NYSE) provide employees with profit-sharing, stock purchase and 401(k) plans.

For the large network carriers, pension under-funding is just one of several factors causing turbulence. Crude oil prices, which surged to record highs in October, have rallied again in recent weeks, setting new records, and analysts warn the rally is far from over. At the same time, individual airlines have found it difficult to raise fares to cover higher fuel costs because of overcapacity and fierce price competition.

Of the airlines seeking pension relief, Delta may need it the most, and that may explain the aggressiveness of its lobbying efforts. The Atlanta-based airline warned last month of a liquidity crisis if oil prices fail to decline significantly from recent levels. It expects to have to pay $450 million into its pension plan this year.

Scott Yohe, Delta's senior vice president of government affairs, characterizes the airline's proposal as a "solution" that would simply give the airline more time to meet obligations, not shirk them.

"The employees would realize benefits earned and accrued under their plans, and we would avoid the situation of other carriers in the industry of pushing those liabilities to the PBGC," Yohe said.

He was referring to network rivals US Airways (UAIRQ:OTC) and UAL's (UALAQ:OTC) United Airlines. Both have used the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process to try to terminate their pension plans and rid themselves of the accompanying obligations.

Earlier this year, the PBGC took over the last of US Airways' pension plans, leaving the government insurer with $3 billion in obligations, its second largest claim ever behind Bethlehem Steel's $3.7 billion one in 2003. The PBGC is also trying to take over plans for pilots and ground employees at United, which has said it wants to terminate its pension plans in order to help it exit bankruptcy.

United's pension obligations are even greater: $8 billion, of which the PBGC would likely be forced to cover $6 billion.

If it rids itself of all its pension plans, then United would have a significant competitive cost advantage over rivals such as Delta and Northwest. "If United walks out on $8 billion, it pretty much forces everybody else to consider walking out, too," Mann said.

If other airlines terminate their pension plans, that would simply increase the deficit of the PBGC, which faces a crisis of its own. The federal agency, which functions like an insurance company and receives premiums from companies providing defined-benefit plans, ended its fiscal year last September with a deficit of $23.3 billion. (This number accounts for US Airways' claims, but not United's.)

The airlines' woes prompted Bradley Belt, the PBGC's executive director, to call the industry the "most immediate threat" to the pension insurance program in congressional testimony in February.

The Bush administration has recognized the problems facing the federal program and has submitted a proposal to shore it up. Among other things, the White House would like to see companies' premiums rise to $30 for each covered employee from the current $19. Companies considered credit risks would have to pay an even higher, unspecified premium. The administration would also allow companies to contribute to their plans during good times, but companies would only have seven years to make up their funding gaps.

"The administration's proposal would be very damaging to the airlines," said Delta's Yohe, explaining that it would require contributions to be made in an unreasonably short period of time.

Congressional committees that will shape coming pension reform legislation include the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; the House Committee on Education and the Workforce; and the House Committee on Ways and Means.

A spokesman for the chairman of the Senate committee says committee members have yet to decide what ultimate reform they will propose.

A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said Boehner is preparing comprehensive pension reform legislation but "there are no plans to have airline-specific relief in that bill," the spokesman said.

Still, observers say lawmakers may end up helping the airlines as part of a broader package. "If you look at what's historically been the path of steel or automobiles or airlines, they're very capital-intensive and energy-intensive, with aging workforces and lots of competition," said Mann. "So the issue is, 'Why are we doing this just for the airlines?' Maybe an approach that would be less industry-specific would be to address the issues facing mature industries with lots of foreign or low-cost competition."
 
There are two problems here. First, the legacy carriers have pensions that are getting too expensive and hard to pay for. Second, the PBGC is overwhelmed with taking care of United and USAir's pensions. So, what do you do? Do you penalize all of the people that have already retired and had worked hard for their money for many years and dump the pensions, or do you try to extend the payments out to a manageable schedule and everyone everntually gets paid, and the PBGC has less of a burden? Sure, extending the pension payments will help DL, AA, and NW---and that will help our bottomline right now when we really need it. Some say we shouldn't get that help since USAir and United didn't get it----but do we let everyone else lose their pensions and push the PBGC even more under water?

The airline industry isn't the only one who could benefit from help---I think GM and the automobile industry also would like some help. Think of all the constituents that would be affected by a dumping of pensions? Their elected officials would have to answer why they did not support it if they voted not to help. Is it a "handout" if the payment periods are extended? The airlines would still pay it, and the retired people would still get paid. Is that unfair to the LCCs? They don't have pensions. Who are we thinking about here? The people who might lose their pensions or the market place?


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
General Lee said:
There are two problems here. First, the legacy carriers have pensions that are getting too expensive and hard to pay for. Second, the PBGC is overwhelmed with taking care of United and USAir's pensions. So, what do you do? Do you penalize all of the people that have already retired and had worked hard for their money for many years and dump the pensions, or do you try to extend the payments out to a manageable schedule and everyone everntually gets paid, and the PBGC has less of a burden? Sure, extending the pension payments will help DL, AA, and NW---and that will help our bottomline right now when we really need it. Some say we shouldn't get that help since USAir and United didn't get it----but do we let everyone else lose their pensions and push the PBGC even more under water?

The airline industry isn't the only one who could benefit from help---I think GM and the automobile industry also would like some help. Think of all the constituents that would be affected by a dumping of pensions? Their elected officials would have to answer why they did not support it if they voted not to help. Is it a "handout" if the payment periods are extended? The airlines would still pay it, and the retired people would still get paid. Is that unfair to the LCCs? They don't have pensions. Who are we thinking about here? The people who might lose their pensions or the market place?


Bye Bye--General Lee

General,
Obviously something is needed. Personally, if a company signs up to a pension they should not be able to get out from under it thru BK or turning it over to the PBGC on their own or any other method except by negotiation with the employees. The retirement plan is a contract and should be honored over all else. There is no way a company/carrier should be allowed to get out from under any debt it creates by not fully funding the pension plan.

First, the companys that under funds their pension plan should never have been allowed to do so from the beginning. They always say pay yourself first when you get paid, well the companys should be forced to pay the retirement first above all else. IF they can't then close the business.

Second, If a company can't pay their pension, then they need to file Chap 11 or 7 to organize themselves to do so. Judges should not be able to vacate pensions at their whim. Pensions should be sacred ground held outside BK reorganization. However everything else could be up for grabs....

If these two items were followed and were the ground rules going into business and negotiations there would be no questions and limited manipulation of the plans. This would make a level playing field.

As for extending the payment into the pension plan over a longer period, that is a good plan, especially in negative times, but as soon as a company is making a profit, it should be mandated to put 100% of all profit into the plan until it is paid up in full. No dividens to stock holders, no bonus to executives, no profit sharing, limited expansion, etc until the pension is fully funded. Once it is fully funded it then things can get back to normal, but never, never, never not fully fund the pension plan.

Now, for the current situations, if the government bailouts a company in pension trouble by giving them $$$ or letting the PBGC take over the plan, to keep the playing field level, an equal amound of money/percentage should be given to other carriers to invest in their employee 401K plan or retirement system, not the companies account, but the employee 401K ore retirement. If one company gets free government money or consideration, then all companies and their employees should get equal funds. Otherwise, these companies have gotten a "get out of jail free" card that the rest have not got. Which results in an unfair advantage to those companies.

Just my opinion...

FNG
 
FNG320 said:
General,
Obviously something is needed. Personally, if a company signs up to a pension they should not be able to get out from under it thru BK or turning it over to the PBGC on their own or any other method except by negotiation with the employees. The retirement plan is a contract and should be honored over all else. There is no way a company/carrier should be allowed to get out from under any debt it creates by not fully funding the pension plan.

First, the companys that under funds their pension plan should never have been allowed to do so from the beginning. They always say pay yourself first when you get paid, well the companys should be forced to pay the retirement first above all else. IF they can't then close the business.

Second, If a company can't pay their pension, then they need to file Chap 11 or 7 to organize themselves to do so. Judges should not be able to vacate pensions at their whim. Pensions should be sacred ground held outside BK reorganization. However everything else could be up for grabs....

If these two items were followed and were the ground rules going into business and negotiations there would be no questions and limited manipulation of the plans. This would make a level playing field.

As for extending the payment into the pension plan over a longer period, that is a good plan, especially in negative times, but as soon as a company is making a profit, it should be mandated to put 100% of all profit into the plan until it is paid up in full. No dividens to stock holders, no bonus to executives, no profit sharing, limited expansion, etc until the pension is fully funded. Once it is fully funded it then things can get back to normal, but never, never, never not fully fund the pension plan.

Now, for the current situations, if the government bailouts a company in pension trouble by giving them $$$ or letting the PBGC take over the plan, to keep the playing field level, an equal amound of money/percentage should be given to other carriers to invest in their employee 401K plan or retirement system, not the companies account, but the employee 401K ore retirement. If one company gets free government money or consideration, then all companies and their employees should get equal funds. Otherwise, these companies have gotten a "get out of jail free" card that the rest have not got. Which results in an unfair advantage to those companies.

Just my opinion...

FNG


Many companies, not only airlines, got hurt after 9-11 when stocks tumbled and their pension plans suffered(most pension plans invest in stocks, and often their own stocks---Delta was above $20 and fell to near $3). It happened quickly, and was not something that could be forseen ahead of time, unless you knew 9-11 was coming. GM and Ford, some Steel companies, and the legacies have this common problem. Your airline and other LCCs don't offer pensions, so it really is a non issue for you. Your issue here is to take advantage of a weak airline by making it pay when it can't afford it, which in reality is mainly going to affect retired employees who don't have a fight in this anymore.

When you point out that some airlines will get a "get out of jail card" when others will not---isn't that what somebody does after they determine they have a problem? If you knew in advance that a problem would exist, then you would tell everyone. If one problem starts and a couple airlines succomb to Chap 11 and then dump their pensions, and then you realize that the PBGC could really be in trouble if more join in, it behooves you to fix the problem NOW before more damage is done to the PBGC. Those other airlines unfortunately fell victim prior, and that can happen anywhere.

I do agree with you about changing back if good times return. That should be in there absolutely.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
general,

most pension plans (defined benefit) are not stock-heavy. traditionally they have been invested in a 60/40 split (60% bonds, 40% stocks). also, an "a" plan, traditional defined benefit plans, are very rarely invested in their own stocks. the trustee who is in charge of investing the pension fund is required by law to diversify their investments and follow a trustee document which outlines the investment strategy.

with interest rates going up, i think this pension "run" will quickly subside. however, the government in its infinite wisdom has dictated the unfunded current liability (of which the plan must be 90% funded) be calculated at an interest rate that is a 4yr moving average.

airline pensions have been traditionally unfunded compared to other similar large companies due to many reasons. the two primary being that the retirement benefits tended to be a lot richer (in terms of % of final average pay) than others and that the plans offered large amount lump sums rather than the traditional annuity.

hope this helps.
 
it's not just the cost of pensions. Health care has gone through the roof. In yesterday's WSJ they had an article on how healthcare was a bigger factor to GM. For every car GM sells over $1,500 goes to pay for retirement healt bennies.

This is where I expect to see the retired airline employees take the largest hit. Without a strong voice and no collective bargining agency. I would look for retirement health care bennies to get so bad that eventually medicare/cade will provide better bennies.
 
FNG320 said:
. . . Personally, if a company signs up to a pension they should not be able to get out from under it thru BK or turning it over to the PBGC on their own or any other method except by negotiation with the employees.

Just to clarify: In the case of USAirways, it wasn't the company that terminated the defined benefit plan, it was ALPA.
 
G4G5 said:
it's not just the cost of pensions. Health care has gone through the roof. In yesterday's WSJ they had an article on how healthcare was a bigger factor to GM. For every car GM sells over $1,500 goes to pay for retirement healt bennies.

This is where I expect to see the retired airline employees take the largest hit. Without a strong voice and no collective bargining agency. I would look for retirement health care bennies to get so bad that eventually medicare/cade will provide better bennies.

keep in mind also that any nonunion retiree health care is not a VESTABLE right. companies can yank that at any time.

my guess is the bargained benefits will just be rebargained but shifting more cost to the retiree (higher deductibles, out of pocket caps, lower copays)
 

Latest resources

Back
Top