Boeingman said:
(1)The BOD needs to look at the management team at Southwest. The numbers speak for themself........
(2)...............If you're only planing on PBGC mins., I assume you're planning on a bankruptcy and termination of the A plan. If that is the case....why are you voting for a TA that is "designed", "needed" to keep the copany solvent according to the "experts"? At least on the retirement issue alone....
(3)........Fluf, this is really flawed thinking here. If you do believe in the above then you must agree with me that this TA will not stop the company from filing BK and terminating the A plan.......
.......Further, the parameters and trigger points that define what percentage is kicked in not clearly defined in the TA........
(4)..........Look, I'm not telling you to change your vote. I am telling you that you are voting based on emotion and not facts as being presented in it's written format for us to vote on. It is not about getting a better deal. It is about getting the right deal. The right one starts with an accurate accounting of the total givebacks as well as clear defined language, parameters and trigger points..........
(1)The BOD is part of the billionaire boys club that is inbread throughout the nation's corporations. How did GB end up on Prudential's board just a few months ago? We've had Prudential's CEO on our board for quite some time. If they don't lavish cash upon our executives then they won't get it from their BOD so they all take care of each other. LUV still has Herb on the board, its HIS company so that crap doesn't happen over there.
(2)I was only planning on PBGC mins in the past because that's all that has ever been GUARANTEED not because I saw CH11 as imminment. I saw what happend in the steel industry and to other pensions around the country and decided that it would be a gamble to count on anything more than the guaranteed amount in retirment long before UAIR lost their pension. Then as the other carriers started to freeze or terminate their plans I knew we would probably end up with a frozen plan as well. My frozen amount is actually less than the PBGC guarantee so if I were voting based on emotion this would be another reason for a no vote. On the retirement issue alone, I'm better off in BK court.
(3)Not flawed thinking at all. Because I was allready saving for retirement based on PBGC minimums from the A fund, no B fund and that crappy little 401K match, this TA will decrease the amount of money I am personally contributing to my retirement savings. The overall amount that the company is contributing to the frozen A fund and new B fund is less than before but the B fund is my money and can't be taken away so I can count on it being there. So now instead of saving 15% of my salary on my own I can drop my personal savings amounts by the amount of minimum B fund contributions. Even more if the profit sharing B fund increases kick in. The parameters for profit sharing being murky or not, the minimum B fund contributions are enough to lighten my personal savings load. Its acutally an increase in useable income for me but that's just my personal situation and not a large factor in why I am voting yes.
(4)Nor am I trying to change your vote, you have read and seen the same things inside and outside the company that I have. You just have a different opinion of what they mean. I see this exchange as a continued attempt to view all the angles and also trying to understand the rationale behind everyone's decision. We still have to do our jobs and work together after this is over. I have close personal friends who are voting against and I understand why. I'm just not the gambler they are. I will be givin 'em some $h!t if it fails and we end up with less in the end though. That's a lot of beers for them to buy.
If I WAS voting based solely on emotion it would be a no vote. When I first heard of the details on this I went to the roadshow thinking that if we vote this down we will give the NC more leverage to get something better. I thought "the cash crunch isn't until the fall so we'll have plenty of time to hammer out another deal." It was the expert opinions in the Q & A session after the presentation that made sense to me and convinced me that concessionary negotiations when the company's cash in the bank is shrinking are different than what I've experienced in the past and if this TA is rejected the odds are stacked against something better. If I found a good sensible reason to discount the recommendations of the professional financial analyists, negotiators and litigators then I would love to vote this down under the impression that the odds are good to improve this POS.
If you use only half of the company's stated new bottom line of 800 mil (a 60% increase over this TA),and call it 650 mil, the pilots' share of that is another 45 mil. That's about $10,200 more per pilot than this TA, if our NC could hold 'em to half and decrease our % of total concessions (which I doubt). Our work rules and non wage rate items have allready been squeezed too much so it would most likely come directly our of our pay rate. That's quite a bit of cash to gamble with.
I'm not
afraid that the company will file CH11 immediately, I'm not
afraid that hundreds of pilots will be furloughed. I seriously doubt any of that will happen. I am afraid of making a decision contrary to the experts that will cut my pay by an
additional $10-20,000 a year or more and lose some of the little gains we did get on this TA. For me its just like walking up to a roulette table and placing all of that money on #5 instead of listening to your financial planner who told you to buy an index fund.
