CO pilots STICK IT TO THE MAN!

[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~

 

[JohnQ]

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

That is exactly what the f***stain lawyer of Khalid Sheik Mohammed is saying right now. He actually went on TV and said that he would be happy if KSM was aquitted "under the rule of law."

But keep telling yourself what you want to hear, if it makes you feel any better. I will continue to watch my back around you and those like you.

 

[SFR]

That is exactly what the f***stain lawyer of Khalid Sheik Mohammed is saying right now. He actually went on TV and said that he would be happy if KSM was aquitted "under the rule of law."

But keep telling yourself what you want to hear, if it makes you feel any better. I will continue to watch my back around you and those like you.

Paycheck to paycheck....... keep it rollin