CO pilots STICK IT TO THE MAN!

[crj567]

Wrong. It violates the spirit of the intended condition. They essentially looted in favor of themselves. Why should they be entitled to circumvent the stipulations when others play by the rules. They're no better than corporate criminals who use the same framework to legally cheat for profit.

"Spirit of the intended condition" is like saying "I didn't mean to knock up my prom date-I will accept no parental responsibilities, and I will pay no child support." Both those concepts go about as far in court as a giant lead balloon...

-Wow-some folks are just dense.

 

[Scarabus]

900,000 grand, that's over 16 years of pay for me at current crappy conditions.

 

[GuppyWN]

You guys are funny. I'd take the money in a heartbeat! They earned it and by God they deserve to get it before it's taken in the name of solvency.

Gup

 

[ultrarunner]

I agree Gup! Good for them.

 

[FlyinGuy]

There is a difference between what is ethical and what is legal. What they did was legal but not ethical. Therefore, they are not criminals.

 

[Skyboy722]

There is a difference between what is ethical and what is legal. What they did was legal but not ethical. Therefore, they are not criminals.

No kidding! Is it not the companies that use "loopholes" to their advantage at EVERY opportunity, when it benefits them??? And now, in a very rare occurence, a loophole actually benefits, what was it, nine pilots that had the balls to pull the trigger and you guys are crucifying them?

I say good for them.

 

[igneousy2]

I say good for them...in fact it's got my wheels spinning.

Pilots have been getting screwed by management with all these loopholes for years...and now finally some pilots have the balls to find one and then actually do something about it and then actually win in court and you all get your panties all bunchy.

I fail to see how this "screws their fellow pilot" as some of you have put it. A defined benefit plan is a promise by your company to pay you a certain amount for life upon retirement with some stipulations if you get a divorce. How many other people are in or out of the plan...get there lump-sums or don't, what the return is or isn't is irrelevant...the company promises to pay it has no effect on the other guy.

Is this unethical? Is it unethical for a company to create a sham bankruptcy to get rid of their pension plans? It's hilarious that Continental is now complaining about ethics!

What's really funny is all of you claiming how unethical ALPA and pilots are! Please...our ethics is why we are so hosed now. We're so busy worrying about air system safety, not scaring the flying public, and the rights of the elderly that our pay has turned ordinary. Our ETHICS is the only reason Lorenzo and Crandall are still walking around on their own two legs today. If they had been in the contracting business they would have been floating down some river a long time ago.

 

[Full of LUV]

Many points to ponder.....

I say good for them...in fact it's got my wheels spinning.

Pilots have been getting screwed by management with all these loopholes for years...and now finally some pilots have the balls to find one and then actually do something about it and then actually win in court and you all get your panties all bunchy.

I fail to see how this "screws their fellow pilot" as some of you have put it. A defined benefit plan is a promise by your company to pay you a certain amount for life upon retirement with some stipulations if you get a divorce. How many other people are in or out of the plan...get there lump-sums or don't, what the return is or isn't is irrelevant...the company promises to pay it has no effect on the other guy.

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.

The divorce lump sum option is a Federal Govt, femenism holdover, where the wives that were screwed by their cheatin, beatin husbands of the 60's would then divorce them for a younger model leaving the wife penniless and vulnerable, so feminists had the FED GOVT declare a pension earned over 10 years of marriage is joint property and as such can be cashed as an immediate annuity by the spouse if she wants upon divorce. If left up to plan administrators, that would never be a stipulation.

The reference to the DAL pilots was a bit different because I don't believe any of them were actually working, they were trying to trigger a lump sum annuity prior to DAL turning over the whole plan to the FED GOVT to manage prior to BK.

LUV

 

[SFR]

You guys are stupid. Who cares about the ethics!

Some people live by the rules and some live around the rules. I say congrats to the pilots that got away with it. I would have done the same thing, except I don't have an A fund.

You can either work for the system or let the system work for you, I choose the ladder.

 

[nimtz]

You guys are stupid. Who cares about the ethics!

Some people live by the rules and some live around the rules. I say congrats to the pilots that got away with it. I would have done the same thing, except I don't have an A fund.

You can either work for the system or let the system work for you, I choose the ladder.

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!?!

 

[Amish RakeFight]

You guys are stupid. Who cares about the ethics!

Some people live by the rules and some live around the rules. I say congrats to the pilots that got away with it. I would have done the same thing, except I don't have an A fund.

You can either work for the system or let the system work for you, I choose the ladder.

It's spelled "latter."

I care about ethics... and ones integrity. Ones actions reflect heavily on these. It's not fair to the others who could've but didn't.

 

[Toobdrvr]

Choose the "ladder", excellent idea. Now go fall off it...

This whole point is "Moo"...

 

[JohnQ]

You guys are stupid. Who cares about the ethics!

Some people live by the rules and some live around the rules. I say congrats to the pilots that got away with it. I would have done the same thing, except I don't have an A fund.

You can either work for the system or let the system work for you, I choose the ladder.

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!

 

[NEDude]

Right or wrong, the policy of exploiting loopholes is the name of the game. A game setup by management and government.

What is ethical is purely subjective. But based on the historical practice of businesses, management, and wealthy tycoons, what these pilots did was completely normal and accepted practice - they researched the rules, found out where the rules were absent and used it to their advantage.

 

[IBNAV8R]

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?