Let Me Ask You...

[metrodriver]

Pension plans in this country should be separate from the company's finance dept. If the company goes out of business, employees should be able to get the money put into their account at the first day of their legal retirement age (60 for pilots).
I know too many guys who were flying for Eastern and Braniff, and lost everything the day these companies went under. Now they are flying beyond age 60 as flight engineers or corporate, often for low wages, with no pension plan except sometimes a lousy 401k, trying to safe for the old days. At the time they lost their coveted jobs they were busy sending kids through college, with not much money to spare. And how is your 401k? oh yeah, invested in United, Enron, Aol,..........

 

[CatYaaak]

No, you are missing my point. I am not saying that anyone has said what I am saying. I AM saying that given my hypothetical, those who are critical of the pay of major airline pilots would quickly lose any form of complaint, as long as THEY are the ones who are on the receiving end of the paycheck. In other words, if the shoe was on the other foot, the complainers would be happily wearing it.

I hope that clears it up for you. Class envy is apparently your problem, not mine. I'm happy for anyone who can negotiate a high wage. You, I think, are envious.
his.

Well, as one who has never bought into the notion that we live in a "class society", I find your attempt to assign me such an outlook quite humorous. It's almost as funny as you assuming that I give a rat's a$$ of what any airline pilot makes. Personally, I've sworn off working for suck-all-the-fun-out-of-flying nursery schools we call "airlines", where the Blind "lead" and bicker with armchair generals and crew-room lawyers in an industry that, meanwhile, sets the standard for delivering poor customer service. You only go around once, and you couldn't pay me enough to return to that atmosphere and live out the remaining decades of my working years.

Your problem (and why you must bring up an un-related and unstated "hypothetical" to try and make a case that I'm "envious"...and even then it's disjointed) is that I never criticized this guy's salary. I criticized his shortsighted-ness and poor financial planning in light of his whining re; his kids' tuitions and being relegated to used-car he11, given his income for a long period of time. Since I've made this point clear numerous times, you not being able to differentiate between them is obviously an act of mental evasion.

To declare "out of bounds" the consideration of his income when making an objective value judgement of the financial priorities this Captain HIMSELF offered for public consumption, or sillier yet, that considering it represents some form of "attack on" or indicates "envy of" the income itself, is nothing more than a sophmoric, Clintonesque reframe-the-debate tactic not unlike a boxer hiking his shorts up around his neck and then declaring that there will be no hitting below the belt.

I hope that clear it up for you. Envy? hardly, more like "pity"...especially for his girls, who will now have to work their way through college as Waffle House waitresses at night after the bars close.

 

[CitationLover]

metrodriver get a clue, the pensions, BY LAW, are a separate legal entity from the employer. if they go bankrupt the pension still has money in it. if it is underfunded (keep in mind it is underfunded in the pbgc's eyes who use an unrealistically low interest rate) they will still receive something. these people are not LOSING their pensions, they will still receive something. federal law is the thing that is screwed up. this is why in the pbgc's eye the plan is "underfunded", while in the sec's eye the plan is fine.

please note that the active employees benefits being cut is a pbgc issue. their guidelines rules who gets paid from a pension in a termination situation. the last thing usairways wants is more bad press regarding their sorry state of affairs. their poor employee relations, especially with this one, will cause wages to increase which is the last thing they want.

what is up with the sense of entitlement towards pensions/401k's? they are benefits people, not compensation. any financial planner (an airline captain making 6 figures better have one or he/she is stupid) will tell you that retirement is a 3-legged stool: social security, employer provided, and employee provided.

 

[saabcaptain]

It is true on the surface the public might say "I wish I had those problems" but reality is people plan their lifestyle on a certain income level. To cut wages 30% + near retirment and then cut pension by 50-60% or more despite however much is "left over" is crippling. It does put forth that we need to save, save, save our whole lives for just this situation but I feel so bad for all those at US Airways and others who will be denied what they earned.

 

[metrodriver]

So if this retirement plan is a seperate deal, how can Usair touch it and this captain in the very first post lose it all, back down to 28k a year. I have no experience myself with it, simply because I have not yet had the privilege of working for a company that had a retirement fund except for some lousy 401k's, for which I made too little to even think about putting money in

 

[Timebuilder]

Well, as one who has never bought into the notion that we live in a "class society", I find your attempt to assign me such an outlook quite humorous. It's almost as funny as you assuming that I give a rat's a$$ of what any airline pilot makes. Personally, I've sworn off working for suck-all-the-fun-out-of-flying nursery schools we call "airlines", where the Blind "lead" and bicker with armchair generals and crew-room lawyers in an industry that, meanwhile, sets the standard for delivering poor customer service. You only go around once, and you couldn't pay me enough to return to that atmosphere and live out the remaining decades of my working years.

Gee, where do I start with a post like this? Is it worth dissecting? I don't think so. However, a couple of notes.

In order for it to be worthwhile, I'd have to be discussiong the subject with a person of reasonable demeanor. By my judgement (just a valuable to me as my suspicion of envy being the source of your unbridled bitterness) you just don't want to stay on topic. I opine that the pilot in question had a reasonable expectation of his company's ability to perform to the tenets of his employment contract. I'm not certain where we can get enough information to somehow blame him for poor planning. To do so supposes a great deal that we simply do not know.

Clintonesq? That's funny. Reread the thread and tell me that there has been a reframing of the debate. If you are so unclear in your assertions that a reasonable person cannot reach the same conclusions as I, nor pose a hypothetical to make a point, then we are unable to discusss this matter with intelligence.

Get some anger counseling.

 

[CatYaaak]

Gee, where do I start with a post like this? Is it worth dissecting? I don't think so. However, a couple of notes.

In order for it to be worthwhile, I'd have to be discussiong the subject with a person of reasonable demeanor. By my judgement (just a valuable to me as my suspicion of envy being the source of your unbridled bitterness) you just don't want to stay on topic. I opine that the pilot in question had a reasonable expectation of his company's ability to perform to the tenets of his employment contract. I'm not certain where we can get enough information to somehow blame him for poor planning. To do so supposes a great deal that we simply do not know.

Clintonesq? That's funny. Reread the thread and tell me that there has been a reframing of the debate. If you are so unclear in your assertions that a reasonable person cannot reach the same conclusions as I, nor pose a hypothetical to make a point, then we are unable to discusss this matter with intelligence.

Get some anger counseling.

Here's some advice; don't give up your day job and pursue a career in psychology, because you can't even differentiate between my VERY real happiness, and your one imaginings.

Not only do you suck at reading minds, but you crack me up with your fervor...first it was "envy", now "anger" and " unbridled bitterness"...what's next? Um..."surly petulance"? Who knows exactly, but no doubt it will be another illusion that makes you feel more comfortable with the fact that I find sophmoric (and willingly left) what you apparently see as the epitome of a good career path. (He11, I more than tripled my salary when I left, but that's not the point, except you seem to think its about "envy") You'll do well there in that environment though, as evidenced by your attempt to sanctify some big whiner who can't even save money for his kid's college. Bring those kneepads along and you'll go even farther.

What I DO know, however, is that you will continue to use this tactic in order to evade the original point by trying to make these emotions I supposedly hold the topic. Once again, classic Clinton. Keep 'em coming though....you make me laugh.

 

[Timebuilder]

Such a shame, that an otherwise intelligent man must resort to ad hominum attacks. Me thinks, you doth protest too much.

Please, do enjoy my "cracking you up". I hope is brightens your day, Mr. Curmudgeon.

Since you think that I am "evading the point", I will try to make this clear, so that you will understand.

1) You have no evidence that is sufficient to argue anything against this pilot. You haven't reviewed his financial records, spoken to his family, or even had an informal conversation with the man.

2) As a tenet of his collective bargaining agreement, his has a legal right to expect what is his due under the terms of his contract. Is that correct? Yes it is. Can his expectation be denied by a bankruptcy judge? Apparently so. Does this make it right? No, it does not. That is the "manure" to which I referred.

3) You know so little of me, too. I think that I prefer it that way. How did you think that bringing a former president into this discussion would advance your position? I thought that I could expect you to explain your bellicose atittude if I was wrong in my hypothetical assumption about the source of your negative tone. This could have been a mistake on my part. If I am wrong to posit your position as coming from a manner of envy and bitterness, then step up to the plate and clearly, calmly, explain why you are almost shouting in your writing. Where's the rub?

I don't need a knowlege of psychology to see that you have a bee in your bonnet. All that is required is some life experience. If it isn't envy, then perhaps it is something else. If you are happy, I humbly submit that there is a schizm between your self and the way you appear in print.

Alright then, I consider myself to be chastised.

Do you feel better now?

 

[CitationLover]

metrodriver,

by law an accrued benefit, one you have earned up to the current date, cannot be cut by the pensions sponsor (USAirways). the sponsor retains the right of terminating the pension. when terminated, all benefits are frozen and the liabilities are measured (albeit at a way too low rate which drives the liabilties up) and they are compared to the assets.

if the assets>liabilities (as most plans were in the mid-90's) the benefits are all paid out and the company can take the difference with a 40% tax hit.

if the liabilities>assets (as most plans, not just airline pension plans, are these days) then the plan reverts to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (pbgc). the pbgc guarantees only up to a certain amount of benefits, if the assets are below a certain level, $44k at age 65. since by law pilots must retire at age 60 the benefits are reduced to $28k/yr.

make sense?

 

[Timebuilder]

I does make sense.

I sounds as though there is a "catch 22" for pilots. Beacuse they can only work until 60, they must, under the basic guarantee, be forced to accept a very small portion of what their contract had proposed to guarantee, far less than if they could work to 65.

Perhaps this will lead to a change in the way that pensions are treated in future labor negotiations, favoring 401 K instruments with limited exposure to the stock of the employer.