Let Me Ask You...

[acarpe3448]

I appreciate all the different views about the meaning of this article. However, I think there may be another explanation for what this US Air Captain was saying.

1. True, USA Today did list his salary at $275,000 a year, and that his pension was supposed to be like $170K or something like that. The article also noted that if the pension were to be closed or failed that he could be looking at only $28,000 a year. Now at that level, I believe many of us would be upset if we still had three kids to put through college.

2. Over the 32 years that this guy put in at US Air, he had planned to have "X" amount of income. Therefore, he may not have invested as much into his own 401K as he should of. Not really smart as an investor, but consider that the majority of people in this country do not take full advantage of this saving plan.

3. This Captain may have contributed the full amount to his 401K, but over the past several years his investments took a beating, like mine. I don't know how USAIR's 401K works, but what if the company match is in company stock. Well, he may have had several hundred thousand dollars go down the tubes in addition to his other stocks or mutual funds.

4. It's unfortunate but I think a huge percentage of Americans maintain living standards based on what they "WILL" be making instead of where we are today.

5. When this Captain was listing the changes that would have to be made, I think it was just him listing some things that anyone could do to reduce their expenses in retirement. I personally do not think that he was saying that due to the fact that he is only going to get $90,000 that he can't get that new car he was planning on getting.

6. After reading all that he said, it is my opinion that his biggest concern is being able to fund his children's education.


These were just a few a few opposing opinions that I had not seen anyone list. Don't get me wrong, I am not a USAIR Pilot and loosing the pensions will not directly effect me. (YET) A matter of fact, this guy may be the money hungry, self centered jerk that many are making him out to be. I am just saying that I really feel for these men and women, and I am surprised to hear so many pilots gripe about major airline pilot's pensions. With the exception of a few, it was once the goal of all pilots to reach the major airlines and the lifestyle and security that they offered. Today, I feel that we were all forced into a pay and benefits race to the bottom.

And just to avoid any fights, I am very pro-equal contracts between the majors and their connections. I believe that all of the Small Jet operators deserve parity in wages and benefits.

 

[pilotyip]

For RJ F/O again

You did not answer the one about successful pilot managed airlines, if it always bad management how come the smart pilots don't get together and start a smart airline that has good management.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Posted by PCL:
-----------------------------------------------
He worked his whole career knowing that he was going to have a pension plan that offered him six figures.
-----------------------------------------------

Correction, sir: He spent his whole career THINKING he was going to get a six figure pension.



Also:
---------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with hard work and skill. The pilots at USAir and UAL worked hard to get to their positions at their respective airlines. Their jobs didn't just fall into their laps. I'm really getting tired of guys that don't work at Majors saying that major airline pilots only got their jobs through luck.
---------------------------------------------------

This is false and you know it. Many worked hard and deserved it.
But remember, many good ones were turned down for no good reason, any more than a few screwups are hired. Also, how about the low-time intern hires at UAL. How hard did they work?



Again:
----------------------------------------------
This is the problem with this profession nowdays. Too many pilots are willing to tell the guys at the majors how much they should be able to make. It is really none of your business whether they get a 50k pension or a 150k pension.
----------------------------------------------

I think, PCL, that a bigger problem than me saying what I think is people who actually go out and DO something that lowers the bar. PFT comes to mind.

Besides, I have every right to say what think a mainline job is worth. I'm sorry that only the anointed inner circle is able to truly understand. Do you feel that if you talk like a mainline pilot long enough that you get to be an honorary one?

 

[Timebuilder]

Besides, I have every right to say what think a mainline job is worth. I'm sorry that only the anointed inner circle is able to truly understand. Do you feel that if you talk like a mainline pilot long enough that you get to be an honorary one?

If either you or I were mainline pilots, and were facing a scr*wing like this, we'd be wondering "where is the rule of law, and the strength of the collective bargaining process?"

And no, it isn't for anyone except the principle parties to decide the worth of ANY pilot. That's between the representative (in my case, I represent myself) and the one who agrees to make payroll, benfit, and yes, PENSION payments.

 

[CatYaaak]

Regadless of esoteric discussions of skill, luck etc, I think that a pension should be sacrosanct. It's a part of the total compensation package that came out of contract negotiations. I am sickened by the class envy that is so prevalent these days. Who among us, finding ourselves in the position of senior captain at a major would give back their pay, saying "this is too much"? What a load of manure.
.

The only load of manure here is you misrepresenting through implication what others have said....i.e... that they stated they would give back their pay, saying "this is too much". I've never heard anyone say that. If you're sick of "class envy" then it's a self-inflicted illness built on your own false-premise.

As much as you want pensions to be sacrosanct and contracts to be written in stone until the sun supernovas, I'm sorry to say it won't happen as long as there is such a thing as changing economic conditions, which of course there always will be. If the judge's decision runs contrary to the law, then it will be probably be overturned. Chapter 11 allows breathing room so a company can re-organize, and at that point nothing is sacrosanct because anything is better than liquidation under Chapter 7; everyone loses their jobs too.

I hate if for them, but US Air has been a basket case for over a decade in terms of costs, mis-management, and furloughs even when times were good in the industry. Like it or not, to some degree salaries, wages and pensions work into that equation that got them to this point. I had more than a few friends furloughed for well over 5-7 years at US Air, while their "brothers" like this Captain were making making higher wages flying the same equipment than their counterparts at companies that weren't struggling. Even this guy must have noticed that not everything was hunky-dory at his company, no matter what his paycheck said.

A lot of people make an airline run, not just pilots, and plenty have lost their jobs now, and won't be re-hired. Bravo for that Captain for making such good wages during his 32-year run, but he's at least a decade late in starting to wonder how basic things like college tuitions will be paid.

 

[46Driver]

If I remember my astronomy class correctly, the Sun will not Supernova because it does not have enough mass.

 

[PCL_128]

Re: For RJ F/O again

You did not answer the one about successful pilot managed airlines, if it always bad management how come the smart pilots don't get together and start a smart airline that has good management.

I never said that pilots would do a better job at managing an airline (although I'm sure some pilots would do a great job). The problem with this industry is that the same bad managers keep getting recycled. Example: I believe that the man hired to run Song for Delta was a former top manager at the failed Midway Airlines. There are countless examples like this. The managers run their airlines into the ground and just go and get a job at another airline so they can destroy that one too. It's a never ending cycle. We need to get some new blood in management in this business.

 

[CitationLover]

airlines management = football?

isn't that how the nfl works? 49ers hire some idiot who never won at seattle (and whose only winning was when a program was handed to him - miami).

future pension amounts are ESTIMATES based on someones PROJECTED earnings. i understand pilots think management are boners and management thinks pilots are schmucks, but i believe the blame lies equally with mgmt and alpa. afterall, they negotiated this sorry situation.

chapter 11 should also have a clause written in that calls for management to get the shaft also, afterall i had to read all those stupid articles wolf wrote for the usair mag, what a moron.

the real crime is those suckers who bought usair stock for $50/share the day after the united merger was announced (it was probably martha stewart and mgmt unloading all their stock).

 

[Timebuilder]

The only load of manure here is you misrepresenting through implication what others have said....i.e... that they stated they would give back their pay, saying "this is too much". I've never heard anyone say that. If you're sick of "class envy" then it's a self-inflicted illness built on your own false-premise.

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.

The reason that a pension has traditionally been seen as sacrosanct is that it is an agreement that is undertaken during the working life to last one through the retirtement life. To change the nature of the deal is preposterous, particularly after the retirement has begun. It is, in a word, dishonorable. Changing economic conditions? In my view, the shareholders have such a responsibility to the pension plan that if the company can't afford to keep its deal with its most tenured employees, then they need to do what it takes to make the pension solvent. No excuses. Without those pensioners, NO ONE in the present ranks would have a job at all. Similarly, those who are still working have an expectation that the work they have already done, not the work they have yet to do, obligates the company to take extraordinary means to make good. If a judge says otherwise all of the parties have to live with that decision, but it should lead to legislation to prevent this kind of failure to perform according to the employment contract in the future.

Bravo for that Captain for making such good wages during his 32-year run, but he's at least a decade late in starting to wonder how basic things like college tuitions will be paid.

He HAD planned, based on an agreement that was a prt of his negotiated compensation package. Now, becuase of other's mistakes, beyond his control, he is being asked to give back what is already supposed to be his.

 

[100LL... Again!]

To clarify:

The company is dishonorable for not living up to its end of the agreement. The pilot is entitled to the full amount, as negotiated.

My point:

You are insane not to consider that this type of situation might occur, and plan accordingly. If I made a $150K+ salary, I would have an awful lot in savings, as I have no trust of these type of pension plans for the reasons we are seeing.

Life is unfair, and we cannot change it.

 

[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.