Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

More Pension Reform? LCCs not gonna like this...

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Press ReleaseSource: Northwest Airlines



Northwest Airlines Supports Pension Reform Legislation Introduced in U.S. Senate
Wednesday April 20, 6:03 pm ET - Bill Would Help Protect Taxpayers and Workers With Pension Benefits

MINNEAPOLIS, April 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Northwest Airlines (Nasdaq: NWAC - News) today announced its support for legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D- W.Va.) to reform how companies pay the unfunded liabilities of their frozen defined benefit pension plans. The "Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005," which was introduced in the U.S. Senate today, will allow companies to fully fund their frozen defined benefit pension plans over a 25-year period versus the three-year "catch-up" requirement in place today.

"Northwest is in strong support of the bill introduced by Sen. Isakson and co-sponsored by Sen. Rockefeller and we thank them for their leadership on this issue," said Andrea Fischer Newman, senior vice president of government affairs. "This legislation will help protect airline employees from losing any of their hard-earned pension benefits and help protect taxpayers from even more pension plans becoming the responsibility of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)."

Northwest's low-cost carrier competitors, such as Southwest, JetBlue and AirTran, provide their employees with less expensive defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s. Northwest, a company that was providing air service and pension benefits long before 401(k)-style plans ever existed, is one of just five remaining U.S. airlines that provide its employees with defined benefit plans.

Northwest's pension plans were fully funded as recently as 2000. However, as a result of four consecutive years of falling interest rates, major stock market declines during 2000 through 2002, and increasing employee pension benefits, the company's pension plans are now underfunded. In addition, the law governing pension funding requires highly accelerated "catch-up" payments when a plan is underfunded. These catch-up payments are particularly onerous in the current environment as nearly all U.S. airlines struggle to return to profitability and cannot afford to make such contributions.

Some of Northwest's largest competitors have terminated their defined benefit contribution plans through the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, turning responsibility for the plans over to the PBGC, a self-financed governmental corporation that partially insures failed pension plans. The PBGC recently reported a record deficit of $23 billion, which includes the cost of taking over pension plans at United Airlines and US Airways. The PBGC predicts a $40 billion deficit if other airline pension plans are terminated.

Northwest, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and several other airlines are working together to develop a solution to this challenge. The legislation will allow Northwest to achieve the second part of its three-part, long-term solution to the pension challenge it faces:

-- Receiving union concurrence to freeze defined benefit plans at current levels rather than terminating the plans. -- Making up the funding shortfall of the frozen plans over a longer period than current law allows. -- Establishing a defined contribution 401(k) retirement plan, to provide secure employee pension benefits going forward."The legislation introduced today will allow companies such as Northwest to fully honor the pension commitments made to employees and spare taxpayers, through the PBGC, from having to step in as guarantor of terminated pension plans." Newman continued. "This responsible solution, embraced by management and labor, is a far superior alternative to the job losses, substantial reductions in pension benefits and increase in airline bankruptcies that will inevitably occur if action is not taken soon."



Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General Lee said:
More Pension Reform? LCCs not gonna like this...

Bye Bye--General Lee

I don't care at all. It is not like any of these airlines are going to start being competitive with anyone in our lifetime.
 
canyonblue said:
I don't care at all. It is not like any of these airlines are going to start being competitive with anyone in our lifetime.

Huh? We at DL are trying to stay afloat, and at the same time cutting $5 billion A YEAR from our budgets. Others are doing the same, and if fuel wasn't so expensive, many of the legacies would be profitable. You guys are also getting closer to losing all of your fuel hedge benefits (see other article)---and then you will have to raise fares (helping everyone else who also raise fares) and there you have it--a whole new ball game. And, to top it off you don't care at all......great.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General Lee said:
Huh? We at DL are trying to stay afloat, and at the same time cutting $5 billion A YEAR from our budgets. Others are doing the same, and if fuel wasn't so expensive, many of the legacies would be profitable. You guys are also getting closer to losing all of your fuel hedge benefits (see other article)---and then you will have to raise fares (helping everyone else who also raise fares) and there you have it--a whole new ball game. And, to top it off you don't care at all......great.


Bye Bye--General Lee

I think what he might have been saying was that he has no choice in the matter? Maybe I am wrong (as I am sure is very possible) but what has the defined benefit plans of DL and the other "big boys" have anything to do with SWA/JB and the likes of other LCC's??? And what does any of that have to do with fuel hedging???

We (and SWA as well) will "have" to raise our fares when the market will bear it, not out of necessity. A flawed business plan??? Hardly!. Sounds like good business to me and it appears to be working, at least for the LCC's. (Yes, I know, for now right?)

C yaaaa
 
jetblue320 said:
I think what he might have been saying was that he has no choice in the matter? Maybe I am wrong (as I am sure is very possible) but what has the defined benefit plans of DL and the other "big boys" have anything to do with SWA/JB and the likes of other LCC's??? And what does any of that have to do with fuel hedging???

We (and SWA as well) will "have" to raise our fares when the market will bear it, not out of necessity. A flawed business plan??? Hardly!. Sounds like good business to me and it appears to be working, at least for the LCC's. (Yes, I know, for now right?)

C yaaaa

What I thought he was saying was that he didn't care and that no other airline will ever become competitive again with the likes of SW. If that is what he meant, then I think that is cocky. We current employees have switched to a DC plan that is a lot more competitve---but we are still paying for retired folks who still need those checks and may not have been around during this financial crisis. We will still pay for it all, but hopefully now at a slower rate that we can afford---and the PBGC doesn't get even more under water....

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Just what we need to hear, a Deltoid calling other people "cocky". Boy this world has changed.

Bake
 
Bake said:
Just what we need to hear, a Deltoid calling other people "cocky". Boy this world has changed.

Bake

Man alive, you are cool Mr. Remax......


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
I think that is cocky

He might be cocky but that doen't make him wrong in his assessment. You on the other hand are both cocky and wrong more often than not.

This thread is a perfect example of it.
 
Daedalus said:
He might be cocky but that doen't make him wrong in his assessment. You on the other hand are both cocky and wrong more often than not.

This thread is a perfect example of it.


Care to back that up? Give some examples.....? Tell me why this thread is wrong? You want the PBGC to go under water even more? You want pensioners to lose more money? Tell me. (I hope you didn't shoot your mouth off just to be a part of the cool bandwagon...)




Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
Daedalus said:
I just did and you your response put an exclamation point on it.


Now run off and go to bed

What? Hahahah. Read your response again. Say again? You can't debate squat.


"Hi, my name is Daedalus and I just joined the bandwagon, even though I have no idea what I am talking about. I can't back up anything I say...."


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
jetblue320 said:
Maybe I am wrong (as I am sure is very possible) but what has the defined benefit plans of DL and the other "big boys" have anything to do with SWA/JB and the likes of other LCC's???

With an extended amortization of current pension obligations it greatly reduces operating costs and makes the playing field more competitive with the LCC's. The models I have seen from our MEC R&I as well as ALPA Nationals models show a traditional defined benefit plan as being cheaper after the next five years as opposed to a straight DC plan. Expect whining from the LCC's about how this will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Will we ever be able to compete apples to apples with the LCC's? No, but that is due to the nature of the operations and scope of scheduled service. If we were simply skimming the cream like LCC's are we could be competitive tomorrow. If the LCC's start offering the breadth and depth of service that legacy carriers do they will end up on the rubbish heap of airline history along with the other 99% of failed low cost carriers.


To JB and SWA's credit, they know their niche and stick to the formula. Here's to hoping they stray.....
 
Last edited:
Oh Jetblue---GO BUY BOEING and help some Americans keep their jobs... YOu want Americans to buy your tickets, but you don't want to buy their products....UHMMMM

Maybe we should boycott JB...
 
scarlet said:
Oh Jetblue---GO BUY BOEING and help some Americans keep their jobs... YOu want Americans to buy your tickets, but you don't want to buy their products....UHMMMM

Maybe we should boycott JB...

Where is a CL-65 built?
 
jetblue320 said:
I think what he might have been saying was that he has no choice in the matter? Maybe I am wrong (as I am sure is very possible) but what has the defined benefit plans of DL and the other "big boys" have anything to do with SWA/JB and the likes of other LCC's??? And what does any of that have to do with fuel hedging???

We (and SWA as well) will "have" to raise our fares when the market will bear it, not out of necessity. A flawed business plan??? Hardly!. Sounds like good business to me and it appears to be working, at least for the LCC's. (Yes, I know, for now right?)

C yaaaa

I think you pretty well nailed it. My take is that Pension Reform is the business of airlines with pensions, and I am not part of that group, so the "I don't care" was in response to your "LCCs not gonna like this..." comment. I also do not think that history has showed us that any type of pension reform has helped a carrier out of their current state, only served as a crutch until they could destroy it all togeather. Good luck anyway.
 
DIAMONDDD said:
Where is a CL-65 built?


Wheres Boeings parts made?
Wheres your Ford made?
Wheres your GM made?

that guy needs to wake up, its 2005.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top