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

Send United to the Great Hangar in the Sky

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
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Posts
508
[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif] BUSINESS WORLD
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
[/font] [font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Send United to the Great
Hangar in the Sky
May 25, 2005; Page A13
[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]What's wrong with this picture? A federal government agency is getting stuck with United Airlines' pension obligations, and in return for this favor United is going to keep flying. By now, shouldn't the price be that United do the decent thing and disappear, vanish into the night, so the industry can begin to work off the problem of too many companies chasing too few passengers?[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Federal bankruptcy law and the post 9/11 airline bailout have already done enough damage. US Airways and America West, both recipients of federal bailout loans, are merging mainly to make sure they will be "too big to fail" and thus entitled to a United-style cosseting next time they get in trouble.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now United itself will dump its pensions on a taxpayer-backed government agency, a step that may well provoke other airlines to do the same. United even gave the government a stake in seeing this outcome come to pass -- in the form of $1.5 billion in convertible notes held by the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. The PBGC now finds itself in the weird position of cheering for United's success at the expense of carriers whose pension obligations it might have to assume next.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Let's dry our eyes. We've had two weeks for grieving over the pension plans of United Airlines; maybe we can have a few minutes of realism. What was lost, really? United's plans still hold $7 billion in assets, which could have been divvied up among retirees and employees by seniority. But this option was never considered -- it would have meant giving up the opportunity to collect, at government expense, an additional $6.6 billion in benefits promised by United but never backed by real money.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Be mindful of how these vapor benefits came into being. Until bankruptcy wiped out its vaunted experiment in worker empowerment, United was 55% owned by its employees and virtually dominated by the pilots union and machinists union.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]From 1994 on, they controlled two seats on the board, held sway over a majority of others, and effectively hired and fired the CEO. To boot, labor didn't hesitate to reinforce its clout by threatening strikes and engaging in illegal work slowdowns -- a process that eventually led to the highest wages in the industry. As Rick Dubinsky, head of the pilots union, told management in 2000: "We don't want to kill the golden goose. We just want to choke it by the neck until it gives us every last egg."[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Well, the goose is on government life-support now. But labor could always have used its clout to steer more eggs to the pension basket rather than the paycheck basket. A dirty little secret, however, is that it would have been crazy to do so. Pension underfunding (really, benefit overpromising) is too good a bargain to pass up -- a cheap option on government-paid pension benefits in the event of bankruptcy.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]We specify "cheap" rather than "free," because the PBGC does charge a premium for insuring private pension plans, just not enough to make it uneconomic for troubled employers to engage in such flimflam. Look at the agency's main offenders: steel, autos, airlines -- companies with little hope of long-term prosperity and large, unionized work forces to keep placated in the meantime.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]The pilots at United were in a particularly odd position, since many of the most senior were nominally entitled to pension benefits far in excess of the $46k-a-year the PBGC was willing to guarantee. No wonder their union was quick to propose a bankruptcy workout that would have given them a big new ownership stake in the carrier in return for dumping their plan -- oh yes, and on the condition that United also terminate the plans of lesser-paid employees.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the larger point here is that defined-benefit pension plans aren't going out of style because they're structurally defective. They're going out of style because of a government-created incentive for weak companies to award more benefits than they have any hope or intention of funding.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the wake of United's pension default, those worried about too much risk being placed on employees to manage their own savings might consider a solution: Abolish or privatize the PBGC. We might find that traditional pensions, if properly funded, have some life in them yet as a way for workers to guarantee predictable retirement income and insure against longevity. In fact, there's no reason such plans couldn't be adapted to fit today's more fluid corporate environment and personal job histories.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the meantime, the whole purpose of trying to legislate away some of capitalism's hard edges for workers and companies has come sadly unstuck in the airline business. Somehow the industry has to reduce itself to a smaller handful of more efficient network carriers that can maintain service to smaller markets even in the face of cherry-picking by Southwest, Jet Blue and their low-cost brethren. And if ever a company has earned the fate of being the odd man out, United is it.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]It's spent nearly three years in bankruptcy, shucking off labor contracts, debts and now employee pensions, but still loses money. United hasn't yet received its hoped-for federal bailout loan, but the bailout board did stretch its own rules to keep the window open, helping forestall a harsher fate in the private capital markets. House Speaker Denny Hastert, who lobbied fiercely on United's behalf, told the Chicago Tribune later that dismemberment at the hands of Delta and American would have been the likely result for United.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dismemberment is still a good idea -- in fact, we proposed it here two years ago and even nominated Treasury Secretary John Snow to be in charge, given his role in a remarkably similar dissection of Conrail when he was a private railroad executive. An orderly liquidation of United is an even better idea now that the federal government and taxpayers face an urgent need to get off the hook for a potential industry-wide airline pension default.[/font]
 
I wonder if Dubinsky regrets mentioning the goose now.
 
"By now, shouldn't the price be that United do the decent thing and disappear, vanish into the night, so the industry can begin to work off the problem of too many companies chasing too few passengers?"

If UAL went under, 10 new airlines would want to start up with new swingin dick CEO's that would show everyone how it's done. In no time the seat capacity would exceed what UAL had vacated and we'd be back in the same situation again.
 
Not with my money

I say let United go on as long as possible - just not with my money.

Why should I help pay pilots who earn more and compete against my airline? (government bailout)

And, why should I pay to keep their pensions afloat when I have no such deal?

I truly hope United can pull itself out of trouble - just don't look at my wallet for the solution.
 
Couldn't agree more

westward said:
I say let United go on as long as possible - just not with my money.

Why should I help pay pilots who earn more and compete against my airline? (government bailout)

And, why should I pay to keep their pensions afloat when I have no such deal?

I truly hope United can pull itself out of trouble - just don't look at my wallet for the solution.
 
Flash said:
"By now, shouldn't the price be that United do the decent thing and disappear, vanish into the night, so the industry can begin to work off the problem of too many companies chasing too few passengers?"

If UAL went under, 10 new airlines would want to start up with new swingin dick CEO's that would show everyone how it's done. In no time the seat capacity would exceed what UAL had vacated and we'd be back in the same situation again.

And only one would make it.

I really don't see this happening.
 
westward said:
I say let United go on as long as possible - just not with my money.

Why should I help pay pilots who earn more and compete against my airline? (government bailout)

And, why should I pay to keep their pensions afloat when I have no such deal?

I truly hope United can pull itself out of trouble - just don't look at my wallet for the solution.

You do realize that UAL paid the Feds ERSA insurance on the pensions all those years...right? Just like your auto insurance, the premiums don't cover the payout, but - it's NOT a FREE ride. It's a government insurance program.

Interesting how that ATSB LOAN guarantee doesn't look like such a bad option for the feds in hindsight, huh? What a concept, actually help an airline that was directly impacted on 9/11. No instead, let's fund AWA or USAir - classic Washington DC.

The pilots you THINK your paying are retired, not one of them will compete against your airline. Also, the pensions are no longer afloat...they were canceled. the UAL retirees will take an insurance payment from the Fed. in lieu of the DB from UAL.

9 billion is a lot of money, but it pales next to the 300+ billion the war in Iraq is costing...another government bailout of a failed country. Let's hear your outrage there big guy.
 
ironwedge said:
9 billion is a lot of money, but it pales next to the 300+ billion the war in Iraq is costing...another government bailout of a failed country. Let's hear your outrage there big guy.

Your greed has blinded you my fellow aviator.

Fair would be for every dollar that UAL receives then every other Major/Legacy carrier would receive. Thats called a level playing field.

9/11 didn't create this problem. It just accelerated the inevitable.
 
I am amazed at some of the basic facts the author of this article has wrong. For example, the status of what he calls a federal loan bailout.


Westward, I'm curious about 2 things:

What are you referring to when you mention a government bailout?

How are you paying for their pensions? If you are donating money to
some retired pilots, God bless you.
 
Does the United Airlines' Pension Plans' Termination Increase the PBGC Deficit?
Thursday May 12, 6:47 pm ET




There Is Little Impact (on PBGC increased deficit) Actuaries' Fact Sheet Explains

WASHINGTON, May 12 /PRNewswire/ -- A fact sheet released today by the American Academy of Actuaries explains how the termination of United Airlines' (UAL) pension plans as part of its bankruptcy proceedings will impact the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the federal agency that insures defined benefit pension plans. Contrary to some reports in the media, the termination of UAL's pension plans will likely not increase the PBGC's projected deficit, and may even help to reduce it.

"The PBGC already included United Airlines' pension plans as a 'probable termination' in its 2004 annual report. That means the termination of the plans will have no appreciable impact on the PBGC's deficit," said Ron Gebhardtsbauer, senior pension fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries. "In fact, the $1.5 billion in securities the PBGC may receive as part of the termination agreement could help to reduce the PBGC's deficit."

According to the PBGC's 2004 annual report, it had a $23.3 billion deficit, which included $16.9 billion for probable terminations. "The PBGC had the foresight to include the liabilities it has assumed from United Airlines' pension plans in its deficit projections," said Gebhardtsbauer.

The Academy has proposed a series of legislative and regulatory reforms to strengthen the defined benefit pension system. For further information go to the Academy website at http://www.actuary.org.

The American Academy of Actuaries is the nonpartisan public policy organization for the U.S. actuarial profession. The Academy provides independent analysis to elected officials and regulators, maintains professional standards for all actuaries, and communicates the value of actuarial work to the media and the public.

The following is the fact sheet on PBGC and United Airlines:


PBGC and United Airlines

How does United's termination affect the PBGC deficit?
The American Academy of Actuaries(1) Pension Practice Council provides this educational fact sheet to discuss recent statements regarding the termination of United Airlines' pension plans and the impact that termination will have on the financial situation of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC).

******************
On May 10, a bankruptcy judge approved United Airlines' request to terminate its pension plans. The PBGC will take over the UAL pension plans. In return, the PBGC may receive up to approximately $1.5 billion in securities for the reorganized airline.

United's total unfunded accrued benefits: $9.8 billion

United's unfunded guaranteed benefits: $6.6 billion

The PBGC does not take on the total amount of unfunded accrued benefits, which in United's case is $9.8 billion. It will not pay the $3.2 billion in nonguaranteed benefits, which consists of certain benefits above the maximum guaranteed and recent benefit improvements that have not be fully phased-in. The maximum guaranteed benefit for plans terminated in 2005 is $3801.14 per month (or $45,613.68 per year) for a worker retiring at age 65. There is a lower guarantee for those individuals who retire early or if there is a benefit for a survivor.

Total unfunded accrued benefits: $ 9.8 billion
Non-guaranteed benefits: - $ 3.2 billion
-------------
Unfunded guaranteed benefits: $ 6.6 billion
PBGC's deficit according to their 2004 Annual Report was $23.3 billion, which included United's plans

The PBGC includes, in their deficit, certain probable terminations (i.e., companies for which PBGC anticipates taking over pension plans in the near future). In its 2004 annual report, the PBGC included $16.9 billion for certain probable terminations, which included United Airlines' unfunded guaranteed benefits. Therefore, despite some reports to the contrary, PBGC's deficit does not increase with United's termination. In fact, the $1.5 billion in securities from UAL could decrease the PBGC deficit.

1. The American Academy of Actuaries is the public policy organization for actuaries of all specialties within the United States. In addition to setting qualification standards and standards of actuarial practice, a major purpose of the Academy is to act as the public information organization for the profession. The Academy is nonpartisan and assists the public policy process through the presentation of clear, objective analysis. The Academy regularly prepares testimony for Congress, provides information to federal elected officials and congressional staff, comments on proposed federal regulations, and works closely with state officials on issues related to insurance
 
The problem with the above post is that it assumes that United will be the only carrier to dump their pension problems on the PBGC.
 
What UAL's mgmt has done over the last 20 yrs has been nothing short of criminal. They could have chosen to properly fund their pensions, but instead used it as a company float/slush fund to prop up the airline as it sagged deeper and deeper in debt. All the while mgmt knew they could potentially raise the bk flag and maybe put the pensions on the PBGC. Many of the other big 6's airlines mgmts are guilty of this too. Nothing better than Enron airline style IMHO. These companies have made promises to their employees and retirees and if they cant meet their obligations to either, its should be time for a fire sale, not a govt bailout. Every time I see one of those 60 sec animated natl ads it makes my blood boil to think Im having to foot the bill for their mgmts crimes.
 
Every time I see one of those 60 sec animated natl ads it makes my blood boil to think Im having to foot the bill for their mgmts crimes.

zkmayo, how are you footing the bill? Are you talking about the money the PBGC will use to make pension payments? Do you know where that money comes from?
 
"The PBGC already included United Airlines' pension plans as a 'probable termination' in its 2004 annual report. That means the termination of the plans will have no appreciable impact on the PBGC's deficit"

So, compared to say, 2002, or 2003 numbers, will the United debacle make much of an impact to the PBGC numbers?
 
So it takes less than four years to forget that terrorists slammed two of UAL's 757s into the ground? What airline can reasonably sustain that? Pan Am couldn't in Lockerbie, TWA couldn't do it out of JFK (not terrorism, just a catastrophic loss, nonetheless).

No need to pile on, these guys are in enough trouble. Go pick on AMTRAK or kick a puppie or something.
 
TAZ MAN said:
Your greed has blinded you my fellow aviator.

Fair would be for every dollar that UAL receives then every other Major/Legacy carrier would receive. That's called a level playing field.

9/11 didn't create this problem. It just accelerated the inevitable.

Exactly. Just like the level playing field that awarded ATSB loan guarantees. Everyone wants to forget that in the wake of September 11th, many airlines received ATSB loan guarantees, except the ones that were DIRECTLY affected by the terrorist acts.

The government refused to guarantee a 1.5 billion COMMERCIAL loan guarantee (which would have cost taxpayers nothing, unless UAL defaulted) but now the taxpayers are stuck with the 1.5 billion bailout through the PBGC. Excellent foresight on the government's part.

Sad to see, but now that I'm purple and orange, I don't have as vested of an interest.

Papa
 
Do the math

I'm not quite buying the argument that since the gov't didn't give UAL a $1.5 B loan guarantee we are now stuck with the PBGC bill instead. The way I see it, $1.5 B would have simply bought time for UAL. By "time" I mean about what, six months at the rate they are incinerating capital? Ultimately, they would have defaulted on the loan anyway, just like they've defaulted on everything since, and poof, it's on the taxpayers dime AGAIN.

I'd rather see them take the PBGC's money for now. At least only airline passengers pay that bill. HOWEVER, when the PBGC becomes insolvent, which they will as soon as all the other legacies play the "precedant" card, THEN the taxpayers will be paying for it.
 
skykid said:
zkmayo, how are you footing the bill? Are you talking about the money the PBGC will use to make pension payments? Do you know where that money comes from?

I realize PBGC is not funded directly with taxpayer money. But there is a high probability that this agency, already on shaky financial grounds, could go into default esp when/if other airlines attempt to dump their pensions in an attempt to remain competitive. And when/if that happens, you, me and your neighbor will all be footing the bill since, afterall, ultimately it is a govt agency. It just bothers me that with UAL's pension default being the largest in history, the stage is being set for this to happen.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top