You LPC's must be proud....

[T-Bags]

It's not enough that these yahoo's don't have pensions, they don't want anyone else to have them either. You guys must be proud, your employers are trying to destroy Airline DB plans for everybody. Wouldn't it be nice if you offered them and were in on the legislation?



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040308-596159,00.html

 

[46Driver]

The general perception is: why should my tax dollars go to fund your pension?

 

[T-Bags]

The general perception is: why should my tax dollars go to fund your pension?

The majors DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE PENSIONS, they want to fund them. The LPC's are the ones that would prefer the government take over the plans (at a considerable cost to the tax payer.

The diff between what a UAL, DAL, AMR, NWA pilot paid in taxes over the pilots of the LPC's mentioned, MORE than makes up for ANY potential cost. By your argument, the legacy carrier pilots should be about sick and tired of you flying into the airports they funded and driving on the roads they paid for....

 

[Skank]

Welcome the real world. It's Capitalism, in case you weren't paying attention.

 

[320AV8R]

This has nothing to do with the Government funding any pension plan.

Federal law requires the Pension plans to be funded to a certain level (about 85%). The funds have fallen below that, due to the economic slump and the fall in the Stock Market. A fund that was at 89% could now be at 77%, just due to the economics factors above. The Major airlines are asking for permission to bring the funds back to the required level over a period of time, instead of immediately. The only time money is taken out of the fund is when a pilot retires, so the airlines don't need 100% of the fund to be funded, only enough to cover retirements.

The only time the Governement gets involved, is when the PBGC takes over the fund. That happens when the airline files CH 11 & has the retirement funds TAKEN AWAY by the court; like at USAir.

NWA solved this problem by filling the pilot fund with Pinnacle Airline stock, doing an IPO, and generating enough $$$ to get the fund above the required level. It's funded until 2005, or 2006, depending on the Stock Market.

The Lobbyist for the 5 airlines is an uninformed Tool. The airlines are not asking for any Government money, only a time extention.

 

[46Driver]

Well, as I said earlier, that was the perception. Thank you for clearing that up.

The result of changing this federal law is that the legacy carriers will have more money to fight LCC's? In other words, the carrier only has a finite amount of money and can either use it to pay pensions or compete in the industry? No wonder the executives at the LCC's are wanting the government to enforce federal law.

 

[doh]

What the government needs to do is get out of the business of taking over defunct pension plans! Airlines, among others should be free to fund the plans as needed and the union should be free to negotiate to have them funded in a mutually acceptable way. ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) should be repealed. It has been called Every Rotten Idea Since Adam, and that's pretty true. The problem is once the government gets its mits on something they never let go!

 

[PSL]

320AV8R:

I agree with your view, in so far as the big six are not asking for funds, they are asking for time.

That time extension was requested with the hope that the market (and the revenue side of the operatioin) will increase in value sufficient to meet the funding requirements.

But, the granting of an extension, can not be argued to be a equal benefit afforded to the industry. It is a targeted benefit afforded to those companies having DB plans that are underfunded. Since the signature airlines do not offer those plans, they are in effect, being excluded from a governmental benefit.

Whereas the temporary tax relief was not restricted and applicable to all FAR 121 carriers, this legislation does relieve the Big 6 of a cash funding requirement.

And that ... plain is simple is result of the legislation from the point of view of the 'other airlines'. It is anti-competitive.

To be fair, you should also know that the Big 6 were part of the same 'lobbying effort' to have a segment tax instituted that was targeted at point to point carriers. It comes as no surprise that the 'other airlines' are unwilling to extend any olive branches after that type of agenda on the part of the Big 6.

Now, if you want to argue the point of whether the signature airlines should have a DB plan, that is a completely different debate. I tend to agree with you, that the LCC pilot groups need to move in that direction. But, there is considerable and overwhelming opposition to that idea at my carrier.

 

[UFO]

The only time the Governement gets involved, is when the PBGC takes over the fund. That happens when the airline files CH 11 & has the retirement funds TAKEN AWAY by the court; like at USAir. (320AV8R)


Truth is the BK judge did not actually take away the pilot pension at USair. He declared that the underfunding would have to be resolved, and the USair pilot MEC handed over the pension without so much as a membership vote

 

[320AV8R]

Now, if you want to argue the point of whether the signature airlines should have a DB plan, that is a completely different debate. I tend to agree with you, that the LCC pilot groups need to move in that direction. But, there is considerable and overwhelming opposition to that idea at my carrier. [/QUOTE]

Scott-

I said nothing about you guys changing retirement plans. I was just stating that it was a TIME issue, not a GOVERNMENT FUNDING issue.

The main problem, though, is that the Majors & LCCs have 2 different retirement plans. I can see how the LCCs think this is "unfair", & the Majors think it's "fair"; as there are 2 sides to every issue. It's just more political BS, something the high-priced lawyers will get to argue about

 

[Skank]

{Scott-

I said nothing about you guys changing retirement plans. I was just stating that it was a TIME issue, not a GOVERNMENT FUNDING issue.

The main problem, though, is that the Majors & LCCs have 2 different retirement plans. I can see how the LCCs think this is "unfair", & the Majors think it's "fair"; as there are 2 sides to every issue. It's just more political BS, something the high-priced lawyers will get to argue about.}


Ok, this seems like a fair statement.

BTW: I thought LPC was an acronymn for "Leather Personnel Carrier."

 

[skykid]

The author says airlines refrain from critcizing each other in public. Where has she been? Another example of the media doing the least amount of thinking/research/work possible. The 'big 6' lobbied against each other in front of the ATSB. Gordon Bethune, in an attempt to drive passengers off United called the airline "HIV positve." LCC mgt and legacy mgt have been exchanging shots in the media for years.

 

[Ty Webb]

The post that was originally here was removed by UAL78.


Apparently, it hit a little too close to home for him to handle.

There wasn't even any foul language in it . . . the worst thing in it was a 3-letter word that refers to the part of the anatomy that most of us are sitting on right now. Pretty tame stuff by any measure.

UAL78- to remove my post was wrong, and to lock me out of this website after 6 years simply because I made some pretty cogent observations about your company was inexcusable.

If you can't handle a little heat, maybe it's time to get out of the galley.

 

[crashpad]

Skykid is 100% correct, and considering the source of this article it's no wonder. I wish posters would refrain from using Time and CNN.

...Oh, and TY WEBB is 200% CORRECT!!!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

right on TY.

If you can't make it, go out of business.

People WILL find another way to get where they are going.

No more taxpayer burden supporting a failed airline. Spin it how you want, it costs us money!!

Dont get me wrong, I am not for guys losing thier jobs (thats NOT this arguement) .....we are just sick of failing businesses blaming gvt' regulation, 9/11, etc...for thier miserable and horribly outdated business model overseen by bloated management retards.

Adapt quick or die.

 

[T-Bags]

Ty,
For the record, I didn't "blame" the pilots, I merely pointed out how proud you guys must be of your managements actions. You guys are always the first to squawk about how the bigs shouldn't worry about you, it's your company and business if you want low pay and bene's, yet now we see the LPC's launch an attack on the benefits of OTHER companies.

I also stand by my statement concerning pensions and will clarify it by saying "no DB pensions". In actuality, I don't think it's their business. If you want a "perk", qualify for it.

The rules that were set up to "help" pensions are destroying them. For example, if the airlines (and their pensions) were merely left alone, then assuming a 60% funding rate, the pilots would STILL be significantly better off than if the government takes over. The airlines WANT the government to stay out, not the other way. Would you be happy if the goivernment dictated AT have a certain type of pension and stipulte all the funding requirements? Shouldn't the unions be allowed to "opt out" of the federal insurance? It's THEIR pension, not the FED's. Wouldn't that save poor Ty from "supporting our pensions" (of course those evil UAL pilots are putting a he!! of a lot more into your moms SS than you are...). The LPC's see an op to force the bigs to contribute huge sums of capital this year into the pension needlessly. This is yet another case of "be careful what you wish for" since "terminating" the DB plans at the majors WOULD truely level the playing field, and I don't think they'd like the result....

 

[T-Bags]

"Secondly we have something else- an employer with a busines plan that actually results in profits. That in itself does more for my retirement than some pie-in-the-sky promised to you by that bunch of monkeys running UAL into the ground."

How many profitable years?

"Your beloved airline is trying to et the government to back a $2 billion losing proposition, that will eventually have to be paid by taxpayers,"

In your opinion, correct? And for the record, you figure is incorrect. The loan guarentee would only be for 1.6 billion, with covenants that would prevent a "total loss" in any case, including the government being "first in line" at any future BK. Of course you'd rather the government pay more in unemployment insurance and lose the more than 2 billion per year in taxes paid by UAL employees, and better than 2 billion the airline pays in taxes and fees (often subsidizing the LPC's...) per year.

"Try blaming those reposnsible- your idiotic management team, a bunch of ignorant, sex-deprived camel $%#%'ers and a changing world in which air travel is a commodity."

Lets see, the management team is gone, UAL, DAL, NWA, AMR and CAL are in fact all contributing directly to the demise of those camel fornicators (as am I, BTW, how many missions have ANY of the mentioned LPC's contributed to the defense of the nation and the INDUSTRY), and the bigs ARE coming to the realizations that the class has been taken out of flying, thank you....

 

[T-Bags]

"Your beloved airline is trying to et the government to back a $2 billion losing proposition, that will eventually have to be paid by taxpayers, yet you have the gall to castigate the pilots of LCC's for things that their executive management team is lobbying for?"

You mentioned a good point, I didn't touch on. Of the 5 LPC signatory airlines, THREE applied for ATSB help and two recieved low interest govenment loans. But largess is ok if it limited to an LPC huh?!

 

[skykid]

Ty, I don't think you have taken notice to the changes in UAL mgt. This company went through several years with almost no leadership, that is correct. The guy in charge now is an industry outsider who resisted the mistake of cleaning house in the first couple of weeks. He has now methodically done so. Whether or not the plan is a losing proposition or not remains to be seen, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I wonder why your mgt would even bother lobbying if failure is so certain anyway?

Gulfstream 200 - adapt or die is 100% correct. People are going to find other ways of getting where they are going, and more start-ups are going to find ways to undercut even what is the norm today. I can't wait to see what Virgin USA is going to pay their guys, and there will be thousands lined up for the jobs. You can only get away with paying other airline employees so little and eventually no one will do the job. But I submit you could still find plenty of pilots to fly airbuses a lot cheaper than the LCCs, and get huge cost advantages from it. Watch a couple legacy carriers go out of business, and we are going to see the union influence weaken as well. I'm not a big union guy as you can tell by previous posts, but I know who is the first, best, and last line of defense against foriegn ownership and workers entering this market. Interesting times.

 

[T-Bags]

"No more taxpayer burden supporting a failed airline. Spin it how you want, it costs us money!!"


G200,
So far, the government has made a significant amount of money on the ATSB loans, and they don't come free.

FWIW, UAL and it's employees have already lost much more from our governments failure than the government stands to lose from a UAL failure, spin it how you like.