Help Our UAL Friends

Is your proposal to not allow the airline to get out of its pension
obligation and instead just disolve under its financial obligations?
What is the difference to the retired? Either way, the feds have to
take over the pension fund and the retired get less. Letting the
airline go out of business doesn't change anything. Maybe you should
point the finger at the unions that created an unrealistic pension to
begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount airlines
ate their shorts.

It seems like your proposal not only kills the pension but also the
investors (most of which are retirement funds). If you work towards a
structured retirement you know that its only as good as the company
itself. No one would have an expectation otherwise. My current
employeer has a structures retirement program and we're fighting to
kill it. Once it goes away the IRS will let us make real contributions
to personal IRAs.

-Robert

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
[snip]
Maybe you should point the finger at the unions that created an
unrealistic pension to
begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount airlines
ate their shorts.


Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not
related to pension costs.

Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?


Montblack

What bad management decisions? Airline management has about three basic
decisions - planes to fly, routes to fly, and how much to pay their
employees. The legacy carriers are paying about 2 cents per seat per
mile more for labor than the discount airlines. Some of that difference
is pension costs.

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
[snip]
Maybe you should point the finger at the unions that created an
unrealistic pension to
begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount
airlines ate their shorts.


Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions
not related to pension costs.

Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation
packages?


Montblack

("sfb" wrote)
What bad management decisions? Airline management has about three basic
decisions - planes to fly, routes to fly, and how much to pay their
employees. The legacy carriers are paying about 2 cents per seat per mile
more for labor than the discount airlines. Some of that difference is
pension costs.


Is this out of 37 cents per seat mile or 5 cents per seat mile? Curious.

Is it 3% more or 28% more?

To the larger point: Management, itself, is one of those "basic" decisions -
what type of management will we be? It snowballs from there...

Pension funds, fuel prices, gate fees, lawsuits, rising interest rates,
health care costs, advertising, weather on the east coast g, changing
travel habits, Internet integration, oil hedge funds, stock prices, logos
....I'd say (a good) management had better be able to juggle them ALL.

Heck, I can juggle just three balls at once.


Montblack

Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not
related to pension costs

I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against
the discouts, the reason makes no difference. If management is good,
employees don't mind enjoying the benefits of that, if management is
bad you have to accept it. Remeber that the purpose of a company IS NOT
to provide employement to people. People work for a company for as long
as it benefits the company. If you don't like that, seek out a
socialist place to lay your head.


BTW: The reason UAL filed bankruptcy was to avoid having to make their
next massive payment to the pension fund. No one would argue that
without the pension/benefits program of an "old school" airline UAL
woudln't be in the situation it is in now.
-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions
not
related to pension costs

I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against
the discouts, the reason makes no difference. If management is good,
employees don't mind enjoying the benefits of that, if management is
bad you have to accept it. Remeber that the purpose of a company IS NOT
to provide employement to people. People work for a company for as long
as it benefits the company. If you don't like that, seek out a
socialist place to lay your head.

People forget the only reason a company is in business is to make money. The
only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If
your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will
get rid of the company.
If the company stock is traded publicly the only real concern is that it
makes the stock holders money.

BTW: The reason UAL filed bankruptcy was to avoid having to make their
next massive payment to the pension fund. No one would argue that
without the pension/benefits program of an "old school" airline UAL
woudln't be in the situation it is in now.
-Robert

The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If
your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will
get rid of the company.

It's such a beautiful law of nature. However, unions alter it and can
only result in a less than perfect outcome. Companies make money by
retaining (i.e. compensating) the best people and getting rid of the
dead weight. Unions are the equalizers and prevent the best employees
from getting their share so the dead weight can be carried. When they
increase the pay above what the company needs to pay to get the people
they need, they create a shortage of employment (i.e. a surplus of
applicants). So you have people who want to work for the company but
can't because there is a waiting list and the normal supply/demand of
the employment market have been broken.

-Robert

On 20 Sep 2005 11:24:48 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If
your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will
get rid of the company.

It's such a beautiful law of nature. However, unions alter it and can
only result in a less than perfect outcome. Companies make money by
retaining (i.e. compensating) the best people and getting rid of the
dead weight. Unions are the equalizers and prevent the best employees
from getting their share so the dead weight can be carried. When they
increase the pay above what the company needs to pay to get the people
they need, they create a shortage of employment (i.e. a surplus of
applicants). So you have people who want to work for the company but
can't because there is a waiting list and the normal supply/demand of
the employment market have been broken.

-Robert

Spewing ignorance such as the above is the same as saying every
republican is a conservative money grubbing scumbag and every democrat
a liberal faggot. Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors. SWA has a union. They're making money! Why? Can't it be
done? How did we ever exist for 100 years with those damn unions?

"Jon A" wrote in message
...

Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?

In article , Jon A
wrote:

Unions are there to protect the working class

true.

What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule