Help Our UAL Friends

Blanche wrote:
Let's remember that the majority of those who are losing in the
UAL pension debacle are NOT the senior pilots. They are the
mechanics, the flight attendants (who NEVER joined into the
"employee owned" mantra), the gate people, baggage handlers,
the admin staff (usually not union), and so on.

It's not quite that simple. The PBGC will not guarantee over ~$50k/year
in pension payments, and it's mostly pilots who are getting payments
above that range. There is pain being distributed throughout the
organization, but the mechanics, FAs, etc are losing proportionately a
lot less than the upper-tier pilots.

Also, I read somewhere that around 1/3 of UAL's pension funds were
non-guaranteed funds (meaning UAL opted to not pay to insure them
through PBGC) which is a pretty high percentage. This was not a secret
nor were the under-fundings that had been going on for years. Frankly,
UAL's unions were so uniquely obnoxious that I can't excuse them from
culpability for all this. That place was a roaring party when times
were good but hangovers are a bitch.

-cwk.

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

(The same airlines that argue -- correctly --- that they are subsidizing
GA).


Huh??? If that's true, lets reduce some costs NOW. First, get rid of
class A airspace. We don't need that, just make it class E all the way
up; two controllers for the entire U.S. should cover it. Get rid of
class B and class C airports. Close some and make others class D
(getting rid of a dozen approach controllers each). Next, shorten all
runways to 6,000 feet or less and sell off the extra land. Reduce the
number of parking spots (land cost) of all airports to no more than 100
spaces and sell off land. Gee, we can take most of the cost out and we
won't even feel it!! You can pretty much fire all clearance delivery
and ground controllers as well. We could get along just fine without
them too we don't have enough IFR traffic that we couldn't just use
tower to issue clearances.

-Robert

The problem is the actuarial
assumptions haven't been coming true especially the estimates on
investments of the pension f

Many of those assumptions were used by the unions to argue for their
massive benefits program. Supply and Demand work wonderfully. Putting a
union in there messes with that (almost by definition). W/O the union,
the airlines would have paid exactly what was necessary to get the
quality of employees they needed, and no more.

-Robert

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

Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors)
decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are
execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company
are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a
high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the
company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the
owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
**NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
some communist countries out there for you to choose from.

-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

In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

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

Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors)
decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are
execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company
are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a
high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the
company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the
owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
**NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
some communist countries out there for you to choose from.

-Robert

I'm not so sure that execs are that rare -- so many of them screw up so
many times and, then go off to other companies and ruin them, too.

The boards of directors appear to have an incestuous relationship with
each other and with other companies, allowing the above phenomenon.

Case in point: TWA cancelled the NY-Frankfort run because "the load
factor showed no increase." Fact is, the load factor was 100% and could
not increase!

What company needs 17 levels of vice president, including "vice
president of wines and cheeses?"

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
[snip]
Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?

The owners of the company have to decide how much they are willing to pay
them. What the
owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
**NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
some communist countries out there for you to choose from.


You and I see a different America. Not so much Red and Blue, but rather the
Gilded Age (with an occasional Homestead Mill thrown in) vs. the stabilizing
force of a strong middle class ...1935-1985.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegi...mh_horror.html

Al Checchi took over 1 Billion (with a B) dollars out of NWA when he left -
clearly his hand picked Board of Directors was on the ball with that one -
returning value to investors and all. Checchi left when NWA was in the mid
$70's. Then it slid to the $50's, $40's, then $20's, (9/11) in the $teens,
then $7, then $2 ....then zip.


Montblack
The Copper Bosses killed you Joe,
they shot you Joe" says I.
Takes more than guns to kill a man
Says Joe "I didn't die"
Says Joe "I didn't die"

I'm not so sure that execs are that rare -- so many of them screw up so
many times and, then go off to other companies and ruin them, too.

Same can be said about quarterbacks. In the end the board must decide
they are worth the money.

The boards of directors appear to have an incestuous relationship with
each other and with other companies, allowing the above phenomenon.

The board are elected by the owners. If the board is not acting in the
best interest of the owners they should be voted off (and actually can
face large civil penalties). Companies are mostly owned by mutual fund
managers and portfolio companies. Those managers are paid SOLEY on the
return the portfolio they put together returns. There is no room for
"friends". I'm not going to keep my money in a fund that isn't
performing.

-Robert