Help Our UAL Friends

Carl Ellis wrote:
Closing the door after the cow leaves, but ...

The government needs to throw the *******s who underfunded the pension plan
in prison. After that, no executive will consider letting a plan get in
that position.

Sounds like you are talking about the unions. The unions struck in
order to get this pension that UAL couldn't afford. However, you don't
know if it was underfunded BEFORE or AFTER the discount carriers ate
their lunch.

-Robert

Sounds like you are talking about the unions. The unions struck in
order to get this pension that UAL couldn't afford. However, you don't
know if it was underfunded BEFORE or AFTER the discount carriers ate
their lunch.


It's a pretty safe bet that it was underfunded well before. There not many
companies that fully fund the pensions - simply because they don't have to.

An intersting note is that company executives usually don't get personally
bit by the pension disasters. Their plans are often seperately and fully
funded.

By law a pension fund can't be underfunded. The problem is the actuarial
assumptions haven't been coming true especially the estimates on
investments of the pension fund.

The airlines are just the tip of the iceberg. There many local and state
government pension funds are also underfunded. You might be able to sell
some airplanes to fund the pensions, but who wants to buy a school?

"Carl Ellis" wrote in message
...

Sounds like you are talking about the unions. The unions struck in
order to get this pension that UAL couldn't afford. However, you
don't
know if it was underfunded BEFORE or AFTER the discount carriers ate
their lunch.


It's a pretty safe bet that it was underfunded well before. There not
many
companies that fully fund the pensions - simply because they don't
have to.

An intersting note is that company executives usually don't get
personally
bit by the pension disasters. Their plans are often seperately and
fully
funded.

"Morgans" wrote in message I think that the time has come and past, where
companies can so easily dodge
a pension plan's obligations. There should be laws passed to protect all
pension plans, by holding them in trust, or whatever means are necessary.
Allowing them to dodge them is, IMHO, a breach of contract.

There ARE laws in place. And there are a few Congress critters who exercise
intelligence of a higher order. A couple of them wrote guidelines for
'defined contribution plans (401k)'. Most workers with defined benefit plans
scoffed at 401k plans, but 401Ks aren't looking so bad now. Which plan do
the profitable carriers offer?

D.

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.

On 19 Sep 2005 16:13:16 -0700, wrote:


One word - Southwest!

I saw a news article linked from AvWeb earlier today that said that SWA
had over the past five years gone way out on a limb buying hedged fuel
contracts, such that their fuel price was equivalent to $25/bbl oil.
Same old, same old problem: the airlines are too big to fail. No
smaller business could f--- up this bad and stay out of Chapter 7...

Is buying futures on fuel a risk? Sure! Is it good business? Sure!
Is this what managers are supposed to do for the money they knock
down? Sure! I'm positive that SWA has their share of prick moments,
but they seem to be making money, don't they?

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("sfb" wrote)
I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
financial reporting by a public company.


25% of this country's economic problems can be directly traced back to the
SEC and their inability to come up with clear accounting rules - and then
enforce them in any meaningful way. [Cite? Me]

Agreed on point A: Pensions should be off limits to Lee Iacocca CEO types.
Over funded
my ass -- for today maybe. How about in 12 years? Oops, a turn around in
the
numbers? "Congress" (meaning you$$ you$$ you$$ and you$$) ..."help!!"


Montblack


The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund the plan
to provide for those benefits. Overfunding belongs to the Company.

Mike
MU-2

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" downed another beer, wet the bed
and scribbled:

I assume your impassioned cry also extends to Enron employees, and will
extend to the Ford and GM employees if their pension/financial cause a
Chapter 11 filing. I assume you want taxpayer bailouts for all bankruptcy
filings, right, or just for the commercial airlines?

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

WRONG! Ga happens to use a system designed to the airlines' specs -- it
was never designed for GA in the first place.

GA does not need Class B/C airspace (nor even a lot of Class D, for that
matter). We don't need 8 ft thick, 10,000 ft long runways; we don't
need baggage handling equipment; we don't need the security arrangements
that airlines require.

Once again, "Skyloser" strikes out!

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund the plan
to provide for those benefits. Overfunding belongs to the Company.


Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
projections.


Montblack

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

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


Please explain how airlines subsidize GA.