View Single Post
Old 11-18-2009 | 01:33 PM
  #18237  
acl65pilot's Avatar
acl65pilot
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

Originally Posted by slowplay
You write about things that you were not here for and through those writings you show you know nothing about them.

The ALPA Claim had nothing to do with the pension. If the pension had been preserved, the Claim would have still been paid. The number was the same. You weren't a Delta pilot when it was paid out.

The pension was grossly underfunded (about 38% at termination) and according to PBGC will cost them $900 million of their money. It will cost the plan participants (the guys who were actually here and had real losses) a lot more than that.

The pension was terminated because it met the standards for termination. A qualified ERISA benefit cannot be negotiated away. Your assertion is insulting to those that worked so hard to make sure you had a company to come to work for.

Oh, and the JCBA tightened small jet scope. You know that. If you added up the total number of NWA and DAL permitted aircraft, it was far greater than the 255 limit.

So please, how about sticking to facts. All these facts have been clearly presented in official Court and ALPA publications.

Now back to your regularly scheduled "I want more" Latest and Greatest...
My god slow the whole post was generalizations. I know the difference. But thank you for pointing them out.

As for the pension, at termination yes, because all of the early outs. A longer payout period for the company would have solved that. I am not going to start splitting hairs on this crud. You just pick and choose what to respond to.

You wanted some to the point stuff for the JAL JV and I gave it. How about, wow ACL those are some good ideas instead of the normal managing of expectations, or as you like to call it interjecting fact!