Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
I'll let slow take a breather. He's got real work to do. A longer payout may or may not have saved the pension, because of the lump sum feature. Furthermore, a longer payout wasn't a legally permissible option until Congressional legislation approved it, and our plan was terminated before it could take advantage of that. And there wasn't a thing ALPA could have done to prevent that.
BTW, the DAL pilot DB set the record as far as I know for the lowest funded plan on record, the ONLY plan that I'm aware of that went into liquidity shortfall because the fund balance was dropping so fast, and one of the largest plans to EVER fail. To say that ALPA gave it away is complete BS.
Now, back to your regularly schedule ALPA bashing....
This is not ALPA bashing but thanks for playing!
I am pro ALPA and the process, what I am not for is managing expectations. It is not good that expectations are getting managed prior to anything being signed. It should be the input phase in the process. I am giving input since I am not in office! If I was I would be writing every suggestion I hear or read down. I also would like to see a more transparent process.
IMHO JJ has it right. The more transparent the less of a chance you have for a DFR issue because they could have provided input though out the entire transparent process.