Interesting perspective on PBGC!
02-09-2012, 06:42 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by lsl80
The A plan is has been held hostage by AA since shortly after my arrival at AA. Having worked for airlines with both a defined benefit and a defined contribution, imo, the defined contribution plan outside company control after the contribution is made, is by far a better deal.
I realize the rules have changed since 2007, but AMR has not. The A plan, if saved, will always be held over our heads in any future contract. It is time to move on to the more important battles. Scope, furlough mitigation, work rules etc are more important now.
Again only my opinion and I have been wrong many times before.
I realize the rules have changed since 2007, but AMR has not. The A plan, if saved, will always be held over our heads in any future contract. It is time to move on to the more important battles. Scope, furlough mitigation, work rules etc are more important now.
Again only my opinion and I have been wrong many times before.
It's much more difficult than you think. For the vast majority of pilots actively flying for AA, freezing the pension at current levels would be beneficial.
02-09-2012, 06:45 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by eaglefly
I'm not against freezing (saving) the A-plan, just expending negotiating capital for it. I'm more interested in tangible items les likely to be manipulated or degraded by others over time in the future.
In the NWA case, those with frozen pensions agreed to give up their DC portion. Those portions were "reallocated" to further beef up the DC contributions to the younger crowd.
02-10-2012, 08:18 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: non acceptus excretus
Posts: 561
The frozen A plan left over from NWA has also allowed some age 60 pilots to retire where otherwise they would need to work to 65 to make up for the loss of retirement income. If you terminate the A plan virtually every pilot will go all the way to 65 and from your posts I can tell that you need to move up.Moving up will be delayed by 5 additional years if the Aplan is terminated....And at the 17 year paydown schedule the out of pocket cost to AMR will be low enough that it really doesn't give them that much leverage. The alternative costs is a vastly higher dollar value dc that give the pilot significant leverage in this matter.
02-12-2012, 05:36 AM
#24
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 43
Ball Breaker, Molon Labe,
I agree with both of you. My comment about future negotiations and the A plan was vague. It is difficult for AA to change or dump the A plan outside of bk. It is not difficult to claim they need relief in other parts of the contract to "save" the plan. Our 2003 contract is proof of this.
There is no doubt an A plan freeze would be the best for all.
I "need" to move up as much as any pilot does. I have been a Capt on 12 year pay for better than 10 years and am much more concerned about scope and work rules than the A plan. I learned a long time ago the only retirement $ that can be relied on are the $ in a personal IRA and 401k. Furlough mitigation is big in my mind too, not because of me being on the street, but because it is the right thing to do for co-workers that have been on the street for too long and gave up decent jobs to come back to AA.
As far as age 65 goes, AA pilots that could retire did so in big numbers in the late summer and early fall. IMO, pilots still here will probabally stay beyond age 60 for the crew meals and expense money.
I agree with both of you. My comment about future negotiations and the A plan was vague. It is difficult for AA to change or dump the A plan outside of bk. It is not difficult to claim they need relief in other parts of the contract to "save" the plan. Our 2003 contract is proof of this.
There is no doubt an A plan freeze would be the best for all.
I "need" to move up as much as any pilot does. I have been a Capt on 12 year pay for better than 10 years and am much more concerned about scope and work rules than the A plan. I learned a long time ago the only retirement $ that can be relied on are the $ in a personal IRA and 401k. Furlough mitigation is big in my mind too, not because of me being on the street, but because it is the right thing to do for co-workers that have been on the street for too long and gave up decent jobs to come back to AA.
As far as age 65 goes, AA pilots that could retire did so in big numbers in the late summer and early fall. IMO, pilots still here will probabally stay beyond age 60 for the crew meals and expense money.
02-12-2012, 08:45 AM
#25
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by lsl80
As far as age 65 goes, AA pilots that could retire did so in big numbers in the late summer and early fall. IMO, pilots still here will probabally stay beyond age 60 for the crew meals and expense money.
In actual practice, virtually none of them have left. (even though many are working for very little money compared to what they could be collecing in retirement) The biggest factor is retiree medical coverage. (not crew meals
) The only ones who have gone early were as a result of an "early-out" package Delta offered. It was enough cash to cover their insurance.
Unless AA offers a similar package, count on most everyone staying to 65.
02-12-2012, 12:21 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 243
Another article on AMR pensions
Business & Technology | American Airlines' attempt to ditch pension riles feds, labor unions | Seattle Times Newspaper
Originally published February 11, 2012 at 8:00 PM | Page modified February 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM
American Airlines' attempt to ditch pension riles feds, labor unions
Now in bankruptcy proceedings, the airline wants to terminate its four pension plans for 130,000 workers and retirees and ask the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. to bail out its unfunded pension obligations to the tune of $9 billion.
By Steven Mufson
The Washington Post
American Airlines has saved $2.1 billion since 2006, thanks to two congressional measures that allowed it to reduce contributions to its pension plans. The company said it would make up any shortfall later.
Later has come, but there's been a change.
American Airlines, whose parent company filed for bankruptcy in November, said this month it wants to terminate its four pension plans for 130,000 workers and retirees and ask the federal government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. to bail out its unfunded pension obligations to the tune of $9 billion.
It would be the largest PBGC bailout ever. Without the congressional relief, the gap would have been smaller, the PBGC said.
The move, which needs approval from a New York judge, has angered the PBGC and labor unions representing American Airlines workers, in part because the airline had $4 billion in cash when it filed for bankruptcy and because it hasn't yet made any proposal for restructuring its massive debt to financial institutions.
"American and other carriers have repeatedly asked Congress to give them funding relief in the last six years. More than $2 billion was diverted from their pension funds to their bankruptcy war chest," Josh Gotbaum, director of the PBGC, said Nov. 3. "In effect, the Congress of the United States and the employees of American Airlines provided half of the money to sustain American in bankruptcy."
One of those congressional measures, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, gave airlines the flexibility to cut pension contributions for two years and spread them out in later years. PBGC analysts estimate American Airlines was able to cut its contributions by $1.1 billion in 2006 and 2007, thanks to that legislation.
Some airlines that had already gone bankrupt received even greater leeway on contributions, which then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., decried in 2006. He said it "will distort the market in a way that is unnecessary and unfair to the 10,000 American Airlines workers and retirees in Illinois. Both as a matter of retirement policy and aviation policy, this bill should not favor one airline over another."
American Airlines, and its unions, kept lobbying for additional relief. In 2007, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, led a successful effort to tack new airline relief onto a defense appropriation for the Iraq war effort. It passed 80-14.
The new bill allowed American, Continental Airlines and a few others to tweak their accounting, raising assumptions for how much money its pension funds would earn from investments to 8.25 percent a year, thus again reducing the amount the companies were required to put aside. As a result, the PBGC has calculated, American saved an additional $1 billion from 2008 through 2011.
Even in good times, that would be a high rate of return compared with rates insurance companies use in calculating annuity costs. But the economic downturn made investment returns even worse and added to the shortfall in American's pension funds.
In an emailed statement, Hutchison said that "the purpose of the 2007 legislation was to make the pension funding rules equal for all airlines and establish one standard for the airline industry. ... The protection of those contribution standards restored a fair, even playing field for all airlines and allowed carriers a better opportunity to meet their pension obligations to workers and retirees."
Michael MacMurdy, an actuary and American Airlines pilot who is chairman of the Allied Pilots Association's national pension committee, said "it's always a double-edged sword when you're talking about funding relief."
"You give them some relief for a few years and get through a tough spot and, in theory, things get better and they make up the contributions and everybody lives happily ever after," he said. "But if things don't get better, it's that much worse for the participants and that much worse for the government. The company is the one getting off the hook in that situation."
Will Ris, American Airlines senior vice president for government affairs, said the company has lost $10 billion over the past decade. During that time, it paid $3 billion to its pension funds. "If we hadn't had that relief, we would have been in the bankruptcy realm sooner," he said. "We have tried to avoid this so diligently for so long, and this is not the direction we wanted to go."
But not everyone thinks American tried diligently enough. The PBGC's Gotbaum, a former investment banker, spent two years as bankruptcy trustee for Hawaiian Airlines, ultimately restructuring the company, repaying creditors and preserving defined-benefit pensions — those that promise a retiree a certain monthly benefit.
"We know that other airlines have successfully restructured, preserved their jobs and kept their pension plans. We don't see why American can't, too," Gotbaum said. "We hope that before American takes the drastic action of terminating the pension plans covering 130,000 American employees that it tries hard to find an alternative and shows the world that there is no other alternative."
The PBGC is financed by premiums from private companies; American Airlines paid $260 million over 30 years.
The PBGC guarantees private pensions up to $55,840 a year. That covers most airline workers, but the pilots union said about 3,800 of its members would be affected by the ceiling. PBGC would cover $9 billion of American Airlines' $10 billion of unfunded pensions.
The agency has filed liens on American Airlines assets, largely offices and facilities in Latin America not protected by the bankruptcy. American paid only $6.5 million of the $100 million in pension contributions due Jan. 15, the PBGC said.
"I'm a little bitter," said James C. Little, international president of the Transport Workers Union, who had just negotiated concessions and was about to bring them to a vote of the union's 26,000 American workers. "I'm very frustrated at American's going to go to court and use the bankruptcy process to terminate the plan."
Originally published February 11, 2012 at 8:00 PM | Page modified February 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM
American Airlines' attempt to ditch pension riles feds, labor unions
Now in bankruptcy proceedings, the airline wants to terminate its four pension plans for 130,000 workers and retirees and ask the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. to bail out its unfunded pension obligations to the tune of $9 billion.
By Steven Mufson
The Washington Post
American Airlines has saved $2.1 billion since 2006, thanks to two congressional measures that allowed it to reduce contributions to its pension plans. The company said it would make up any shortfall later.
Later has come, but there's been a change.
American Airlines, whose parent company filed for bankruptcy in November, said this month it wants to terminate its four pension plans for 130,000 workers and retirees and ask the federal government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. to bail out its unfunded pension obligations to the tune of $9 billion.
It would be the largest PBGC bailout ever. Without the congressional relief, the gap would have been smaller, the PBGC said.
The move, which needs approval from a New York judge, has angered the PBGC and labor unions representing American Airlines workers, in part because the airline had $4 billion in cash when it filed for bankruptcy and because it hasn't yet made any proposal for restructuring its massive debt to financial institutions.
"American and other carriers have repeatedly asked Congress to give them funding relief in the last six years. More than $2 billion was diverted from their pension funds to their bankruptcy war chest," Josh Gotbaum, director of the PBGC, said Nov. 3. "In effect, the Congress of the United States and the employees of American Airlines provided half of the money to sustain American in bankruptcy."
One of those congressional measures, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, gave airlines the flexibility to cut pension contributions for two years and spread them out in later years. PBGC analysts estimate American Airlines was able to cut its contributions by $1.1 billion in 2006 and 2007, thanks to that legislation.
Some airlines that had already gone bankrupt received even greater leeway on contributions, which then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., decried in 2006. He said it "will distort the market in a way that is unnecessary and unfair to the 10,000 American Airlines workers and retirees in Illinois. Both as a matter of retirement policy and aviation policy, this bill should not favor one airline over another."
American Airlines, and its unions, kept lobbying for additional relief. In 2007, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, led a successful effort to tack new airline relief onto a defense appropriation for the Iraq war effort. It passed 80-14.
The new bill allowed American, Continental Airlines and a few others to tweak their accounting, raising assumptions for how much money its pension funds would earn from investments to 8.25 percent a year, thus again reducing the amount the companies were required to put aside. As a result, the PBGC has calculated, American saved an additional $1 billion from 2008 through 2011.
Even in good times, that would be a high rate of return compared with rates insurance companies use in calculating annuity costs. But the economic downturn made investment returns even worse and added to the shortfall in American's pension funds.
In an emailed statement, Hutchison said that "the purpose of the 2007 legislation was to make the pension funding rules equal for all airlines and establish one standard for the airline industry. ... The protection of those contribution standards restored a fair, even playing field for all airlines and allowed carriers a better opportunity to meet their pension obligations to workers and retirees."
Michael MacMurdy, an actuary and American Airlines pilot who is chairman of the Allied Pilots Association's national pension committee, said "it's always a double-edged sword when you're talking about funding relief."
"You give them some relief for a few years and get through a tough spot and, in theory, things get better and they make up the contributions and everybody lives happily ever after," he said. "But if things don't get better, it's that much worse for the participants and that much worse for the government. The company is the one getting off the hook in that situation."
Will Ris, American Airlines senior vice president for government affairs, said the company has lost $10 billion over the past decade. During that time, it paid $3 billion to its pension funds. "If we hadn't had that relief, we would have been in the bankruptcy realm sooner," he said. "We have tried to avoid this so diligently for so long, and this is not the direction we wanted to go."
But not everyone thinks American tried diligently enough. The PBGC's Gotbaum, a former investment banker, spent two years as bankruptcy trustee for Hawaiian Airlines, ultimately restructuring the company, repaying creditors and preserving defined-benefit pensions — those that promise a retiree a certain monthly benefit.
"We know that other airlines have successfully restructured, preserved their jobs and kept their pension plans. We don't see why American can't, too," Gotbaum said. "We hope that before American takes the drastic action of terminating the pension plans covering 130,000 American employees that it tries hard to find an alternative and shows the world that there is no other alternative."
The PBGC is financed by premiums from private companies; American Airlines paid $260 million over 30 years.
The PBGC guarantees private pensions up to $55,840 a year. That covers most airline workers, but the pilots union said about 3,800 of its members would be affected by the ceiling. PBGC would cover $9 billion of American Airlines' $10 billion of unfunded pensions.
The agency has filed liens on American Airlines assets, largely offices and facilities in Latin America not protected by the bankruptcy. American paid only $6.5 million of the $100 million in pension contributions due Jan. 15, the PBGC said.
"I'm a little bitter," said James C. Little, international president of the Transport Workers Union, who had just negotiated concessions and was about to bring them to a vote of the union's 26,000 American workers. "I'm very frustrated at American's going to go to court and use the bankruptcy process to terminate the plan."
02-13-2012, 05:10 AM
#27
New Hire
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: AA FO forever
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Check Essential
That's been the case at Delta/NWA. Like AA, DAL had the large exodus of senior guys taking the lump sum and getting out because of fears the retirement plan was going to be lost. After that, the prediction was that most of the remaining senior guys rolling into their 60s would probably leave around age 62. Everyone was so certain of this prediction that it was used by NWA in our SLI battle to show how many more short term retirements NWA should be credited with. The arbitrators even accepted it as fact.
In actual practice, virtually none of them have left. (even though many are working for very little money compared to what they could be collecing in retirement) The biggest factor is retiree medical coverage. (not crew meals)
The only ones who have gone early were as a result of an "early-out" package Delta offered. It was enough cash to cover their insurance.
Unless AA offers a similar package, count on most everyone staying to 65.
In actual practice, virtually none of them have left. (even though many are working for very little money compared to what they could be collecing in retirement) The biggest factor is retiree medical coverage. (not crew meals
) The only ones who have gone early were as a result of an "early-out" package Delta offered. It was enough cash to cover their insurance.
Unless AA offers a similar package, count on most everyone staying to 65.
! Also we have a LARGE majority staying past 60 anyway, nothing new on that one. It is STAGNATION city over at AA. We can only hope an pray for a A-fund freeze.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
