Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Government takes over United Airlines pension
CNN ^ | March 11, 2005 | Reuters

Posted on 03/11/2005 1:24:16 PM PST by Willie Green

Says airline funded only 30% of plan; will give $2.1B to 36,000 active and retired ground workers.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The agency that backs corporate pensions said Friday it was taking over United Airlines' pension plan for ground employees, saying the plan operated by the bankrupt airline was only 30 percent funded.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. said it would guarantee payment of an estimated $2.1 billion in benefits out of the plan's $2.9 billion shortfall. The plan has more than 36,000 active and retired employees, the agency said.

(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bailout; govwatch; pbga; pbgc; pensions

1 posted on 03/11/2005 1:24:17 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Wonder how it got that way. Many of those underfunded plans were underfunded at the behest of the unions.


2 posted on 03/11/2005 1:30:11 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton; Willie Green
Wonder how it got that way. Many of those underfunded plans were underfunded at the behest of the unions.

I'd much rather have a defined contribution plan than a defined benefit plan. There's no such thing as an underfunded defined contribution plan. Not only that, but I wouldn't want my employer owning and running my pension fund.

This is an artifact of the graduated income tax. Pensions as employee benefits are not taxable to the employer. A flat tax would eliminate the incentive for employees to want compensation in kind rather than as cash.

3 posted on 03/11/2005 1:37:59 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lepton

It shouldn't have..never...once a plan can't be funded..i.e. the implicit promises cannot be kept..the plan shoudl be terminated..assets distributed to the participants..however, "playing with the numbers".also known as changing the assumptions...is easily done...If I assume that plan assets will grow at 9% over the next 30 years, the plan can be overfunded..if I assume 4%..it will be underfunded..


4 posted on 03/11/2005 1:55:13 PM PST by ken5050 (The Dem party is as dead as the NHL..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lepton

They get that way because the unions strike, or threaten to strike, for higher and higher pensions and the employers promise them the higher pensions. Then the employers find themselves unable to fund the higher benefits.


5 posted on 03/11/2005 2:00:05 PM PST by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Dear Paleo Conservative,

"This is an artifact of the graduated income tax."

There are many tax-advantaged defined contribution plans, too, and have been for 30 years.

Defined benefit plans are actually artifacts of two things: corporate paternalism; and unrealistic fear of the stock market, probably a hangover from the Crash of 1929.

It is rooted in the belief that the average person can't handle his own long-term investments, nor bear the risk thereof.

That's what's currently driving the debate against Social Security reform.

I've even seen people here on FreeRepublic expressing ideas with that underlying assumption.


sitetest


6 posted on 03/11/2005 2:04:17 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Many of those underfunded plans were underfunded at the behest of the unions.

Was that the case here?
7 posted on 03/11/2005 3:11:17 PM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Pensions are a thing of the past...better start saving for yourself!

Just look at Delphi.


8 posted on 03/11/2005 3:52:03 PM PST by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
Was that the case here?

I have no idea. That's the problem with articles like these. they leave the impression that the company was just being evil...but no information on how the situation came to be.

During the stock market boom, many unions demanded that the pension funds be taken out of more secure traditional deposits and put into the market to an exceptional degree. This was combined with the liabilities being calculated based upon current growth and contributions cut to match - along with several other quirks.

This produced a kind of whipsaw effect.

9 posted on 03/12/2005 8:28:01 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

Pensions are a thing of the past...better start saving for yourself!

........................................................

My thoughts exactly! I am only in my twenties but have seen friends and family lose fortunes in pension funds. Had they listened to me and invested in property and high yield savings accounts they would be quite rich(mind you I was only 13 at the time).
The only person I trust to look after my money is myself. Not the Government and certainly not a Banker.


10 posted on 03/12/2005 8:31:49 AM PST by kingsurfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Many of those underfunded plans were underfunded at the behest of the unions.

I seriously doubt that. The unions would like to yank every last cent from the shareholders. If the union could get shareholder money into the pension plan, they certainly would have.

11 posted on 03/13/2005 11:49:19 AM PST by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide
When I joined UNITED in 1969 I signed a contract that I would be at work on time ,I would do the job as requested,and receive days off as needed (24/7).United in return would pay me in money (greenbacks)and benefits (health care,life insurance,and a pension when I retired). Now that management has driven the airline into bankruptcy they no longer want to HONOR their contract that we both signed. Is this breach of Contract???
If the courts allow this,all the other U.S. Airlines will follow and the TAXPAYERS will be required to bail out the government insurance board (remember the savings and loan deal)
12 posted on 03/14/2005 2:40:49 PM PST by tomyj retired-maybe?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

When I joined UNITED in 1969 I signed a contract that I would be at work on time ,I would do the job as requested,and receive days off as needed (24/7).United in return would pay me in money (greenbacks)and benefits (health care,life insurance,and a pension when I retired). Now that management has driven the airline into bankruptcy they no longer want to HONOR their contract that we both signed. Is this breach of Contract???
If the courts allow this,all the other U.S. Airlines will follow and the TAXPAYERS will be required to bail out the government insurance board (remember the savings and loan deal)


13 posted on 03/14/2005 3:09:01 PM PST by tomyj retired-maybe?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Next up for taxpayer bailout - Ford, GM, .... Who bails out the taxpayer? No one. The debt accumulation is a train wreck in slo-mo.


14 posted on 03/14/2005 3:15:58 PM PST by mpreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mpreston

Watch the AIRLINE sector for pension relief???


15 posted on 03/15/2005 8:39:08 AM PST by tomyj retired-maybe?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tomyj retired-maybe?

All the time I worked, I thought I had the same agreement. I even thought the company set up an annuity for each retiree. I was surprised to learn when I retired that the plan will pay as long as the company is in business. I am glad I also saved in the 401K program. No one should plan retirement on anything except their own savings.

Which is why President Bush's SS plan should be seriously looked at by the younger workers, and why older workers should not even have a vote in the matter. Oh, and the SS plan provides an annuity so it is better than the present SS plan. (I do not know why this is so hard to explain.)


16 posted on 04/22/2005 1:05:02 PM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson