|
New Sick Policy
AFA and the Company have met
several times since the beginning of this year to discuss the
new sick policy that was negotiated as part of the December 2002
Restructuring Agreement. There are many disputes between
AFA and the Company regarding interpretation of what was
actually negotiated. AFA and the Company have been unable
to reach agreement on this issue and the Company has advised AFA
of their intent to implement the new sick policy on April 1,
2003.
What the Company is going to
actually implement is unknown at this time since the Company has
not provided AFA with examples of how they plan to implement the
sick policy. It is baffling to AFA that the Company is
planning to implement something which we do not believe they
actually understand themselves. AFA will file an MEC
grievance on this issue and it will have to be resolved in
arbitration. We will update you as soon as we have
additional information.
ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.
Airlines Press Workers For Deeper Cost
Cuts
US Airways' Termination of Pensions
Could Set Example for Whole Industry
By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ, THEO
FRANCIS and SUSAN CAREY
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
A novel tack by US Airways Group Inc. to
quickly emerge from bankruptcy-court protection by terminating
its pension plan for pilots could become a blueprint for other
troubled companies, pension specialists say.
The nation's seventh-largest airline says
that the only way it can avoid liquidation is to turn the
pension obligations for its 7,000 active and retired pilots over
to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a quasipublic insurance
agency.
The outcome of the US Airways maneuver
won't be settled, at the very least, until the conclusion of a
hearing on the company's debt-reorganization plan that begins
Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, Va. The carrier
is seeking backing for the reorganization from its creditors and
the court in order to emerge from Chapter 11 on March 31. The
pilots union and several groups of retired pilots have objected
to the pension plan's termination and have filed a grievance
with the company. Without a settlement of the dispute, the
reorganization plan might receive only conditional approval from
the judge.
Under the pension termination, pilots
stand to see their benefits cut as much as 50%. US Airways is
negotiating to create a follow-on savings plan that would help
make up the shortfall between what the pilots would get from the
PBGC and what they receive currently.
Other companies have voided their pension
obligations, notably in the beleaguered steel industry. But in
those instances, the PBGC typically took over the pension
obligations of such companies as LTV Corp. as part of
liquidation procedures, or because the plans were seriously
underfunded. In this case, US Airways plans to remain in
business. Moreover, the Arlington, Va., company is attempting to
seize more control than most companies have before by not only
initiating the pension termination, but also picking which of
its plans it wants to terminate. The bankruptcy judge on March 1
granted US Airways the right to terminate the pilots' plan,
pending union talks.
Some pension specialists worry that US
Air's "terminate or liquidate" argument will become an
attractive option for many financially troubled companies to
explore. That is especially true now, when historically low
interest rates and stock-market losses have caused pension
obligations to rise steeply.
"This could set a horrible precedent
by making it easier for companies to renege on the retirement
promises they made to their workers by terminating their pension
plan through bankruptcy without adequate outside review,"
says Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent congressman from
Vermont. "My concerns are only heightened because US
Airways has already slashed 16,000 jobs and cut salaries and
benefits by more than $1 billion."
Closely watching the situation are other
troubled airlines, as well as financially distressed companies
in other industries. Cheering the move are US Air's creditors,
lenders and shareholders with a stake in the reorganized
company, because removing the pension plan leaves one less
liability to soak up cash during a reorganization.
US Airways Chief Executive Officer David
Siegel said earlier this month that termination of the pilots
pension plan is "the single most important hurdle for
emerging from Chapter 11." He said the move was an
"absolutely regrettable step," but argued that
"the future of the airline is at stake."
A major proponent of the termination of
the pilots' pension plan is Retirement Systems of Alabama, US
Airways' lead bankruptcy lender, which intends to take a 37%
equity stake when the airline emerges from Chapter 11. Earlier
this month, Retirement Systems said that it would withhold the
final payment of US Airways' interim bankruptcy financing, until
the carrier "fully qualified" for federal loan
guarantees.
US Airways has won conditional approval
for $900 million in federal loan guarantees from the Air
Transportation Stabilization Board, which Congress created
shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The loan
guarantees are conditioned on US Airways paring its costs and
resolving its pension problem.
The company estimates that it would have
to contribute $1.7 billion to the pension plan over the seven
years of the loan backed by the ATSB guarantee. A US Airways
spokesman says that figure is the company's estimate of the
amount it must contribute to its pilots' plan to meet minimum
funding requirements, as established by the Internal Revenue
Service, or face liens and impaired loan covenants. The PBGC
says the plan is within minimum funding requirements. In any
case, a PBGC spokesman says the agency has only Dec. 31, 2001,
data for the airline's pensions, so it doesn't know how big the
liability is for the pilots' pension plan.
Write to Ellen E. Schultz
ellen.schultz@wsj.com, Theo Francis at theodore.francis@wsj.com
and Susan Carey at susan.carey@wsj.com
ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.
Airlines
seek tax breaks totaling $9B a year
By Chris
Woodyard and Barbara De Lollis, USA TODAY
Most travelers
wouldn't think of airline travel as a vice.
Yet the
airline industry says the federal government's taxes and
surcharges treat it like one.
The industry,
backed by a new study, is on a tax-relief crusade. Troubled
major airlines, as well as moneymaking low-fare carriers, are
lobbying Washington for $9 billion a year in tax relief.
They say
their tax and fee burden is higher than on such guilty pleasures
as whiskey, beer and cigarettes. Lifting certain taxes for about
a year would help the industry cope with a potential loss of $11
billion this year if there's a short war, the Air Transport
Association says.
Congressional
aides say airlines' timing couldn't be worse: They're seeking
help when lawmakers are grappling with a rocketing federal
deficit and the unknown costs of a war.
The airlines
— at least the ones losing money — are also catching flak
from some lawmakers for letting costs get out of control. The
$15 billion aid package the industry received after the Sept. 11
attacks also could hurt airlines' chances of getting more aid.
That package included $5 billion in grants and authorized $10
billion in loan guarantees.
Even without
war, airlines are expected to lose $6.7 billion this year, the
ATA estimates. Airlines lost $18 billion in 2001 and 2002.
The proposed
"tax holiday" would start with a war against Iraq and
continue for a year afterward. The request covers a range of
taxes like the federal ticket tax and the jet fuel tax. Most of
the taxes are deposited into the Aviation Trust Fund, which pays
for air traffic control and other services that benefit airlines
and travelers.
While just
about every industry would love their own tax holiday, airlines
are trying to make a case that they are overtaxed, especially
compared with other industries.
Perhaps most
galling to airlines is how much their costs have increased
following the Sept. 11 attacks. The association estimates that
annual impact of post-Sept.-11 security and related policy is
$4.1 billion. Federal taxes add $51 to the price of a $200
round-trip ticket, it says.
Economist
Cliff Winston of the Brookings Institution says most aviation
taxes and surcharges make sense as user fees. They pay directly
for services related to air travel — whether increased
security or airport improvements.
When business
travel was robust and airfares higher, airlines could pass cost
increases straight through to customers. No longer. If the price
of a trip is deemed too high, fliers will switch carriers or not
fly at all.
The normally
fractured airline industry is putting on a united front in the
drive for tax relief. Even the top executives of profitable
discounters such as Southwest and JetBlue are making the
Washington rounds.
Congress is
at least listening, although it's not clear how lawmakers will
address the problem.
There is some
support for other aid, such as extending war-risk insurance
coverage and paying for additional security costs.
ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.ww.
|