Bankruptcy Judge Allows US Airways to Drop
Pensions
January 6, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A US Bankruptcy
judge on Thursday agreed to allow US Airways to terminate
three pension plans covering the air carrier's machinists and
flight attendants in what the company insists is a move to
save money.
At a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, US Bankruptcy
Judge Stephen Mitchell also allowed US Airways to throw
out a labor contract covering its machinists if the union
turns away company requests for a package of concessions,
according to news reports and a US Airways
Web site statement. Mitchell’s decisions should help the company’s
efforts to shave $1 billion in labor costs (including
more than $300 million in pay and pension givebacks),
which US Airways has claimed is necessary if the airline
is to survive.
US Airways announced in the Web statement prior to
Mitchell’s ruling that the machinists’ union would send
the company’s last offer to its membership for a vote,
and that tally would likely be completed within two
weeks.
“We have worked very hard to craft alternative proposals
that still meet the company’s cost savings targets, but
preserve jobs and pay as much as possible,” said Jerrold
Glass, US Airways senior vice president – employee
relations, in the US Airways statement “Regrettably, we
cannot save every job and every function, and these
employees, like all other workgroups, must share in the
changes that the company needs to make. But we are quite
hopeful that our employees will see these proposals as
viable alternatives, and they will quickly be
ratified.”
During Thursday’s hearing, Mitchell said he had
“grave questions” whether US Airways could successfully
emerge from its second trip through Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in two years, even with the savings from labor
groups.
In its Web announcement the company said it will put
off any moves on the machinists contract until after a vote
by the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers (IAM) “in the hope that all (concession) proposals
will be ratified.”
However, the company asserted it would start talks
immediately with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) – the nation’s insurer of private-sector pension
plans – “to begin the orderly transfer of the (pension)
plans.”
The development is also likely to put an even greater
strain on the already gravely stressed PBGC, which has had
to shoulder a particularly taxing burden by taking over
pension funds from the hard hit airline and steel sectors
in recent years (See
PBGC Exec: Pension
Insurer Hit by ‘Perfect Storm’
). The agency already took over responsibility
for the US Airways pension covering more than 6,000 pilots
in April 2003. (See
PBGC Assumes US
Airways Pension Plan
).
May 31, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - While pondering the
pending proposals for reform of the nation's defined benefit
pension system, Congressional lawmakers need to pay
particular attention to strengthening plan funding rules, a
Congressional watchdog group asserted Tuesday.
>In a report entitled “Private Pension: Recent
Experiences of Large Defined Benefit Plans
IllustrateWeaknesses in Funding Rules,” the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) said that current pension rules
have allowed some plan sponsors to avoid plan contributions
even if their plan was underfunded.
>Because of the technicalities involving the
additional funding charge (AFC) provision in federal
pension law and the funding standard amount (FSA) rule –
both having to do with when and how underfunded plans have
to get a plan sponsor contribution – some companies
have been able to understate their plan’s true financial
picture, GAO investigators charged.
>Specifically, the GAO claimed that congress should
strengthen the AFC provision, perhaps by
raising the threshold levels of funding that trigger
the AFC so that any sponsor with a plan less than 90%
funded would have to make additional contributions.
Lawmakers could also consider a gradual phase-in of the AFC
for plans that are underfunded between 90% and 100% of
current liability, according to the report.
The GAO also recommended Congress consider l
imiting the use of FSA credits toward meeting minimum
funding requirements. “We have noted that some sponsors
repeatedly relied on FSA credits, such as a prior year
credit balance or net interest credits, to avoid making
cash contributions to their plans, and that this has been
particularly problematic for underfunded plans prior to
their termination,” investigators wrote in the report.
“While FSA credits may have the benefit of moderating
contribution volatility in the near term, they also have
the weakness of allowing the sponsors of severely
underfunded plans to avoid cash contributions and may
contribute to volatility later.”
Understating the Problem
Also, to back up its assertion that some severely
ailing plans were able to file annual reports vastly
understating the size of their financial problems, the GAO
pointed to the
Bethlehem Steel plan which the agency said had reported in
2002 that its plan was 85.2% funded on a current liability
basis, yet the plan terminated later that year with assets
of less than half of the value of promised benefits. The
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the nation’s
private-sector pension insurer, suffered a $3.7 billion
loss as a result of that termination, its largest ever at
the time (See
PBGC Takes On Its
Biggest Liability Yet
).
>Similarly, the agency said that the LTV Steel
Company reported that its pension plan for hourly employees
was over 80% funded on its Form 5500 filing for plan year
2001. When this plan terminated in March 2002, it had
assets equal to 52% of benefits, a shortfall of $1.6
billion.
“While admittedly an extremely complicated matter,
meaningful effective reform must confront the issue of
accurate measurement. We found that that the measurement
techniques of assets and liabilities that are permitted
under current funding rules can result in distortions
masking the true funding status of a plan and can permit
sponsors to avoid making plan contributions,” the report
said. “Techniques that lead to misleading indicators of
plan health and impede information transparency are a
disservice to all key stakeholders; to plan participants in
making retirement decisions; to unions seeking to bargain
in the interests of their members; to current and potential
shareholders in deciding where to invest; and finally to
the public, which is the ultimate protector of employee
benefits.”
>In fact, while saying that most of the large DB
plans were properly funded between 1995 and 2002, the GAO
admitted that the extent of the problem with other plans
could be greater than it might appear from the official
reports.
“Because of leeway in the actuarial methodology and
assumptions sponsors may use to measure plan assets and
liabilities, underfunding may actually have been more
severe and widespread than reported (in 2002),” the GAO
said. “Because of flexible funding rules permitting the use
of accounting credits other than cash contributions to
satisfy minimum funding obligations, on average 62.5 of the
100 largest plans each year received no cash contributions
from their sponsors, including 41% of plans that were less
than 100% funded.”
>The GAO acknowledged that some of its suggested
reforms may prompt companies currently sponsoring a DB plan
to freeze or terminate it.
"Sponsor exit is a serious concern, given the
important role DB plans play in providing retirement
security. However, this is a natural consequence of the
inherent tradeoff that exists in a private pension system
that on one hand depends on voluntary plan sponsorship
and on the other is tax subsidized and backed by federal
insurance in order to promote the retirement security of
our nation's workers," the report concluded. "The
overarching goals of balanced pension reform, and
particularly of funding rule reform, should be to protect
workers' benefits by providing employers the flexibility
they need in managing their pension plans while also
holding those employers accountable for the promises they
make to their employees."
>Administration officials used the GAO report's
release Tuesday to once again call for lawmakers to enact
the Bush Administration's pending pension reform proposals
(See
Chao Releases
Administration DB Reform Proposal
).
"The funding-rule weaknesses highlighted in this report
are the very ones the Administration's reform proposal
would address," said PBGC Executive Director Bradley Belt,
in a statement. "When pension plans are underfunded, they
need to be replenished with real dollars, not with phantom
'credit balances.' Current-law 'smoothing' practices make
pension plans look financially healthier than they really
are. The GAO report confirms what we have been saying all
along: The rules must be changed to ensure that companies
keep the pension promises they have made to their
workers."
>US Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio) likewise
applauded the GAO's effort. "There is little doubt that
today's outdated pension rules fail to protect the
interests of workers and retirees and this report
illustrates that fact once again," said Boehner, in a
statement. "Today's outdated rules also put the
taxpayers at significant risk of a possible multi-billion
dollar bailout of the PBGC if the agency's financial
condition continues to worsen."
>The GAO report is
here
. More information about the Administration's pension
proposal is
here
.