A Federal District Court denied the latest bid by the United Airlines flight attendant union to force a halt on the PBGC from taking over the group's pension plan.
The court found the PBGC acted properly and within its legal bounds when it reached agreement with United in April to assume the groups pension plan.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...05-06-08_20-43-23_n08367561_newsml

[Edited 2005-06-09 07:43:12]

Good. Hopefully, this ponzi scheme will not further jeapardize UAL. Pity the American taxpayers have been stuck with it.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 1): Pity the American taxpayers have been stuck with it.

Nope. Unless the PGBC (not PBGC) itself defaults, the taxpayers have no liability here. The PGBC receives premiums paid by employers, not taxpayers. This has been repeatedly stated in various threads on this subject.

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 2): Nope. Unless the PGBC (not PBGC) itself defaults, the taxpayers have no liability here. The PGBC receives premiums paid by employers, not taxpayers. This has been repeatedly stated in various threads on this subject.

The PGCB is in danger of defaulting.

PBGC = Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

Gee, I look forward to that happy day when someone stands up for the American workers.

cheers

mariner

I look forward to the day when workers stand up for themselves and take responsibility for their own lives instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6): I look forward to the day when workers stand up for themselves and take responsibility for their own lives instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them.

I guess we have different views on what the contract between management and worker represents, then.

cheers

mariner

Quoting Mariner (Reply 7): I guess we have different views on what the contract between management and worker represents, then.

  You remind me of the old Soviet saying: "We pretend to work and the bosses pretend to pay us."

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 2): This has been repeatedly stated in various threads on this subject.

Maybe instead of reading various threads, you could read their financial statements and then ask yourself whether the taxpayers will end up paying.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8): You remind me of the old Soviet saying: "We pretend to work and the bosses pretend to pay us."

I've always liked that joke.  

All my life, I've worked by free lance contract.

You'd be amazed how many of my employers tried to wriggle out of what they legally owed me. So I took 'em to court.

So the variation on your old joke is simple. The boss isn't always right. And the worker isn't always wrong.

cheers

mariner

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6): I look forward to the day when workers stand up for themselves and take responsibility for their own lives instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them.

We have seen that day already. It's called labor unions and most people think there isn't a need for them any longer. Union workers have a little thing called a contract (that doesn't seem to mean anything to management except when management wants to enforce something) and a recourse called a strike (which the government and scab workers have usurped to the point of ineffectivity).

MxCtrlr   

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 2): Unless the PGBC (not PBGC) itself defaults, the taxpayers have no liability here.

Default is very much a possibility given their liabilities.

And an irresponsible judge in Wedoff who let them get off scot-free without selling assets, presenting a recovery plan ASAP and getting on with the business of being an airline.

Shit or get off the pot, UAL. But they keep getting more time, more time, more time.

And the pension obligation was obliterated with the stroke of a pen. Disgusting.

Believe me, the taxpayers WILL be stuck with the bill. The PBGC is ultimately insured by the Federal government, which is you and me pal.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6): I look forward to the day when workers stand up for themselves and take responsibility for their own lives instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them.

How were UA F/As and othert labor groups not taking responsibility for their own lives in expecting UA to make good on the promise to which UA had contractually agreed? When it comes to the point where a legal contract can be rendered null and void because a business who agreed to same refuses to honor their contractual promise -- and you see no problem with such crass immorality -- it would seem the only remaining avenue to "take responsibility for their own lives" would be to buy several acres in a rural setting and become totally self-sufficient by living off the land.

After all, by the same arguments UA used for breaking their promise, any financial institution could also walk away from their IRA, Kemp-Roth, 401K, etc (ultimately, even PGIC) obligations to workers who took responsibility for establishing their own retirement funds by claiming they "don't have the money" (for whatever reasons) to pay their contractual obligations.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6): I look forward to the day when workers stand up for themselves and take responsibility for their own lives instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them.

I think Zvezda is talking more in the way of Financial knowlege. The problem for many out there is that they get too attached to their jobs by putting themselves into the wrong kind of debt, not knowing the wealth to those opportunities to be free of that burden. In order to function in a capitalistic society, everybody needs basic financial knowlege to make it or else! Kind of strange that it tends to lack here in the US, hence the wealth divide we see these days.

As for the UA-PGBC deal, I side with the FA's in this one as it is wrong throw that large burden out and open the floodgates has UAL has done. This also includes the fact that UAL managment attempted to hide their lack of funding the pensions throughout past years. That's damage not only to the employees who earned them, but stock-holders and ESOPer's too! It's not a "business move", what has been done was ethically and morally wrong! I hope Lawmakers, as they did met this week on the issue, will come up with some major and quick reform before we all (taxpayers) start paying the tab.

The last thing we need is more excuses like this for the goverment to impose more ridiculous taxes on the Industry and passengers!!!!

If the PBGC defaults why is that United's responsibility? They sold the premiums to United to guarantee their pensions - the PBGC (and if you will the government, thus the taxpayers) took the risk. The PBGC is the watchdog for employer sponsored pension plans - and if there were conditions at United that should have raised flags for them long ago - why didn't they plan for it?

These flight attendants, some as much as 40+ years of service, have never been highly paid, and have had to put up with a lot of sh** from us the traveling public. The thought of a pension that would be waiting for them when they retired, made it bearable for them and helped them keep their commitment to the airline. While their pensions do not go away, they now face significantly reduced payments, and at their age, they do not know how to make up for it - I would be upset too. On a recent flight between DEN and IAD, I had the chance to speak with a 38 year veteran who told me she was now looking at her monthly pension benefits being cut by $700.00+ per month. When you're 60 years old, how is someone supposed to make up for that? When she does retire will she find she has to work at McDonald's to make ends meet?

You cannot blame the flight attendants for wanting to fight this, but you also cannot blame United for many conditions they are facing that have been beyond their control. They are just trying to survive. I'd like to see some of you advocates for UA's demise face similar circumstances, especially those of you who may have 40 years of service with your company. If you don't like the fact that the PBGC is there and has taken this on - then take your fight to the government - not the airline.

We all have to remember that once UA emerges from BK - it will not be the same United. Employees and shareholders alike have all lost their equity stakes and it will be the creditors and new equity investors who will own the airline. However, what will emerge is hopefully a more efficient United that can operate effectively under current market conditions - and you still have serveral thousand employees still working. I would rather see that than have a situation where my tax dollars are helping prop up the PBGC and several thousand people who are out of work.

On a philosophical note - United is a long-time U.S. institution recognized worldwide. Its demise would be just another reminder of the devastating effects from the 9/11 attacks.

Quoting Andersjt (Reply 15): You cannot blame the flight attendants for wanting to fight this, but you also cannot blame United for many conditions they are facing that have been beyond their control.

Why not? You don't want to blame the management for not taking responsibility for their bad judgements? They get rewarded with contract extensions, bonuses, pensions that will never get changed to lower figures, stock options, etc. But everybody else will just have to suffer?

Quoting Andersjt (Reply 15): If the PBGC defaults why is that United's responsibility? They sold the premiums to United to guarantee their pensions - the PBGC (and if you will the government, thus the taxpayers) took the risk. The PBGC is the watchdog for employer sponsored pension plans - and if there were conditions at United that should have raised flags for them long ago - why didn't they plan for it?

EXACTLY...this isn't UAL's fault, it is the Federal Government's fault. Blame the Senators and Reps you voted for, they sit on the finance committe, commerce committee, trade comission etc...

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 2): PBGC = Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

Thank you. I can't seem to keep it straight in my mind.

Quoting Andersjt (Reply 15): When you're 60 years old, how is someone supposed to make up for that? When she does retire will she find she has to work at McDonald's to make ends meet?

The same people on this forum that bitch and moan about "overpaid" flight attendants will be the SAME ones who walk into that McDonalds and bitch and moan to that same former flight attendant that their 99-cent burger is a little cold. They don't care...someone they can shit on because they're the ones paying and expect to be waited on.

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 18): The same people on this forum that bitch and moan about "overpaid" flight attendants will be the SAME ones who walk into that McDonalds and bitch and moan to that same former flight attendant that their 99-cent burger is a little cold. They don't care...someone they can shit on because they're the ones paying and expect to be waited on.

Yeah sure.

How about you try working for 40 years as an FA at UAL no less and go through all the crap, BK's, underperforming management, pay cuts, pay raises, new cities, station closures, and then see that one thing that has kept them in the industry that whole time be taken away and substituted with plastic knock-off of the old thing. Now these people can only work so so many more years and then what? They retire and are demoted to the most demeaning jobs around and their again at the bottom of the ladder. And UA can just continue on screwing more employees, and giving themselves pats on the back. This doesn't include all the crap the ex and current employees at other airlines will go through now that the flood gates have opened and soon they will find their pensions with the PBGC. And all their work over years ruined because of a inferior carrier just didn't know when to give up. I hope UA is shut down like it deserves to be, or at least, remove Tilton and his head in the clouds boys!

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 19): Yeah sure. How about you try working for 40 years as an FA at UAL no less and go through all the crap, BK's, underperforming management, pay cuts, pay raises, new cities, station closures, and then see that one thing that has kept them in the industry that whole time be taken away and substituted with plastic knock-off of the old thing. Now these people can only work so so many more years and then what? They retire and are demoted to the most demeaning jobs around and their again at the bottom of the ladder. And UA can just continue on screwing more employees, and giving themselves pats on the back. This doesn't include all the crap the ex and current employees at other airlines will go through now that the flood gates have opened and soon they will find their pensions with the PBGC. And all their work over years ruined because of a inferior carrier just didn't know when to give up. I hope UA is shut down like it deserves to be, or at least, remove Tilton and his head in the clouds boys!

You COMPLETELY misunderstood me. The people on this forum (I'm not one of them) who don't care about the daily issues of F/As and other airline employees and what they deal with on a daily basis would have the same indifference if they met them in a place like McDonald's or Home Depot or wherever. They don't care....they're the ones who are only focused on a cheap fare and don't care about those who make it happen day in and day out. I have a parent who spent 35 years with UA, only to see his pension benefit reduced, like many of these flight attendants. Think I'm happy to see that happen to him? Not on your life. Think I'm happy with UA about it? Not at all. This industry is headed towards the McDonald's level...and I'm glad I'm not a part of it. Those who started years ago with the knowledge they'd have a pension and benefits, and have to see it reduced all of a sudden have my sympathy.

Social Security is going the same way. If the SS system isn't moved from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system that is invested safely and grows moderately, we will be hearing all of these same arguments in 20 years, except it will be most of the retired country, not 62,000 employees at a private company.

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 20): You COMPLETELY misunderstood me. The people on this forum (I'm not one of them) who don't care about the daily issues of F/As and other airline employees and what they deal with on a daily basis would have the same indifference if they met them in a place like McDonald's or Home Depot or wherever. They don't care....they're the ones who are only focused on a cheap fare and don't care about those who make it happen day in and day out. I have a parent who spent 35 years with UA, only to see his pension benefit reduced, like many of these flight attendants. Think I'm happy to see that happen to him? Not on your life. Think I'm happy with UA about it? Not at all. This industry is headed towards the McDonald's level...and I'm glad I'm not a part of it. Those who started years ago with the knowledge they'd have a pension and benefits, and have to see it reduced all of a sudden have my sympathy.

There was supposed to be another quote bubble before it, it was in no way directed at you. Sorry.

BTW I feel for you man, my uncle was a Pilot at UA over 20 years ago and trust me I know what this will mean.

Cheers!

Quoting Andersjt (Reply 15): These flight attendants, some as much as 40+ years of service, have never been highly paid, and have had to put up with a lot of sh** from us the traveling public.

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 19): ut you try working for 40 years as an FA at UAL no less and go through all the crap, BK's, underperforming management, pay cuts, pay raises, new cities, station closures, and then see that one thing that has kept them in the industry that whole time be taken away and substituted with plastic knock-off of the old thing.

thats true, but it was THEIR choice to take up the job........I was sitting @ DFW departure terminal about a month ago and an AA F/A was sitting next to me yacking away on the cell phone about how she plans on getting "botox" shots before her friends birthday and this and that....

doesn't sound too much of "desparation" to me.....  

also, part of their job is to deal with cranky people..what else do they get paid for or to do? It certainly isn't saving someone's life in the ER everyday or getting shot at by a bunch of hoodlums......To me, it seems that they sit around in the back and read magazines (which I see most of the old AA battleaxes doing anyway -I'm an elite AA member, I give 90% of my business to them).

I see this on other air carriers too...the attidute many give is as if they are doing ME a favour...bugger off if you don't like your job...there are plenty others who will be more than happy to take over your job.

Actually passengers safety is exactly what we are paid to do. However if passengers such as yourself don't think of this; than we know it has been a good, uneventful flight. As far as dealing with hoodlums did you forget 9/11?

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 22): There was supposed to be another quote bubble before it, it was in no way directed at you. Sorry.

Understood. Thanks for clarifying that.

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 22): BTW I feel for you man, my uncle was a Pilot at UA over 20 years ago and trust me I know what this will mean

Unless your'e a senior exec. at the airlines, it's a bad deal all around. Soon, the pension issue won't be limited to just United, sadly. Good luck to your uncle as well.

Maybe I am playing devil's advocate here, but what about personal responsibility? I agree that this is a terrible thing for the United workers, but, as with Enron, you cannot have all your eggs in one basket. It is not a new thing at all NOT to depend on a single source for your retirement income.

It is tough for the retirees and the near retirees and it is kind of a hindsight is 20/20 situation.

I think it is time for drastic measures at United. The workers deserve better and have worked and paid in to this system for years. I think the judge is leading the way for others to do the same, however, the PBGC is there for this reason. I am not sure that it is required to use a system like this or not, but if it were not in place, there would be nothing, similar to Enron.

Maybe I am comparing apples to oranges to some degree, but it is exactly the same thing when it comes to preparing for your future.

M

ChiGB1973:

You make some excellent points...and you're right, one can never rely on one single source of retirement income. Younger workers (regardless of what industry they work in) should take note of what is going at companies like United, and ask themselves what they can and need to do in order to better diversify and make sure they don't find themselves in a comparable situation years later. They also need to understand that social security may not be there, or at least at a very drastically reduced benefit rate, at a much later age in life. 401k's are great, if the market performs well. But, a couple of "corrections" before retirement, and that can be gone in a flash.

Many at UA have 401k accounts as well, assuming they invested in it. They will get a portion of what is in the now defaulted plan, plus something in the "new" plan when they retire. I believe it's more a matter of principle: these workers (like my Dad) started out many years ago when the industry was very different, and put in their time and helped make the company successful, only to see inept management teams squander profits and make bad decisions that were beyond their direct control, and leading them to Ch. 11, with one of the results seeing their pensions cut. Back then, they were told that this pension benefit would be there for them to collect on, and that it was secured. The amount paid out was based on salary at time of retirement, age, and years with the company. Many planned to retire at a certain age based on that assumption, and planned their financial needs accordingly. So, 35 years later, imagine seeing that benefit cut 25% all of a sudden by a judge who doesn't care, and supported by a management team that won't be there 3-6 months after the company's time in Ch. 11 is finished.
Judge Wedoff doesn't care about the pensioners who saw their benefits cut, and neither will Glenn Tilton and Jake Brace, long after they leave Unnited. The employees have to deal with that, the execs. don't. That's the anger, right there.

Zvezda:

A pension or definded-benefit plan isn't a ponzi scheme. A company puts money into the plan, based on formulas that include years of service, salary, etc. Then, the trustees invest those funds on what they deem safe, prudent, and likely to make good returns.

There is nothing wrong with a defined-benefit plan, so long as companies actually make contributions regularly for amounts to will keep their plans infused with sufficient funds to cover their obligations.

My father knows a gentlemen who was one of the trustees of their company plan in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Among the investmensts made with the pension funds were IPOs of McDonald's and Microsoft.

The problem with UA is that they failed to put money into the pension fund, because of declining traffic, starting in 2000, as well as escalating costs.

The problem as I see it is a Catch-22 for the F/As. If UA does turn over its pension plans to the PBGC, the F/As will not get the full amount of their pensions upon retirement.

But, if UA is forced to keep the pensions, it can't get exit financing, and will eventually liquidate. That just means an eventual take over of the plan by the PBGC.

I did read an article, I think in the Chicago Tribune, where Glen Tilton said that during the process of trying to get loan guarantees from the federal goverment, it was suggested that UA was more likely to get the guarentees, if it converted its pension plans to 401(k) plans. UA felt that its business model would work and allow it to honor its pension commitments.

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 26): It is not a new thing at all NOT to depend on a single source for your retirement income.

Actually, it sort of is. For workers who started 25, 30, 40 years ago, the typical course of action was for an employer to offer a defined benefit pension plan upon retirement. People worked for one or two companies their entire lives then continued to rely on that same employer for retirement.

It's only been relatively recently that average workers have had the widespread ability to play the stock market and invest in 401k plans and the like in lieu of a pension. This was made possible by the growth of the Internet and telecommunications that made real-time access to financial information available to the world population at large. But with that information revolution came the development of a gloabl ecomony, the ability to outsource, and arguably never-before-seen pressure on effeciency, being competitive, and getting the bottom line as low as it can go, consequences be damned.

Even with all the corporate disasters of late, reports show people who have 401(k)s still have too much invested in their own companies today. Other corporations like Enron more or less forced their employees to invest solely in their company then prevented them from selling stock when things got bad. United is a unique example because of what turned out to be the disaster of ESOP, but I don't think you can call rank-and-file employees irresponsible for trusting the company's pension plan.

All that to say, the flight attendants (and other non-SAM employees) are kindof 'darned if they do, darned if they don't.' Either they allow the judge to wipe out a large part of their pensions that they (feel they) are rightly entitled to and UAL emerges as a leaner competitor, or the judge forces UAL to fund the pensions and the company liquidates b/c they can't afford to. Either way, we're back to StevenUhl777's last comment.

At this point, I think the AFA needs to just give it up. No judge is going to allow one union to overturn all the agreements that have been made so far and this judge, in fact, said there isn't even a legal basis for their appeal. It's time to concede defeat, regroup, and start moving forward again. I wish everyone the best.

I think what he is trying to say is that one should NEVER not plan for their own retirement. In other words, you can have the pension and such, but you should also be making some other arrangements. Even if you started 40 years ago, to assume that you would be safe if you just let someone else handle it and went about your life and saved nothing was, while common, not prudent.

ESPECIALLY when the airlines deregulated and some went under, employees at that time should have seen the writing on the wall and not put their eggs all in one basket. (enough clichés for you?)

Now F/As don't get paid a lot. I understand that. But I also have never understood why anyone would think being an F/A should be a 45 year lifetime career. It seems like a job for the young, with wages in line with that job description. Then, move on to something that is more stable and has upside other than discounted travel. Lifetime pilots, mx, etc. I understand. But not lifetime F/As.

I've also never understood why people in unions believe they are entitled to stay in one job for 40 years and have everything work out. Most other people in this world do not live that way. They will have 3 careers in a lifetime. But Union workers tend to get in and stay in come heck or high water. This is not a slam, just I don't understand the mindset. No matter how bad the prospects look, or how lucrative a career change might be, the mindset is to stay anyway, and then complain about not being treated well.

I have news. Most people in this world are not treated well at their jobs. Most people feel like they are being screwed, like their boss is after them. Most people will also move on if at all possible to improve their situation. Airline workers are not some anointed special class of human that should be especially revered over all others.

Oh, BTW - I am in a union business and I am forced to join if I want to work. They do nothing little for me but cause me to worry every two years that I'll be forced to go on strike or be blackballed for the rest of my life. And before I was able to join, they did everything in their power to keep me from working in any capacity. This is the world of the entertainment unions.

PS - The story of the F/As sitting around chatting and reading magazines on AA during flight? Not isolated. It's the norm, at least every time I've flown them since the late 90s. That is not an exaggeration. It honestly seams to be SOP. I wish people would pay me to do that. I really do. It's also why I have basically given up flying them unless I have to.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30): This is the world of the entertainment unions.

I don't know what "entertainment union" you mean, but it is a long way from my experience.

Without my "entertainment union", the Writers Guild, I would have been screwed six ways to Christmas.

I would have no pension. I would have no medical benefits. I would have no residuals.

If a show of mine goes on tv in Podunk, Idaho, my union knows about it and I get paid. Try policing that on your own.

I would be at the mercy of cheap skate producers who do not stick to the contract. One such producer fought the Guild up hill and down dale for eight months before being forced to pay.

I would be at the mercy of first class producers, who tried to get away with not paying three of us a great deal of money. Six figures divided by the three of us.

Without my union, most "entertainment companies" would have treated me as a second class citizen - and some still tried anyway. The writer? Put him in the cheapest hotel. The writer? He doesn't need to fly up the front.

Yes, he does, because the Guild has fought for it and won it.

Good luck without a union in show biz, kiddo.

mariner

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 13): How were SA)">UA F/As and othert labor groups not taking responsibility for their own lives in expecting SA)">UA to make good on the promise to which SA)">UA had contractually agreed? When it comes to the point where a legal contract can be rendered null and void because a business who agreed to same refuses to honor their contractual promise -- and you see no problem with such crass immorality -- it would seem the only remaining avenue to "take responsibility for their own lives" would be to buy several acres in a rural setting and become totally self-sufficient by living off the land.

I'll set aside the personal insult and try to answer your question. If I sign a contract to enter a ponzi scheme and a notary stamps it and then a judge approves it, it's still a ponzi scheme, it's still doomed to failure, and it would be irresponsible for me to count on a payout. That's just the nature of ponzi schemes. Defined Benefit retirement systems are ponzi schemes.

Quoting Midway2airtran (Reply 14): As for the SA)">UA-PGBC deal, I side with the FA's in this one as it is wrong throw that large burden out and open the floodgates has UAL has done. This also includes the fact that UAL managment attempted to hide their lack of funding the pensions throughout past years.

If that's true it's criminal. Officers of public corporations who fudge the numbers to hide liabilities are committing crimes. Why haven't we read about prosecutions? This would be an Enron-level scandal if it were true.

Quoting Andersjt (Reply 15): These flight attendants, some as much as 40+ years of service, have never been highly paid, and have had to put up with a lot of sh** from us the traveling public.

At SA)">UA, some of the FAs have 60+ years of seniority.  

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 18): The same people on this forum that bitch and moan about "overpaid" flight attendants will be the SAME ones who walk into that McDonalds and bitch and moan to that same former flight attendant that their 99-cent burger is a little cold.

Let's be realistic. A former FA is not going to be flipping burgers. The most likely job after being a FA would be in the hotel industry.

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 21): Social Security is going the same way. If the SS system isn't moved from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system that is invested safely and grows moderately, we will be hearing all of these same arguments in 20 years, except it will be most of the retired country, not 62,000 employees at a private company.

Exactly right. The payroll tax rate keeps rising and must forever continue to rise for the system to remain solvent. Social Security will collapse sometime before the Social Security payroll tax rate reaches 100%.

Quoting Luvfa (Reply 24): Actually passengers safety is exactly what we are paid to do. However if passengers such as yourself don't think of this; than we know it has been a good, uneventful flight.

When I fly SA)">UA, I usually have to plan how to evacuate the geriatric FAs in the event of an emergency.

Ckfred:
What makes Defined Benefit retirement programs ponzi schemes is that they are paid out not based on how much money is actually there from having invested what the employer paid in for each worker (that would be Defined Contribution) but rather from ever increasing funds that it is hoped the employer will pay in later. When the employer has no money to pay in later, it blows up just like any other ponzi scheme. Just because the ponzi scheme invests the money, doesn't keep it from being a ponzi scheme, it just delays the day of reckoning.

Whether the unions who demanded ponzi scheme based retirement programs and the management who agreed to them knew that they were screwing over a future generation of workers or just believed that there really is a free lunch, I don't know. I try not to attribute to malice anything that can be explained by incompetence.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 32): If that's true it's criminal. Officers of public corporations who fudge the numbers to hide liabilities are committing crimes. Why haven't we read about prosecutions? This would be an Enron-level scandal if it were true.

It isn't true. The senate hearings they just had prove that. One of the senators used United as an example of a company that did everything within the law, but at the end of the day still defaulted...his point was that the laws are broken and the companies out there are just operating in a broken system.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 23): I was sitting @ DFW departure terminal about a month ago and an AA F/A was sitting next to me yacking away on the cell phone about how she plans on getting "botox" shots before her friends birthday and this and that.... doesn't sound too much of "desparation" to me.....

How do you know this person's situation? How do you know that her income as a f/a is supporting her lifestyle? How do you know that she doesn't have a significant other in her life whose income supplements hers and allows her to be able to afford these "botox" shots? I really don't think this is a fair statement.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 23): also, part of their job is to deal with cranky people..what else do they get paid for or to do? It certainly isn't saving someone's life in the ER everyday or getting shot at by a bunch of hoodlums......To me, it seems that they sit around in the back and read magazines

You're absolutely correct in saying that part of a flight attendant's job is to deal with cranky people. But to answer your question as to what else they get paid to do...YES they absolutely get paid to save people's lives...maybe not in the ER...but that definitely falls under a flight attendant's duties. They may not get "shot at by a bunch of hoodlums" but they certainly face that risk onboard. We all have seen the stories of weapons being "missed" at security screening points. Flight attendants have also been the target of many assaults (both verbal and physical.) So while it is correct to say a flight attendant doesn't get paid to be shot at by a bunch of hoodlums, they certainly face their share of dangers onboard. And as for the final part of your comment, I think you addressed it yourself: "To me, it seems that they sit around in the back and read magazines." Exactly. To YOU it SEEMS. Your perception is wrong. There is more to being a flight attendant than what you are obviously observing on your oh-so-frequent flights.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30): Now F/As don't get paid a lot. I understand that. But I also have never understood why anyone would think being an F/A should be a 45 year lifetime career. It seems like a job for the young, with wages in line with that job description. Then, move on to something that is more stable and has upside other than discounted travel. Lifetime pilots, mx, etc. I understand. But not lifetime F/As.

When were the exact guidelines of what should and should not be a "career" drafted? Did I miss that? What exactly makes the flight attendant career NOT a career? Is it because flight attendants aren't paid as much as other careers (writers for example)? Well consider this...maybe for some folks this world doesn't revolve around money. Maybe for some happiness is a bigger concern. Maybe being a flight attendant is an enjoyable career for some, and they couldn't imagine doing anything else. Certainly these very senior flight attendants didn't stick with this career for 35+ years just for the free pretzels! I think sometimes people need to pull their heads out of their donkies and realize that there is a big world outside their personal realm, and although their way of thinking may work for THEM...it doesn't work for all.