This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Back to Squawk list

Boeing puts all pensions at risk

One year after the government dropped an investigation into Boeing’s CEO James McNerney citing strikes as a cause to shift production south, the specter of lost jobs has secured huge concessions for the aerospace giant. After voting down a different deal seven weeks prior, on Friday Boeing employees narrowly approved an agreement to keep a major new line of planes in Washington state, at the cost of indefinitely freezing their pensions. “Inside the union hall Friday night,” the Seattle Times… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ric Wernicke 10
If politicians were to have 401K style pensions they might throttle back on the regulations that restrict economic activity and allow more production of goods and services instead of stifling them.
Brian Bishop 4
The headline is purposefully misleading and inflammatory with the "at risk" wording. Makes me suspicious of the entire article's purpose and the agenda of the writer.
PhotoFinish 10
I don't agree with the writer's political agenda. But I accept his logic. The legislators don't deserve their fixed benefit pensions after helping Boeing workers give-up their own.

I do agree that the writers language is misleading. Switching from fixed-benefit pension to fixed-contribution pension is not a bad thing. The writer's language makes it seem that such a change is going from having a pension to not having a pension, which us not true.

But simply, someone who works for 50 years should have more retirement funds/payments than someone who works only 20-25 years and goes and tajes a cushy job elsewhere or sours in their backside for decades.

As a society we can't afford to have people work for 20-25 years and then continue to get paid every month for up to an additional 5 or 6 decades afterwards.

1. Our government will go bankrupt and be unable to provide for the essential needs if society.

2. Our companies will be unable to compete in the global marketplace, will go bankrupt and eliminate lots of well-paying jobs, whose disappearance will be entirely linked to large payments made over many years to former employees who haven't worked or contributed to the company in years.

While the US was in it's glory years and alone accounting for a majority of the world economy, the economic growth allowed society to overlook the unfunded liabilities that would be paid by future generations of greater numbers of workers. But these Ponzi schemes fall apart when the number of future workers stops increasing.

Fixed-benefit pensions closely resemble Ponzi-schemes. These pensions will be paid at the cost of future workers' livelihoods. There is no way to avoid that truth.

The sooner we switch to sustainable pension schemes (such as fixed-contribution pensions), the sooner we can assure a good future for future workers.

As far as plane manufacturing there will be increased global competition from many quarters. This is no time to sit around and fail to act and let a great company fall into ruin, taking lots of great jobs down the drain.
Brian Bishop 1

[This poster has been suspended.]

joel wiley 5
Pilotman, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I must disagree with you regarding the aviation related nature of the post. This follows several squawks regarding the recent Union votes which were heavily commented upon. As such, this appears part of an ongoing conversation that many seem to feel is aviation industry related.

I don't recall seeing objections raised regarding this being off topic in those squawks, I may have missed them.
PhotoFinish 7
The other squawks were directly related to the machinists making planes and their employer, currently the latest maker of commercial airplanes in the world. Those posts were directly related to these mechanics lives and to whether their company can remain the latest airplane manufacturer for long.

This piece was more related to the legislators and government workers who deserve their fixed benefit pensions less than the machinists. The machinists pensions is a private matter. At best it'll bankrupt one employer Boeing and out them out of work.

The government worker pensions will bankrupt our entire society. The ever-growing expenditures will take money away from other valuable programs. The pensions lastin decades after only limited years of service, will make our country less able to spend on the infrastructure that we nee to be competitive in a global economy and will drastically reduce our ability to take care of the most needy among us.

The only problem is that political leaders haven't been and won't be anywhere near as proactive in finding a solution as business leaders have had to be. Politicians would rather spend future generations' money, rather than take difficult decisions to implement solutions today. Solutions that might jeopardize their political standing with voting government workers.

As a society we need to make fair and common sense decisions, that both pay people fairly for their work and contribute to the workers well-being in retirement. But we can't afford to continue to pay workers for decades after the end o their working years. We can't afford it in the private sector. We can't afford it in the public sector. The ieuvate sector has managers. But in the publuc sector, who'll defend taxpayers and future generations of children and grandchildren?

In the past, people wanted their children to live a better life and have better opportunities. So sad to see so many today, who want 'mine' without any regard for others or for the future.
(v)e Same 0
I couldn't agree with you more pilotman. This used to be a great place to just hear about aircraft and flying in general. Now it seems like its nothing but right wing politics and anti union crap... Definitely miss the way things once were... But times change I guess.
David Caprita 2
Right on! Because a story about a corporation in the business of making airplanes has nothing to do with airplanes!
PhotoFinish 6
This article isn't really about Boeing. It suggests that the legislators who wanted the mechanists to accept the new contract don't deserve their own fixed-benefit pensions paid on the public dime. I'm prone to accept the writer's logic.

Though the legislators don't deserve lavish pensions paid by struggling taxpayers. This was true, long before they wanted the Boeing workers' jobs to stay in Washington state. Their public endorsement of the contract (granted for the benefit of the state's economy) does show that they realize that fixed-benefit prisons aren't essential to a great society. Wonder how long it will be before they introduce legislation to change their own pensions to fixed-contribution pensions like those of most other private-sector workers with good jobs.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!