Protecting Amotlc.a"• Pe11•lons 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

I ZOO K Street, N. W .• Washington, D.C. Z0005-40i6 

May 9, 2012 

Re: I !Case 199334, Retirement Income Plan for 

Pilots of US Aiiways, Inc. (the "PiJots Plan" or the "Plan") 

Dear ~----------------------~ 

This decision responds to your February 15, 2011 appeal on behalf of your client, '---;-------.- '-------::~--------~(t~he~"Appeal"). The Appeal concerns PBGC's January 3, 2011 determination 

L__ __________ PBGC benefit under the Pilots Plan. For the reasons stated below, we 

affirm PBGC's determination that is not entitled to a PBGC benefit. 

Summary of Our Decision 

In July 1998,L__ ____ __j received a $768,808.81 lump-sum payment from the 

Pilots Plan. PBGC determined that, because this lump-sum payment represents a 100% 

distribution of Pilots Plan benefit after the deduction for the benefit payable 

to []Alternate Payee, Dis not entitled to a benefit from PBGC. 

The Appeal, which contests PBGC's determination on several grounds, contains no 

information specific to benefit calculation. Rather, the primary claim is that 

US Airways' method for calculating benefits under section 4.1 (E) of the Pilots Plan's formal 

document (the "Minimum Benefit" provision) is incorrect. Specifically, the Appeal requests that 

the Appeals Board recalculate benefit "without applying the errors identified 

by the Pilots in their March 23, 2007 submission to the Appeals Board, the Second Amended 

Complaint in Davis [v. PBGC,l :08-cv-01064-IDIJ (D.D.C.)] and their motions for summary 

judgment in Davis., · 

The Appeals Board concluded that any change to the way that US Airways applied the 

Minimum Benefit provision could not result in a greater Pilots Plan benefit for 1 

L__ __ ~ 

The Board reached this conclusion because the Minimum Benefit formula, as~a-p----,pl.--1e----.dr 

by US Airways, produced a benefit amount for that exceeded the cap on 

benefit payments under section 415(b) of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). As provided in 
JR 

<I 

Ql 

.. ·~ 

~ 

Section 7.1 of the Pilots Plan docwnent, benefit amounts that exceed the IRC § 415(b) cap 

cannot be paid from the Pilots Plan. Instead, any amounts in excess of the IRC § 415(b) limit 

must be paid from US Airways' pension plans that are not covered by PBGC. 

The Appeals Board does not address the specific contentions in the Appeal with respect 

to how the Minimum Benefit should be calculated, since resolving this issue could not provide a 

basis for to receive a PBGC benefit. 1 The Board decided that the Appeal, 

having failed to provide a sufficient basis for changing PBGC's determination, must be denied. 

PBGC's Benefit Determination and Your Appeal 

On January 3, 2011, PBGC issued a benefit determination letter to L_______.~---­

PBGC's letter stated D that Dis not entitled to a PBGC benefit because: (1) the prior Plan 

Administrator paid a portion of the benefit D earned under the Pilots Plan as a lump-sum 

distribution prior to Plan termination, and (2) the remainder of0 pension benefit under the 

Pilots Plan was assigned to D Alternate Payee under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 

("QDR0").2 

In addition to your law firm represents a large number of Pilots Plan 

participants and beneficiaries whose appeals were previously decided by the Appeals Board. In· 

a letter dated February 29, 2008, the Appeals Board issued a decision (the "Consolidated 

Decision") that addressed ten issues that legal counsel raised on behalf of 769 Pilots Plan 

participants.3 On later dates, the Appeals Board issued additional decisions that resolved the 

appeals of Pilots Plan participants represented by your law firm. 

In the February 15, 2011 appeal you filed on behalf ofl__ ____ __jyou state on 

page 1: 

This appeal is entirely protective in nature, as it raises issues that were resolved by the 

Appeals Board in its February 29, 2008 and Sel'tember ll, 2008, omnibus decisions; its 

June 5, 2009 decision related to the appeal ofl I and its July 27, 

2009 decision related to the appeal of I I each decided in 

Consolidated Appeal Case No. 19933400, and/or on which the PBGC has taken an 

1 For example, even if PBGC were to use the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index ("S&P 500 index") with 

reinvested dividends in the Minimum Benefit calculation (as the Appeal advocates), I I Pilots Plan 

benefit could not be increased because of the cap on benefit payments under IRC § 415. 

2 PBGC does not typically issue benefit detenninations to participants who received complete distributions of 

their pension benefits before their pension plan tenninated. In this case, however, PBGC detennined that the 

Alternate Payee, I I is entitled to a PBGC benefit. PBGC further decided to issue a benefit 

detennination to because Dis linked to this Alternate Payee under a QDRO. 

The "Consolidated Appeal" is the appeal filed on March 23, 2007 by the Jaw finn of '---------

1 I was not an appellant in that appeal because PBGC had 

not yet issued a benefit detennination toO. On February 29, 2008, the Appeals Board issued the Consolidated 

Decision (redacted copy provided as Enclosure l ), which applied to 769 individuals named in the Consolidated 

Appeal. Shortly after the Appeals Board issued the Consolidated Decision, your law finn replaced as 

the representative of the appellants in the Consolidated Appeal. 

2 
institutional position in Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,/: 08-cv-0 1064-

HHJ (D.D.C.) . .. Nonetheless, files this appeal to ensure that no issues 

remain regarding whetherOclaims have been exhausted. 

The Appeal further states, on page 2, that retired in c::J 1998 at age 

after approximately 30 years of service with US Airways and Allegheny Airlines. You also n

that, upon I I retirement, D received a 100% lump-sum distribution from t

prior Plan Administrator. The Appeal provided no further infonnation or documents concerni

I I pension benefit calculations. []election of a benefit form, []lump-su

payments, or the tenns of0QDRO. 

The Appeal claims that is entitled to a benefit from PBGC for t

following reason: ~-----~ 

[B]ecause was on the of Allegheny Airlines (a 

predecessor company to US Airways) as of December I, 19720pension benefit should 

have been calculated in accordance with section 4.1 (E) of the Plan (the "minimum benefit 

provision"). That provision states that pilots on the Allegheny Airlines seniority list as of 

December I, 1972, like are to receive the greater of the benefit they 

would have received had the Plan as in effect in 1972 remained unchanged, or the benefit 

payable under the current Plan. In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claim 

Eight of the Second Amended Complaint in Davis, the Pilots identified the PBGCs errors 

in applying section 4.1(E). In support thereof, the Pilots attached a declaration of US 

Airways' formerl I who (while occupying the 

position of Director of was a participant in the 1972 collective 

bargaining negotiations that led to section 4.1(E)'s minimum benefit provision. [] 

I I declaration authoritatively resolves the issue of section 4.1 (E)'s proper 

interpretation. For all of the reasons stated in tte motio1 for summary jud~ment in Davis 

and its supporting documents (including the declaration), 1 I 

requests that the Appeals Board calculate D minimum benefit using the principles 

identified in the Davis summary judgment motion, and avoid the same errors committed 

by-the earlier Appeals Board Decision .... 

The Appeal also incorporates by reference, as a "protective measure," all of the documents fil

with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Everett v. USAir Grou

Inc., Case No. 95-cv-990 (D.D.C.) C ~. The Appeal further states: I 

out of an abundance of caution, incorporates those materials herein, and requests that t

Appeals Board consider all of them when resolving his minimum benefit contention." 

Furthermore, the Appeal requests the following relief: 

'---~---~requests that the Appeals Board overturn the determination thatD is 

not entitled to an additional PBGC benefit and re-evaluate entitlement 

to an additional benefit without applying the errors identified by the Pilots in their March 

23, 2007 submission to the Appeals Board, the Second Amended Complaint in Davis, 

and their motions0summary judgment in Davis. 

60 

ote 

he 

ng 

m 

he 

ed 

p, 

I 

he 

3 
Background 

A.LI ------------~IP~e~n~si~on~D~a=ta 

In addition to the Pilots Plan, a tax-qualified defined-benefit pension plan covered by 

PBGC, had earned pension benefits in two other US Airways pension plans: 

(1) the Target Benefit Plan, a tax-qualified defined-contribution plan not covered by PBGC; and 

(2) the "Top Hat Plan,"· a non-tax-qualiiied US Airways pension plan. Tax-qualified defined 

benefit plans are not permitted to pay benefits above the limits provided in the IRC, including 

IRC §§ 415 and 401(a)(17). US Airways used the Top Hat Plan to provide benefits above these 

IRC limits. 4 We discuss the 415 and 401 (a)(17) limits in more detail later in this decision. 

If a participant may be owed a benefit from PBGC, PBGC's standard practice after 

becoming plan trustee is to make electronic images of the documents the former plan 

administrator maintained for the participant. The pension documents US Airways had 

maintained for however, were not included in this process because Dwas 

considered to have received a full distribution on:=JPilots Plan benefit prior to the Plan's 

termination date. Shortly before PBGC issued a benefit determination in 

January 2011, PBGC created a participant file for c:::J 

Please note that, if has any records concerning []benefits - such as 

US Airways' benefit calculations, the benefit election forms D signed, or Dlump-sum payment 

amounts- you or D may submit them to PBGC. PBGC will add these records to Oparticipant 

file. PBGC also will review any new, specific information of this type that could provide a basis 

for changing benefit determination. 

Even though was not included in the process under which documents 

in participant files were transferred to PBGC from US Airways, PBGC's records contain a 

substantial amount of electronic data from US Airways regarding benefits. 

These electronic records relate to []earnings history,[] pay rate, and the penswn lump-sum 

distributions D received uponD c=J 1, 1998 retirement. In Enclosure 2, we provide a printout 

of the electronic records information that relate to the lump sum distribution of i=======i 

i===~ benefits. Additionally, in Enclosure 3, we provide additional data for~~-

L__ ____ _j in a table format. 5 · 

It is the Appeals Board's understanding that a formal plan document was never adopted for the Top Hat Plan. 

The Top Hat Plan, however, is referred to in Letters of Agreement between US Airways and the Air Line Pilots 

Association (''ALPA"). For ex:ample, Part II, Section A. I of Letter of Agreement #45, titled "Early Retirement 

Incentive Program," states: 

A participating Pilot shall have his or her retirement benefits calculated under the Retirement Plan 

for Pilots of US Airways, Inc. (the "Retirement Plan") and the associated Top Hat Retirement Plan 

(designed to pay benefits which cannot be paid from the Retirement Plan due to the limitations of 

Internal Revenue Code Sections 401 (a)(17) and 415) (the "Nonqualified Plan") ... 

5 The data in Enclosure 3 was derived from the electronic records provided to PBGC by US Airways. We present 

this information in tables we created, instead of providing you with printed copies of the electronic information, to 

make the information easier to read. 

4 
.I 

The electronic data shows that US Airways paid L__ _____ __j three lump sums on 

July 15, 1998 from three different plans (see table below): 

Lump Sums Distributed to I I 

Pilo!s Plan $768,808.81 

Target Benefit Plan $99,842.86 

Top Hat Plan $104,252.53 

Total Lump Sums $972,904.20 

There is no record indicating that L__ _____ __jwas entitled to additional pension payments 

from any of these plans after July 15, 1998. 

The Pilots Plan's former actuarial finn, Towers Perrin, provided PBGC with a document 

tit1ed "Pilots Minimwn Accrued Benefit as of January 1, 1998'' (Enclosure 4). 6 Although the 

original of this document contains infonnation for a number of pilots, we redacted the names of 

and information for other pilots to grotect D their privacy. Enclosure 4 lists the foliowing 

information for (l) accrued Minimum Benefit balance as of January I, 

1998 (as an annual amount); (2) the salaries used in computing his accrued Minimum Benefit 

balance; and (3)0accrued benefit under the Basic Formula (as an annual amount). 

Finally, the records for show that [] began receiving a monthly 

benefit effective[] 1, 1998, and[]is currently receivinr a benefit from PBGC. For privacy 

protection reasons, we have not provided details concerning_ !benefit amounts 

in this decision. 

B. Relevant Plan Provisions 

The formal Pilots Plan document in effect when retired in June 1998 is 

the Retirement Income Plan for Pilots of USAir, Inc., as amended and restated effective 

7 January 1, 1994 ("1994 Plan"). The 1994 Plan provisions relevant to the Appeal are provided in 

Enclosure 5 to this decision and are summarized below. 

The Pilots Plan's Basic Benefit Formula. The 1994 Plan, at Section 4.1, establishes the 

following "Basic Formula": 

4.1 Basic Formula. The yearly amount of basic retirement income payable under the 

Plan to a Participant is equal to the sum of(A) and (B) less (C), ... 

It is the Appeals Board's understanding that this document is a printout of information contained in electronic 

records. 

7 The Pilots Plan document you provided as an exhibit to the Appeal is the Retirement Jncome Plan for Pilots of 

US Airways, Inc. (as amended and restated effective January l, 200 I) ("200 I Plan"). Although the 2001 Plan is 

similar to the 1994 Plan in many respects, the provisions in Section 7 titled "Maximum Defined Benefit Limitation" 

differ. See footnote 16 in the Appendix to this decision. 

5 

- ·-·----------·-·----
.I 

(A) 2.4% of the Participant's Final Average Earnings multiplied by the number of the 

Participant's full and partial years of Credited Service up to a maximum of25 years; 

(B) J% of the Participant's Final Average Earnings multiplied by the number of the 

Participant's full and partial years of Credited Service in excess of 25 years, up to a maximum of 

five years; 

(C) the yearly amount of retirement income payable to the Participant under the Target 

Benefit Plan; ... 

The Minimum Benefit Provision. Pages 29-30 of the Consolidated Decision (Enclosure 

1) provide a detailed explanation of the Pilots Plan's Minimum Benefit provision. Section 4.1 (D) 

of the 1994 Plan, which is similar to the provisions in earlier and later Pilots Plan documents, 

provides the following Minimum Benefit for pilots who were on the Allegheny Airlines Systems 

Seniority List as of December 1, 1972: 

(D) The amount of retirement income that would be provided (if it were detennined 

without regard to any offset for benefits paid under the Target Benefit Plan) for a Participant who 

was on the Allegheny Airlines' System Seniority List as of December I, 1972 shall not be less 

than the amount to which D would have been entitled at his Benefit Commencement date or 

Termination of Employment had the Plan continued in effect without change on and after 

December 1, 1972 using actual Earnings and assuming, for the purposes of determining the 

retirement income to which the Participant would have been entitled under the Variable 

Retirement Income Plan, as defined in the Prior Plan, that had the Variable Retirement Income 

Plan remained in effect, the investment performance thereunder, would be equal to the investment 

perfonnance of the Standard and Poor's 500 stock index (unadjusted for dividends). 

Maximum Defined Benefit Limitation. Section 7.1 of the 1994 Plan states: 

7.1 Maximum Defined Benefit Limitation. As required by ERISA, the maximum 

amount of yearly retirement income which may be paid to a Participant under this Plan may not 

exceed the limitations contained in JRC § 41 S(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 taking into 

account the special rule contained in JRC § 415(b ){9) .... 

The Pilots Plan's Lump Sum Option. The 1994 Plan permitted a participant with an 

employment tennination date on or after []Normal Retirement Date to elect to receive[] 

benefit in the form of a 100% lump sum payment if the conditions (set out in section 10.4 of the 

1994 Plan) were met. 

C. Benefit Limitations under the Internal Revenue Code 

The IRC §' 415(b) limits. IRC § 415(a) generally provides that a trust which is part of a 

pension plan shall not constitute a qualified trust if "in the case of a defmed-benefit plan, the plan 

provides for the payment of benefits with respect to a participant which exceeds the limitation of 

subsection (b)." IRC § 41S(b), as in effect in 1998, provided that the hlghest annual benefit 

payable under a defined benefit plan was the lesser of $90,000 or l 00% of the participant's 

compensation. 

IRC § 41 S(d) further provides for "Cost-of-Living Adjustments" ("COLAs") to the 

415(b)(l )(A) amounts. The $90,000 amount cited above reflected a "base period" of the 

calendar quarter beginning October 1, 1986, and in years after 1986 that amount increased 

6 
significantly because of the COLAs. 8 The IRC § 415(b )(1) limit m effect m 1998 was 

$130,000.00.9 

The IRC § 40l{a){l 7) limits. IRC § 401 (a)(l7) provides that a pension plan's trust 11shall 

not constitute a qualified trust 11 unless the annual compensation of each employee taken into 

account under the plan for any year does not exceed a specified amount. The impact of IRC 

§ 40 I (a)(I 7) upon I I benefits is discussed in more detail in the Appendix to this 

decision. 

Discussion 

As stated above, PBGC's records contain data concerning earnings 

and service but do not show how US Airways (as the prior Plan Administrator) had calculated 

c=Jbenefit. The records also do not list the amount of his accrued Pilots Plan benefit as ofD 

date of retirement CD I, 1998). The electronic records for and the 

Enclosure 4 document, however, list D accrued annual benefit as of January l, 1998 (five 

months before retirement) as: ~ 

• $134,204.00 under the Minimum Benefit formula, which equals a monthly benefit of 

$11,183.67; and 

• $112,301.00 under the Basic Fonnula, which equals a monthly benefit of $9,358.42. 

With actuarial assistance, the Appeals Board calculated monthly 

benefits as of[] retirement date based on the Pilots Plan's provisions, US Airways benefit 

calculation procedures, and the electronic lension records for We made 

separate calculations for I using both the Pilots Plan's Minimum Benefit 

formula and the Basic Fonnula. For each fonnula, we made separate calculations of: (I)c::::J 

benefit usingO actual earnings, and (2) D benefit usingO annual earnings as limited by JRC 

§ 40 I(a)(I 7). 1° Finally, we calculated monthly benefit after applying the 

As set forth in IRC § 415(d)(2)(B), the amount of the COLA adjustment is determined annually based on 

procedures "similar to the procedures used to adjust benefit amounts under § 215(i)(2)(A) of the Social Security 

Act." IRC § 415(d)(4) further establishes a "rounding rule," which provides that the COLA increases "shall be 

rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000." 

9 Additionally, IRC § 415(b)(2), which defines the term "annual benefit," contains a number of rules for 

determining the IRC § 415(b) amount. These include requirements that the IRC § 415(b)(IXA) limit be actuarially 

adjusted: (l) for benefit forms payable other than as a straight life annuity; and (2) when benefit payments begin 

before age 62, or after age 65. IRC §§ 415(b)(3) through (b)(II) contain additional rules for determining the 415 

limits for defined benefit plans, including in IRC §415(b)(9) a special rule that commercial airline pilots who retire 

at age 60 receive no reduction to the IRC §415(b) limit. See also Treasury Decision 9319, 72 Fed. Reg. 16,878 

(April 5, 2007) (final IRS regulation concerning IRC § 415 limits). 

10 We note in this regard that the definition of "Earnings" in Section 2.1 (K) of the .1994 Plan incorporates by 

reference the IRC § 40J(a)(17) limits that were in effect under OBRA '93. 

7 
benefit limit under IRC § 415(b), wruch was $130,000 per year or $10,833 per month. 11 The 

amounts we calculated are shown in the following table: 

Monthly Basic Formula benefit using uncapped $9,737.35 

earnings 

Monthly Basic Formula benefit using earnings as $8,975.24 

limited by IRC § 40l(a)(l7) 

Monthly Minimum Benefit using uncapped $12,087.60 

earnings 

Monthly Minimum Benefit using earnings as $12,022.13 

limited by IRC § 40 l(a)(l7) 

Maximum monthly benefit payable after $10,833.33 

applyine; IRC § 41S(b) defined-benefit limit 

We discuss these benefits calculations in detail in the Appendix. As we also explain in 

the Appendix, the Minimum Benefit amount we calculated for using uncapped 

earnings is consistent with the uncapped Minimum Benefit amount listed in the electronic 

records obtained from US Airways and in the document we are providing as Enclosure 4. 12 

The primary claim in the Appeal is that US Airways' method for calculating benefits 

under the Minimum Benefit provision is incorrect. This claim includes the assertion that US 

Airways should have used the S&P 500 index with an adjustment for reinvested dividends -

even though the Pilots Plan's document refers to "the investment performance of the Standard 

and Poor's 500 stock index (unadjusted for dividends)." The Appeal alleges two other errors 

concerning how US Airways applied the Minimum Benefit formula. Furthermore, although the 

Appeals Board in the Consolidated Decision denied the Minimum Benefit claim, the Appeal asks 

that the Appeals Board revisit that ruling in light of a number of documents that were not 

provided by appellants in the Consolidated Appeal, including the pleadings and supporting 

documents filed in two court cases, Everett v. USAir Group, Inc. and Davis v. PBGC. 

The Appeals Board concluded, based on the electronic data provided by US Airways and 

our calculations, that the Minimum Benefit formula - as applied by US Airways - produces a 

benefit amount for that exceeded the IRC § 415(b) limit on[]June 1. 1998 

retirement date. Accordingly, even if the Minimum Benefit formula amount for I I 

~--~should be increased for the reasons stated in the Appeai,Dwould not be entitled to a 

larger PBGC benefit. Instead, if Minimum Benefit formula amount was 

changed, any increase in benefit payments could only have occurred through US Airways1 Top 

Hat Plan. 13 PBGC does not insure benefits payable under the Top Hat Plan. 

11 As provided in Trees. Reg.§ 1.415(d)-J(a)(4)(iii), a pension plan is not pennitted to make additional payments 

that are based on future COLA increases to the JRC § 415(b) limit to a participant who has received Oentire plan 

benefit in the fonn of a lump sum. 

12 We did not find a record that showed L____. ____ __jMinimum Benefit amount using earnings as limited by 

IRC § 40J(a)(J7). 

13 The Top Hat Plan, in combination with the Target Benefit Plan, provided benefits above the IRC § 415(b) 

limits. In I I case, the infonnation in PBGC records indicates that D was entitled to benefits from 

both the Target Benefit Plan and the Top Hat Plan. It is our understanding that: (I) the Target Benefit Plan, after 

8 
Because Pilots Plan benefit cannot be increased to an amount above 

the IRC § 415(b) limit at the time ofCJretirement, we concluded it is unnecessary to make 

factual findings as to whether US Airways correctly interpreted the Pilots Plan's Minimum 

Benefit provision when[Jretired. We further decline the invitation in the Appeal to address 

whether the legal arguments and documents referenced in the Appeal could provide a basis for 

changing the Appeals Board's ruling on the Minimum Benefit issue in the Consolidated 

Decision. Any reconsideration of the Consolidated Decision's holding could only impact upon 

the benefits of other Lilots, who are not parties to this appea1. 14 The only participant who is a 

party in this appeal is I 

The records PBGC obtained from US Airways establish that the Pilots Plan made a I 00% 

lump sum distribution of Pilots Plan benefit (after accounting for the benefit 

payable tce=]Aiternate Payee). The Appeal did not provide any information that would support 

a finding that received less than []full Pilots Plan benefit. Accordingly, the 

Appeals Board decided that the Appeal presented no basis for changing PBGC's benefit 

determination. 

In addition to the issue involving the Minimum Benefit calculation, the Appeal 

incorporates by reference the other issues raised in the Consolidated Appeal and in the amended 

complaints in the Davis litigation. The Appeal also challenges PBGC's determination "on all 

applicable grounds" that were raised in the Consolidated Appeal and in the second amended 

complaint filed in Davis v. PBGC, I :08-cv-01 064-HHK (D.D.C.). We decided, for the reasons 

stated in the Consolidated Decision and in other decisions issued by the Appeals Board with 

respect to the participants that you represent, that the Appeal does not provide a basis for 

changing L__--------~ 

making a full distribution of benefits, tenninated; and (2} the Top Hat Plan is no longer in existence due to the US 

Airways' bankruptcy. 

~ On pages 31-32 of the Consolidated Decision, the Appeals Board stated with respect to the documents filed by 

legal counsel in the Consolidated Appeal: 

Your appeal does not provide any specific examples to illustrate the financial impact upon 

appellants of the alleged errors in PBGC's Prior Plan minimum benefit calculations. Rather, your 

appeal focuses only upon the general methodology used by US Airways and PBGC in calculating 

benefits. Since we are denying your claims for the reasons stated below, we did not fully examine 

whether a favorable decision on this issue would change the benefits of any of your appellants. 

Additionally, the Consolidated Decision observed that the IRC § 415(b) limit has a "significant impact'' upon 

pilots who qualified for the Prior Plan minimum benefit since "the minimum benefit as calculated pursuant to plan 

practice has generally produced amounts in excess of the IRC section 415 maximum benefit limits for qualified 

plans." Consolidated Decision, at p.32, n. 54, quoting PBGC's Actuarial Case Memo for the Pilots Plan at p. 7. 

To the Appeals Board's knowledge, neither your law firm nor prior legal counsel has provided PBGC with any 

examples that would demonstrate how a favorable ruling on the Minimum Benefit issue could result in larger benefit 

amounts after the IRC § 415 limits are applied. 

9 
II~ 

~: 

Ul 

~ 

Decision 

Having applied the provisions of the Pilots Plan, the provisions of ERISA, and PBGC 

regulations and policies to the facts in this case, the Appeals Board denies your appeal on behalf 

o on all issues. 

This decision is PBGC's final Agency action. I I if[]wishes, may seek 

review of this decision in an appropriate U.S. District Court. If you or lneed 

any other information concerning PBGC benefits, please contact PBGC's Authorized Plan 

Representative at 1-800-400-7242. 

Charles Vernon 

Appeals Board Chair 

10