United Air Lines v. Air Line Pilots, No. 06-3489 (7th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 To be cited only in accordance with of Appeals United States Court Fed. R. App. P. 32.1Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 16, 2007 Decided April 19, 2007 Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Nos. 06-3489, 06-3548 & 06-3559 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. IN THE MATTER OF: UAL CORPORATION, et al., Debtors. APPEALS OF: UNITED AIRLINES, INC.; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; AND UNITED RETIRED PILOTS BENEFIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION Nos. 06 C 2171 06 C 2172 06 C 2173 John W. Darrah, Judge. Order Last year we held that United Air Lines need not make supplemental pension payments for October 2005 or later months, after the effective termination date of the pilots pension plan. See In re UAL Corp., 468 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). Before that decision was released, the district court had held that United must make these payments for the months of November and December 2005 and January 2006. The obligation ended, the district court held, only when the plan of reorganization took effect, and not (as we were to conclude) when the pension plan terminated. The district court held that United had waived its right to argue for an earlier terminal date by failing to appeal from an interlocutory order that the bankruptcy court had made earlier in 2005 requiring United to make supplemental payments for the month of February. Nos. 06-3489, 06-3548 & 06-3559 Page 2 Our opinion addressed that subject directly, holding that United had not forfeited its legal position by failing to take an interlocutory appeal. See 468 F.3d at 453-54. The pilots now contend that because we dealt with a forfeiture argument rather than a waiver argument, we should hold another round of briefing and argument. That is incorrect. Our decision fully resolved this controversy, using the correct terminology. (On the distinction between waiver and forfeiture see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993).) If the pilots had any additional argument in support of the judgment in their favor, they should have advanced it in the prior appeal; it is no longer available. On United s appeal, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter a decision consistent with our opinion holding that United s obligation to make supplemental pension payments ended with the pilots pension plan. United Airlines recovers its costs in this court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
