Another Dagum 65 Rant!
12-15-2007, 04:55 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Drinking from the fire hose
Posts: 305
In the meantime...here's the homework for you, and everyone else who wants to make changes.
1. Go the website. Read YOUR block rep's latest letters. Then go to the other reps and read their's too. Read the minutes from the last meetings. You'll probably have some questions--I did. So I called Tony and got some answers. DO THIS ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS. I'm not lecturing you like a teacher or Sunday school leader to do something EVERY DAY, but rather once every two weeks log off APC for 10-15 minutes and be current on our ALPA board. I think they could do a better job of getting info out. However, its OUR responsiblity to read and absorb the info that is already there. No kidding--I learn something or pick something up every time I go there.
1. Go the website. Read YOUR block rep's latest letters. Then go to the other reps and read their's too. Read the minutes from the last meetings. You'll probably have some questions--I did. So I called Tony and got some answers. DO THIS ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS. I'm not lecturing you like a teacher or Sunday school leader to do something EVERY DAY, but rather once every two weeks log off APC for 10-15 minutes and be current on our ALPA board. I think they could do a better job of getting info out. However, its OUR responsiblity to read and absorb the info that is already there. No kidding--I learn something or pick something up every time I go there.
There is NO comm from this MEC. What's the news from the "secret" meeting on Dec 6th??? It's now Dec 15th!!!! The only thing we hear about is the MEC and Alpa national patting themselves on the back over this age 60 mess. Scr@w national!!!! This MEC needs to start working and representing THIS pilot group.I'll tell you the first thing I'd like you to do... Rescind the agency shop. Why should we be forced to pay for not being represented.
12-15-2007, 04:57 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Excessed WB Capt.
Posts: 1,084
I always thought the old guys should be able to work past 60, if they so desired and were dumb enough to want to, as long as their economic gain was not my economic pain.
If the old farts get to work to 65 and increase their YOS multiplier then the young guys ought to be able to retire when 25 YOS. This should be allowed without financial penalty and without age discrimination due to my youth.
If the retirement benefits change for the worst for the younger guys (like a penalty for retiring before 65) I hope the old farts that supported this thing realize they are just a bunch of selfish, self centered, egotistical jerks. They had the option of retiring at age 60 with no penalty and due to their selfishness they are requiring me to possibly work to 65 to get full retirement benefits.
It scares me that in one generation we can go from the greatest generation to the baby boomers the most selfish generation.
If the old farts get to work to 65 and increase their YOS multiplier then the young guys ought to be able to retire when 25 YOS. This should be allowed without financial penalty and without age discrimination due to my youth.
If the retirement benefits change for the worst for the younger guys (like a penalty for retiring before 65) I hope the old farts that supported this thing realize they are just a bunch of selfish, self centered, egotistical jerks. They had the option of retiring at age 60 with no penalty and due to their selfishness they are requiring me to possibly work to 65 to get full retirement benefits.
It scares me that in one generation we can go from the greatest generation to the baby boomers the most selfish generation.
12-15-2007, 05:08 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
The following was posted on FAASafety.gov. The fourth bullet under Discussion reads to me like one has to turn 60 on or after 13 DEC for itto apply........Hmmmmm..........interesting.........h old the celebration FH......
InFO - President Today Signed Age 65 Into Law
Notice Number: NOTC1079
Subject:
President Today Signed Age 65 Into Law, Affecting Pilots Under Part 121
Purpose:
This InFO announces the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" (the Act), effective immediately, December 13, 2007, and highlights key provisions of the Act.
Background:
In November, 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) revised the maximum age for certain pilots in international operations from age 60 to age 65. Until 12/13/07, the United States, an ICAO member state, limited its pilots operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 to age 60. Now those pilots may continue until age 65, as specified in the Act.
Discussion:
Key provisions of the Act include the following:
Directors of safety, directors of operations, chief pilots, trainers, and pilots under part 121 should be aware of the Act and should collaborate immediately in implementing its provisions.
The exact language of the Act can be downloaded at the following public Web site:
http://thomas.loc.gov . In the "Search Bill Text" box click on "Bill Number," enter "HR 4343" and click Search.
An InFO contains valuable information for operators that should help them meet certain administrative, regulatory, or operational requirements with relatively low urgency or impact on safety.
For more information on this and other InFO's please go to the following URL:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info
InFO - President Today Signed Age 65 Into Law
Notice Number: NOTC1079
Subject:
President Today Signed Age 65 Into Law, Affecting Pilots Under Part 121
Purpose:
This InFO announces the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" (the Act), effective immediately, December 13, 2007, and highlights key provisions of the Act.
Background:
In November, 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) revised the maximum age for certain pilots in international operations from age 60 to age 65. Until 12/13/07, the United States, an ICAO member state, limited its pilots operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 to age 60. Now those pilots may continue until age 65, as specified in the Act.
Discussion:
Key provisions of the Act include the following:
. As of 12/13/07, part 121, § 121.383(c), specifying age 60, ceases to be effective.
. A pilot age 60+ acting as pilot in command (PIC) in international operations must be paired with a pilot under age 60 (consistent with the current ICAO requirement).
. In domestic operations both pilots may be age 60+.
. It permits the continued employment of a pilot who reaches age 60 on or after 12/13/07.
. It permits the employment as a new-hire a pilot who reached age 60 before 12/13/07.
. A pilot age 60+ will not be subjected to different, greater, or more frequent medical exams.
. Any pilot age 60+ must hold a first-class medical certificate, renewable on a 6-month cycle.
. Any air carrier employing pilots age 60+ must adjust its training program to ensure such pilots' skill and judgment continue at acceptable levels.
. Any pilot age 60+ must undergo a line check at 6-month intervals.
. For a pilot age 60+ acting as second in command (SIC), a regularly scheduled simulator evaluation may substitute for a required line check.
Recommended Action: Directors of safety, directors of operations, chief pilots, trainers, and pilots under part 121 should be aware of the Act and should collaborate immediately in implementing its provisions.
The exact language of the Act can be downloaded at the following public Web site:
http://thomas.loc.gov . In the "Search Bill Text" box click on "Bill Number," enter "HR 4343" and click Search.
An InFO contains valuable information for operators that should help them meet certain administrative, regulatory, or operational requirements with relatively low urgency or impact on safety.
For more information on this and other InFO's please go to the following URL:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info
12-15-2007, 05:43 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
Actually - when reading it again, I believe the statement is correct for a "pilot". It does not really address the continued employment of over-60 "crewmembers". The FAA is probably having a difficult time remembering that Flight Engineers still exist.
12-15-2007, 09:07 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: FedEx Capt
Posts: 292
A300_Driver,
This is what I am talking about. Straight from the CBA. A pilot who turn age 59 gets a check for $25,000 in his HRA fund and can continue to fly until age 65 (where is completely covered by the company). He can then still have his HRA account when he retires, while being covered by Medicare. THIS WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF VEBA AND IS A HUGE LOOPHOLE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. Section 27.H.7
b. For each eligible active pilot (i) having a seniority list number on August 25, 2006, (ii) who has attained at least age 53 before January 1, 2007, (iii) who is expected to meet the age and service requirements for coverage under the Retiree Group Health Plan as of his attainment of age60 or older, and (iv) who retires on or after August 26, 2006, the Company will make a one-time cash payment of restricted signing bonus to the VEBA equal to $25,000. Such contributions shall be made no later than January 28, 2007 (90 days after October 30, 2006). The contribution and interest attributable thereto shall be transferred to the HRA established with respect to that pilot upon the date that the pilot attains age 59, or if earlier, as soon as practicable after the pilot dies. If a pilot attains age 59 or dies prior to the date that the Company funds the VEBA pursuant to this Section 27.H.7.b., the contribution and interest attributable to such pilot shall be transferred to the HRA as soon as possible after the date on which the Company funds the VEBA.
c. HRA contributions will not be reduced for a pilot who continues as an active employee past age 60. There is no requirement that a pilot participate in a Company-sponsored Pre-Medicare health care plan when he retires in order to use his HRA or to receive an HRA contribution
d. There is no requirement that a Pilot participate in a Company sponsored Pre-Medicare Health care plan when he retires to use his HRA or to receive an HRA contribution.
e. A pilot’s HRA may be used for reimbursement of any qualified medical expenses while retired, including participant premium contributions, whether before or after Medicare eligibility. Any unused amounts in the HRA at the time of the pilot’s death (whether before or after retirement)may be used for reimbursement of any qualified medical expenses of the eligible surviving spouse and any other eligible surviving dependents. Any unused amounts in the HRA at the last to die of the pilot, eligible surviving spouse and eligible surviving dependents will be forfeited to the VEBA.
Am I wrong?
This is what I am talking about. Straight from the CBA. A pilot who turn age 59 gets a check for $25,000 in his HRA fund and can continue to fly until age 65 (where is completely covered by the company). He can then still have his HRA account when he retires, while being covered by Medicare. THIS WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF VEBA AND IS A HUGE LOOPHOLE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. Section 27.H.7
b. For each eligible active pilot (i) having a seniority list number on August 25, 2006, (ii) who has attained at least age 53 before January 1, 2007, (iii) who is expected to meet the age and service requirements for coverage under the Retiree Group Health Plan as of his attainment of age60 or older, and (iv) who retires on or after August 26, 2006, the Company will make a one-time cash payment of restricted signing bonus to the VEBA equal to $25,000. Such contributions shall be made no later than January 28, 2007 (90 days after October 30, 2006). The contribution and interest attributable thereto shall be transferred to the HRA established with respect to that pilot upon the date that the pilot attains age 59, or if earlier, as soon as practicable after the pilot dies. If a pilot attains age 59 or dies prior to the date that the Company funds the VEBA pursuant to this Section 27.H.7.b., the contribution and interest attributable to such pilot shall be transferred to the HRA as soon as possible after the date on which the Company funds the VEBA.
c. HRA contributions will not be reduced for a pilot who continues as an active employee past age 60. There is no requirement that a pilot participate in a Company-sponsored Pre-Medicare health care plan when he retires in order to use his HRA or to receive an HRA contribution
d. There is no requirement that a Pilot participate in a Company sponsored Pre-Medicare Health care plan when he retires to use his HRA or to receive an HRA contribution.
e. A pilot’s HRA may be used for reimbursement of any qualified medical expenses while retired, including participant premium contributions, whether before or after Medicare eligibility. Any unused amounts in the HRA at the time of the pilot’s death (whether before or after retirement)may be used for reimbursement of any qualified medical expenses of the eligible surviving spouse and any other eligible surviving dependents. Any unused amounts in the HRA at the last to die of the pilot, eligible surviving spouse and eligible surviving dependents will be forfeited to the VEBA.
Am I wrong?
It is a loophole, but I don't know about huge...
We will have to see how many of these old codgers stick around, and for how long--they're not going to last long the way the schedules have been lately!
12-15-2007, 09:49 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
It wasn't a loop hole it was planned. There were plenty of guys sticking around past 60 still collecting the 25K and company "active duty" health care before the law changed. You don't think the NC knew about them?
They first harsh words Jet Jock ever threw my way were after I suggested that we fine the ropes 5K per year to help pay for the skoolin of the FDA brats.
They first harsh words Jet Jock ever threw my way were after I suggested that we fine the ropes 5K per year to help pay for the skoolin of the FDA brats.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 12-15-2007 at 09:58 AM.
12-15-2007, 11:03 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
Alternate Retirement Formula I am very concerned about losing the option of retiring at age 60 without an "early retirement penalty"....it is definitely one of the "unintended consequences" in the age 60 debate that could weaken everyone at FEDEX, or other carriers who are still have an A fund.
There are methods though that could protect both those who were hired "very young" from having to work well in excess of 25 yrs to get a full retirement, and at the same time allow those who were hired "late in life" to work beyond age 60 and increase their benefits.
One such formula would be full retirement benefits (i.e. "no early retirement penalty) for those who's "age" + "years worked at FDX" = 80
This would yield the following requirements:
Hired at 30 - work until 55....55 + 25 = 80
Hired at 32 - work until 56....56 + 24 = 80
Hired at 34 - work until 57....57 + 23 = 80
Hired at 36 - work until 58....58 + 22 = 80
Hired at 38 - work until 59....59 + 21 = 80
Hired at 40 - work until 60....60 + 20 = 80
Hired at 42 - work until 61....61 + 19 = 80
Hired at 44 - work until 62....62 + 18 = 80
Hired at 46 - work until 63....63 + 17 = 80
Hired at 48 - work until 64....64 + 16 = 80
Hired at 50 - work until 65....65 + 15 = 80
To protect the lucky few who get hired under age 30, you could institue a "side rule" stating anyone working for 30 yrs would get full benefits regardless of their age.
There's always middle ground out there --- just gotta put our brains together and find it!
12-15-2007, 03:41 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 117
My only point is that during negotiations the NC kept saying the contract is based on slicing a agreed upon amount. I forget what they said the total amount of the contract was. But $43.2 million was ear-marked for a specific age group and I have to think that is a significant portion. I voted "yes" under the guise that it was a stop gap between mandatory retirement and age 65 when Medicare kicks in. I was mistaken. It is my fault for not reading the fine print. Basically everyone under 53 years old is giving up $10,000 of negotiated money to a small group of people. I beleive that equates to a few rounds, tips, and dinners......
12-15-2007, 06:53 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: FedEx Capt
Posts: 292
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
