Someone who gets it..
12-22-2007, 06:38 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,701
I hope you're right but I have my doubts. I think we'll see many return to the left seat only to "discover" some medical problems and then keep drawing a medical leave of absence for the next 5 years or so instead of "depleting" their A-plan, B-plan and the 401K. (What is it 60% of ~250K or so?)
Also, how old is our president? Is he over 60? If so, will he support the 90% of the crowd who'll be hurt by the change or the 10% crowd he belongs to? (I don't know his age)
Also, how old is our president? Is he over 60? If so, will he support the 90% of the crowd who'll be hurt by the change or the 10% crowd he belongs to? (I don't know his age)
As for the age of Bob Miller, he is over 60. I truly think he is representing all here. I think you may find that the age based contingent is on the younger side of the board.
12-22-2007, 06:41 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,701
If you are at UPS or FDX, the age is 60 and not 65. We have al lost 5 years worth of seniority which is not to be minimalized, but financially there is no negative effect. Leave at 60 and you have what you would have had. Stay til 65, you'll get some more.
12-22-2007, 06:43 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Sorry to inform you, but FDX and UPS are not the only game in town. Just the best.
12-22-2007, 06:45 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,701
I don't know about being hypocrites, since I fully expect the company will reduce the A fund multiplier and the B fund contribution. ....
I do not WANT to work longer (I don't know why anyone does), but I fear that I will have to, just to achieve the same financial outcome I see retired guys getting now.
I do not WANT to work longer (I don't know why anyone does), but I fear that I will have to, just to achieve the same financial outcome I see retired guys getting now.
If age 60 as normal retirement is to change, it can onl be done through negotiations and frankly, can only be done by the younger people. Who else would want it to change? By that token, wouldn't the younger in the group want to keep it the same so that the more senior have as much incentive to go and give up their numbers as possible?
12-22-2007, 06:45 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
OK Mark,
My question to you is: Will you still never understand the 60 year old widebody FedEx Captain that was hired at 48 years old, and as such will get a whopping 24% of his highest 5 years (if he were to retire at age 60), of which probably 2 to 4 of those years were served (and earned) as a widebody F/O. Are you really that shortsighted? Or are you just jaded by the fact that we've got a lot of guys who were here from the beginning; been a widebody Captain for many years; and still want to continue to work? For the record, I agree with you that perhaps they should go. But, since the law has changed, they have the right to hang around.
My question to you is: Will you still never understand the 60 year old widebody FedEx Captain that was hired at 48 years old, and as such will get a whopping 24% of his highest 5 years (if he were to retire at age 60), of which probably 2 to 4 of those years were served (and earned) as a widebody F/O. Are you really that shortsighted? Or are you just jaded by the fact that we've got a lot of guys who were here from the beginning; been a widebody Captain for many years; and still want to continue to work? For the record, I agree with you that perhaps they should go. But, since the law has changed, they have the right to hang around.
12-22-2007, 06:46 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,701
Your neighbor wanted it to change perhaps, but polling showed that a vast majority of UAL pilots wanted it to stay.
12-22-2007, 06:57 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Weighing the risk
He may fear that the "generous full retirement" could be slashed in the future, as happened elsewhere. Many legacy pilots retired from then-healthy carriers with pension funds that were supposedly "fully funded", only to get a big shock years later. If the pension is available as a lump sum, or as an annuity in the pilot's own name (held by an outside financial institution), then this risk is minimized.
