DLax85

...but as long as Age 60 remains in the CBA as the "retirement age" and Age 65 remains the "regulated age" (...once again the terms are NOT synonymous) then the company will always be at risk....today, and tomorrow, and we will continue to have some leverage on this issue.

I don't believe there is any specific advantage with regards to the company on acting on this today.

There may be other advantages/disadvantages within our crew force, but those are a different argument.

Piloto Noche

When DW and ALPA backed the change of the age 60 rule, they hurt us much more than just delaying our collective advancement. Any time a rule (or work rule) is negatively changed by legislation, a labor group will spend negotiating capital trying to keep the status quo. That is a fact.

So, I ask you, what are you willing to give up, for the rest of your career, to keep it at age 60 knowing that no one is taking advantage of an age 60 retirement now? If the company is hell-bent on changing the contractual retirement age to 65 with a 2% / year penalty, I would like to see our guys negotiate an extra 2% pay raise in addition to whatever raises they had previously agreed on.

I know, on the surface it sounds stupid; giving up something we have. But in reality, I want money NOW...not a "promised" retirement benefit down the road.

trashhauler

I have no desire to see the retirement age change in our contract. But I find it funny that all of you who keep saying that there is no way I'm working a day past 60. As we are seeing right now, not to many guys are retiring. A couple of months ago I had an old geezer tell me that when he was in the mid 40's they would all talk about how they couldn't wait for retirement and they were glad it was age 60. Flash forward 15 years and they don't want to retire anymore. This was in response to my question of, Why his cohorts weren't retiring.

So I guess circumstances change. Bottom line for me, I want to keep the retirement age at 60, but I'm not willing to give anything up for it. It should not cost us any negotiating capital to keep it as is. I believe that eventually it will change, wether it's by law or negotiating. My two pesos worth.

DLax85

PN - Are your FCIF preferences set up so you receive the retirement FCIFs?

While admittedly the retirement #s are way down, there are a handful of guys who are retiring --- some right at 60, some in between.

While many folks are very healthy until age 60 --- many are not --- and no one can convince me that flying at FEDEX between 60 and 65 will increase your longevity. I think many folks will witness/learn this over the next few years via some very sad FCIFs.

My belief is that life is best when you have options...and that it takes both time and money to maximize your QOL.

Everyone has different personal "discount rates" with regards to $$ now vs. taking $$s later, but most studies show people end up giving up too much (...think lottery winners who take the lump sum vs the annuity).

Let's keep personal choice in the CBA wherever possible.

Busboy

I think numbersguy is onto something here...Maybe we should start negotiating with the company to reduce our vacation. As, the company doesn't really know for sure if someone's going to use it or not. And, what about that pesky sick leave stuff? Who knows when someone's just going to call in sick for their trip!! The government doesn't mandate that we get those benefits. They could change the laws and take it away from us!!

And, what about our work rules? The government has already made laws that say we CAN work up to 16hrs each day. Why are we wasting negotiating capital trying to keep better work rules?

Busboy

Oops. Sorry. I meant to say that "I think numbersguy might be ON something". Not "onto". Now it makes more sense?

HIFLYR

[quote=Piloto Noche;568893]When DW and ALPA backed the change of the age 60 rule, they hurt us much more than just delaying our collective advancement. Any time a rule (or work rule) is negatively changed by legislation, a labor group will spend negotiating capital trying to keep the status quo. That is a fact.

So, I ask you, what are you willing to give up, for the rest of your career, to keep it at age 60 knowing that no one is taking advantage of an age 60 retirement now? If the company is hell-bent on changing the contractual retirement age to 65 with a 2% / year penalty, I would like to see our guys negotiate an extra 2% pay raise in addition to whatever raises they had previously agreed on.

I know, on the surface it sounds stupid; giving up something we have. But in reality, I want money NOW...not a "promised" retirement benefit down the road.[/quot

If we did get rid of the 60 retirement, I think we would see a LOT of guys from about 55yrs and up jump at the chance to go at 60 before the contract is signed. IF you were not a Captain when the law was changed you will probably work past 60 too. We also need to have some years of service 25 etc added to the contract where you can retire without penalty.

MEMA300

I am two issue voter.

1. Retirement age still needs to be 60
2. Definition of a trip needs to NEVER change.

fedupbusdriver

The question should be what is the company willing to give up to change it. It is already in writing in the contract, and they would have to negotiate to change it.

MEMA300

If we ever considered changing the retirement age it better come with a increased multiplier and a smaller penalty for early retirement.

I believe our retirement used to have a cola adjustment when we were under the FCH.

Given the 401k hit that we have taken recently I think more of us are going to be relying on the A plan to fund our after retirement lifestyle. (mobile home in florida with out last crashpad car as our daily driver).