UPS Retirements
06-07-2010, 04:41 AM
#31
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
have you seen the accounting on that one? We just got a letter from the PBGC and it seems to me that the longer you wait (65 instead of 60) you get a much larger benefit from them, making it more expensive not less. OK, maybe they'll pay fewer years making it neutral, but I don't see the savings. As fast as that thing went through, I can't imagine much thought was given to accounting items.
As you know, politicians would never let a few facts get in the way of an agenda.
They also get to fly the banner of saving the airlines from a "pilot shortage".
Last edited by CactusCrew; 06-07-2010 at 06:25 AM.
06-07-2010, 06:23 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
have you seen the accounting on that one? We just got a letter from the PBGC and it seems to me that the longer you wait (65 instead of 60) you get a much larger benefit from them, making it more expensive not less. OK, maybe they'll pay fewer years making it neutral, but I don't see the savings. As fast as that thing went through, I can't imagine much thought was given to accounting items.
You will spend 5 more years paying lots of different kinds of taxes. That increases the amount you have to draw to get your money back from the government in retirement. This part is certain.
Not to mention they worry most about current expenditures. They look at 1 to 2 year blocks of time. If they can delay you 3-5 years, they prevent an accounting crisis this year or the next. Then they get to pay you in dollars that are worth less due to inflation.
Then there's the fuzzy math on working to 65. Folks, by some stats, will die a few years earlier for every year they work past 60. I challenge anyone to show that we will, as a whole, get more payout from leaving at 65. In the end these things are always costed out. It's all about the money. They didn't care about a "shortage". That part was like WMD in Iraq. It was just an excuse to get support for the legislation.
BTW, All the smart players knew it was going to put downward pressure on pilot wages for newer and future jobs.
06-07-2010, 08:24 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Unknown
Posts: 372
The accounting makes it cheaper for the government.
You will spend 5 more years paying lots of different kinds of taxes. That increases the amount you have to draw to get your money back from the government in retirement. This part is certain.
Not to mention they worry most about current expenditures. They look at 1 to 2 year blocks of time. If they can delay you 3-5 years, they prevent an accounting crisis this year or the next. Then they get to pay you in dollars that are worth less due to inflation.
Then there's the fuzzy math on working to 65. Folks, by some stats, will die a few years earlier for every year they work past 60. I challenge anyone to show that we will, as a whole, get more payout from leaving at 65. In the end these things are always costed out. It's all about the money. They didn't care about a "shortage". That part was like WMD in Iraq. It was just an excuse to get support for the legislation.
BTW, All the smart players knew it was going to put downward pressure on pilot wages for newer and future jobs.
You will spend 5 more years paying lots of different kinds of taxes. That increases the amount you have to draw to get your money back from the government in retirement. This part is certain.
Not to mention they worry most about current expenditures. They look at 1 to 2 year blocks of time. If they can delay you 3-5 years, they prevent an accounting crisis this year or the next. Then they get to pay you in dollars that are worth less due to inflation.
Then there's the fuzzy math on working to 65. Folks, by some stats, will die a few years earlier for every year they work past 60. I challenge anyone to show that we will, as a whole, get more payout from leaving at 65. In the end these things are always costed out. It's all about the money. They didn't care about a "shortage". That part was like WMD in Iraq. It was just an excuse to get support for the legislation.
BTW, All the smart players knew it was going to put downward pressure on pilot wages for newer and future jobs.
06-07-2010, 10:30 AM
#35
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Anyone who thinks these guys are going to walk away from a job like this where they work perhaps two days a week for 10.5 or so months in the year just isn't paying attention.
Call them greedy all you like, they just don't care about your opinion, they do think the bashing is funny.
Call them greedy all you like, they just don't care about your opinion, they do think the bashing is funny.
06-08-2010, 04:54 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 696
06-08-2010, 05:58 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,235
The "normal" retirement age for the A plan is sixty. If your retire and start to collect prior to age sixty you take a eight percent per year penalty . Example- retire at age fifty-five and you would lose forty percent of your retirement income. The maximum number of years you can have that pay a benefit is thirty, any time spent with the company beyond thirty years doesn't count. The longest anyone has is twenty two years because thats how long the airline has existed. Currently the benefit at twenty-two years of service would replace aprox. 25% of gross earnings minus survivors benefits.
06-08-2010, 07:00 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 696
The "normal" retirement age for the A plan is sixty. If your retire and start to collect prior to age sixty you take a eight percent per year penalty . Example- retire at age fifty-five and you would lose forty percent of your retirement income. The maximum number of years you can have that pay a benefit is thirty, any time spent with the company beyond thirty years doesn't count. The longest anyone has is twenty two years because thats how long the airline has existed. Currently the benefit at twenty-two years of service would replace aprox. 25% of gross earnings minus survivors benefits.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
