View Single Post
Old 12-03-2017, 04:36 PM   #30  
TonyC
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLax85 View Post

An additional 1% multiplier for years of service over 25 years strikes a comprise between recognizing pilots are staying longer without overly incentivizing it. It could be extended out to 30 or 35 years.

An overarching axiom observed by the MEC for quite some time, and especially emphasized in the immediate wake of the regulated age change, was to protect "Normal Retirement Age." It is important that any pilot who desires to retire at the Normal Retirement Age be able to do so with FULL retirement benefits.

To that end, we aimed to negotiate NO IMPEDIMENTS to retirement at the Normal Retirement age, and NO INCENTIVES to work beyond the Normal Retirement age.

These goals were especially important to the vast majority of pilots whose seat progression was slowed by 5 years when the Regulated Age changed.


Adding multipliers to what now exists would constitute an INCENTIVE for many pilots to work BEYOND Normal Retirement age in order to benefit from those additional multipliers. As they work longer, seat progression (and the attendant pay rate increases) for all those junior to them would be delayed.

I said the axiom was observed by the MEC for quite some time, but the current "ONE MORE PEAK" or "FLY 'TIL YOU DIE" retirement incentive seems to violate that axiom. Delaying retirement in order to receive a benefit has a negative effect on the seat progression of everyone junior.

So, I guess it depends on what the membership wants. Do we want to continue to make it easy for pilots to retire at Age 60, or do we want to pay them to stay longer?


Personally, I would prefer to leave and enjoy retirement.




Quote:
Originally Posted by DLax85 View Post

But yes, this whole discussion puts different pilot demographics in different positions

Thatís clearly expressed and explained in other threads. Itís very disconcerting.

There are dozens of demographic subgroups who will be affected differently by any change in our retirement plans. There is no magic plan that will benefit everyone equally. One huge advantage of the combination of plans we have now is improvements in BOTH plans will benefit everyone to some extent.

Some people seem to think a guy with a High 5 and 25 years can no longer benefit from improvements to the A Plan. On the contrary, they can receive an immediate benefit by raising the CBA cap to follow the IRS cap. Since that's what the A Plan was originally designed to do, that's exactly what we should be aiming to do.


It only costs money.






.
TonyC is offline