Retirements?
 

I'm an older guy (relatively - 42) and am looking at leaving my current employer for FedEx or UPS. I have a sponser at FedEx and meet all of the requirements for the UPS window. I am a stickler for details, and usually run a spreadsheet comparing everything I can get my hands on. I've been trying to find some current yearly age 60 projections at FedEx and UPS so I can do a rough seniority advancement projection with different growth and attrition models to see where I'll end up. My FedEx sponser has not come up with any hard data, but claims I would do quite well over the next 18 (or 23) years. It is my understanding that UPS has a quite younger pilot group, but with a smaller total number, relative seniority advancement through growth may offset lower retirement numbers.
Does anyone have a current list of yearly retirements? It would be greatly appreciated. (Then later I'll bend your ear(s) on the whole ANC deal.)

Thanks,
Ice

Looks like it averages about 180 over the next 15 years. Slightly lower in the short term, higher in the long term. It tails off after 15 years, but that'll change with time. As will the whole outlook if the age changes.

If your sponsor can't find the data(under General Info, Retirement Chart) I'd worry that he's not smart/crafty enough to get you the M&G/interview. I tried to put a sarcasm smile here, but it doesn't seem to want to take.

Not sure what our figures will look like and age 65 is poised to throw a monkey wrench into that whole thing. Apply to both, go to whichever one hires you first, and strap yourself in for the ride

FDX retirements
 

This is the projected retirement chart based on the number of current FedEx pilots turning 60 in each of these years. It does not take into account the ability to remain as a second officer beyond age 59.

It would be great if somone had this for UPS...anyone?

Wow... thanks for the fast responses. Looks like I'll be able to glean enough info out of the chart to make a reasonable estimation. I'm just trying to be prepared to make informed choices if the opportunity comes up. Some UPS numbers would be great, as I'm considerably in the dark over the demographic of the pilot group.

Thanks Again,
Ice

FDX Age 60 numbers
 

That chart is a bit small. Here's the raw data....

2007 126
2008 151
2009 131
2010 162
2011 153
2012 189
2013 185
2014 156
2015 183
2016 211
2017 213
2018 222
2019 231
2020 220
2021 242
2022 208
2023 195
2024 175
2025 142
2026 163
2027 156
2028 167
2029 162
2030 118
2031 84
2032 55
2033 62
2034 47
2035 27
2036 18
2037 11
2038 6
2039 1
2040 1

Thanks...

2040 retirement date? I think I have a T-shirt I wax my car with that is older than that guy... But I guess I started with the majors a little younger than that, but that was 4 furloughs, 8 CEOs and 15 pounds ago. Too bad my foresight back then didn't match my hindsight today.

Thanks,
Ice

I'm one of these guys!:)

iceback..go for it! i had plenty of guys in my newhire class in their forties...

And I'm one of those... Another 30 years with out the Age 60 change. :eek::eek:

are you in the IPA yet? There is a fantastic seniority program available to us which shows all sorts of charts and does all sorts of computations, including your number at retirement

http://tools.ipapilot.org/juniority/index.php

anyway, until I can figure out how to do the chart, here is the data

Near Term Retirements
Year # Retirements Chart
2007 89

2008 61

2009 60

2010 45

2011 52

2012 62

2013 65

2014 79

2015 98

2016 96

2017 97

2018 89

2019 136

2020 138

2021 172

not in IPA yet ,,,,just a poolie

Thanks a million

I can't figure out how to embed a graphic in a message. If I click on the graphic icon, it allows me to put in a URL, but the charts I have are on my hard drive. Anyone know how to do this? If I do the paper clip, it allows me to upload a file, but will that show in my post as the graphic?

Take a nice long look at the number of guys who won't be hired in the next 30+ years if the age 60 rule changes.

Thanks guys.

they'll be hired, just five years later

So that makes it right I guess.

At least you are willing to admit that a potential rule change would have a negative impact on hiring and those who are furloughed.

More than most of the pro change crowd can muster.

Lighten up, Francis
 

If you don't mind me saying, the tone of your message indicates that you seem to carry a rather large chip on your shoulder about this. Of course it has a negative implication on those waiting to get hired or recalled. Is that supposed to negate those that it helps at the other end? You forgot to mention the negative impact on those waiting to upgrade as well. Come to think of it, it impacts those like me that already have an upgrade but would like to have a better number each month come bidding time. Guess it hurts me too!

Don't be so quick to throw me in either camp. I really don't care if it changes or not. I recognize all arguments on the subject and don't really think any are more persuasive on either side. I recognize that standing in the middle of the road is the best place to get run over, but this thing is going to happen or not without any real input from you or I.

Yes I do. You are probably right in that this change will occur (or not) regardless of the wishes of the pilots.

It would be nice if those rooting for the change would at least acknowledge the negative impact the change would have on those waiting for recalls and those waiting for the same chance for and upgrade that everyone for the last 49 years had.

There's the whole issue of changing the rule - the merits on either side.

Then there is, to me, the larger issue: we are told we must do something because the EU has already decided on it. Now what kind of bullsh!t is that? What are they going to decide for us next?

They can keep their (*&*( work rules, but I'll take the nekkid chicks on TV.

Me--I just wanna get my high 5 and quit at 55....

Wake up, Huck. They already tell us plenty ad they have every right to if we want to do business in their community. Perhaps you weren't looking, but since they joined up they have had a say in, among other things, mergers of our corporations and anti trust (Microsoft). "Don't like it Mr. Gates? Just dont sell your products here"

It's a global economy now and we are going to have to get used to it.

Perhaps they will when people in favor of keeping the rule acknowledge the damage that age 60 does to the careers of the other half. In other words, it is all parochial no matter which side of the coin one finds himself.

To those who say that you can quit at 60 if it changes and you don't like it, I would suggest that the rule change takes away 3-5 extra years (not all will go to 65 for one reason or another) of quality of life from that guy. There needs to be some empathy for that too.

Group hug <G>

QOL and that's 'all' huh? That's never been a big deal in this industry anyway. Parochial? Beautiful word triple word score, have you been watching 'Who's Harry Crumb?' lately?:) Seriously though, would these be the same people that no matter what airline find a way to negotiate/ratify higher pension rates benefits for themselves each contract cycle? I wonder how long that will hold up and who will get to hold the bag 5 years longer in the end? The rule has been the rule as long as everyone around here has been around, why exactly is one sides sob story suddenly more important than the others. Why do I not find it funny that the people pushing this cr@p the hardest are at carriers that are doing the best? No matter how Prater rock tries to spin it, the boys of UA, DAL, and the others who lost their A plans aren't the primary impetus on this deal from the pilot side.

Interesting point. I guess it has to do with the fact that it is much more desireable tohold on to a job with a decent schedule and pulling in 250k than it is to hold onto one that is a lot harder than it used to be and only pays half as much as it used to. You are right though and I don't recall hearing Prater spin it one way or another, it is the "haves" that seem more interested in this than the "have nots"

Hey, you're no fun!! Stuff like this is supposed to turn into big nasty arguments!! (j.k). You saw it for what it was, just a talking point I certainly don't have the answers. What I have realized the longer I do this is, that we pilots have a history of making bad financial decisions outside of the cockpit with the best of intentions and remarkably little ability to learn from those mistakes in the same way we learn from others. And dammit if we aren't confident in those errors-a very frustrating thing imo considering that we are in a necessarily unionized industry. Collectively we have power and intelligence but our intrinsic personalities haven't allowed us to effectively leverage it outside of flying the bird. I think I got a few triple word scores of my own in there-who says public college isn't effective?

what if one could retire at 60 without taking an early retirement penality, and if one wanted to fly beyond 60, was physically and mentally capabale, then that one could choose to fly to 65? Or retire anywhere in betweern 60-65, once again without penality. just throwin it out there . . .

naive

Oh, OK ... now that you said that I've totally changed my mind. You're kidding, aren't you?



Mark

ABK man .. that sounds great but it shows a lack of understanding about how our seniority system works. EVERYTHING is seniority based. Monthly schedules, vacations, seat positions (pay!), training dates and more. So for every guy that decides to stick around past 60, my life gets just a little bit worse and I make just a little bit less money. If a bunch of them decide to stay ... well let's just hope that won't happen.

Here's the part I just don't understand. Let's take a guy that has completed his 25 years at the company. He gets 50% of his pay to retire. If he sticks around to be a flight engineer (that's all the FAA permits them to do today, and that isn't expected to change for at least 2 years) then he makes 61% of his MD-11 Capt pay to be a DC-10 flight engineer (but the DC-10's will be gone soon and 727 engineers only get paid 53% of widebody capt pay). So best case, he's working a full time job (with some REALLY TERRIBLE HOURS) for 11% of his pay (remember that he gets 50% to sit at home). I JUST DON'T GET IT.

I'm certain that some on the discussion will point out that some don't have their 25 years here fir various reasons. Still ... if you crunch the numbers, working past age 60 just doesn't make any sense (not even as a widebody capt! if the could even do that). I bet the company LOVES those guys, it saves them a ton of money.

I'll assume that those guys have no hobbies ... I can find 100 things I would rather do than this job full time for 11% of my pay.

Rant over ...



Mark

Say that the 65 rule is in full effect, pilots maintaining their seats all the way to 65, not taking a back seat at 60. If one wanted to still retire at 60, would he now take an early retirement hit because he didn't stick out to the new limit?

OK Mark, I'll bite.

You said "So for every guy that decides to stick around past 60, my life gets just a little bit worse and I make just a little bit less money." Really - So is it your understanding that when the "Age 60" rule is changed to the "Age 65" rule, your life will get worse and you'll make less money? Or do you mean that by having guys who are senior to you stay longer, that you will not be able to fly the trips that they hold (and you don't), and that all the trips that they hold pay more than the trips that you can/would be able to hold?

As for you second paragraph in your post, the most telling statement is your last sentence, which says "I JUST DON'T GET IT." That's very true. You really just don't get it. I've tried to explain part of it to you in the past, but as usual, you still just don't get it. You see, sometimes it's not about the money. Sometimes it's about enjoying ones job, ones way of life, ones ability to travel the world, etc, etc. And I'm sorry to say, it's not for you to criticize another persons aspirations, or what they plan for themselves. That's for their parents and spouses. Don't you know people who still continue to work well into their golden years? Ever asked them why? Many of the older generation have a very different work ethic than you do. Many of them can never see themselves retiring.

Your statement about guys staying on after a 25 year career and only making a little more than they would if they had retired, is correct, but, again, it's not for you to dictate to them what to do with their lives. I agree with your statement "that the company probably loves these guys", but not for the same reason. I believe the company loves these guys because for virtually the same cost of a new hire flight engineer (who knows very little, if anything about the company, the flying we do, CRM, etc, etc), they get someone who knows the system, knows the flight operations manual, knows how to be a crew member, knows the aircraft, has years of experience, etc, etc. Again, all for about the same price as a new guy. Such a deal.

And Daniel, your comment, "Seriously though, would these be the same people that no matter what airline find a way to negotiate/ratify higher pension rates benefits for themselves each contract cycle?" is interesting, because you seem to forget the fact, that by negotiating higher pension rates and benefits for themselves, they also increased your benefits. Besides, if you didn't like your negotiated contract, you could have vetoed it in the voting process. But apparently the majority felt, for whatever reason, that the contract was worthy of passage.

Finally, whereas I understand and acknowledge that changing the Age 60 rule to Age 65 will have a negative effect on guys' upgrade times, vacations, and indeed all aspects of the seniority system, I would also hope that the guys who oppose this change (like you, Mark) will actually come out and say "it's all about the money" and about "me, me, me". Because that's what it's really about, and not things such as "safety of flight", or "what about the furloughed guys" or "what about guys trying to get hired", or, or, or.

It's all about the money, me me me.

(Well, me taking care of my kids, actually....)

And me. I never said it wasn't about the money...

You got where you are because someone else got out of your way at 60. Now its your turn.

Where else has labor ever negotiated to work MORE? While individually some will benefit from this windfall, the profession just planted the seed for a serious reduction in retirement benefits. Besides slowing us down in the short term, your windfall has the potential to force all of us to work longer just to reap the rewards you could have had at 60.

And in a seniority system--why do you even care what we think? You are going to bid, hold, and get what your seniority allows...not what Albie or Huck thinks you should get.

Jetjok..."travel the world" as a Diesel 10 Oiler? I guess if your world is Newark, Hoboken and Jersey City that's true. Unless I missed something, the 5 day CDG layovers that they had 10 years ago are long gone. But seriously, if a guy (not you) has his high 5 max'd and we know what 50% of that is, can he really make that or much more as a 10 F/E? I think "I just don't get it" IS, in fact, a legitimate statement. here's a better idea, retire and get a job as assistant greenskeeper at Bushwood C.C. Just wtch out for the Dali Lama, I hear he's a big hitter! :)

Thanks for the retirement numbers... I do really appreciate it. And thanks Captain Mark for the words of encouragement. I don't want to get into a debate on the age 60 thing, as I have mixed views. I have seen the unmitigated greed that is behind some of the current and pre-911 arguments for extending the age 60 rule, and I have seen the unadulterated destruction of people’s personal lives... 54 year olds that have taken a downgrade, a 45% pay cut on F/O wages and lost their only pension. They did not have much put away on their own as they had been under the common assumption that the pension would never be touched and they were only a few years away from a 2 million plus lump sum. Facing a mortgage, kids in college and a massive pay cut with only the promise of 28.8k a year from the PBGC, that has fueled the fire to keep a paycheck coming. Most that I know in the latter situation would love to retire early, but have been unfortunately painted into a corner they do not want to be in.
I am not advocating either side of the argument, suffice it to say that I can understand where some of the age 65 guys are coming from, and at 42 I will be affected adversely by the lack of movement it will add to my career. I can say that I have little use for those who want to work an extra 5 years for reasons of pure greed. Unfortunately they sometimes seem to be the most vocal. I keep hoping for an age 45 rule, but the Powerball Gods have not blessed that proposal.

I have argued for years - at 59 you get an official audit of your finances, and if you are above a certain threshhold you have to retire at 60. If not, you can work.

Bad idea. All that means is you are stuck with an over 60 dumb@ss who has proven to be completely inept in his decision making. I'm NOT talking about the poor guy at airline X who just lost his retirement. I AM talking about the walking social disaster than managed to ruin what should have been a retirement most people can only dream of...

O.K. so give'em a dumb-ass screening first....

- "Have you ever been to a Carlton Sheets seminar?"

- "Did you take all your 401k and put it in tech stocks in 1998?" (p.s. my dad did this one)

- "Did you really leave your wife and three kids at the age of 42 to marry a Russian mailorder 20-year-old?"

I know pilots that have done all of these....

Hey jury, how about this one. Guy is set, gonna retire at 60 with all the bells and whistles. A month before he is supposed to get the fond adieu, his significant other b1tch says "it's been real, but not real fun" and walks with half of everyting, including the retirement. Does he get a pass on the work to 65 train?

No passes, all these sob stories are compelling, but they don't change the core issue.