Huck

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/coe/gutu...sc/retire1.htm

Albief15

A good buddy of mine and I who are both "acheivement oriented" or "overly materialistic" depending on your perspective both were talking about some points here...

At what point do you quit "acquiring assets" and just start enjoying them. At what point is grabbing the next big thing going to lead to diminishing returns?

Everyone's different, and I guess anyone can start a business when they are 70 if they want. However--as I look ahead--I do wonder when I will say "darn it--enough--just chill" versus the "hmm...I wonder if I could do that....?"

We got guys in the AOC who own shopping centers and multi-million dollar businesses. We got guys who pull out their gameboys and piddle away the hours. I guess we each just chart our own course....

Nugget#69

Back to the point of getting rid of the A-plan. This is not giving something away. The plan would be to replace it with something that has a cash value, which you own. I think this would be a gain. Meaning, if you choose to work until you're 65 and have a reduced life span because of it, at least you have the cash value to hand down. Currently you get nothing. Likewise if you choose to retire early there is no penalty, you just have to budget the value of the fund into your plans.

The whole question is how much should this fund be and how much would the company have to put into it to match the current A-plan payout.

Busboy

That's exactly why there is such a thing as a "LUMP SUM" option at some companies. You'd have a choice.

Of course, that idea got shot down during the last negotiations. Due to Delta's pension debacle. I didn't see the connection, myself

Huck

My hillbilly math tells me that if I want to have $10,000 a month coming in after I retire, I'll need about 1.5 mill in an account netting 8% after taxes and inflation.

So... if I put in $2,000 a month in a fund that averages 10%, and I do it for 20 years, I've got it.

And it's mine, or my wife or my kids if I kick off early.

I'm telling you guys, my Uncle Bill did 20 years at UAL, the best airline job in the country, and he's flying Citations now at age 65 because he trusted in his A fund......

FDXLAG

Not to start a fight here but if the A Plan is such a good deal for the company why did they just change everyone elses A Plan from a DB to DC?

I wish I had the faith of you guys who are positive FEDEX won't go through BK once in the next 25 years. Is it a good bet that we wont? Probably, but it is still a bet.

Albief15

I'm open to ideas. What do you guys think would be a good compliment to the A plan (let's not REPLACE it...) to hedge our bets? The B-fund ain't gonna do it alone, so what do you suggest?

Daniel Larusso

Nugget, rule #1 is never negotiate with yourself as you have a fool for your adversary. I understand your concerns with the A plan, but attempting to proactively manage what has not happened and is not likely for a relatively long time is foolish. Work on increasing the B-fund while keeping the A. If the time comes where the A is under duress, then learn from the good and bad moves by the various carriers that had their A funds in trouble and negotiate the best transition program. We'll likely come out with more money that way. Those senior people(of which I am not one) you're worried about won't have a say/vote on how the plan is transitioned as they will be retired. I'm sure Huck's Uncle Bill has a few words to say about that.............

DLax85

Herk Driver -

I don't think you understood my original post below.

When I stated "full retirement" --- that meant not taking a hit for retiring early (i.e. currently before 60 and in the future maybe 65).

Using your example, a guy hired at age 33 who chooses to work the full 25 yrs until 58 would get his full 50% retirement (2% x 25 yrs = 50% AND no reduction for retiring before 60....or perhaps, before 65 if the company wants to change the retirement age to match the regulated age)

A guy hired at age 50 would have to work until age 65 to retire with a "full retirement" (no penalty) but he would only get 30% (2% x 15 yrs = 30%)

The younger guy gets 50% since he worked 25 yrs and the older guy only gets 30% because he only worked 15 yrs; plus the younger guy gets to get his "full benefits" early (age 58 vs. 65) because he started earlier.

(Additionally, they younger guy could retire "w/out penalty" at age 56.5....at that time, he would have worked 23.5 yrs, which when added to his age equals 80. He would start collecting 47% (2% x 23.5 yrs) immediately upon retirement.)

Bottom line, my proposed plan actually improves the retirement benefits for the younger guys, because right now a guy hired under the age of 35 (i.e. 34 or younger) has to continue to work beyond 25 yrs to avoid the company penalty for retiring before 60.

Under our current A fund plan, pilots hired under the age of 30 must work beyond 25 yrs to become retirement eligible at all (i.e. at least 55 yrs old)....and then if they chose to retire "early" at 55 they take a 3.5% per yr penalty ---- ouch!!

There are a few lucky 25 yr old "new hires" out there. As I understand it, right now, those guys have to work 30 yrs to get a 25 yr retirement and then take a relatively big "early retirement" hit for bowing out 5 yrs early.

To avoid a penalty they must work 35 yrs until age 60. If our retirement age moves to 65 when the regulated age moves up, these "lucky" 25 yr old new hires will have to work 40 yrs to avoid a penalty.....not to mention they will have worked the last 15 yrs (from age 50 to 65) without increasing their overal percentage one bit (50% is the max).

Here's the original post again for reference:

Alternate Retirement Formula
I am very concerned about losing the option of retiring at age 60 without an "early retirement penalty"....it is definitely one of the "unintended consequences" in the age 60 debate that could weaken everyone at FEDEX, or other carriers who are still have an A fund.

There are methods though that could protect both those who were hired "very young" from having to work well in excess of 25 yrs to get a full retirement, and at the same time allow those who were hired "late in life" to work beyond age 60 and increase their benefits.

One such formula would be full retirement benefits (i.e. "no early retirement penalty) for those who's "age" + "years worked at FDX" = 80

This would yield the following requirements:

Hired at 30 - work until 55....55 + 25 = 80
Hired at 32 - work until 56....56 + 24 = 80
Hired at 34 - work until 57....57 + 23 = 80
Hired at 36 - work until 58....58 + 22 = 80
Hired at 38 - work until 59....59 + 21 = 80
Hired at 40 - work until 60....60 + 20 = 80
Hired at 42 - work until 61....61 + 19 = 80
Hired at 44 - work until 62....62 + 18 = 80
Hired at 46 - work until 63....63 + 17 = 80
Hired at 48 - work until 64....64 + 16 = 80
Hired at 50 - work until 65....65 + 15 = 80

To protect the lucky few who get hired under age 30, you could institue a "side rule" stating anyone working for 30 yrs would get full benefits regardless of their age.

There's always middle ground out there --- just gotta put our brains together and find it!

SeeDub

I argue that you leave the A and B plan as they are and provide a simple pay increase on the order of 30% which would allow the individual to take care of their own retirement needs.