Don't Forget About Age 60!!
11-10-2007 | 07:33 PM
#21
Part Time Employee
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
From: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Hey Mayday,
It's really not important that you understand them. It's only important that they understand themselves, and what they elect to do with their lives is their business, not yours. I understand where someone would pass judgment, based on their own likes and dislikes, but that doesn't make it right. If a guy wants to work past what you consider a reasonable retirement age, that's for him to decide. Hopefully you can understand this. If not, then there's no hope for you at all in the context of this discussion. Best to you.
JJ
It's really not important that you understand them. It's only important that they understand themselves, and what they elect to do with their lives is their business, not yours. I understand where someone would pass judgment, based on their own likes and dislikes, but that doesn't make it right. If a guy wants to work past what you consider a reasonable retirement age, that's for him to decide. Hopefully you can understand this. If not, then there's no hope for you at all in the context of this discussion. Best to you.
JJ
JJ, I beg to differ. When they elect to do and/or push for something that affects my life, it becomes my business.
11-11-2007 | 04:15 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,717
Likes: 0
From: Retired
Regardless of whether it affects you or not, it's not your business. You do not get to decide how others lead their lives, with the possible exception of your wife. And I doubt if you even have that much authority to tell her how to lead hers.
11-11-2007 | 06:19 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Did anyone read the new AOD magazine? Great article from the CFO about how each revenue dollar is broken down in terms of costs. Wages and salaries were approximately 1/3 of our costs. So let's consider what the over 60 policy is doing to FDX financially. Approximately, we have 200 over 60 SO's in the DC10 and another 200 in the Boeing. We'll assume DOS+1 and 15 year longevity for all SO's.
DC10
((1) crewmember x 140.90/hr) x 1000 hrs = $140,900 per yr
200 * 140,900 = 28.2 million dollars per year
727
((1) crewmember x 123.91/hr) x 1000 hrs = $123,910 per yr
200 * 123,910 = 24.8 million dollars per year
So, as of now, FDX is spending 53 million dollars per year for labor from the over 60 engineers, of which they see very little productivity due to sick time, vacations, lack of flying, and general over-populus of the seats. This number accounts for only wages and no other costs are factored in.
Now, considering the AGE 60 debacle looms for another two years, FDX is expecting to retire another 500 guys, assuming 80% hang around and "take" an engineer seat, that's another 400 guys and puts FDX over 100 million per year just in wages alone.
Now, there are two arguments to this. First, if I was over 60 and I knew I'd be able to sit on my butt and make $140 grand per year with minimal effort, I would do it. In contrast, from a non-over 60 perspective, this situation has the potential to really hurt FDX and ALL of its employees. I'm pretty sure JL didn't think of the financial impact when he put his retirement policy in motion, but looking at the rough numbers, it's in everybody's interest, except the over 60 guys, to close that loophole. It's nothing but fat that needs to be trimmed.
Sure, you'll hear "it's none of your business" and some other condascending comment, but in reality, it is our business considering it affects every employee of FDX. I'm sure at least 50 or 100 million could be better spent for the future of FDX (FDA's, LOA's, contract 2010, new airframes, new hires, COLA's) than spending it on over 60 SO's that are dead weight.
DC10
((1) crewmember x 140.90/hr) x 1000 hrs = $140,900 per yr
200 * 140,900 = 28.2 million dollars per year
727
((1) crewmember x 123.91/hr) x 1000 hrs = $123,910 per yr
200 * 123,910 = 24.8 million dollars per year
So, as of now, FDX is spending 53 million dollars per year for labor from the over 60 engineers, of which they see very little productivity due to sick time, vacations, lack of flying, and general over-populus of the seats. This number accounts for only wages and no other costs are factored in.
Now, considering the AGE 60 debacle looms for another two years, FDX is expecting to retire another 500 guys, assuming 80% hang around and "take" an engineer seat, that's another 400 guys and puts FDX over 100 million per year just in wages alone.
Now, there are two arguments to this. First, if I was over 60 and I knew I'd be able to sit on my butt and make $140 grand per year with minimal effort, I would do it. In contrast, from a non-over 60 perspective, this situation has the potential to really hurt FDX and ALL of its employees. I'm pretty sure JL didn't think of the financial impact when he put his retirement policy in motion, but looking at the rough numbers, it's in everybody's interest, except the over 60 guys, to close that loophole. It's nothing but fat that needs to be trimmed.
Sure, you'll hear "it's none of your business" and some other condascending comment, but in reality, it is our business considering it affects every employee of FDX. I'm sure at least 50 or 100 million could be better spent for the future of FDX (FDA's, LOA's, contract 2010, new airframes, new hires, COLA's) than spending it on over 60 SO's that are dead weight.
11-11-2007 | 06:28 AM
#25
Trust but Verify!!
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
From: MD11 CRA
"Yet you seem to be very willing to tell us how to lead ours."
Over and over again. JJ is never shy about sharing his wisdom from on high and tossing in the odd lecture now and then about how we should behave on this board to boot. Of course who I am to comment on one who has been to the other side and made his way back? Anyway, good point that is likely lost to some on this board (not just JJ) with a clear double standard...
Over and over again. JJ is never shy about sharing his wisdom from on high and tossing in the odd lecture now and then about how we should behave on this board to boot. Of course who I am to comment on one who has been to the other side and made his way back? Anyway, good point that is likely lost to some on this board (not just JJ) with a clear double standard...
11-11-2007 | 08:43 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
IMO, the age 60 thing is as much a safety issue as anything else. I currently with a gent, who I like alot, but he is 63 now and I have seen his skills decline markedly over the past few years. It is pure and simple. I know ICAA has upped the age to 65, but with certain requirements, like crew complement, etc. One thing I know is that a class one physical in Europe is a two full blown a$$ pain, not the 30 min look and listen it is here. This should never pass for that reason. Whats next, well age 65 is discrimination, lets fight for 70. Please!! The age 60 rule is a good rule and its been effect long enough for all to plan for it. If you didn't, oh well, tough!! Don't take it out on the 95% of the rest of us.
11-11-2007 | 12:45 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
From: 777 CAP
Did anyone read the new AOD magazine? Great article from the CFO about how each revenue dollar is broken down in terms of costs. Wages and salaries were approximately 1/3 of our costs. So let's consider what the over 60 policy is doing to FDX financially. Approximately, we have 200 over 60 SO's in the DC10 and another 200 in the Boeing. We'll assume DOS+1 and 15 year longevity for all SO's.
DC10
((1) crewmember x 140.90/hr) x 1000 hrs = $140,900 per yr
200 * 140,900 = 28.2 million dollars per year
727
((1) crewmember x 123.91/hr) x 1000 hrs = $123,910 per yr
200 * 123,910 = 24.8 million dollars per year
So, as of now, FDX is spending 53 million dollars per year for labor from the over 60 engineers, of which they see very little productivity due to sick time, vacations, lack of flying, and general over-populus of the seats. This number accounts for only wages and no other costs are factored in.
Now, considering the AGE 60 debacle looms for another two years, FDX is expecting to retire another 500 guys, assuming 80% hang around and "take" an engineer seat, that's another 400 guys and puts FDX over 100 million per year just in wages alone.
Now, there are two arguments to this. First, if I was over 60 and I knew I'd be able to sit on my butt and make $140 grand per year with minimal effort, I would do it. In contrast, from a non-over 60 perspective, this situation has the potential to really hurt FDX and ALL of its employees. I'm pretty sure JL didn't think of the financial impact when he put his retirement policy in motion, but looking at the rough numbers, it's in everybody's interest, except the over 60 guys, to close that loophole. It's nothing but fat that needs to be trimmed.
Sure, you'll hear "it's none of your business" and some other condascending comment, but in reality, it is our business considering it affects every employee of FDX. I'm sure at least 50 or 100 million could be better spent for the future of FDX (FDA's, LOA's, contract 2010, new airframes, new hires, COLA's) than spending it on over 60 SO's that are dead weight.
DC10
((1) crewmember x 140.90/hr) x 1000 hrs = $140,900 per yr
200 * 140,900 = 28.2 million dollars per year
727
((1) crewmember x 123.91/hr) x 1000 hrs = $123,910 per yr
200 * 123,910 = 24.8 million dollars per year
So, as of now, FDX is spending 53 million dollars per year for labor from the over 60 engineers, of which they see very little productivity due to sick time, vacations, lack of flying, and general over-populus of the seats. This number accounts for only wages and no other costs are factored in.
Now, considering the AGE 60 debacle looms for another two years, FDX is expecting to retire another 500 guys, assuming 80% hang around and "take" an engineer seat, that's another 400 guys and puts FDX over 100 million per year just in wages alone.
Now, there are two arguments to this. First, if I was over 60 and I knew I'd be able to sit on my butt and make $140 grand per year with minimal effort, I would do it. In contrast, from a non-over 60 perspective, this situation has the potential to really hurt FDX and ALL of its employees. I'm pretty sure JL didn't think of the financial impact when he put his retirement policy in motion, but looking at the rough numbers, it's in everybody's interest, except the over 60 guys, to close that loophole. It's nothing but fat that needs to be trimmed.
Sure, you'll hear "it's none of your business" and some other condascending comment, but in reality, it is our business considering it affects every employee of FDX. I'm sure at least 50 or 100 million could be better spent for the future of FDX (FDA's, LOA's, contract 2010, new airframes, new hires, COLA's) than spending it on over 60 SO's that are dead weight.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
