FDX - Contrarian View to Age 65
05-11-2008, 09:28 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 117
FDX - Contrarian View to Age 65
First, I preface this by saying I am a widebody F/O coming up on 8 years with the company. In all my years, every time the subject of retirement came up on the flightdeck or over beers, it was always "I am getting my high 5 and then I am outta here". Funny, though it always seems they stay until 60. I will bet anyone, that the amount of people who retire early (not counting medicals) will not be significantly different in terms of percentages than those who retired early before (when 60 was the FAA mandated age) with a penalty. I bet it will probably be less than 10%. And 20 years from now, guess what. The percentage will probably be the same. I know, it is one the tip of everyones tongue. "Fly until you die, you are taking years off your life". I will agree that if you max your schedule every month with night hub-turns, sell back your vacation at every opportunity, are on the schedulers speed-dial for extra trips, and never call in sick, you are probably taking years off your life. However, the past three months on reserve I have been called out a total of 5 days. I had to pick up trips on my days off to maintain currency. People I know think I have been layed-off.
To get the company to buy off on funding the A Fund to keep 60 as the retirement age is going to be costly at not only this negotiation, but EVERY negotiation. Are you willing to take no pay raises for every contract negotiation to keep the ability to retire at age 60 without a penalty? An alternate solution, would be to renegotiate the retirement multipliers. First, no cap of 25 years for years of service. If you are with the company for 40 years, it should be accounted for in your retirment multiplier. Also, possibly raise it a .25 or .5 a point. Then if you wanted to retire at age 60, even with the penalty it would be similar to what you would get under the current guidelines. Just another point of view. By the way, how do you know what you are going to do 20-25 years from now in terms of retirement. The Age is 65, time to move on.
To get the company to buy off on funding the A Fund to keep 60 as the retirement age is going to be costly at not only this negotiation, but EVERY negotiation. Are you willing to take no pay raises for every contract negotiation to keep the ability to retire at age 60 without a penalty? An alternate solution, would be to renegotiate the retirement multipliers. First, no cap of 25 years for years of service. If you are with the company for 40 years, it should be accounted for in your retirment multiplier. Also, possibly raise it a .25 or .5 a point. Then if you wanted to retire at age 60, even with the penalty it would be similar to what you would get under the current guidelines. Just another point of view. By the way, how do you know what you are going to do 20-25 years from now in terms of retirement. The Age is 65, time to move on.
05-11-2008, 10:18 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Sorry Mrzog, I don't agree with you. We can retire without penalty at age 60, and I want to keep it that way. As far as I am concerned, I will vote "NO" on any contract that changes this. Some of you are already willing to give up pay raises for something we already own, I am not. If we can't get a fair contract (and keep age 60 retirement), I will support the union and strike if need be.
Age 65 will do wonders for our retirement fund, which is a good thing. Many of these guys won't live to collect a dime. Those that live to 65 probably won't last long afterwards. It is a choice they are willing to make, so they will have to live with (irony) the consequences. Hopefully it will keep the pension fund strong for those of us that don't want to work for half pay or die early.
Age 65 will do wonders for our retirement fund, which is a good thing. Many of these guys won't live to collect a dime. Those that live to 65 probably won't last long afterwards. It is a choice they are willing to make, so they will have to live with (irony) the consequences. Hopefully it will keep the pension fund strong for those of us that don't want to work for half pay or die early.
05-11-2008, 10:40 AM
#6
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 12
The idea that working longer shortens your longevity is a myth started years ago by workers at Boeing (Google it).
Call the retirement chairman at ALPA, the people who manage our retirement and any insurance agent (I did). The longevity tables are base on age attained. Essentially the longer you live, the longer you will live.
Of the factors affecting longevity genes (family history) and personality type (A is bad) are the biggest.
The ALPA chairman said that pilots tend to actually beat the tables because we are more health conscious, monitor our health (with a little help from the FAA), and have for the most part excellent health care available.
Sorry to interupt you whining with the facts. Please carry on.
Call the retirement chairman at ALPA, the people who manage our retirement and any insurance agent (I did). The longevity tables are base on age attained. Essentially the longer you live, the longer you will live.
Of the factors affecting longevity genes (family history) and personality type (A is bad) are the biggest.
The ALPA chairman said that pilots tend to actually beat the tables because we are more health conscious, monitor our health (with a little help from the FAA), and have for the most part excellent health care available.
Sorry to interupt you whining with the facts. Please carry on.
05-11-2008, 10:44 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Zog, Two Points
If everyone is going to work until 65 why will it cost the company any money to keep normal retirement at 60? Sounds like it wont cost them anything to keep us happy, but I am sure we will give up plenty for this perceived gain ala A-380 payrates.
Lifting the 25 year cap is idiotic. It will only help half our guys but cost us a fortune. Use that extra money to allow guys out at 25 years with a full retirement. Let them start over at Delta. Why encourage anyone to stay past 25? But don't worry since this will be to the advantage of block 1 and 2 guys and the disadvantage of everyone else I am sure we already have the ground work laid (synonym for what the union does to jr members) for this.
PS A dollar in my name now is worth a promise of $3 twenty years from now. Convert it all to Defined Contribution (no not the bogus one everyone else got) and you can leave when you want.
If everyone is going to work until 65 why will it cost the company any money to keep normal retirement at 60? Sounds like it wont cost them anything to keep us happy, but I am sure we will give up plenty for this perceived gain ala A-380 payrates.
Lifting the 25 year cap is idiotic. It will only help half our guys but cost us a fortune. Use that extra money to allow guys out at 25 years with a full retirement. Let them start over at Delta. Why encourage anyone to stay past 25? But don't worry since this will be to the advantage of block 1 and 2 guys and the disadvantage of everyone else I am sure we already have the ground work laid (synonym for what the union does to jr members) for this.
PS A dollar in my name now is worth a promise of $3 twenty years from now. Convert it all to Defined Contribution (no not the bogus one everyone else got) and you can leave when you want.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 05-11-2008 at 11:06 AM.
05-11-2008, 10:53 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
No whining Bandit, I couldn't care less if you choose to fly until 65 or not. If you choose to work for partial wages, then do so. We have no real data on pilots flying past 60 (except a handful of flight engineers) so you can be the test case. If you think the average 55+ Fedex pilot is healthy, you are on drugs. Most look old for their age, and many are grossly out of shape.
Like I said, fly until 65, it really makes no difference to me. While seat progress will slow, you make my retirement safer by not tapping into it. Whether you will live longer or not by flying until 65 is somewhat irrelevant, you work at partial wages (good for the company, and good for me) and you aren't getting paid out of our retirement fund for five years (again, good for me). I have to disagree about Fedex flying not effecting your health, but neither of has any hard facts on this issue. Can you honestly tell me that is not harder to do this job than it was when you were 35? Does it take you longer to recover from a trip (especially overseas). Everyone that I have talked to (yes everyone) says it is more difficult now than it was when they were significantly younger. You don't think this will effect your longevity?
Anyway, you keep talking to the ALPA guys, they always know best. Talk to them about the data of people working the backside of the clock when they are 65. I'll bet there is a lot of data on that.....
Like I said, fly until 65, it really makes no difference to me. While seat progress will slow, you make my retirement safer by not tapping into it. Whether you will live longer or not by flying until 65 is somewhat irrelevant, you work at partial wages (good for the company, and good for me) and you aren't getting paid out of our retirement fund for five years (again, good for me). I have to disagree about Fedex flying not effecting your health, but neither of has any hard facts on this issue. Can you honestly tell me that is not harder to do this job than it was when you were 35? Does it take you longer to recover from a trip (especially overseas). Everyone that I have talked to (yes everyone) says it is more difficult now than it was when they were significantly younger. You don't think this will effect your longevity?
Anyway, you keep talking to the ALPA guys, they always know best. Talk to them about the data of people working the backside of the clock when they are 65. I'll bet there is a lot of data on that.....
05-11-2008, 11:22 AM
#9
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 12
"Talk to them about the data of people working the backside of the clock when they are 65. I'll bet there is a lot of data on that....."
Actually there is, factories have been working around the clock for a long time.
Like I said sorry to oppose you feelings (you must be a 90s kind of guy..gal?)with facts.
Actually there is, factories have been working around the clock for a long time.
Like I said sorry to oppose you feelings (you must be a 90s kind of guy..gal?)with facts.
05-11-2008, 11:23 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
Originally Posted by nightfreight
No whining Bandit, I couldn't care less if you choose to fly until 65 or not. If you choose to work for partial wages, then do so. We have no real data on pilots flying past 60 (except a handful of flight engineers) so you can be the test case. If you think the average 55+ Fedex pilot is healthy, you are on drugs. Most look old for their age, and many are grossly out of shape.
Like I said, fly until 65, it really makes no difference to me. While seat progress will slow, you make my retirement safer by not tapping into it. Whether you will live longer or not by flying until 65 is somewhat irrelevant, you work at partial wages (good for the company, and good for me) and you aren't getting paid out of our retirement fund for five years (again, good for me). I have to disagree about Fedex flying not effecting your health, but neither of has any hard facts on this issue. Can you honestly tell me that is not harder to do this job than it was when you were 35? Does it take you longer to recover from a trip (especially overseas). Everyone that I have talked to (yes everyone) says it is more difficult now than it was when they were significantly younger. You don't think this will effect your longevity?
Anyway, you keep talking to the ALPA guys, they always know best. Talk to them about the data of people working the backside of the clock when they are 65. I'll bet there is a lot of data on that.....
Like I said, fly until 65, it really makes no difference to me. While seat progress will slow, you make my retirement safer by not tapping into it. Whether you will live longer or not by flying until 65 is somewhat irrelevant, you work at partial wages (good for the company, and good for me) and you aren't getting paid out of our retirement fund for five years (again, good for me). I have to disagree about Fedex flying not effecting your health, but neither of has any hard facts on this issue. Can you honestly tell me that is not harder to do this job than it was when you were 35? Does it take you longer to recover from a trip (especially overseas). Everyone that I have talked to (yes everyone) says it is more difficult now than it was when they were significantly younger. You don't think this will effect your longevity?
Anyway, you keep talking to the ALPA guys, they always know best. Talk to them about the data of people working the backside of the clock when they are 65. I'll bet there is a lot of data on that.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
