Busboy

So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have ALOT of guys that are 55 and up that want to retire at 60, or earlier...But, ONLY if the retirement age is changed to 65?

Alrighty then...

HIFLYR

That too could go away at a later date, even after you retire.

MaydayMark

Or they could just impose a change ("their" interpretation of the language) like they just did with 4.a.2.b?

kronan

Let's take another vote, how many people think NMB#s is already on the negotiating team? And by that, I mean mgts.

Mgt doesn't like the uncertainty involved in when pilots can pull the trigger.

The question is, what is mgt willing to give up for changing the normal retirement age to 65 (using the early retirement provision the additional 5 years is equal to 15.6%...so, if I currently retired at 55, my benefit would be reduced by roughly a months pay) is mgt willing to pony up the additional bucks to make it worth my while to change this provision?

I can understand/accept modifying the pension plan for the next generation of guys with the appropriate longevity modifiers. But, can't/won't accept a dramatic change to my current pension plan without dramatic $$$ changes to allow me to still retire at 60 when I get there. And, assuming that it still winds up as a 15% pension penalty to retire 5 yrs early, that equates to some substantial buckage

WAG based on the PBB estimate of pension benefits. An annuity to replace that reduced pension payment (with 50% survivor benefits) would cost about 250k.
Further ball park, assuming age 45 w/ a 6% return, need to invest 10k a year to get to that ballpark to buy an annuity to replace those lost pension funds.

So, B plan would be a dramatic increase, anybody think mgt is willing to increase the B plan to 12% or greater. Obviously, the closer you are to 60, the more a change impacts your retirement planning, and it takes a much larger sum of money to replace those lost pension plans on the companys part.

flares

I've never been a single issue voter on anything, but.....
I came to this game fully understanding that I would have to retire at 60. I've planned and am continuing to plan for it.

Seems to me, if the company wants to change the retirement to 65, then it should only apply to those that were hired after the age change was signed into law. i.e. If the contract is changed so that everyone on property prior to the regulatory age change is still allowed to retire at 60 without penalty while those that have a date of hire after the law was signed have a age 65 retirement then that would be an acceptable solution.

Bottom line for me:
I WILL VOTE NO ON ANY CONTRACT THAT TRIES TO PENALIZE ME FOR RETIRING AT AGE 60!

Piloto Noche

I think the point is for the guys who have the 25 already and are thinking, "This gig is OK, I'll continue on for a year or two after 60". If they knew they would be penalized between 60 and 65, they'd leave before the new contract went into effect.

kronan

I think the current guys just don't want to give up the salary in such a downer of an economy. Added benefits are the additional B fund as well as avoiding tapping into retirement savings.

IMO, next contract is about 3 yrs from being signed, so most of the guys sticking for a year or two are going to be 65. It's the guys around 58 right now that may pull the trigger early if the normal retirement age seems likely to change. Could be a large number of folks retiring in two years, will be interesting to watch, wish I had the option.
If MGT was smart, they'd be trying to knock out the next contract this summer in the midst of the doom and gloom of current events.

Lambo

Since we do not get any credit towards retirement after working 25 years; My feeling on retirement is that we should be able to retire without any penalty once we have 25 years at FredEx no matter what age we are.

Do NOT raise the "normal" retirement age by one day.

We should accrue 2% per year for credit towards retirement for every year worked. (i.e. work 29 years and receive 58% [not 50%] of your salary for retirement.

Let me say it one more time.

Do NOT raise the "normal" retirement age by one day.

Lambo

That is the attitude we all should have. Especially those on our negotiating team.

Busboy

OK. I understand that theory. What does not make sense is wanting to change the retirement age to 65, for ALL of us, to get rid of the few that fall into that category, and MIGHT want to leave.

I really don't know why we are even discussing this. There is absolutely no benefit to the crewforce in changing it.

This thread seems like nothing more than a feeler from our friends that work on the other side of the wall. If you ask me...discussing this is just like going to one of those old FDX "brown bag lunches". Where imbeciles would show up to discuss with management what the pilot group would go for.

AGE 60 is non-negotiable to our "amendable" contract.