![]() |
I don't see the savings. And why was the law changed? The FAA (Marion Blakey) became convinced that once foreign pilots over 60 flew into our airspace, the government would be subject to judicial scrutiny for age discrimination. She conveniently forgot that ageism comes under the lowest form of Supreme Court scrutiny (i.e. only needs a "rational basis"), that age limits are accepted in many other professions (firemen, police, etc...) and that this would impact airline safety and she should at least do some quick and dirty safety impact studies. Then you had the specter of the former Fedex MEC chair flying to Washington and single-handedly getting the over-60 FE's (those over 60 the day the rule changed) back to the front seats. Nobody wanted this - the other airlines, the FAA, the other MEC members. I'm sure a number of your furloughs were caused by him personally. By the way, a week from today (June 14) is the halfway point for the 5 year period..... |
Originally Posted by 767pilot
(Post 822657)
have you seen the accounting on that one? We just got a letter from the PBGC and it seems to me that the longer you wait (65 instead of 60) you get a much larger benefit from them, making it more expensive not less. OK, maybe they'll pay fewer years making it neutral, but I don't see the savings. As fast as that thing went through, I can't imagine much thought was given to accounting items.
As you know, politicians would never let a few facts get in the way of an agenda. They also get to fly the banner of saving the airlines from a "pilot shortage". |
Originally Posted by 767pilot
(Post 822657)
have you seen the accounting on that one? We just got a letter from the PBGC and it seems to me that the longer you wait (65 instead of 60) you get a much larger benefit from them, making it more expensive not less. OK, maybe they'll pay fewer years making it neutral, but I don't see the savings. As fast as that thing went through, I can't imagine much thought was given to accounting items.
You will spend 5 more years paying lots of different kinds of taxes. That increases the amount you have to draw to get your money back from the government in retirement. This part is certain. Not to mention they worry most about current expenditures. They look at 1 to 2 year blocks of time. If they can delay you 3-5 years, they prevent an accounting crisis this year or the next. Then they get to pay you in dollars that are worth less due to inflation. Then there's the fuzzy math on working to 65. Folks, by some stats, will die a few years earlier for every year they work past 60. I challenge anyone to show that we will, as a whole, get more payout from leaving at 65. In the end these things are always costed out. It's all about the money. They didn't care about a "shortage". That part was like WMD in Iraq. It was just an excuse to get support for the legislation. BTW, All the smart players knew it was going to put downward pressure on pilot wages for newer and future jobs. |
Originally Posted by Gunter
(Post 822683)
The accounting makes it cheaper for the government.
You will spend 5 more years paying lots of different kinds of taxes. That increases the amount you have to draw to get your money back from the government in retirement. This part is certain. Not to mention they worry most about current expenditures. They look at 1 to 2 year blocks of time. If they can delay you 3-5 years, they prevent an accounting crisis this year or the next. Then they get to pay you in dollars that are worth less due to inflation. Then there's the fuzzy math on working to 65. Folks, by some stats, will die a few years earlier for every year they work past 60. I challenge anyone to show that we will, as a whole, get more payout from leaving at 65. In the end these things are always costed out. It's all about the money. They didn't care about a "shortage". That part was like WMD in Iraq. It was just an excuse to get support for the legislation. BTW, All the smart players knew it was going to put downward pressure on pilot wages for newer and future jobs. |
Originally Posted by CactusCrew
(Post 822660)
They also get to fly the banner of saving the airlines from a "pilot shortage".
|
Anyone who thinks these guys are going to walk away from a job like this where they work perhaps two days a week for 10.5 or so months in the year just isn't paying attention.
Call them greedy all you like, they just don't care about your opinion, they do think the bashing is funny.:D |
Originally Posted by 757upspilot
(Post 821470)
The best our pilots have so far is 22 years of service for our A plan and a B fund that has been hammered by the stock market.
|
Originally Posted by Razor
(Post 823215)
Do you have to have at least 22 years with UPS to get anything out of your A fund? Is it an all or nothing deal?
|
deleted because 757pilot answered question
|
Originally Posted by 757upspilot
(Post 823237)
The "normal" retirement age for the A plan is sixty. If your retire and start to collect prior to age sixty you take a eight percent per year penalty . Example- retire at age fifty-five and you would lose forty percent of your retirement income. The maximum number of years you can have that pay a benefit is thirty, any time spent with the company beyond thirty years doesn't count. The longest anyone has is twenty two years because thats how long the airline has existed. Currently the benefit at twenty-two years of service would replace aprox. 25% of gross earnings minus survivors benefits.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands