Originally Posted by pinseeker
(Post 2477302)
FXLAX,
Let's put this another way. Let's say it take $2.3M to get $130K for life. At a 6% rate of return for 25 years, it takes an investment of about $40K per year to reach that total. Now let's change the time frame to 20 years with the same target amount and rate of return. Now you need to invest $60K per year to reach that $2.3M total that is requires to get $130K for life. That is a 50% increase in funding. So what you are asking is that if I got hired at 30, the company now increases its yearly contribution to retirement by 50% so that I don't get any increase so a guy who got hired at 45 can get the same retirement as I get. That guy works 20 years to age 65 and gets the same A plan retirement as the guy who has to work 30 years or take a penalty and get less. How is that fair for everyone? So to answer your question above, NO, your idea isn't better for everyone. I think I’m starting to understand. But I have some questions since I’m a little slow sometimes. Does it cost the company less per year to fund a pilot’s pension for each year he is on property, over than 25 years? In other words, does it cost the company less to hire a 30 year old versus a 40 year old pilot, in terms of funding their pension? Is it fair to the younger pilots in general. Maybe it would be more fair to eliminate the max YOS and lowering the multiplier instead of increasing the cap? These ideas are just me thinking out loud on here without figuring out every ramification, like training costs, etc. I was looking at it from the perspective of trying not to incentivize going beyond the lawful age though. Maybe that isn’t as important as I was perceiving it to be? Increasing max YOS or increasing the multiplier past 25 years will incentivize staying longer and it would seemingly increase company costs. |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 2477269)
The Membership SHOULD determine the priorities. It's a priority which I strongly support, and which has served as the bedrock of previous negotiations. It's hard to tell lately what priorities the MEC are using.
I'm not throwing stones but this whole thing stinks and have we not learned from past events? The names may have changed but the leadership being smarter than the membership mentality has not. |
Originally Posted by FrankTheTank
(Post 2477401)
Irony.... Weren't you are part of the MEC which ignored the membership in regards to age 65 changes? I would contend that nothing has really changed since then.. I remember a quote, but not from who, to the effect "Our MEC leadership knows better than its members." I seem to remember, also, 2 block reps recalled for such.. I'm not throwing stones but this whole thing stinks and have we not learned from past events? The names may have changed but the leadership being smarter than the membership mentality has not. Your memory is failing you, on several counts. (It's the price we pay for getting older. :p ) The famous poll was commissioned by the ALPA National President's Blue Ribbon Committee to study the effects of regulated age change. Our own Scott Stratton was the committee's R&I expert. Our MEC had nothing to do with the poll, and I wasn't on the MEC at that time. Any member of the MEC, whether member or officer, who claims to make decisions contrary to the will of the membership because he/she claims to be smarter than the membership deserves to be recalled, but that was never the issue in the last three recalls. However, we expect those same people to be better informed than the general membership for a number of reasons. For one, it's their JOB to be informed. For another thing, they often have access to more sources of information, sometimes sources only available to them because they have signed non-disclosure agreements. So, better informed, maybe, but not necessarily smarter. From the perspective of a member, it's sometimes hard to distinguish the difference. But I agree with you about the smell of things. . |
Thanks for the clarification.
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 2477415)
Nope.
Your memory is failing you, on several counts. (It's the price we pay for getting older. :p ) The famous poll was commissioned by the ALPA National President's Blue Ribbon Committee to study the effects of regulated age change. Our own Scott Stratton was the committee's R&I expert. Our MEC had nothing to do with the poll, and I wasn't on the MEC at that time. Any member of the MEC, whether member or officer, who claims to make decisions contrary to the will of the membership because he/she claims to be smarter than the membership deserves to be recalled, but that was never the issue in the last three recalls. However, we expect those same people to be better informed than the general membership for a number of reasons. For one, it's their JOB to be informed. For another thing, they often have access to more sources of information, sometimes sources only available to them because they have signed non-disclosure agreements. So, better informed, maybe, but not necessarily smarter. From the perspective of a member, it's sometimes hard to distinguish the difference. But I agree with you about the smell of things. . |
Originally Posted by FXLAX
(Post 2477396)
I think I’m starting to understand. But I have some questions since I’m a little slow sometimes. Does it cost the company less per year to fund a pilot’s pension for each year he is on property, over than 25 years? In other words, does it cost the company less to hire a 30 year old versus a 40 year old pilot, in terms of funding their pension? Is it fair to the younger pilots in general. Maybe it would be more fair to eliminate the max YOS and lowering the multiplier instead of increasing the cap?
These ideas are just me thinking out loud on here without figuring out every ramification, like training costs, etc. I was looking at it from the perspective of trying not to incentivize going beyond the lawful age though. Maybe that isn’t as important as I was perceiving it to be? Increasing max YOS or increasing the multiplier past 25 years will incentivize staying longer and it would seemingly increase company costs. |
Make that annuity expensive... retire now if you are over 52
Its right on VIPS, below sick button....easy :D Sick/Leave Requests Call in Sick or Well Military Service Notification Advance Retirement Notice |
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 2477491)
Make that annuity expensive... retire now if you are over 52
Its right on VIPS, below sick button....easy :D Sick/Leave Requests Call in Sick or Well Military Service Notification Advance Retirement Notice |
OK, then what do they do?
I have heard the annuity story several times. How does it actually work? |
Originally Posted by pwdrhound
(Post 2477505)
Fedex does NOT buy the pilots an annuity. It's amazing how many pilots still believe this...
|
Every peak is record setting season, every year is record profits. Stocks are up future looks bright, except for the retirement plan which the union seems eager to flush away. It’s time FDX ALPA stand strong against management on something. The the retirement is not worth fight for then what is?
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:34 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands