Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > > >
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-04-2017, 12:38 PM   #41
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinseeker View Post
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 Iím starting to understand. But I have some questions since Iím a little slow sometimes. Does it cost the company less per year to fund a pilotís 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 isnít 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.
FXLAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 12:49 PM   #42
Fill'er Up Again
 
FrankTheTank's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Scarebus Captain
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
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.
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.
FrankTheTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 01:17 PM   #43
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankTheTank View Post

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.

Nope.

Your memory is failing you, on several counts. (It's the price we pay for getting older. )


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.






.
TonyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 01:29 PM   #44
Fill'er Up Again
 
FrankTheTank's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Scarebus Captain
Posts: 677
Default

Thanks for the clarification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
Nope.

Your memory is failing you, on several counts. (It's the price we pay for getting older. )


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.






.
FrankTheTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 03:27 PM   #45
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FXLAX View Post
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.
Assuming YOS and max cap for both of your hypothetical pilots, the only difference for funding a pension is essentially the age at which they retire. The 40 year old has to retire at 65 to max his out but the 30 year old can retire at 60. Buying an annuity for a 60 year old is about 10 to 20% more expensive than buying one for a 65 year old. It must not be important to tell us how much it cost the company to fund our pension, it remains a secret. The cost of funding an annuity that pays $130K is between 1.9 (65 years old) and 2.2 million (60 years old). Obviously the company makes money (at least on the pension) if guys stay past 25. But if he goes out at 60 it is probably a wash as his pension will payout more.
Fdxlag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 03:39 PM   #46
Gets Weekends Off
 
NoHaz's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: let it snow, let it snow, let it snow
Posts: 692
Default

Make that annuity expensive... retire now if you are over 52

Its right on VIPS, below sick button....easy

Sick/Leave Requests
Call in Sick or Well
Military Service Notification
Advance Retirement Notice
NoHaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 04:04 PM   #47
Line Holder
 
pwdrhound's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: Fedex
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHaz View Post
Make that annuity expensive... retire now if you are over 52

Its right on VIPS, below sick button....easy

Sick/Leave Requests
Call in Sick or Well
Military Service Notification
Advance Retirement Notice
Fedex does NOT buy the pilots an annuity. It's amazing how many pilots still believe this...
pwdrhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 04:10 PM   #48
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 594
Default

OK, then what do they do?

I have heard the annuity story several times.

How does it actually work?
Nightflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 04:12 PM   #49
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwdrhound View Post
Fedex does NOT buy the pilots an annuity. It's amazing how many pilots still believe this...
Didnít say they do, but until the union shares the data it is the only way to estimate the value of the retirement.
Fdxlag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 10:53 PM   #50
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 395
Default

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. Itís time FDX ALPA stand strong against management on something. The the retirement is not worth fight for then what is?
StarClipper is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? Guard Dude Delta 195087 Yesterday 07:14 PM
Delta Pilots Association TheManager Major 9584 07-28-2015 12:15 PM
Capt Tony Hauserman for Block 4 Rep Gunter Cargo 29 07-29-2011 12:46 PM
CAL MEC Update Redeye Pilot United 92 10-19-2010 08:02 PM
NWA MEC Hotline RockBottom Major 0 01-07-2006 03:24 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:20 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.3, Copyright ©2000-2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2017 Internet Brands, Inc.