Pension-dumping continues to spread.....

https://www.pbs.org/video/pension-ga...review-yo413g/

I certainly agree with you guys about medical issues that begin to arise at 65. In my case, I planned on retirement the second year on the payroll. Having flown for 14.5 years under an ALPA contract that had multiple 'me too' clauses....." no less favorable than that granted to UAL pilots...." LOL I retired in '02, so I have been gone for a while. At 76, I got my FAA physical renewed this month. It's been a bumpy road between cancer and a pacemaker, but recoverable.
P.S. Keep your sons out of a Boeing cockpit when they're young, and certainly keep them away from the family Cherokee 180. I lost on both issues. Both are headed to the regionals in about 10 months.

Pensions are an unsustainable model.

public pensions hav funding that is provided at the point of a gun from taxpayers....so they have enjoyed extended longevity.

Eventually though even a gun will not be enough to fund them.

I remember when those same words were spoken about 65. As for domestic only, how would that work? I hope the age doesn’t change but I’d rather see that than a push for single cockpit sooner. If the pilot shortage ever creates a drain on the economy I think Congress will be influenced (bought by lobbyists) to act.

Most people really don't understand how pension liabilities are calculated. It's not a matter of dividing what you owe into what you have.

Some loss of pension asset value is to blame, at least initially, but in many cases, the value of those assets have been recovered, and then some.

What has really jacked the pension equation is persistent, abnormally low long term interest rates. It's these rates that determine how pension "funding" is calculated over the long term. You can read this for yourself if you have a pension, frozen or otherwise, from the statements that are sent to you every year. If you have one that is subject to different funding models (such as airline pensions) there are typically three different scenarios, all based on different assumed long term interest rates.

From a historical perspective, the last 10 years have been an extreme anomaly, and only recently have the interest rates inched up from near zero. Of course, while this is good for mortgages or other borrowing, it stinks for everything else, including savings, and, IMHO, is not indicative of a really healthy economy, but hey, that's just my opinion. Suffice to say, the mortgage that I got for my first home in the 90's, at 7% (considered a "good deal" at the time), would usher in panicked news stories of Armageddon and the total collapse of the housing market today. That's NOT healthy.

Not coincidentally, many pension funds at the time were either fully funded or over-funded. Not because of the assets they held (although that was a part of it), but the long term interest rates provided great forward looking returns. This drove the "implied funding" (if you want to call it that) to show that everything was cool.

Not only cool, but the funding was such that the sponsors (ie the companies or governments) didn't need to add ANY money at all. In fact, they were prevented from overfunding pensions because this was considered a "tax dodge". This is an important take away....some people WANTED to diversify away from solely a DB model, but you couldn't talk anyone into it because DC/401k money represented REAL money they'd have to pay every two weeks, whereas the DB plans self funded.

Like anything with interest rates involved, compounding causes wild swings with small changes. Should, for some reason, interest snap up to the historical average, say, go up 150-200 basis points, or back up to the 4-4.5% level, many of these pension funds would suddenly be "fully funded" overnight. Not because of the increase in actual asset value, but because of the assumed returns long term.

All the funding calculations are a joke when they fail to compensate for exit basis 'spiking' that can produce multiplier increases in the beneficiary payment levels.

You remember different than me. I Remember multiple court cases on the dockets for pilot age discrimination and the ICAO studying age 60 with an intent on raising the age. The only surprise to me was it did not happen sooner. ICAO just did another study and said cognitive function decreases to fast after 65 to be safe and they have no plans to raise the age. No court cases that I am aware of but the FAA will be able to win if they do pop up.

Id bet in another 15-20 years it goes up again, too many 70-80 yr olds with a lot of their facilities. Best things pilots can do is binge drink every overnight so age 65 never changes. Hit the sauce hard fellas!

My Dad flew for Delta for 30 years when I got hired he said “Congratulations and I’m sorry.” I was so happy it took me 2 years to understand why he apologized.

No there wasn't but why is this different? Same premise, one would need to downbid in either situation.


Agreed, it's definitely a moot point so I will end my comments with the above.

Denny