Who is retiring soon?/ Age 60/65 rule...
- Thread starter hotice
- Start date
Velocipede
New Member
Doug, Doug, Doug. Didn't you realize the polling was meaningless? Not only was it a waste of time, but it was a waste of money. There was NOTHING ALPA was going to say or do that was going to change the outcome.
It was 100% ICAO. All ALPA wanted was a seat at the table. Not that even that meant anything...
Cruise
Well-Known Member
Ooh, ooh, I got it! :hiya:
While I think the 65 thing MIGHT have slowed my career down, it also lengthened it (at least potentially). Although, I seriously hope I don't 'have' to fly 'til 65 to make any kind of decent retirement......ugh!
Velocipede
New Member
Yep, Cruise, you got it. What most of the "antis" forget to factor in is the mortality rate of the general pilot population. We've lost 3 in the last 18 months or so...two to light plane crashes and one to a motorcycle accident.
Additionally, guys lose their medicals every day.
We have 20 post 60 pilots flying today. However, we've LOST 45 - 50 due to early retirements, busted medicals, etc. The economy is a larger drag on pilot progression than is Age 65. Age 65 is just a convenient target.
Additionally, guys lose their medicals every day.
We have 20 post 60 pilots flying today. However, we've LOST 45 - 50 due to early retirements, busted medicals, etc. The economy is a larger drag on pilot progression than is Age 65. Age 65 is just a convenient target.
Kestrel452
New Member
I have no idea why someone would want to fly past the age of 60 unless it is for monetary purposes. That is the age where I would go back from where I came from breeze off with my friends from way back and then eventually just die, to each his own I guess. I am young I would just experience God willing if I get so far.
Velocipede
New Member
I have no idea why someone would want to fly past the age of 60 unless it is for monetary purposes. That is the age where I would go back from where I came from breeze off with my friends from way back and then eventually just die
Amazing, isn't it? :banghead:
Kestrel452
New Member
I don't want to sound ignorant, but what is so amazing?
Velocipede
New Member
The coherence of his post.
Kestrel452
New Member
The first sentence was ok, but I was lost once I got to the second. Air Traffic Control is going to LOVE him!
Velocipede
New Member
Either love him or hire him.
IrishSheepdog
Sitting in the median
I think he was trying to say, rather than keeping working until 65/70/whenever, he'd rather go back home and spend his last years around friends and family. I'd much prefer that too... I don't want to be nearing retirement and still be on message boards worrying about all this crap. Work to live... Not the other way around.
Velocipede
New Member
Then, make sure you start funding your retirement now, Chicaga.
Bajan Hopeful
Well-Known Member
Well at least someone got the idea.
Maybe I could have worded it better. Just comes a time when you have to forget all that BS and take a step back me thinks.
IrishSheepdog
Sitting in the median
I started putting nearly 10% of my pay into my 401(k) starting since I was 22. The "message board" comment was not a jab at you, just in case you might take it that way. Personally, I agree with your assessment of the Age 65 ruling, even if I don't agree with your delivery. I knew that the Age 65 rule would pass, so I'm not mad about it. Putting myself into the shoes of a pilot at United, US Airways, or any other company where their pension was stripped from them, why preclude them from working another five years to try and regain that loss? Some also fail to realize that the difference in money paid out by the PBGC is quite large if you retire at 65 rather than 60. I believe at age 60 you are provided $28,000 per year, whereas at age 65 you are provided $45,000 a year. I'm not sure of the details, maybe someone could elaborate?
The Age 65 rule is what it is. What we need to take away from this is the realization that we need to be funding our own futures, and need to be doing it from a young age. That way, we will not be forced to work until age 65, 70, or whenever. We can try to save and retire at a younger age, so we can enjoy those years with our family and friends. I personally do not want to be 65, listening to flight attendant drama and reading pilots complain about uniforms and what not.
This subject is like the weather: it is what it is and no one here had even the slightest influence on the course it has taken, hence any blame for it. You look at it and plan for/around it and it doesn't matter one iota what we think about it.
If you get anything out of this thread, listen to FlyChicaga's comments about saving and funding your own retirement. Doing anything else is fiddling while Rome burns.
Here is the PBGC link:
http://www.pbgc.gov/workers-retirees/benefits-information/content/page789.html
Oh, and by the way, the PBGC ain't doin' so hot either. Dump a few more huge failed pension plans on this donkey and look out. Better hope you did like FlyChicaga:
Today's Outrage: Pension Protection At Risk
Glenn Hall -- TheStreet.com
04/03/09 - 10:03 AM EDT
The federal agency that protects pension plans from becoming bankruptcy casualties shifted more investments into stocks ahead of the market collapse last year in an ill-timed move intended to improve returns.
While previous managers of the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, opted to play it safe, the director who took over during the Bush administration, Charles Millard, adopted a more aggressive approach with the hope of eliminating the agency's $11 billion deficit. Now the deficit is no doubt worse than ever. Nice going Millard!
After Millard arrived in 2007, the PBGC more than doubled the percentage of its insurance fund invested in stocks and real estate to 55%, according to a report by the Boston Globe earlier this week. (Kudos to good old-fashioned newspaper reporting for continuing to look out for the common folk even as people turn away from their printed pages).
I wonder what's left of the $64 billion the agency once had in its fund. Is there enough to cover the pensions of General Motors and Chrysler if the carmakers wind up in bankruptcy?
That's how it played out previously with the airline industry bankruptcies that dumped pensions from Delta Air Lines, UAL's United Air Lines and US Airways onto the PBGC.
The collapse of Lehman Brothers also added to the PBGC's burden and I can't even imagine the damage that would come if the agency suddenly had to take on pensions from another major bank such as Citigroup or Bank of America on top of those from GM. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
With more than 44 million Americans counting on the PBGC (whether they know it or not) to make sure they have income in retirement, we can't afford to let this agency go bust.
While the PBGC is self-financed through premiums it charges companies to guarantee their pensions, it is nonetheless a government agency and could become a burden to taxpayers if it runs out of funds.
You just need to look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for proof of that. Everyone always said that those two quasi-governmental agencies were independently financed and the government wasn't on the hook for their missteps -- but in the end taxpayers bailed them both out.
A taxpayer-funded bailout of the PBGC is not what we need right now. But then again, what's another $100 billion as long as we're printing money for AIG and other failing financial institutions.
The appointment of a new PBGC director by Obama may turn out to be a more important post than it seems.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Velocipede
New Member
Good for you. That shows you are someone with the maturity and ability to recognize that things don't remain static. Life is a fluid endeavor and no one is going to take care of you but YOU.
Don't worry about it. I've never been one to sugar coat my opinions. In the end, that's all they are...opinions.
EXACTLY. Airline pilots under the Age 60 rule were PBGC screwed.
