Actuarial Reductions - LGPS Advice
Camp Freddie: It's got nothing to do with the pension providers or the national governmental pensions rules. It is controlled from without - by ICAO and then EASA who stipulate that a pilot who flies SINGLE PILOT ops MUST either fly with a 2nd pilot who is younger than 60 or NOT fly. (Twin pilot ops takes you to 65+).
Take that aviation rule and place it within a system that (a) requires single pilot ops only and (b) pays a final salary scheme where the scheme matures at 65 and not before and there is your dilemma.
Who takes possession of the problem: The police don't really want to know: "Simply get another pilot to replace this one , your aviation rules are your problem guys". BALPA don't want to know: "Police air ops - a drop in our bureaucratic ocean". The CAA simply regulate.
So the individual is left with the problem of leaving the police (civilian) scheme atleast 5yrs early, incurring a 25% deficit in their pension returns forever. Rock and a hard place comas to mind.
Take that aviation rule and place it within a system that (a) requires single pilot ops only and (b) pays a final salary scheme where the scheme matures at 65 and not before and there is your dilemma.
Who takes possession of the problem: The police don't really want to know: "Simply get another pilot to replace this one , your aviation rules are your problem guys". BALPA don't want to know: "Police air ops - a drop in our bureaucratic ocean". The CAA simply regulate.
So the individual is left with the problem of leaving the police (civilian) scheme atleast 5yrs early, incurring a 25% deficit in their pension returns forever. Rock and a hard place comas to mind.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
I disagree, the problem is that the rules of the LGPS were never amended to take account of these 'special' non standard employees.
other employers have made provision for this type of circumstance, if football clubs can do it, then the police could.
I just checked with a former colleague who is a current pension fund admin manager and he tells me that special rules for a special section of employees WITHIN the existing scheme, are no problem as long as the trustees sign it off.
did anyone ever ask the trustees for a rule amendment? sounds like maybe you been fighting the CAA when you should have been lobbying the trustees.
Camp Freddie: It's got nothing to do with the pension providers or the national governmental pensions rules.
other employers have made provision for this type of circumstance, if football clubs can do it, then the police could.
I just checked with a former colleague who is a current pension fund admin manager and he tells me that special rules for a special section of employees WITHIN the existing scheme, are no problem as long as the trustees sign it off.
did anyone ever ask the trustees for a rule amendment? sounds like maybe you been fighting the CAA when you should have been lobbying the trustees.
Last edited by Camp Freddie; 5th Nov 2013 at 11:10.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
as an observer thus far to this thread, and to say it very bluntly I am a dyed in wool, long term self employed and past employer of many specialist in my trade,... but if the Police Service dont employ you the Pilots,.. by that statement alone you must be employed by another company or be freelance, I dont think any of you are freelance Pilots, therfore as such you must be employed by XYZ, now when you took your position with XYZ was anything said or did you sign any condition that could have indicated you would be out to grass at 60yrs of age, or is this a new condition being forced upon the Pilots by the Police Service , but to what benefit is this to the employers/Police by ditching highly skilled Pilots who at 60yrs are still well able to do their job..........
Or do younger fresher pilots looking for work do this work for less sheckles..? it does seem to be a contradiction of good sence but seems driven on reading the thread by monetary type bean counting policey's
Peter R-B
Lancashire
as an observer thus far to this thread, and to say it very bluntly I am a dyed in wool, long term self employed and past employer of many specialist in my trade,... but if the Police Service dont employ you the Pilots,.. by that statement alone you must be employed by another company or be freelance, I dont think any of you are freelance Pilots, therfore as such you must be employed by XYZ, now when you took your position with XYZ was anything said or did you sign any condition that could have indicated you would be out to grass at 60yrs of age, or is this a new condition being forced upon the Pilots by the Police Service , but to what benefit is this to the employers/Police by ditching highly skilled Pilots who at 60yrs are still well able to do their job..........
Or do younger fresher pilots looking for work do this work for less sheckles..? it does seem to be a contradiction of good sence but seems driven on reading the thread by monetary type bean counting policey's
Peter R-B
Lancashire
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camp Freddie, thanks very much for your timely information. I have been told that I can expect a response from the West Yorkshire Police HR Department this week in relation to my complaint. Any further advice you may be able to offer would be gratefully accepted.
TC.....
"What Flashman purports to has been in and out of the wrangler for at least 7 years that I can recall. It has been beaten to death by the police fraternity and also tested in court and defended by the CAA. Unless the EU disintegrates in the immediate future, taking with it ICAO, there is as much chance of this rule being overturned as there is of you NOT posting on the NPAS forum ever again",
Although I appreciate your comments, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick on this thread. My fight is not with the CAA. It is with my employer and the LGPS who are actuarially reducing my pension by up to 40% in what they describe as "voluntarily retiring from the scheme".
I will post back once I hear more.
TC.....
"What Flashman purports to has been in and out of the wrangler for at least 7 years that I can recall. It has been beaten to death by the police fraternity and also tested in court and defended by the CAA. Unless the EU disintegrates in the immediate future, taking with it ICAO, there is as much chance of this rule being overturned as there is of you NOT posting on the NPAS forum ever again",
Although I appreciate your comments, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick on this thread. My fight is not with the CAA. It is with my employer and the LGPS who are actuarially reducing my pension by up to 40% in what they describe as "voluntarily retiring from the scheme".
I will post back once I hear more.
Flashy: I haven't got the wrong end?? Remember it was I who first discovered tis when I fell foul of the system in 2007.
The argument has always been with the actuaries but it is the international agencies which have made the rules of not flying beyond 60 single pilot ops.
The LGPS panel has always declared their hands are tied because it is a law.
However, even in 2007, the LGPS did suggest it could be overridden by the C.C.
Camp Freddie may be your best shot.
The argument has always been with the actuaries but it is the international agencies which have made the rules of not flying beyond 60 single pilot ops.
The LGPS panel has always declared their hands are tied because it is a law.
However, even in 2007, the LGPS did suggest it could be overridden by the C.C.
Camp Freddie may be your best shot.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
The problem was caused when the CAA categorised Police Air Support as "Public Transport".
Shame that where the operation involves directly employed pilots it can't be re-classified as "Aerial Work" or "Private".
Shame that where the operation involves directly employed pilots it can't be re-classified as "Aerial Work" or "Private".
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting argument... My contract makes no mention of 'single pilot' just mentions that 'I must be medically fit to fly' and that I hold a JAA commercial pilots licence which is a legal argument that I have yet to have. My contract does state that it is terminated at age 60 though...
Personally I would take tha actuarial reduction and retire gracefully... flogging around on a pitch black night at 500ft with minimal viz at age 60 loses some of its appeal.
Personally I would take tha actuarial reduction and retire gracefully... flogging around on a pitch black night at 500ft with minimal viz at age 60 loses some of its appeal.
Letsby - I always found the dark o clock limits as per CAP 360 or whatever it is these days to be very generous indeed. Not once in my 14 yrs as a police pilot did I ever feel nervous/threatened/worried about dark o clock and I worked the harshest patch in the whole of the UK - trust me......
Perhaps your getting to be a little prissy in your dotage?
PS: Have you added up how much the penalty would cost you if you took the reduced pension pot, over the rest of your actuarial life?
Perhaps your getting to be a little prissy in your dotage?
PS: Have you added up how much the penalty would cost you if you took the reduced pension pot, over the rest of your actuarial life?
Tightgit
Letsby - I always found the dark o clock limits as per CAP 360 or whatever it is these days to be very generous indeed. Not once in my 14 yrs as a police pilot did I ever feel nervous/threatened/worried about dark o clock and I worked the harshest patch in the whole of the UK
TC - I'm not saying this to have a go. I'm just wondering if you have consider the following?
Have you added up how much LESS will be paid into your pot by leaving early
And offset this against how much extra you gain by leaving the scheme early?
How long are you expecting to live? How long are they expecting you to live?
How much more able are you to do things at 60 versus 67?
And don't forget your earnings each year will still rise in accordance with whatever the scheme is indexed lined too. In any event at the moment it's certainly better than the 1% cap on your wage increase.
So it might not be as bad as you think. What would be a good idea is if the scheme forecast pension annual summary actually reflected the fact that you may stop working aged 60. Then it wouldn't come as quite a shock to folk.
Have you added up how much LESS will be paid into your pot by leaving early
And offset this against how much extra you gain by leaving the scheme early?
How long are you expecting to live? How long are they expecting you to live?
How much more able are you to do things at 60 versus 67?
And don't forget your earnings each year will still rise in accordance with whatever the scheme is indexed lined too. In any event at the moment it's certainly better than the 1% cap on your wage increase.
So it might not be as bad as you think. What would be a good idea is if the scheme forecast pension annual summary actually reflected the fact that you may stop working aged 60. Then it wouldn't come as quite a shock to folk.
Oh c'mon Handysnaks - you know what I say is true. Where have you EVER been at night where you have changed the colour of your underpants?
Warning: that's a loaded Q
Misterboning: I believe what you have described is worthy of further investigation because pensions are like paintings: very subjective. It depends on your financial situation and your goals and aims in life.
But I can only go on what I have expereinced and what others on here have researched like Flashman (I hope) and colleagues.
If you are told by the government that your retirement age is 65, the deficit is 25%. If you are told you retire at 66, it is 40% deficit.
Actuarily speaking a UK male is expected to live until 78. 13 and 14 yrs respectively in receiving your reduced pension.
If one was was to do the cold maths of contributions in Vs benefits out it would be a reasonably close thing (but still in favour of the government).
BUT - remember these are gold plated pensions - final salary pensions, index linked and inflation proof. And this is the issue. By leaving early your 25/40% deficit will then show a massive delta between what you get and what you should have received if you did the full term.
By leaving early and getting a job elsewhere you can guarantee you wont get another gold plated pension again.
For different reasons, I am on the receiving end of a LGPS. I went on to work for far more than I earned as a police pilot which was a bonus, but my wife who also has a LGPS and should see it thru to maturity will hammer my pension into the ground, like for like, simply because she has gone the distance. Same pensions except I ejected at the "equivalent" of 60, even tho I'm not
Someone really needs to grip this either from the police perspective or the LGPS perspective, it really is a travesty of justice.
Warning: that's a loaded Q
Misterboning: I believe what you have described is worthy of further investigation because pensions are like paintings: very subjective. It depends on your financial situation and your goals and aims in life.
But I can only go on what I have expereinced and what others on here have researched like Flashman (I hope) and colleagues.
If you are told by the government that your retirement age is 65, the deficit is 25%. If you are told you retire at 66, it is 40% deficit.
Actuarily speaking a UK male is expected to live until 78. 13 and 14 yrs respectively in receiving your reduced pension.
If one was was to do the cold maths of contributions in Vs benefits out it would be a reasonably close thing (but still in favour of the government).
BUT - remember these are gold plated pensions - final salary pensions, index linked and inflation proof. And this is the issue. By leaving early your 25/40% deficit will then show a massive delta between what you get and what you should have received if you did the full term.
By leaving early and getting a job elsewhere you can guarantee you wont get another gold plated pension again.
For different reasons, I am on the receiving end of a LGPS. I went on to work for far more than I earned as a police pilot which was a bonus, but my wife who also has a LGPS and should see it thru to maturity will hammer my pension into the ground, like for like, simply because she has gone the distance. Same pensions except I ejected at the "equivalent" of 60, even tho I'm not
Someone really needs to grip this either from the police perspective or the LGPS perspective, it really is a travesty of justice.
Tightgit
Apologies for the thread drift...
I've been close to it a couple of times, once even when flying a police role!
Thanks for the warning though!! Fill your boots..
Meanwhile, back on thread.....
Whilst it is mildly vexing to have to leave at 60, and even more vexing to have that process described as voluntary early retirement, it is what it is. No-one is forced to join the LGPS. We can all opt out and purchase a scheme similar to those that we had in OSS/PAS/Specair. The basic choice was, this is the scheme, these are the conditions, take it or leave it. It is still (in its current form), far superior to the alternatives. We should probably be more concerned with how long it lasts in its current (or new as it is due to change again) form. Just about every other poor sap out there no longer has access to a FS scheme. They are hardly going to be marching in the streets to support 80 odd pilots.
Oh c'mon Handysnaks - you know what I say is true. Where have you EVER been at night where you have changed the colour of your underpants?
Warning: that's a loaded Q ]
Warning: that's a loaded Q ]
I've been close to it a couple of times, once even when flying a police role!Thanks for the warning though!! Fill your boots..
Meanwhile, back on thread.....
Whilst it is mildly vexing to have to leave at 60, and even more vexing to have that process described as voluntary early retirement, it is what it is. No-one is forced to join the LGPS. We can all opt out and purchase a scheme similar to those that we had in OSS/PAS/Specair. The basic choice was, this is the scheme, these are the conditions, take it or leave it. It is still (in its current form), far superior to the alternatives. We should probably be more concerned with how long it lasts in its current (or new as it is due to change again) form. Just about every other poor sap out there no longer has access to a FS scheme. They are hardly going to be marching in the streets to support 80 odd pilots.
Handy: I was talking about night flying in the police - walk in the park when compared to mil night flying. Anyway, you spend your police life over massive conurbations don't you
Onto LGPS: I'm sorry you feel like that (roll over and give up). For one not many if any were told about the age 60 rule when they enrolled into the scheme. Two - it's the principle. The pilot is caught in the middle between ICAO rules and an intransigent LGPS panel!
People like Flashman should be applauded for what they are striving to achieve no matter how long it takes. Morally this is very wrong what is happening here and those in the picture - know it. I bet you won't thank him personally though if he wins this argument and everyone benefits massively, will you
Onto LGPS: I'm sorry you feel like that (roll over and give up). For one not many if any were told about the age 60 rule when they enrolled into the scheme. Two - it's the principle. The pilot is caught in the middle between ICAO rules and an intransigent LGPS panel!
People like Flashman should be applauded for what they are striving to achieve no matter how long it takes. Morally this is very wrong what is happening here and those in the picture - know it. I bet you won't thank him personally though if he wins this argument and everyone benefits massively, will you
Tightgit
Anyway, you spend your police life over massive conurbations don't you
It's not the responsibility of the LGPS to decide to award early retirement with no penalty. They are responsible for operating the fund under a clear set of rules. Those rules allow for early retirement with no actuarial reduction. However, it is the responsibility of the employer to pay the difference (5 years worth of contribution's + 5 year's worth of pension paid out).
It is easy to throw around phrases like..
(roll over and give up)
It may be the case that pilots in the early DE units did not know about actuarial reduction. By the time the unit I work for went DE we did! Anybody going DE into NPAS should also be/have been aware, of the situation.
In the case of my colleagues, I made enquiries regarding the pension beforehand and I went to a pension panel with a colleague who was due to retire and suffer the reduction. We did not manage to convince the panel that the reduction was unfair. Given the current economic climate, and the reaction of the general public to teachers strikes and fire service strikes, both citing pensions as one of the issues, I don't believe it is worth getting frustrated over the pension issue. I am perfectly happy to put my name to the cause to try and negotiate a change, the LGPS is my only pension.
(apart from a couple of years of mirror group)! But it would be with my eyes wide open and in the hope of a spirit of largesse within my current employer.
People like Flashman should be applauded for what they are striving to achieve no matter how long it takes. Morally this is very wrong what is happening here and those in the picture - know it. I bet you won't thank him personally though if he wins this argument and everyone benefits massively, will you
But adding a note of realism to the whole affair does not make me anti. There is no point in any of us going around with our hands over our ears (singing 'na, na, na') in the hope that if we don't think of the counter arguments or opinions then nobody else will!What's more, what will we do if Flashman doesn't win the argument?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still trying! Awaiting a reply from the P&CC from a letter I sent two months ago. I did have a response from his secretary within a week stating the Commissioner was looking into the points I had raised but then their CC got himself suspended so my query has gone to the bottom of the pile.
EASA 'state' flying (including police flying) is not 'public transport' It's the UK CAA that are preventing 60-65 UK single pilot police flying, within UK national boundaries.
My company termination letter at age 60 stated I was being 'dismissed for substantive other reasons' which HR said was the correct terminology.
Before I was 60 I approached Ian Evans, the last great flag bearer for 60+ SP PT flying. He told me if I 'valued my sanity' not to take on the CAA but to go off and enjoy my life!
So I did and I am!
Still flying 902's, though!
My company termination letter at age 60 stated I was being 'dismissed for substantive other reasons' which HR said was the correct terminology.
Before I was 60 I approached Ian Evans, the last great flag bearer for 60+ SP PT flying. He told me if I 'valued my sanity' not to take on the CAA but to go off and enjoy my life!
So I did and I am!
Still flying 902's, though!
TC said:
Whilst he might be forced from his post, he is not forced to take his pension with the actuarial hit. The pension can be frozen (though the indexing is not frozen, I believe) and taken in full at 65 if he so wishes.
Thought it worth mentioning.
CG
So the individual is left with the problem of leaving the police (civilian) scheme atleast 5yrs early, incurring a 25% deficit in their pension returns forever.
Thought it worth mentioning.
CG
CG: His contributions will cease, though. The 'pot' will not grow and he will not receive what he would normally receive if the plan had been left to run.
{Assuming his chances of flying outside the police world are nil - which they would come close to}. At 60 it is extremely unlikely anyone would get a similarly paid job with a similar contributory pension scheme.
PS: I've heard rumbles that the penalty clause has risen from 25% to 30% now? If you withdraw early from the scheme.
Let's hope the PCC responds positively.
{Assuming his chances of flying outside the police world are nil - which they would come close to}. At 60 it is extremely unlikely anyone would get a similarly paid job with a similar contributory pension scheme.
PS: I've heard rumbles that the penalty clause has risen from 25% to 30% now? If you withdraw early from the scheme.
Let's hope the PCC responds positively.