ALPA TO SHAFT MEMBERSHIP - AGAIN
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am not referring to 401k.
I am referring to the A-fund or A-plans as they are variously called which are a defined benefit retirement plan. Those are the plans that are the bread and butter of an airline retirement. They are generated by a multiplier (1.5% at American or 2.0 percent at Continental for example, ) times length of service times at the average of the highest of 5 of the last 10 years income. It provides an anuity based on the number that you come out with. Somewhere around 50 percent or so of your last years salary for the rest of your life. Some people then sell the annuity to get a lump sum payout because of survivor issues with the annuity.
Vesting has nothing to do with 20 years. Its starts immediately, but you can't collect till you are 60.
The B fund at an ailine is a defined contribution plan and works very similar to a 401k without requiring an employee match first. Some airlines then have 401k (with no match, that is provided by the befund already) as well for a vehical to serve yourself.
In any event the cash value of the annuity is severly degraded by continuing to work as it is calculated vs your life expectancy, and if go out early the courts have ruled its is generally a 6 percent per year hit. In rare cases airlines have negotiated an early out usually to avoid a furlough (which most contracts then forbid overtime during and removes flexiblity during scheduling). During the early out the airline has to kick in dramatically more money to make up for the fact that the A fund is no longer conforming and pay the differences (100s of thousands of dollars, effectively it is just as cheap to convert it to a no show job)
I thought you used to work for TWA. How come I have to explain basic pensions and tax law? (not meant as a dig, just thought you were retired TWA)
Cheers
Wino
I am referring to the A-fund or A-plans as they are variously called which are a defined benefit retirement plan. Those are the plans that are the bread and butter of an airline retirement. They are generated by a multiplier (1.5% at American or 2.0 percent at Continental for example, ) times length of service times at the average of the highest of 5 of the last 10 years income. It provides an anuity based on the number that you come out with. Somewhere around 50 percent or so of your last years salary for the rest of your life. Some people then sell the annuity to get a lump sum payout because of survivor issues with the annuity.
Vesting has nothing to do with 20 years. Its starts immediately, but you can't collect till you are 60.
The B fund at an ailine is a defined contribution plan and works very similar to a 401k without requiring an employee match first. Some airlines then have 401k (with no match, that is provided by the befund already) as well for a vehical to serve yourself.
In any event the cash value of the annuity is severly degraded by continuing to work as it is calculated vs your life expectancy, and if go out early the courts have ruled its is generally a 6 percent per year hit. In rare cases airlines have negotiated an early out usually to avoid a furlough (which most contracts then forbid overtime during and removes flexiblity during scheduling). During the early out the airline has to kick in dramatically more money to make up for the fact that the A fund is no longer conforming and pay the differences (100s of thousands of dollars, effectively it is just as cheap to convert it to a no show job)
I thought you used to work for TWA. How come I have to explain basic pensions and tax law? (not meant as a dig, just thought you were retired TWA)
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
WINO -
I'm not saying that plans can't be constructed that way in the shadows of Ichan and Lorenzo, I'm saying that I can't find the exclusive mandatory retirement age you allude to.
My friends at United and Northwest think I've lost my mind to ask the question. They are adamant that they - and new-hires - can retire with 20 years of service - per their ALPA contract.
Thus, I'm not clear as to your implication that ALL pilots retiring before the FAA mandated age will get penalized.
Any other United or Northwest or U.S.Air pilots out there know anything on this topic?
I'm not saying that plans can't be constructed that way in the shadows of Ichan and Lorenzo, I'm saying that I can't find the exclusive mandatory retirement age you allude to.
My friends at United and Northwest think I've lost my mind to ask the question. They are adamant that they - and new-hires - can retire with 20 years of service - per their ALPA contract.
Thus, I'm not clear as to your implication that ALL pilots retiring before the FAA mandated age will get penalized.
Any other United or Northwest or U.S.Air pilots out there know anything on this topic?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, but ask them how old they must be to retire.
Yes they can retire at 20 years, provided that they are 60 years old.
20 years of service is meaningless other than a generic calculation. It is length of service times number of days off. minus 6 percent for every year younger than 60. This is for the A fund. The b Fund is uneffected.
Cheers
Wino
Yes they can retire at 20 years, provided that they are 60 years old.
20 years of service is meaningless other than a generic calculation. It is length of service times number of days off. minus 6 percent for every year younger than 60. This is for the A fund. The b Fund is uneffected.
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry guys, but this is just nonsensical. If the legislated retirement age is 65, then how can it be one rule for flight deck crews and another for the rest of the population?
As far as flying past 60 is concerned, I think it's a great idea. I know many pilots who are over 60 - some well over 60 - and they are as fit and sharp as some 40 year olds. I also know a number of much younger guys who are seriously unfit and have slow reactions - so age really doesn't enter into the fitness debate. If there's a genuine concern, then make medicals mandatory every 6 months.
On the other hand, I don't think it should be mandatory to work past 60, either. If you want to, fine. If not, equally fine - you can take your existing pension and fly off into the sunset.
However, I do think it very strange that ALPA (and BALPA, for that matter) support early retirement - surely to the detriment of the very people who have contributed the most, financially, to those organisations? The IPA, on the other hand, supports extended working life - yet another reason to join them when they (finally!) get their act together and become a recognised union!
There's allegedly a serious pilot shortage at the moment. So why are we trying to stop our most experienced pilots from working??
Bl**dy strange to me, mate!
As far as flying past 60 is concerned, I think it's a great idea. I know many pilots who are over 60 - some well over 60 - and they are as fit and sharp as some 40 year olds. I also know a number of much younger guys who are seriously unfit and have slow reactions - so age really doesn't enter into the fitness debate. If there's a genuine concern, then make medicals mandatory every 6 months.
On the other hand, I don't think it should be mandatory to work past 60, either. If you want to, fine. If not, equally fine - you can take your existing pension and fly off into the sunset.
However, I do think it very strange that ALPA (and BALPA, for that matter) support early retirement - surely to the detriment of the very people who have contributed the most, financially, to those organisations? The IPA, on the other hand, supports extended working life - yet another reason to join them when they (finally!) get their act together and become a recognised union!
There's allegedly a serious pilot shortage at the moment. So why are we trying to stop our most experienced pilots from working??
Bl**dy strange to me, mate!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Downin3green -
Good point on Comair; biased though I may be.
The other aspect not mentioned is the loss of expertise. There have been some radical incidents and accidents due to expertise levels and it is guaranteed to get worse. Personally I think that is more the case for the proposed age extension.
However, I applaud the effort, regardless for the motive.
Wino -
Assuming you're right about the retirement, (My friends still insist that they can retire at 20, at less than age 60, without penalty at United, Northwest and Delta), what's your take on changing the law, as otherwise the law constructively creates a form of slavery?
Now there would be a great lobbying effort for ALPA.
Good point on Comair; biased though I may be.
The other aspect not mentioned is the loss of expertise. There have been some radical incidents and accidents due to expertise levels and it is guaranteed to get worse. Personally I think that is more the case for the proposed age extension.
However, I applaud the effort, regardless for the motive.
Wino -
Assuming you're right about the retirement, (My friends still insist that they can retire at 20, at less than age 60, without penalty at United, Northwest and Delta), what's your take on changing the law, as otherwise the law constructively creates a form of slavery?
Now there would be a great lobbying effort for ALPA.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Change it to read self certifying of fitness, or make airline pilots exempt PERIOD. Not just for FAA mandate retirement age.
Most of the people don't know what makes their Aplan possible. As soon as they find out the wording in IRC 415, support moving age 60 dries up pretty rapidly, especially when the cash value of their annuities are explained to them.
Sadly if you have ever been to a domicile meeting for your union, you realize how poorly informed many airline pilots really are, especially about important things like how their contract works, what the duty times really are, etc...
Gov, the IPA does NOT support the lifting of the AGE 60 ban. The only IPA that is actually a UNION is the Independant Pilots Association that represents the UPS pilots. They do NOT favor raising the age 60 retirement. Your little trade group is not a union and don't claim it to be.
Cheers
Wino
Most of the people don't know what makes their Aplan possible. As soon as they find out the wording in IRC 415, support moving age 60 dries up pretty rapidly, especially when the cash value of their annuities are explained to them.
Sadly if you have ever been to a domicile meeting for your union, you realize how poorly informed many airline pilots really are, especially about important things like how their contract works, what the duty times really are, etc...
Gov, the IPA does NOT support the lifting of the AGE 60 ban. The only IPA that is actually a UNION is the Independant Pilots Association that represents the UPS pilots. They do NOT favor raising the age 60 retirement. Your little trade group is not a union and don't claim it to be.
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wino - the group I'm talking about is the Independent Pilots Association, based here in the UK. And yes, they are (apparently) in the process of becoming an organised union. Not before time, either - the British Airways Line Pilots Association (BALPA) seems to be running on an agenda all its own - which seems to have little to do with its members interests.
In fact, this scenario was precisely why the IPA was set up in the first place - to help out the former Dan Air people that BALPA shafted.
In fact, this scenario was precisely why the IPA was set up in the first place - to help out the former Dan Air people that BALPA shafted.
