ALPA TO SHAFT MEMBERSHIP - AGAIN
 

ALPA NOW DETERMINES CIVIL RIGHTS???


May 9, 2001

TO ALL ALPA MEMBERS

A nationwide ALPA grassroots campaign is underway to generate messages from U.S. pilots to Members of Congress - especially U.S. Senators - to urge them to maintain the mandatory age 60 retirement rule for commercial airline pilots. All ALPA members should contact their two Senators and Representative right away to urge them to
reject legislative proposals to raise the retirement age for pilots.

I know the Age 60 issue is a divisive one for our Association; I am well aware that we have members on both sides of the issue. But ALPA's Age 60 policy is quite Clear: ". . .ALPA endorses required retirement at age 60 for all flight deck crew members. . ." Our policy has been
repeatedly reaffirmed through the years by various ALPA governing bodies and, as ALPA President, I am charged with ensuring that all ALPA policies are upheld - including the Age 60 policy.

That's why we're mounting a comprehensive campaign to oppose current legislative proposals to raise the retirement age for pilots to 63 and authorize FAA to order additional, more stringent tests for pilots
over age 60. The Senate Commerce Committee has already approved its bill, S. 361, and further action by the full Senate could come swiftly.

I testified at the Committee's hearing to present ALPA's long-standing policy of opposition to changing the Age 60 Rule. ALPA has also advised Members of Congress of our position, and is working with our congressional supporters to enlist their help to block the Senate bill and a similar one in the House of Representatives, H.R. 448.

But Members of Congress need to hear from you -- their voters. They need to hear that ALPA pilots do not support raising the retirement age and why you hold that position. They need to know how strongly
you feel about this critical issue and they need to know now.

We've developed some tools, similar to those used in our recently concluded Delta/Comair grassroots effort, to help you contact your
federal representatives. Remember, written letters in your own words are always the most effective way to communicate with the decision-makers in Washington. To send your messages now, visit the ALPA website located at www.alpa.org, login to the Members Only section** of the website, and click on the Action Alert button which takes you to
our Grassroots Campaign page. You'll find important information about the Age 60 issue and get familiar with how our state-of-the-art automated communications system works.

Our Action Alert program identifies your legislators; provides a sample message; offers formats for your messages; and sends them.

Plus there are links to sites that Offer "Talking Points" on the issue and
"Tips on Communicating with Congress." A few clicks on the computer will get your messages to Capitol Hill.

We also have a toll free telephone number to call your legislators in Washington, D.C. -- 1-877-611-0063. It's available to U.S. ALPA
pilots courtesy of the AFL-CIO. You'll be connected directly to the Capitol switchboard operator who will connect you to your legislators' offices.

Your actions now can help determine if your retirement begins as planned at age 60 or if you'll face an uncertain future. Contact your legislators today.

Sincerely,
Duane E. Woerth, President

**To access the Members Only section of the ALPA website, you will need your member ID and password. If you do not have this
information, click on the link "New User or Forgot Your Password" and this information will be emailed to you right away if you have an email on file in the Association database. Otherwise, this information will be mailed to you via U.S. mail.

How would this affect retirement pay for those who fail medicals at age 60-would they lose a bit? If they fly to age 62, 63 etc, would the companies considering more years of funding the main A plan?

Personally it might be nice to fly one or two extra years under Part 121, but would we hurt many members' financial planning if contracts were very difficult to change?

It might be a wiser debate if we could all discuss this topic in an objective way.

THINK AGAIN -

The point isn't the extension of the mandatory retirement age. Pilots can optionally retire at 55 with most contracts.

However, the increase in the retirement for those who stay on after 60 would have a tremendous impact on the retirement liability. In modern accounting methods, the retirement expenses would be treated as a aliability & drag down the net worth.

That fact ignores that the production would be consistent with the increase.

In the mind of an accountant, a 50 year captain flying 80 hours does not produce any less revenue than a 59 year captain.

Thus, ALPA is in fact working for the company management, not the pilots.

Any more than it's valid that a pilot should starve for his first five years - paying his dues - with an airline, it's not valid to say that the old guys are blocking advancement.

ALPA is working both ends of the pay scale to management's benefit.

Just as ALPA won't fight for upgrading a pilot's legal rights to that of a bus driver, they work the pay issue in the shadows as well.

The pilots are ultimately well paid, but when you average the pilot's income, he pays for it with his/her submissiveness.

That's not what I pay dues for, I can't speak to the rest of the pilot force.

Make doctors test for their license every six months, report for drug & alcohol testing, then tell them that (in the USA) the 80,000 malpractice deaths per year will subject them to emergency revocation of their license. Watch what happens.

Skydrifter,

Again we disagree.

The value of the A plan would be REDUCED by the increasing of the retirement age. Most pilots take their A Plans as a lump sum (due mainly to ability to transfer the lumpsum to their estate after death) and that lump some is calculated by expected duration of payments multiplied by the amount paid. You will never make up for 2 years shorter payments with the increase in value of 1.5 percent per year that you make by continueing to work.

You have been listening to the PPF winers too long. Also, IRC 415 (the Internal revenue code that makes it possible for us to collect a pension before social security retirement age like the rest of the country) SPECIFICALLY states FAA retirement age. And then goes out to state the penalties for retiring early. (6 percent a year) so every pilot that retires at 60, including those medially retired, vs. an FAA retirement age of 62 will LOSE 12 PERCENT OF THEIR A FUND RETIREMENT. This is federal law, and the attitude on the hill will do NOTHING to fix the problem.

Cheers
Wino

Reference the title of this thread.....

What´s new?

Yep! The alleged reason for the ALPA policy is "Safety," but ALL discussions come around to MONEY!

Those in the majors who have big retirement funds are happy to retire at age 60, at the expense of the 40% (or so) minority that does not have significant retirement benefits. Yet, ALPA is unable to get those big retirement benefits for everyone in the organization...

Pushing up the retirement age will screw up the system that's been working well for years - maybe except those who have 4 ex-wives or monuments to aviation to support . . . . no sympathy from me.

60 is enough for anybody unless ego or greed dictates otherwise. Get out of the way and give somebody else a chance. Go fly FBO charter, if you absolutely can't live without commercial aviation.

BTW, "ALPA" doesn't get ANYTHING for pilots. ALPA supports the individual MEC's, who do the negotiating with companies. Crap contracts like Eagle's and others were the fault of the AE union membership, not ALPA.



[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 12 May 2001).]

All of you winers have benefitted from the age 60 retirement throughout your careers (Every airline pilot today knew that they would have to retire at 60 and had their whole career to plan for this), now your personal greed dictates that you screw everybody elses upgrade and everybody that planned or wanted to retire at age 60 so you can make extra money at everybody else's expense. SHAME ON YOU! Get a life, retire and get out there and do the things that you didn't have time for while you were working. (while you still can)

OPTIONS OPEN -

There is nothing to stop a company from specifying an age 60 retirement (20 years of service retirement, for example.) The plan just has to be set up that way. There's a good ALPA function.

Sorry, but the disinformation isn't working.

Thereafter, an extended retirement scale can be set up. Nothing complex.

As to "You knew in the beginning..." I knew that the age issue was being fought. I also knew that the FAA was charged with enforcing such safety regulations as the crew-rest rules - guess what, that expectation of safety doesn't count - yep, money again.

Therefore, why should any pilot's rights be subjugated beneath that of a bus driver, relative to the right to work until medically unfit. Bus drivers don't have the luxury of a copilot or autopilot. The age-60 rule isn't particularly about safety when the median age for heart attacks among pilots is 43, if I remember correctly.

Skydrifter.

No you are WRONG. IRC 415 is what makes a pension plan possible.

Read the Damn internal revenue codes for yourself!

Cheers
Wino

Don't you get it? GET OUT OF MY SEAT!!!!

Come on Softflight, your comments and others are true about having years to plan (except if we lose our medical many years early), but might have forgotten that when many people become very senior in any seat (senior FOs often delay upgrading to Captain for years, while they enjoy the better schedules, or right seat in 737s, DC-10s etc, except at American where they must upgrade soon), it is hard to want to suddenly stop flying high-performance planes, and go out and jump in a rickety old Cessna or Piper (oh, 500 fpm, nice climb rate...), and I've got numerous years to go, I hope.

My point is that people hate to give up something that they enjoy (or mostly), being in charge of nice equipment, and maybe having some good layovers, without having to hope there is a leftover seat in the cabin and have to pay for the hotel and restaurants: from a much-reduced monthly pay check. This is not playing a violin, but it is a stark change in lifestyle from the last 30 years or so.

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 13 May 2001).]

Roadtrip keeps harping on the 4 wives bit. Methinks the man doth protest too much. The trend to multiple divorces is an American thing, and is relatively rare in the rest of the world.

The special sweetheart deal with the IRS is also an American thing that does not exist in the rest of the world.

So what we seem to be talking here is the majority of pilots in the USA (who are not in the majors and are therefore not paid the large amounts Senator McCain talks about), as well as the rest of the world, must be prepared to face a penurious retirement so that the favoured few can maintain their luxurious lifestyle.

What I think needs to happen is that ALPA seek to get the IRS to change the code so that those at the majors (or anywhere else where the pay is high enough) be required to retire when they have reached a set amount of total earnings. This would then allow them to take the early retirement they cherish, allow others to feed at the trough, and allow rapid and frequent upgrades.
Fair enough,Roadtrip?

You know,

All the lawsuits in the world don't change the fact that your body is decaying with age.

I haven't seen any 60 year olds winning Wimbledon last time I checked, though I am sure they would love to still keep earning the big dollars. Samething for baseball and football. In all of those games experience is an asset and improves performance, but eventually does not make up for declining hand skills etc.

We retire engines while they are still 100 percent serviceable. I have no problems doing the same with the crew.


You play to the masses/lowest common denominator with safety. There are some pilots who like and function better flying all night long. For most of us, that simply isn't the case. There are a few people that can stay up for 36 hours straits with minimal effect as we all did in college, but not many of us still can. Hence flight and duty regs. Yet those pilots are being discriminated against by stopping their activities at 8/16 hours.

Your body decays with age. I do not trust the corrupt government that SKYDRIFTER is always railing against to allow them to perform more invasive tests on my body, but that is what skydrifter wants to open the door for. When I got into this 15 years ago, I knew I was done at 60.

Airtraffic controllers are forced off the scopes at 55 now.

All the lawsuits in the world wont change the fact that we are all gonna die, and most of or bodies will be in continous decline till we get there, whether or not we want to believe that. It is neither wise nor safe to fly a pilot to destruction.

Cheers
Wino

WINO -

You've taught me something before; I'm curious.Maybe I missed something.

Are you telling me that a pilot can hire on at 24, elect to quit with 30 years service at 54 and either wait until he's 60 to start collecting his retirement or start paying a penalty on it?

There's enough pseudo-corrupt politics in the system, but the last I knew, the typical airline retirement plan didn't specify the dual condition of at least 20 years of service AND age 60.

Unless I'm mistaken, if a pilot complete's 20 years of service, (typically) he/she is entitled to elect the 20 year retirement. Pilots normally go to the end, but -

When it comes to personal retirement plans, I know the 'system' enforces near-slavery by compelling age 60 (older for social security - "You'll never live to collect it." , but I'm not aware of that otherwise.

The case of executives retiring early is common enough. Do they get hammered by the IRS?

Again, on the typical airline retirement, are you saying that with time left (less than age 60) a pilot will pay an IRS penalty for retiring with 20 years of service?

I retired in the states at age 55 with 30 yrs. This is the first time I've ever heard of an IRS penalty. The only restriction I'm aware of is penalties on withdrawing 401k funds before age 59 1/2. Is this the issue?

WHAT I WANT:
1. My existing retirement options not to be affected.
2. To be able to work as long as I want/can.

Another thought - Are we really transitioning to an era where the pilot supply cannot meet the pilot demand? Or is it only a temporary thing? If there is a long-term shortage, the old guys seem to be a safer bet than 2-year captains. Even facing sideways an experienced pilot has much to offer to the operation of complex aircraft and trains by sharing. Or he may just be a pain in the a**.

Yes Skydrifter that is exactly what I am saying.

There is a 6 percent per year penalty on a conforming OBRA conforming pension plan (which is what all A plans are.) for each year before age 60 (has nothing to do with 20 years of service) that a person takes his retirement.

Here is the actual federal law that makes it possible!

SECTION 415. LIMITATIONS ON BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTION UNDER
QUALIFIED PLANS
[...]
(b) LIMITATION FOR DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS

(1) IN GENERAL
Benefits with respect to a participant exceed the limitation of this
subsection if, when expressed as an annual benefit (within the
meaning of paragraph (2)), such annual benefit is greater than the
lesser of--
(A) $90,000, or
(B) 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for
his high 3 years.

(2) ANNUAL BENEFIT
(C) ADJUSTMENT TO $90,000 LIMIT WHERE BENEFIT BEGINS BEFORE
THE SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE
If the retirement income benefit under the plan begins before
the social security retirement age, the determination as to
whether the $90,000 limitation set forth in paragraph (1)(A) has
been satisfied shall be made, in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, by reducing the limitation of
paragraph (1)(A) so that such limitation (as so reduced) equals
an annual benefit (beginning when such retirement income benefit
begins) which is equivalent to a $90,000 annual benefit
beginning at the social security retirement age. The reduction
under this subparagraph shall be made in such manner as the
Secretary may prescribe which is consistent with the reduction
for old-age insurance benefits commencing before the social
security retirement age under the Social Security Act.
[...]
(F) PLANS MAINTAINED BY GOVERNMENTS AND TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS

In the case of a governmental plan (within the meaning of
section 414(d)), a plan maintained by an organization (other
than a governmental unit) exempt from tax under this subtitle,
or a qualified merchant marine plan--
(i) subparagraph (C) shall be applied--
(I) by substituting "age 62" for "social security
retirement age" each place it appears, and
(II) as if the last sentence thereof read as follows:
"The reduction under this subparagraph shall not
reduce the limitation of paragraph (1)(A) below (i)
$75,000 if the benefit begins at or after age 55, or
(ii) if the benefit begins before age 55, the
equivalent of the $75,000 limitation for age 55.", and

(ii) subparagraph (D) shall be applied by substituting "age
65" for "social security retirement age" each place it
appears.
[...]
(8) SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE DEFINED

For purposes of this subsection, the term "social security
retirement age" means the age used as the retirement age under
section 216(l) of the Social Security Act, except that such section
shall be applied--
(A) without regard to the age increase factor, and
(B) as if the early retirement age under section 216(l)(2) of
such Act were 62.

(9) SPECIAL RULE FOR COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOTS
(A) IN GENERAL
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in the case of any
participant who is a commercial airline pilot--
(i) the rule of paragraph (2)(F)(i)(II) shall apply, and
(ii) if, as of the time of the participant's retirement,
regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation
Administration require an individual to separate from
service as a commercial airline pilot after attaining any
age occurring on or after age 60 and before the social
security retirement age, paragraph (2)(C) (after
application of clause (i)) shall be applied by substituting
such age for the social security retirement age.

(B) INDIVIDUALS WHO SEPARATE FROM SERVICE BEFORE AGE 60
If a participant described in subparagraph (A) separates from
service before age 60, the rules of paragraph (2)(F) shall
apply.


You are attempting to destroy the pension of every airline pilot out there.

Cheers
Wino

[This message has been edited by Wino (edited 13 May 2001).]

Ahaaa, so it is really only about money then.
:) :)

WINO -

The language of the rule is eloquent, but I'm unable to see the ACTUAL application to the typical airline retirement plan. Such are not government or tax-exempt plans. I'll buy it for a 401(k) plan, but not the typical airline corporate sponsored plan.

If I'm wrong, lead me through the logic.

I know a bunch of recently retired people who are not paying any such penalty. They are hoping to live long enough to activate their 401(k) plans without penalty, as you described, otherwise.

Anybody else have any thoughts or knowledge?