Good news for pilots - retirement age

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:05:38 -0800, in
. com, Jay Honeck wrote:
Case closed.

When I was in the military, you could retire at 50% salary after 20 years
or 75% salary after 30 years... We didn't get paid much back then, so 50
or 75 percent of nothing was still nothing...

Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
give them better retirement options...

Greg Farris wrote:
In article . com,
says...

Good news for them!
Good news for the flying public, who benefit from their experience.
Good new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
above post! :-)

Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.

But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs. It will simply mean
that younger pilots won't have the access to the left seat they had
been lead to believe. If a guy can retire at 60, let him retire, let
someone else have a chance on the yoke. I'll be waiting for the first
youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
ramp.

-Robert

Newps wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

You are a gov't employee and can contribute to a 401K?

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs. It will simply mean
that younger pilots won't have the access to the left seat they had
been lead to believe. If a guy can retire at 60, let him retire, let
someone else have a chance on the yoke. I'll be waiting for the first
youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
ramp.

Then take it up with your union. The FAA's only consideration in this
matter should be safety, not who gets what seat and when.

Vaughn

("Grumman-581" wrote)
Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
give them better retirement options...


Bunk.

Private sector employees operate in an environment of 'risk' ...as in, will
I have a job next month? State, County, and Federal employees often do not
face this reality. There is currency in this type of job protection.

On a side note - I love talk about raising the minimum wage. The first
benefactors of a higher minimum wage are State and County workers, who (many
times) have salaries pegged to that number.


Mont

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Then take it up with your union. The FAA's only consideration in this
matter should be safety, not who gets what seat and when.

That's the cutest thing I've ever heard.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Newps wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.


You are a gov't employee and can contribute to a 401K?

We call it TSP, for Thrift Savings Plan, but it's essentially the same
as your 401k. I can contribute any amount up to the IRS max which I
believe is $14K this year, goes up about $500 a year, same as you. The
Government contributes another 5% of my base pay.

Vaughn Simon wrote:



Then take it up with your union. The FAA's only consideration in this
matter should be safety, not who gets what seat and when.


That has never been the reason for the age 60 rule.

gpsman writes:

Which pilots would those be...?

Pilot unions are opposed to raising the retirement age for pilots. In
fact, from what I understand, they were behind setting the age at 60
to begin with.

I imagine piloting a simulator might become boring; real aircraft with
air under your very own ass, rarely, if ever.

So why are unions against raising the maximum age?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

If you can afford to put $14,000 into your 401(k) each year, you have
nothing to complain about.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.