SuperFLUF
lazy Mc Donald's pilot
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Posts
- 639
First, those who planned to retire at 60 can still retire at 60 with zero loss to their pensions or bridge medical until their CBA's are renegotiated.
Until the contracts are negotiated, they remain in force, and if they say you are entitled to retire at age 60 with those benefits, you keep them. Period.
If you negotiate those benefits away in your next CBA, that's your own fault.
Secondly, those who want to work to 65 don't see it as a wash, they see it as a win. They were fighting for the increase, why would they see a victory as a wash?
Some people want to work until , others just wanted to work until they had Medicare and Social Security.
It's not rocket science.
No its not rocket science. Its just some simple principles of financial planning. The time value of money invested makes a big difference in retirement funds. Just do a google search on time value of investing and you will find a plethora of info on just how big a difference it makes.
The majority of airline pilots now rely on DC and 401k plans that acrue based on career earnings not final average earnings and longevity like a pension. Those who planned to retire at 60 will lose retirement money as well as career earnings.
I am still planning to go out the door at 60. My earnings will now be less due to delayed upgrade and advancement. That results in less money in to my retirement plans over my career and less growth of the money invested. As well as less $$ for my family now. If I want to have the same money at retirement it would require a huge sacrifice of take home income now which penalizes my family disproportionately. So I will just take the hit equally between take home and retirement. If I have to pay even more for disability for the next 30 years and go without retiree bridge medical that's even more of a hit.
For those who want to stay to 65, they will still end up with less retirement than they would have had at 60 under the previous rules but since they want to keep working, its a wash.
So while I will just for the sake of arguement agree that age 60 retirement was not "fair". Do not try to tell me that this change is "fair" to those who were planning on retiring at 60. Its not. But apparently "fairness" is a one way street (recieving not giving) for some.
Perhaps it is rocket science for some. That would explain why they didn't have their eyes open about retirement planning (and over reliance on a pension) when it counted.