ToThePain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Posts
- 83
I’ve grown tired of reading all the reason why “junior guys” should want to work till 65. We will make more money and have more saved up for retirement. I decided to run the numbers myself. This is based off CAL current contract, which is a concessionary contract and will get better which will further skew the numbers against the junior guys.
These calculations are based off:
1. 2008 contract rates:
2. Figuring 20% 401k (includes companies 12% defined contribution)
3. 76 hours guaranteed (also a low number but that’s our reserve B number) any increase the difference between delay and no delay.
4. 6% compounded interest over the career to the age of 60.
5. All these numbers are base on a 3 year delay in upgrade. (Just a guess, no one really knows the exact affect, obviously more than 3 makes it worse on the junior guys, less makes it better)
No delay-
Total salary earned $3,096,968
Total 401k savings $1,257,321
Total $4,354,289
With delay
Total salary earned $2,821,468
Total 401k savings $1,182,318
Total $4,003,786
Total difference $350, 503. This means that I would have to work an additional 2 ½ years to break even with the loss of income putting me at 62 ½ years of age, essentially working for no pay given that I would have had that with no delays. That leaves me 2 ½ years to “make more money” These numbers are all conservative, you can see that with a better contract the differences in total income would increase. This also does not include the quality of life issues especially with PBS. There are also several recent studies that show the longer you work the average person has a shorter life span. I have listed a current report ALPA has. Here is the link to it, very interesting: http://www.mytruebrain.com/Creativity%20&%20Longevity.pdf
I don’t plan on working past age 60. I am planning on the age change to happen and am increasing my retirement savings to 24% a year (including CAL contributions) to offset this loss in wages. I shouldn’t have to.
These calculations are based off:
1. 2008 contract rates:
2. Figuring 20% 401k (includes companies 12% defined contribution)
3. 76 hours guaranteed (also a low number but that’s our reserve B number) any increase the difference between delay and no delay.
4. 6% compounded interest over the career to the age of 60.
5. All these numbers are base on a 3 year delay in upgrade. (Just a guess, no one really knows the exact affect, obviously more than 3 makes it worse on the junior guys, less makes it better)
No delay-
Total salary earned $3,096,968
Total 401k savings $1,257,321
Total $4,354,289
With delay
Total salary earned $2,821,468
Total 401k savings $1,182,318
Total $4,003,786
Total difference $350, 503. This means that I would have to work an additional 2 ½ years to break even with the loss of income putting me at 62 ½ years of age, essentially working for no pay given that I would have had that with no delays. That leaves me 2 ½ years to “make more money” These numbers are all conservative, you can see that with a better contract the differences in total income would increase. This also does not include the quality of life issues especially with PBS. There are also several recent studies that show the longer you work the average person has a shorter life span. I have listed a current report ALPA has. Here is the link to it, very interesting: http://www.mytruebrain.com/Creativity%20&%20Longevity.pdf
I don’t plan on working past age 60. I am planning on the age change to happen and am increasing my retirement savings to 24% a year (including CAL contributions) to offset this loss in wages. I shouldn’t have to.
Last edited:
