Fresh, forward thinking idea on pilot retirements...

[MECH]

I am not saying the argument is not valid.

I am saying a government that just approved trillions of new spending and is facing an already looming SS shortfall, (Just read you SS statement, it says right on there they cannot meet projected obligations.) will not let any one out of paying the payroll tax. Heck, they might pass retroactive legislation mandating railroad workers start paying into Social Security.

Personally, I was surprised that Bush's proposal for privatizing part of Social Security didn't get more traction. I realize that AARP is a strong lobby, but I would think everyone under the age of 40 would of rallied behind it. Sucks we don't have a group lobbying for us.

There was no reason that any one under 40 support Bush's proposed plan. Right know the company puts about 7% into SS for you. You put in about the same into SS. George Bush's plan was only going to let you put in 3 to 4% into a private account. So to start you would lose about 11% of the money that was going to fund your retirement. This 11% goes to fund those already in the SS plan.

So what would the 4% give you? If you make $100,000/yr. The government would put $4000 in your private account. If you were 35 years old and plan on retiring at 65. You would have $327,342.00 at 65(estimate 6% annual rate of return). That would give you an income of $2100/ month until 90 years old. There is no way in 30 years that you can live on $2100.00/month.

The average salary in the US is only $44,000/yr. They would only have about $150,000 dollars to retire on.

Bush's proposed plan only benefited Wall Street. They were going to make billions every year in administration fees. Their lobbying efforts were the driving force behind the plan.

 

[HoursHore]

SS is a chimera that I will never sniff a dime of if the present trends continue. If part of it was at least put in my name to invest as I want, then I could at least see a little of it or pass it to my heirs.

I don't count on the government to take care of me in retirement and would prefer to make my own choices regarding my money.

 

[AC560]

Compare that to a defined benefit plan for life.

How do you think a defined benefit plan works? It is no different then a 401K except you have somebody else managing it. When it fails to generate enough return to provide benefits, then benefits are cut. Ask the retiree's at GM how they like their defined benefit plan in a couple of months when it gets sliced. Look at what a great job the PBG did protecting airline pensions jettisoned in bankruptcy.

the myth of "the market always goes up" has been debunk

That isn't a myth it is a fact. The stock market has its ups and downs but it like inflation and taxes always moves upward over the course of a lifetime.

If each month you get your money in an account you control which you can shift to any other company or continue investing in independently then you have the best guarantee that money will be waiting for you in the future. Let somebody else manage your money in a defined program, well lets just say history as shown there is a lot less guarantees in that area.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

COMMENTARY

Continental's Kellner states case for regulation

By LOREN STEFFY Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

March 20, 2009, 10:56PM






Larry Kellner served me a cup of coffee with the aplomb of a veteran flight attendant, and then, a few moments later, served up a stunning comment about the airline industry.
“If the government wanted to re-regulate the business, I wouldn’t be opposed to it,” he said.
While he didn’t mean the wholesale regulation of yesteryear, it’s still a surprise coming from the chief executive of Continental Airlines, the nation’s fourth-largest carrier by traffic.
Thirty years ago, airline executives battled fiercely to preserve government control of routes and pricing. Former American Airlines chairman Bob Crandall, then a rising executive, declared profanely that deregulation would ruin the business.
Fast-forward to today, and Kellner, agrees, at least up to a point.
“What we’ve got today doesn’t work,” he said in an exclusive meeting with me and several Chronicle colleagues. “It isn’t creating a stable industry.”
Kellner isn’t calling for a return to the good old days when fares were so high most people took the bus. Airline deregulation has always been about price, and in that sense, it’s been a roaring success.
Where it has failed, though, is on the cost side. Most airlines today have a cost structure that’s changed little since deregulation, which impedes consistent profitability.
Airlines’ profit margins are dictated almost solely by fuel and labor costs, which almost never decline in tandem.
New government rules?

Kellner said he prefer new government rules that would remove some of those cost constraints, allowing airlines to make money, employees to earn decent pay and passengers to feel they’re getting a good deal.
Among the biggest rule changes would be revamping the Railway Labor Act, which has governed labor agreements since the dawn of passenger air travel.
The RLA was designed to keep railroads running during labor disputes at a time when trains were the nation’s lifeblood of commerce and travel. For airlines, it means lengthy contract talks, which often wind up in mediation that leaves both sides unhappy.
“The problem is the structure of the RLA creates a very cumbersome process,” Kellner said. “It hasn’t worked well since deregulation. It creates a tremendous amount of angst on both sides.”
Customers’ anger

Previous attempts to alter the RLA, though, have failed in Congress, and few lawmakers have shown an interest in revisiting it.
Over the years, airlines have tried to revamp labor agreements with disastrous results — strikes, bitter negotiations, acrimonious relations between unions and management.
If the current state of the industry doesn’t benefit workers, it also doesn’t benefit investors. Continental’s market share, for example, has fallen to about $1.1 billion from $3.8 billion in 2006, and the airline lost $585 million last year.
Nor are customers happy about the current state of the industry. Passengers angry over flight delays and poor service are pressing Congress to enact minimum standards for the industry.
Equal playing field

I had intended to ask Kellner if he thought the airline industry could ever achieve sustainable profitability, but his comment about regulation made the question moot.
The industry, he said, needs new rules, ones that make the playing field equal for all carriers while still allowing competition to thrive.
Kellner may be right, but I was surprised by his candor. It’s the first time in more than two decades of covering airlines that I’ve heard an executive pine for more regulation.
Then again, it’s also the first time I’ve had an airline executive serve me coffee.
Loren Steffy is the Chronicle’s business columnist. His commentary appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Contact him at [email protected]