Fresh, forward thinking idea on pilot retirements...

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Looks like the CAL guys are on to something....

http://www.pilotpensionnow.com/

 

[MILF Hunter]

People I know that retired from Union Pacific Rail Road never paid social security in their lives. It all went to the Railroad Retirement Board. The Board is a fully funded pension. I don't want to type all the details but it is an excellent program.

I always wondered why a system like this was never available to airline pilots.

 

[LJ45]

ok, so they do this and in a few years Obama will be firing the CEO and taking control. Isn't that pretty much what happen to the Automakers?

 

[dooork]

ok, so they do this and in a few years Obama will be firing the CEO and taking control. Isn't that pretty much what happen to the Automakers?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Anyway...this is probably the most important and relevant post I have ever read on this or any other site. Thank you for sharing....I'm in.
This needs the attention of every airline pilot (union or not) group out there.

 

[TommyG]

GM ran itself into the ground. Unions or not. And as far as the CEO getting fired, wah to him a 23mil pension. When the UNION workers get laid off see how much of a pension they get.

 

[pianoman]

ok, so they do this and in a few years Obama will be firing the CEO and taking control. Isn't that pretty much what happen to the Automakers?

If you don't want gubment money, then do whatever you want. If you come whining to the Fed for tax dollars, then maybe yeah the guy who presided over the last 10 years as the company nose-dove should probably go.

 

[LJ45]

I would like to retract my statement, being it is totally lame

:erm:

 

[MECH]

ok, so they do this and in a few years Obama will be firing the CEO and taking control. Isn't that pretty much what happen to the Automakers?

Wow!! He will have to fire a few more to catch up to President Bush. President Bush fired the CEO's of Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG.

But I don't know what this has to do with the RRB.

 

[AC560]

Here is a concept fund your own pension through ALPA. Give ALPA of which the officials of you elect the right to collect, manage, and disperse your retirement.

Seems to work for the Teamsters. Me personally though I will stick with my 401K and take my chances.

Just remember in all things you are a victim not an active participant in your own destiny.

 

[clippyrip]

A friend of the family is a senior VP at Alaska Airlines and he told me he wanted to eliminate the RLA. He said it ties everyones hands in regards to negotiations. It made me think that if he was arguing against it then I should do the opposite. Somehow, I don't see how eliminating the RLA could be beneficial for both groups. If he(management) was arguing to eliminate it then it seems like pilots would not share the same sentiment.


I will caveat this with I don't know sh!t about the RLA.

 

[Fubijaakr]

I absolutely support this idea. In fact, it is a shame that someone didn't think of this when the airlines were placed under the RLA in the first place.

My father-in-law is a retired engineer and former General Chairman of the BLA. I do his taxes. RRB is the single most secure pension in this country today.

 

[hindsight2020]

Here is a concept fund your own pension through ALPA. Give ALPA of which the officials of you elect the right to collect, manage, and disperse your retirement.

Seems to work for the Teamsters. Me personally though I will stick with my 401K and take my chances.

Just remember in all things you are a victim not an active participant in your own destiny.

I respect your self-reliant bravado in pursuing retirement alone and unafraid on a 401K, but good luck retiring on that. I don't particularly enjoy the prospect of living like a monk for my entire productive life to come up short anyways, or having to one day tell the kids 'hey go to grandpa for college, I'm trying to keep me and mom from living under the bridge and he's the one with the pension'.

401Ks are a ticking time bomb, most people fully vested on 401K-only retirement vehicles are late Gen X and younger, these folks are gonna get hit with no Social Security and an underfunded 401K come retirment time. The average balance of 401Ks country wide is less than 100Gs....these people are hosed, and the boomers are gonna bankrupt Social Security, so the latter suggestion is just facetious.

Compare that to a defined benefit plan for life. Talk to federal employees who retired under CSRS what they think of the current FERS retirement (which is TSP heavy). yeah defined contribution is soooooo much better, yeah right, gimme a break..

Lack of pensions is one of the major drawbacks I find in the present state of the profession, I think adopting a measure such as the RRB would go a long way towards restoring the career's prospects. 401Ks are a race to the bottom, the myth of "the market always goes up" has been debunk, if you still believe the stock market will carry you to retirement and beat your life expectancy simultaneously I got a bridge to nowhere to sell you, pensions are the way to go and the boomers know it (and retire ALREADY!... I digress)

Kudos to the CAL guys for giving it the ol' college try...

 

[MILF Hunter]

Here is a concept fund your own pension through ALPA. Give ALPA of which the officials of you elect the right to collect, manage, and disperse your retirement.

Seems to work for the Teamsters. Me personally though I will stick with my 401K and take my chances.

Just remember in all things you are a victim not an active participant in your own destiny.

The railroad union has nothing to do with the railroad retirement board. The membership doesnt collect and distribute funds. I would love to go to work knowing one day I could retire regardless of how the market performs. I fly with guys approaching 60 and have lost 30% of their nest egg. Even if they fly to 65 they won't make back the difference.

When the C&NW (Chicago and North Western) and MO-PAC (Missouri Pacific Railroads) were bought out and picked apart the employees were still able to retire from other railroads. I have a friend that was MO-PAC, ended up retiring from the Union Pacific, he's chilling on his boat right now. He doesnt give a sh!t what the dow is doing.

This has nothing to do with Obama, Teamsters, or ALPA. Believe me I dont like any of them either, but I think this is a great program. Please look into this before you jump to the conclusion that its the man coming to get you.

Is your airline going to be around for another 30 years?

 

[Mikes Apartment]

This has nothing to do with Obama, Teamsters, or ALPA. Believe me I dont like any of them either, but I think this is a great program. Please look into this before you jump to the conclusion that its the man coming to get you.
quote]

I totally hear you MILF Hunter. You da man!!!

 

[txpilottj]

This is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time. I have an uncle who retired from a long career with Conrail....Railroad management is as ruthless as the airline biz, but he's never had to worry one bit about his retirement because its untouchable. Just like previous posters have said, he's living large right now and not worried about 401Ks & stocks etc...

 

[HoursHore]

This might work if SS was used for what it was intended, retirement security. Buts its a giant slush fund for all types of government spending, and they are not going to let a group of workers out of it. Everyone would try to opt out of it then.

 

[txpilottj]

Good point, but there's one small detail you overlooked. We are the only group of workers besides the railroads covered by the RLA. The rest can kick and scream all they want but they don't have that (in this limited case) advantage.

 

[Mikes Apartment]

I want to know what MILF Hunter thinks...

 

[EMBpilot]

Well, if you ever have a "privilege" to fly with Continental scabs or those poor guys who raised gear for them for 15 years you'll be told many times that airline pilots shouldn't have any retirement at all.

Airline pilots make enough money as it is. And if you are smart you could be in the left seat after a year or so. And then if you pick up some open time up to 95 hours or so every other month and fly as FO if the company needs you to life will be really good.

 

[HoursHore]

Good point, but there's one small detail you overlooked. We are the only group of workers besides the railroads covered by the RLA. The rest can kick and scream all they want but they don't have that (in this limited case) advantage.

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.

 

[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]