Good news for pilots - retirement age

Newps wrote:


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.
TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get 0%
from them. After a year I think I might get 3%. I'm also in the govt.
pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.

Margy

Margy Natalie wrote:


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.



TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get 0%
from them.


If you're a Fed then you have to wait either 6 months or a year. I was
putting in $575 a paycheck into the TSP in 2006. I bumped it to $650
for this year. That way my contributions automatically stop by December
when the money comes in handy for Christmas.



After a year I think I might get 3%.

Once you're eligible the plan is the same for everybody. You put in 5%
and the government matches it, 5% is the most they put in. You can go
up to the IRS max.




I'm also in the govt.
pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.


At 25 years you would get a pension of about 39% of your high three
years base pay. The formula is 1.7% per year for the first 20 then 1%
for every year after that. I can go at age 49 with 25 years. If I stay
until mandatory retirement at 56 that would give me a 46% pension. I
have no desire to stay that long and do not plan to. I want out ASAP.

"Margy Natalie" wrote

TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get 0%
from them. After a year I think I might get 3%. I'm also in the govt.
pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.

So, how are things shaking out with your new position? Still enjoying going
to work, I would imagine. :-)
--
Jim in NC

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.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:46:38 -0800, Greg Farris wrote:

Good
new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
above post! :-)

Maybe.

I heard a news report about this on the local news station. According to
that, this is all about keeping a sufficiently large pool of pilots
available.

My immediate thought goes to economics 101: supply vs. demand. By raising
the retirement age, the FAA is actually helping to keep pilot salaries
(and pension payments!) down.

So yes, pilots can work longer. And that's good for older pilots (even if
a little temporarily painful for younger pilots {8^). But there is also
that economic downside of the increased supply of pilots to consider.

- Andrew

In article ,
says...


So yes, pilots can work longer. And that's good for older pilots (even if
a little temporarily painful for younger pilots {8^).

An underlying theme that comes out of it though is that pilots want to keep
working. They are generally not tempted by early retirement, but would
rather stay on the job.

There are countries where flight attendants have managed to squeeze in on
the disability insurance policies created for pilots. What do you know -
in such places there are lots of flight attendants out on disabilty, and
very few pilots!

When pilots do suffer a health problem, they are often tempted to try to
hide it - because they don't want it to prezvent them from working, even
if they have a golden insurance policy. Many professions would sieze the
opportunity to be out on disability!

Sounds like pilots are pretty satisfied with their work, overall.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:46:38 -0800, Greg Farris wrote:

Good
new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
above post! :-)

Maybe.

I heard a news report about this on the local news station. According to
that, this is all about keeping a sufficiently large pool of pilots
available.

My immediate thought goes to economics 101: supply vs. demand. By raising
the retirement age, the FAA is actually helping to keep pilot salaries
(and pension payments!) down.

Not quite; notice how age discrimination took over the high tech fields in
the late 90's and forward.

Younger people command lower salaries. MOF, it's rumored that the original
rule was implemented to keep the salaries costs in check back when pilots
were treated like gods (at least by the public if not the airlines) and
their pay was steadily rising.

I wonder if the by 60's some pilots were right under top management in pay
scales.

How's about they lay off some of those overpaid CEO bozos?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

Matt Barrow writes:

I wonder if the by 60's some pilots were right under top management in pay
scales.

At some airlines, top pilots were paid more than the CEO. I know this
was true at Air France.

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

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

"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