Now that is probably the crux of the matter. A lot has been offered as fact, or 'evidence', when in fact it was opinion, forecasts based on assumptions. Some forecasts are coming more true than others.Raymond Hall wrote:
Are there any hard numbers available yet on the 19 months, post-abolishment? Numbers, not guesses.
In my view, it is the obligation of those who refer to evidence to back their own statements with hard numbers, with the normal order of things being, get the data, vet the data, then post it. Posting something as evidence and then challenging someone to provide hard numbers is really an odd strategy.
If you want to see some hard numbers, then maybe it is time to give a voice to the junior pilots, those most affected and caught in the pay pool. What was advertised as a transitional process has become a chronic financial backslide for these individuals and their families. I bet this group would love to provide testimony at any committee hearing arguments on the topic.
Rockie, so have we gone from 9 months impact to 5 years? Quite a shift.Rockie wrote:
After five years there will be no impact at all since everybody has to go at 65 and the list will progress at the same rate it did before this change. Maybe even faster since a lot more people will be able to retire before the new "mandatory" age with a full pension than before.
Two other aspects of your post need addressing.
It's simply incorrect to say there will be no impact after 5 years. To those junior pilots whose pay has been largely stagnated since this change, the impact is cumulative at a rate of roughly $50K per year, lifetime earnings. As the pay scale they are caught in is often not enough to stay ahead on family debt, there will be, for many, the impact of that accumulated debt. We can add to that the impact of prolonged period living a very junior lifestyle, with some caught on reserve and, courtesy of the new FOS, unable to bid to a better position. Some of these individuals have already entered extremis, some have left the airline. So it would be grossly incorrect to say there will be no longer term impact on these individuals' careers and, indeed, the lives of their immediate family members.
Depending on the age of joining, some of the aforementioned pilots will have their pension based on a time when their earnings were depressed. That's a permanent impact that will follow these people into retirement.
As for individuals being able to leave faster, you really need to get your hands on the new contract. Because of the change in retirement to 65, the pension discount for those leaving before 65, if they don't happen to have 25 years in, is crippling. To the 'hard numbers' case, anyone who joined this airline after age 35 will be affected. I have seen several impact statements. One comes from a fellow whose planned pension at 60 would have been over 65K, now $39K.
Also on the pension front, we have an advisory from the Association that pilots who elect to retire post 60 but before reaching 25YOS should carefully consider the financial detriment of an upgrade close to retirement. The pension discount is based on last salary. So a pilot who upgrades from, say, A320 Capt to B767 Capt at age 60, then retires at age 61 may end up with a LOWER pension than if they had stayed put on the 320. Again, permanent impact due to delayed upgrade.
I am not here to argue whether one or other group is as entitled as they say they are to a point of view, either for, or against, this change. But much of the acrimony is fuelled by the characterisation of opinion as fact, especially when more accurate information is submerged by rhetoric.
Any stable future will require a rational discussion, absent the blame and spin. Who is experiencing what kinds of hardship, and why? It might be possible to find the same irritant, and mitigation, on both sides of the page, I don't know. I do know that tossing opinions back and forth hasn't worked so far....
All IMHO. Flame away.
Vs