FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

[Fanblade]

Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.

I've actually said many times you will be 5 years behind in career progression...it's odd that you haven't seen that.

I have seen you say it. I just haven't seen you enter it into your logic.

What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that after that 5 years your career progression continues again at its normal pace....

I'm not ignoring it at all. Just accurately pointing out that although a normal “pace" resumes, that pace stays 5 years behind for an entire career. The aggregate impact becomes very large. The more junior you are the worse it gets. To the point some people will actually work longer for less career pay as a result.

It's a fact. It's the same as 2+2=4.

In other words you get the same career plus the five years your career was stalled in your current seat at your current pay. How did you miss that basic arithmetic?

You just never stop. You keep trying to limit the financial impact to 5 years.

It's five years behind for an entire career.

Two very different things.

[Rockie]

Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.

That depends on how many years you have left on your career. You will be 5 years behind until you turn 60, then if you so choose you can work another 5 years that you couldn't before and erase that 5 year delay. That will leave you with your same career you would have had before plus the 5 years you are spending in your current seat.

Just accurately pointing out that although a normal “pace" resumes, that pace stays 5 years behind for an entire career.

Not your entire career...only until you are 60 then you gain it back in the next 5 years. You will retire at 65 in the same place or higher on the seniority list as you would have at 60 under the old rules. How many times and how many different ways do I have to point that out before it registers? You like proof...prove me wrong that your seniority at 65 will be less than it would be at 60 under the old system.

[Fanblade]

You will retire at 65 in the same place or higher on the seniority list as you would have at 60 under the old rules. How many times and how many different ways do I have to point that out before it registers? You like proof...prove me wrong that your seniority at 65 will be less than it would be at 60 under the old system.

Deflect, defer, confuse, muddy.

Yes,

Five years longer to arrive at the same place on the seniority list. That is not, and has not been in dispute. Please stay on topic.

As a reminder to you.

If a pilot chooses to go to 65 they will make more than they would have not only in career earnings, but also for the majority increased retirement income as well. Longer time earning a great living, and more pensionable time resulting in a better pension. Simple arithmetic if you care to look at it.

This is simply false. Many pilots ( think junior) will work five years longer to age 65 for less earnings than had there been no change to mandatory retirement. This will happen because the younger you are the more time you will spend trailing your earnings potential by up to 5 years.

We are seeing hiring in the twenties again. 30 plus years trailing your income by 5 years or an estimated average of 32k/year is approaching a million dollars of lost income by 60. That can not be recouped in 5 years by working to age 65, as working past 60 means you forgo your pension income.

If you cut that number in half to an estimated 15k per year loss every year over a 30 year career, you approach a cumulative 500k income loss by age 60. This individual would break even by 64. They will work 4 years longer for no extra compensation.

I think 15k/ year in lost income is a very low estimate considering a 5 year delay. But nonetheless it proves a very important point.

Everyone who follows will work longer to achieve the same compensation. That includes you Rockie. Some will be unfortunate enough to work longer for less compensation.

Anyway I have had enough butting my head against this wall. I get it. You like the change. You have obviously figured out this financially benefits you.

Good for you.

Forgive me if I find your comments specious. I mean really, trying to tell people that working longer for the same compensation is good for them.

[Rockie]

Still not getting it.

This will happen because the younger you are the more time you will spend trailing your earnings potential by up to 5 years.

That's true, but you get 5 years more that you didn't get before bringing you back to your original place plus the 5 years you spent during the stagnation. Really, that's not too hard to understand is it? No pilot will spend a day less in a higher position than they would have before. The 5 years is fixed for your career but you get it back from 60 to 65. What is so hard to figure about that? Plus you haven't answered my question. Prove you will retire at a lower seniority at 65 than you would have at 60 under the old system. If you can't, that means you spend as much time in every level of seniority after this 5 year wait is over as you would have before. That means as much earnings plus the 5 years. Prove me wrong...

Admit it, your issue is not being able to retire at 60 with the same seniority as before, and you're trying to frame the argument without admitting it. You know that working to 65 will actually increase your lifetime career earnings and quite probably your retirement income unless you are already going to get 35 years service.

[777longhaul]

Fanblade and others:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE AGE 60 RULE, READ IT AGAIN.

The age discrimination age rule change, affected over 880,000 Canadian's. (Federal Government numbers) it did not affect just you.

The age rule was changed, because......it was discriminatory, period. Suggest you read the CHRC submissions again. The age rule (by the Federal Government) change was not, repeat, was not challenged by AC or acpa. Ever ask yourself, why it was not challenged by them?

Your POV is on the wrong mountain, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has caused your situation,(s) to change. Rockie, is correct, you have a much better world than before. If you want to go before 60, or any other age, that you think is magic, then take it, nothing, stopping you or anyone else. Give AC 12 months notice, and off you go.

Very interesting, that the so called union, acpa, did an IVR vote, (only once) and proudly said that the AC pilots, wanted the age 60 rule to stand, because the majority of the pilots that voted, (NOT the majority of ALL the pilots, as they never ever had that number) said that they all wanted to go at 60, YET, the reality has set in, and very few pilots are going at 60, so WHERE is the trumped up acpa majority now?

Take your issue up with acpa, they sold you out, so that a select group, of the acpa inside, could get further up the ladder, before the Federal Government changed the age discrimination rule.

The FP60 group, has not finished in court yet. But, now, due to many factors, few, if any of the group will ever be back, because of the new ICAO rule of age 65. So your world won't be changed by the FP60 group, but the courts might....decide to do something about the blatant discrimination that was clearly leveled at the 200 pilots who were forced out. ALL that acpa had to do, was file a grievance for each pilot, (just like all the other unions did, for their members in good standing, at AC) and the issue would be over, as the vast majority of the 200 pilots would now be retired.

Guess we will have to wait and see what the Federal Court of Appeals, with 3 judges, has to say about the law. Seems very strange, that AC accepted ALL the other union's, members back to full employment, BUT they (AC)would not accept the pilots back. That seems, a wee bit discriminatory just on that fact alone. Ask yourself, why.....why would AC get acpa to sign up for 50% of ALL the liability, and then fight to drag this issue, out, (AC has lost all of its appeals) and then not fight the rule change, what do you think, is AC's end game? Who is going to get shafted? It all depends on the FCA.

[eep...2 Green]

Fanblade and others:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE AGE 60 RULE, READ IT AGAIN.

The age discrimination age rule change, affected over 880,000 Canadian's. (Federal Government numbers) it did not affect just you.

The age rule was changed, because......it was discriminatory, period. Suggest you read the CHRC submissions again. The age rule (by the Federal Government) change was not, repeat, was not challenged by AC or acpa. Ever ask yourself, why it was not challenged by them?

Your POV is on the wrong mountain, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has caused your situation,(s) to change. Rockie, is correct, you have a much better world than before. If you want to go before 60, or any other age, that you think is magic, then take it, nothing, stopping you or anyone else. Give AC 12 months notice, and off you go.

Very interesting, that the so called union, acpa, did an IVR vote, (only once) and proudly said that the AC pilots, wanted the age 60 rule to stand, because the majority of the pilots that voted, (NOT the majority of ALL the pilots, as they never ever had that number) said that they all wanted to go at 60, YET, the reality has set in, and very few pilots are going at 60, so WHERE is the trumped up acpa majority now?

Take your issue up with acpa, they sold you out, so that a select group, of the acpa inside, could get further up the ladder, before the Federal Government changed the age discrimination rule.

The FP60 group, has not finished in court yet. But, now, due to many factors, few, if any of the group will ever be back, because of the new ICAO rule of age 65. So your world won't be changed by the FP60 group, but the courts might....decide to do something about the blatant discrimination that was clearly leveled at the 200 pilots who were forced out. ALL that acpa had to do, was file a grievance for each pilot, (just like all the other unions did, for their members in good standing, at AC) and the issue would be over, as the vast majority of the 200 pilots would now be retired.

Guess we will have to wait and see what the Federal Court of Appeals, with 3 judges, has to say about the law. Seems very strange, that AC accepted ALL the other union's, members back to full employment, BUT they (AC)would not accept the pilots back. That seems, a wee bit discriminatory just on that fact alone. Ask yourself, why.....why would AC get acpa to sign up for 50% of ALL the liability, and then fight to drag this issue, out, (AC has lost all of its appeals) and then not fight the rule change, what do you think, is AC's end game? Who is going to get shafted? It all depends on the FCA.

I have close relationships with folks, and their families, that were discriminated against as their age approached a magic number. After a long career they were told that they were no longer acceptable as employees. Many of them had fought in WW2. It is my intent to see them compensated (their estates if they have passed on) for this oppression. Some could still hold medicals well on into their 90s. As you were active during this time I will count on your support. Of course you will contribute to the financial support for these families (as the success of this initiative is a forgone conclusion) beyond what those that oppose this would deem reasonable (I expect this number to be in the hundreds of millions) - because you and I view this issue as we do.

[Rockie]

As you were active during this time I will count on your support.

I'm sorry but being active at that time doesn't earn my support in anything. Facts do.

[Morry Bund]

I have close relationships with folks, and their families, that were discriminated against as their age approached a magic number. After a long career they were told that they were no longer acceptable as employees. Many of them had fought in WW2. It is my intent to see them compensated (their estates if they have passed on) for this oppression. Some could still hold medicals well on into their 90s. As you were active during this time I will count on your support. Of course you will contribute to the financial support for these families (as the success of this initiative is a forgone conclusion) beyond what those that oppose this would deem reasonable (I expect this number to be in the hundreds of millions) - because you and I view this issue as we do.

There is a difference. In the situation that you cite there was no legal exemption to the mandatory retirement provision. Here there was. Mandatory retirement was conditional on age 60 being the normal age of retirement. Since 2006 the FP60 group has continually asserted that age 60 was not the normal age of retirement. As a result, forced mandatory retirement was in violation of the law. This past January, the Federal Court said that the Tribunal erred in excluding the majority of airline pilots in Canada (WestJet etc.) from the group that is used to determine what the normal age of retirement was.

Put the WestJet, Air Transat, Skyservice and a few other airline pilot groups in the comparator pool and Air Canada pilots, the only ones who were still forced out at age 60, are no longer in the majority. In other words, the termination of employment of these pilots did violate the law, whereas the ex-military personnel that you cite above had their employment terminated in accordance with the law.

It is the violation of the law that results in liability. The issue before the courts is not a moral issue, it is a legal one. That legal issue will be determined very soon.

From what I hear on the line, very few of the active pilots who will be forced to deal with the financial consequences of the outcome will be prepared for its significance. It has been ongoing for so long with so many twists and turns that very few have even a basic grasp of the key questions involved, let alone any sense of the financial impact of losing at this final stage of the process.

Emotion has continually trumped logic on this issue and there is no reason to believe that it will not do so again in the coming months, when the chickens finally come home to roost.

[Rockie]

Emotion has continually trumped logic on this issue to date, and there is no reason to believe that it will not do so again in the coming months

Truer words have never been spoken. The sad part for me is our inability as a group to predict the obvious future here. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but it was nevertheless obvious to me. Not a great testimonial to our intelligence as a group.

[Fanblade]

Fanblade and others:



Your POV is on the wrong mountain, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has caused your situation,(s) to change. Rockie, is correct, you have a much better world than before. If you want to go before 60, or any other age, that you think is magic, then take it, nothing, stopping you or anyone else. Give AC 12 months notice, and off you go.
.

777longhaul,

You are doing the same deflection as Rockie. At the outset of my comments I stated the legal aspect aside. My observation was narrowly focused on the compensation consequence of this change. Nothing else.

Does this change impact career compensation from hire to age 60?

The answer is yes. Almost everyone is negatively impacted in varying degrees. This impact increases from zero at the top of the seniority list to possibly approaching 3/4 of a million for a junior member with a 30 year career ahead.

Does this change impact career compensation from hire to age 65?

The answer is yes. During the transition to age 65 some benefit and some lose. Those at the top of the seniority list could potentially gain 1/2 a million in career compensation (salary - lost pension). While others in the middle will break even. ( work longer for the same compensation) and the more junior may never break even. ( work longer for less compensation.)

What happens after the transition? IE all the individuals hired after Dec 2012.

They will make less by age 60. All of them. Pay advancement stretched over a longer time line is the reason. At age 65 these individuals will be lucky to have broken even with the compensation they would have received had this change not occurred.

The end result after transition?

Everyone will work to 60 for less compensation than they did prior to Dec 2012. (Same work for less compensation.

Some working past 60 will re coup their lost compensation before age 65. (Work longer for the same compensation)

Many will work past 60 and will never break even by 65. ( Work longer for less compensation)

From a purely compensation perspective? This change is not in the best interest of the group as a whole.

It is simply undeniable.

From a junior perspective.

Those at the top are fighting over the spoils of this change. It is easy to see why as these spoils are rather large. Those spoils are actually the lost income of the junior demographic as company payroll didn't change. All that changed was distribution. The ironic thing is that the losers, the ones who missed cashing in on the junior demographics lost income, are now suing the junior demographic because someone else got the spoils. Someone else had the right lottery ticket. A bunch of rich people, fighting with other rich people, over money originally earmarked for someone else not nearly as affluent as them.

From this perspective I can see why the Federal Court has started looking at concepts such as undue hardship and substantive discrimination. Human rights legislation is important for us all. The courts should not allow it to be used as a means to transfer wealth from one generation to another.

[Rockie]

Everyone will work to 60 for less compensation than they did prior to Dec 2012.

True

Some working past 60 will re coup their lost compensation before age 65.

True

Many will work past 60 and will never break even by 65.

Patently false

Everybody can retire at age 65 at the same seniority level or higher than they would have before. You can retire at 65 and everybody who would have gone before you at age 60 will still go before you at age 65. Prove me wrong.

Because of that you will still spend the exact same amount of time (or more) in the seats above you that you would have spent before therefore making the same money as before. Prove me wrong.

You will also spend five more years in your current seat making the money you are now in addition to what you would have made before. Again...prove me wrong.

We are essentially on a 5 year hiatus of moving up the seniority list. If a recent new hire had 30 years left of their career progression to age 60 before, when this hiatus is over in 2017 they will have 30 years of exactly the same career progression to age 65 - plus this past 5 years. That's because the seniority list is fixed and we still have forced retirement at age 65 instead of 60. Basic logic that makes a mockery of ACPA's financial impact study.

[Fanblade]

Everyone will work to 60 for less compensation than they did prior to Dec 2012.

True

Some working past 60 will re coup their lost compensation before age 65.

True

Many will work past 60 and will never break even by 65.

Patently false

Everybody can retire at age 65 at the same seniority level or higher than they would have before. You can retire at 65 and everybody who would have gone before you at age 60 will still go before you at age 65. Prove me wrong.

Because of that you will still spend the exact same amount of time (or more) in the seats above you that you would have spent before therefore making the same money as before. Prove me wrong.

You will also spend five more years in your current seat making the money you are now in addition to what you would have made before. Again...prove me wrong.

We are essentially on a 5 year hiatus of moving up the seniority list. If a recent new hire had 30 years left of their career progression to age 60 before, when this hiatus is over in 2017 they will have 30 years of exactly the same career progression to age 65 - plus this past 5 years. That's because the seniority list is fixed and we still have forced retirement at age 65 instead of 60. Basic logic that makes a mockery of ACPA's financial impact study.

Rockie,

For the last time. It is not just a 5 year hiatus. It's five years behind for an entire career. It really is unfortunate that you refuse to sit down and actually work a projection. As you know I used 600 numbers behind until age 60. Then 475 at 61. Then 350 at 62 and so on. You suggested 500 numbers. That is fine, sit down and figure it out. It will be less of a loss than I projected. Your projection might even break even by 65 as mine was only out by 150k. Either way working 5 years longer for the same compensation isn't exactly a benefit now is it.

Curious. Has your side hired an actuary to get valid data on the compensation impact? Judging by the submissions to the courts, I would say no. Looks like you want this information buried. Trying to have this information removed as evidence. Correct?

I did take Morry's advise. Only being here a few years I really didn't have a clue what was going on from the legal perspective.

Anyway I now understand why you so vehemently want to under play the financial impact. It's not the inability to understand is it Rockie? It's just strategy.

[Raymond Hall]

Has your side hired an actuary to get valid data on the compensation impact?

For the record, Rockie is not now and never has been a member of the Fly Past 60 Coalition. He is simply a line pilot who has been following this issue for years and who, in my view, has no axe to grind. He, like others in his seniority grouping, are adversely affected in the short term (only) by the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption that occurred in December, 2012.

[Rockie]

For the last time. It is not just a 5 year hiatus. It's five years behind for an entire career.

No - no - no. You will retire at the same seniority number or higher than you would have before. How could you not? Your place on the seniority list will not change. It's a 5 year hiatus and when it's over the retirements resume just as before. How could it not?

As you know I used 600 numbers behind until age 60. Then 475 at 61. Then 350 at 62 and so on. You suggested 500 numbers.

I never suggested 500 numbers because you cannot use any numbers, it's a false premise. The seniority list is fixed, you haven't lost any seniority, and you will retire with the same or better number than before. How could you not?

Curious. Has your side hired an actuary to get valid data on the compensation impact? Judging by the submissions to the courts, I would say no. Looks like you want this information buried. Trying to have this information removed as evidence. Correct?

I am not part of the FP60 group and probably have not much more seniority than you. I am suffering the same hit you are but because I recognized the financial impact study for the worthless propaganda that it was and used my own brain I know that I, and everybody else will be much better off for several reasons including financial.

[Fanblade]

Perhaps a picture would help Rockie?

Interesting the big gun just showed up as well.

Anyway. A bit rudimentary and not intended to be accurate. Just intended to paint a picture for you.

Everything between the red and green lines represents lost compensation as a result of seniority loss at a specific age.

As you can see ending your career at 65 at the same seniority number you would have at 60, has no correlation to cumulative compensation. Moreover the loss is not limited to five years. It is the entire career. It is specifically this reason that the losses get so large over time. It also is the part you vehimantly oppose as being correct. Convenient.

As for ACPA propaganda? I don't know the assumptions that went into their projection, and the devil is always in the details, so I can't comment. However the concept is spot on.

Happy to hear the courts are taking the impact into consideration.

[Rockie]

Perhaps a picture would help Rockie?

Nice picture as it graphically illustrates what I'm saying. Your seniority tracks the same path as before except five years delayed (actually it will be better as some people will decide to go before 65). At each point on the red line you will be in the same aircraft you would have been on the green line 5 years earlier. You will spend as much time on each airplane on the red line as you would have on the green line, earning as much money as you would have on the green line. The lines represent seniority which for our purposes means money. They are parallel and equal in length once the five years is over meaning it's the same career delayed five years. But you'll also notice the red line is longer in total if you count the flat part at the top. Longer red line equals more pay.

You will make the same money from 2017 onwards until you retire at 65 as you would have from 2012 onwards retiring at 60. Why? Because you're at the same seniority level with the same amount of years left in your career in both cases. You will also make 5 years more salary in your current seat from 2012-2017 that you wouldn't have before. Your salary increases will be delayed 5 years but you'll still get them when you should if you go to 65. Honestly, it's such a simple concept I don't know why people don't get it.

[Doug Moore]

While I am loathe to insert myself into this discussion (bit of a thread drift), but I have to say, Fanblade, that I am with Rockie on this one.

It appears to me that you are basing your argument on assumptions that you consider to be fixed for all time. Too many variables are constantly at play throughout a pilot’s career thereby making it impossible to predict earnings. The economy is always shifting and impacting the airline causing it to expand or contract. A merger can throw everything out the window. Health issues. I honestly don’t see how anyone can predict with any accuracy what they will, or will not earn throughout their career.

You mentioned above that earnings between ages 60-65 would be offset by lost pension income. I don’t understand that logic, in as much as to the best of my knowledge no one can collect an AC paycheque and an AC pension cheque at the same time. So there is no “lost” pension income by working past age 60. In matter of fact, if you are able to contribute to your pension plan for an additional 5 years, those contributions will allow you a higher pension income at age 65 vs. age 60. It is true that, no matter when you die after age 65, that you will have collected your pension for 5 years less than if you retired at age 60. If, for instance, you die at age 65 + one day (aside from the fact that you wouldn’t have collected a single pension cheque) you would still have been ahead financially by the difference between your employment income over those 5 additional years and your pension income amount collected beginning at age 60. At a minimum that’s 30% at 35 years service and if you have less than 35 years service the difference will be even greater – in your favor. Also in your favor, well your spouse’s favor in this example, she will enjoy a higher survivor benefit as a result of those extra 5 years contributions to your pension plan.

I also don’t understand your concerns as regards seniority progression. The seniority list at AC is 3000+ with seniority numbers having no co-relation to age. When everybody had to retire at age 60, the pecking order was set and everybody advanced in lockstep with that preset pecking order. Retirement was not the only factor as regards advancement. Airlines expand and contract, pilots die before retirement, pilots quit before retirement, pilots can get fired before retirement, pilots take early retirement. If everything was frozen in time, with no movement for 5 years between 60 & 65, and then time unfrozen – what has changed? The same pecking order is in place, the position you expected to move into at age 45 (to use that age as an example) will now be available at age 50, etc., etc. The difference is that you gained 5 additional years of employment income (a 45-year-old may not see that as a gain but later on might acquire a different view), with the added benefit of a higher pension on retirement. You might even see a little additional advancement in those last 5 years in as much as some (particularly older) pilots will most likely die between 60-65 and some pilots will choose early retirement.

I have looked at your graph and I don’t see how it supports your argument. Assume Pilot A is 59 years of age and junior Pilot B is 58 years of age. Pilot B was expecting in 12 months time to take Pilot A’s position and work in that position for one year before his own retirement. The rules change and now both can work to 65. At age 65, Pilot A retires and Pilot B moves ahead and works in that position for one year before his own retirement. I see both as having lost nothing financially, rather, both have gained 5 years additional earnings. I see the same thing for junior Pilots C,D,E,F, etc., be they 25 years old, 35 years old, or whatever.

With respect, I have been trying to follow your math, as you put it, but I just don’t “see” it. Yes, there is a 5-year period of significant slowdown in advancement (not frozen as in my example) but I do not see how your advancement in 2017 will have changed from what you expected in 2012, all other things being equal. I get the sense that you consider these 5 years to be some kind of a compounding millstone that 10 years from now will cause you to be worse off than you were in 2012. I don’t see it but I accept that it causes you great concern.

Cheers,

[Morry Bund]

Academic, moot, speculative, theoretical—however one describes it, the discussion of what a pilot's career income expectations could have been, would have been, should have been, isn’t going to make any difference to that career income expectation now. There is no sense in arguing over graphs and speculating about what the financial impact would have been, one way or the other. The world has changed.

The fact is, mandatory retirement at age 60 ended two years ago. But not as a result of anything the FP 60 group did—the government ended it.

The only connection between the FP60 group and what actually happened is that they read the tea leaves accurately and told anyone and everyone who would listen, over eight years ago and continuously until it did happen, that it would happen—that it was inevitable given the legislative changes in every other Canadian jurisdiction, and that ACPA should negotiate some benefit in exchange for the windfall about to be realized by the employer when it did happen, rather than paying out sizeable compensation to those terminated as a result of ACPA maintaining its position, on the wrong side of the equation. We all know the result. ACPA not only did not negotiate any benefit for the value of the change (that Air Canada later reported in its financial statements), but it also paid huge sums in legal fees fighting its own members at the Tribunal and in court. It even had to raise its own members' dues in order to finance the litigation.

The only thing left to be determined now is whether the pilots whose employment was ended on the basis of the age 60 provision had their employment terminated in accordance with the law or in contravention of the law, and if the latter, what compensation must be paid to those individuals. The first issue will be decided by the court in January. The second, if it is required, will, to my understanding, be decided later by the Tribunal, if the court finds in favour of the FP60 pilots.

The rest is academic. There is no point in getting emotional about it. The die was cast some time ago.

[Fanblade]

With respect, I have been trying to follow your math, as you put it, but I just don’t “see” it. Yes, there is a 5-year period of significant slowdown in advancement (not frozen as in my example) but I do not see how your advancement in 2017 will have changed from what you expected in 2012, all other things being equal. I get the sense that you consider these 5 years to be some kind of a compounding millstone that 10 years from now will cause you to be worse off than you were in 2012. I don’t see it but I accept that it causes you great concern.

Cheers,

Thanks for the well thought out response Doug. Yes this is a big concern to me. I'm actually surprised no one else sees it either. Well that's not true, an actuary would see it in a heart beat. On the other hand perhaps it's my back ground and I just expect everyone to see it. It's obvious.....right?.... .maybe not.

After a page and a half of explaining, and then have someone jump in (you) who obviously wants to understand(thank you), but isn't following me? Perhaps it's me? Perhaps I have done a rather crappy job of this.

So back to square one and a different approach. One last attempt.

Attached is a spread sheet:

It's a make believe company.

The benchmark on the left in green.

-Everyone works from 30 to 60 and then retires.
-Everyone gets 50% of their best five years for pension in retirement.
-The pay scale works like this. Year 1-6 employees are paid 1. Years 7-12 are paid 2. Years 13-18 are paid 3. Years 19-24 are paid 4. Years 25-30 are paid 5. I have deliberately chosen this very basic pay scheme to make sure the focus is not on money but rather the mechanics of the outcome.

-To the right of the benchmark in our fictitious employee group are four separate scenarios. Each scenario represents a five year delay in progression due to retirement changed from 60 to 65.

- in each case the delay is 5 years. In each case the loss is 5 within those 5 years. Just like Rockie and Raymond assert.

THIS IS THE POINT IM TRYING TO GET ACROSS.

- notice that the earlier the delay takes place the greater the career compensation loss is to age 60. It is NOT a single loss for a 5 year period.

If the delay happens at year 25? Compensation lost to age 60 is 5.5%. Delay at year 19? Compensation lost at age 60 is 11%. Delay at year 13? Compensation lost at age 60 is 16%. Delay at year 7? Compensation lost at age 60 is 22%.

Why is this happening? The 5 year delay compounds itself every time the next step is delayed. The more steps ahead of you? The greater the compounding.

Notice also that anyone from year 1-12 can not make up for this lost income even if they work to 65.

Notice that the total compensation to age 65 of the individual who experienced the retirement change at year 7. If he works to 65 his compensation is 7.5% less than the benchmark who retired at 60.

Again this was simply for demonstration purposes. Namely to point out that the impact is NOT just a five year delay. The largest factor in determining impact is "WHEN" the delay happens and the resulting compounding effect every time the next step is delayed. In fact not understanding the magnitude of the impact of "WHEN" is leading people to disregard some of the numbers floating around as propaganda. When in reality they just can't wrap their head around the mechanism leading to these very large numbers.

[sportingrifle]

Fanblade....the concept that you are trying to get across is basically compound interest applied to seniority numbers and the income that those numbers allow you to earn. If you can't understand the concept by 60, ain't much hope going forward......