Jump to content

The Next Target?


Guest neo

Recommended Posts

I see an anonymous Air Canada pilot has been quoted in the Globe & Mail. I hope all goes well for the gentleman and his family.

See Saturday's Globe Investor for details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WA777

Here's the link to the article....I think the financial planner made an error though...his assumption that the pilot could put $1000 dollars a month into an RRSP seems incorrect...for most pilots the RRSP contribution room is severly limited by the pension adjustment number from the company plan....

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030412/STFACE_2/TPBusiness/Investor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My turn, NEO :)

Who says this is an actual pilot in AC ? This is a weekly column that addresses financial planning for one couple/family or the other as a service to all of us that have not hired "professional" planners. If he is a real fellow I am sure he appreciates your good wishes.

I think this column it is a good idea but no one really knows if "Claude" is actually in AC, but seeing AC is at the forefront of financial upheaval, perhaps it is a likely, and timely scenario, don't cha think ???

I may be wrong, perhaps "Claude" is really in AC but I think "his" profession and all the rest of the details were invented.

Perhaps if Claude is reading this, he could verify his existence and finacial plight as indicated in the article, but remember that about 90% of the posters here use anonymity as well. :) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well, one has to look at the other 75% of AC employees who are trying to raise a family on half of what this family supposedly makes.

What's going to happen when wages are cut and layoff happen and all that spending power is taken out of the market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharp eye, WA777. That's my understanding too. Even though the employee's actual contribution to the pension plan is (usually) much lower than his or her RRSP contribution limit, the CCRA severly restricts how much more you can contribute to an RRSP. I was told that's because the CCRA makes an assumption on how much the company is 'contributing' on your behalf, in order to have the defined benefit when you retire. (Finance wizards please correct that explanation if necessary.)

Of course, the company doesn't actually contribute the money that the CCRA deducts from your RRSP headroom. Again, my understanding is that the company need only follow pension funding guidelines. As we can plainly see now, those guidelines don't always result in our expectations being met.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now there's a twist I never thought of! You're saying you think the G&M made this guy up? They quoted a _fictitious_, anonymous person? This may call for a gyro re-alignment. :)

But now you really have my Machiavellian wheels turning. (6) What would happen if, and I'm only saying "if" mind you, a unethical or lazy reporter signed up on AEF using an anonymous handle. Then he or she posts aviation-related comments, which they then quote in their own newspaper articles!

Calling John Le Carre!

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neo...

I think it was all ficticious. As Chico points out below, they talk about RRSPs etc. As well, they mention the pilot is planning to retire at 65. Most of the cases (if not all) in the Globe Investor tend to be just examples that the readers can identify with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we don't need to be looking for a pilot with green eyes, as shown in that picture in the article? ;) Or are you the one, and just cleverly throwing us off the track? (Strictly a joke!)

Fictional anonymous people; pilots retiring at 65; respected journals pulling the wool over our eyes; where will this all end? We'd be better off if they'd just interview us all and be done with it. :)

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WA777

For your future reference.....any change in our pension plan benefits as a result of CCAA...i.e. a reduction would mean that PARs (pension adjustment reversals) would be required for most employees...AC would have to go back and recalculate the PA numbers because you will not be receiving the benefits they thought you were on retirement...a real can of worms for the company.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...