Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[1BigRodeo]

Dont lump us all together on the age 60 thing, our union has been highjacked by a couple of age 65ers and we are in the process of getting it back under control. I think a fresh survey of our pilot group would probably give a more sobering view on the for/against ratio. I dont think the president, or his cronies at SWAPA want to hear the majority view. They say they have a mandate from a poll from four years ago. Id venture to say that a vote today would be a bit different.

Just my .02

 

[SWA/FO]

If you think that had ANYTHING to do with age, I think you're a few apples short of a bushel.

As far as the age 65 thing, the ONE thing that ticks me off about being forced BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to retire at 60 is the fact that we're not allowed to receive social security or medicare until after we turn 65. In my opinion, changing that for all workers forced to retire prior to 65 is where we pilot's legislative efforts should be concentrated.

this is what I was trying to say.

 

[chris69]

I kind of agree with Judge and 1BR. Wholly in the middle myself. Age 60 is discrimination, but so is not letting those already retired come back in the event of a change. What date does a change start? I'm not for anyone getting a windfall. Whatever happens, it's gotta be fair. One example would be an immediate end to the rule on an arbitrary date; those turning 60 on Dec 31 2006, sorry you're done. Those turning 60 on Jan 1 2007, you just got 5 more years. Some windfall. If it changes, it's gotta be prorated and phased in. 61 in 2007, 62 in 2008, 63 in 2009 etc. Then the furloughs at least have a shot at a career and some semblance of normal upgrade patterns prevail.

 

[Uppercrust]

So what is fair and what is not?? Is a 100 meter race unfair compared to a 1500 meter race just because it is shorter. It's not, if everyone agrees upon the rules and understands the distance. Can't take credit from that analogy, it was from a Steve Prefontaine movie. I do like it.

When it comes to the age 60 rule it has been there for some time and people have agreed to the rule. My gut feeling is that some sort of compromise will come about this year and it will slowly be phased in over several years. Guyd over 60 or close can't complain, since their race is close to done and the rules when they started were there. Guys 57ish and below all just have to agree and understand the new terms. Kinda like a 100 meter race!

 

[Fly-diver]

Thanks Falcon and SWA/FO for the honest estimate. My honest question is: If your going to have over 3 mil. why work?

"For the love of the game"

Here's a headline for ya... SWA pilots LUV to fly airplanes!!! Who knew?

 

[roughneck]

Southwest pilots as a whole don't support age 60 going away in my opinion. SWAPA says we do, but we haven't voted recently on the issue. 60% of the seniorty list wasn't even on property when the last vote was held.

SWAPA leadership and a few over zealous guys are making the push. Not SWA pilots as a whole. They had 40 something guys turn out to lobby congress. Not an overwhelming turnout if you ask me. Most guys I talk too don't want the rule to change.

It is a matter of some wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too. Unfortunately for most of us, it probably will change.

 

[vetrider]

Foxhunter, I'd bet that you are wrong. It is widely expected that the FAA will file an exception to this change. IF the US files an exception, no foreign pilot over 60 will be permitted into US airspace.

And FWIW, the US has the most exceptions to ICAO rules of any country.

Hi Andy, I'm curious if you have anything specific to make you believe that the FAA will file an exception to allowing ICAO rule folks over 60 into the US? This is the first I have heard from anyone saying such a thing and I hadn't even thought of it till you brought it up.

Since Marion Blakey is on record saying that if asked to testify the FAA would be neutral on upping the age, I would think that the FAA would not be thinking of filing an exception to the ICAO this fall.

Personally I think the age 60 rule works, but I'm not really opposed to 65 either. I think it will all come out in the wash anyway.

 

[thruthemurk]

I kind of agree with Judge and 1BR. Wholly in the middle myself. Age 60 is discrimination, but so is not letting those already retired come back in the event of a change. What date does a change start? I'm not for anyone getting a windfall. Whatever happens, it's gotta be fair. One example would be an immediate end to the rule on an arbitrary date; those turning 60 on Dec 31 2006, sorry you're done. Those turning 60 on Jan 1 2007, you just got 5 more years. Some windfall. If it changes, it's gotta be prorated and phased in. 61 in 2007, 62 in 2008, 63 in 2009 etc. Then the furloughs at least have a shot at a career and some semblance of normal upgrade patterns prevail.

Interestingly enough, these two methods produce nearly identical results. If you turned 60 before Jan 1, 2007 you would be out. Otherwise the limit would bump up each year as you aged one year and you would be good all the way to 65. Am I seeing that wrong??

Murk

 

[xanderman]

well...

Why you hanging out on a Southwest Airlines thread?

'Cause if we didn't all of you SWA folk would be in here all by yourselves jumpin' around and slapping each other on the a$$ as though you giving "high-fives!"

Who the he11 wants to work until 65 anyway? Plan ahead and start a savings of some sort to fill in the gap...

I know.... Not that insightful but...

Andy

P.S. I loved the "Southwest invented oxygen" comment. That was funny!

 

[b747dogg]

I think that dork who petitioned for a vote to extend the contract should of petition a vote for support of the age 60. There is no way it would pass, it only passed by a couple percent last time.

 

[roadrunnerblue]

Senate panel sympathetic to Southwest Airlines

Southwest Airlines Co. won victories from a U.S. Senate panel Tuesday, which voted to expand destinations the carrier can serve from Dallas Love Field and raise the retirement age for pilots.

Limits on Southwest destinations from Love would be lifted in eight years, and the carrier could immediately connect Love passengers to airports throughout the United States, under a bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee's transportation panel.

The $69 billion budget legislation approved Tuesday in Washington also requires the Federal Aviation Administration to raise the mandatory retirement age for all airline pilots to 65 from 60. Dallas-based Southwest has been a major proponent of raising the age so it's pilots could work longer.

The FAA since 1959 has required that airline pilots retire at 60, saying a higher age could hurt safety.

From Bloomberg, AP, staff reports




With some of the highest paid pilots in the industry, why are the Southwest pilots so aggressively pursuing the increase in age to 65? If their retirement isn’t good enough, instead of hosing the rest of us, why doesn’t SWAPA just negotiate a better retirement at their company?

AA767AV8TOR

That is because some of us work for messed up airlines that do not provide a pension nor medical after age 60!!!

 

[satpak77]

why would ANYONE want to be still working for someone else at age 65?

jeez, play golf, fly your Bonanza, go to Oshkosh, and enjoy the grandkids while you still can.

fly airliners for some company at age 65? you gotta be kidding me

 

[Andy]

Andy I hope UAL furloughs you next. That will teach you to wish bad karma on me!!

You're a friggin' rocket scientist. I'm already furloughed. I will be recalled this fall; will take MLOA. I'm also hoping that UAL turns around and furloughs me again ... more furlough pay!

As for wishing you 'bad' karma, that is incorrect. I merely stated that I was counting on karma to take care of you. You chose to insert bad instead of good. Very telling.

... and thanks for wishing that I'll get furloughed from UAL again. I could use the extra cash while on mil leave.

 

[Andy]

Hi Andy, I'm curious if you have anything specific to make you believe that the FAA will file an exception to allowing ICAO rule folks over 60 into the US? This is the first I have heard from anyone saying such a thing and I hadn't even thought of it till you brought it up.

Since Marion Blakey is on record saying that if asked to testify the FAA would be neutral on upping the age, I would think that the FAA would not be thinking of filing an exception to the ICAO this fall.

Personally I think the age 60 rule works, but I'm not really opposed to 65 either. I think it will all come out in the wash anyway.

Link: http://www.intl-pilot.com/content/view/27/16/

Don't forget that Blakely is a politician. She will make wishy washy statements that don't decisively favor or oppose the age 60 rule; it's a political football.
I prefer to see what she has directed her minions to testify. In the link below, you can read about the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon said in testimony (page 11): http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/media/Vol43_3.pdf

 

[satpak77]

Andy I hope UAL furloughs you next.

nice comment bro, real professional

representing SWAPA once again....good job

 

[vetrider]

Thank you for the links Andy.

 

[Andy]

Thank you for the links Andy.

Vetrider, no problems. Unless it's my opinion, I always try to have a reliable source (or two).
In my current job, I'm in the DC area and have had a chance to observe the inside workings of politics first hand. Political appointees aren't going to voice a strong opinion on a controversial subject. They will delegate that task to their subordinates. For that reason, I consider the Federal Air Surgeon's testimony to be the most telling indication of where the FAA stands. It's very disarming testimony for advocates of changing the age limitation.

 

[Widow's Son]

I don't go to rallys or march around Congress, but if I had to vote to end age 60, I would in a heartbeat. Wrong is wrong. It came to fruition by a anti-union management at AA to attack and punish the senior union pilots who were fighting for many of the gains we have today.

Life isn't always fair, but you deal with the cards you were dealt. I would have liked to have gone into the military but in their wisdom they wouldn't let me fly because of glasses. It wasn't fair but I dealt with it and moved on.
I doubt I go all the way to 60, but I want the choice and option to be mine and not the Feds. (who allow their own pilots to fly beyond 60). I really don't think changing the law will affect seniority that much. Changing the law will bring updates and advancements in medical screening for older guys and many won't make it to 60 and to me that is a good thing. If you are fit you should continue and if you aren't fit you should go on medical retirement. That is best for all concerned.

BTW, on SWA retirement vehicles it took me a little over 14 years to pass 1 million in walk away funds. I would never want or support any retirement vehicle that I didn't control. It would actually be cheaper for SWA to switch to a pension plan over what they average paying out in 401k match and profit sharing. All those years when the legacies weren't funding because of market conditions and now because of BK, SWA was, and continues making the payments like clockwork.

 

[sandman2122]

The only way I would consider voting to change the Age 60 mandatory retirement is if it's delayed at least 20-25 years so all the current advocates will not benefit from an immediate change.

If you're in favor a changing the rule, which allowed this same group of pilots to upgrade due to Age 60 retirements, then fall on your sword and let the change benefit the young pilots that won't receive an instant reward for the retirement change.

Like that'll ever happen..

 

[FoxHunter]

Link: http://www.intl-pilot.com/content/view/27/16/

Don't forget that Blakely is a politician. She will make wishy washy statements that don't decisively favor or oppose the age 60 rule; it's a political football.
I prefer to see what she has directed her minions to testify. In the link below, you can read about the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon said in testimony (page 11): http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/media/Vol43_3.pdf

Thanks for the link regarding Dr. Jordan's testimony. Now for the rest of the story! He did make those remarks provided in the link. The problem he had were with the questions that followed. His performance was such that he is no longer the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon. He was Retired. S.65 was passed out of the Senate Committee.

 

[FoxHunter]

The only way I would consider voting to change the Age 60 mandatory retirement is if it's delayed at least 20-25 years so all the current advocates will not benefit from an immediate change.

If you're in favor a changing the rule, which allowed this same group of pilots to upgrade due to Age 60 retirements, then fall on your sword and let the change benefit the young pilots that won't receive an instant reward for the retirement change.

Like that'll ever happen..

Your position on the issue has been very helpful in both the House and Senate. It gives everyone a much clearer view of what the real issue is in opposition to the change. :beer:

 

[Oh-ryan]

just sitting back and enjoying a good thread here... no one has thrown too much flame bait out there.

I have a question for the SWA guys... is there any kind of medical benefits/insurance provided by SWAPA from the day you turn 60 until the day you can collect medicare at age 65? Or are you own your own to find coverage?

 

[Sluggo_63]

Your position on the issue has been very helpful in both the House and Senate. It gives everyone a much clearer view of what the real issue is in opposition to the change. :beer:

Right, the real issue is the close-to-60 pilots want to have another 5 years as captain, while the far-from-60 pilots languish another 5 years as S/O or F/O.

I think the right thing to do would be to change the rule for anyone hired as a Part 121 pilot after a certain date. If you were hired before the cutoff date, you end at 60. If hired after the cutoff date, you can (which will probably turn into a 'must') fly to 65.

 

[TexaSWA]

Some of the senior guys have 35,000 quote]

They have 50,000

 

[Widow's Son]

For retirement medical, SWA will trade you full medical coverage to age 65 for both you and spouse for unused sick leave. It takes a little less than half the maximum you can accumulate just for yourself and a little more than half for both you and spouse. Other than that, they will allow you to purchase insurance at their age banded costs.

It is an area that I hope gets improved on the next contract.

BTW, most SWA Captains until the very recently upgraded, had very little upgrade enhancement because of retirements. We have more retirements now in some months than occured between the time I was hired and subsequently upgraded.

 

[Andy]

Thanks for the link regarding Dr. Jordan's testimony. Now for the rest of the story! He did make those remarks provided in the link. The problem he had were with the questions that followed. His performance was such that he is no longer the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon. He was Retired. S.65 was passed out of the Senate Committee.

FoxHunter, you are one crazy, senile MoFo. :nuts: Here's Dr Jordan's final column, from spring '06: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/editorials_jj/final/

The testimony I cited occurred summer 2005, and is eerily similar to testimony from 2001 (Dr Jordan's been the Federal Air Surgeon since 1991):
http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/01test/Lacey1.htm

I suppose that someone over the age of 60 retiring is so foreign to you that there must be more to the story. Dr Jordan wasn't retired; he ELECTED to retire.

It's one thing to grasp at any straw that you can. It's totally another to make false accusations about people. Dr. Jordan retired with dignity after a very long career; you, on the other hand, seem to be clinging to any hope to remain in the cockpit. uke:

Now, you want to tell everyone what the impact of S. 65 being passed by Senate subcommittee? That happened a while ago; back in March. The House version has been languishing in subcommittee. I have a feeling that you have absolutely no clue of what it takes for a bill to become a law. Maybe this will help: http://www.jacksheldon.com/school.htm

 

[Andy]

I'd like to add that I got a letter from my Congressman last week thanking me for my correspondence in support of changing the age 60 law. I immediately called the phone number listed and made sure that they knew that I am vehemently opposed to any change.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I think the right thing to do would be to change the rule for anyone hired as a Part 121 pilot after a certain date. If you were hired before the cutoff date, you end at 60. If hired after the cutoff date, you can (which will probably turn into a 'must') fly to 65.

I would accept that.

Of course, just to keep things "fair" and consistent, he would also be limited to flying only the routes and equipment his company operated on the day he was hired. His salary and benefits would also be capped at whatever they were the day he was hired. While we're at it, why not make it a real "Triple-Crown" and limit him to the domicile into which he was hired?

Think of how much simpler training and route checks will be, not to mention monthly bidding. Retirement planning as well.

New airplanes and new routes would be operated by new guys. (After all, a new-hires "career expectations" will be different...and higher, than yours) The same with domiciles...new domiciles, new pilots. No more &$&*#% windfalls for guys just because they got hired before you did.

No more "junior" or "senior" domiciles either. Just domiciles. Yours is the one you hired into. You don't like it? QUIT, and re-apply for a different one.

If the company closes a domicile or disposes of one type of equipment, you're gone, too. A little harsh? maybe. But as someone else mentioned, there are LOTS of flying jobs out there that are available to the newly or prematurely retired pilot. Think of it as a "mini-bankruptcy." Nothing will prevent you from instructing, flying corporate, or even buying a 182 and starting your own 135 operation. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to secure one of these interesting and lucrative flying jobs!

I hope we can get this passed fairly quickly. I'd like to get a few years in the left seat of one of FedEx's new A-380's before I retire...at age 60, of course.

 

[Sluggo_63]

I would accept that.

Of course, just to keep things "fair" and consistent, he would also be limited to flying only the routes and equipment his company operated on the day he was hired. His salary and benefits would also be capped at whatever they were the day he was hired. While we're at it, why not make it a real "Triple-Crown" and limit him to the domicile into which he was hired?

Think of how much simpler training and route checks will be, not to mention monthly bidding. Retirement planning as well.

New airplanes and new routes would be operated by new guys. (After all, a new-hires "career expectations" will be different...and higher, than yours) The same with domiciles...new domiciles, new pilots. No more &$&*#% windfalls for guys just because they got hired before you did.

No more "junior" or "senior" domiciles either. Just domiciles. Yours is the one you hired into. You don't like it? QUIT, and re-apply for a different one.

If the company closes a domicile or disposes of one type of equipment, you're gone, too. A little harsh? maybe. But as someone else mentioned, there are LOTS of flying jobs out there that are available to the newly or prematurely retired pilot. Think of it as a "mini-bankruptcy." Nothing will prevent you from instructing, flying corporate, or even buying a 182 and starting your own 135 operation. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to secure one of these interesting and lucrative flying jobs!

I hope we can get this passed fairly quickly. I'd like to get a few years in the left seat of one of FedEx's new A-380's before I retire...at age 60, of course.

I've heard you use this argument before, but to me, it doesn't hold water. When you and I were hired, there was a seniority system in place, there were system bids, there was the ability to move domiciles. That was all in place, along with the Age 60 rule. If the company today wanted to implement a pay freeze or roll-back to when I was hired, or come up with a rule that pilots could not change domicilies, that would be a different story. I would disagree with changing all those things mid-stream as much as I do changing the Age 60 rule mid-stream.

I appreciate your argument, but I don't agree with it.

 

[FoxHunter]

FoxHunter, you are one crazy, senile MoFo. :nuts: Here's Dr Jordan's final column, from spring '06: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/editorials_jj/final/

The testimony I cited occurred summer 2005, and is eerily similar to testimony from 2001 (Dr Jordan's been the Federal Air Surgeon since 1991):
http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/01test/Lacey1.htm

I suppose that someone over the age of 60 retiring is so foreign to you that there must be more to the story. Dr Jordan wasn't retired; he ELECTED to retire.

It's one thing to grasp at any straw that you can. It's totally another to make false accusations about people. Dr. Jordan retired with dignity after a very long career; you, on the other hand, seem to be clinging to any hope to remain in the cockpit. uke:

Now, you want to tell everyone what the impact of S. 65 being passed by Senate subcommittee? That happened a while ago; back in March. The House version has been languishing in subcommittee. I have a feeling that you have absolutely no clue of what it takes for a bill to become a law. Maybe this will help: http://www.jacksheldon.com/school.htm[/quote]

OK Andy