Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[Dane Bramage]

Furloughed Guy:

You stated: "...we make your quarterly earnings in a week or so." I take it you are flying for UPS...good for you and congratulations on what sounds like a fair TA. I also work for a great company and will hopefully be happy with our TA in a year or two.

A few facts to bring some sense to this discussion. First, our retirement funding is via 401K and profit-sharing. For this year (2006), SWA will contribute over $28,000 to these vehicles for me. I, of course, will also contribute $15,000 to my 401K (before taxes). That is a decent contribution on their part and will be even larger next year due to vastly increased profits and salary. I routinely move my retirement funds around to maximize returns. I have total control of every penny...it belongs solely to me.

Stock options play a role in our compensation as well. Some guys cash out immediately, but I prefer to wait until the time is right. This year, I will cash out my final options from the 1994 contract for a tidy sum of ~$50,000. I plan to hold onto my 2002 options for several more years (some don't expire until 2012). They are currently worth ~$45,000 at today's closing price. I obviously expect that number to increase as LUV increases over the coming years. BTW, I doubt stock options will be part of our next contract.

Through the end of July, my total pay is $140,000 for 85 days of work. We have a VERY lucrative vacation pay system at SWA which most of you guys don't know about.

My point is to show you that a SWA retirement is not something to laugh at. I doubt we will have any more $6 million men like a few that retired just before 9/11, but I am forecasting ~$2.2 million when I'm 60 yrs old (assuming 10%ROR) from just the 401K and profit-sharing. This number does not include additional retirement vehicles available such as Top Hat for age 55 and older. This also does not include gains from the ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) which allows us to purchase LUV at 10% below market value.

Bottom line: Don't feel bad for SWA pilots in regards to salary, retirement, or days worked. The average Captain is doing just fine on annual salary of $240K, retirement worth $2 million+, and working 12-13 days a month.

Oh yeah, I also get one of those military reserve retirements at age 60...more play money.

 

[Flopgut]

Your kidding, right? I think I'm better! I'm a former freight dog. Flying formation/bombing things and flying back into/out of a hub is not what I did... no.

You were loading golf clubs and other bags, getting coffee and newspapers, and if you had a shred of real freight dog cred you would admit it!

 

[SWA/FO]

Hey Flapgut, this isn't your fight. Frankly, your last post doesn't make much sense to me. How many rum & cokes is that? I'd love to argue all night, if it was something worth arguing for.

Get back to spooning with your furloghed dude = who has a great job.... go figure...I thought if you're furloughed you are out of work?

 

[Flopgut]

Hey Flapgut, this isn't your fight. Frankly, your last post doesn't make much sense to me. How many rum & cokes is that? I'd love to argue all night, if it was something worth arguing for.

Get back to spooning with your furloghed dude = who has a great job.... go figure...I thought if you're furloughed you are out of work?

It's a pint of Jack Daniels and five beers if anyone is keeping score. It IS worth argueing about, you've been dipped in butter and this guy got a sh!t sandwich. Your acting like a tool and relying on a quasi credible profile to suggest you actually know how to fly. I ain't buying it. You have a great job, your lucky, that's all.

 

[SWA/FO]

You have a great job, your lucky, that's all.

AAHH, the message to your posts, finally! Furloughed dude has a better job then me, though....he tells me all the time. So he is just as lucky, right?

 

[Klako]

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..

Junior pilots have been milking the “Age 60 Rule” for all it’s worth for much too long a time and it is high time that the Congress puts the airline industry, the FAA, ALPA and APA back on the right track. This is why the Congress must over-ride the FAA's normal rule making protocol and mediate a solution. The age 60 rule has been perpetuated by big union politics for over 40 years but the reality of the situation now must be considered and attitudes must be changed. This may be the last chance that an obvious wrong can be corrected.
Since it’s inception, “The Age 60 Rule” has been an on-going curse on the airline industry. The primary reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) and Allied Pilots Association (APA). ALPA and APA continue trying to prevent a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with their lobbying efforts in Congress. The motive behind ALPA and APA resisting a change to the “Age 60 Rule” reflects the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots. The rule will have little chance of ever being abolished unless the younger pilot groups change their attitude. The under age 50 pilots will always represent the majority, maintaining their political power through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. Junior pilots will always view the forced retirement of all pilots over the age of 60 as essential to their career progression. Thus the majority will always maintain command of a system that succeeds in eliminating competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 50 finally come to the realization that the “Age 60 Rule” will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Junior pilots have been milking the “Age 60 Rule” for all it’s worth for much too long a time...

I guess you were born senior and have never benefited from the Age 60 rule during your entire career

The motive behind ALPA and APA resisting a change to the “Age 60 Rule” reflects the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots.

How is that unlike the "me then and me now, too" attitude of the senior pilots pushing for change?

 

[Klako]

I guess you were born senior and have never benefited from the Age 60 rule during your entire career

In my case that is exactly right! All Airline pilots need a rule that poses the least harm to all across the board, a rule that best assures their future not one that merely placates their situation early in their careers. There are just too many pilots now who at one time worked for Braniff, Pan Am, Eastern Frontier, or other carriers gone bankrupt, merged or otherwise forced to seek employment elsewhere, starting on probation wages.... again. Many pilots have four or five different uniforms in their closet, gaining seniority only in age, and need to work beyond age 60 to enjoy a decent retirement. Only the largest major airlines have the big pensions, and therefore are against any change, however, with the demise of the younger hiring age, many of their newer pilots are realizing the possibility of inadequate pensions at age 60. Most, if not all, smaller or newer carriers do not have a fixed benefit retirement. For those pilots, retiring at age 60 could be their worst nightmare. Realization of this fact may come to late for the non-forward thinking as they get nearer to the guillotine of the “Age 60 Rule”.

How is that unlike the "me then and me now, too" attitude of the senior pilots pushing for change?

Because the law is wrong, ageism and age discrimination simply must not be institutionalized by a federal law such as we now have in Section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, commonly referred to as the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule”.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Junior pilots have been milking the “Age 60 Rule” for all it’s worth for much too long a time and it is high time that the Congress puts the airline industry, the FAA, ALPA and APA back on the right track.

Incredible – talk about twisted logic. I just hope you guys fly better than you debate. Yeah, it's all the junior's guys fault.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Sluggo_63]

In my case that is exactly right! All Airline pilots need a rule that poses the least harm to all across the board, a rule that best assures their future not one that merely placates their situation early in their careers. There are just too many pilots now who at one time worked for Braniff, Pan Am, Eastern Frontier, or other carriers gone bankrupt, merged or otherwise forced to seek employment elsewhere, starting on probation wages.... again. Many pilots have four or five different uniforms in their closet, gaining seniority only in age, and need to work beyond age 60 to enjoy a decent retirement. Only the largest major airlines have the big pensions, and therefore are against any change, however, with the demise of the younger hiring age, many of their newer pilots are realizing the possibility of inadequate pensions at age 60. Most, if not all, smaller or newer carriers do not have a fixed benefit retirement. For those pilots, retiring at age 60 could be their worst nightmare. Realization of this fact may come to late for the non-forward thinking as they get nearer to the guillotine of the “Age 60 Rule”.

Klako,
You can't have it both ways. You decry the fact that you started at your airline at an age older than your bretheren, and did not benefit from the Age 60 rule due to the fact that you were older than almost everyone senior to you. Why were you so old starting off... because you chose to retire from the Army with a guaranteed pension for the rest of your life.

So... when you were in new-hire training with these younger pilots (some of whom I'm going to assume left the military before putting in a full 20 years for retirement), did you offer to share part of your $1800 monthly check with them while they struggled to make ends meet their first year. Probably not. They chose to leave the military early, and lived with that decision, and knew that they weren't going to have an income supplement like you had. They knew that by leaving the military early, they would be foregoing the government pension and trading it for more years at your carrier (at least until they turned 60). You made the opposite choice. You chose to collect a "free" $1800 per month (I'm guessing but it's probably +/- $500) for how many months? You have to live with your choice.

I know, they changed the rules on you. etc.