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.

 

[Klako]

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

You are right, I am absolutely the world’s worst debater compared to my flying ability. The facts speak loud enough though.

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule. Click here to see: See the Chronology of the "Age 60 Rule":

http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA has now institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.

ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA “It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”

Safety is the lie that ALPA and APA have been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots. In reality, they are promoting institutionalized age discrimination against senior pilots, insuring an accelerated job advancement scheme for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson: “I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “ I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

 

[Klako]

Klako,
You can't have it both ways.

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

The main issue is that our Constitution is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA would dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

 

[Sluggo_63]

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

The main issue is that our Constitution is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA would dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

Actually, it's been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court (the decider of what's Constitutional) that a mandatory retirement age is Constitutional when the issue is public safety.

You can throw out as many studies as you like that infer that flying at age 65 is as safe as 60, but there are just as many that show the opposite. Either way, your argument has been the pilots need to fly to 65 to recoup their losses financially. That is not sufficient reason to endanger the general population.

 

[chairmano]

Sluggo,

When were you in Lightning at CBM?

 

[Sluggo_63]

Sluggo,

When were you in Lightning at CBM?

From 1996-2000 (actually to 99, then I moved to Sabre)

Who's this?

 

[BVT94]

Actually, it's been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court (the decider of what's Constitutional) that a mandatory retirement age is Constitutional when the issue is public safety.

You can throw out as many studies as you like that infer that flying at age 65 is as safe as 60, but there are just as many that show the opposite. Either way, your argument has been the pilots need to fly to 65 to recoup their losses financially. That is not sufficient reason to endanger the general population.

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

 

[miles otoole]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

Yeah, but you won't see RJs plowing farms in KY.

 

[Andy]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

 

[miles otoole]

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

Maybe if there had been more experience behind the controls of the Legacy accident last week, they wouldn't have been flying at the wrong altitude.

 

[Klako]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

That isn't the most immature statement that I have read on this thread, shame on you!

 

[Klako]

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

Andy,

I could.......On second thought, I'm just not going to waist my time.

 

[Flybynite]

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

The aviation world sure is lucky to have an individual of your talents. Maybe you could volunteer your services to fly with everyone and keep all us losers out of trouble. When I'm not sure of a clearance I just guess and hope for the best. Better that than to let my gifted F/O to think poorly of me. It was really big of you to stoop so low as to actually clarify a clearance. Get over yourself, you have proven to be a moron.

 

[BVT94]

That isn't the most immature statement that I have read on this thread, shame on you!

Of course its immature, i'm one of those "Junior pilots milking the age 60 rule"

 

[Sluggo_63]

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

Sure it does.

YOU always maintained that YOU took the job YOU did because they had an 135 operation that would allow YOU to fly until YOU'RE 65. The FAA took that away from YOU and now YOU have to find a way to make ends meet. It is about YOUR personal situation.

I know, you stuffed envelopes about this age 60 rule back when you were in short pants, but if the FAA hadn't changed that rule on you, and you were allowed to fly part 135 until 65, would you be this adamant about the rule change for the part 121 folks? Be honest.

 

[ivauir]

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”.

So why aren't you fighting to lower the "age 23" rule?

 

[hoover]

The decision on age 60 should be made on the basis of whether or not it is safe to have pilots over age 60 flying transport aircraft. It should not be made on the balances of pilots' retirement plans.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

You guys might want to add the US Airways pilots to this list. I heard that today they voted to have their MEC adopt an official stance for the repeal of the Age 60 rule.

 

[Deadbug]

US Airways too? not so fast...

Yeah, the so-called vote was a 1-vote margin:

With 64 percent of the eligible voting:
756 pilots voted yes.
755 pilots voted no. A one vote difference

No mandate there...

 

[Sluggo_63]

Yeah, the so-called vote was a 1-vote margin:

With 64 percent of the eligible voting:
756 pilots voted yes.
755 pilots voted no. A one vote difference

No mandate there...

Exactly. When was the junior guy at US Air hired? 1990? I wonder if any of the 1400+ pilots on furlough had a chance to voice their opinion. I'm guessing the vote would have gone 756 to 2155. Sure, it's all about safety...

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Yeah, the so-called vote was a 1-vote margin:

With 64 percent of the eligible voting:
756 pilots voted yes.
755 pilots voted no. A one vote difference

No mandate there...

You telling me that only 64% of those eligible voted !?!?!?!?! Wow, you ALPA guys just won't get involved, will you?....I believe that on this one, all they were looking for is a majority...one way or the other...

You are right, it's not a mandate....but they asked the membership to vote so the MEC could take a position on this issue....They got a majority.

Tejas