Fallout from an age 60-Rule change

[lostplnetairman]

Conclusive studies have not been done yet.

Enough said!

 

[alaskaplt]

But again proof is in the flight deck every day we are out there. And again why would flying skills be exempt from aging. Besides the courts have already ruled the 60 rule is not discrimination. The rule stands at 60, so why would we need to prove anything to keep it.

Enough said!

 

[lostplnetairman]

Conclusive studies have not been done yet. But again proof is in the flight deck every day we are out there. And again why would flying skills be exempt from aging. Besides the courts have already ruled the 60 rule is not discrimination. The rule stands at 60, so why would we need to prove anything to keep it.

That was a very narrow ruling... again. let's see the proof--that's what it will take.

I don't have a stake in this--I just enjoy the banter!

HR Diva

 

[Echopapa]

Spooky, please spare us with your condascending know-it-all attitude. Not all of us "young guys" are young and dumb.

As always, it comes down to the have and have nots. From my point of view, the age 65 thing is a credible threat to not just an upgrade, but to my job. What happens to me and my family? Do I join the list of furloughed guys from (pick an airline) too?

It's pretty obvious that labor costs, whether right or wrong, is a focal point at every airline right now. If we add 5 more years to the top wage scale of the cost structure, what are the consequences in doing so? Let's look a simple cost analysis at my airline regarding retirements at 60 vs. 65:

5 year retirement outlook:
2005 = 69
2006 = 148
2007 = 159
2008 = 155
2009 = 134
Total = 665

Let's assume that 80% are widebody captains (WC) and 20% are narrow body captains (NC). We'll also assume that each captain has a 75 hr per month guarantee. 665 * .80 = 532 WC and 133 NC. We'll also assume that each captain is at the 15 year top of pay scale, so each WC currently makes $206.24 /hr and NC $177.78 /hr.

((75 hrs*206.24)*12 mos)*532 = $98,747,712 per year in salary.
((75 hrs*177.78)*12 mos)*133 = $21,280,266 per year in salary.

So each year it costs my airline $120,027,978 extra in labor costs, which would equate to $600,139,890 over a 5 year period. Also notice that this is just salary, not including insurance, medical costs, or anything else for that matter.

Let me preface this by saying that I would hate to see the age 60 rule change.....but...this is just bad math.

The only way the numbers change if the total numbers of FedEx WB or NB captains change. Generally, FedEx is going to pay a 59 Y/O WB Captain the same as they would pay a 63 Y/O WB Captain.

The rule change will have little effect on the total number of required Captains. If FedEx needs 1500 WB Captains before the rule change, they will need the number same after. So the net cost for all WB Captains remains unchanged. You math assumes that WB and NB Captains will be added to the fleet as a result of the change...thats is just wrong. Instead what will happen is all of us junior guys get to hang out in the junior seats for 5 years longer.....with little or no senority progression and much less hiring as there will be decreased attrition.

And as far as retirement, FedEx will probably save money. Consider this...we pay retirement until a pilot dies....which will not change if the retirement age changes. If the life expetancy is 70 (very optimistic) then right now FedEx pays for 10 years of retirment. After the rule change they now only have to pay for 5 years. Every airline with a defined benefit plan would benefit finacially (not safety) to force every pilot to fly until they die....that way no pension crisis because no pension costs....dead men don't collect checks.

Let me get out my crystal ball for some predictions....the same guys that are fighting to change the 60 rule will be fighting to change the 65 rule in five years. If their argument passes, which falls on age discrimination and passing a medical exam...then why set the number at 65? Why a number at all? They of course won't say this yet...just a little piece at a time.

Second prediction....If this rule passes we are all gonna pay the price with difficult new medical screening requirements. As the addage goes...be careful what you ask for..you just might get it. I think the FAA, who is very opposed to this action, will ensure safety by making the current fairly reasonable process to keep a medical certificate an overwhelming ordeal. Can you imagine a mental facilities tests every six months? Stress tests? Heart scans...you name it. Can you see some of those over sixty, over weight, smokers trying to run on a tread mill with a doctor watching.....yikes.

They already have different standards for class one medical certificates based on age...the EKG. You don't take one when your 20 but you sure do when your 50. The FAA can and will add a whole battery of tests at any age defined point if this rule changes.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey Flapgut or flopgut....

Do you know how to make paragraphs? Sure would make it easier to read your posts...

quote]


deleted. I was kidding. you're not a bad dude.

 

[Flopgut]

That was a very narrow ruling... again. let's see the proof--that's what it will take.

I don't have a stake in this--I just enjoy the banter!

HR Diva

Should it not be the burden of those who want to change the rule to prove it is not a safety concern? If it has a zero effect on safety then why does ICAO require one pilot be below 60?

Maybe you would consider answering a legal question? If they change the rule to ICAO standards could we FOs who are under 60 simply refuse to fly with CAs over 60? The rule suggest there is a concern for this arrangement. It seems the FOs are being expoited.

 

[Skyboss]

I can never understand this logic. At the current fare level we are MAKING A PROFIT. Perhaps your logic should be aimed at a carrier that is NOT making a profit, then maybe they will notice that if you charge $89 for a product that costs $100 to produce, you CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT.

You're only making that profit because you are hedged and most of your flights are short haul with higher yields in high density markets. Outside of fuel, your costs are the highest of any major carrier.

Here's a reality check for you. Your hedging is running out and you burn more fuel per passenger than any major carrier. Think about that for a second or two and come back to reality a bit and stop your bloviation about your company's ability to make a profit. No hedging = nightmare for Southwest.

 

[mnboyev]

Ahhh.... I love FlightInfo.... The banter continues....

SWA FO.... He's a good fella and a darn good pilot... leave him alone. Just a little high on company propaganda.

Age 65 will happen. Sorry everyone... Not sure what I think about it... I kinda think I would like to be done drooling on the beach by 60. But, hey ... If I feel good and the wife lets me keep working for a couple years...what the heck.

How bout them retired Delta guys coming back to fly...Whats that about ? Especially with guys on the street ?

 

[Jim Smyth]

You're only making that profit because you are hedged and most of your flights are short haul with higher yields in high density markets. Outside of fuel, your costs are the highest of any major carrier.

Here's a reality check for you. Your hedging is running out and you burn more fuel per passenger than any major carrier. Think about that for a second or two and come back to reality a bit and stop your bloviation about your company's ability to make a profit. No hedging = nightmare for Southwest.

Wow, You need to do your homework a little better. You couldnt be more wrong!

Yes, We are making a profit from hedging. Do you know what hedging is? Hedging is buying gas in advance with money thats in the bank. That money thats in the bank is "profit" dollars. Thats all goes into the formula and into the bottom line. This is what lets us keep our price where it is and lets us remain the low cost carrier. Also are average stage length every year is increasing so our costs fuel wise will continue to drop because of that. Our old average stage length used to be about 450 miles, its now up near 750 and increasing daily. Our costs are actualy not the highest, now where near it as a matter of fact. We are currently (today) in the middle of the pack as far as majors is concerned with costs to the company, excluding fuel.

Our hedgeing isnt running out! We are hedged until 08 right now and if we need more hedges we will go get them. As of January of 06 we the "ONLY" airline hedgd which will continue to increase our competative edge. Think about that for a minute! Now lets go to your senerio that all our hedges go away and oil goes to $80 a barrel. All we have to do is raise prices 10 percent to compansate, which will still keep us below the costs and ticket prices of the other airlines.

 

[ivauir]

You're only making that profit because you are hedged and most of your flights are short haul with higher yields in high density markets. Outside of fuel, your costs are the highest of any major carrier.

Nope, wrong again sparky. Out side of fuel our costs are the LOWEST (when adjusted for stage length) of any carrier. There are a couple LCC s getting close to us, and that is why we continue to put pressure on our costs.

Here's a reality check for you. Your hedging is running out and you burn more fuel per passenger than any major carrier. Think about that for a second or two and come back to reality a bit and stop your bloviation about your company's ability to make a profit. No hedging = nightmare for Southwest.

Here is a reality check for YOU. Our hedges will not be as good into the future as they are now, but they will be better than anyone else's. I guess you haven't been keeping up, but our stage length gets longer ever quarter, not just becase of fuel costs, but segment taxes and other expenses we do not control areon the rise.

Here is a FACT for you - last quarter our non fuel consts decreased, our fares increased AND our load factor went up. THAT is the reality. I don't want to get too much bloviatious for you, we know we are not bullet proof. Most of us know we have to watch our backs and that this environment is tough for everyone. But your analysis = opinion and wishfull thinking.