Fallout from an age 60-Rule change

[SWA/FO]

Those pay freezes were paired with stock options to offset that freeze.

Pay freeze maybe, but no pay cut. I don't think we will get paid more then what we do now in this environment. I think future raises will be based on profitability more so then before..

 

[canyonblue]

Me thinks you have a HUGE hard on for the legacies because some one didn't get one of the 1000's of jobs that was available and just happens to latch on to SWA.

And this does not sound arrogant? I hate to rehash any of this but this is exactly the type of people that have been interjecting their opinions into a Southwest thread.

just happens to latch on to SWA

Having this opinion of a company that has always had a great labor relationship with it's workers proves that you know nothing, nor researched Southwest prior to your airline career. We all made choices, some good, some bad. There are some people out there who never applied to UAL, DAL, or AA, myself being one of them. I don't view myself as latching on to Southwest. The 30+ years of stability and employee relationships is what motivated me, not money.

 

[WhiteCloud]

Well, well, well...........lots of posts on how the age 60 rule benefits some and not others. Not a lot of comments regarding flight safety or physical ability to fly after 60 though. Just a bunch of system manipulation and misuse of a safety rule so someone can get something for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, if a 65 year old pilot can pass a class I medical and required checkrides, they should be allowed to fly. Last I checked we still evaluated "judgement" on flight checks. If an older pilot start to slip that would have to be addressed just the same as if someone younger gets into some mental difficulty. For what it's worth I have a long way to go before 60.

 

[mdf]

Benelli,

I think you made a good post. I do think it would have been better served on the SWAPA Forum. I think SWA/FO comes on a little strong, but I am sure he is not all bad. I am also tired of all the SWA cyber stalkers, and ego police. Some of you people need to click on every dang SWA thread and chime in with your legacy know all, and SWA pilots have ego's b.s. Please save it. People like to spin you up, and it is your own fault. All I can say is grow some skin. I truly believe the majority of SWA folks have humble origins, and are in touch with what needs to be done to be sucessful.

respectfully,

mdf.

 

[canyonblue]

Exactly.

 

[FurloughedTwice]

I truly believe the majority of SWA folks have humble origins, and are in touch with what needs to be done to be sucessful.

I truly believe you are correct!! Just not the ones that say things like this:

Southwest is currently holding the bar up, repeat, holding the bar up on the industry. We are holding the line, saving the profession and you guys want us to give back our pay?

or

Let it rest guys.... we rule. end of story.

There are plenty more but you get the point. I will admit that most of the posts are coming from the same individuals. Unfortunatly every airline has them.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

Well, well, well...........lots of posts on how the age 60 rule benefits some and not others. Not a lot of comments regarding flight safety or physical ability to fly after 60 though. Just a bunch of system manipulation and misuse of a safety rule so someone can get something for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, if a 65 year old pilot can pass a class I medical and required checkrides, they should be allowed to fly. Last I checked we still evaluated "judgement" on flight checks. If an older pilot start to slip that would have to be addressed just the same as if someone younger gets into some mental difficulty. For what it's worth I have a long way to go before 60.

Nicely put, it can be said without doubt there is no medical or proficiency reason a pilot cannot still fly for a part 121 airline up to age 65, to infer otherwise is absolute bulls**t. What we always degenerate to in this line of "discussion" is the politics of the profession.

When the age 60 rule was first instituted, I'm sure that there were pilot's adversely affected by the change. If the change occurs again there will be another adjustment period, sure upgrades will be affected but everyone get longer to "play".

 

[vetrider]

As a pilot for 2 different airlines, both of which I term Rodney Dangerfield Airlines(ie, no respect from anyone anywhere), I get a kick out of seeing pilots battle over "swaggering rights." After the crushing egos of the legacy guys up until recently is it any wonder why some SWA types are starting to crow a little? And some guys are shocked, just shocked that an SWA type mentions circling Denver? Duh

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Perhaps some of the animosity toward SWA and JB pilots evident on this forum stems from the fact they are the only 2 major airlines supporting the rule change. As I've posted before, many FO's will lose $millions by having their upgrades delayed 5 years. I find it only reasonable that these younger pilots might direct some of their frustration and anger over this proposed rule change at the 2 pilot groups that are cheerleading loudest for its change.

BBB

 

[WhiteCloud]

As I've posted before, many FO's will lose $millions by having their upgrades delayed 5 years.

So how do you figure that? They also get the opportunity to work 5 more years at at the top of the salary scale. Not everybody want to fly past 60 either or even 55 for that matter. Some get out at the first opportunity. Some move to management and some die. Even if they do lose some money they'll still be making pretty good money and have better schedules at the top of the FO list. If it's about safety after 60 I'm open for discussion. If it's about some FO's personal gain then it's an artificial system that needs to go away.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

So how do you figure that? They also get the opportunity to work 5 more years at at the top of the salary scale. Not everybody want to fly past 60 either or even 55 for that matter. Some get out at the first opportunity. Some move to management and some die. Even if they do lose some money they'll still be making pretty good money and have better schedules at the top of the FO list. If it's about safety after 60 I'm open for discussion. If it's about some FO's personal gain then it's an artificial system that needs to go away.

Say you are 40 now and delay your upgrade to 45. In those 5 years you would lose 100k/yr (salary and B-fund) at my airline. I don't have a FV calculator handy at the moment, but at 45 you would have given up approx 700k by not upgrading. 700k over 20 yrs (age 45-65) at market 50 yr avg of 10% (actually 10.3%, but we'll round) return would yield approx $5.5 MILLION!

You will need to be paid in excess of $1 MILLION/yr by your airline from age 60-65 to come close to breaking even!

BBB

 

[WhiteCloud]

Say you are 40 now and delay your upgrade to 45. In those 5 years you would lose 100k/yr (salary and B-fund) at my airline. I don't have a FV calculator handy at the moment, but at 45 you would have given up approx 700k by not upgrading. 700k over 20 yrs (age 45-65) at market 50 yr avg of 10% (actually 10.3%, but we'll round) return would yield approx $5.5 MILLION!

You will need to be paid in excess of $1 MILLION/yr by your airline from age 60-65 to come close to breaking even!

BBB

OK I understand the theory. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that someone would actually save the 700K. We have to factor some expenses like the 3rd wife's implants and loss of 50% of the value of our assets to wife #2. That bad investment in a Texas oil well as well as the trophy house, trophy girlfriend and trophy car losses. College expenses for daughter "Muffin" and medical expenses after her first semester of partying. Then there's more medical expenses when son "Biff" knocks up "Barbie" at the cotillion. Of course the 23% paycut and 50% loss of pension payments that will take place this time around and a few times in the future will be a factor also. It's a good theory but I think most pilots will spend 90% of their money on women and booze and then waste the other 10% (Tug McGraw quote)

 

[miles otoole]

Say you are 40 now and delay your upgrade to 45. In those 5 years you would lose 100k/yr (salary and B-fund) at my airline. I don't have a FV calculator handy at the moment, but at 45 you would have given up approx 700k by not upgrading. 700k over 20 yrs (age 45-65) at market 50 yr avg of 10% (actually 10.3%, but we'll round) return would yield approx $5.5 MILLION!

You will need to be paid in excess of $1 MILLION/yr by your airline from age 60-65 to come close to breaking even!

BBB

Or you could put your college degreed wife to work for 10 years and be able to retire at 55.

Or you could make the argument that your grandfather, who was an airline pilot when they made the "rules," was unable to work past 60 and make an additional $50K per year for 5-years. What's $250,000 at 10% over 25 years? "Someone" always loses.

Maybe if the "rule" was originally 65, many UAL and DAL furloughees would have avoided this career altogether and gone on to more lucrative MBA or MD (or Southwest) careers and thanked those who made the rules.

 

[SWA/FO]

I think SWA/FO comes on a little strong, but I am sure he is not all bad. I am also tired of all the SWA cyber stalkers, and ego police. Some of you people need to click on every dang SWA thread and chime in with your legacy know all, and SWA pilots have ego's b.s. Please save it.

I agree 110%...thanks mdf

Hey furloughed 2x,

:crying: You forgot to quote me on how I think I'm a hero imp: and smarter then y'all. (joking dude, it was a joke = now doesn't that take the fun out of it). and still the most quoted man on flightinfo.com ~the SWA/FO ~

 

[FurloughedTwice]

and still the most quoted man on flightinfo.com ~the SWA/FO ~

With 952 posts I'm not surprised.

 

[Cyclone]

ivauir

obviously your union voted in majority to repeal age 60...do you know what the percentage breakdown was?

if you added the pilots on probation (who presumably were not polled) would it still be >50% in favor of change or would it then be a minority? i am guessing most first year folks would be against change...i know now three will pipe in "i'm a first year guy and i want it to change" but i stand by my logic...who cares.

either way...it's a lot closer to 50/50 than it is "every SWA pilot" thinks the rule should go away...oh well...happy thanksgiving.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Average new hires age is currently 35 years old plus alot of them come out of the military after 20 years giving them less than 20 years as a total career at the airline. We will always have had the numbers to support the change of the age 60 rule. Thats why it always passes.

 

[Cyclone]

jim...duh

that so did not answer the question...when your union voted what percentage voted yes and what percentage voted no. i am betting that none of the first year folks voted...because they aren't in the union until after their first year.

so...if they didn't vote...am guessing that most of them would have been opposed to changing the rule (unless they are asleep at the wheel or hoodwinked by guys like you)...anyway...you certainly didn't answer the question...we all know what you want jim...put more money in your pocket...can you at least buy the younger guys some ky...it feels so much worse without the lube.

 

[Jim Smyth]

I dont have the numbers or I would have posted them. This has been voted on many other times by the SWAPA membership in the past with the same results. I also dont know if the guys on probation get to vote or not but it wouldnt matter. First off most of the Captains (thats over half the senority list right there) will vote to fly past 60! Its evident from all the retirements I have been to when the guys tell you who they are going to fly for next. Then you have an older group of new hires coming on line now. (I tried spelling this out for you but I guess that didnt work) Some with other furloughed/failed carriers, some retired 20+ year military guys. So a good percentage of the right seaters are also going to vote to fly past 60 since they dont have alot of years to fly. So you see, at least at our airline the pilots IMO will always vote to fly past 60.

Money, greed........well we have arguments for that on both sides. The way I see it is that everyone gets the choice to fly past 60 if/when the rule changes. If you want to be a hero when you get to 60 you can retire and give that other guy his shot in the big leagues. Just remember that when you leave you have no income, no medical, no social security. I think when your time comes you will be singing a different tune!

I paid my dues at more than one airline. I will continue to fly until 60 at the current rules or 65 if the rules get changed. Money concerns and flying past 60 for me at least are secondary to medical coverage issues (or lack there of) that can wipe out any money you may have saved for retirement pretty fast .

 

[Cyclone]

jim

i guess i'll have to answer my own question

you said yourself there are more captains than f.o.s at your airline. this more than anything explains why your union is in favor of the change. i don't think new guys and gals voted. i think your union voted in 2003 and the split was around 60/40...in favor of repeal....not exactly "most of us at SWA."

what did you have about 4000 pilots back then? if you take into consideration the probation pilots...i think the numbers would have been even closer...say 55/45...if they had voted...anyway...the fact is the issue is split in a fault line about half-way between your throttles...and your perception of what people in your company want only applies to those who sit on the left side of that fault line...this line also has a good chance of becoming a bigger divide because of people who share your views...read benelli's post again.

the old farts who stick around for their own benefit...and are not productive...and who suck from the company health plan...and who take more vacation...who draw max pay when they do fly...they are not helping the bottom line...or the morale of those waiting to upgrade.