Fallout from an age 60-Rule change

[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.

 

[Jim Smyth]

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.

Your first paragraph is why it "WILL" never change! Its called a majority rules! Better get used to it, its the way it is. I fly with ALOT of guys of all ages because I ELITT alot. The guy I just flew with yesterday is 47 years old, been with the company 4 years, has 4 kids and the list goes on and on. Think he wasnt in favor of extending it to past age 60? You betcha! Benelli wants it for his financial gain as well dont kid yourself. I guess in the end we all look out for whats in our own familes best interest dont we.

The old farts that stick around who use more of the health benefits earned it! They have been out there in the trenches for many years fighting many battles while you were in grade school. Its called pay back. I earned my vacation, earned my pay check, and have the right to coast if and when I want to.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

....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.

If its bad for the company, why does management support over 60??? (That still doesn't mean its good for the majority of pilots.)

Yeah, all our perception is somewhat myopic. Including mine and yours. The Captains are cooler here than anywhere else I've been. If you don't like the "old farts" here you won't like them anywhere, IMHO.

Your beef is with hiring. They chose this older crowd that appreciates the chance to earn a great income. They try to hire people who are thankful and want to work past 60.

 

[Spooky 1]

Just wondering

Since to ALPA poll was done prior to the DAL and NWA BK's, I wonder what these airlines would look like if the poll was done today? Lifes little hickups have a way of changing one's outlook sometimes. I know that in the case of DAL at least the pilot group is almost static in upgrades due to the mass exodus of senior pilots and that could weight any new polling in favor of retaining the status quo, but on the other hand, no retirement at a late point in ones career could be an incentive for extending the age.

I really don't think this is about economics, but rather if the original rule was proper to begin with.

 

[Cyclone]

back to page 1

read benelli's post...lots of good points that portend of future concerns. SWA was built on "it's all about us" not "it's all about me."

jim smyth's "i earned it" attitude and "i deserve it...while you were in grade school"...you are making my point for me. worried about numero uno. this is the philosohpical point...if you take care of the company the company will take care of you...but the group getting ready to retire would blow up the company with sticks of dynamite if that meant huge bank for them...they are showing their true colors. by the way jim...you don't know when i was in grade school...for all you know i could be older than you.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Your 36.

 

[Cyclone]

nope

i am 46

you're probably 46 too right?

oh the irony

 

[Jim Smyth]

Just going by what you put in your profile:

Date of Birth:October 9, 1969
Age:36
Aircraft Flown-3, EMB
Civilian or Military:both
Aircraft Ratings:multiple
Current Position:EMB Driver
Total Time:5000+

 

[Spooky 1]

i am 46

you're probably 46 too right?

oh the irony

Hey Cyclone, just wondering if you are 46 and according to you profile you have only 5,000 hours I would suspect that maybe you did a full stint in the Navy flying P3's, (for which I thank for your service), but along with that maybe you have a US Navy retirement, perhaps with the rank of Commander. That would certainly influence my opinion on the age 60 retirement issue. What say I?

 

[Jim Smyth]

He seems to be a little quiet at the moment. Trying to figure how to dig himself out of his lie..........................

 

[Spooky 1]

He seems to be a little quiet at the moment. Trying to figure how to dig himself out of his lie..........................

I would not call the man a liar and lands knows someones profile might be totally off regarding age, experience etc. I don't think we there will ever be an overwelming agreement on this issue and I think the name calling by some is probably over the top. The original rule was flawed and still is. If you don't mind looking the other way, maybe we could go back to colored only restrooms and just pretend nothing wrong ever occured to begin with.