Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Southwest Airilnes Crosses into the Gray

  • Thread starter Thread starter chase
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 25

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
atpcliff said:
Hi!

Foxhunter, thanx 4 posting the exact wording.

Now, my question is, what do they mean by SS age? Would it be 62, which is the early retirement age? Or would it be the regular age, which varies depending on when you were born, and starts at 65? If that is the cas, and I assume it is, then the FAA could mandate different retirement ages for individual pilots based on their SS elligibility age.

Also, since the wording of the two bills is ALREADY the same, I believe that improves the chances of passage of the bills, since it indicates that the House and Senate already got together prior to introducing the bills so that there won't be problems later. Most bills are different, and a House-Senate committee has to hash out the differences.

Cliff
YIP

It be the normal full retirement age and will depend on the year you were born. I was born in October 1947 so my Social Security age is 66, for the younger people it is now 67 with the very real potential of going higher to solve the funding problem.
 
Hi!

michael707767:

ATC personnel are NOT required to retire at 56. If they want to stay past 56, ATC may or may not approve their request on a case-by-case basis. They have to pass an annual review after age 56. There is no maximum age beyond 56.

Cliff
YIP
 
Can someone tell me why the Southwest pilot group wants age 60 repealed so bad that they want their union leading the charge in DC? I'm not making any judgements, but I'm just curious to hear from a line pilot the reasons why SWAPA has always lead the fight for this change?
 
nimtz said:
Can someone tell me why the Southwest pilot group wants age 60 repealed so bad that they want their union leading the charge in DC? I'm not making any judgements, but I'm just curious to hear from a line pilot the reasons why SWAPA has always lead the fight for this change?

Because ALPA is stuck in the past.:(
 
1. Flying airplanes at SWA is enjoyable and fun and management treats you well. It would certainly beat sitting around the house listening to your wife 7 days a week or piddling around on the golf course 5 days a week with a bunch of other has beens with their boring stories. I know a lot of pilots who thought they really would enjoy retirement but instead they are bored and miss the comraderie and fun of their airline work and are nearly going insane from to much time around the house and wife.

2. More importantly - two or 3 or more years more income and contributing to the 401k and getting profit sharing would mean a VERY large difference from 2 to 5 years of no contributions and sucking money out of the 401K 2, 3, or more years earlier. A HUGE difference.

Let's just look at 2 years more flying -- instead of taking, say $90,000/yr FROM your 401K (or converted to IRA) which would be $180,000, instead you contributed another $18,000/yr plus a company match of about $14,000, a year (total of $32,000/yr) plus the income of $190,000 each year from working......is a grand total of a net $624,000 total difference in money flow. And that was just for TWO more years...let alone 3 or more. A HUGE difference from leaving at age 60. (And I didn't add anything from profit sharing or added investments from the salary).

3. Many guys will retire at 60 anyway and some guys who will fly past age 60 would probably give away a trip or two or month...a very relaxing schedule and a nice chance to get out of the house and away from blabbermouth. (see #1).
 
Last edited:
One of our former Pilots (Bert Yetman) that is currently retired and well over the age of 60, many years ago took on the challange of trying to make a difference reguarding the age 60 rule. He still leads the charge for the PPF which is gaining massive momentum because of the current Pension problems of the industry.


http://www.ppf.org/


It had been voted on by our SWAPA Union membership over the years and always passes by a pretty good margin each time. If you think about it, almost all the Captains would want the age rule changed. If nothing more than to have a choice. About 1/3 of the FO's would want it changed because there is a percentage of them that came from the military after putting there 20 years in and are in there early 40's when they got on plus you have some younger guys that are thinking of what happens down the road when I get there. So IMO you will always have the majority siding with extending the age 60 rule.
 
Can't wait to see how many old geezers fall and break a hip getting out of the cockpit! <g>
 
By the time the present pilots reach age 65, the SSN retirement age will be rasied to 66+
 
If you don't want to fly till you die, just stop flying. Nobody is suggesting that you have to fly past age 60, the change in the law just gives pilots the option. The comments about boats, wives etc are childish. With your vast experience, you probably have a good feel for all that has happenedto the DB and DC plans at the legacy carriers. For a pilot to be forced into unemployment just so another can advance more rapidly makes no sense at all. The industry has always been cyclical, and will continue to be so. I think that last year was near record setting as far as total pilots hired, the problem is that the jobs were not with the traditional legacy carriers. Your time will come, be patient.

BS. If you don't think my A plan will be destroyed if I leave at 55, which I plan on doing, you're crazy. I realize the DC's have been attacked. My point is don't make me pay since you didn't plan otherwise in an unstable job. My time has come my friend, my airline makes money, lots and lots. But whose to say it will in the future. That is why I am putting away lots of my money. Go play golf and quit screwing the young guys you selfish ones.
 
Extending retirement age

Sorry guys! This is all my fault! I JUST got my type!!! You can blame it all on me. Call it my luck in this industry.
 
I am not surprised many of the companies w/ current pension plans are not pushing for this more. Everyone is under-funded. By increasing the retirement age, it will reduce the amount that each account is under-funded.

For example, if the age is raised to 65. The group currently has 8,000 pilots. If the average payout per pilot is (this is an arbitrary #) $100,000 per year + medical benefits then the company could save $800,000,000 per year (8,000 pilots @ $100,000) times 5 years for a total of $4,000,000,000 plus medical benefits.

Even if current plans are frozen, as NWA pilots are considering, this would help the viability of the plans long term.
 
mjs said:
By increasing the retirement age, it will reduce the amount that each account is under-funded.

For example, if the age is raised to 65. The group currently has 8,000 pilots. If the average payout per pilot is (this is an arbitrary #) $100,000 per year + medical benefits then the company could save $800,000,000 per year (8,000 pilots @ $100,000) times 5 years for a total of $4,000,000,000 plus medical benefits.

The numbers are a little more complicated than that, because you also have longevity pay issues and training costs.

Let's say you are replacing a 15th year pay CA with a 7th yr pay CA. You are also replacing a 7th yr FO with a newhire, but you are incurring two training events, at least, but amortizing them over the number of years. Then there are the taxes, employer contributions, etc to be made on the lower amounts.

Maybe someone would like to crunch those numbers, but it looks like the $100K the reitree is getting will be subsidized in large part with the newhire's probationary year pay . . . . :mad:
 
A general rule of thumb in this business, if your company wants it, you probably DON'T!
 
Purpledog said:
A general rule of thumb in this business, if your company wants it, you probably DON'T!

Another general rule of thumb in this business is that new, inexperienced guys like you don't have a F...kn clue. Let me guess, went to college, Uncle Sam taught you to fly, had a buddy or two at Fedex, got the job, and now the world owes you. I think 25 years from now your views will be far different after you complete your education on the realities of life.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom