Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[FoxHunter]

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..

Your position on the issue has been very helpful in both the House and Senate. It gives everyone a much clearer view of what the real issue is in opposition to the change. :beer:

 

[Oh-ryan]

just sitting back and enjoying a good thread here... no one has thrown too much flame bait out there.

I have a question for the SWA guys... is there any kind of medical benefits/insurance provided by SWAPA from the day you turn 60 until the day you can collect medicare at age 65? Or are you own your own to find coverage?

 

[Sluggo_63]

Your position on the issue has been very helpful in both the House and Senate. It gives everyone a much clearer view of what the real issue is in opposition to the change. :beer:

Right, the real issue is the close-to-60 pilots want to have another 5 years as captain, while the far-from-60 pilots languish another 5 years as S/O or F/O.

I think the right thing to do would be to change the rule for anyone hired as a Part 121 pilot after a certain date. If you were hired before the cutoff date, you end at 60. If hired after the cutoff date, you can (which will probably turn into a 'must') fly to 65.

 

[TexaSWA]

Some of the senior guys have 35,000 quote]

They have 50,000

 

[Widow's Son]

For retirement medical, SWA will trade you full medical coverage to age 65 for both you and spouse for unused sick leave. It takes a little less than half the maximum you can accumulate just for yourself and a little more than half for both you and spouse. Other than that, they will allow you to purchase insurance at their age banded costs.

It is an area that I hope gets improved on the next contract.

BTW, most SWA Captains until the very recently upgraded, had very little upgrade enhancement because of retirements. We have more retirements now in some months than occured between the time I was hired and subsequently upgraded.

 

[Andy]

Thanks for the link regarding Dr. Jordan's testimony. Now for the rest of the story! He did make those remarks provided in the link. The problem he had were with the questions that followed. His performance was such that he is no longer the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon. He was Retired. S.65 was passed out of the Senate Committee.

FoxHunter, you are one crazy, senile MoFo. :nuts: Here's Dr Jordan's final column, from spring '06: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/editorials_jj/final/

The testimony I cited occurred summer 2005, and is eerily similar to testimony from 2001 (Dr Jordan's been the Federal Air Surgeon since 1991):
http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/01test/Lacey1.htm

I suppose that someone over the age of 60 retiring is so foreign to you that there must be more to the story. Dr Jordan wasn't retired; he ELECTED to retire.

It's one thing to grasp at any straw that you can. It's totally another to make false accusations about people. Dr. Jordan retired with dignity after a very long career; you, on the other hand, seem to be clinging to any hope to remain in the cockpit. uke:

Now, you want to tell everyone what the impact of S. 65 being passed by Senate subcommittee? That happened a while ago; back in March. The House version has been languishing in subcommittee. I have a feeling that you have absolutely no clue of what it takes for a bill to become a law. Maybe this will help: http://www.jacksheldon.com/school.htm

 

[Andy]

I'd like to add that I got a letter from my Congressman last week thanking me for my correspondence in support of changing the age 60 law. I immediately called the phone number listed and made sure that they knew that I am vehemently opposed to any change.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I think the right thing to do would be to change the rule for anyone hired as a Part 121 pilot after a certain date. If you were hired before the cutoff date, you end at 60. If hired after the cutoff date, you can (which will probably turn into a 'must') fly to 65.

I would accept that.

Of course, just to keep things "fair" and consistent, he would also be limited to flying only the routes and equipment his company operated on the day he was hired. His salary and benefits would also be capped at whatever they were the day he was hired. While we're at it, why not make it a real "Triple-Crown" and limit him to the domicile into which he was hired?

Think of how much simpler training and route checks will be, not to mention monthly bidding. Retirement planning as well.

New airplanes and new routes would be operated by new guys. (After all, a new-hires "career expectations" will be different...and higher, than yours) The same with domiciles...new domiciles, new pilots. No more &$&*#% windfalls for guys just because they got hired before you did.

No more "junior" or "senior" domiciles either. Just domiciles. Yours is the one you hired into. You don't like it? QUIT, and re-apply for a different one.

If the company closes a domicile or disposes of one type of equipment, you're gone, too. A little harsh? maybe. But as someone else mentioned, there are LOTS of flying jobs out there that are available to the newly or prematurely retired pilot. Think of it as a "mini-bankruptcy." Nothing will prevent you from instructing, flying corporate, or even buying a 182 and starting your own 135 operation. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to secure one of these interesting and lucrative flying jobs!

I hope we can get this passed fairly quickly. I'd like to get a few years in the left seat of one of FedEx's new A-380's before I retire...at age 60, of course.

 

[Sluggo_63]

I would accept that.

Of course, just to keep things "fair" and consistent, he would also be limited to flying only the routes and equipment his company operated on the day he was hired. His salary and benefits would also be capped at whatever they were the day he was hired. While we're at it, why not make it a real "Triple-Crown" and limit him to the domicile into which he was hired?

Think of how much simpler training and route checks will be, not to mention monthly bidding. Retirement planning as well.

New airplanes and new routes would be operated by new guys. (After all, a new-hires "career expectations" will be different...and higher, than yours) The same with domiciles...new domiciles, new pilots. No more &$&*#% windfalls for guys just because they got hired before you did.

No more "junior" or "senior" domiciles either. Just domiciles. Yours is the one you hired into. You don't like it? QUIT, and re-apply for a different one.

If the company closes a domicile or disposes of one type of equipment, you're gone, too. A little harsh? maybe. But as someone else mentioned, there are LOTS of flying jobs out there that are available to the newly or prematurely retired pilot. Think of it as a "mini-bankruptcy." Nothing will prevent you from instructing, flying corporate, or even buying a 182 and starting your own 135 operation. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to secure one of these interesting and lucrative flying jobs!

I hope we can get this passed fairly quickly. I'd like to get a few years in the left seat of one of FedEx's new A-380's before I retire...at age 60, of course.

I've heard you use this argument before, but to me, it doesn't hold water. When you and I were hired, there was a seniority system in place, there were system bids, there was the ability to move domiciles. That was all in place, along with the Age 60 rule. If the company today wanted to implement a pay freeze or roll-back to when I was hired, or come up with a rule that pilots could not change domicilies, that would be a different story. I would disagree with changing all those things mid-stream as much as I do changing the Age 60 rule mid-stream.

I appreciate your argument, but I don't agree with it.

 

[FoxHunter]

FoxHunter, you are one crazy, senile MoFo. :nuts: Here's Dr Jordan's final column, from spring '06: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/editorials_jj/final/

The testimony I cited occurred summer 2005, and is eerily similar to testimony from 2001 (Dr Jordan's been the Federal Air Surgeon since 1991):
http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/01test/Lacey1.htm

I suppose that someone over the age of 60 retiring is so foreign to you that there must be more to the story. Dr Jordan wasn't retired; he ELECTED to retire.

It's one thing to grasp at any straw that you can. It's totally another to make false accusations about people. Dr. Jordan retired with dignity after a very long career; you, on the other hand, seem to be clinging to any hope to remain in the cockpit. uke:

Now, you want to tell everyone what the impact of S. 65 being passed by Senate subcommittee? That happened a while ago; back in March. The House version has been languishing in subcommittee. I have a feeling that you have absolutely no clue of what it takes for a bill to become a law. Maybe this will help: http://www.jacksheldon.com/school.htm[/quote]

OK Andy