Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[chase]

Southwest pilots as a whole don't support age 60 going away in my opinion. SWAPA says we do, but we haven't voted recently on the issue. 60% of the seniorty list wasn't even on property when the last vote was held.

SWAPA leadership and a few over zealous guys are making the push. Not SWA pilots as a whole. They had 40 something guys turn out to lobby congress. Not an overwhelming turnout if you ask me. Most guys I talk too don't want the rule to change.

It is a matter of some wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too. Unfortunately for most of us, it probably will change.

Last vote on Age 60 at SWAPA, closed on 15 April 2003. Here's some information to correct your statement (just trying to provide some clarification)

"M​

​

ore than 60 percent of the membership decided they wanted the association to continue its efforts to have the Age 60 rule repealed when the election closed on April15. Nearly 60 percent, 2,431pilots, of the total membership turned out to cast their vote on the issue.
The number of pilots voting yes to the question on whether they wanted SWAPA to continue its efforts to repeal the Age 60 rule was 1,458 or 60.25 percent, with 962 or 39.75 percent voting no."​

Additionally as of today (24 July 06) there are 5097 pilots on property. The number of new hires on the property that have arrived on 1 March '03 to today that have not voted on the issue totals 898. I don't believe that number equates to the percentage you mentioned in your post below.

While only 60% of the pilots who were on property at the time voted in the referendum, it was offered up to the membership for a vote. I suspect it may come back up for another vote sometime in the future if the restriction isn't lifted this year, if so the membership will have another opportunity to speak on the issue. Not trying to be a pain, just wanted to correct any misconception someone might gain from your post.

 

[Flycatcher99]

With only a 60% turnout in that vote, Chase, it seems that no conclusion can be drawn as to what the true percentage of for/against is on this issue. Further, a captain told me that it took three separate votes before the union got the majority vote they needed to continue their pursuit of a change in the legal retirement age.

At any rate, if I may editorialize a bit, while I certainly understand the desire of (some) captains to continue flying past 60, I have three points I'd like to make. First, no one is stopping them from flying for a living. There are plenty of avenues available to continue to make a living in aviation. Second, I'd like one of these captains to explain how age 60 is any more discriminatory than age 65. Third, if 65 is just as safe as 60, then why the caveat that only one crewmember can be over 60?

Again, I don't begrudge any of these folks their desire to continue in this great job past 60. I just don't appreciate the inference that some guys put forth that their position is more ethical and less greedy than mine.

 

[Widow's Son]

>>Second, I'd like one of these captains to explain how age 60 is any more discriminatory than age 65.<<

That's easy. 65 has been long established in our society as the traditional standard for retirement, which means that any baseline below that is artificially and capriciously low.
Age 65 is the minimum age that you can be considered by the government to be "fully retired" for benefits of the Social Security Administration, Medicaid/Medicare, and even the Pension Benefit Guarantee Association.

 

[Flopgut]

>> Age 65 is the minimum age that you can be considered by the government to be "fully retired" for benefits of the Social Security Administration, Medicaid/Medicare, and even the Pension Benefit Guarantee Association.

Not me Bozo, my age will be 67, so your reasoning won't help me in the same way. Of course it helps you, so that's ok.

 

[Widow's Son]

Floppy,

You're right. The same government who maintains age 60 has increased the official government retirement standard to age 67 and beyond. Do you know what they use to justify that? Updated actuarial data that reflect increased longevity.

 

[Andy]

>>Second, I'd like one of these captains to explain how age 60 is any more discriminatory than age 65.<<

That's easy. 65 has been long established in our society as the traditional standard for retirement, which means that any baseline below that is artificially and capriciously low.
Age 65 is the minimum age that you can be considered by the government to be "fully retired" for benefits of the Social Security Administration, Medicaid/Medicare, and even the Pension Benefit Guarantee Association.

You may want to do a bit of research to find out how that arbitrary number (65) was chosen. You'll need to go back to the Prussian retirement system set up by Otto von Bismarck in the 1800s. The reason why the age of 65 was chosen is that very few people lived to reach 65. I haven't been able to easily locate any Prussian actuarial tables (just a quick foray on Google), but I would venture to guess that the average Prussian lifespan was at least a decade short of 65, if not significantly greater.
If you apply the logic chosen for the retirement age of 65, it should now be set to somewhere north of 90. I suppose that if the change in retirement age was made, you would justify pilots flying to 90, eh?

 

[Andy]

Updated actuarial data that reflect increased longevity.

I sincerely hope that you aren't trying to link increased longevity with better health. I'd have to disagree; Americans are less healthy today than 50 years ago. Much of that increased longevity is due to medical advances ... medical advances where the quality of life is not a consideration.
Just take a stroll into your local hospital's ICU and take a look at how few 'DNR' orders there are, in spite of patients being hooked up to multiple lifesaving machines. To some, that's living. I place a much greater emphasis on quality of life.
And for the purposes of this discussion, we're focusing on quality of life.

 

[FoxHunter]

Not me Bozo, my age will be 67, so your reasoning won't help me in the same way. Of course it helps you, so that's ok.

I expect by the time you reach age 65 there will be no age limit. Some people will retire at age 60 and some at age 70, depending on the individual.:beer:

 

[Chest Rockwell]

With only a 60% turnout in that vote, Chase, it seems that no conclusion can be drawn as to what the true percentage of for/against is on this issue. Further, a captain told me that it took three separate votes before the union got the majority vote they needed to continue their pursuit of a change in the legal retirement age.

At any rate, if I may editorialize a bit, while I certainly understand the desire of (some) captains to continue flying past 60, I have three points I'd like to make. First, no one is stopping them from flying for a living. There are plenty of avenues available to continue to make a living in aviation. Second, I'd like one of these captains to explain how age 60 is any more discriminatory than age 65. Third, if 65 is just as safe as 60, then why the caveat that only one crewmember can be over 60?

Again, I don't begrudge any of these folks their desire to continue in this great job past 60. I just don't appreciate the inference that some guys put forth that their position is more ethical and less greedy than mine.

If it is okay for them to fly past age 60, why is it okay for them to be fired from a position for which they are qualified and capable simply for having a 60th birthday.

 

[Andy]

Andy, I saw Bob Hoover's last performance in the Shrike at Reno about 7 years ago. It didn't look like his shows when he was younger but it was ok. I just retired at 60 from a major and have wondered how do you know when you are too old. I can't answer that question. I still call my hair color brown but most is grey. It is such a gradual process of ageing that you compensate and only by looking at past pictures can you really tell any difference. A physical doesn't prove much.

Now, after three years of retirement, I am happy I didn't have to decide because it was done for me. I still have a first class physical but haven't flown since retirement. Never thought I could give it up but don't regret it either. Going six months at a time passing physicals might have made me continue too long. Waking up in the morning with nothing to do is a wonderful thing.

Bubbers44, I hope that you are savoring every day of your well deserved retirement.
If not for a mandatory retirement age, I wouldn't know when to call it quits. I can see the slow degeneration of my body, yet it is so incrementally small that it is barely noticable. I work out 5-6 days a week and that's where I really notice the small, continuous performance degradation. I can no longer bench press 300 pounds; 280 is now getting to be a struggle. My joints are a bit stiffer when I wake in the mornings. My eyesight, once 20/15, is now starting to go; I should be wearing glasses but don't. My knees give me fits when I run too long. My waist is expanding. These are all subtle reminders that all of my physical and mental abilities are deteriorating. A long, slow process, but they deteriorate nonetheless.
At what point should I never fly again? I don't know, and I know that I could find a friendly AME to give me another class I, even if I were a walking coronary time bomb.
The reason why having a mandatory retirement age is positive is that most pilots wouldn't call it quits until their skills have deteriorated past the point where they are dangerous. In some cases, well past that point.