Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[FoxHunter]

Perhaps you should stop listening to the drivel of Rep Gibbons and actually read about whether or not foreign pilots over age 60 are allowed to operate 121 aircraft in US airspace. They cannot. They may be able to after 23 Nov 06, but it is highly likely that the FAA has published or will publish an exception to the ICAO age rule and enforces age 60 as the maximum that any pilot can operate under part 121 in the US. Foreign or domestic pilot.

No drivel from Rep. Gibbons! Foreign Captains will be operating into US airspace and airports after 23 Nov 06. Foreign F/Os have been doing the same for years. The USA and the French can keep age 60 but they will no longer be able to restrict others.

I was a DC8 F/O back in 1974 flying for a Dominican company called Aerovias Quisqueyana. All the Captains were over age 60, the Chief Pilot was age 69, all retired EAL, flying MIA-Santo Domingo-San Juan. At the same time almost all the Air Jamaica DC8 Captains were all over age 60, retired EAL, flying to US destinations. ICAO had not adopted a max age of 60 until the early 70s and it took the FAA until 1975 to put any age restriction on pilots for foreign carriers.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Thanks Falcon and SWA/FO for the honest estimate. My honest question is: If your going to have over 3 mil. why work?

Flopgut,

My point exactly. At an average rate of return between 8 - 10%, they would be able to make between $240,000 to $300,000 per year -- all without working. What are they thinking? Working to age 65 no doubt cuts down on one's own longevity. What about the wording as to no two pilots above the age of sixty in one cockpit. Is it safe or not.

It's no secret that Southwest is a major participant behind the legislation to repeal age 65. Posters bring up United, DAL, and NWA, but those players are/were in bankruptcy with no leverage. In a case such as Southwest, with the company doing as well as it is, it absolutely makes no sense. Do you guys not think how this will adversely impact the rest of the industry?

Southwest, if you want more money, then negotiate it for yourself at your own company. Don't screw the rest of us. Get higher pay rates, better retirement, whatever. Going through Congress to get more money is a crock.


AA767AV8TOR

 

[Andy]

No drivel from Rep. Gibbons! Foreign Captains will be operating into US airspace and airports after 23 Nov 06. Foreign F/Os have been doing the same for years. The USA and the French can keep age 60 but they will no longer be able to restrict others.

Foxhunter, I'd bet that you are wrong. It is widely expected that the FAA will file an exception to this change. IF the US files an exception, no foreign pilot over 60 will be permitted into US airspace.

And FWIW, the US has the most exceptions to ICAO rules of any country.

 

[FoxHunter]

You guys that talk about 8%-10%-12% on your retirement plans are in LA LA Land. That is what caused all the "A" plan failures in the first place. I would suggest you use 4% and hope to be lucky.:crying:

 

[Mach 80]

For some pilots at SWA, money for retirment isn't even a factor. They simply enjoy what they do and don't want to putz around the house or hang out at the golf course every day. The atmosphere at work is great, they fly fairly new airplanes, and they have fun. If someone wants to retire at age 60 then go ahead and retire or build it into YOUR contract but don't tell others what they have to do.

 

[FoxHunter]

Foxhunter, I'd bet that you are wrong. It is widely expected that the FAA will file an exception to this change. IF the US files an exception, no foreign pilot over 60 will be permitted into US airspace.

And FWIW, the US has the most exceptions to ICAO rules of any country.

You would lose that bet!:beer:

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

This is the second time you've characterized age 60 as "early retirement"....in your earlier post #4, you made the same statement. If age 60 is "early",....then what is "normal" retirement age....65???

Prussian,

Age 60 is normal retirement for Part 121 and has been for over 40 years. It's what we all signed up for. When you look at the entire spectrum of employment across the US and when social security pays out, you could call age 65 a normal retirement age for the rest of the work force. That’s what I mean by a built-in early retirement. Controllers retire at age 55.

Keep in mind, we are not in a normal profession. Flying packed commercial airliners worldwide across many different time zones is very demanding. It would be very risky in my mind to go all the way to 65. The senate also sees it that way, hence the wording to not allow two pilots over the age of 60 into one cockpit. Is not age 65 also age discrimination?

This fight is really all about greed and abrogation of seniority. If it wasn’t the pro-65’ers would be fighting to get all the recently retired guys back into the cockpit. We all know that is not the case. To be truly fair, since we all signed up for age 60 retirement, all the guys coming back after age 60 should be put at the back of the seniority list. Do you think that will happen?

The age 60 rule has served us well for over 40 years and counting. Increasing the age to 65 is opening up a Pandora’s Box. If you truly need to work, then go out and find a job. Fly overseas. Teach in the sim. Start a business. Enjoy your family. Jobs are out there if you need them.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Ty Webb]

I don't want to be doing this job in 20 years, let alone 25! The real solution is legislation to extend Social Security and Medicare to people who have a mandatory age 60 retirement.

If you move the retirement age to 65, management will just want to lower longevity and the 401K contribution so you end up with the same. . . . . more work, same $$. No, thanks!


.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

For some pilots at SWA, money for retirment isn't even a factor. They simply enjoy what they do and don't want to putz around the house or hang out at the golf course every day. The atmosphere at work is great, they fly fairly new airplanes, and they have fun. If someone wants to retire at age 60 then go ahead and retire or build it into YOUR contract but don't tell others what they have to do.

Mach 80,

Sorry, you have it backwards. The rule is age 60 and has been that way for over 40 years. It's what we all signed up for. It has served us all well and has been safe. Trouble is the senior guys want their cake and eat it too. You are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. If you want to continue working, go overseas, instruct in a 182, but don't screw with my seniority.

If the age increases to age 65, make no mistake, there will be an early out penalty to go at 60.

With thousands of pilots still out in the street, your agrument about just wanting to fly more is extremely selfish and self serving. Please consider how age 65 will impacts the rest of the industry.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

I don't want to be doing this job in 20 years, let alone 25! The real solution is legislation to extend Social Security and Medicare to people who have a mandatory age 60 retirement.

If you move the retirement age to 65, management will just want to lower longevity and the 401K contribution so you end up with the same. . . . . more work, same $$. No, thanks!


.

BINGO!!!!!

Ty Webb, you broke the code!!

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

You guys that talk about 8%-10%-12% on your retirement plans are in LA LA Land. That is what caused all the "A" plan failures in the first place. I would suggest you use 4% and hope to be lucky.:crying:

FoxHunter,

Now you guys are really starting to scare me. Do you not understand how to invest or do you think you got to work for the rest of your life. There are other retirement plans besides an A Fund if you feel uncomfortable. Our B plan alone made over 15% last year. A 7% rate of return is very conservative over the long term. By investing wisely, a 7-12% return is very doable.

Once again, a 401K was never designed as a stand alone retirement plan.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Flopgut]

For some pilots at SWA, money for retirment isn't even a factor. They simply enjoy what they do and don't want to putz around the house or hang out at the golf course every day. The atmosphere at work is great, they fly fairly new airplanes, and they have fun. If someone wants to retire at age 60 then go ahead and retire or build it into YOUR contract but don't tell others what they have to do.

Don't tell others what they have to do?! That's exactly what your doing by wanting this rule changed!

If someone wants to keep flying past 60 go work for a fractional, or buy a Skyhawk. Build it into your own plans but don't tell others what to do. How's that sound?

You need to understand that in this business, the way we have it set up (seniority), your retirement date is no less important than your date of hire. Neither one should be artificially changed.

 

[Flopgut]

I wouldn't take those honest estimates too seriously...they sound slightly to grossly over-estimated (especially if you're talking about a guy hired on in, say 1985)

Would it be a safer bet to say they have around 2 mil.?

 

[Flopgut]

You guys that talk about 8%-10%-12% on your retirement plans are in LA LA Land. That is what caused all the "A" plan failures in the first place. I would suggest you use 4% and hope to be lucky.:crying:

Maybe instead of stricter medical standards, we need to pass a test for minimum financial acuity?

Or overhaul the rules for divorce decrees for air line pilots?

 

[SWA/FO]

Yeah guys that amount of cash sounds like a lot to me. I didn't believe it when he told me.

I work now for my families future. My parents have worked their whole lifes, making 65000 between the both of them. I help them out (since they paid for my college and helped with most of my flight costs.) The least I can do.

My kids have an excellent college fund. I don't plan on working until 65, but the option would be nice. I work now cus, I don't have 3 million yet...but I will.

Andy I hope UAL furloughs you next. That will teach you to wish bad karma on me!!

 

[The Prussian]

Would it be a safer bet to say they have around 2 mil.?

Flopgut,

Can't speak for everyone out there, but I would put the guestimate at closer to the 1-2 mil range, and that may even be slightly over-estimating what the average 1985-ish hire has acrued. (I'm speaking Profit Sharing plus 401k)

Prussian

 

[Flopgut]

SWA/FO: You need to know more about what your senior pilots have. If you don't know/care, then they aren't going to care what you get. And you want to set an example for the pilots that are junior to you; You want them to care about what you have and you them as well.

The SWA guys I'm familiar with are not really friends, so they won't say what they have. In some cases it looks like they have dough, some not. I can't figure it out.

I'm familiar with CAL pilots, but I won't bore you with that.

 

[Judge]

AA767Aviator,

I don't think you understand what you are saying. Most of the SWAPA pilots that are trying to change the rule already have plenty of money, as in a couple mill in stock options, profit sharing, 401k, 417 and IRA. They believe this is a b.s. rule, pure and simple.

The ones I have spoken with have been fighting this law for 20 years or more. They haven't just come up with it in the last 3 or 4 years to screw you (and me) over. It's age discrimination. Just as in race or religion, or baldness, in my case.

But you think it's because they don't have enough retirement money and are in it for themselves? What about your argument? Talk about hypocritical. You are against it, b/c it hurts your upgrade time. So you are against changing the rule b/c of your own situation. How can that argument hold water, if the other side doesn't either?

 

[Palomino]

I say we lower it to age 55 and adopt the Ty Webb plan.

Otherwise...we will all work to death. Who the heck wants to do that?

 

[Aubie]

My opinion on this changed after I flew with a couple senior captains that really don't need to keep flying after 60. I know forcing retirements at age 60 is a little conservative and plenty of guys cansurely still fly til 65, but considering how rigorous our yearly physicals are (a joke) I don't think 65 is a good idea. It's not about an extra million in the bank over a career, its about keeping guys who are burnt out and/or whose flying and communication skills have significantly deteriorated out of the cockpit. No offense to anyone intended, I'll be an old fart too one day, but senior citizens never recognize when their own skills are going. Is an arbitrary age fair? Of course not. But keeping it at 60 keeps the small number of guys who really shouldn't keep flying out of the cockpit. $$$ should not be the issue.

 

[Flopgut]

Judge:

I occaisionally make the argument that if we are going to change the seniority dynamic by simply changing retirement age and granting an enormous windfall to our current captains (for the most part), then maybe we should consider abandoning seniority at the same time? Because in changing this rule the benefits of seniority progression are voided for 5 years, and simultaneously we are to agree that age has no bearing on safety, is it a good time to throw out this practice of seniority?

I choose to say this mostly to play devil's advocate. I don't think its too good an idea. But how long is it going to take some group to advance the theory that seniority is discriminatory? Think about it. The extra five years of working registers primarily in dollars. The money is dispersed disproportionally based on the day you got hired. Those enjoying the windfall do so through no discipline or effort. In fact, it betrays not only you and I, but almost all retirees before. You feeling discriminated against a little?

Remember: guys like Foxhunter and Bringingupthebird don't care what this rule change leads to in the future. They only want something now for their own needs and they'll scuttle the rest of us to get it.

 

[sfomarc]

How old was the Captain in MDW that couldn't get the reverser's deployed and the FO did after 18 seconds?

59 1/2

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

Ive actually tried to get this bs back to a vote at SWAPA. If it doesnt pass this year in congress, it will go back to a vote which will also include how much money they can spend lobbying(our accounting until a few months ago looked like Enron at SWAPA). It will not pass if it is voted on again, too many new guys that dont want to yank gear for another 2-3 years. I couldnt imagine being at a carrier that this would keep guys on the street longer and also make it a 20 yr upgrade. These guys that want to keep working (58+yr old), who ifly with often are all on this age discrimination b.s kick, then I tell them that we should bring back guys that have retired, then they say well the new regs say they cant comeback. hypoctritical. I do fly with some who will leave never looking back. Some guys just dont have a life besides airplanes and basically never enjoyed life.( Some I cant blame, if my wife were as ugly as theirs I would want to keep working on the smallest chance I might get some strange on the road)

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

AA767Aviator,

I don't think you understand what you are saying. Most of the SWAPA pilots that are trying to change the rule already have plenty of money, as in a couple mill in stock options, profit sharing, 401k, 417 and IRA. They believe this is a b.s. rule, pure and simple.

The ones I have spoken with have been fighting this law for 20 years or more. They haven't just come up with it in the last 3 or 4 years to screw you (and me) over. It's age discrimination. Just as in race or religion, or baldness, in my case.

But you think it's because they don't have enough retirement money and are in it for themselves? What about your argument? Talk about hypocritical. You are against it, b/c it hurts your upgrade time. So you are against changing the rule b/c of your own situation. How can that argument hold water, if the other side doesn't either?

Judge,

I got to wave the BS flag on this one. I’ve been flying part 121 for 15 years. The pro-65 movement for the last ten years has been from a small, but albeit consistent group of pilots. I know, because I’ve been fighting it for 10 years and it has always contained a lot of Southwest pilots.

For the most part pro 65’ers fall into 4 categories:

1) The pilot that’s been divorced 3 times.
2) The pilot that’s lost retirement due to bankruptcy.
3) Retired military pilots.
4) Southwest Pilots

I understand about 1 through 3, but it’s the mentality of the Southwest guys that I do not understand. You guys are the one of best paid and living large. You say you are going to retire with a lot of money so why do you want to screw the rest of us – I don’t get it. So far, none of what you guys have said really justifies changing the rule that will negatively affect so many at the different carriers.

Moreover Judge, the guys that say they been fighting it for 20 years are BS’s you. No one fights age 60 when they are young. They want to keep the progression train moving. It’s only as enter into their 50’s and looking at losing their seat when the movement takes on new meaning. All this amounts to be is an abrogation of seniority. Senior guys just want to hang on to their seat an additional five years. For the guys flying wide body left seat, it’s a complete windfall for them.

It’s economics for everyone young and old. What’s hypocritical about the pro 65’ers is that they are just simply substituting one number for another. Is not age 65 discrimination too? If the pro 65’ers were truly concerned about age discrimination they would be fighting to bring back all the pilots between age 60 and 65 when this rule goes into effect. Judge, do you think that will happen. No, they just want to hold on to their seat and seniority.

Finally, I am not trying to change the rule with thousands of pilots out in the streets. No doubt that if this rule changes, hiring at the majors will drop drastically for the next five years.

What I just don’t get is if in fact you do have plenty of money as you so state, why are you for changing a rule that will negatively affect some many of us?

Finally, the fairest way to settle this would be for those hired under the age 60 retirement rule, it should stay that way. If you want to continue working past age 60, you should have to start fresh at another carrier. So for those that just want to fly to 65, go for it, get a job at another carrier, but don’t mess with the junior’s guy seniority and progression.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[FlyBarneyJets]

How old was the Captain in MDW that couldn't get the reverser's deployed and the FO did after 18 seconds?

If you think that had ANYTHING to do with age, I think you're a few apples short of a bushel.

As far as the age 65 thing, the ONE thing that ticks me off about being forced BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to retire at 60 is the fact that we're not allowed to receive social security or medicare until after we turn 65. In my opinion, changing that for all workers forced to retire prior to 65 is where we pilot's legislative efforts should be concentrated.

 

[mdf]

Judge,

I got to wave the BS flag on this one. I’ve been flying part 121 for 15 years. The pro-65 movement for the last ten years has been from a small, but albeit consistent group of pilots. I know, because I’ve been fighting it for 10 years and it has always contained a lot of Southwest pilots.

For the most part pro 65’ers fall into 4 categories:

1) The pilot that’s been divorced 3 times.
2) The pilot that’s lost retirement due to bankruptcy.
3) Retired military pilots.
4) Southwest Pilots

I understand about 1 through 3, but it’s the mentality of the Southwest guys that I do not understand. (End Quote)


If you understand number 3 than you should understand number 4. I don't know how many retired military pilots SWA has, but it's seems like alot.

 

[Judge]

Finally, the fairest way to settle this would be for those hired under the age 60 retirement rule, it should stay that way. If you want to continue working past age 60, you should have to start fresh at another carrier. So for those that just want to fly to 65, go for it, get a job at another carrier, but don’t mess with the junior’s guy seniority and progression.

AA767AV8TOR [/quote]


I agree with what you said at the end. Maybe there should be a grandfather clause. If you were hired by a 121 carrier when this law was in effect, then you live by that law. In that way, the furloughed guys get a look back earlier.....maybe. Once the furloughed guys are back (if ever), I suspect they would want 5 extra higher paying years. Most of the 59 yr old dudes have been furloughed, from a previous life, just like the guys on the street now.

If you didn't work for an airline, and lawmakers do not, then you would see this law as age discrimination. It should be based on passing a real medical. Not the joke of a medical we have now.

Personally, I don't want it to pass, b/c it delays my upgrade by 2 or 3 years, but I still think it is wrong to discriminate based on a number, gender, color, etc. It was a backroom, handshake deal to get senior, higher paid pilots out the door. We should all be against that, unless you work for management.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Age 60 is normal retirement for Part 121 and has been for over 40 years. It's what we all signed up for.

I'm just curious...

You apparently work for AA, and from several of your posts, you seem determined to see that pilots get "what they signed up for." Would that include the pilots of TWA, or are they a "special case?"

With all due respect, I didn't see anybody in your shop trying to ensure that they (the TWA pilots) "got what they signed up for" (fair and equitable integration of the seniority lists in the event of a merger) when you took over their operation. You rolled right over most of 'em... "like a steamroller, baby" It was a windfall from which your pilot group gladly benefited.

Of course, you could make an argument that anybody who accepted employment at AA under the "B" scale should expect to see their salary capped at whatever the hourly rates at the LCC's are. After all, that's what they "signed up for." The same would apply, of course, to the ex-Reno and ex-Air Cal guys.

And how about the International flying that AA does? I'll bet that most of the skippers on those routes were hired in the mid-to-late 80's, long before AA acquired EAL's and TWA's International routes. Does it bother them that they "signed up" for a position with a domestic trunk airline, but now find themselves working for a major International carrier, flying international routes?

In fact, is anybody at AA getting "what they signed up for?" If not, what are they doing about it? Bringing back the TWA guys? Offering to fly 767's for 737 money? Not cashing their International overide checks?

My point is, that of all the arguments made in support of retention of the "Age 60" rule (and there are some good ones), the one that posits that we, as pilots, should expect nothing more than "what we signed up for" is probably the weakest. None of us are "getting what we signed up for." Sometimes that's a good thing, like when your company takes over the routes of a weaker or bankrupt company, or buys larger aircraft. Sometimes it's a bad thing...like when they repeal the age 60 rule before you can hold a Captains bid.

What I find interesting is that most of the guys who want to abolish the rule are those in their late 30's and early 40's...the ones who are closing in on the left seat. What they don't seem to realize is that while their carrier might be posting a profit now, they're still young enough to expect that their airline will go through at least one, and maybe more, economic downturns before they retire. Fuel prices aren't going down..."The $hit don't go back in the donkey" There will be a further erosion of benefits (including retirement) among ALL U.S. carriers until the playing field is again equal, as it was before. I seriously doubt that ANY U.S. carrier will have an "A" plan of any substance in 10 years. (I certainly hope that any one I hold stock in doesn't)

There's "what we signed up for," then there's what IS. I know which one I'm making my plans around...

 

[Cobra]

One thing I never see mentioned is that if the "gubment" changed the age from 60 to 65 it would set a precedent for other workers to have their age limit removed as well. Does anybody realize that there are many civil service jobs where an employee must retire by their 57th birthday?

Personally, I am not for the age change whatsoever. However, it is BS that a guy cannot reap SS benefits from age 60 and beyond.

ALPA's membership has spoken, the largest group by far in the industry. It is not in favor of changing the age to 65... Soooo, all you gentlemen who expressed your opinion in disfavor of an age change I would suggest that you express your opinion a little louder to your various congressmen. The squeakiest wheel gets the grease, and the squeaking is not emanating from the majority voice.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

I'm just curious...

You apparently work for AA, and from several of your posts, you seem determined to see that pilots get "what they signed up for." Would that include the pilots of TWA, or are they a "special case?"

With all due respect, I didn't see anybody in your shop trying to ensure that they (the TWA pilots) "got what they signed up for" (fair and equitable integration of the seniority lists in the event of a merger) when you took over their operation. You rolled right over most of 'em... "like a steamroller, baby" It was a windfall from which your pilot group gladly benefited.
...

Yes, I am a native American. I have 15 years as FE and in the right seat. If age 65 happens, I am probably looking at upgrade at the 20 – 22 year point.

I don't know where you got your info, but in my case even though I had 10 years on the property at American, I still lost over 600 numbers to the T-way guys. Hardly what I would call a “steamroll.” T-way also got a lot of protected Captain slots in STL. APA didn’t protect any Captain jobs on our side of the fence. The Captain positions at T-way never materialized over at American. American is also parking a lot of the old T-way 757’s next year. Keep in mind, T-way was an acquisition not a merger.

Fact is we have over 2000 furloughs on the street, both native and T-way. I fully understand about not getting what you signed up for, but in this case it’s pilots hosing other pilots. In all your other examples it was management going after pilots.

Age 65 is still age discrimination. It is an abrogation of seniority. It is nothing less than the older guys trying to hold on to their higher paying seat an additional five years. It’s a massive windfall for them.

Yes, things change in the industry, but this is self induced; pilots going after other pilots and in this case the senior guys going after the junior guys. This is happening when lots of pilots are still out in the street. It’s sad. If you want to see why this profession continues to degrade all you have to do is look in the mirror.

Don’t kid yourself, though the argument is ostensibly about safety, the bottom line is money.


AA767AV8TOR