Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[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.