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.