Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[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