SWA and Age65... lets get this straight.

[HalinTexas]

Dude, you don't even work at swa. Speaking of which, do you think they are slowly taking over ATA? I have a few friends at swa who seem to think so. I don't know much about it though.

Talk about a thread hijack.

I wanted the thread to stay on topic. If you want to start one about B6 and/or transcon turns fine, but let's stay on topic.

Having said that.........

Yes, and without spending any money. ATA is a place marker until SWA starts international flying and/or finds a suitable ETOPS airplane. Until that point, ATA is testing markets for SWA. I site KDEN as a prime example.

Mattlin-Patterson, our owner, has no interest or experience in running an airline. Yes, they are trying to buy Varig, and offered some money to Aloha, but they have no track record other than "flipping" distressed non-aviation companies.

Our CEO is a former CFO at SWA. He came out of retirement to "help" Herb and Gary out. Where do you think his loyalties lie? He has never given any long-term vision for ATA outside of codeshare (see above) and military ad hoc flying. However, I suppose he is doing a pretty good job, but I don't think anyone expects much except the employees of ATA.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

But somewhere around 45 - 55% of us are not represented by the title of that thread,

I think it is more the latter....40-45%. When the vote on this was taken in 2003....only around 60% of the pilots cared enough to take part in that one....and it passed with around 60% ( of the 60% who voted) saying that this is the way the SWA pilot group should go.

Since 2003, there have only been around 1000 +/- pilot hired....surely not all 1000 +/- are in favor of keeping it at age 60.

It still is the majority that want this to continue....however, it is not a big bone of contention around here....just on web boards.

Tejas

 

[hawkerflyer]

Wasn't the original consideration an extension to 63 ?

 

[Bavarian Chef]

I wanted the thread to stay on topic. If you want to start one about B6 and/or transcon turns fine, but let's stay on topic.

Having said that.........

Yes, and without spending any money. ATA is a place marker until SWA starts international flying and/or finds a suitable ETOPS airplane. Until that point, ATA is testing markets for SWA. I site KDEN as a prime example.

Mattlin-Patterson, our owner, has no interest or experience in running an airline. Yes, they are trying to buy Varig, and offered some money to Aloha, but they have no track record other than "flipping" distressed non-aviation companies.

Our CEO is a former CFO at SWA. He came out of retirement to "help" Herb and Gary out. Where do you think his loyalties lie? He has never given any long-term vision for ATA outside of codeshare (see above) and military ad hoc flying. However, I suppose he is doing a pretty good job, but I don't think anyone expects much except the employees of ATA.

Just curious. Thanks. The thread's getting back on track while we speak.

 

[Flopgut]

After the age 60 rule, what can we expect as the next thing SWA (or another LCC) wants to wreck in this business?

Just wondering.

 

[BVT94]

I am for the change just because it is a Bull$hit rule to begin with. Its also for my own selfish reasons, if/when I get closer to that age and my sick bank may or may not be full depending on what happens later on in life.

With that being said I surely hope I dont have to work anywhere close to 65 to survive in retirement. We are currently going into a section 6. You younger guys just make sure you consider any retirement changes that may be voted into this contract so I "CAN" leave early and you can have my seat/senoirty and all the BS that goes with it!

Yeah, Ill consider YOU just like you'll consider ME next time you vote on age 60.
I honestly feel bad for the UAL, Delta, and US Airways guys that have lost all their pensions, but I'm sick and tired of all of our guys whining about this age 60 crap. The bottom line is that OUR Union is spending MY dues on something that is gonna greatly affect my quality of life in a negative way.

I spent 6 years in the right seat looking at Captain's photo albums of Harley's, boats, houses, airplanes, fake boobs,etc. and then they say "We gotta get this age 60 rule changed, its discrimination!" GMAFB Its not about discrimination, its about money. Under our current administration, SWAPA has pissed away countless manhours and resources on Age 60 when they could have been figuring out a way to get more benefits for us so we dont have to fly past 60.

 

[Flopgut]

Yeah, Ill consider YOU just like you'll consider ME next time you vote on age 60.
I honestly feel bad for the UAL, Delta, and US Airways guys that have lost all their pensions, but I'm sick and tired of all of our guys whining about this age 60 crap. The bottom line is that OUR Union is spending MY dues on something that is gonna greatly affect my quality of life in a negative way.

I spent 6 years in the right seat looking at Captain's photo albums of Harley's, boats, houses, airplanes, fake boobs,etc. and then they say "We gotta get this age 60 rule changed, its discrimination!" GMAFB Its not about discrimination, its about money. Under our current administration, SWAPA has pissed away countless manhours and resources on Age 60 when they could have been figuring out a way to get more benefits for us so we dont have to fly past 60.

You may not agree with me and my harsh critiques, but that's a great post! You've got it right.

 

[Dane Bramage]

SWAPA'a official stance on changing age 60 may or may not represent the majority of the 5000+ pilots on the present seniority roster. Current union executives do not plan for another age 60 support vote in the near future, or so our VP said in June.

My gut feel is that a vote right now to continue funding for a change to age 60 would fail. Previous surveys and votes have always been worded in a "touchy-feely" way to bring out an emotional response...and thus an emotional vote. The only time SWAPA voted on something approaching an actual change to age 60, it was convincingly trounced. This was a vote for a test of SWA pilots flying past age 60 and was to be part of a study by Johns Hopkins University. When the actual impact on FO's and junior captains was revealed, the vote was overwhelmingly against the test. This was back in the 1999-2000 timeframe. The union continued to put forth votes to support change, but again they were worded more toward the "principle of discrimination" and failed to bring out the negative financial impact it would have on junior pilots and the company. They finally got one of these "emotional" votes to pass during an election vote in 2003, and have not had another vote since. Bottom line: A few men got what they could spin into a "mandate" to change age 60 by SWAPA, and now refuse to readdress the issue.

I think everyone knows most guys are perfectly capable of flying commercial airliners until age 65. The rule was financially driven when it was created, and after 50+ years of medical advances and lifestyle improvements it now clearly does not pass the common sense test. But...and this is a big BUT...changing the rule will have very negative initial impact on junior pilots and future airline pilots,as well. Until the entire system operates under a higher retirement age for at least 30 years, there will be varying degrees of negative impact.

BOTTOM LINE: I don't believe the majority of SWA pilots support changing age 60, but the current union execs will not allow another vote on the issue. Stay tuned next January after the election of a new union president. But don't hold your breath...representing the majority at SWAPA hasn't always been a priority.

 

[Flopgut]

SWAPA'a official stance on changing age 60 may or may not represent the majority of the 5000+ pilots on the present seniority roster. Current union executives do not plan for another age 60 support vote in the near future, or so our VP said in June.

My gut feel is that a vote right now to continue funding for a change to age 60 would fail. Previous surveys and votes have always been worded in a "touchy-feely" way to bring out an emotional response...and thus an emotional vote. The only time SWAPA voted on something approaching an actual change to age 60, it was convincingly trounced. This was a vote for a test of SWA pilots flying past age 60 and was to be part of a study by Johns Hopkins University. When the actual impact on FO's and junior captains was revealed, the vote was overwhelmingly against the test. This was back in the 1999-2000 timeframe. The union continued to put forth votes to support change, but again they were worded more toward the "principle of discrimination" and failed to bring out the negative financial impact it would have on junior pilots and the company. They finally got one of these "emotional" votes to pass during an election vote in 2003, and have not had another vote since. Bottom line: A few men got what they could spin into a "mandate" to change age 60 by SWAPA, and now refuse to readdress the issue.

I think everyone knows most guys are perfectly capable of flying commercial airliners until age 65. The rule was financially driven when it was created, and after 50+ years of medical advances and lifestyle improvements it now clearly does not pass the common sense test. But...and this is a big BUT...changing the rule will have very negative initial impact on junior pilots and future airline pilots,as well. Until the entire system operates under a higher retirement age for at least 30 years, there will be varying degrees of negative impact.

BOTTOM LINE: I don't believe the majority of SWA pilots support changing age 60, but the current union execs will not allow another vote on the issue. Stay tuned next January after the election of a new union president. But don't hold your breath...representing the majority at SWAPA hasn't always been a priority.

Wow........

 

[b747dogg]

Get that MDW FO who petitioned for a vote to extend the contract to petition for an age 60 support vote. Then SWAPA would have to put it up for a vote.