SWAPA and SR361

[w8n4swa]

I don't mean to stand between ya'lls firestorms, but I have one question:

What happens to the folks under age 65 that retired already if this amendmant passes? Will they be allowed to return to their carriers?

Now, I'm stepping aside....

 

[race#53]

i am 59, had lots of parts replaced, can't remember anything, i say lower the retirement age to 50.

 

[bayoubandit]

Good point w8n4swa!

And what is this going to do to payscales? If they have to pay us for 3 more years, they are going to want to pay us less to average it out. And what is this going to do to pensions? We will work 3 extra years for the same amount, we can't honestly think that mgmt;s around the industry are going to pay us anymore, right?

All us junior major airline pilots want to do is work, not have prolonged furloughs, and hold up any new hiring because of this change. If we were greedy, we would be pushing for a mandatory retirement of 55, that would get us moving up the seniority list! Discrimination is the poor way of arguing this. Most furloughed major guys are taking a financial beating right now with lost wages, retirements, etc. But we knew that might just happen when we signed on. It's one of those facts of aviation.

Regards

 

[firstthird]

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned here yet but probably accounts for some of the difference of opinion is the 401K at SWA vs the A fund/B fund system at most majors.

I'm still on the outside looking in, but from how I understand most majors pay based on plane and position, thus a 747/777 captain at 12+ years makes the highest pay rate. Since A funds are usually based on some percentage of your final 3 years pay, at a major with traditional retirement, if they extend mandatory retirement to 65, then everyone has to wait 5 more years to get those big ticket, high pay years in the widebodies that will determine their retirement forevermore.

Whereas SWA is only a 401K and only one payscale/aircraft type. So, there is no need to stay and max out your last 3 years, if you get enough in your 401K, you can call in rich whenever. Conversely, if you underfund it or make very aggressive (unwise?) investment choices, you might really, really want those extra 5 years. And at SWA, for the most part, it doesn't really hurt the guys below. At DAL, let's say, there are a finite number of 777 Captain seats, people have to retire to free them up. At SWA, at any one time half the pilots will be captains, and once you have 12 years in, you're at the top payscale already.

About the growth vs. retirement, it seems that if SWA is really going to get another 400 planes by 2012 (number isn't exact but a guess from old info) they will pretty much double in the next 10 years and most pilot list growth will be from expansion anyway.

I looked up the airccraft orders, from the Airinc article in July 2002. they have 132 firm orders, 87 options, and 217 purchase rights for a total of 436 between now and 2012. Obviously anything can happen, but those were the plans.

Finally, one more aside. I remember from an Airinc seminar (I know but they do put out some really good info at times) where this question was asked and the speaker pointed to the B funds as a sticking point. Apparently B funds were designed as a way to carry airline pilots from 60 to 65 (social security age) since federal law prohibited airline pilots from working during those years. Presumably if the age 60 rule goes away, so will the justification for B funds, which can be quite a considerable sum. Another reason why SWA pilots might have a different take than most ALPA carriers, since SWA has no B fund.

 

[canyonblue]

Chase,

Good post. My thoughts are not based upon whether or not this will hurt or help me, but whether or not it is the right thing. Like contracts up for vote, most pilots tend to vote for what is in their best interest and not what is good overall for everyone. As a very junior F/O passage of this bill may affect me then again maybe not. But without thinking of myself first I DO believe a pilot can function and fly a plane till his or her 65th birthday, and by utilizing that function of logic I would agree that this bill should pass.

 

[JohnDoe]

w8n4swa stated:


"What happens to the folks under age 65 that retired already if this amendmant passes? Will they be allowed to return to their carriers?"


I was talking with a friend earlier today about this very subject......it adds quite another dimension to the issue. We both agreed that it is within the realm of possibility that it could happen. Talk about some seniority issues........

 

[chase]

Post 60 phase in

The amendment is written to take affect in stages to resolve the re-currency issue. Phase in is the key. It will work like this (for example):

Bill passes & designates 1 Jul '03 as the phase in.

Retirement age is extended to 61 years of age on 1 Jul '03

This becomes the anniversary date for each subsequent age increase up until 65. The bill isn't written to give a blanket clearance to those between 60-65 according to my sources. Similar approaches to making tax changes, an annual phase in anniversary date. It will suck to turn 60 on 30 June '03?

This is just a sample date. I'm not sure what the actual date is but will probably be based upon final passage date, i.e. 90 days after passage.

Hope that helps,

 

[bayoubandit]

That's good info!

Even if this passes, consider the amount of time it will take the FAA to incorporate it. It won't be overnight, more like several years. So you add that to the phase in period and hopefully at least the furloughed guys will be back or close to it.

 

[RJones]

The Age 60 Rule: How It Came To Be

http://www.avweb.com/articles/age60history/

 

[spinup]

I am thankfull that ALPA and APA are far stronger unions than SWAPA.