SWAPA and SR361

[NYRANGERS]

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

AMEN!!!!!!

 

[Jakeair]

How Strong ?

Yea APA and ALPA are so strong, How may are out on the street.

Southwest is about FREEDOM !

Think about It.

 

[NYRANGERS]

Re: How Strong ?

Southwest is about FREEDOM !

Think about It.

What the He11 does that mean?

 

[spinup]

Freedom my A$$

If this is SWAPA's stand on the age 60 issue, then I surmise that it is mearly about the comparatively anemic retirement offered at SWA.

As for strength, profitibility does not equal negotiating power. 5000 SWAPA members supporting extending the ritirement age. 15,000 APA and 66,000 ALPA not.

Sell your green peice attitude somewhere else.

 

[InHot]

Fuel for the fire

For those in favor of changing the age 60 retirement rule check out this website.

http://www.petitiononline.com/noto60/petition.html

For those of you who are against changing the rule:

"Never Mind"

P.S. RJones, thanks for that link, I've been trying to find that article.

 

[dsee8driver]

Reply from my congressman Bill Nelson

September 12, 2002



Dear Mr. @#%@@@:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S.361, a bill to raise the
retirement age of airline pilots.

S.361 would prohibit airlines from hiring pilots over the age of 65,
rather than 60 as current law mandates. Proponents of the bill believe
that we should not force experienced pilots to retire, especially when
airlines need additional pilots. Opponents of the legislation contend
research has shown that when pilots reach 60, their ability to meet the
demands of the job have diminished enough to warrant retirement.

S.361 was referred to the Commerce Committee where hearings took place on
March 13, 2001. After the hearings, the Committee voted to amend S.361 to
set the retirement age of pilots at 63 years of age. The amended
legislation was then passed out of committee by a vote of 13-8.

On October 10, 2001, S.361 was offered as an amendment to the Aviation
Security Act, S.1447. While I am sympathetic to many of the concerns
raised by the supporters of this legislation, I voted for the motion to
table this amendment because the issue was not directly related to
aviation security legislation aimed at preventing terrorism. The Senate
may have an opportunity to consider this issue again while it debates
homeland security legislation, and if it does I will keep your views in
mind.


Please do not reply to this message. The e-mail address
[email protected] is no longer valid for incoming messages.
If you would like additional information or would like to contact me in
the future, please visit my website, http://billnelson.senate.gov, and
click on the link marked "Contact Bill".

 

[swaforme]

Some of you are inferring that pilot's are being furloughed do to some decision that their unions made. Wrong. Pilots are being furloughed because of managements poor decisions in a very difficult market.

 

[chase]

Replies to BrokenWing,

BrokenWing Said

You say SWA's hiring has never been based upon retirements, it's been based upon growth. That may have been in the past (as many of the "original" people may not have reached retirement age yet). But do you really believe that this will be the case in the future? As the posts on this board seem to indicate, growth (read expansion) in the near future seems to be out of the question. What will open up any jobs in the near future? It would have to be retirements.

Yes the majority of our hiring will be from growth. All of the growth this year was based upon adding airplanes (except for about 50 retirements). We receive a net of approximately 15 airplanes next year along with approximately 75 retirements. I expect further gains from that due to the retrenchment of other airlines & the lower fares SWA is offering specifically to pick up market share. Will we grow like years in the past? A pessimist says no, an optimist says yes, a realist says no one knows for sure.

Firstthird sums up quite well with his post also.

Spinup said:

As for strength, profitibility does not equal negotiating power. 5000 SWAPA members supporting extending the ritirement age. 15,000 APA and 66,000 ALPA not.

Your right, profitability doesn't equal strength, it equals profitability. Strength doesn't pay a lot of bills, profitability does. Honestly I'm not trying to be flippant but often times the issue of "strength" is overemphasized IMHO. What should be emphasized is continued profitability.

Ask yourself, was it strength in unity that resulted in a contract that allows pilots to sit idly at home & get full pay? Absolutely.

However, is it profitable for the longterm health of the company (which pilots are obviously tied to) to have this occur? No one would say yes but "we pilot" point to pride to our friend who can sit at home & accomplish this feat as if it is a wonderful thing. I'm not suggesting these pilots give their money back but I use this to illustrate that "strength" does not equal profitability, in fact it can lead to non-profitability.

Please don't take my comments Spin-up as being anything other than a difference in opinion in how various unions view their relationships with their company. SWAPA has had a history of cordial (& at times maybe too close) relationship but we can stay professional without being belligerent. Thanks for your observation.

Bayoubandit,

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?

This doesn't apply at SWA. Another reason why SWAPA supports this. SWA would benefit from having more experience in the cockpit, safer. Other airlines would have a higher financial cost associated with such changes than SWA.

AF757Pilot,

How would changing the mandatory retirement age to 65 eliminate discrimination? Wouldn’t it still be discrimination, just delaying it 5 years?

Yes it would. 65 has become an acceptable retirement age in our society. In my opinion 65 has more merit than 60 based upon general medical research (I'm not an expert) & the fact other countries around the world have used this as guideline versus 60.

 

[dogg]

I think the bean counters might have some concern about keeping older guys around longer. Take a look at your seniority list and count how many guys are out on medical leave between 55 and 60. That number would statistically triple or quadruple between 60 and 65.
And to the poster that said that SWA would benefit from having older guys in the cockpit ie safer, you must not fly with the same scary old codgers that I do. And before I get wasted by the extend retirement crowd, I hope to be one of those scary old codgers by 58 and be considered good riddance by 60. And the supposed shortage of qualified pilots that has been trumpeted by Air inc and 60 minutes etc.... not likely in our careers!!!!!!!! I say leave it alone---- let the 60 yr old pilots move on to bigger and better things--safe to say that they like all of us have been seriously neglecting the rest of the important parts of their lives. So get busy living because at 60 the horseman is just up around the bend and you don't have alot of time left anyway and you sure as heck dont want to spend the rest of it in today's air transportation system.

 

[BVT94]

Its funny how, with all this talk about age discrimination and the age 60 rule, that Southwest still assigns seniority in class by age. You would think that they would use a lottery like everyone else does now. Ooops, I forgot, thats how we've always done it. I guess that makes it ok!