SWAPA and SR361

[w8n4swa]

IMHO

It has been said that quality of life will be lower with retirement age raised to 65....sure, quality of life would be great if we retired at 55 or even 50, but why force everyone to retire so early when many pilots may want to continue to fly. I say, if you want to retire at an earlier age, by all means go right ahead and do so...it's your choice. No one should be forced to retire at 60 if they're fit enough to pass their physicals/checkrides and they'd like to continue flying. Let's do what's fair and raise the standard.

 

[SpeedRacer]

I'm retiring!

Holy Smoke! What a debate.......

Who in their right mind would want to WORK an extra 5 years?

I DO believe pilot's should be able to choose when to retire but co'mon. The SWA "clan" that is squawking the loudest about working more for their managers must be drinking the "canyon-blue" kool-aid again. I even saw two SWA Captain's on CNN petitioning D.C. Congressmen to sign for this ridiculous bill and was QUOTED to say," Just when I'm getting GOOD at my job the Federal Government forces ME to retire".

What a LAUGH!!! I don't know how long it takes someone to "get good" at flying a 737 from DAL to LUB???

These guys were an embarrassment to their fellow guppy drivers......

For me, I'm retiring early so I can my grandkids around the farm in my Citabria!!!

You guys go right ahead and work yourselfs to death!!!

Adios!!

 

[InHot]

Re: I'm retiring!

I DO believe pilot's should be able to choose when to retire but co'mon.

That's the point - it's about the right to choose when one wants to retire. Whether it be 55 - 60 or 65! Give me the choice! Don't dictate and then make up reasons why.

"oppsahh" asked: How is it descrimination to make someone retire at 60 but all of a sudden it is no longer descrimination if you let them continue to fly until 65 but then make them retire.

He's right, it still is discrimination (spelled with an "i"), but giving guys another 5 years to make their choice is a step in the right direction.

The issue is CHOICE

 

[spinup]

Inhot,

The choice to fly beyond 60 is available. Under FAR 135 and FAR 91, one can fly untill they can no longer hold a medical. The fractionals all operate here and offer a great long term, or supplemental career. As do corporate flight departments. You chose a FAR 121 career, knowing of this limitation.

Speedracer,

Again, fortunately today, the stronger unions are ALPA and APA. I understand that ALPA is fighting this with some success. Those who want to do more can register their opposition with Feinstein's political office at (202) 224-3841. The call took me only a couple minutes, tops. They are very familiar with S.361 and only need your name and zip code.

 

[InHot]

Inhot,

The choice to fly beyond 60 is available. Under FAR 135 and FAR 91, one can fly untill they can no longer hold a medical. The fractionals all operate here and offer a great long term, or supplemental career. As do corporate flight departments. You chose a FAR 121 career, knowing of this limitation.

That's right, I chose 121... and I chose to lobby to change this rule just as I (in my opinion) should be able to choose when I want to retire.

Once again; the issue is CHOICE

 

[bunks]

Yikes!! You can be dumber than owl poop, but when you find that Diane Feinstein is attached to anything it has to be wrong.

 

[spinup]

You got that right. She supports S.361 because in her words there is a "pilot shortage". Unbelievable!!!

 

[Seeniner]

About Choice?

Come on folks, if this was truely about choice, then you would actually see support from pilots that work at airlines with retirement plans.

If you made a choice to work for an airline that has no retirement plan (yes, aside from a 401k), then you used your freedom of choice.

Step up to the plate and admit what this is all about.

See

 

[SpeedRacer]

To clarify......

I'm emailing my congressman to vote NO to this bill.

Choice is great BUT I refuse to agree to ANYTHING Diane Feinstein (from the great state of CA) has her signature on!!

Not to mention senoirty would get all screwed up along with retirements, hiring, yadda, yadda, yadda........

Hey, I wonder if SWAPA would be pushing for this IF they had a traditional retirement???

 

[46Driver]

I believe the resolution gives the option to the individual pilot: you can either retire at Age 60 as before with no tax penalties or you can continue to work as a part 121 carrier. That is choice.
I hear, "Go to work for a carrier with a retirement plan other than a 401K" - well, all of those are still furloughing.
I hear, "Go fly for a Fractional" (which invalidates the Age 60 rule being about safety...) knowing full well that would going from a Southwest captain (or regional captain) to a fractional F.O. would be a 75% pay cut - wholly unrealistic.
I asked earlier, and I will ask again, is this a severe down cycle and things will come back to normal, or is this a revolutionary change where management plays one regional off against another all the while constantly downsizing the majors in favor of large RJ's and overseas codeshares?

 

[Michael Knight]

I'm with all those that say No! It is simply about greed and not age discrimination. "I've got mine" attitudes. The same folks are probably picking up open time while folks are on furlough or in the SWA pool waiting for a class. If it were about age discrimination they would be trying to remove the age limit altogether. I surely hope this ammendment dies a quick and painful death.

I have already contacted my Senators and strongly encourage everyone else that wants this amendment to die. Call and let yourself be heard.

CALL 202-224-3121

 

[46Driver]

It is absolutely amazing how those with multi-million major retirements call those regional pilots who need to work longer for a subsistence retirement greedy.....

 

[BVT94]

I think the FO's should get to vote on which Captains get to stay past age 60. It would work kind of like the current avoidance bid. The unsafe guys that suck would be outa here and so would all the jerks we've got here at Brownhound. At least that would give the Captains some incentive to be nice and stay sharp!

 

[w8n4swa]

And the saga continues...

Dr. McCoy: Jim, here comes that dead horse again.

Capt. Kirk: Yes Bones..let's say we hit it for old time sake.

Spock: The choice of the many outweigh the choice of the few...

 

[tredding@swa]

yep W8tn....

beam me up Scotty..... once again the dead horse raises its ugly head!!!
Tred

 

[ivauir]

No way, I am dead set against ...

dead horses flying past age 60

 

[b747dogg]

Anyone who wants to work past 60 should have the option. Working for a pay check and earning your money is not greedy. It's greedy and selfish to kick someone out of there seat because of their age so someone else can move up a seniority number, get recalled, or get out of a pool a day earlier. You have to think of the long term. Have fun.

 

[JohnDoe]

c747dogg stated:

"Working for a pay check and earning your money is not greedy."

then:

"It's greedy and selfish to kick someone out of there seat because of their age so someone else can move up a seniority number, GET RECALLED, or get out of a pool a day earlier."

(my capitalization added to the quote)

With regards to getting recalled, where's the difference when it comes to greed between the two groups??

You say that its not greedy to want to earn a paycheck and make money.......Well, there are thousands of pilots out there right now who are not making a paycheck due to being furloughed. If this rule passes, they stand to be out on the street for a LOT longer, and hence, not earning a paycheck.

So where is the difference between the greed of someone who currently has a job earning a paycheck that wants to keep that job versus someone who lost their job and wants to get it back sooner than 6,7,8 years from now so that they can continue to earn a paycheck??

For BOTH groups, its about "greed". One currently has their money and is trying to keep it, the other is trying to get it back.....no difference.

 

[46Driver]

The difference is one group is losing its jobs due to a discriminatory practice set up in 1959 - the other group is losing its jobs due to economic conditions. The former is illegal (age discrimination) while the latter is due to capitalism (too much supply, not enough demand).

 

[JohnDoe]

Thats all fine and good, but I was not really commenting on the whole discrimination or the myriad of other issues that relate to this subject.

From my original post: "....where's the difference when it comes to GREED between the two groups?? "


I was responding to his assertion that one group is greedier than the other.........again, one is "greedy" in that they want to keep their job and their paycheck, the other is "greedy" and wants their paycheck back........both have personnal gains and/or losses behind their stance on the issue.