SWAPA and SR361

[NYRANGERS]

I came across a message from the SWAPA in support of SR361 to raise the retirement age to 65.

Just wondering if you guys "in the Know" over at SouthWest know anything about this? I don't think this would be good for anyone in the pool....

 

[JohnDoe]

"I don't think this would be good for anyone in the pool...."


Five years of no retirements (or drastically reduced).......

That wouldn't be good for anybody in any pool, or furloughed, or waiting to get to an airline, etc. etc.

 

[Boz]

You guys are right! It is definately something all furloughed pilots and pilots in the pool need to be concerned about. I posted the proposed bill under extending age 60 thread if you care to read it. They are attaching this ammendmant to a homeland security bill and are due to vote on it soon. I called the senators office and they are saying they have not been getting to much opposition from pilots about it, so it could pass unless more people are opposed to it.

As some may know there is a debate on Capital Hill about extending the age 60 rule to 65. This will prolong the recall of furloughed pilots at many major airlines. I hope you will look up your senator on the following link, and advise your senator by phone, mail or e-mail that you are against this Amendmant SR361 and to vote No.

http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm

 

[NYRANGERS]

I have allready e-mailed and called my senators urging them to vote NO on 361. I was just curious as to why the SW pilots union is supporting this resolution when most others oppose it?

I urge anyone opposed to this to call their state senators offices in DC. It is very easy and quick.

 

[chase]

Eliminating discrimination

I will not speak for SWAPA or SWA pilots but the majority of SWA pilots I fly with do indeed support the passage of SR361 & our union does also.

To answer why SWAPA supports the passage, the answer is quite simple, the majority of members are against discrimination of any kind; sex (we have only a few who don't support sex), race, religion & age. Do I have the polling data to support that? No, just ancedotal info & words from the union the majority of the membership are in support of the ammendment.

As to why SWAPA is out of sync with ALPA, APA & other pilot unions who support continuing this form of discrimination, again I think (IMHO) the pilots aren't terribly beholding to organizations that perpetutate this type of discrimination. While we support other like causes (safety issues, guns in the cockpit), SWA pilots have never felt obligated to follow blindly the rantings of an organization that has perpetuated the current system of senior pilots stepping on the backs of younger pilots.

Now I know I will be beaten severely around the neck for my opinion but for those who have read my posts in the past I believe regular readers will know I have tried to help as many folks as possible to get hired at SWA & encouraged those searching for jobs elsewhere also.

I know many fine ALPA pilots & consider them my friends. But I will also say they are the first to sling barbs at SWA for not DEMANDING higher wages in order to allow "all pilots" to receive higher wages. In other words we're holding down the industry.

What have exorbitant wages helped (& many other factors) generate at other carriers? Laid off pilots and a financial crisis. So which group, SWAPA or ALPA has done more for its junior pilots to keep them employed? Which group took reduced pay increases in '94 & took risky stock options in lieu of hard pay to allow over 2000 pilots to be hired? What if they had demanded higher wages in '94? How many pilots at SWA might not be hired now & how many fewer Capts (less money on the table) would we have if they had DEMANDED ILP then?

Has SWA (& the pilots) forced other airlines to change their business model? Yes & no. Do those have consequences on the continued employment of pilots? Yes. Am I as a SWA pilot responsible for the bad business decisions other airlines & their unions have made to allow their jobs to be in jeorpardy? I don't think so. I have enough guilt generated by my wife & kids without having to take on that also. But the rants from other carriers will continue. I'm not here to start a fight but merely to explain why SWAPA pilots don't feel particularly beholding to other companies & unions that have done their best to put us (& their other competitors) out of business.

I have friends in the pool right now & there is nothing I would like to do more than to get them in training ASAP. But that will occur when the company can afford to hire (hopefully soon but probably not before early '03 according to folks). If that makes me the scurge of the poolies then my apologies in advance. SWA's hiring has never been based upon retirements (we don't go over 100 retirements until '04), its been based upon growth, which we will continue to do even during these bleak economic times. We hired over 250 pilots last year with around 50 retirements. We'll be hiring again well before others do also.

Yes some of you are unemployed right now & times are tough but wouldn't you want the opportunity to make that up by having the ability (if you so choose) to work beyond age 60? (Please don't respond that "if you demanded more & got paid more you wouldn't have to work beyond age 60!!"...I bet there are lot of UAL, AAL, DAL pilots now hoping they can recoup some of their 401K losses & fly past 60).

You will be at the highest income portion of your flying career & to have that taken away merely because in the 50's the CEO for American Airlines wanted to get rid of his disgruntled senior pilots & had his bud in the US gov. institute the Age 60 rule for the sole benefit of ridding his company of these unhappy pilots smacks to me of unwarranted age discrimination.

I have thought whether these comments would be appropriate for here or not but I wanted folks who were considering SWA to know what many pilots in the company (I'm just one though) feel about this issue. I can't & won't speak for the majority for we have a very diverse group. Other SWA pilots do & will have different opinions. We can agree to disagree.

I wish everyone well but continuing discrimination merely so others can benefit reminds me too much of affirmiative action which I'm a definite opponent.

Awaiting the firestorm!!

 

[RJones]

Great reply chase! Your a great man to come out and say these things. I've wanted to pipe in on this issue as well, but felt I'd get slammed if I did (chicken). Everything you said is correct, I couldn't have said it better!

I don't think retirements at SWA dictate when one leaves the pool like you said, however, if it did I'd wait. This age 60 rule stinks of discrimination which really erks me!

RJ #24 on the SWA Flightinfo pool

 

[dhampton]

If a guy wants to fly past 60, more power to him. I've flown with three very sharp 59 year olds this year and it will be a shame to see them go. Frankly, I'm going to miss the stories!

Me? I plan on being done by age 55.

 

[FreebirdGA]

Thanks for the information. I sent emails today to both of my state senators informing them that I am IN FAVOR of extending the age to 65. Not all of us have those nice cushy pensions of the majors, nor can we expect one at the regional level. I know, I know, apply to the majors and get one, right?. Too late for me, mid-50s ya know. Plus I'm content where I am at.


Talk about greed ! All you junior major pilots really want is even more retirement income. If you're concerned about working to 65 then quit at 50, 55, 60 ! It would be your choice see? Don't discriminate against me because I want to fly past 60!

 

[AF757Pilot]

I appreciate all of your different opinions, and find them very thought provoking. We all need a good debate to keep our minds off of all this pool water. You have made me re-think my original position on this subject. I have one question for those who feel that the mandatory retirement of age 60 is discrimination. How would changing the mandatory retirement age to 65 eliminate discrimination? Wouldn’t it still be discrimination, just delaying it 5 years? Just a thought to keep the debate honest and on going.

Keep the faith fellow poolies.

 

[BrokenWing]

SR361

Chase,

As an outsider looking in, I've read many of your post and think highly of your opinions and appreciate your insight. However, I feel obligated to respond to a couple of your comments:

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. As a SWA hopeful, with the lack of talk of expansion (more aircraft/routes), retirements seem to be the only way to get into the company.

You say "you are unemployed right now & times are tough but wouldn't you want the opportunity.....to work beyond age 60?" I say, "no." I would hope that any airline Capt that's been working for the past 15,20,25 years or so was not banking on the the mandatory retirement age increasing to 65. On the other hand, I don't think that there's too many guys in their mid 30's to early 40's that thought that they would be out of work for the foreseeable future and can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. I sure hope that I'm not banking on having some bill pass to "allow" me to work to age 65. If and when I get hired, I'll go into the job with the understanding that I can do it until I'm 60 and (hopefully) will plan around that. I think that would be easier to manage than being out of work while I'm in my 30's.

Now I'm awaiting the firestorm!!

 

[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.