Superpilot92

nothing "forced" anyone to retire. Many had planned on it anyway and the incentive was just an added bonus. Lots of guys in their mid 50s that took it. PERPS are voluntary to apply for and in no way was a single person FORCED to do anything. A side note also ALOT more people applied for the PERP than the company awarded in fear of potentially becoming short staffed. On the PERP conference call many stated they were going to retire pre-dcc regardless of if they got the PERP or not due to the increased medical coverage if they stay.

Bottom line is lots of people have left and continue to leave. That is a good thing is it not?

Pineapple Guy

OK, I admit it was a bad choice of words. However, my point remains. Don't quote to us how many guys are leaving, when they are being "incented" to leave. It skews the statistics.

Absolutely. There can never be too many retirements.

Superpilot92

The incentive they are getting is about 6 months pay and grandfathered in on the Nwa retirement coverage. I don't think it skews anything because the question was in regards to the number of people retiring at the majors right?The fact remains we have had over 200 retire this year via one way or another at Nwa. On top of that more continue to retire every month which is good for everyone.

Pineapple Guy

It ABSOLUTELY skews EVERYTHING. The original poster was asking, in general, how many pilots are retiring at the majors. The likely reason he is asking for past retirements is to project future retirements. By you pointing out NWA's past retirement figures, without explaining that those numbers are greatly increased by TWO significant incentives (PERP and post merger retiree medical differences) which are not likely to continue once the airlines merge, is misleading at best.

The very fact that the PERP program was developed to avoid a possible furlough situation at NWA prior to the merger lends even more evidence. Hard to argue career expectations when one side is furloughing, and the other is talking about potentially hiring soon.

PG

iahflyr

The whole ALPA/Age 65 debacle will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made. Perhaps as bad as caving on RJ scope!


You are right. There were thousands of pilots who were suppose to retire in 2008. 500 alone from American. About 400 from United. 300 from Delta. A similar amount from Northwest and Continental. Don't forget about all the LCC's too. Guess how many ACTUALLY retired in 2008? I would wager less than 10% of the total who were suppose to retire. I think a previous poster mentioned that only two had retired from United (they were suppose to have 400 retire!).


I am willing to bet there will be no hiring due to retirements for over 4 more years. And remember, the age 65 rule does not just delay hiring/movement/upgrades for 5 years. The change to age 65 reduces the overall amount of pilots who will fly for a major airline. Lets say the average major airline pilot gets hired at age 40 (random number, lets make the math easy). Before age 65, the pilot would work at the airline for 20 years, then retire. Now, they will work for 25. So that same pilot will now work at his or her airline for 20% longer. That means they need to hire 20% fewer pilots.


The outlook for the next several years looks very bleak for major airline hiring. No growth on the horizon. No retirements for over 4 years. A bad economy. High fuel prices. The environment is probably the worst I have ever seen for hiring (yes, worse than the post 9-11 environment).


I don't know about the rest of you, but I have been saving for retirement for a long time. I would like to retire at age 50. Who in their right mind wants to basically "work until they die" and retire at age 65. There is a big beautiful world out there. Go and explore it. Enjoy retirement. There is more to life than flying airplanes. Allowing age 65 will go down as one of the worst mistakes made by ALPA in modern history.

Pineapple Guy

iahflyer,

You GREATLY over estimate ALPA's influence in Washington. This age change passed unanimously in BOTH houses of Congress. There was no stopping it. ALPA jumped on board just before being run over by the train. But to think they could have stopped it is unrealistic.

I'm as opposed to age 65 as you; but realize when a fait accompli is staring me in the face.

BTW, are you an ALPA-PAC contributor? If so, thank you. If not, let me ask how much influence ALPA will EVER have when only 20% of pilot's are willing to pay for that influence? Money talks; it always has. Just look at the banking fiasco and who are coming out as winners vs losers.

PG

Superpilot92

Lets leave the DAL and NWA arguments out of this thread and in the merger forum. I brought nothing up about DAL and only was giving information about retirements at my company. You DAL guys need to take a breather, its not always about you. A retirement is a retirement. AA had tons of guys retire all of a sudden last year because of the benefits of their pensions status at the time, that also is an incentive. Are those not real retirements?

Also your last point. Neither side is furloughing, is that also another bad choice of words? (in fact our side is understaffed on many levels) Go plead your case elsewhere and leave it out of general discussions that relate nothing to the merger.

iahflyr

First off, I support ALPA a lot more than most. They are the best airline pilot union out there (although I do applaud other good unions, such as APA and IPA).

But ultimately, I think age 65 passed because it had ALPA's support. And this was not a failure caused by a single pilot group. A single MEC. Some renegade group of people. The decision to support age 65 came from the top leadership at ALPA. This was solely their fault.


I believe if ALPA came out and opposed age 65 (like APA did), congress would have voted differently. But congress had the impression that the largest pilot union and airline management both agreed that age 65 was a good idea. So why would they have voted any differently?

Most ALPA pilots were against age 65. But the ALPA top leadership spun it in a way so that regardless, ALPA would have supported age 65. Who defined whether it was clear that age 65 was going to pass? And when age 65 did pass, what say did ALPA have in its implementation? If ALPA truly represented what their pilots truly wanted and opposed age 65, and hypothetically, congress still passed age 65, would the law be any different than it is today? NO! ALPA top leadership ignored the wishes of their membership and was in favor of something that their membership was opposed to.

Unlike the RJ scope debacle, which shares blame with a lot of groups, the age 65 debacle was a failure caused solely by the top leadership from ALPA. That is why I have lost so much respect for them!

Pineapple Guy

Nope, that was the perfect word. I didn't say either side is furloughing. I said, the PERP program was developed to avoid a possible furlough. DAL's not offering incentives for guys to retire. Please explain why NWA would do that if they are so short staffed as you claim.

I just want to ensure the original poster, stbloc, is getting the whole story. The bottom line is it is the very merger you wish to ignore that is resulting in the increased retirements at NWA and clearly that is a one time event.

ITSALLGOOD

(Originally posted by iahflyr) You are right. There were thousands of pilots who were suppose to retire in 2008. 500 alone from American. About 400 from United. 300 from Delta.

IAH, I agree with the general point of your post, but check your numbers for planned retirements again...Delta only had about 100 age 60 retirements planned for 2008. Again, your general argument that age 65 (and the way it was implemented) was a huge mistake is entirely accurate.

(sorry, I screwed up the quote thing and I'm too lazy to go back and fix it).