Originally Posted by
flap
Economics caused furloughs. Age 65 only identified those that were on the bottom of the list.
How many did Southwest lay off? Oh, that's right, 0.
Without age 65, airlines would have hired based on attrition. Then the new hires would have been furloughed due to economy.
In 5 years, if they change the retirement age to 80, then the company stops hiring, but they sure as hell don't furlough.
Let's compare apples to apples. SWA has been growing albeit more slowly these days. Mainline UAL at the time was outsourcing guppy flying to feeders. As far as age 65 having no effect... Give me a break, retirements at UAL were running 250-300 for the foreseeable future at the time of age 65 being implemented. On the low side that is 1000 pilots at this time no longer at UAL due to retirement... On the high side 1200 or more. The majority of furloughees would be back after a much shorter furlough. Many double furloughees would have never been laid off a second time... I figure 250-400 to be saved from furlough. Yes, this is about economics... Just not the principles you think.