Originally Posted by
jungle
Is it your idea that a year of pension is more than a year of salary at the top pay levels?
If they retire a pilot making 250K and hire a pilot at 40K, it is cheaper than not hiring the replacement and paying out the 250K for five more years. It is obvious that a less senior demographic is cheaper overall for those paying the salary. If the demographic is aged five more years, overall labor costs increase.
If it is such a boon to the Airlines to raise the age of retirement, why did only the low cost carriers make that reccomendation to the FAA in recent hearings?
.
First off SWA and JET blue have no pensions, they have 401's so they have no Funded Pension liability............
Let's look at this from a greedy MGT point of view.
Let's take American or CAL for example. These are 2 PAX carriers that have still have Pension liabilities and are not in Bankruptcy.
For "every year" that a Retired Pilot draws his pension, that is a large Pension Liability to the Company. They have to Fund it and Pay it. For Every year that an Over 60 Pilots Works for the company, that is one year more that the company doesn't have to fund or pay a pension obligations. If the Pilot dies while he is still in active flying, The company pays no pension at all in some cases or only has to pay 50% of said pension to a spouse (sometimes a little more , sometimes a little less)
If a retired Pilot draws 100K a year in a pension and a new hire earns 35K a year.........that one Retired pilot makes 3 times what a new pilot makes in year 1 and he is no longer productive.
Now as far as training costs go. Look at Fox hunters post. While I don't often agree with him, this post of his has some merit.
So Jungle do you really think Most major AIRLINES MGTs don't want this? Notice I said Airline MGT not Airline Pilots