Great letter written by a SWA Captain

Age 60 December 28, 2001

This is a great letter written by a Southwest Airlines Captain to his union representatives. You guys and gals out there may want to jump in and write one yourselves. There is some good ammo here. If you ALPA guys get a letter-writing campaign cranked up you can only help the cause. Around Duane Woerth the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Remember how ALPA came out against guns in the cockpit? Then they started hearing from their members, and totally reversed their stance - now campaigning FOR guns in the cockpit. That was not totally unlike reversing their position on the Age 60 Rule after opposing it for 20 years. We plan on a new assault on the Age 60 Rule after the first of the year. Please take the time to let your union leadership and political representatives know how you feel - and what you want! They won't know unless you tell them.

We gotta Keep On Keepin On!

Ron Richtsmeier

Kicked out at 60 - Thanks ALPA.

Hi, Guys

Happy holidays to you and yours. I am writing as a concerned union member to voice my continued support for and concern about our union's current stance against the age 60 rule. I am writing now because I have heard through several sources that certain members of our Board have suggested that our union diminish its support of efforts on the Hill to overturn age 60.

I recognize that the circumstances of Sept. 11 have put this entire issue on the back burner for the time being, and that any meaningful change will not occur til next year, at the earliest. I also recognize that, with the growth of our pilot group, our group's demographics have changed somewhat. Therefore, I can understand how you and your fellow Board members might feel it is time to resurvey the membership on this issue. Before you do so, however, I would like you to consider the following.

Those of us who are chronologically advantaged (read that: old) well remember the upheaval that accompanied the the civil rights movement of the 1960s. As a result of those changes, both the political and economic landscape of this country were forever transformed. In the South, especially, the economic consequences were dramatic. The surge in black business activity, while creating a short term detriment to some, created far more beneficial effects for all of us in the long run.

As I see it, we are involved with no less an important issue when we address the age 60 rule. While none of us has to face fire hoses and billy clubs like the protesters of the 1960s, the point remains: we, as a group, are being denied the right to work by a rule based solely on age. Some of our fellow pilots contend that, for the sake of unity, we "set the parking brake" until the company relinquishes its insistence that the seniority list remain intact. However, insistence on addressing the issue in this manner is both divisive and shortsighted.

Divisive, because it artificially creates two groups: "them" (an amorphous, faceless group of senior pilots who allegedly want to simply fatten their already ample retirement) and "us" (a younger, less senior group who see their upgrade unfairly extended by repeal of the rule). Let's assign at least one human face to the "them" group: me. When I came to work for Southwest over eight years ago, I had no idea that I, like many others of our group, would suffer the pain and economic dislocation of a divorce. What I'm faced with now is the prospect of both having lost a big chunk of my retirement and profit sharing and having a very limited time (less than 9 years, absent repeal of the rule) to make up the difference. Please note that I am not asking for the establishment of any special fund or preferential treatment, only to be able to work at a job I enjoy as long as I'm qualified to do so. To be able to do less places me, and all like me, in the same situation as anyone who is discriminated against for any reason. To deny me that right to work, either by outright involuntary retirement or by shuffling me to the right seat, simply because someone else in our group stands to delay (not lose!) their personal gain, is to use the same rationale that was repeatedly used in the 1960s to deny other people their rights.

The aforementioned stance is shortsighted because the advance of the calendar has a peculiar way of transforming "them" into "us." Some of our fellow pilots have very eloquently stated the circumstances under which flying past age 60 becomes more than a pension fattening luxury. Many of the more junior pilots with whom I've spoken view this issue in the context of their lives as they are at this moment, with no hint of change on the horizon. As Sept. 11 dramatically demonstrated, life can change in very short order and in ways totally unforeseen. Those who currently see the issue strictly in terms of personal economics would do well to really listen to their fellow pilots who are dealing with such challenges. If they are truly in favor of unity, they will factor that information into the formulation of their opinions.

Speaking of unity, though I support the often stated goal of unifying this Association, I take strong exception to the means of dodging any issue on which we all cannot agree. That stance runs directly counter to the Association's responsibility of representing all its constituents' interests, which I know include a sizable number of people who want the rule repealed. Additionally, whether we like it or not, our actions are closely watched by wide segments of both the international aviation community and the American public. It would damage our credibility as an organization if we now were to be seen as a group who put individual financial interest ahead of repealing a rule which, in the ultimate, runs counter to every precept we treasure in a free society. I, for one, would not be proud to be associated with such a group.

PETE McCARTHY

BWI CAPT #22652