Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Age 60 informal poll
- Thread starter 71KILO
- Start date
- Watchers 146
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
I never said that Vietnam vets aren't deserving, but they are not in force debating this issue. How did you feel about the WW2 vets that you and the Vietnam vets replaced? Were they less deserving than you and the Vietnam vets?
And a senior WW2 vet retired when you were hired at United at the highly experienced age of 22. Cue up the Lion King 'Cycle of Life' song. Are you saying that you were more safe at age 22 than a WW2 vet who reached age 60, whom you replaced?
Let's go through the list here:
PBGC - our (both yours and mine) pension funds were turned over to the PBGC. Those payments that you receive are your funds being returned to you. Likely less than the amount contributed to the fund on your behalf, so you've effectively shifted some of your pension over to some steelworker whose pension fund was taken over by the PBGC. There's no burden that you are placing on the PBGC; you are merely receiving benefits that you have earned.
Social Security - were you not planning on receiving Social Security? Again, an entitlement that you've funded for many years and will soon be eligible to receive.
Other government assistance - No worries; you won't be eligible for any other assistance.
I also have a family to support. I have a daughter who is a freshman in college - wants to be a doctor - and a 14 year old son. I've saved for their college out of a salary much lower than yours. Did you not prepare this eventual cost?
My wife supports her 60 year old mother who is not yet eligible for Social Security - your wife's mother is eligible; I'd bet that it's at a much higher level than my mother-in-law will ever receive.
Personal issues aside, this about safety.
I was denied my occupation after 9/11 due to a cutback in block hours. I was further denied returning to my occupation for even longer due to my 'brothers' on property who chose to vote on a contract that allowed the company to fly the same block hours with 20+% less pilots. Know what? I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and made alternate plans. I survived, as will you.
This is not about 'get out of my seat,' as much as you would like to portray it that way. It is about safety. As much as you would like to argue otherwise, the statistical evidence indicates that, per 100,000 block hours, pilot safety decreases after age 55. That is the point where physiological aging outweighs any benefits of increased experience.
I understand your feelings; I also understand that you refuse to push for an acceptable compromise solution. Why do none of you that wish to remain employed push for a gradual age change and moving to SIC after age 60? My compromise would solve all of the above cited by you. It would also have a chance of getting implemented, unlike the current proposal of remaining PIC until 65.
Thank you for your service. I enlisted in 1980; anti-military sentiment was on the wane, but I was still on the receiving end of some rants from those that we have served. My apologies for any negative treatment that you received from ungrateful citizens.
And I agree that military service is not germaine to this topic.
GoodTimes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Posts
- 309
luckytohaveajob
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Posts
- 1,114
Freight Dog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,232
UF, you and I both know this is highly inflammatory. Regionals have been hiring FO's since they first came about. Your TRUE replacement is a B757/767 captain at UAL. Please acknowledge that because that is the case.
Show me in the Constitution where your rights are being violated. Show me where it says you're ENTITLED to your seat. I can understand your worry about PBGC, SS, etc. But here's the thought... your needs are outweighed by the public needs/safety.
Here's what I don't understand... I'm a lowly B-737 FO. I'm making an OK living, but definitely less than you. How is it that I can put some money aside for retirement now and not even in 401(k), but other investments, and you a B-777 captain can't? To me that sounds like you have failed to plan for retirement, and it came to bite you in the ass. Your lack of planning is not a public emergency.
UF... I just saw one of our captains retire yesterday. This was the perfect guy who could easily go on to 65, sharp as a tack, and no he was very unhappy about leaving. But here's the thing... for every one of him, you have at least 5 or 6 who can't. Somewhere you have to draw the line for people to retire before they really start going downhill. That's the rationale for the rule. I sure don't want to be an FO on flights where captains are either fallen way behind the power curve all in the interest of them "not becoming a burden on PBGC" or worse... getting sick and declaring a medical emergency. Whether you want to admit it or not, but the likelihood of that increases with age.
Don't wait for the rule to change, and then be like oh sh*t! Now what? If you've already screwed the pooch by not saving money so you'd never be a burden on PBGC... start applying now to places like NetJets, Flexjet, CitationShares, etc. The worst that can happen to you is you'd have to turn down jobs. I don't know where you live, but start visiting some charter outfits in your area that fly bizjets. Check out PARC. They hire crews over 60. Get a head start now... you have a month and a half to line up another job.
Ah, but this is really about UF vacating the left seat of a 777, not about having the opportunity to work past 60. We all know that he can find work somewhere else. He can even continue working at United; just not in the left seat of a 777.
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Another point to Consider
The Anatomy of an Irresolvable Dilemma
In my opinion, we are currently witnessing the expansion of an irresolvable dilemma in the handling of the Age 60 rule—an issue that, if left unattended, is bound to further weaken the hand of pilots in determining their future.
If there ever was a “righteous” strike, it has to be the one conducted by the pilots at Continental Airlines against Continental management from 1983 through 1985. The management team led by Frank Lorenzo is now universally acknowledged as one of the most corrupt and incompetent in the history of the transportation industry. So bad was it that Lorenzo was eventually found “unfit” to operate an airline by the Department of Transportation.
The question is: If things were so bad at Continental that they precipitated a strike that lasted for two years, at the end of which nearly 75% of the strikers were still out, why, then, did 450 former Braniff pilots…ALPA “brethren,” if you will…quickly cross the ALPA picket line to take the jobs of the striking Continental pilots?
The answer is two-fold: First, the Braniff pilots, many of whom were in their mid-forties to mid-fifties, were faced with the choice of either going to work for another major airline at “new-hire” wages (that would not feed their families), or going to work for Frank Lorenzo at $43,000 per year—peanuts, but better than the alternative.
The second and, possibly, more damaging reason was that the Braniff pilots felt deeply abandoned by their fellow ALPA pilots and, therefore, no longer loyal to the fraternity. This feeling existed because when Braniff was in financial distress and sold its South American routes and some aircraft to Eastern Airlines, the Eastern pilots refused to integrate the Braniff pilots into the Eastern seniority list. At least, that was the perception. Thus, when Braniff failed, many pilots felt that they had no professional hope other than to take the best deal available to them as individuals. Given their perspective on the matter, cries for solidarity with the Continental pilots meant nothing.
That the Braniff pilots felt betrayed is not in dispute; at one point, many of them even sported flight-bag stickers that read, “Furloughed by ALPA.” Nor in dispute is the fact that their choices were severely limited by ALPA’s failure to seek modification of the pre-deregulation salary “system.” The tradition of paying new-hires very low salaries just did not work in the new environment where new-hires might be 40 to 55 year old experienced aviators with kids in college. Sensing that their obligations to their families overrode all other concerns, the Braniff pilots considered their strike-breaking actions to be ethically justifiable. Of course, the perspective of the striking Continental pilots was quite the opposite.
In effect, by relying on traditional seniority and salary paradigms, ALPA ended up creating a labor pool of disaffected pilots—pilots who felt they had been treated unfairly and who were prepared to extract their “fair share” as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The rest is history: Lorenzo was able to continue flying the airline, and all Continental pilots were subject to his domination and influence for years.
The irresolvable dilemma for the piloting profession was that once pilots had become disaffected and disloyal to their fellow aviators, there was no turning back. Short of restoring jobs, “seniority,” and higher salary levels to the strike-breakers—items over which the union had no short term control—there was nothing that could be done by ALPA to alter the course of events. The Braniff pilots who crossed the line had become the mortal enemies of all other ALPA and non-ALPA pilots in the U.S., and nothing could stop it. Of course, in the minds of the former Braniff pilots it was “ALPA” that had become their mortal enemy…a classic example of an irresolvable dilemma.
Fast forward to the year 2006. Déjà vu. This time it is about “Age 60.”
Currently, an FAA regulation known as the Age 60 rule prevents certain pilots past the age of 60 from flying aircraft of U.S. registry. Some pilots wish to keep the Rule. They feel it is in their best economic interest to move up in seniority position by catapulting pilots who reach the age of 60 from their jobs, whether they want to leave or not. Currently, the Rule is under dispute because many pilots desire to work longer.
Just as the Eastern pilots risked ignoring the needs of their future strike-breaking Braniff counterparts (who they thought they would never hear from again), the profession again incurs risk in putting skilled pilots prematurely out of work. In a manner that is very similar to the experience of 20 years ago, pilots who are forced to leave the cockpit because of what they perceive as unfair treatment and archaic union policy represent a pool of skilled and capable aviators who are poised and motivated to act as soon as conditions permit.
The irresolvable dilemma is not the Age 60 rule, itself, for that is easily resolved. No, the dilemma lies in the problems that result from not aligning individual perspectives on the Rule. If pilots had a system of compensation and work rules that was seen as fair across the spectrum of the seniority list, there would be no cause to remove a fellow worker in order to take over his position. Unfortunately, the system, both in terms of cash and working conditions, is not seen as economically fair. But, instead of solving the root fairness problems, many pilots through their union have chosen to simply pour hundreds (soon to be, thousands) of skilled aviators into the pool of potential adversaries who are waiting only for the opportunity to again support their families.
From a purely economic standpoint, I believe that assessment of the risk of preserving the Age 60 rule intact involves two primary questions: First, will the Rule ever change? And, second, if the Rule does change, will there ever again be a need to conduct a job action against any employer? If the answer to either of these questions is “yes,” then the risk of amassing a pool of thousands of pilots who, from their own perspective, are justified in crossing an ALPA picket line, may be very significant.
Perhaps, in the early 1980s, when the effects of deregulation were still being learned, there was some excuse for ignoring the plight of fellow workers such as the laid-off Braniff pilots. Maybe the decision of the American pilots to bow to management initiative and accept the professionally ruinous A, B, and C pay scales can even be explained away. But there is no justification in 2006 for an entire profession to again set itself up for the consequences of such shortsightedness.
There is a high degree of probability that the Age 60 rule will change within a few years, not because of ALPA, but in spite of it. And, if experience is any indicator, the perceptions that are presently being created will not fade from the minds of those affected. In other words, the dilemma is now in effect and the bleeding has begun. It seems to me that ALPA members have enough to worry about in coping with hostile corporate executives as they attempt to make up for past concessions. What they need to decide now is if they want the additional burden of dealing with merely hundreds of disaffected pilots when the Age 60 plug is pulled…or, thousands.
Bob lavender is a FedEx pilot, a former Continental pilot, and is the owner of a nationwide real estate referral business. He lives in Provo, Utah.
1 December 2006
The Anatomy of an Irresolvable Dilemma
A Call for an Ethical Framework of Behavior
Robert J. Lavender ©2006
Robert J. Lavender ©2006
In my opinion, we are currently witnessing the expansion of an irresolvable dilemma in the handling of the Age 60 rule—an issue that, if left unattended, is bound to further weaken the hand of pilots in determining their future.
If there ever was a “righteous” strike, it has to be the one conducted by the pilots at Continental Airlines against Continental management from 1983 through 1985. The management team led by Frank Lorenzo is now universally acknowledged as one of the most corrupt and incompetent in the history of the transportation industry. So bad was it that Lorenzo was eventually found “unfit” to operate an airline by the Department of Transportation.
The question is: If things were so bad at Continental that they precipitated a strike that lasted for two years, at the end of which nearly 75% of the strikers were still out, why, then, did 450 former Braniff pilots…ALPA “brethren,” if you will…quickly cross the ALPA picket line to take the jobs of the striking Continental pilots?
The answer is two-fold: First, the Braniff pilots, many of whom were in their mid-forties to mid-fifties, were faced with the choice of either going to work for another major airline at “new-hire” wages (that would not feed their families), or going to work for Frank Lorenzo at $43,000 per year—peanuts, but better than the alternative.
The second and, possibly, more damaging reason was that the Braniff pilots felt deeply abandoned by their fellow ALPA pilots and, therefore, no longer loyal to the fraternity. This feeling existed because when Braniff was in financial distress and sold its South American routes and some aircraft to Eastern Airlines, the Eastern pilots refused to integrate the Braniff pilots into the Eastern seniority list. At least, that was the perception. Thus, when Braniff failed, many pilots felt that they had no professional hope other than to take the best deal available to them as individuals. Given their perspective on the matter, cries for solidarity with the Continental pilots meant nothing.
That the Braniff pilots felt betrayed is not in dispute; at one point, many of them even sported flight-bag stickers that read, “Furloughed by ALPA.” Nor in dispute is the fact that their choices were severely limited by ALPA’s failure to seek modification of the pre-deregulation salary “system.” The tradition of paying new-hires very low salaries just did not work in the new environment where new-hires might be 40 to 55 year old experienced aviators with kids in college. Sensing that their obligations to their families overrode all other concerns, the Braniff pilots considered their strike-breaking actions to be ethically justifiable. Of course, the perspective of the striking Continental pilots was quite the opposite.
In effect, by relying on traditional seniority and salary paradigms, ALPA ended up creating a labor pool of disaffected pilots—pilots who felt they had been treated unfairly and who were prepared to extract their “fair share” as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The rest is history: Lorenzo was able to continue flying the airline, and all Continental pilots were subject to his domination and influence for years.
The irresolvable dilemma for the piloting profession was that once pilots had become disaffected and disloyal to their fellow aviators, there was no turning back. Short of restoring jobs, “seniority,” and higher salary levels to the strike-breakers—items over which the union had no short term control—there was nothing that could be done by ALPA to alter the course of events. The Braniff pilots who crossed the line had become the mortal enemies of all other ALPA and non-ALPA pilots in the U.S., and nothing could stop it. Of course, in the minds of the former Braniff pilots it was “ALPA” that had become their mortal enemy…a classic example of an irresolvable dilemma.
A Blast from the Present
Fast forward to the year 2006. Déjà vu. This time it is about “Age 60.”
Currently, an FAA regulation known as the Age 60 rule prevents certain pilots past the age of 60 from flying aircraft of U.S. registry. Some pilots wish to keep the Rule. They feel it is in their best economic interest to move up in seniority position by catapulting pilots who reach the age of 60 from their jobs, whether they want to leave or not. Currently, the Rule is under dispute because many pilots desire to work longer.
Just as the Eastern pilots risked ignoring the needs of their future strike-breaking Braniff counterparts (who they thought they would never hear from again), the profession again incurs risk in putting skilled pilots prematurely out of work. In a manner that is very similar to the experience of 20 years ago, pilots who are forced to leave the cockpit because of what they perceive as unfair treatment and archaic union policy represent a pool of skilled and capable aviators who are poised and motivated to act as soon as conditions permit.
The irresolvable dilemma is not the Age 60 rule, itself, for that is easily resolved. No, the dilemma lies in the problems that result from not aligning individual perspectives on the Rule. If pilots had a system of compensation and work rules that was seen as fair across the spectrum of the seniority list, there would be no cause to remove a fellow worker in order to take over his position. Unfortunately, the system, both in terms of cash and working conditions, is not seen as economically fair. But, instead of solving the root fairness problems, many pilots through their union have chosen to simply pour hundreds (soon to be, thousands) of skilled aviators into the pool of potential adversaries who are waiting only for the opportunity to again support their families.
From a purely economic standpoint, I believe that assessment of the risk of preserving the Age 60 rule intact involves two primary questions: First, will the Rule ever change? And, second, if the Rule does change, will there ever again be a need to conduct a job action against any employer? If the answer to either of these questions is “yes,” then the risk of amassing a pool of thousands of pilots who, from their own perspective, are justified in crossing an ALPA picket line, may be very significant.
Perhaps, in the early 1980s, when the effects of deregulation were still being learned, there was some excuse for ignoring the plight of fellow workers such as the laid-off Braniff pilots. Maybe the decision of the American pilots to bow to management initiative and accept the professionally ruinous A, B, and C pay scales can even be explained away. But there is no justification in 2006 for an entire profession to again set itself up for the consequences of such shortsightedness.
There is a high degree of probability that the Age 60 rule will change within a few years, not because of ALPA, but in spite of it. And, if experience is any indicator, the perceptions that are presently being created will not fade from the minds of those affected. In other words, the dilemma is now in effect and the bleeding has begun. It seems to me that ALPA members have enough to worry about in coping with hostile corporate executives as they attempt to make up for past concessions. What they need to decide now is if they want the additional burden of dealing with merely hundreds of disaffected pilots when the Age 60 plug is pulled…or, thousands.
Bob lavender is a FedEx pilot, a former Continental pilot, and is the owner of a nationwide real estate referral business. He lives in Provo, Utah.
1 December 2006
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
The Aviation Rule Making Committee (ARC) with regard to the Age-60 rule was mostly divided in their findings. The committee represented a group of opposites; considering that, the outcome is not a surprise. However, the 5,728 submissions by the public speak volumes about the need for change to this rule. The comments were almost 20 to 1 in favor of change and the sparse 350 or so comments that were opposed to change were only able to present anecdotal evidence.
The Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA) represents the “Gold Standard” in aviation medicine. CAMA represents the most experienced practitioners in Civil Aviation Medicine in the USA. CAMA has commented: “The Civil Aviation Medical Association supports the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) position and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 rule.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424637_web.pdf
Dr. Claus Curdt-Christiansen, former Chief of Aviation Medicine for ICAO in his report to the FAA ARC, concludes that by changing to the ICAO standard, “The high level of flight safety, for which the United States is known, will be maintained or perhaps even further increased.” Dr. Christiansen also comments: “It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the new upper age (ICAO) Standard provides for a level of safety at least equal to that of the current Age 60 rule.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/425073_web.pdf
Robert Land, representing the airline industry and Jet Blue Airways commented: “Jet Blue Airways supports the immediate repeal of the age 60 retirement rule.” He also states, “Senior pilots enjoy flying and should not be arbitrarily deprived of their livelihood…..We look to our senior pilots to instill us all with their passion for aviation and customer service. Our company thrives on their passion for excellence.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424642_web.pdf
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also taken a position on the Age 60-rule. “The Commission strongly encourages the FAA to lift the Age 60 Rule. Medical and proficiency tests on an individual basis are effective and non-discriminatory ways to ensure that commercial pilots maintain the highest standards of safety for all ages. Moreover, far from being a liability, having older pilots in the cockpit may enhance aviation safety, as the practical experience of these pilots has great value in a profession calling for complex and split-second decisions.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/429681_web.pdf
AARP, composed of 37 million members, has voiced a need for this country to harmonize with the rest of the world on age 60. AARP represents the interests of Americans over the age of 50, half of which are working full or part time. AARP has commented: “The age 60 rule should be eliminated: It discriminates against pilots on the basis of age and no job qualification justifies its existence…..at the very least, we urge the FAA to conform to the ICAO standards as a first step in eliminating arbitrary age-based mandatory retirement for commercial airline pilots." http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/429495_web.pdf
The facts, as submitted to the ARC, clearly show the over age 60 pilots to be safer than the younger pilots. Of all age categories, the youngest pilots are the most likely to be involved in an accident or incident.
ALPA's new president, John Prater, has said we should harmonize with ICAO on age 65.
From the ARC and the submissions received, change will come sooner rather than later.
The Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA) represents the “Gold Standard” in aviation medicine. CAMA represents the most experienced practitioners in Civil Aviation Medicine in the USA. CAMA has commented: “The Civil Aviation Medical Association supports the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) position and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 rule.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424637_web.pdf
Dr. Claus Curdt-Christiansen, former Chief of Aviation Medicine for ICAO in his report to the FAA ARC, concludes that by changing to the ICAO standard, “The high level of flight safety, for which the United States is known, will be maintained or perhaps even further increased.” Dr. Christiansen also comments: “It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the new upper age (ICAO) Standard provides for a level of safety at least equal to that of the current Age 60 rule.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/425073_web.pdf
Robert Land, representing the airline industry and Jet Blue Airways commented: “Jet Blue Airways supports the immediate repeal of the age 60 retirement rule.” He also states, “Senior pilots enjoy flying and should not be arbitrarily deprived of their livelihood…..We look to our senior pilots to instill us all with their passion for aviation and customer service. Our company thrives on their passion for excellence.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424642_web.pdf
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also taken a position on the Age 60-rule. “The Commission strongly encourages the FAA to lift the Age 60 Rule. Medical and proficiency tests on an individual basis are effective and non-discriminatory ways to ensure that commercial pilots maintain the highest standards of safety for all ages. Moreover, far from being a liability, having older pilots in the cockpit may enhance aviation safety, as the practical experience of these pilots has great value in a profession calling for complex and split-second decisions.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/429681_web.pdf
AARP, composed of 37 million members, has voiced a need for this country to harmonize with the rest of the world on age 60. AARP represents the interests of Americans over the age of 50, half of which are working full or part time. AARP has commented: “The age 60 rule should be eliminated: It discriminates against pilots on the basis of age and no job qualification justifies its existence…..at the very least, we urge the FAA to conform to the ICAO standards as a first step in eliminating arbitrary age-based mandatory retirement for commercial airline pilots." http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/429495_web.pdf
The facts, as submitted to the ARC, clearly show the over age 60 pilots to be safer than the younger pilots. Of all age categories, the youngest pilots are the most likely to be involved in an accident or incident.
ALPA's new president, John Prater, has said we should harmonize with ICAO on age 65.
From the ARC and the submissions received, change will come sooner rather than later.
Last edited:
"Gold Standard"? BS. Cite a few reputable sources who have stated that CAMA is the "Gold Standard". Stop making this stuff up as you go along; Cliff Claven made up less stuff than you.
Facts? I'm sure that the ARC reviewed the CAMI reports in detail. They show that pilots are considerably less safe above the age of 60 per 100,000 flight hours. The pro-change crowd continually points to statistics based on accidents per pilot, not per flight hour. GIGO
This is a dead issue. Move on with your life; it ain't going to change anytime soon. Bank on it. Klako was smart enough to realize this.
First, you make a plea based on the same personal crap the rest of us have experienced in life. Boo hoo. Now instead of responding to MANY questions that were asked of you, you choose to post a bunch of immaterial jibberish. How predictable of you.
Reviewing a post by UF this AM, I would like to point out to everyone the absolutely preposterous statement by UF, quoted above.
I am not the one who is pushing to change the rules for my personal benefit. I did not bring up my military service record; I only responded to UF's attacks on my service to this country.
I have not asked for any special favors or rule changes; my only desire is to maintain the status quo. UF, WTF makes YOU so deserving?
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
You may be very surprised in the next few days. Things are happening very fast.
As they say, it ain't over till it's over.
And Andy: I suppose you think that Dr. Claus Curdt-Christiansen knows nothing too. It is only you that has all the answers, right?
So my question to you is just when do you think the age will change. Next week, next month, next year, in a few years, or only when you are age 59?
As they say, it ain't over till it's over.
And Andy: I suppose you think that Dr. Claus Curdt-Christiansen knows nothing too. It is only you that has all the answers, right?
So my question to you is just when do you think the age will change. Next week, next month, next year, in a few years, or only when you are age 59?
Last edited:
De Nile. Not just a river in Egypt.
I don't understand that piece by Bob Lavender. I respect the strikers so I won't disparage him.
However.....That guy had a DOH at CAL and was given a seniority list. His staffing, schedule, pay and retirement were all based on that date. I got the same thing from CAL. Now when a bunch of opportunist pilots separated him from his career progression he cursed the air they breathed, put their names on a list, and probably wouldn't let them ride a jumpseat to this day! I'm sure, he still hates them! Fast forward to today: I'm looking at no less than the same thing happening if the age changes, BUT, I'm supposed to be happy about it! I'm supposed to enjoy hundreds of pilots sitting in the seat I'm supposed to be in, on the day I'm supposed to be seated in it according to this same guy?! Am I reading this right? Look, I can deal with adversity, but what I DO NOT understand is how it was SO wrong for these guys to see their seniority under attack, but it's supposed to be OK if it's me and my contemporaries? Yes, a strike has different emotions, but it boils down to seniority.
Another thing: Events of the last five years have negatively affected the careers of a lot more pilots than Lorenzo ever did. All pilots have been affected, but not equally. If you've been fairly senior at your company for the last 20 years, insisting on another 5 years of being senior, is too much.
However.....That guy had a DOH at CAL and was given a seniority list. His staffing, schedule, pay and retirement were all based on that date. I got the same thing from CAL. Now when a bunch of opportunist pilots separated him from his career progression he cursed the air they breathed, put their names on a list, and probably wouldn't let them ride a jumpseat to this day! I'm sure, he still hates them! Fast forward to today: I'm looking at no less than the same thing happening if the age changes, BUT, I'm supposed to be happy about it! I'm supposed to enjoy hundreds of pilots sitting in the seat I'm supposed to be in, on the day I'm supposed to be seated in it according to this same guy?! Am I reading this right? Look, I can deal with adversity, but what I DO NOT understand is how it was SO wrong for these guys to see their seniority under attack, but it's supposed to be OK if it's me and my contemporaries? Yes, a strike has different emotions, but it boils down to seniority.
Another thing: Events of the last five years have negatively affected the careers of a lot more pilots than Lorenzo ever did. All pilots have been affected, but not equally. If you've been fairly senior at your company for the last 20 years, insisting on another 5 years of being senior, is too much.
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
But it's OK for you if you're 59 when the rule changes, right?
Falconjet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2002
- Posts
- 1,586
Bob Lavender is the burning bush of aviation and preaches to any and all about the impending train wreck that is the Age 60 rule. Now mind you that he can't articulate a single fact or idea what that train wreck will be (except that he will have to retire someday), but he is certain that he knows all and a train wreck is indeed coming.
He is so certain that he knows all of this that he quit the union, took his little ball and went home. Good for him. But don't waste your time trying to make any sense out of the rubbish he publishes, there isn't any.
And UF, you sir, are a tremendous dou-chebag who doesn't even deserve to smell one of Andy's farts. You have demonstrated yourself to be one of the most self-interested, self-absorbed and condescending windbags on this forum, and that is saying quite a bit. Congrats.
FJ
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
