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

Make The Call People

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 for one know a captain who was forced to retire at 60, guess what? No medical coverage, and his regional career and no pension (we should all be in the no pension club) made him search for a career for 5 years. So now he finds himself driving a truck in northern minnesota to pay the bills. I do not want to have to be forced to do that.

What's wrong with driving a truck?
 
OMG! How about fighting for Medicare to kick in when you retire at 60, instead of trying to work longer? This is the same b.s. that started all this age 65 crap. Management takes all pensions so instead of fighting and suing to get them back from all the greedy little bastards, we try to work longer. MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!

And, no Sparky, it's not a greed thing, it's a "I don't want to work my entire life and drop dead at my retirement party" thing. :rolleyes: Wake up.

Euro pilots are given a schedule every month instead of bidding like we do. Should we do that too? If they jump off a bridge, should we?

Megadeath for president. If I don't find A better gig like Fed Ex or UPS I don't even want to work to 60 let alone 65. We have guys here that want to work till 65 flying 90 hours a month. If these guys would quite flying 90 hours a month maybe they wouldn't be paying for the previous 2 marriages.
 
And how exactly does that apply to my previous statement about delaying the change? Donne's Meditation XVII deals with death, not retirement. Are you attempting to equate the two? Melodramatic much?

Your argument went out the door when we started letting foreign carriers fly here with over 60 pilots.No matter what you say,you simply can't allow others to do what you won't allow your own(tax paying) citizens to do as well.That IS age discrimination...plain and simple(as well as a civil rights concern).
 
American standards are inferior to some foreign standards in many ways.

Take Japanese beef. The Japanese won't even consider importing American beef because it is inferior. Our USDA, EPA, FDA, etc have many inferior standards.

So the fact that we have to meet international standards has nothing to do with age discrimination.

America is trying to align some of its rules to international standards so it can give America away.

Once age 65 is allowed, Cabotage is next. Once our pilots can work in Europe and Asia, European and Asian carriers can own American carriers.

I hope you SWA fools are ready to compete with Ryan Air. Because Ryan Air is going to kick your old butts all over Lubbock.

By the way, most Ryan Air Captains are in their twenties.
 
Well, I guess every airline has a crappy contract because it WILL happen everywhere, it's just a matter of time. As for you....I hope you don't fall flat on your face with your "retire at 52" plans because then I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune as we are.
Perhaps you are right and my retirement plans will fall flat. While I've prepared carefully, I'm certainly not foolish enough to think that nothing bad could ever happen to me. All the more reason not to limit my options. I'm also not arrogant enough to tell others that they must retire at 60 no matter what financial misfortune has fallen on them.
 
Let's be honest- the reason there is a significant push from pilots to fly beyond 60 is b/c the retirements and pensions were STOLEN from them. Repeat: F***ing STOLEN! Millions from thousands and thousands of pilots. Every PILOT IN THE COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE WALKED OFF THE JOB IN THAT INSTANT THAT THE FIRST PENSION GOT ROBBED. ALPA chose appeasement instead, and now they get in the way of letting a group they represent try to EARN their way back in the black.

I apologize, though i'm for personal responsibility, there are many many pilots who should have been able to count on that pension. Pensions are NOT welfare. They earned it.
 
Your argument went out the door when we started letting foreign carriers fly here with over 60 pilots.No matter what you say,you simply can't allow others to do what you won't allow your own(tax paying) citizens to do as well.That IS age discrimination...plain and simple(as well as a civil rights concern).

Ridiculous reasoning. Every country is allowed to file exemptions to the ICAO conventions. Our country has dozens of them.
 
Perhaps you are right and my retirement plans will fall flat. While I've prepared carefully, I'm certainly not foolish enough to think that nothing bad could ever happen to me. All the more reason not to limit my options. I'm also not arrogant enough to tell others that they must retire at 60 no matter what financial misfortune has fallen on them.

Dude! I could care less if a pilot wants to fly till they croak. BUT.......BUT the problem I see here is that management will exploit it in all over the place in some way, shape or form and eventually ALL OF US will have no choice but to FLY TILL 65. 65 will become the old 60. 60 will become the old 55. We'll all be talking about "the good old days" when you had to retire at 60. The big pushers for it (which the majority are now 55+) will be long dead and gone while all of the rest of us are going to have to "deal with it". It's the same thing as the RJ thing. Guys too good to fly the RJ and look how management pulled the wool over everyone's eyes now. Who's laughing now????? Same thing.....that's my beef with 65.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top