Mica trying to fast-track Age 65 - 12/6/07

[Caveman]

Increased discrimination for me and most pilots. Less for you. Great philosophy.

"Just because you want to upgrade doesn't mean we should tell somebody else to go home. Wait your turn."

We don't want to move up Caveman, so much as we want OUT--on time! Just because you want to stay doesn't mean we should tell everybody they have to stay or they can't have their fair share. I've waited for my turn, TAKE your turn and get out.

How is it less discrimination for me? I'm still an FO. If anything I'm on firmer moral ground than you. If I get my way it will cost me money because my upgrade will be delayed. If you get your way you reap a windfall.

What fair share? There aren't any guarantees past your next paycheck. Nobody is entitled to anything. This IS a philosophical argument as far as I'm concerned. It's not about money, retirement, unions, your fair share, my fair share or anything else. I just want to let healthy/qualified pilots keep working if they so desire. That's it. I have no other agenda. You just can't seem to grasp the idea that someone has a different opinion than you. You'll never change my mind on this because I'm entrenched in the principle of the thing. IT's WRONG to arbitrarily take away another man's livelihood for no legitimate reason other than a birthday.

One more time: There is nothing in the rule change that will require you to work past age 60.

 

[Flopgut]

It's got everything to do with age 60!

Let's say your company is flush with cash and could easily afford to issue raises. You're turning 60 and about to enter a super seniority scenario. Your company won't give a pay raise and your pilot group is going to take a strike vote. Are you going to be a striker, or are you going to take for yourself?

 

[Flopgut]

How is it less discrimination for me? I'm still an FO. If anything I'm on firmer moral ground than you. If I get my way it will cost me money because my upgrade will be delayed. If you get your way you reap a windfall.

What fair share? There aren't any guarantees past your next paycheck. Nobody is entitled to anything. This IS a philosophical argument as far as I'm concerned. It's not about money, retirement, unions, your fair share, my fair share or anything else. I just want to let healthy/qualified pilots keep working if they so desire. That's it. I have no other agenda. You just can't seem to grasp the idea that someone has a different opinion than you. You'll never change my mind on this because I'm entrenched in the principle of the thing. IT's WRONG to arbitrarily take away another man's livelihood for no legitimate reason other than a birthday.

One more time: There is nothing in the rule change that will require you to work past age 60.

Mgts love guys like you!!

Just answer this question: Is it worth throwing away free market principal for our profession and betrayal of majority rule when all you would accomplish is another age limit?

 

[Caveman]

Mgts love guys like you!!

Just answer this question: Is it worth throwing away free market principal for our profession and betray majority rule when all you would accomplished is another age limit?

I am honoring the free market principle. You want to retain arbitrary restrictions on someone's right to engage in the free market by excluding them based on age.

 

[Caveman]

It's got everything to do with age 60!

Let's say your company is flush with cash and could easily afford to issue raises. You're turning 60 and about to enter a super seniority scenario. Your company won't give a pay raise and your pilot group is going to take a strike vote. Are you going to be a striker, or are you going to take for yourself?

I think you're suggesting I might cross a picket line. If so you are way out of line. If that's not the case, disregard.

I will, for the sake of discussion, answer your not so subtle accusation more directly: I would never cross a picket line. I didn't the last time I was on strike and I won't in the future. In that regard I support the majority decision even if I don't like it. I will always play by the rules that are in effect at the time. However, I reserve the right to actively lobby, legislate, coerce, cajole, plead, worry, annoy, and pester the powers that be to get a rule changed if I think it needs to be changed. That's my right as a partcipating member of any group. Rules are not sacrosanct. They can be changed. I want this one changed.

 

[Caveman]

Before we beat this horse any more let me say again that we will have to agree to disagree. You see it one way, I see it another. You aren't gonna change my mind and I probably won't be able to change yours. Nice talking to ya.

As Bill O'Reilly would say, you can have the last word. Fly safe.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Regarding the highlited points, I've never said it wouldn't affect a lot of pilots. What I clearly said was I believe the effect to be minimal. I also said that I believe we should respect seniority and allow them to keep their seats if they want to. Just because you want to upgrade doesn't mean we should tell somebody else to go home. Wait your turn.

Actually this is what you said:

Originally Posted by Caveman
...... If age 65 were enacted today what would change in your current CBA? Nada, zip, nothing. Your retirement has not been affected at all. Retire early if you want. Nothing has changed.....

I have not read all of your posts, nor was my reply directed to you only. Many, many pilots who support the age change think this way. Perhaps is just a lack of knowledge on the subject, denial, wishful thinking....? I don't know. But it is far from the truth. The effect will not be minimal and the majority will be affected negatively.

Valid arguments can be made for the age disicrimination case, valid arguments can be made for the saftey risks that result from aging. The change does appear to be inevitable now. My argument is that if a simple straightforward change to the retirement age occours without any consideration as to the effects, the majority will suffer negative consequences. A small minority will benefit at the expense of the majority.

So if this is truly discrimination and the law must change, then why discriminate against me and the majority like me who will lose career earnings and retiement savings because of it? And yes this is about money. For everyone involved. This is not about constitutional freedoms or civil rights. This is about being an airline pilot. A JOB. Something we do to earn money to support and provide for our families.

Wait my turn? I have been waiting patiently in line. I have no control over when I was born and I got here as soon as I could. Now that I've been waiting in line someone at the front of the line wants to change the rules and not only make me wait some more but also ask me to pay for it too. If this is all about fairness, how is that fair? It certainly seems hypocritical to me for those who are about to retire to say they want to stay because it isn't fair to them and then tell me to suck it up when I point out to them how what they're doing isn't fair to me. It seems that those who support the change and are truly selfless and honest would agree to some sort of compromise to minimze the harm inflicted on those who will come after them.

 

[jke406]

Judas Priest, none of us can do a GD thing about the age 65 law. The guys who want/need to fly beyond 60 will be able to legally do so, and with the backing of the folks who get our dues. The end.

This whole thread is a complete waste of time.

 

[Caveman]

Actually this is what you said:


I have not read all of your posts, nor was my reply directed to you only. Many, many pilots who support the age change think this way. Perhaps is just a lack of knowledge on the subject, denial, wishful thinking....? I don't know. But it is far from the truth. The effect will not be minimal and the majority will be affected negatively.

Valid arguments can be made for the age disicrimination case, valid arguments can be made for the saftey risks that result from aging. The change does appear to be inevitable now. My argument is that if a simple straightforward change to the retirement age occours without any consideration as to the effects, the majority will suffer negative consequences. A small minority will benefit at the expense of the majority.

So if this is truly discrimination and the law must change, then why discriminate against me and the majority like me who will lose career earnings and retiement savings because of it? And yes this is about money. For everyone involved. This is not about constitutional freedoms or civil rights. This is about being an airline pilot. A JOB. Something we do to earn money to support and provide for our families.

Wait my turn? I have been waiting patiently in line. I have no control over when I was born and I got here as soon as I could. Now that I've been waiting in line someone at the front of the line wants to change the rules and not only make me wait some more but also ask me to pay for it too. If this is all about fairness, how is that fair? It certainly seems hypocritical to me for those who are about to retire to say they want to stay because it isn't fair to them and then tell me to suck it up when I point out to them how what they're doing isn't fair to me. It seems that those who support the change and are truly selfless and honest would agree to some sort of compromise to minimze the harm inflicted on those who will come after them.

I agree that there will be an impact if the rule changes. I don't think it will be significant. Keeping the status quo just because making a change will be uncomfortable is inappropriate in my view.

I'm not nearing retirement. As I mentioned to Flopgut, I'm still an FO too. So in my mind I'm not being the least bit hypocritical.

I'm open to a compromise, but the compromise has to come in the form of an agreement between employers and employees. The feds should change the rule and then let the industry (meaning pilots and mgmt) decide how to implement it.

I'll bid you adios the same way I did Flopgut. We'll have to agree to disagree. Fly safe.

 

[Flopgut]

I think you're suggesting I might cross a picket line. If so you are way out of line.

No. I'm asking how you would vote. I want to know!

Are you going to go full tilt for a raise for everybody, or are you going to not want to put your new found earnings in jeoprody?

If you, and guys like you, could acknowledge that your vote and input will not be skewed by retirement age then some of us could support you.

Contracts pass by small numbers. If your attitude on retirement age is: anything past 60 is better than nothing and that's how you're going to vote then who needs you??

Are you a seniority aggressionist? That's the question and it's not out of line.

 

[Freight Dog]

Caveman, it's nuts to believe that the management wouldn't come after us to reduce our defined contribution plans on account of being able to work longer, i.e. 65. You better believe that they want 65 to pass. Think of the immediate savings for the company if they reduced our DC plans' percentages. They'll say that we'll make equal money based on mortality tables... but in order to make that equal money, you'll have to truck it to 65. If you don't... you lose money.

So how is raising the age 60 NOT going to affect me?

BTW.. I'm also an FO and reasonably close to upgrade.

 

[Benhuntn]

Wow I can't believe it...I am feeling so good and have no problems physically but according to these young punk know it all BE 1900 pilots I am going to wake up the day after my 60th birthday and I am going to lose brain function, coordination, bowel and bladder control. I would imagine that I will still fly a better ILS than they ever will.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Oh I doubt it benhuntn..your stick and rudder skills aren't as good as the BE1900 pilots I guarantee it and from your military pension and your job over at SWA it's time for your sorry a$$ to retire at 60...game over buddy.

 

[Freight Dog]

Nobody shoots better ILS's than the "snot-nosed BE-1900 punks."

BTW Benhuntn... you know it's not that simple. You just might be dangerous way before 60. Who knows, it might hit you on the 60th birthday, or it might hit you at 66. The question is at what point do you draw the line in order to minimize the risk.

If we're gonna raise the retirement age to 65, let's just do it already. However, if we're gonna require one crewmember to be under 60, we're indeed acknowledging safety issues associated with this rule.

 

[Flopgut]

I would imagine that I will still fly a better ILS than they ever will.

One too many appletinis?

You can't be serious?