AOPA article "5 More Years"

[samballs]

If you're not ready to retire by 60, thats your fault. What makes one think they'll be able to retire now that they can make money for 5 more years? These pilots that need 5 more years are the same as management, will worry about having money later, well later came and the grandpas are all broke. In the furure I think Pro standards will get sick of hearing from FO's complaining that the Capt. they were flying with, was deaf, not standard and asleep the whole trip.

 

[ATRCAPT]

Heyas NJ,

First and formost, you have to understand the AOPA demographic. There are LOT of folks in that group who have made enough $$$ and own their own ride, and quite a few of them turbine.

Back when I joined, the heaviest iron you'd ever seen in the mag was a Malibu. Now there's plenty of turbine stuff (read $$$), because that's what their demographic has moved into. How many of us at FI can afford their own turbine rig (or heck, even a Cub or LSA?)

These type of people have a lot of bread, and it wasn't made by huffing it between Boston and Cleveland 15 days a month. Those type of folks have more in common with our management than the pilots, and probably have the same thought processes (IE pensions).

Personally, I agree with AOPA on a lot of things, such as the user fee debacle, airport preservation, etc. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation does fantastic work. But don't expect them to cater to, or even understand, the mindset of the working pilot.

Of course, ALPA pushed through 65 as well, and we PAY them. How smart does that make us? Why wasn't there a wholesale recall of Prater and the leadership at each airline that participated in the age 65 voting? The only leadership group that voted against it was NWA's.

Nu

Nu -

You are exactly right! That's the very reason I have terminated my AOPA membership, and will never go back.

 

[wingslevl]

The only leadership group that voted against it was NWA's.

Nu

Actually there were two MECs that voted no. NWA and XJT. I know it's water under the bridge at this point. Just thought I'd throw that out there. As you were.

 

[LJDRVR]

"Me, Me, Me!" Damned pompous, arrogant baby boomers! Don't they know this is about "Us, Us, Us!"?

Joking aside, I hate age sixty five as much as anybody. It was a cowardly move on the part of ALPA when they should have been demanding that airlines who wiggled out of their obligations and promises to their pilots are held accountable. In other words, if United is turning a profit, why is the PGCB and/or the taxpayers on the hook for even a penny?

But wishing a heart attack on your brother pilot? Dude, Karma's a bitch!

Speaking of Karma, who gives a rat's ass about what Mr. Twombly has to say about airline pilots issues? He's mirred down in the pergatory of South Florida Charter and as such, has not a whole lot of credibility on this subject.

 

[WolfManPack]

Fair and Balanced?

This was my reply to this guy:

Mr. Twombly:
I worked in broadcasting prior to changing careers to become a professional pilot.
Your article on the change of the age 60 rule showed absolutely no balance. Are you aware of the fact that the majority of airline pilots (data can be confirmed by an ALPA Blue Ribbon Panel Survey with very little research) were AGAINST the rule being changed.
Sounds like you formed the idea for your story over a beer with your two brothers and wrote the story on the spot.
It's unfortunate that you did not do a little more research to show both sides of the issue so that the true ramifications of the rule could be revealed.
For example, my career as a First Officer was extended by up to 5 years because of the rule change. Your brother's comment about how the young guys that would just have to put up with him another 5 years was very telling. His generation has been called the greatest generation. It should have been called the most selfish.
Now that the rule has changed, if pilots like me do not work until age 65, we will effectively lose out on 10 years of Captain pay. If you do simple math, a senior captain's wage for 10 years is equal to a lot of money.
Time and time again, senior pilots in the airline industry have dismissed the effects of their selfish motives on the next generation of airline pilots. Pilots, like your two brothers, can counter argue however they like, but they can never argue that our profession is better now than the one they signed up for many years ago. It is not!
I would suggest you write a more balanced story next time instead of taking short cuts.
Sincerely,
The Majority of Airline Pilots

 

[BoilerUP]

Baby boomers weren't the "greatest generation", their parents were.

 

[WolfManPack]

Baby boomers weren't the "greatest generation", their parents were.

Okay so I was off by a few years.

 

[ATRCAPT]

my letter to Twombley

I sent this letter to nut-job Twombley....


Mark -

The age 65 legislation is nothing more than pyramid scheme. Those at the top (your FEDEX brother) make out like bandits, while their windfall is completely funded by those at the bottom. His comment, "all these young dudes will just have to put up with me for 5 more years....I like that a lot", is typical of what has become known throughout the industry as the "I got mine" mentality. If this is what your brother thinks of his first officers he is probably high on the avoidance bid list. I know I wouldn't fly with him.

I have a bit more sympathy for your brother Steve. The pilots at Delta were absolutely robbed, and it's very unfortunate, but, as your article suggested, luck and timing are everything. Why do I have to be punished with another 5 years in the right seat because of someone else's bad luck? We all rolled the same dice and took the same chance.

Bottom line, your article was not researched thoroughly enough, and printing Gerry's crass comments was in poor taste. It's one thing to discuss this issue among other professionals, but to print a biased story like this in a magazine that caters mostly to GA pilots is irresponsible, and I have terminated my AOPA membership as a result.


Everyone should flood this idiots inbox. Here's his email address incase anyone missed it:

[email protected]

 

[NoJoy]

I am sending in my comments as well. AOPA should stick to matters that concern GA-unless of course they want to take over ALPAs job.

 

[Taildraggaah]

I am sending in my comments as well. AOPA should stick to matters that concern GA-unless of course they want to take over ALPAs job.

Look I agree that the article and the attitudes displayed in it are gross at best. However AOPA was not, nor never has backed the age 65 rule. This guy and his brothers are tools, but he is an editorialist on GA matters not the voice of AOPA's political positions...

 

[NoJoy]

Actually they did comment about the age 60 rule a month after the change came out. I get their e-mail updates every month as a member; AOPA stated they were very pleased that the age 60 rule was changed becaue it was age discrimination. I e-mailed them back stating the obvious; that if age 60 is age discrimination, so is age 65! My point is that they need to to focus on their own issues and reserve comment of hot 121 topics such as raising the retirement age. The last time I checked AOPA was upset at the Airlines for suggesting spreading user fees to GA. There are quite a few 121 pilots who are AOPA members and some of them-myself included-are not very happy with how AOPA keeps commenting on things that do not concern them.

 

[Taildraggaah]

Look I agree that the article and the attitudes displayed in it are gross at best. However AOPA was not, nor never has backed the age 65 rule. This guy and his brothers are tools, but he is an editorialist on GA matters not the voice of AOPA's political positions...

As I stated in my post AOPA has never lobbied or use political influence to change the rule. They have stated the opinion of AOPA about the rule but that is it, they were not using member dues to fight for the rule change.

 

[Taildraggaah]

Actually they did comment about the age 60 rule a month after the change came out. I get their e-mail updates every month as a member; AOPA stated they were very pleased that the age 60 rule was changed becaue it was age discrimination. I e-mailed them back stating the obvious; that if age 60 is age discrimination, so is age 65! My point is that they need to to focus on their own issues and reserve comment of hot 121 topics such as raising the retirement age. The last time I checked AOPA was upset at the Airlines for suggesting spreading user fees to GA. There are quite a few 121 pilots who are AOPA members and some of them-myself included-are not very happy with how AOPA keeps commenting on things that do not concern them.

Nojoy do user fees for GA "not concern them (AOPA)? The airlines whole position is that GA aircraft don't pay their fair share;
(see link) http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/186954-1.html

The airlines were blatantly targeting GA

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070605airlines.html


So should AOPA sit back and let that happen?