1261 days to go!

[UndauntedFlyer]

The only people that benifited by the age 65 were the ones that were soon to turn 60. It was destructive to every other pilot. It hit the RJ FO's the hardest. They will never recover what they lost.

They will have 5 extra years at captain's pay. Isn't that more than a recovery?

 

[Mamma]

They will have 5 extra years at captain's pay. Isn't that more than a recovery?

Many wouldn't have needed to go to age 65 if the age limit remained or was phased in. Sure anyone can go to 65 now but guess what....as you found out on your camping adventure, there is something called a "life" outside of flying airplanes. Fly to age 65 and you get to enjoy a very short retirement. I guess it's fine to have the option but just acknowledge RJ pilots, FOs at majors and and anyone aspiring to be a pilot paid an enormous price for this to happen. IOW, quit rubbing our noses in it.

 

[Twisted Mind]

No. They were frozen at current positions. 5 extra years at miserable RJ FO pay. Lost is maybe 30 years of 401k growth. Plus less money when people are trying to raise familys ect.... Now we have the reset in regional pay scales. The reset may not have been possible if age 65 never happened. Things may change long before these guys see the left seat of a widebody.

 

[PCL_128]

They will have 5 extra years at captain's pay. Isn't that more than a recovery?

No, the furloughed pilots had 5 extra years of furlough, the RJ FOs had 5 extra years as RJ pilots, and the mainline FOs had 5 extra years as mainline FOs. The only people who got 5 extra years at captain pay were the guys who were already mainline captains and whose lives were so f*cking sad that they couldn't imagine life without flying an aluminum tube around in their golden years.

You're almost as bad as a scab.

 

[SWA Bubba]

What a selfish piece of sh!t.

What a illiterate piece of sh!t YOU are.

As he stated that he was mandatorily retired at age 60, it would seem that he received absolutely no benefit from the raising of the retirement age. So how is that selfish? Seriously--can you not even read?

He stated both the pros and cons of the age change, and voiced his opinion that the pros outweighed the cons. He also mentioned the age change as a correction of the original, political implementation the age 60 limit. In fact, creating the age 60 limit was a purely political move that ALPA fought tenaciously for generations; only ultimately reversing itself for economic reasons. You do remember ALPA, right?

The bottom line is that his opinion differs from your opinion. Big freakin' deal. I don't personally agree with his overall conclusion, but I understand his methodology, can see both sides of the discussion, and know the history of the issue.

And even though I don't agree with his conclusion, I give his opinion more credence than your own: he at least spend an entire career in this industry, while you pussied out and quit the first time things didn't go your way, and you got your pee-pee slapped down.

Just go, already.

Bubba

 

[PCL_128]

Bubba, you're clueless. He was around here pushing the age change long before he retired. He wanted it for selfish reasons. Period. Wake up.

 

[InTransit]

Undaunted flyer - you need to crunch the numbers to understand this. Only those at the top actually got five extra years at the top, while everyone else was forced to wait out those five years in their present location, i.e. regional, street corner. You need to understand that it was truly five years wasted for the great majority, and in no way made up for later - because the five years are up before progression resumes.

If you go back through your very own pay stubs and make a theoretical freeze for five years in various stages of your career, adjusting each years pay accordingly all the way to retirement, then do the same for the end, as though you were getting to stay until age 65, I think you'll see what I'm talking about. If you do the same exercise again, but this time use QOL as the measure and freeze that for five years...then you'll see why some on this thread are mad at you.

Remember - there is no extra five years at the top. Everyone used up those five years already, beginning the day the age change took effect.

 

[Flopgut]

What a illiterate piece of sh!t YOU are.

As he stated that he was mandatorily retired at age 60, it would seem that he received absolutely no benefit from the raising of the retirement age. So how is that selfish? Seriously--can you not even read?

He stated both the pros and cons of the age change, and voiced his opinion that the pros outweighed the cons. He also mentioned the age change as a correction of the original, political implementation the age 60 limit. In fact, creating the age 60 limit was a purely political move that ALPA fought tenaciously for generations; only ultimately reversing itself for economic reasons. You do remember ALPA, right?

The bottom line is that his opinion differs from your opinion. Big freakin' deal. I don't personally agree with his overall conclusion, but I understand his methodology, can see both sides of the discussion, and know the history of the issue.

And even though I don't agree with his conclusion, I give his opinion more credence than your own: he at least spend an entire career in this industry, while you pussied out and quit the first time things didn't go your way, and you got your pee-pee slapped down.

Just go, already.

Bubba

Bubba this guy's behavior is a disgrace. He vehemently and emotionally campaigned for the change, and claimed he would be happy if he could still fly past 60 even from the bottom of the seniority list (often). Well, he got that chance. He retired days before the change. His uniform pbly wouldn't have been out of the dry cleaner in the time since his last trip. He was as current as any regular line pilot could be, and his guaranteed return was part of the new law. What did he do? He bowed out. Absent the seniority, he didn't want the job. He's just as bad, if not worse, than any pilot who crossed his picket line in 85. Look at how his behavior reflects on us all: He whined and bawled about "discrimination" to Congress and any/all oversight that would listen. When he got exactly what he said he wanted, he did the exact opposite of what he said he would do!! There is not a lower form of pilot behavior than that!!

He claims he didn't want to exaggerate the furloughs... Whatever. After the way he carried on, he should have at least worked a few months. Or the "couple more" they were all claiming to get to SS. He didn't even fly 1 trip.

Of course I gotta add: At this point I'm really not surprised you'd be eager to defend this sort of behavior. That's about the sort of thing you think passes for good airline guy behavior these days.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Let's get the facts straight. I "retired" 1/07 and the law was changed 12/07. By that time I had another flying job in corporate aviation and was serving on an airport board too. So why would I even interview for a B737 F/O job at that time. My airline career was over. And the fact is that even if I did take a job as a new hire then, on the bottom like Flopgut thinks I should have, at UAL I would have been furloughed very soon afterwards and I would have turned 65 before recall. What a deal, so I said no thanks, just like any person would have done.

And, yes, just like everyone seems to do now, I wanted to keep flying past age 60 and I did what I could by joining a group of other pilots like me that was trying to change the age-60 law. My airline had been in bankruptcy, pay cut by 30% and my pension diminished by 75% as the PBGC took it over. I also had a kid that was just starting college and I wanted to help him. Is anything so bad here or does someone really think I should have just gone out the door quietly when the ICAO age-65 rule was going into effect 12/06, which was before my 60th birthday. I thought I had a chance to keep flying but my efforts failed for me but worked for everyone turning age 60 eleven months after me, and that means most to the members of this Board.

Yes, I feel bad for the pilots who had to sit on furlough for possibly 5 years. But, BTW, it may interest some of you to know that in my career I was furloughed twice. Once for 1 year and once for 3-years. That's just part of the career path for this job.

Are things better now with the age-65 rule. Yes, of course, because people have an option as to when they want to retire. So is that a problem or what?

Retire when you want. It's all a matter of when you have the financial ability to do so. Or keep flying if that's what you want. It's all about the pilot making their own decision, not others.

 

[PCL_128]

And the fact is that even if I did take a job as a new hire then, on the bottom like Flopgut thinks I should have, at UAL I would have been furloughed very soon afterwards and I would have turned 65 before recall.

You mean the very furlough that you and your a-hole Age 65 buddies caused?

POS.