1261 days to go!

[tomgoodman]

Well, whoever deserves credit for it, the safety improvement is real:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/b...globally-since-1945.html?partner=yahoofinance

 

[flyboyike]

Stolen? I didn't know that advancement/upgrade was an entitlement. If the delay of five years is the worst that happens in your career, count yourself lucky. Name-calling on an anonymous won't get you much credibility.

The problem is it wasn't just a delay. Many of us now won't make it as far as we could have (notice I didn't say would have) had the rules not been changed. I, for one, am now operating primarily in a salvage mode, that is to say, I'm no longer concerned with how far ahead I can get, but with how I can not fall any further behind. I'm almost 38, so my time of making big strides in this business is likely over (or nearly over), so now I'm just working on bowing out around 50, 55 at the latest. I have no interest in sticking around just to be an obstacle in somebody else's way.

 

[pilotyip]

I'm almost 38, so my time of making big strides in this business is likely over (or nearly over),

Now that is funny :laugh: Oh! to be almost 38 again and have nothing in front of me. Gosh I was only on my third job since leaving the Navy, I had 8 more jobs to go. But is has been an adventure and I have had a ball.

 

[flyboyike]

Now that is funny :laugh: Oh! to be almost 38 again and have nothing in front of me. Gosh I was only on my third job since leaving the Navy, I had 8 more jobs to go. But is has been an adventure and I have had a ball.

Good for you. I'm not saying I'm not having a ball, I'm saying there are certain economic realities placed in front of me by (among other things) age 65. As a responsible person, I have to deal with those realities. One of them is that I probably have at most two years and change to be hired by a major. Obviously I'm not counting on that, so I have to run my life based on the worst possible case scenario, something the 65-year-olds obviously chose not to do.

 

[livin'thesim]

Ah...

Livin', you seem to be the hater. It must be sad to be you. But, on the bright side, I don't have to fly with you (even in a sim)! Sweet!

Hmm, guess you are the weak one, then, because I would not be afraid to fly with you.

Maybe you should toughen up a little, so you're not so sensitive.

 

[laker4284]

Hmm, guess you are the weak one, then, because I would not be afraid to fly with you.

Maybe you should toughen up a little, so you're not so sensitive.

You interpreted what I wrote as fear? No, you silly child. I was expressing something more akin to relief. Weakness applies to...nothing. Your reading comprehension skills, along with your limited ability to write something deeper than simple and childish outbursts, hamper your ability to communicate.

With all your name calling and excited rhetoric you woud be one tedious dude to fly with. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[scoreboardII]

This is still a sticky because........?

 

[eaglesview]

This is still a sticky because........?

I hear ya.....let it die.

 

[livin'thesim]

You interpreted what I wrote as fear? No, you silly child. I was expressing something more akin to relief. Weakness applies to...nothing. Your reading comprehension skills, along with your limited ability to write something deeper than simple and childish outbursts, hamper your ability to communicate.

With all your name calling and excited rhetoric you woud be one tedious dude to fly with. That's it in a nutshell.

Relief from apprehension? Fear? What...

Sorry you have sensitivity issues - it's okay, I'm sure you could invoke your rights under the Americans with Disabilities act to get me on your no-fly list if needed. "Reasonable accommodation", I think they call it.

No need to get your undies all in a bundle, and I would not want to be responsible for degrading your ability to perform in the flight deck by subjecting you to conflicting ideas and the occasional rhetorical jab. We all have differing abilities to cope with the environment we find ourselves in. That's what makes the world go 'round.

If it helps, though, I could pretend I agree with everything you say, nodding enthusiastically and all. I'm happy to accommodate, just let me know what you need.

I'm good like that, I can keep my cool when I'm trapped in the flight deck with someone who I don't like.

It's very big of you to admit that you're not there yet. We're cool.

 

[laker4284]

Relief from apprehension? Fear? What...

Sorry you have sensitivity issues - it's okay, I'm sure you could invoke your rights under the Americans with Disabilities act to get me on your no-fly list if needed. "Reasonable accommodation", I think they call it.

No need to get your undies all in a bundle, and I would not want to be responsible for degrading your ability to perform in the flight deck by subjecting you to conflicting ideas and the occasional rhetorical jab. We all have differing abilities to cope with the environment we find ourselves in. That's what makes the world go 'round.

If it helps, though, I could pretend I agree with everything you say, nodding enthusiastically and all. I'm happy to accommodate, just let me know what you need.

I'm good like that, I can keep my cool when I'm trapped in the flight deck with someone who I don't like.

It's very big of you to admit that you're not there yet. We're cool.

Yawn. As I said, tedious.

 

[livin'thesim]

;-)
Omg, lol.

 

[hammer2]

Teed up!!!

 

[727gm]

This is still a sticky because........?

Because of the need to wait around and see if all the crybabies retire when thay reach 60 like they think their elders should.

If nothing else their "concern for safety" should prompt them to get out at 60 so as not to be a burden to those younger or more junior to them, and turn over the left seat that rightly belongs to their copilots.

As a sticky, we can remember who whined the loudest....

 

[flyboyike]

If nothing else their "concern for safety" should prompt them to get out at 60 so as not to be a burden to those younger or more junior to them, and turn over the left seat that rightly belongs to their copilots.

Which is exactly what I'm going to do, because it's the right thing. Of course, it will be easier for me, since I've pretty much given up on the very concept of ever seeing the left seat. Anywhere.

 

[BushwickBill]

Which is exactly what I'm going to do, because it's the right thing. Of course, it will be easier for me, since I've pretty much given up on the very concept of ever seeing the left seat. Anywhere.

 

[scoreboardII]

Because of the need to wait around and see if all the crybabies retire when thay reach 60 like they think their elders should.

If nothing else their "concern for safety" should prompt them to get out at 60 so as not to be a burden to those younger or more junior to them, and turn over the left seat that rightly belongs to their copilots.

As a sticky, we can remember who whined the loudest....

sorry, but age 60 forced me to work to 65 just make five more years of FO pay, not captain pay.

 

[laker4284]

sorry, but age 60 forced me to work to 65 just make five more years of FO pay, not captain pay.

But if it's UNSAFE to fly to 65! You just CAN'T fly to 65. Think about te DANGER involved; think about your disregard for public safety! I mean, just look around you at all the crashes by older pilots - just as was predicted by the "no change" crowd. Clearly, flying to 65 would be the height of irresponsibility. You just cannot do it!

Oh. Wait. No crashes. No uptick in incidents. No FAA or corporate alarm bells. No union safety committees waving red flags about pilots over 60. No public outcry.

Never mind. You're cleared to fly to 65.

 

[Flopgut]

Got news for you Laker: Pilots always could fly past 60, and they can fly past 65 now as well. This whole thing was never about that. This was a campaign by older pilots to deny others equal seat progression.

In this case, your actions happen to be attached to an age change effort. But pilots like you would have been perfectly happy taking from others in any number of ways. I'm glad this thread is still up. Serves a good reminder to us all.

 

[eaglesview]

Got news for you Laker: Pilots always could fly past 60, and they can fly past 65 now as well. This whole thing was never about that. This was a campaign by older pilots to deny others equal seat progression.

In this case, your actions happen to be attached to an age change effort. But pilots like you would have been perfectly happy taking from others in any number of ways. I'm glad this thread is still up. Serves a good reminder to us all.

On a different note.....What happened to your thread about the CO/UAL SLI progression. Did you delete it or did FI decide it's not about SW or DL so no need to have it??

 

[laker4284]

Got news for you Laker: Pilots always could fly past 60, and they can fly past 65 now as well. This whole thing was never about that. This was a campaign by older pilots to deny others equal seat progression.

In this case, your actions happen to be attached to an age change effort. But pilots like you would have been perfectly happy taking from others in any number of ways. I'm glad this thread is still up. Serves a good reminder to us all.

Ah, Flop. Try not to be disingenuous. You know all too well that my comments were about airline pilots flying over 60. You know - that pesky (and very bogus) rule foisted on airline pilots back in '59. It was ALWAYS a campaign to overturn a foolish and career restricting rule - first by ALPA ('60-'79), then SWA/SWAPA ('90-'07) and APAAD ('96-'07).

From '80 on the campaign was by the younger guys wanting to hold on to the restriction to preserve a method of advancement based on other pilot being "aged out", whether they were healthy or competent or not. The other half of the campaign was the charade that it was "all about safety" and that pilots over 60 were unsafe.

But you know all that.

Now it's been exposed for what it was - never about safety, all about advancement. Safety was a red herring; a way to deflect change and hang on to the status quo. If it was about safety for some, as some will try to maintain, then those folks have to ground themselves (when they reach 60) as unsafe. They won't. But they should. If they don't, they should admit they were wrong and flying (for airline pilots, Flop) was and is safe. They won't. But they should.

The PRINCIPLE of being able to work when qualified and healthy was the driving force for SWAPA, the PPF, APAAD and SWA. The principle (?) of climbing over someone else's back for advancement is far less lofty. ;-)

I read this the other day and saved it. It's quite valid in this case, re principle,etc: You're going to become more tolerant with time, and not only because you have more to tolerate in yourself. Because life will batter you and you'll have a surer sense of what's important and has meaning and is good.

Don't forget to ground yourself when you turn 60, Flop...lest you be a seen as a total hypocrite.