1261 days to go!

[GuppyWN]

We think alike so you don't have to be a tool.

Let's you and I keep our house in order and get out of the way (on time at 60) so the next generation can recoop some of their loss!

Gup

BTW Burger my bro - it's still 980

Gup

 

[GuppyWN]

979

Gup

 

[Whataburger]

Gup

BTW Burger my bro - it's still 980

Gup

You're right. However your orginal 980 post was 6 minutes early. That lead me to an early 979.

 

[ABUSED PILOT]

We think alike so you don't have to be a tool.

Let's you and I keep our house in order and get out of the way (on time at 60) so the next generation can recoop some of their loss!

Gup

BTW Burger my bro - it's still 980

Gup

No we are not alike. I don't call people names that I disagree with.
And by the way. Who do you think? Cares with you think.

 

[GuppyWN]

978

Gup

 

[ABUSED PILOT]

To be honest with you - I doubt I will retire at 60

My second choice was to let everyone in the game when the rule passed retire at 60 and all the young 'uns that started afterwards to retire at 65.

My first choice was to keep status quo.

Gup

Class　Act

 

[GuppyWN]

Thanks.

I don't know how far back you dug to find that little gem but I still feel the same way. I didn't want the rule to change. It did nothing but take money out of my pocket and I fly airplanes for money! Every FO that I fly with had his pocket picked too!

Everybody on property when the rule changed should have been grandfathered to retire at 60. Kind of like a stupid tax. I wonder how hard ALPA and SWAPA would have pushed for it then.

Gup

 

[Quimby]

Ring, Ring

It's 9 7 7 calling.

 

[wscrj]

Better yet...975 days 23 hours 13 minutes

 

[beagle pilot]

Everybody on property when the rule changed should have been grandfathered to retire at 60. Kind of like a stupid tax. I wonder how hard ALPA and SWAPA would have pushed for it then.

Gup

Your understanding of the issue is flawed. The FAA was going to pass Age 65 to be inline with ICAO whether any unions participated in the process or not. While I do not know about SWAPA, I know ALPA chose to actively participate in the process in order to mitigate its effects on the membership. It wasn't a popular choice, but it was much better than another union's choice to sit outside and toss rocks with ZERO input into the process.

http://wearealpa.org/Govt/From the Hill February 2008.pdf

Why pilots continue to blame their own unions for this action when it was our own government which pushed it is beyond me.

 

[Quimby]

Better yet...975 days 23 hours 13 minutes

I like your clock better.

 

[ABUSED PILOT]

I'am done with this. Gup be　Careful what you wish for.

Good luck to all.

 

[ToThePain]

Your understanding of the issue is flawed. The FAA was going to pass Age 65 to be inline with ICAO whether any unions participated in the process or not. While I do not know about SWAPA, I know ALPA chose to actively participate in the process in order to mitigate its effects on the membership. It wasn't a popular choice, but it was much better than another union's choice to sit outside and toss rocks with ZERO input into the process.

http://wearealpa.org/Govt/From the Hill February 2008.pdf

Why pilots continue to blame their own unions for this action when it was our own government which pushed it is beyond me.

There are several reasons why pilots blame their own unions. The ALPA poll that was sent out was a joke. Overall ALPA membership voted against the change by majority. The leadership is paid by the dues of those members that voted against the change. ALPA clung to the one question that justified their positional change:

"If the law were to change would you want ALPA to be an active participant in that change?" The majority of the people answered yes.

What has ALPA done to protect or assist its membership? Did they help to mitigate the change over a period of time so that no one group got a windfall? NO

Did they protect the line pilots from simulator instructors who were NOT flying the line and then return to the line to push down everyones seniority? NO

Did they do anything to mitigate the furloughed pilots that may not have in fact been furloughed if not for the change: UAL 1600 furloughed and counting, CAL 148 furloughed, AA ???? furloughed......NO

So they changed their position on 65 against the majority of the union's wishes to help be a "part of the process" that has helped no one but the senior guys.(and themselves)
Prater was for changing this before he was ever elected.

If they truly wanted to do the right thing they should have changed the law so that anyone hired AFTER that day the law passed could work to 65, I wouldn't have an advantage, but neither would the 58 year old sitting Captain on the B777.

 

[Whataburger]

Therefore be it resolved that alpa should have sent out a sticker!!!!

 

[Whataburger]

9:uzi:​

 

[Whataburger]

7:uzi:​

 

[Whataburger]

6:uzi:​

 

[Whataburger]

976:uzi:​

 

[Whataburger]

ALL ZEROS, BIATCH.​

Dead nutz that mofo. Git 'er done.

 

[Quimby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWoOjLo3Ejs&feature=related

 

[GuppyWN]

Burger bro. That was awesome!

Gup

 

[GuppyWN]

975

Gup

 

[BrickTop]

Ok I will say this again........Retirement and job replacement are a fallacy at the Major Level. Major Airlines are only continuing to shrink and downsize their fleets. Jobs at the Major Level will not be a par for par replacement. The best scenario many should hope for is growth at the regional level as Mainline operators continue to grow shared risk operations and reduce largebody aircraft. With a severely depressed economy and virtual meetings taking a leap in popularity I would expect Air travel to remain at its current capacity. Capacity, not retirement is what determines job replacement during retirement surges. In short I think people are far to optimistic that there is a retirement wave to be seen that will offer movement for many stranded in the seniority lists. Remember Capacity "replacement" "AT THE MAJORS" is what will yield movement.

 

[Whataburger]

Ok I will say this again........Retirement and job replacement are a fallacy at the Major Level. Major Airlines are only continuing to shrink and downsize their fleets. Jobs at the Major Level will not be a par for par replacement. The best scenario many should hope for is growth at the regional level as Mainline operators continue to grow shared risk operations and reduce largebody aircraft. With a severely depressed economy and virtual meetings taking a leap in popularity I would expect Air travel to remain at its current capacity. Capacity, not retirement is what determines job replacement during retirement surges. In short I think people are far to optimistic that there is a retirement wave to be seen that will offer movement for many stranded in the seniority lists. Remember Capacity "replacement" "AT THE MAJORS" is what will yield movement.

You missed an chance to rock the countdown.

 

[Whataburger]

Burger bro. That was awesome!

Gup

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be here for...
...

973:uzi:

more days!​

 

[GuppyWN]

Luv the bling!

Gup

 

[Quimby]

n i n e r

s e v e n

t w o

 

[Quiet Flight]

971
:beer:

 

[GuppyWN]

970

Gup

 

[JetMonkey]

9.69!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslbf8L9nl0