Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

1261 days to go!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
But age 65 is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better.

Hypocrite much?

It’s simple, really: No hypocrisy, only pragmatism over perfection. 65 was the most that could be done politically. It gave five more years to the profession in general, five more years to older guys in the short term, while minimizing the impact to younger guys. Not perfect but, then again, there’s not much that is perfect on this world. In 218 days the wheel will have completed its turn and the reset is complete.
 
It gave five more years to the profession in general, five more years to older guys in the short term, while minimizing the impact to younger guys.

I don't have the same problem with the rule change that so many other folks here seem to, but let's not pretend this was done with "minimizing the impact to younger guys" as a major priority. Folks who didn't already have a good seat when the music stopped are not feeling the love, and the change happening as the wheels started to come of the economy did not help matters.

If you're one of the older guys who needed those five years to make last-minute adjustments to dashed retirement plans, I feel for you. But a lot of the people on this board will never make the kind of money in this business that pilots made in The Good Old Days™, and they sure do love to vent.
 
Go back and find some of the e-mails and letters flying around in the last months of 2007 and early 2008 (there's plenty available on line). The hard core guys were pushing for no retirement age and return of those already retired. The moderate bunch which included APAAD's leadership were holding tight to a middle-of-the-road age stance. There was a nasty little dogfight between those two groups in the time frame right around when the law was signed. It could have been a lot worse for younger guys. A LOT worse. Doesn't matter now. As I said before, the wheel is about done turning.
 
Anyone who thinks that this was a net neutral effect because young guys get and extra five years does not understand the time value of money.

Or they are pretending not to understand it so they can rationalize the theft of income from junior pilots.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top