Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As others have said, as long as the under 60 crew member gets compensated for his/her "necessary" presence it's all good. Scale down after 60 pay by year and tag it on to the pay of those who have to fly with them. Perfect balance.
"You could hear the apprehension in his voice over the radio and the frustration he was experiencing," said radar controller Richard Eggleton. "I kept saying 'Are you visual?' and he would reply 'No sir, negative, I'm sorry sir.' He kept on apologizing."
Hard to believe you would support your pay being cut after 12 years at the company or age 60 whichever comes first. That's really quite generous of you but your comrades on the flight deck might not agree.I agree a pay scale such as that would be fair. But the age 65 pay needs to equal first year pay.
$200k
$150k
$100k
$50k
$25k
ALPA pay tables max out after 12 years as the level of productivity and proficiency is marginal to non-existent after 12 years. Therefore, as productivity and efficiency wanes in the last five years of slacker geezers career so should his respective pay.
Profusely apologizing suggests he knew he was symptomatic. Seems clear he regrets being in that position and perhaps knew better.
Of course, I would expect no less than the same from anybody who desperately has to fly to 65. You know, the same clowns who got this rule changed.
I don't think he had to fly. The rules never were changed for him in any case. The fact is that you are talking about a guy flying a C-182.
http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/350128-lucky-chap-indeed.html
I hope you are a little better informed when you're doing your F/O duties, but reading your posts over the last few years I have my doubts.