Age 60 informal poll

[jbDC9]

I don't even want to read any more C%#&P that "senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list".

Seniority is like property, you cannot have what is not yours unless you earn it fair and square, not at the expense of others.

So there ya go, you finally acknowleged "senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list", yet you dismiss it as crap at the same time. Nope, doesn't fit your situation, so you just don't want to hear about it; just bury your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. In your fantasy world, all senior graybeard captains were born in the left seat and never had to worry about being a junior FE/FO waiting to move up. Fine.

Tell ya what, I'll quit throwing out "crap" like that if you'll quit posting the same articles and the same paragraphs you've posted a few dozen times now. Fair enough?

 

[B190Captain]

nay!!!!

 

[General Lee]

To Klako

"I have been fighting to change this absurd "Age 60 Rule" since 1965 when I helped my next door neighbor who was a Western Captain involved with ALPA and their effort to abolish the age 60 rule. ALPA tried to abolish the rule for over 20 years until ALPA was overcome with greedy junior pilots."---Klako



I was born in 1965. It is time for you to retire. We don't need over age 60 cops or firemen, and that goes the same for over age 60 airline pilots, especially in the PIC position. Too dangerous, involving too many lives. Sad but true.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FoxHunter]

I was born in 1965. It is time for you to retire. We don't need over age 60 cops or firemen, and that goes the same for over age 60 airline pilots, especially in the PIC position. Too dangerous, involving too many lives. Sad but true.



Bye Bye--General Lee

Neither sad nor true, but you know that. It just does not fit your needs at this time.

 

[Klako]

Hold on, your saying that it is "greed personified" if a pilot advocates, for themselves and for those who come after them, adhearance to a rule that's been in place for most who came before them? Conversely, you asert it's the "complete absence" of greed for a small group to make a claim on extra seniority for themselves in a way that has not occured before, and will never occur again?

Why don't you admit you are morbidly confused about what greed is.

Look at yourself in the mirror and see a true boggot and the truely greedy one.

Do you always have trouble understanding reality? How can you and others not understand that this issue is not just about greed but ageism and age discrimination dirrected at older pilots by junior pilots. This greed is prepetuated by opposition from ALPA and APA preventing a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with spending PAC money in their lobbying efforts within Congress.

The age 60 limitation in FAR Part 121.383(c) denies otherwise qualified pilots equal protection guaranteed to them under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. If the United States Federal Government denies an otherwise qualified person their right to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for that person to be denied the enjoyment of their profession. If any airline pilot is denied their basic liberties for no reason other than an age, then it is the Federal Government’s burden to prove that all FAR Part 121 pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.

Denying pilots their liberty and ability to earn a living in their chosen profession would likely drive many into severe financial hardship. At the very least, pilots should be able to fly aircraft in FAR Part 121 operations to the age of 65 when they become eligible for Medicare and the Social Security.

 

[Flybynite]

Hold on, your saying that it is "greed personified" if a pilot advocates, for themselves and for those who come after them, adhearance to a rule that's been in place for most who came before them? Conversely, you asert it's the "complete absence" of greed for a small group to make a claim on extra seniority for themselves in a way that has not occured before, and will never occur again?

Why don't you admit you are morbidly confused about what greed is.

I'll admit I'm morbidly confused by your arguement. Rules change. Happens everyday in the real world. Do you live in the real world? Do things change in your world or has it been status quo since birth? I say again things change, some changes you like, some you don't. Everyones greedy and looking out for thier own interests whether they want the change or don't want the change.

I don't know where your quotes came from but they are not mine. If you are going to qoute me at least get the right words.

 

[Flopgut]

Flybynite: The quotation marks were superfulous, I beg your pardon, but they were no less your exact sentiments.

I don't mind changes, I simply want to see positive changes. Not one of us needs to work longer, so much as we all need to work smarter. If we do not display sufficient inflexibility to the whim of senior types they will be right back to steal from the bottom of the lists again. (This needs to be viewed less like a change and more like a work action) And they have GOT to get smarter. Klako, bless his heart, is probably going to mess this up again. He is still REELING from the change to "one level of safety" a DECADE ago. Even that change had some built in relief for some pilots most adversely affected, which is more than he has in mind for anyone else. Pilots like him probably benefited from more jets around c/o fundamental changes, but I guess that money is all gone now.

 

[Flybynite]

Positive changes are all based on one's personal perspective. Kinda of a stretch to label it a work action don't you think?

From your arguments I gather you see it as greed of the senior pilots. I see it as greed of the junior pilots, the entitlement mentality of get out of MY seat. So which greed is justified? It's not your seat til you are in it.

Here is my common thread: Change happens, get used to it.

 

[Flopgut]

Look at yourself in the mirror and see a true boggot and the truely greedy one.

I'm afraid to ask what a boggot is, but I'm guessing your not too happy with me.

I don't wish you any ill will. But the truth of the matter is you should NOT have been spending all your time since 1965 fighting this, you're going to have to retire someday! You SHOULD have been grooming yourself for retired life or your next career. You have skills, you just have to want to use them. I know it's easier to look to a windfall type, legislative change but that's not fair to anyone. Do you know how many thousands of oldsters have been chucked out of other industries that are crying in the media about fairness? The fact is they weren't cutting the gig, they had a lot of years and they were just putting in time, and it bit them. Well, that doesn't happen here. We have seniority to spare you that, do NOT confuse that with actually earning something.

 

[Flopgut]

Positive changes are all based on one's personal perspective. Kinda of a stretch to label it a work action don't you think?

From your arguments I gather you see it as greed of the senior pilots. I see it as greed of the junior pilots, the entitlement mentality of get out of MY seat. So which greed is justified? It's not your seat til you are in it.

Here is my common thread: Change happens, get used to it.

Not like a work action? Let's see, a minority group of pilots want to sieze extra seniority outside collective bargaining to everyone else's detriment. What do you call that?

Personal perspective? In this case it is the personal perspective to change retirement age of a very small minority of labor as a whole. That means I'm right in towing the line.