Age 60 informal poll

[Sluggo_63]

Is there a member who if they were in my situation would just want to throw everything they have worked for out the window and quit just because they are age 60? I don't think so.

I think there are many. You must admit that the folks calling for change are a minority. I know that SWAPA is endorsing change, along with JetBlue and a few MECs, but overall I think that individuals wanting to work until they're 65 are relatively few (they're at least the minority). Tens (maybe even hundreds) of pilots retire every day with nary a peep. They relish the thought of taxiing under the water, hanging up their uniform, and getting to relax with their wife and children. They want to take the RV across the country or go get $100 hamburgers in their Archer. I fly with them, and they can't wait until the day when they can be lazy. God bless them... they've earned it.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Yeah, and most of your furloughed peers are firmly entrenched at CAL, WN, JBLU, FDX, NJA, FX, CS, and UPS with NO plans to come back. In fact, most are closer to upgrade than they are from their original furlough date. Talk about exaggeration. Apparently, you are implying that all your buds will have been furloughed 8 years when it's all said and done, however, where they are now is as good or better compared to the options furloughees had in the 70s and 80s. LOL.

I wouldn't say "firmly entrenched." Yes, some of us are fortunate enough to have been hired at on good companies. I was hired on early at FedEx for a furloughee (one of the first classes that furloughees were hired into), and that was only a little more than a year ago. CAL just started hiring again, and same with UPS and their furloughee policy. So after 4 plus years being furloughed, I was hired at a stable company. I'm not going. I know plenty who are waiting. They are flying RJs in a flowback agreement, or flying charter. Or checks. Or checking people out at Home Depot.

So to answer your point. Some have great jobs, and not going back, but saying "most" is a stretch, and you know it. LOL.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I think there are many. You must admit that the folks calling for change are a minority. I know that SWAPA is endorsing change, along with JetBlue and a few MECs, but overall I think that individuals wanting to work until they're 65 are relatively few (they're at least the minority). Tens (maybe even hundreds) of pilots retire every day with nary a peep. They relish the thought of taxiing under the water, hanging up their uniform, and getting to relax with their wife and children. They want to take the RV across the country or go get $100 hamburgers in their Archer. I fly with them, and they can't wait until the day when they can be lazy. God bless them... they've earned it.

There were always a few who, even with the big pensions, wanted to work. I thought that should be their right. But my personal feeling was, as was the feeling of most others in that same situation: If they (the pilot group through the contract) want to pay me that big pension to retire, then OK I’ll retire and that will be fine.

At that time I really didn't realize how selfish this was to the small airlines with only a 401k type of retirement plan. My actions of going along with the age 60-rule and not fighting it was OK only because I didn't understand the situation for the pilots at the smaller airlines where they had no pension as I did. Of course, this is how the AA guys feel now. They just don't understand the situation that they may find themselves in very soon.

But now, with the loss of the pensions and most everyone in the 401k boat, it's a totally different situation where you never know if you have enough money to retire. And unfortunately, most pilots do not think they have it.

So I believe you are very wrong about those others who are age 59 wanting to retire now and happy about it. (Maybe they was true 2-years ago) By even the ALPA survey it showed that 85% of the age 58- 59 pilots wanted to change the age 60 rule. And I would guess that that number by now (2-years after the survey) is that 95% want to change the age 60 rule. The other 5% are still in denial of their situation.

Many younger pilots think that a 60-year old guy wants to travel around the country on passes or in an RV with his wife and go fishing, play golf or become a FI junkie all day. I may have thought that too when I was 35, but just for your information, that is totally wrong. We want to continue doing all the things we have always done. People do not change when they are age 60 unless they become sick. President Bush is age 60 and does he seem to want to sit around and relax? No way.

People age 60 want to continue with their lives just as you do. Now in some cases if a person has some horrible double commute to work to fly for a Regional job, then maybe they would want to retire (quit) if they even think they may have the money to establish themselves in their local area. But such a situation is understandable in that case. And I’m sure these people are happy to live where they want, doing something in the local area even if it’s not flying.

So if you will, please understand, we are not being selfish, we just need to work because we should have a right to provide for our families and our future retirements, when we can really afford to do that.



.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I wouldn't say "firmly entrenched."
So to answer your point. Some have great jobs, and not going back, but saying "most" is a stretch, and you know it. LOL.

It is my understanding that 50% have passed up on the recall at UAL. That certainly says they like where they are. And I would guess that you will definitely not come back to UAL. The future of the big bucks is FE and UPS. No F/A's but that may be better except no ladies at the Captain's layover parties.

Sluggo: Congratulations on your new job, but please be more understanding of our situation. You have your future set now, so why shouldn't we all have a chance to earn a living too, just like you and Andy.
.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Tens (maybe even hundreds) of pilots retire every day with nary a peep. They relish the thought of taxiing under the water, hanging up their uniform, and getting to relax with their wife and children. They want to take the RV across the country or go get $100 hamburgers in their Archer. I fly with them, and they can't wait until the day when they can be lazy. God bless them... they've earned it.

I wish to comment further on this quote by Sluggo.

The fact is that there are about 10 pilots reaching age-60 and “retiring” each day, about half of those are with the Regionals. Now add it up, how many of the Regional guys can possibly have enough cash on hand to retire at anything like the standard of living they were when they were working. It is almost impossible. Most of the Regional pilots that I talk to say they can hardly make enough money to live much less save for retirement. And please consider the likelihood of a divorce or two along the way to divide the 401k money once or twice. And this is also true for the guys with the majors. Unfortunately in our society divorce is all too common and for pilots because of many factors, the divorce rate is about twice the rate of the general public.

Now it is true that when there are delays and cancellations pilots do complain and say how glad they will be to retire and go fishing. Well let me tell you that that is all just talk at the time. And when the reality of the situation really hits, the water cannons are not welcome. Most all of those guys want to work and they definitely can not afford an Archer to fly to get the $100 hamburgers any more. Of course there are always exceptions to this but don't be mislead by the constant complainers who say they can not wait for retirement. Complaining is just something that we all do for some reason. Whether you're an F/O or a senior captain, everyone complains.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

That hired at 35 number was just an example. I'm a furloughed United guy. I've had the last 5+ years off. Also, first house/first wife. Hopefully it'll stay that way (okay, I have plans to buy another house. I'm trying to keep the wife, though)
I'm not too good with the math. Can you work out how much I'd have in the bank if I had UndauntedFlyers career. Hired at United at 22, so that's 38 years there. The last 18 as a captain (I think that's pretty conservative). So let's use an average salary of $75,000 for the first 20 years and $200,000 for the last 18 (average). What does that come out to... approximately.

Sluggo_63,

Another area these guys don't want to touch is how badly this profession has degraded over the years. A UPS friend of mine whose father flew at Continental in the 70’s said his Dad was making $120,000 in 1976. That translates into $427,000 in 2006.

Both Captain and F/O pay rates at the legacies have been decimated by pay cuts, bankruptcy, and inflation. Heck, a long distance truck with an 8th grade education is practically making what an F/O makes.

An increase to age 65 will be particularly devastating to those in the 35-50 age bracket who are stuck in the right seat an additional five years. Yes, you will make more at the end, but what difference does that make if you lost your home, wife, and can’t put your kids through college in your 30’s, 40’s, and early 50’s. What about the pilots stuck out in the street an additional five years at zero pay, how do you think that will work out for them??

At American the pay differentials between CA and FO are in the range of 30% -50%. See how that will impact your retirement funds especially with compounding interest.

Count on a movement at both ALPA and APA to put those who want to retire at age 65 behind all those who were hired under the AGE 60 RULE. It’s the only fair way. That way no one reaps an underserved windfall at the expense of those junior. It will also protect against any reinstatement of those now in the 60 - 65 bracket that will be doing a class action lawsuit to get back on the property.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Andy]

Andy, I'm still waiting for an answer as to how much money you have given to ALPA and the ALPA-PAC.

Cool! We're gonna play 'answer my question, dammit!' OK, I'll bite. But please note ALL of the questions below that I've asked you that you haven't answered. Please return the favor and answer them.
First, you want to know total money that I've given to ALPA and ALPA-PAC. I was on probation until 1 Oct 2001, so I did not make any payments during my probationary year. Between 1 Oct 01 and 2 Mar 02 (my furlough date), I'd estimate that I paid ALPA ~$1000. I didn't donate to ALPA-PAC during my probation year; I was eating into savings during that time period and did not have discretionary income. I did not give to ALPA-PAC post-911 because it was obvious that I was going to lose my job and I needed to save every spare nickel that I could. I haven't given to ALPA-PAC during my furlough because I'm not an active ALPA member.

I find it rather interesting that you care so much about ALPA, considering that in post #466, you said:

So now the age 60 rule is being maintained (by ALPA/APA) for nothing but promotions, and at APA for "retirement" pay for no work and for promotions. This is really nothing more than typical union featherbedding, no different than ALPA’s 3rd man on the 737 from 1968 - 1978 and the "fireman" on a diesel locomotive.

And how about a thank you for the large amount of money my senority group voted to give to the furloughees like you for the much needed health insurance for you and your family. Many of your group have said thank you for the help. I have seen the thank you notes posted on the ALPA board, I but all I hear from you is "quit now old man so I can get promoted."
Do you have any comment on this?

Yeah, let’s talk about the “large amount of money my senority group voted to give to the furloughees.” IIRC, the max that any furloughee could receive is around $3K and those on property paid ~$30/mo for approximately 35 months … around $1050. I’m sure that you’ll correct me if I’m wrong on those figures.
The furlough fund was initiated very slowly; IIRC it wasn’t until after the Mar 03 furloughs. Now, let’s see what those on property also did for us furloughees. 1) Waived my rights under the no furlough clause. (horsetraded it to benefit those still on property) 2) Got rid of longevity pay for furloughees. . (horsetraded it to benefit those still on property) 3) Negotiated new work rules in C2003 where pilots on property would work an additional 15-20% block hours, effectively adding another couple of years to my furlough. This was done to reduce the paycut for those on property 4) Negotiated PBS in C2003, allowing the company to reduce pilot manning by ~5%, effectively adding another 6 mos to my furlough.
Gee, thanks a whole lot, Undaunted Flyer. I really appreciate all that you have done for us furloughees, but please, don’t do any more for us.

OK, now it’s my turn to play, ‘answer my question, dammit.’

Captain, you were #11 on the 2005 seniority list and you are #9 on the 2006 seniority list. You have been a 777 Captain for how long? Likely before your paycut under C2003 that brought you down to earning ~$180K/yr. What were you earning after C2K, $275K/yr? Where'd it all go?

Can you explain how you've been able to squander away such a huge salary?

You’ve answered that you’ve been a 777 captain since 1999. How about answering the other questions?

How many airlines have you seen go under during your career? Did you not learn from ALL of those ex-Easterners on United property who lost their entire pensions? (I flew with a lot of them; I heeded their advice to not live beyond a flight engineer's salary). Did you think that there was no possibility of meeting the same fate?

Why is 60 discriminatory, yet 65 is not discriminatory? Or do you advocate flying until you die?

Captain, please tell me two things:

1) Where did all of your money go? You've been earning a 6 figure salary for a LONG time.
2) Why didn't you spearhead this effort to change the retirement age 20 years ago? Why did you wait until you were 59?

ZOIKS! What are figuring for an annual cash burn rate? $500K to $1 mil for five years??

Care to state publicly the amount of stock and bond money that you received? Ballpark from what I've read is that it's north of $500K.

If this is truly a 'cause' that you be fighting for, is it safe to assume that you will continue to champion this effort after January 28, or will you join the rest of the 59ers who have recently 'seen the light,' only to disappear once there is no personal benefit to them?

Have you noticed that everyone voicing a strong opinion on extending the retirement age is over 55?

 

[filejw]

This is what you all are yapping about.

Age limit for flight crew
Amendment 167 to Annex 1
The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:
2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.2 Recommendation.— A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.
Practical effects
Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (signed in Chicago, it is often quoted as the "Chicago Convention") limits the international recognition of flight crew licences to those who are in full compliance with the Standards of Annex 1 (note that paragraph 2.1.10.1 is a Standard). As a result, until 23 November 2006, even if an individual State authorizes a pilot-in-command (PIC) to fly in commercial air transport operations when over the age of 60 (65 from 23 November) that authorization can only be given for flights within that State's national airspace. This is because no State can force another State to accept its own deviation from an ICAO Standard. Article 33 does not apply to the co-pilot as paragraph 2.1.10.2 is a Recommendation, not a Standard.
Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention are also relevant to the age limit of pilots-in-command engaged in commercial air transport operations as they authorize international flights by flight crew who do not meet all international licensing Standards, provided that an authorization is given by each State into which the aircraft is operated.
In practice, this means that if a pilot in command is under the age specified in paragraph 2.1.10.1 (60 years at present and 65 from November 2006) he cannot be prevented by reason of age from operating into any ICAO Contracting State. Further, once he has reached the specified age, he may still operate as PIC, subject to certain conditions:
his/her national Licensing Authority permits it; and,
operations are undertaken only in national airspace; unless,
another State has given specific authorization that such flights are permitted in its airspace.
A State may wish to impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in 2.1.10.1. It may do this for the licenses it issues, but, as stated above, it cannot prevent an aircraft operated by a PIC holding a licence from another State, who is below the ICAO upper limit, from operating in its airspace.
For co-pilots, since paragraph 2.1.10.2 is a Recommendation, not a Standard, the upper age limit is set by the national Licensing Authority which can choose to impose any national age limit on the licenses it issues, as there are no international restrictions based on age for co-pilots.
When over 60, a six-monthly medical examination will be necessary (ICAO specifies an annual medical for those under 60 years who are engaged in two-pilot operations). For single-pilot commercial air transport operations, the upper age limit remains at 60 years.
Most of the States that have authorized their pilots to fly as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations after they reach the age specified in 2.1.10.1 also authorize pilots holding a license issued or validated by another States to fly in their own airspace under the same condition. However, ICAO does not collect information on States authorizing pilots to fly in their airspace after reaching the age of 60 and cannot provide information on the subject. Pilots seeking such information are advised to contact individual Civil Aviation Authorities.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

To Andy:

At least Sluggo had the common courtesy to sincerely thank me for the 3 plus years of assessments that I and the other ALPA members all paid so as to provide you, your family and you colleagues with health insurance.

So it seems like the amount you paid voluntarily to the ALPA PAC was ZERO. The only amount you paid to ALPA was involuntary (kicking and screaming from what you have written) as required dues. What a great guy you are.

Andy, do you ever question why you are the only FI member that has an attitude like you do?

And Andy: Just get used to it. The age 60 law will change soon. You should just relax and accept it. Age discrimination is wrong.

 

[rfresh]

It's hard to believe this topic is still being discussed after all these decades...

 

[Phaedrus]

You mean greed? Hel1! People have been talking about that for millenia.
Or do you refer to rationalizing self-centered desire by crying "discrimination"!?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

 

[Andy]

To Andy:

At least Sluggo had the common courtesy to sincerely thank me for the 3 plus years of assessments that I and the other ALPA members all paid so as to provide you, your family and you colleagues with health insurance.

So it seems like the amount you paid voluntarily to the ALPA PAC was ZERO. The only amount you paid to ALPA was involuntary (kicking and screaming from what you have written) as required dues. What a great guy you are.

Andy, do you ever question why you are the only FI member that has an attitude like you do?

And Andy: Just get used to it. The age 60 law will change soon. You should just relax and accept it. Age discrimination is wrong.

UndauntedFlyer, you have not answered any of my questions!

Now, if you expect a thanks from me for something that I barely used (unemployed for a while and did use it for a barebones policy), you're smoking crack. My job's health insurance covers me.

How much did you pay to ALPA-PAC while furloughed? Likely as much as me.

I had no problems with paying my ALPA assessments, but I do have a problem with those pilots on UAL property who screwed the furloughees, and then say stuff like, 'we helped pay for your medical insurance while you were unemployed.' How generous. You change the work rules to keep us unemployed longer and pay a few bucks a month (less than one hour's wage/mo for you) for medical so that you can sleep with a clear conscience.

Yes, age discrimination is wrong. The age 60 law is not about age discrimination, it's about safety. The problem is that pilots get sick more often after age 55, the same point at which the accident stats per flight hour take a sharp upward turn.
Please keep thinking positively about age 60 changing soon. Sen. Frist, MD is the one who gives a thumbs up or down to any bills on the calendar to go to the Senate floor. S 65's been sitting there under General Orders no. 382 since 3/30/06 and Frist has chosen to not have it go to the floor. Frist is a doctor and is able to comprehend the effects of aging. On the House side, the Aviation Subcommittee (where HR 65 has been since 1/5/05) isn't even scheduled to meet this next week. This session of Congress is scheduled to adjourn on 8 Oct. The clock's ticking and there's no forward movement on either S 65 or HR 65.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy:

It is amazing how little you really know when you seem to think you know so much. I have decided to just let you continue posting and thereby permit you to bask in your ignorance on this subject.

 

[Phaedrus]

Nice sidestep. No, really.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

.

Yes, age discrimination is wrong. The age 60 law is not about age discrimination, it's about safety. The problem is that pilots get sick more often after age 55, the same point at which the accident stats per flight hour take a sharp upward turn.
Please keep thinking positively about age 60 changing soon. Sen. Frist, MD is the one who gives a thumbs up or down to any bills on the calendar to go to the Senate floor. S 65's been sitting there under General Orders no. 382 since 3/30/06 and Frist has chosen to not have it go to the floor. Frist is a doctor and is able to comprehend the effects of aging. On the House side, the Aviation Subcommittee (where HR 65 has been since 1/5/05) isn't even scheduled to meet this next week. This session of Congress is scheduled to adjourn on 8 Oct. The clock's ticking and there's no forward movement on either S 65 or HR 65.

Like it or not, the rest of the aviation world is changing on age 60 in November....2 months. Then there will be pilots on passenger carrying aircraft flying as PIC that are over 60....We know that is going to happen.

Funny how you say that the age 60 law is not about age discrimination, but safety....but it wasn't enacted with safety in mind....and yet, even the FAA cannot come up with any facts concerning a reduction in safety for pilots over 60...even though members of congress have asked them to produce that information many times over. They are now officially "neutral" on the repeal of age 60.

And, rumour has it that Capt. Duane Woerth told the AWA MEC last week that the repeal of the age 60 law is a "done deal"

Tejas

 

[GuinessGuy]

No way. I'm work'in in my garden when I'm sixty. If I can't afford to do just that, I'm puttin in 20 hrs/week at Home Depot and enjoying my family.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Questions and answers regarding age 60

From: Samuel D. Woolsey
Date: September 9, 2006

Subject: Re: Question: Age60Rule.com


First Officer (FO): I have a few questions regarding the changing of the Age 60 rule here in the USA. First, I have been told that the USA is a treaty member of ICAO.

Sam Woolsey (SW): That is true. In fact, the US was one of the major forces at the creation of ICAO.


FO: ICAO will be changing their Age 60 rule to 65 in November 2006.

SW: Some corrections needed here. An ICAO "rule" is actually a "minimum standard" (minimum in the sense of safety, not age) that one State may require of (or impose on) another State's carriers and pilots, but says nothing about what a State may require of its own national carriers and pilots. The current ICAO standard for pilot age is maximum age 60 for PIC, with no maximum age limit for co-pilots. The US, on the other hand, restricts both Captains and co-pilots of its own national carriers to age 60.

Example: Canada has no maximum age limit for any of its pilots, Captains or co-pilots. The US restricts all to age 60. Under the ICAO rules, the US may (and does) restrict both PICs and co-pilots of US registered carriers to age 60, world-wide. And the US may (and does) restrict PICs (Captains) for Canadian (and all other nation's) carriers to age 60. BUT, the US may not (and does not) restrict co-pilots of Canadian carriers (or those of any other nation, for that matter) to any maximum age.

The ICAO rule to become effective in November is not simply age 65, however. The new ICAO rule will be one pilot to age 65 provided the other pilot is below 60. Thus, either the PIC or the co-pilot of foreign registered carriers will be able to fly into the US to age 65, but if either one is past 60, the other pilot (co-pilot or PIC, as the case may be) must be under 60.

But again -- this is not a regulation, but rather a minimum safety standard that one State may require of another State's carriers and pilots, but says nothing about what one State may regulate for its own national carriers and pilots.

Thus, even after November 23d, the US FAA may (and, in my view, will, unless compelled by court or Congress) keep its own rule of both pilots (Capt and co-pilot) of US carriers restricted to age 60. BUT, for foreign registered carriers and pilots (e.g., all the rest of the world) the US must accept one pilot (Capt or co-pilot) to maximum age 65 provided the other pilot (co-pilot or Capt) is under 60.

For your information, the FAA has stated publicly that it agrees with the above interpretation.



FO: Therefore, the FAA will have 30 days to file for an age 60 exemption or the ICAO Age 65 rule will be automatically implemented in the USA in November 2006. Is this True?


SW: Differences, not "exemptions": ICAO requires that a "Difference" be filed (not an exemption) when a State has a regulation that is less restrictive than the ICAO "standard." The purpose of filing this "difference" is to notify the rest of the world that the filing State enforces on its own pilots a rule that is less restrictive than the ICAO standard, thus the rest of the world is alerted to check on, thus may more easily enforce the more restrictive ICAO standard on the filing State's carriers and pilots. Examples: Canada currently files their "difference" stating that they have no maximum age limit for any pilots -- Capts or co-pilots. The US does not need to file a difference about its co-pilot rules, however, 'cause they (maximum age 60) are more restrictive than the ICAO standard of no age limit for co-pilots.


FO: Secondly, I was also told that if the USA does go to the new Age 65 rule there will be new medical standards.

SW: Currently, the ICAO standard is less restrictive than the US standard. For Captains (same as our medical Class I), the ICAO standard requires a physical only once a year. With the new (November) change, the ICAO standard will match the US -- each 6 months.



FO: I was informed that the ICAO and FAA medical standards are different and that the ICAO standards are considerably more stringent than our current FAA standards.

SW: As to the specifics - I know they are worded a bit differently -- but comparable. Certainly NOT "considerably more stringent." That is NOT the nature of the ICAO minimum standards system.

Moreover, provided Canada's (or any other nation's) regulation's (medical or otherwise) are found to satisfy the minimum ICAO standard, no other State (the US, for example) may reject them, or re-interpret them, or attempt to apply a different (i.e., their own) standard.



FO: Is this also true and if so, then can you tell me what those new medical standards will be or at least how they will differ from those we have now here in the USA?

SW: No. But then, again, the ICAO "standards" are just that -- minimum safety standards that one State may require of another State's carriers and pilots.



FO: Thank you for you time and effort, I appreciate it!


SW: MY EDITORIAL COMMENT: The questions you ask suggest that there is a huge mass of misinformation -- perhaps disinformation -- out there in the US air carrier workplace. Whether you, personally, are in favor of change -- or not -- you are wise to have asked, and thus become better informed. If there is anything -- anything -- in the above with which you disagree or do not understand, please ask for clarification. Further, you are free to share my comments with anyone, anywhere, anytime -- with or without attribution.

Please note that it’s my opinion that while votes are important for a politician, governing public policy should be reflective of fact, not greed, self-interest, or emotion. Thus, where misinformation and/or disinformation is pervasive, the politician's job is not just legislation, but also education.

 

[miles otoole]

No way. I'm work'in in my garden when I'm sixty. If I can't afford to do just that, I'm puttin in 20 hrs/week at Home Depot and enjoying my family.

Most pilots will do the same thing when they hit 60 as well. Many won't be able to pass physicals. It will give the small minority of folks who want to keep working past 60 the opportunity. Might as well plan for it as it's a done deal as higher taxes in the future. 401 (K) contribution limits will go up as well, which should help.

 

[Phaedrus]

Done deal? Fine. Claiming your fighting for it because of your moral stance against discrimination? Hogwash.