Age 60 legislation is moving fast as of today

[Flopgut]

These guys have to have somebody to blame for all their troubles. It must be pretty depressing to be so young and so hopeless. It's funny how as you mature you realize there really AREN'T monsters in the closet after all.

There aren't monsters in the closet?! What closet are talking about? The one you share with the tailgunners in the back tearing open Cokes?! Or are you trying to elude to the real world? You bet there are some F-ing monsters! How would you characterize what's going on in the industry? Furloughs, abrogatred retirements, bankruptcies, mergers, hostile takeovers, cabotage, geo-ploitical churn, etc. etc.etc. This is the time for good decisions to be made and the rebuilding to commence. NOT have the top few pilots turn to their coworkers for a handout, willing to sacrafice everyone else for themselves.

I guess you got senior enough you just stopped paying attention.

It's funny how when you mature, half of us actually care, and the other half only care about themselves.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Since you've failed to grasp the relatively simple concept of supply curve shift, I've supplied a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Refer to: Supply curve shifts. Unfortunately, the text has an error; instead of reading S0 to S1, the text in the paragraph should read S1 to S2.
Pilots are the widgets. Quantity of pilots increases; price of pilots decreases. Econ 101 for dummies.

Thanks Dr. Friedman, only one flaw in your otherwise self-described flawless logic - Pilots are hired or retained to fly aircraft and operate under relatively long-term CBA's, thus decreasing the elasticity of demand. If you were dealing with widgets and Econ 101 for dummies, you'd be right on. Alas, not today. And you are confusing short and long-term supply and demand. Also, this has a greater impact on those looking to get hired rather than on current employees, as carriers can weigh the short-term cost/benefit of carrying a slight overage versus furloughing or running short and junior manning. I suppose that Econ degree I got from that hick school in west Philadelphia does come in handy every now and then.

But if you would prefer to focus on econ-one-upsmanship rather than the issue at hand: that raising the retirement age provides far more benefits than costs and that it's opponents can no longer hide behind specious safety arguments (fear mongering) and the misinformation about how it will stunt the careers of everyone behind them, then you'll have to find another cage to rattle, this one's closed. Neither claim is true and you and the opponents of raising the retirement age know it.

And if all this has degenerated into is name-calling then it's not worth my time.

Too complex for you? That proves once again that you can't teach a geriatric dog new tricks.

[/quote]

Plus, as I've repeated over and over, I still have 17 (or 22) years to go, so the geriatric thing is a little premature.

 

[Bringupthebird]

What closet are talking about? The one you share with the tailgunners in the back tearing open Cokes?!

That's just freakin' me out. You fly jets do you? I'd say include that quote to your Senators when you're looking for support.

I guess you got senior enough you just stopped paying attention.

That's not nice. I think I hurt something laughing at that! Senior???? Me???? I don't see getting a weekend off for 2-3 years and getting off reserve for up to 5. I'm a lot of things, but senior ain't one of 'em. But I still support what's right, even if it costs me in the short-term. Try it, you'll like it.

 

[767pilot]

The 104 rule is that the combined age of the two front seat pilots must not exceed 104 years if one crewmember is over 60.

In a world where we are being beaten over the head by the fact that the number 60 is arbitrary, how on earth did they come up with the magic number of 104?

 

[Flopgut]

Bringingupaturd:

Majority wins in collective bargaining. That's the only thing that matters. You need to understand that if you're going to be in a union. Once upon a time, there were closed shops. If a member went off on some minority tangent (like you're doing) they could be tossed out of the union, and then be out of a job. That's how weakling members like you got reigned in. That's how workers got more money: That's how work was made safer.

It IS a safety issue and an economic issue. But the more moral arguement is: Is it right for the majority opinion to not be supported and are you a reliable union brother? Obviously no to both. I don't think you know a thing about the steel and coal industry so please don't speculate about that line of work. Workers in thoise indutries wouldn't tolerate a union brother like you for a nanosecond.

 

[elcid]

Not all SWAPA members support the repeal. Stand by for the vote results. I think it will be surprising how many vote no.

That being said, it's no black and white issue. If I were 59, totally healthy and capable and wanted to keep flying I'd think age 60 was a crock. I'm voting NO because I think the young guys take a hit for the benefit of the older, often richer guys. But c'mon. This isn't as clear cut as many of you make it. I don't think any of you really know what the outcome will be either way. There are too many variables and too many things we can't predict about the future, the economy, wars, technology, fuel prices, automation, etc, etc.

 

[Captain Overs]

It may hurt for awhile but it also prolongs your career. What's wrong with that? Maybe you went to your airline because of promises of fast upgrades?

 

[Andy]

Thanks Dr. Friedman, only one flaw in your otherwise self-described flawless logic - Pilots are hired or retained to fly aircraft and operate under relatively long-term CBA's, thus decreasing the elasticity of demand. If you were dealing with widgets and Econ 101 for dummies, you'd be right on. Alas, not today. And you are confusing short and long-term supply and demand. Also, this has a greater impact on those looking to get hired rather than on current employees, as carriers can weigh the short-term cost/benefit of carrying a slight overage versus furloughing or running short and junior manning. I suppose that Econ degree I got from that hick school in west Philadelphia does come in handy every now and then.

OMG! You're now suggesting that there's an inelastic demand for pilots due to long term CBAs.
An example of a good with inelastic demand is cigarettes. Pilots can be hired and furloughed during a CBA; no one in their right mind would ever equate pilot employment with inelastic demand. The demand for pilots is extremely elastic; CBAs have very little effect on pilot demand.
Do yourself a favor and read a bit; grasp the concepts before you make a total fool of yourself. But that would require work on your part; you prefer to make things up ala Cliff Claven (still waiting for an explanation on your fantasy growth numbers).

You claim to have an econ degree? To be blunt, I don't believe you. No one with an econ degree could be that inept in these topics.

 

[Andy]

But c'mon. This isn't as clear cut as many of you make it. I don't think any of you really know what the outcome will be either way. There are too many variables and too many things we can't predict about the future, the economy, wars, technology, fuel prices, automation, etc, etc.

Yes, there are many variables. However, keeping all other factors constant, you can forecast the economic impact of a change in the age 60 rule. Since the effect of a rule change will have the same impact on the supply demand model regardless of any other changes, it can be shown that a change will result in decreased pilot wages. If there is explosive growth, wages will be lower than they would have been without a rule change. If there is contraction, concessions will be deeper than they would have been without a rule change.

 

[Peanut gallery]

I asked that specific question

In a world where we are being beaten over the head by the fact that the number 60 is arbitrary, how on earth did they come up with the magic number of 104?

I was told that this arbitrary number had to be attached to the legislation to get support in the political realm.

on another side note, heavy crewing issues were not discussed in front of the person I know on the commitee. He thinks they were addressed but was not present for that discussion.