AGE 65 now LAW!!!

[Charlie Brown]

you are a crybaby

And you are a ************.

 

[zonker]

Amusing reading the various takes on the age 60 rule. However, the bottom line is that the age 60 rule was unjust from the day it was put into effect. Bad from various aspects. We lived with that law and some of us profitted from that law over the years, getting promotted at the expense of people forced out before their time.

Just because we all "knew the rules", doesn't mitigate the fact that the age 60 rule was capricious and discriminatory.

Slavery was made legal by a bad law. It persisted for years and even the Blacks "knew the rules". Many people profitted from slavery and many people came to accept it as the norm. However, in the final analysis, it was a bad law and it was finally terminated.

Yes, there will be pilots who suffer from this "emancipation" from age discrimination, just like the slave traders who were furious that their livelyhood had been taken away. I don't think anyone with any sense wept buckets of tears for the slave traders who profittd from "bad law"...I don't think anyone should spend too much time crying for those pilots who were hired early and retained because people were being forced out only because of age and now are "on hold".

Next question: when will they get rid of the age 65 rule?

Slavery laws are comparable to Age 60 laws. Brilliant work, professor.

This shows you the level of intelligence we are dealing with here.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Actually, slavery was never codified, was it? It was practiced because it was not illegal.

 

[PCL_128]

but Prater may get to hear something other than applause next time I see him.

He won't care. I think he's proven once and for all that what the membership thinks is completely irrelevant in his mind.

 

[Mooneymite]

Slavery laws are comparable to Age 60 laws. Brilliant work, professor.

This shows you the level of intelligence we are dealing with here.

Slavery was discriminatory.
The age 60 rule was discriminatory.
Laws enforcing slavery were bad laws.
The age 60 rule was a bad rule passed for bad reasons.
Slavery was eventually abolished.
The age 60 rule was eventually abolished.
Those who profited from slavery were bitter.
Those who profited from the age 60 rule are bitter.
Everyone is ultimately better off without slavery.
Everyone is ultimately better off without the age 60 rule.

Thanks for elevating me to full professor!imp:

 

[Patriot328]

This will only slow things down temporarily for the young guys - like myself (29) -

This doesn't just "slow things down temporarily" for the young guys. If you are not a captain and you want to retire at age 60 (it's a choice now, right?) you just lost 5 years of captain pay differential (and B-fund contributions and all the interest it makes).

You're writing a check for $300,000 - $700,000.

If you want that money back (make it up), you need to work for another 2-4 years past 60 (depending on where you work). Basically, you are working an extra 2-4 years for the same amount of money you would have made before. 2-4 years of work for FREE to pay for today's senior pilots.

 

[Lear70]

Mooney, I supported age 65, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

To attempt to somehow correlate slavery, a practice that was inanely cruel, capriciously split families, contributed to devastating the entire country with war, and regularly ended in said slave's untimely demise with a law that made someone leave the cockpit while they were still able to fly is a flawed argument.

I know it's dramatic and "sounds" good, but you really should pick a discriminatory practice that is more in line with the consequences suffered as a result of said law.

Just a thought... Your mileage may vary.

Kudos to the guys who are willing to go back to the right seat from square one, but like others said, I believe you're in the minority, and I know the lawyers were on the phone first thing this morning trying to get the pilots who retired in the last year or so while this change was being considered their jobs back as CA's.

I'll put a C-note on it (not that I can afford it these days, but it's a pretty safe bet)...

 

[Caveman]

This doesn't just "slow things down temporarily" for the young guys. If you are not a captain and you want to retire at age 60 (it's a choice now, right?) you just lost 5 years of captain pay differential (and B-fund contributions and all the interest it makes).

You're writing a check for $300,000 - $700,000.

If you want that money back (make it up), you need to work for another 2-4 years past 60 (depending on where you work). Basically, you are working an extra 2-4 years for the same amount of money you would have made before. 2-4 years of work for FREE to pay for today's senior pilots.

I've been reading your recent posts about your upgrade being delayed for 5 years. The problem with your conclusion is it assumes ZERO growth. If you had ZERO growth with age 60 in place you wouldn't be upgrading anytime soon either. The main reason anybody has upgraded in the last 50 years is growth, not forced age discrimination.

Anybody with an ounce of intelligence knows that this new law will affect the industry. The question is how much and in what ways. IMO, it will be negligible. Some immediate upgrades will be delayed a bit. For everybody else there will be a slight shift until things get settled into the new equation. Any CBA changes will be the sole responsibility of the interested parties. Don't want it changed? Don't agree to a change.

If, and that's a big if, it plays out like the doom and gloom crowd thinks it will I still support the change because it was the right thing to do. Robbing a man of his livelihood based soley on an arbitrary birthday is wrong. Yes, 65 is wrong too, but it's better than where we were. I'm in favor of abolishing all mandatory retirement age laws.

Part of the problem with the age discrimination proponents is that they stereotype everybody that supported this change as geezers nearing retirement. You could not be more wrong. A lot of us are younger than 50 and a lot of us are still FO's. The difference is that we know right from wrong.

 

[Mooneymite]

Perspective of years.

Mooney, I supported age 65, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

To attempt to somehow correlate slavery, a practice that was inanely cruel, capriciously split families, contributed to devastating the entire country with war, and regularly ended in said slave's untimely demise with a law that made someone leave the cockpit while they were still able to fly is a flawed argument.

Not to belabor the point, but I specifically chose an issue which everyone sees clearly in retrospect (slavery) and point out certain similarities with a current, controversial issue (age 60). Co-pilots having to remain co-pilots an extra 5 years is not slavery, but while everyone can see that slavery was discriminatory with 147 years of perspective, they seem to have a blindness to current discrimination right in front of their nose.

People strongly argued the merits of slavery at one time. Today, it is not even discussed. The court of public opinion is closed. I suspect in time, people will see the age 60 issue as clearly as they see the slavery issue today. I doubt that many of those who support this discrimination so passionately today will be proud to admit to their grandchildren in 2087 that they ardently supported age discrimination in 2007.

 

[Patriot328]

I've been reading your recent posts about your upgrade being delayed for 5 years. The problem with your conclusion is it assumes ZERO growth. If you had ZERO growth with age 60 in place you wouldn't be upgrading anytime soon either. The main reason anybody has upgraded in the last 50 years is growth, not forced age discrimination.

Anybody with an ounce of intelligence knows that this new law will affect the industry. The question is how much and in what ways. IMO, it will be negligible. Some immediate upgrades will be delayed a bit. For everybody else there will be a slight shift until things get settled into the new equation. Any CBA changes will be the sole responsibility of the interested parties. Don't want it changed? Don't agree to a change.

If, and that's a big if, it plays out like the doom and gloom crowd thinks it will I still support the change because it was the right thing to do. Robbing a man of his livelihood based soley on an arbitrary birthday is wrong. Yes, 65 is wrong too, but it's better than where we were. I'm in favor of abolishing all mandatory retirement age laws.

Part of the problem with the age discrimination proponents is that they stereotype everybody that supported this change as geezers nearing retirement. You could not be more wrong. A lot of us are younger than 50 and a lot of us are still FO's. The difference is that we know right from wrong.

The amount someone is affected by this will depend on what carrier they are at, what their age is, and what their seniority is. Every person will be different. If you work at a young carrier where there are no retirements in the foreseeable future and you're moving up the list because of growth, you will not notice it as much (at least now, but you will still notice it later on).

If you work for a carrier that has some growth but most of the movement is done by retirements, you will notice it immediately and effects will be real.

Was age 60 discrimination? Yep, so is 65. So is 23 for an ATP, 16-17 for a drivers license, 56 for controllers to retire. As people get older, their skills deteriorate. Each person is different and some go quicker than others, but what age do you stop flying? How will you know it's time to quit? Should a professional pilot quit flying before they become a danger, or after they become a danger? How will you tell?

Congress completely disregard the rule making process the FAA had set up to change the rule because of a loud minority of pilots wanting to continue to hold their seats. This ruling sets a bad precedent of congress bypassing the FAA and changing rules on their own. What's the next thing they want to change?