Age 65 Stinks

[avbug]

You are actually so dense that you don't realize that all those guys had Captains that preceded them that surrendered their seats at 60? You really don't think that let them get ahead?

Pilots ahead of them that retired at age 60 didn't surrender their seats. Those seats were taken from them by regulation. They had no choice.

You tell lies also, and therefore have no credibility.

Those who are senior today, who are the first beneficiaries of the new legislation, did not benefit from others surrendering their careers. This is a truth. Your assertion that others simply sacrificed their seats in favor of others is a lie.

Are you willing to pack in your career today in order to give those junior to you a chance? No? You are a hypocrite, a liar, and cannot be trusted, nor given any credence. This is clear.

What I will not abide is folks like yourself telling me that I haven't been screwed.

I said no such thing. Perhaps you think you have been "screwed." Whether you "abide" it or not is entirely irrelevant. What you think about it is 100% unimportant, and irrelevant. The legislation has passed as an Act of Congress, and is public law. Perhaps you've been "screwed." Perhaps not. It's not particularly important what has happened, as life isn't fair. You can cry in your milk all you like and repeat your poor-me drama over and over if it suits you. All to no avail.

I couldn't care less if you "abide" it or not. Cry all you want.

I will certainly not sit by and allow you to pretend that you didn't screw us.

I did nothing to you. I'm not a beneficiary of the age 65 legislation. I didn't vote for it, I'm not a member of congress, I didn't lobby for it, and quite frankly, it makes no difference to me in terms of place nor career. If I never fly at an airline again it's entirely inconsequential.

I do applaud the legislation. I would applaud extending the age indefinitely or infinitely to the condition of the pilot. However, I lobbied for none of this, voted for none of this, and entered into this conversation to slap down the prideful such as yourself. Whether you "abide" it or not, I'm going to tell you what you don't want to hear, and you won't like it...but you're going to hear it anyway. You're nothing more than another arrogant, self-righteous, prideful adherent of the entitlement mindset. If you think I'm your problem, you're deluded, but I'll happily take that role.

You need to understand that the 65er's pulled a shameful screwjob on the rest of us and you're going to have to deal with the shame that comes with it.

That would be congress, mate. There's no "screwjob." Those who are age 60, marching toward age 65, simply retain the job which is theirs, given their seniority. You want it. You can't have it, and you cry about it in vain. Your cry is no different than all the others. "Get out of my way, old man. I want your job." You can't have it either. Your greed is unjustified, and without merit.

BTW, I'm not the furloughed guy.

I don't care.

I replied to multiple posters. You're cut from the same cloth.

 

[Hamburger]

Reading comprehension failure on so many levels.
They benefited from seats being vacant. Your failure to acknowledge that simple fact by trying to hide behind semantics is weak. 'Surrender" does not in any way imply willingly give up. You ever hear of an army that wasn't forced to surrender? They all very gladly took those seats when it was their turn.

Why are you not calling them greedy for upgrading when a seat was vacated by a 60 year old senior guy? Why are you not saying that they were a bunch of "get out of the way old man" crybabies when they upgraded? Exactly how were they different then?

An extra five years at the top of the pay scale at the direct expense of holding another pilot an extra five years at the bottom. Calling the guy you're holding at the bottom greedy is the absolute apex of hypocrisy.

The legislation was sponsored and lobbied for by a group of pilots. It was supported by ALPA against the will of the membership. Your attempt to pretend Congress pulled it from thin air further cements your clueless status.
THE EXACT SAME OPPORTUNITY. Nothing More. That's the opposite of greed.

You don't like me calling them out on it. I don't care. As for the entitlement mindset, George Carlin sums it up nicely:

"...the baby boomers: whiny, narcissistic, self-indulgent people who's simple philosophy: 'GIMME THAT! IT'S MINE!'...these people were given everything, everything was handed to them, and they took it all, sold it all; sex, drugs, and rock and roll and they stayed loaded for 20 yrs and had free ride, but now they're staring down the barrel of the burnout, and they don't like it, they don't like it so they've become self-righteous, and they wanna make things hard for young people, they tell em abstian from sex, say no to drugs, as for Rock and Roll they sold that for television commercials a long time ago, so they an buy 'pasta machines', and 'stair masters', and 'soy bean futures'.......you know something, they're cold, bloodless people."

 

[Hamburger]

Please explain to me how wanting the exact same opportunity as every pilot alive has had is greedy.

After that, please explain how lobbying and advocating an extra five years at the top of the pay scale that no pilot before them had access to, even though it means your fellow pilot will have to spend that time at the bottom is something other than greedy?

 

[Hamburger]

.....................................................................

 

[Flopgut]

Avbug:

You are really sticking it to some guys who have had some bad luck. I think it's BS and I think you are acting like a tool.

Point: One might be able to say that we have never had a fair or fairly implemented retirement age in this country for airline pilots. Depending on how you feel on how age 60 came about in the first place. But make no mistake, for all those years age 60 prevailed, there was a lot better effort at getting overall income (including retirement) monies up for all members. Members towed the line in the same basic direction and B plans were created, A plans grew and salaries increased. There was less bickering, less accusations, fewer attempts at humiliating the marginalized or picking on pilots who were down. Of course there were a few random acts of unscrupulous behavior regarding mergers, but basically, there weren't too may pilots acting like you are now. Those were less desparate times and yet more was being done to help more pilots. These furloughed guys you're picking on aren't completely wrong for believing more regard might be afforded them. Yet you don't hesitate or pull back in the least in assailing them as "arrogant liars" and taking far too much joy in their misfortune. Obviously you enjoy doing it, but you better hope you don't find yourself needing their help someday. This is a small profession and what comes around goes around.

I'll tell you where I think this is going: In a couple years we're going to figure out that age 65 didn't quite cut the mustard. It's OK for the old guys right now. But I'm concerned the guys who don't think they are affected aren't thinking big picture. Junior guys are hurting, so they are taking action, making adjustments, and directing their reps in collective bargaining. Sure, they are grousing about the change being negative and that grates on you, but they are laying plans. I don't see a matched effort on the part of guys who share your perspective. Be advised: You and pilots like you need to get your business straight and better not find yourselves in need of another age change. Or any other consideration for that matter.

I have to close this out pretty soon. I'd like an answer to the question I asked you. Do you think vacancies/displacements [opportunities] in seat position bidding should be increased to account for age 65?

 

[contrail67]

Can not believe how badly this ruling has affected everyone.

Vent over

Yes...we know.

 

[avbug]

They benefited from seats being vacant.

As will you when those more senior to you reach age 65.

'Surrender" does not in any way imply willingly give up.

Actually, it does. Otherwise, one is robbed. One is never forced to surrender. Simply because something is taken, does not mean one has surrendered it. One always has the option to fight to the death.

You ever hear of an army that wasn't forced to surrender?

Yes, the French. Regularly. From http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html (and while not all admittedly surrenders, it's what they do best, and interesting none the less):

Last update: May 4, 2005. - Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. [Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.]

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."

Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."

Norse invasions, 841-911.
After having their way with the French for 70 years, the Norse are bribed by a French King named Charles the Simple (really!) who gave them Normandy in return for peace. Normans proceed to become just about the only positive military bonus in France's [favour] for next 500 years.

Mexico, 1863-1864.
France attempts to take advantage of Mexico's weakness following its thorough thrashing by the U.S. 20 years earlier ("Halls of Montezuma"). Not surprisingly, the only unit to distinguish itself is the French Foreign Legion (consisting of, by definition, non-Frenchmen). Booted out of the country a little over a year after arrival.



Panama jungles 1881-1890.
No one but nature to fight, France still loses; canal is eventually built by the U.S. 1904-1914.



Napoleonic Wars.
Should be noted that the Grand Armee was largely (~%50) composed of non-Frenchmen after 1804 or so. Mainly disgruntled minorities and anti-monarchists. Not surprisingly, these performed better than the French on many occasions.



Haiti, 1791-1804.
French defeated by rebellion after sacrificing 4,000 Poles to yellow fever. Shows another rule of French warfare; when in doubt, send an ally.



India, 1673-1813.
British were far more charming than French, ended up victors. Therefore the British are well known for their tea, and the French for their whine (er, wine...). Ensures 200 years of bad teeth in England.



Barbary Wars, middle ages-1830.
Pirates in North Africa continually harass European shipping in Meditteranean. France's solution: pay them to leave us alone. America's solution: kick their asses ("the S************************* of Tripoli"). [America's] first overseas victories, won 1801-1815.



1798-1801, Quasi-War with U.S.
French privateers (semi-legal pirates) attack U.S. shipping. U.S. fights France at sea for 3 years; French eventually cave; sets precedent for next 200 years of Franco-American relations.



Moors in Spain, late 700s-early 800s.
Even with Charlemagne leading them against an enemy living in a hostile land, French are unable to make much progress. Hide behind Pyrennes until the modern day.



French-on-French losses (probably should be counted as victories too, just to be fair):



1208: Albigenses Crusade, French massacared by French.
When asked how to differentiate a heretic from the faithful, response was "Kill them all. God will know His own." Lesson: French are badasses when fighting unarmed men, women and children.



St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, August 24, 1572.
Once again, French-on-French slaughter.



Third Crusade.
Philip Augustus of France throws hissy-fit, leaves Crusade for Richard the Lion Heart to finish.



Seventh Crusade.
St. Louis of France leads Crusade to Egypt. Resoundingly crushed.



[Eighth] Crusade.
St. Louis back in action, this time in Tunis. See Seventh Crusade.
Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. By doing so, the Germans would have been breaking with their traditional route of invading France, entering through Belgium (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, etc.). French ignored this though, and put all their effort into these defenses.



Seven year War 1756-1763
Lost: after getting hammered by Frederick the Great of Prussia (yep, the Germans again) at Rossbach, the French were held off for the remainder of the War by Frederick of Brunswick and a hodge-podge army including some Brits. War also saw France kicked out of Canada (Wolfe at Quebec) and India (Clive at Plassey).

 

[avbug]

They all very gladly took those seats when it was their turn.

As will you when they either surrender their seats, or turn age 65 and the seat is taken from them by law.

Why aren't you surrendering your seat and ending your career in order that pilots who are less senior to you may have your seat? You are a hypocrite. Your sense of entitlement convinces you that others should do this for you...yet you are wholly unprepared to do it for others. As a hypocrite, this makes your position a lie, and therefore without merit or a shred of credibility.

I'd like an answer to the question I asked you. Do you think vacancies/displacements [opportunities] in seat position bidding should be increased to account for age 65?

Asked, and answered. Learn to read.

No need to change anything. You bid your line. Those senior to you get first pick. You get your pick, and those junior to you get their pick, by seniority. Nothing changes.

You are really sticking it to some guys who have had some bad luck.

I'm "sticking it" to no one. Quite the opposite, in fact. Likewise, I didn't create anyone's "bad luck." In fact, I'm furloughed just like the rest of them. The difference is I'm not sitting around whining about it.

Please explain to me how wanting the exact same opportunity as every pilot alive has had is greedy.

This may be past your comprehension level, as you seem better attuned to reading Dr. Seuss than taking part in this discussion. However, once you learn to accept that not everybody has the same opportunity in life, that not everyone is owed a living, flying is a privilege and not a right, and that with seniority comes certain privilege, you may eventually be prepared to talk.

You don't want what every pilot has. You want what those more senior to you have. Your mantra, hashed out in so many other words, is simple, as is your agenda. "Move over old man. Get out of the way. I want your job."

You want what "every pilot alive" has? What are we to make of this? Every pilot alive should have the same thing? Or do you simply mean airline pilots? Are you arrogant enough to believe that the aviation world begins and ends in the airlines? A young man flying for a regional should have what you have? A young man flying for a small freight operation in a piston Navajo should have what you have? Given your generous disposition, by all means halve your salary and send it to him...make for equality among the masses. At the same time, sacrifice your career now, today, in order to make room for those beneath you. If you don't do this, of course, you're a hypocrite and therefore a liar...because you preach the big lie.

You want those above you to step aside because you believe it's unfair to you. Will you give your salary to the unwashed masses, to "every pilot alive" in order to make for equality...and then surrender your career to give someone beneath you an opportunity to have what you have? No? Then you preach a lie, and are accordingly a hypocrite. As you cannot be trusted in your words, we can have no further use for you, and we may take it as gospel that anything further you have to say on the subject can without reservation be discounted for the lie we know it to be.

 

[Hamburger]

Why aren't you surrendering your seat and ending your career in order that pilots who are less senior to you may have your seat? You are a hypocrite. Your sense of entitlement convinces you that others should do this for you...yet you are wholly unprepared to do it for others.

I most certainly will surrender my seat at 60. Hopefully sooner. I cannot do it now because I have not had 30 years to prepare for something I know is coming. Of course, I'll have to spend those 30 years making sacrifices that those before me didn't have to, (no boats, airplanes, ex-wives, etc....) but that's life. No hypocrisy here. Comparing a beginning of a career to the end is just silly.

You've claimed that FO's have lost nothing as a result. I've demonstrated with very simple math the difference between a 25yrCA/10yrFO vs a 20yrCA/15yrFO career. You Fail.

You've clung to Bill Clinton-esque semantics of the word "surrender" to avoid admitting that the current captains benefited from the vacancies of their predecessors. You fail again.

You seem to have moved off of the claim that this fell from the sky into Congress' lap without a lot of support from pilots. Maybe you at least recognize your failure on this one.

Your assertions that wanting NOT ONE IOTA more than what every pilot before us had is greedy while the 65er wanting MORE than what every pilot before them had, at the expense of those below them, isn't greedy is a resounding failure. Do understand that greed is wanting MORE than your peers, not wanting exactly the same?

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about CEOs giving themselves a raise while cutting the pay of workers? Is it the CEOs or the workers who are greedy?

Also, still waiting how my "move over old man" mantra is any different than the mantra of those same guys 20 years ago when they got their upgrade class. Tell us all about how they were entitled whiners.

Finally, I don't expect anything. People are going to do what they are going to do. If they don't want to be called out on their actions, then they shouldn't take those actions. Those who expect me to reinforce the lies they tell themselves or pretend that it's no big deal are going to be disappointed.

 

[Fubijaakr]

OK, here's the deal, Hamburgler.

You can have the career progression of the average USAPA voter? How's that? 19 years seniority and furloughed.

Heck you want what those who've gone before have. Go for it.