The rationalization of the pro Age 65’ers is understandable. They are perhaps the most selfish generation of pilots since the inception of this once proud profession. The essential “me” and “let them eat cake” generation. Pilots screwing other pilots. A gross abrogation of seniority.
Doing one's job is a "gross abrogation of seniority?" Doing one's job is selfish? Retaining the job one has earned and done for many years is a statement of "let them eat cake?"
You want the job, and your solution is to call those who have the job, selfish. You also say "move out of the way, old man. I want your job."
Your statement is selfish in the extreme. Your statement is one of greed. You also want what you can't have, and because your statement attempts to place your own greed on others, you statement is also a lie.
It’s easy for them to say to simply say “move on.” For us trapped on the streets or stagnated in the lower paying jobs for years at a time, we are reminded every day of their backdoor ramroding of this ill advised legislation through Congress.
Your own situation means that those above you, more senior, should give up their jobs? You are furloughed...so quite naturally others should quit their careers in order to get you off the street. Is that it?
I'm furloughed presently. Perhaps you or others should give up their job, in order for me to "get off the street." Sound fair? No, it really doesn't...and neither is your argument that the situation of those on the street is the responsibility of those who still have a job.
I certainly don't blame or find fault with those in my own company who are presently employed. After all, they're senior to me, and it's my lot presently to be furloughed. Not theirs. Numerous pilots in my firm are above age 60, and I've flown with many of them. I've learned a lot from them, and should I go back to work there, I'll continue to learn a lot from them. I'll continue to value their input, their professionalism, and their experience...just as I did before I was furloughed.
Nobody there owes me a job. The company isn't obligated to give me one, and most certainly no pilot, be it over age 60 or under, is obligated to sacrifice their career in order to put me in their cockpit. I say "their" cockpit, because presently it's theirs, not mine. I'm not entitled to it. I may be privileged to share it, but it's not mine.
It's not yours, either. Wait your turn.
Age 65 is arguably the worst move by our unions since the B-Scale. The only people Age 65 truly benefits are those at the very top that get to keep their high paying seats an additional five years. They get their cake and they get to eat it too. With the economy in deep recession and the airlines shrinking, those of us left behind are forced to endure more time on the streets or are forced to remain for years on end in the lesser paying jobs.
There you go with the lies and confusion once again.
You just barely stated that the age 65 legislation came through congress...and it was. This wasn't a union action, it's law. Public law. Yet now you tell us it was a "move by our unions." It was not.
Moreover, this law forces you to do nothing. Neither does it force those in the cockpit to remain. The law is permissive in nature. It permits some who elect to do so, to remain. Many will not. Many are unable. Regardless, it's public law, and it's their right to do so under the law.
Whether you remain in lesser paying jobs or not is your problem. Not the problem of those more senior to you, who remain.
Many beneath you, who would give their right arm for your job, also cannot move. You must therefore be selfish, because many who are stuck in regional airlines, or flight instructing, or flying piston freight, would desperately love to be in your shoes. You have failed to step aside and let them have your job, and this makes you selfish according to your own standard and definition. This makes your statements hypocritical, and by consequence, a lie. You lie far too much to be credible, but let us press on...
We are now seeing the true ramifications of Age 65 and it’s a dangerous and ominous trend. Long commutes and having to hold second jobs to pay off aviation debts to put food on the table are now common practice industry wide and for longer periods. Pretty much no one wants the job anymore due to the astronomically low pay, hiring, and promotional opportunities. This is in addition to the five years additional exposure to high altitude radiation and stress to our bodies that nobody seems to want to address.
What utter melodrama, and foolishness!!
Now age 65 is responsible for cosmic radiation? Good God, man. Next it will be the four horses of the apocalypse!
No one wants to do the job? Then why are you complaining? Do something else? This is also a lie, of course. There is no shortage of people wanting to do the job, none at all, and there never has been. There never will be. Even you, the consummate liar, wants to do the job. You want it so badly that you want others above you to sacrifice their careers so you can have their jobs. You want the job badly...and you don't care a whit if others must alter their lives or hang up their wings in order for you to get it. You want what others have...and certainly aren't thinking about not wanting the job any more. So we see another lie.
The last part of this paragraph is most interesting. You complain that others wish to remain for five more years, between the age of 60, and 65. By choice, these are allowed to occupy the cockpit. Yet you suggest that you're forced to do so. You have no choice, being forced to endure cosmic radiation. The thing is, no pilot is forced to remain an additional five years. Not even you. The commonality between the age 60 pilot and you, of course, is that you both have the choice. Here, of course, we see another lie. You are upset that others are allowed to remain five years more in the cockpit, but complain bitterly about the threat to your life by being "forced" to remain the same period in the cockpit. Hypocrisy, and therefore, a lie.
Why pay $120,000 in education fees or spend 10 years in the military for a $25,000 a year job where it now takes decades to make any decent money? Where are the economics in the entire aviation equation? Ask yourself why airlines are now having to drop their hiring standards to the bare minimums or are having to call back 10 furloughees just to land one candidate that actually still wants to come back and take the job. Why are pilots still employed after multiple failings of checkrides?
Why pay for an education? That would be your problem? Why serve 10 years in the military? Because it's the right thing...and you're given a considerably higher wage and standard of living than your civillian counterparts who have had to scrape by on far less, with far more effort...and you've just been handed millions of dollars in flight training and support. Not exactly a sacrifice.
Does it take long years to make "descent money?" Yes...and this has always been the case. It's not something which has occurred since age 65. Your suggestion to the contrary, then is another lie.
Why are pilots still employed after failing checkrides? This has always been the case, and is no consequence of the age 65 legislation. That you include such irrelevancy in your diatribe regarding age 65 can only be an effort to mislead and distract, and therefore another lie.
Airlines have dropped hiring standards in the past two years because of the increase in revenue and the demand for more seats in the cockpit...this is why pilots were being hired at 300 hours. At the same time age 65 came into being, hiring was at it's peak...and no consequence of the age 65 legislation (because hiring was already at it's peak). The hiring boom wasn't an after-effect, either. Here we see your double standard once more: you assert that the industry is stifled by no movement due to what you perceive as greed at the top, yet claim that the airlines can't hire enough to fill the seats...at the same time so many are furloughed. A triple lie. Airlines aren't hiring to fill furloughed seats (airlines aren't hiring at all). There's no rush to hire or hire inexperience presently. Pilots aren't quitting and walking away. Three lies in one paragraph. Lies after lies.
The blood is on your hands. And they kept saying Age 65 wasn’t a safety issue.
Blood? What blood? Another lie. Age 65 isn't a safety issue. Your assertion to the contrary is, of course, a lie.
When you can respond without constant distraction and lies, by all means feel free to play again. Presently you're so far misguided and so full of mistruth that anything further you have to offer is lacking credibility, and therefore a waste of time. Perhaps in the future, you can do better.
