Age 65 Stinks

[AA767AV8TOR]

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.

Avbug, I wasn't the one trying to change the rules in the middle of the game to benefit only myself. You are confused; those were the senior pilots trying to retain their higher paying seats for an additional five years at our expense.

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.

So explain to me how did the senior Captains get to their current seats. Is is do as I say, but not as I do? Nice try though.

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.

Avbug, this is where you and your pro 65'er's go way off the track. I've been waiting my turn for almost two decades now and so have many others. How long have you been waiting?? When I was hired, everyone (and I mean everyone) had career expectations of an Age 60 retirement. Do you even understand career expectations? I know it's a legal term for you so it might be a little over your head.

Quite simply, the senior pilots changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves and not the rest of us -- including you.

There you go with the lies and confusion once again.

No I think you are the one in confusion and denial.

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.

Avgas, you really have no idea of the background of Age 65 and how it came to be, now do you?? This law probably would not have seen the light of day until Prader and ALPA rolled on it. With today's economic recession, there is no way this law would have ever been passed.

Whether you remain in lesser paying jobs or not is your problem. Not the problem of those more senior to you, who remain.

The senior guys and Age 65 made sure it was my problem. So who is the selfish one here?

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...

Avgas, where are the lies?? Again, I'm not the one that pushed to have the law changed. That would be SWAPA and ALPA. So because some above me were selfish and shortsighted, you now expect me to further sacrifice and give up my job?? Great logic!!

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

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!

From your posting, you seem like you are very junior and inexperienced. You obviously have no idea what radiation is doing to many of our older pilots. Now you are suggesting that an additional five years at altitude will have no affect on the pilots. Now who is the one that is lying??

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.

Correction, there is no shortage of pilots that want to do the job at what the senior pilots at LUV, some of Legacies, or the Cargo guys are making. With none of the above currently hiring, there is simply no big attraction for anyone to make this a career. Why spend the money for a job that basically pays the same level of compensation that some high school grad could get. Hell, a long haul truck driver with a 8th grade education can make more than most RJ Captains. There is a shortage of pilots that want to do the career for $30,000 a year.

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.

The senior guys by staying are abrogating their seniority by keeping their seats an additional five years at our expense. They had no career expectations to stay until age 65 until they changed the rule in the middle of game to benefit themselves.

Where you again go off the tracks, is that most of the younger and more junior pilots will be forced to stay until 65 to simply make up the amount of money they lost from additional stagnation forced by the Age 65 rule.

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.

Serving ten years in the military "not exactly a sacrifice." Interesting statement. What's your beef with military pilots and what does it bring to the discussion? You absolutely have no idea of what our military guys/gals are doing at home and overseas for you do you.

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.

The truth of the matter, pilot compensation is at its lowest in decades, both at the majors and at the regionals. Ya, think this might have an impact on attracting top notched candidates to the profession? Do you even know how to use an inflation calculator? Again, who is the one that is distorting the facts?

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.

Avgas, you are in such complete and utter denial, I really wonder if you are attuned to what is happening. You say you are furloughed. Do you even keep up with current events? Do you have any friends in the industry? Increase in revenues? Again, interesting statement. Regionals have never really made any money but that's another discussion.

For the record, there hasn't been a hiring boom industry wide since before 911. Yes, there's been some hiring at the regionals, but that has come as jobs have been outsourced from the majors to the regionals. Not exactly a net gain in jobs.

Age 65 in the current climate, has helped stopped any hiring or job advancement for years to come. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask the guys over at FedEx what Age 65 has done for them.

No jobs or promotional opportunities equal very little desire among our youth to entire into the profession. Again, why would anyone spend $120,000 in flight training and education cost or spend 10 years in the military to come to a $25,000 a year job. Again, what's the attraction? You never answered the question. The stagnation caused by Age 65 is most definitely a safety factor at the lower end of the pilot spectrum.

Blood? What blood? Another lie. Age 65 isn't a safety issue. Your assertion to the contrary is, of course, a lie.

I guess the last few regional accidents were my illusion. I guess the resulting stagnation from Age 65 has no bearing on those at the bottom.

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.

Avgas, you are the distracted and misguided one. Nice try at trying to deflect the blame for the selfish desires of the senior pilots. Like those that conspired to bring us B-Scale, this one will not soon be forgotten.

By supporting Age 65, you just helped torpedo your own career and those of countless others. You have helped to make being a commercial pilot even more of a bigger joke than it currently is and that in fact makes for a less safe industry.

You combine two very lethal ingredients for any pilot -- you are both foolish and living in denial.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[kwick]

From your posting, you seem like you are very junior and inexperienced. You obviously have no idea what radiation is doing to many of our older pilots. Now you are suggesting that an additional five years at altitude will have no affect on the pilots. Now who is the one that is lying??



Correction, there is no shortage of pilots that want to do the job at what the senior pilots at LUV, some of Legacies, or the Cargo guys are making. With none of the above currently hiring, there is simply no big attraction for anyone to make this a career. Why spend the money for a job that basically pays the same level of compensation that some high school grad could get. Hell, a long haul truck driver with a 8th grade education can make more than most RJ Captains. There is a shortage of pilots that want to do the career for $30,000 a year.




The senior guys by staying are abrogating their seniority by keeping their seats an additional five years at our expense. They had no career expectations to stay until age 65 until they changed the rule in the middle of game to benefit themselves.

Where you again go off the tracks, is that most of the younger and more junior pilots will be forced to stay until 65 to simply make up the amount of money they lost from additional stagnation forced by the Age 65 rule.



Serving ten years in the military "not exactly a sacrifice." Interesting statement. What's your beef with military pilots and what does it bring to the discussion? You absolutely have no idea of what our military guys/gals are doing at home and overseas for you do you.



The truth of the matter, pilot compensation is at its lowest in decades, both at the majors and at the regionals. Ya, think this might have an impact on attracting top notched candidates to the profession? Do you even know how to use an inflation calculator? Again, who is the one that is distorting the facts?




Avgas, you are in such complete and utter denial, I really wonder if you are attuned to what is happening. You say you are furloughed. Do you even keep up with current events? Do you have any friends in the industry? Increase in revenues? Again, interesting statement. Regionals have never really made any money but that's another discussion.

For the record, there hasn't been a hiring boom industry wide since before 911. Yes, there's been some hiring at the regionals, but that has come as jobs have been outsourced from the majors to the regionals. Not exactly a net gain in jobs.

Age 65 in the current climate, has helped stopped any hiring or job advancement for years to come. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask the guys over at FedEx what Age 65 has done for them.

No jobs or promotional opportunities equal very little desire among our youth to entire into the profession. Again, why would anyone spend $120,000 in flight training and education cost or spend 10 years in the military to come to a $25,000 a year job. Again, what's the attraction? You never answered the question. The stagnation caused by Age 65 is most definitely a safety factor at the lower end of the pilot spectrum.




I guess the last few regional accidents were my illusion. I guess the resulting stagnation from Age 65 has no bearing on those at the bottom.



Avgas, you are the distracted and misguided one. Nice try at trying to deflect the blame for the selfish desires of the senior pilots. Like those that conspired to bring us B-Scale, this one will not soon be forgotten.

By supporting Age 65, you just helped torpedo your own career and those of countless others. You have helped to make being a commercial pilot even more of a bigger joke than it currently is and that in fact makes for a less safe industry.

You combine two very lethal ingredients for any pilot -- you are both foolish and living in denial.

AA767AV8TOR

You need a Rattle Man!

You might not even pass the upgrade checkride with that big pacifier in your mouth.

Pay your dues and STFU!

 

[avbug]

So because some above me were selfish and shortsighted, you now expect me to further sacrifice and give up my job??

No one has said you should give up your job. It's you that suggests those more senior than you should give up theirs. You turn it around...and lie again. You can't help but lie with each post and each sentence, can you?

Not only this, but you've resorted like the others to name calling. The others, having been correctly identified and put to silence did just the same. You've no argument beyond "get out of my way, old man, I want your job," and name calling. For this, you tell lies. As before, you have no credibility on this issue, but let's press on.

You obviously have no idea what radiation is doing to many of our older pilots. Now you are suggesting that an additional five years at altitude will have no affect on the pilots.

Au contraire, mate. I know exactly what the effects of radiation are. Nobody has suggested that "an additional five years at altitude will have no effect on the pilots." This assertion, you have dreamed up yourself, and as such is another lie. One who lies is a liar. You tell lies.

The irony in your lie is that you want others to get out of your way in order to take their job. Are you in the least concerned about their careers, their lives? You're not concerned about the additional five years they may spend at altitude. You're not! You want them out of the way, and you don't want them to spend those extra years. Same tired mantra you have there..."get out of my way, old man. I want your job."

You cite five more years...but this has nothin to do with the price of tea in china, the orbit of the sun, or the way bread tastes in the springtime. No...you have the same opportunity to chose to work an additional five years as those who are age 60 do right now...which means that the age 65 ruling is irrelevant. Nobody chooses to work that extra time but you. You still have every opportunity to quit at age 60 if you wish. Again, that's your problem, your choice. Your election to throw the subject of cosmic radiation into the mix is nothing more than an effort to confuse or distract the conversation, and therefore...a lie.

Now who is the one that is lying??

AA767AV8TOR...still. You apparently can't help yourself.

Correction, there is no shortage of pilots that want to do the job at what the senior pilots at LUV, some of Legacies, or the Cargo guys are making. With none of the above currently hiring, there is simply no big attraction for anyone to make this a career.

Another lie. In your arrogant small little world, you suppose everyone who enters aviation wants to be an airline pilot. Laughable, were your narrow little view not so pathetic. Do you really believe that the majority of those who enter into avaition become or desire to become airline pilots? You're rather proud of yourself, aren't you?

Why spend the money for a job that basically pays the same level of compensation that some high school grad could get. Hell, a long haul truck driver with a 8th grade education can make more than most RJ Captains.

Irrelevant, of course, but also a lie. The industry has always had a poor starting wage, and has always been a long, difficult struggle. A college degree isn't required to fly. Age 65 has never been an issue here...the difficulty and the low wages have been a part of the industry all along. Age 65 hasn't changed this.

If you'd rather be driving a long haul truck then more power to you. No shortage of individuals await to fill in your shoes, despite what you may thing...and yes, you can be replaced in a heartbeat. What you do and the position you hold is nothing special.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that RJ Captains would rather be flying an RJ, than driving a truck. You may be shocked to learn that not everyone in the business has the ultimate goal of making the most money possible, and working or flying the least they can do.

With you it's all about the lies to justify your jaded views, anyway.

 

[avbug]

The senior guys by staying are abrogating their seniority by keeping their seats an additional five years at our expense. They had no career expectations to stay until age 65 until they changed the rule in the middle of game to benefit themselves.

The English language seems to be a difficult one for you. When you say senior pilots are abrogating their seniority, do you mean they're putting it aside by official means, or simply nullifying it? That word doesn't mean whatever it is that you think it means.

What the career pilots thought they'd receive at the end of their careers is irrelevant. A 777 captain most likely never thought he'd be flying a 777 at the end of his career...especially as it hadn't been invented "mid-game" in his career. Whether an age 60 pilot had a "career expectation" of this or that is irrelevant. What we have is a public law passed by congress, and it is what it is. You don't like it? Lobby to have it removed.

You haven't a right to fly. It's a privilege extended by the FAA. You haven't a right to someone else's seat. That's a function of your behavior and seniority. Others are more senior than you. You want their seat, and cry out "get out of my way, old man!" You want it. You can't have it. You're upset. Much like a child who can't have a toy, and your cry of career expectations is very reminiscent of the child who doesn't get what he wants, crying "but I wanted it!"

Stop whining. It's unprofessional.

Where you again go off the tracks, is that most of the younger and more junior pilots will be forced to stay until 65 to simply make up the amount of money they lost from additional stagnation forced by the Age 65 rule.

Forced to stay? You're not owed a dime. You don't own your job. You have the privilege to work, and just as much as an age 60 pilot will be privileged to work until 65, so will you. If you choose. Nobody is forcing you.

People starving all over the world, poverty, disease, and crime...and here you sit in the land of plenty whining about having the privilege to work longer and earn more and never be in need of want. Absolutely disgusting.

Perhaps you're inexperienced in the business not to have been furloughed before, not to have lost your job before, not to have had to start over. This isn't anyone's fault; you're simply too wet behind the ears and inexperienced to know what you're talking about...and it shows. You seem to think the woes of the world fall on your shoulders. You're concerned about the delays in promotion. You're concerned about "lost wages." The truth you'll learn if you ever wake up to reality is that many delays in this business come along...furloughs, lost medicals, bankrupcies, aircraft mishaps, family emergencies, transfers, changes, etc. Nobody is guaranteed a living, nobody is owed a career. Others above you have what you want...and you're upset. Same old story. Say it again, will you...it never really gets old: "Get out of my way old man, I want your job!"

Does it make you feel better?

Serving ten years in the military "not exactly a sacrifice." Interesting statement. What's your beef with military pilots and what does it bring to the discussion? You absolutely have no idea of what our military guys/gals are doing at home and overseas for you do you.

Oh, I have a very good idea thank you. That's irrelevant to the discussion, however...though I've put in considerably more time in the service of my country than that.

Ten years in the military...at a much higher wage than a civillian doing his first ten years in the industry...with much better benefits, better facilities, more advanced aircraft, and the benefit of someone else paying millions to train and maintain that pilot...is not exactly a sacrifice. Not in the least.

For the record, there hasn't been a hiring boom industry wide since before 911.

Another lie. I believe most here will easily recognize it for what it is. Had you any credibility to start with, this would be a surprise, but as you tell many lies and half-truths, this is no surprise, and given it's you...not even a disappointment. Though you tell this lie, surely you aren't dense enough to believe it?

Again, why would anyone spend $120,000 in flight training and education cost or spend 10 years in the military to come to a $25,000 a year job. Again, what's the attraction? You never answered the question.

Whereas the ten years in the military is hardly an hardship, and hardly a sacrifice...and is nothing but beneifts, we can establish that most who enter the military and receive the multi million dollars worth of training and maintenance have done so for that very reason. Many also do it for the reward of having served a greater good, having flown aircraft which they desired to fly, and for the experience. As for why a student today spends a hundred twenty thousand dollars in flight training, you'll have to find one that spends that kind of money. It's double the normal training costs...and a figure with which you're clearly not in touch.

What's the attraction to entering aviaton? Ask a thousand pilots and you'll get a hundred different answers. Many for the love of flying. Some for adventure. Some for wages. Some for freedom. Rest assured, however, that those entering avaition today will have the same opportunity to work until age 65, if they elect to fly for a scheduled part 121 airline, as you do, and as an age 60 pilot does today.

I guess the last few regional accidents were my illusion. I guess the resulting stagnation from Age 65 has no bearing on those at the bottom.

Another lie! But I'm going to call you on it. You state that "the last few regional accidents" have been caused by the age 65 legislation? Here's your chance to put up or shut up. Prove it. You waffle on and on about age 65 and your poor-me suffering under it, and now you blame bloodloss and death upon it. You show me, you show us all how age 65 has caused the death of each person in the last few (that's going to be at least three, incidentally) regional mishaps. Not insinuations. Show us. Prove it. You can't, because age 65 isn't responsible.

If you can't prove this lie you've just told, then you may shut up now. Your other lies completely destroyed your standing and credibility, but this one has gone too far. Prove it, or silence yourself like the others here have done.

You have helped to make being a commercial pilot even more of a bigger joke than it currently is and that in fact makes for a less safe industry.

Again with the English language problems. If you indeed mean to say that age 65 legislation has made being a commercial pilot a bigger joke than it currently is...this means that being a commercial pilot is less of a joke than it once was. This means that the status of the commercially certificated pilot has improved. Whereas the legislation for age 65 is recent, and the status of the commercial pilot has improved, it naturally follows that the age 65 legislation has improved the status of the commercial pilot...which leaves you telling a lie, once again.

Then again, it's just you that sees being a commercial pilot as a joke...which of course means you see yourself as a joke...which is something we already know.

Again, I'm not the one that pushed to have the law changed.

Neither was I, but I still applaud it. Then again, I'm not filled with your sense of entitlement, and neither do I stand on the rooftops and shout "get out of my way, old man, I want your job."

 

[The Prussian]

Uhh.....any body else have any thoughts on this subject???

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

When you say senior pilots are abrogating their seniority, do you mean they're putting it aside by official means, or simply nullifying it? That word doesn't mean whatever it is that you think it means.

ab·ro·gate [ ábbrə gàyt ](past and past participle ab·ro·gat·ed, present participleab·ro·gat·ing, 3rd person present singularab·ro·gates)​

Definition:​

do away with something: to end an agreement or contract formally and publicly ( formal ) ​

Avgas, it seems it is you that is having trouble with the English language. Do you even know what abrogate means in a legal sense? The senior guys that were behind the change to Age 65 “abrogated” their seniority. That means they altered the seniority to benefit themselves. Do you even understand what happened or do I have to go more in depth for you?

Except for the pilots hired since December 2007, we all were hired under Age 60 and had career expectations based on Age 60 retirement progressions. If the senior guys were honest in their intentions with Age 65, they should have gone to the end of the seniority lists. That way, our seniority lists would not have been abrogated. But because of their greed, they instead fought their right to retain their high paying seat.

Try not to get confused between individual contracts between unions and companies which change every few years and laws changed through legislation which is done very infrequently.

Whether an age 60 pilot had a "career expectation" of this or that is irrelevant. What we have is a public law passed by congress, and it is what it is.

You're wrong. It is relevant! It was backdoored by Congress.

You haven't a right to fly. It's a privilege extended by the FAA. You haven't a right to someone else's seat. Stop whining. It's unprofessional.

Either did the over 60 crowd until they screwed they rest of us with their ill advised Age 65 legislation. Whinning?? I think you have targeted the wrong people. It was the over 60 crowd that was whinning the worst.

Forced to stay? You're not owed a dime. You don't own your job.

Either are you. Are you going to be happy if Age 65 causes you to be furloughed an extra 3-5 years?

People starving all over the world, poverty, disease, and crime...and here you sit in the land of plenty whining about having the privilege to work longer and earn more and never be in need of want. Absolutely disgusting.

And this is relevant in what way?

Perhaps you're inexperienced in the business not to have been furloughed before, not to have lost your job before, not to have had to start over. This isn't anyone's fault; you're simply too wet behind the ears and inexperienced to know what you're talking about...and it shows.

Your kidding right?? Again, you're the one in denial. Age 65 has an immediate and direct cause to the lack of hiring and career potential now. The timing of Age 65 could not have come at a worse time.

You seem to think the woes of the world fall on your shoulders.

No I don't. I just think the senior guys screwed the rest of us with Age 65.

You're concerned about the delays in promotion. You're concerned about "lost wages."

At least you have this part right.

Oh, I have a very good idea thank you. That's irrelevant to the discussion, however...though I've put in considerably more time in the service of my country than that.

What??

Ten years in the military...at a much higher wage than a civillian doing his first ten years in the industry...with much better benefits, better facilities, more advanced aircraft, and the benefit of someone else paying millions to train and maintain that pilot...is not exactly a sacrifice. Not in the least.

Another lie. I believe most here will easily recognize it for what it is. Had you any credibility to start with, this would be a surprise, but as you tell many lies and half-truths, this is no surprise, and given it's you...not even a disappointment. Though you tell this lie, surely you aren't dense enough to believe it?


Whereas the ten years in the military is hardly an hardship, and hardly a sacrifice...and is nothing but beneifts, we can establish that most who enter the military and receive the multi million dollars worth of training and maintenance have done so for that very reason. Many also do it for the reward of having served a greater good, having flown aircraft which they desired to fly, and for the experience. As for why a student today spends a hundred twenty thousand dollars in flight training, you'll have to find one that spends that kind of money. It's double the normal training costs...and a figure with which you're clearly not in touch.

What does the above diatribe have to relate to anything to the discussion at hand? Sounds like you just have a hardon for military guys. That is your own personal problem. "10 years in the military is hardly a hardship." You are so wrong on this point I don't have the time to even go there now.

What's the attraction to entering aviaton? Ask a thousand pilots and you'll get a hundred different answers. Many for the love of flying. Some for adventure. Some for wages. Some for freedom. Rest assured, however, that those entering avaition today will have the same opportunity to work until age 65, if they elect to fly for a scheduled part 121 airline, as you do, and as an age 60 pilot does today.

Why don't you learn to spell aviation.

Not many even want the job or the career now. That is a major problem in attracting qualified and experienced applicants. The pay and the promotional opportunities are just too bad at present. This is reflected in the lower hiring standards. You seem to say this is due to the transfer of flying jobs to the regionals. You may be partly right. I personally know of no one that is recommending this career to anyone.

Another lie! But I'm going to call you on it. You state that "the last few regional accidents" have been caused by the age 65 legislation? Here's your chance to put up or shut up. Prove it. You waffle on and on about age 65 and your poor-me suffering under it, and now you blame bloodloss and death upon it. You show me, you show us all how age 65 has caused the death of each person in the last few (that's going to be at least three, incidentally) regional mishaps. Not insinuations. Show us. Prove it. You can't, because age 65 isn't responsible.

If you can't prove this lie you've just told, then you may shut up now. Your other lies completely destroyed your standing and credibility, but this one has gone too far. Prove it, or silence yourself like the others here have done.

I'll leave this one up to the NTSB. It's obvious you have no clue what is happening in the cockpits of many long haul flights. It's very tough on the body. I get to see it up close and personal on a weekly basis. Yes, there are some great pilots but lets just say there are some very marginal ones that are out there pushing it right now.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Again with the English language problems. If you indeed mean to say that age 65 legislation has made being a commercial pilot a bigger joke than it currently is...this means that being a commercial pilot is less of a joke than it once was.

What in the world are you trying to say??

This means that the status of the commercially certificated pilot has improved. Whereas the legislation for age 65 is recent, and the status of the commercial pilot has improved, it naturally follows that the age 65 legislation has improved the status of the commercial pilot...which leaves you telling a lie, once again.


Then again, it's just you that sees being a commercial pilot as a joke...which of course means you see yourself as a joke...which is something we already know.

Again, what are you trying to say dude??!! Talk about circular logic. Let me spell this out for you as simply as I can, the career of the profession pilot is in a death spiral. Look at your own career. Take a look at where our profession has gone over the past 30 years or just this past decade.

The compensation is a fraction of what it once was. We have thousands of pilots forced to hold second jobs because the wages are so low. We have thousand of pilots forced to commute because they cannot afford to live in their own domicile.

Age 65 only compounded this problem. You are very confused about who are the selfish ones. The junior guys never started this fight but it is us that winds up getting screwed. As to your argument about who was promised what -- it was the senior guys that were never promised an extra five years but instead changed the rules in the middle of the game to favor themselves. Talk about self centered and selfish.

Then again, I'm not filled with your sense of entitlement, and neither do I stand on the rooftops and shout "get out of my way, old man, I want your job."

That’s your own prerogative. Again, you have got this backwards. It was the senior guys that were filled with their own sense of entitlement.


Like I said, besides those hired after December 2007, the rest of us were hired with a career expectation of an Age 60 retirement. Yes, indeed, they wrongfully took a seat that wasn't theirs.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[avbug]

As to your argument about who was promised what -- it was the senior guys that were never promised an extra five years but instead changed the rules in the middle of the game to favor themselves.

Promised...promises mean nothing. Nobody promised anything. Congress created a law enabling pilots to work an additional five years. What anyone was "never promised" is irrelevant. The present law enables pilots to work an additional five years...enabling experienced pilots who are senior to you to retain their jobs. You want their jobs. Again you snivel "get out of the way, old man. I want your job." You think you are entitled to what you cannot have. You are greedy.

ab·ro·gate [ ábbrə gàyt ](past and past participle ab·ro·gat·ed, present participleab·ro·gat·ing, 3rd person present singularab·ro·gates)​

Definition:​

do away with something: to end an agreement or contract formally and publicly ( formal ) ​

Avgas, it seems it is you that is having trouble with the English language. Do you even know what abrogate means in a legal sense? The senior guys that were behind the change to Age 65 “abrogated” their seniority. That means they altered the seniority to benefit themselves. Do you even understand what happened or do I have to go more in depth for you?

Oooh...avgas. You're clever, aren't you? Did you think that up all by yourself?

Why do you insist on continuing to embarrass yourself like this? No, those over 60 didn't "aborgate" anything. They didn't make the legislation, nor did they pass it. No "contract" existed, nor did they publically or otherwise change or end a contract or agreement. You're wrong. You know this, but push the point anyway...which is, of course, a lie.

You could go more in depth if you like, but as you've attempted to lie once more about what has gone on...what would be the point? To listen to you lie more? I do understand what happened. You understand too...you simply lie about it, and your motivation is driven by greed, as we've clearly established over the past few posts.

Again, what are you trying to say dude??!!

Did you just say "dude?" How might you phrase it if you wished to converse on a level higher than that of a fourteen year old?

If the senior guys were honest in their intentions with Age 65, they should have gone to the end of the seniority lists. That way, our seniority lists would not have been abrogated.

Look at that! We just heard you say once again, "get out of the way, old man. I want your job."

Seems to be a theme there. You want what you can't have. You covet the positions those more senior to you have. You want what you can't have, and it upsets you. Whining about it won't get what you don't deserve, and haven't earned. When you're senior, then you'll enjoy those privileges. Presently, you do not. Your greed will not change this.

What is it that magically requires a senior pilot to voluntarily drop to the bottom of the seniority list? The senior pilot is entitled to his place under public law...a law which he has not "aborgated," but under which he is permitted to continue flying until age 65. The senior pilot has not "aborgated" the seniority list, nor does the senior pilot make the seniority list. The senior pilot simply occupies a place of seniority on the list...based on date of hire. You were hired after that pilot, and this is why he is more senior to you. This is also why you want what he has; you envy his seniority, you tell lies about what the senior pilot has done, and you want what the other pilot has. You wring your hands and call out "get out of my way, old man. I want your job." Nothing you say will give it to you.

You don't deserve it. You haven't earned it. You may want the senior pilot to resign his seniority...but then that's just you, wanting. Being greedy. Someone else has the toy you want, and you'll keep on whining until you get it, because you think you're entitled.

You're not.

Are you going to be happy if Age 65 causes you to be furloughed an extra 3-5 years?

"Age 65" didn't cause me to be furloughed in the first place. A depressed international market caused a reduction in force within my company which cost 500 mechanics their jobs, and half the pilots. We faired much better than other firms, which simply shut their doors.

In the meantime, if I go back or not, it makes no difference. If pilots at my company elect to stay for five years, I say more power to them. They've earned the opportunity to be there, they've been there longer, and unlike me, they can't simply go somewhere else and go to work. I can. In fact, I did. I'm working as a line pilot, mechanic, instructor, and check airman. I've got other jobs waiting for me, and whether I go back or not, I'll work, I'll stay busy, and I won't look over my shoulder and cry about what's fair and not fair. You should do the same.

This is reflected in the lower hiring standards.

Competitive minimums with my employer over the past year jumped to about 20,000 hours, with multiple type ratings and 15 years or more of international heavy experience. The hiring standards didn't go down. They've gone up. Plenty of pilots on the street who are more than qualified, who are looking for work...and by no consequence of age 65. It's happening globally. You need to open your eyes a little.

I'll leave this one up to the NTSB. It's obvious you have no clue what is happening in the cockpits of many long haul flights. It's very tough on the body. I get to see it up close and personal on a weekly basis. Yes, there are some great pilots but lets just say there are some very marginal ones that are out there pushing it right now.

This is your response to being challenged on your assertion that the change to age 65 has caused recent regional airline "accidents." You say you'll leave it to the NTSB...and then rabble on about long haul flying.

Regional flying isn't long haul flying. Further, you're unable to show a connection between regional mishaps and age 65, because there isn't one. You're unable to back up anything you say...you can't even point to an NTSB report that would back you up...because you've been caught once more telling a lie.

As for flying long haul...I understand what this means very well...having just come from an international widebody job flying long haul. You?

Flying long haul has nothing to do with age 65, of course.

 

[Flopgut]

I was coming after you, floppy, but avbug beat me to it. Suffice it to say, you have the stink of the "entitlement" generation emanating from every post you write.

No one owes you a job. Its a seniority based system and the mandatory retirement age is 65 by law.

Let it go already. Age 60 isn't coming back. Ever.

K. Comment on this please:

I am losing my seat in the fall. Two+ years as captain and I'm getting bounced out. I'm not happy about it, but there are worse things that could happen. However, clearly in my case, it's not as though I'm trying to take some other pilots seat in all this. In fact, at my seniority I will be flying with a lot of the 60+ guys (many of them I'm familiar with already) and at the time I was awarded [earned] upgrade these pilots had no claim to that seat. They had campaigned outside the CBA process for seniority abbrogation and supported a low minority inititive to get more seniority. (Yes, I know about ICAO. However, the rule change was occasioned at the exact time and in the exact manner Prater wanted it. The change probably would have looked different and been more fair if he had not acted as he did.) Again, I can deal with losing my seat. It's much worse for our furloughs.

My question is: How is it that when someone like me is adverse to losing the seat they are already in and losing a decades long established rule of seniority progression is called an "entitlement" type? If you feel I'm not entitled to what I already have and somehow simultaneously feel you are entitled take anything from me you want then what could you possibly be but the entitlement type in this equation? Anybody could understand this. In fact, let's not mince words: You're acting like an idiot. Furthermore (and this is very important), we happen to be talking about 65 but it could easily be another subject. Guys like Avbug, Kwick, Roman, Prussian, etc are simply weak links. Another tough issue surfaces and they will be looking to pull the ladder up again. They aren't solid people.

As I mentioned before, I'm already familiar with a lot of these 60+ guys I will be flying with. Some are scabs from the 80's and some aren't. It's fascinating how a non-scab, age 65 supporter rationalizes things. Without exception, they believe it is completely wrong that a scab has any seniority rights. But in the exact same breath can turn to me and say I have none either!! On top of all this, they don't acknowledge 65! There is no healthy context for which a pilot like myself can discuss a future of increased seniority without being "greedy". And then they wonder why they aren't your favorite guy to fly with?!

 

[Flopgut]

Dude, He's the Captain. You're an FO trying to take his job, which you may or may not be qualified to do.

In light of my above post can you explain to me who the scab is?

 

[Flopgut]

The above statements are 100% crap.

I've been laughing about this sentence for days! Fricking hilarious. You don't know whether to sh!t or go blind, do you? Anybody who wants to read you ranting and check the facts can do so on the "Age 65 Informal Poll" thread.

You could have single handedly lended more credibility to the age 65 campaign than any one person has lifted an issue! All you had to do was come back like you said you would. Even if it would have been for just one training event and only one bid month you would have been a Christ figure to the cause. Instead, you couldn't muster the professionalism to fly as FO for a once junior to you pilot. Even though they would have been a fellow ALPA/UAL pilot it was too much for your ego. You didn't do it. Sad.

 

[avbug]

My question is: How is it that when someone like me is adverse to losing the seat they are already in and losing a decades long established rule of seniority progression is called an "entitlement" type? If you feel I'm not entitled to what I already have and somehow simultaneously feel you are entitled take anything from me you want then what could you possibly be but the entitlement type in this equation?

I see the former embarrassment of your posts wasn't enough. You're back to embarrass yourself further. Very well.

You're not entitled to anything. Period. Your job, or that of anyone else.

If you're downgraded or furloughed...that's the way the ball bounces. That someone above you gets to keep their job because they are senior is a privilege of seniority. That individual was here first. You do not comprehend this concept?

If you were senior, then you'd have that opportunity...but you don't. Therefore, you simply want the other person's job. You want the senior man's position, and once more we hear nothing more than the pathetic whine of "get out of my way, old man. I want your job."

The senior man isn't taking your job, isn't entitled to your job, and doesn't want your job. He simply retains his. When furloughs arise, when downgrades take place, the higher in seniority one is, the safer one is. A pilot who is senior to you, who holds seniority over you may very well be in a better position to keep his or her job. Every bit as much as you are in a better position than those beneath you, on the seniority list. People beneath you are not entitled to your job. You are not entitled to the job of someone senior to you. You don't understand this, clearly. Or perhaps you simply wish to ignore it, because you greedily want what others have...you want what you cannot have.

One more time: it's not your job. You want it, but you can't have it. Wait your turn. When you're the senior pilot, others may be wanting your job. Presently, you're not the senior pilot. If you're being downgraded, welcome to today's economy. That's unfortunate. It still doesn't mean you're entitled to someone else's seniority or job. This isn't rocket science, you know.

My question is: How is it that when someone like me is adverse to losing the seat they are already in and losing a decades long established rule of seniority progression is called an "entitlement" type?

This isn't really your question. Your seniority number hasn't gone away. It hasn't slipped. You're upset because those above you wont' retire as fast as you'd like. You want those above you to get out of the way, in order that you might have what they have. You want their jobs. Again, loud and clear, we hear you whine "get out of my way, old man. I want your job."

No matter how many times you snivel, it sounds just as childish.

It's fascinating how a non-scab, age 65 supporter rationalizes things. Without exception, they believe it is completely wrong that a scab has any seniority rights. But in the exact same breath can turn to me and say I have none either!! On top of all this, they don't acknowledge 65!

You're simply rambling, now. You're sorry for yourself because nobody wants to hear you cry "get out of my way, old man. I want your job."

Who has said you have no rights? Your "rights" have not changed. Your seniority hasn't changed. You may not be moving as fast toward the top as you like...and your solution is to call for those at the top to sacrifice their careers so you can have what they have.

Your career is stymied at this point given the global economy. Regardless of the passing of age 65 legislation, companies have cut back, furloughed, downgraded, shut down, gone bankrupt, parked entire fleets, and reduced flights presently...and one's career may indeed not move in the direction it did and at the same pace it did a year ago, or two years ago. Big deal. The rest of the world is dealing with the same. Welcome to reality.

Career expectations are irrelevant. Your rights and your seniority hasn't been taken away. Nobody is entitled to your job, and nobody is taking it from you. Certainly nobody junior to you is taking it away from you.

You're the junior...and want what those senior to you have. You believe you're entitled, and you are not.

In light of my above post can you explain to me who the scab is?

You're still having this same trouble with the English language, aren't you? This is an education problem on your part. This will require some effort on your part, as the error and the misunderstanding is yours.

Like others, you continue to misuse that word and banter it about, thinking you know what it means. You don't. You may save yourself some embarrassment by taking the time to learn what it means, before posting further. You may save yourself considerable embarrassment by not posting further. Your choice. Just like the ability to work past 60. It's a choice.

It's one you'll possibly get to make one day too.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Promised...promises mean nothing. Nobody promised anything. Congress created a law enabling pilots to work an additional five years. What anyone was "never promised" is irrelevant.

You are completely wrong on this point. Promises do mean something, especially in the world of law. Congress created a law that was pushed through by a couple of unions. Due to safety concerns, our own union, APA, was adamantly against any change in the law.

The present law enables pilots to work an additional five years...enabling experienced pilots who are senior to you to retain their jobs. You want their jobs. Again you snivel "get out of the way, old man. I want your job." You think you are entitled to what you cannot have. You are greedy.

Again, you have this backwards; they wanted my job (and got it). Quite simply and much like B-Scale, this is a transfer of wealth from junior to senior.

Why do you insist on continuing to embarrass yourself like this? No, those over 60 didn't "aborgate"(sic) anything. They didn't make the legislation, nor did they pass it. No "contract" existed, nor did they publically or otherwise change or end a contract or agreement. You're wrong. You know this, but push the point anyway...which is, of course, a lie.

No, it's you that continues to humiliate yourself. Indeed, the greedy pilots didn't make the legislation – although, it was them that pushed hard to change it, for well over 10 years.

Seniority and promotional opportunities that existed under Age 60 were bound by contract. Age 65 changed all of it (and for the worse for most of us).

I do understand what happened.

No, you still don't understand or even want to understand.

Seems to be a theme there. You want what you can't have. You covet the positions those more senior to you have. You want what you can't have, and it upsets you. Whining about it won't get what you don't deserve, and haven't earned. When you're senior, then you'll enjoy those privileges. Presently, you do not. Your greed will not change this.

Again, you have this backwards. In your world of twisted logic, the pilots that just got screwed are somehow the greedy ones. Really!! You can try to keep selling this BS story all you want but very few are buying.

What is it that magically requires a senior pilot to voluntarily drop to the bottom of the seniority list?

Explain to me why the senior pilot that had no career expectations of flying over the age of 60, suddenly has the right to hold the top (and thereby the top paying positions) seats going all the way to 65.

It's funny, the over Age 60 crowd wasn’t too interested in starting all over again. They wanted to keep their seats that they weren’t entitled to for an extra five years. That is called getting your cake and eating it too -- all at the junior guy's expense.

The senior pilot is entitled to his place under public law...

Just as the junior pilot was entitled to his/her place under the law before the change. They had their right to upgrade "taken away" (or abrogated) when the law changed.

Again, with your twisted logic, you are not able to comprehend this concept. We will have to agree to disagree.

a law which he has not "aborgated," (sic) but under which he is permitted to continue flying until age 65.

Avgas, learn the word – it’s abrogate. Again, we'll have to disagree on this point. It was indeed abrogated.

"Age 65" didn't cause me to be furloughed in the first place. A depressed international market caused a reduction in force within my company which cost 500 mechanics their jobs, and half the pilots.

I'm not talking about just you. Across the board and in the United States, there is virtually no hiring taking place. At almost every major, there is no hiring at present. This is due to the economic downturn and acerbated by Age 65. At AA, there have only been a few retirements since the 1st of the year. Again, this is due solely to Age 65.

The only reason, ICAO sought Age 65 was because of a pilot shortage problem overseas. We had no such problem here in the United States and thereby had no need to increase the age to 65. The only reason it changed was due to the greedy desires of the senior pilots.

 

[Flopgut]

God you are verbose Avbug. First off, I'm not nearly as upset as you are portraying me. I'm not thrilled, for certain, but I can deal with downgrade. I just wanted to point out that I'm getting moved out of an earned position as a result seniority aggression on the part of guys like you. You keep saying over and over I have not "earned" it and you needed to be corrected. Your welcome.

Regarding seniority: Date of retire is really no different than date of hire. So it's 65; we'll all plan accordingly. And in doing so, I have a few questions for you. Can you get yourself ready to retire? I mean, I know you can mouth off on FI.com, but can you be financially predictable? Because that's really what we are getting at here. I've got a front row seat to how/why this is going on and it's all about the dollars. Guys with your point of view are unreliable/unpredictable and guys like me have to make adjustments where you come up short. Can you retire at 65? Or should it be 70? Is there an age, or will you flip on whatever standard we all set for ourselves? Just let us know, if you can. Because there are guys who do retire on schedule and who are predictable. They are invariably good people/pilots and those of us who are working within your rank would like for you try to be more like them.

Again, prior to 65 the discussion was all about the lost pensions and the money going away. I know guys my seniority are working through this and I've seen some senior types who could manage. What I don't hear enough of is how guys like you are getting prepped to retire. Any discussion usually results in what we have here: you spinning out of control mentally and spring loaded to crazed anger. The economy is still bad and the clock is running on 65. Why am I not hearing any honest dialog about retirement needs out of your camp? Pilots like you aren't focusing on how little 65 is going to help in reality. I'm saying this because I would prefer to skip this same argument with you over age 70. Seriously, for me the silence is louder than words. I don't think 1 in 10 pilots who support working past 60 have the fiscal situational awareness my 7 year old has.

Anyway, I look froward to getting on with things. Retirements will resume soon enough and I think things will improve. The only thing I'm concerned about is what unreliable pilots like you will try to pull next.