Age 65 Stinks

[Caveman]

Your points are all valid regarding the sorry state of the pilot profession, but have absolutely NOTHING to do with the age 65 rule. Retirement at a specified age was, is and will be an issue about SAFETY as perceived by the FAA, and about AGE DISCRIMINATION, as perceived by Congress. Going back to the 50's, when the age 60 rule was established, it has NEVER been about career progression.
You (and me, a United furloughee) are victims of bad management that wants to outsource all domestic flying, short-sighted Negotiating Committees and MEC's that allow outsourcing, and the recession.

Low pay, bad work/rest rules, and career stagnation are products of:
Airline outsourcing, facilitated by ALPA MEC's trying to save other segments of their contracts (pay, pensions, etc), and the recession.
Regional MEC's can't be expected to demand equal pay/conditions to the Majors; that is their sole purpose, to provide cheaper labor. Management would simply eliminate or replace them. Since this is the only way to get a start in the airline career, younger pilots have no choice but to go along with what has been set up by their managements and the union.

There are about about 140+ 70 seat rj's at United now, and more than that at Delta.
Not to mention all the 50-seat rj's, and turboprops flying passengers within the major/legacy systems. A massive c-scale and permanent downgrade of the profession, just to protect a relative few senior people at the majors......disgraceful.
ALPA has allowed a second-class career to be established in the US.
Management tried the B-scale tactic in the 80's, which failed, but this has worked even better than that.!

Direct your anger at the proper target: ALPA representation (Bruce York's outfit), the ALPA executive council, which won't address the outsourcing problem, the ALPA national chair(Woerth, Prater), who signs off on ALL contracts, and the MEC's at the legacies that have allowed all the outsourcing. Management is just doing what it can to cut costs and line it's own pockets, as usual...

AMFA was killed off by management recently, in part because of AMFA's going along with 38% outsourcing of their work. Could a similar fate happen to ALPA carriers?

Great post and a great analysis of the situation. If mainline MECs would have rejected the outsourcing of flying most of what is ailing the industry would be gone.

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[kwick]

Avbug: There may not have been a picket line, but if you were/are in favor of 65, then you very much campaigned for someone else's job! How do we know this? The rule was written to allow those over 60 to come back if they wanted to, but they had to be square with giving up seniority. That being the case, the number of pilots who could have returned that did so is so close to zero it is beyond any argument whether or not it was about seniority. Age 65 or a strike? Both are forms of seniority aggression. Period.

A perfect example of this just showed up on this thread. Undaunted Flyer made the claim that if he missed the exact date to keep seniority he would come back without it as a new hire. Well, he missed the cut by no more than a few days. He could have come back and not even gone non-current. He didn't. He didn't want it without the seniority. He was just as dramatic as you post and he couldn't live up to his claims. (I think he's decided to file a lawsuit instead) I got little doubt you're no different.

I don't want what you have. (although I do hope you have plenty) That includes your problems. You can work longer now so get your money together and don't be a burden on us anymore.

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

But, if anyone is a "Scab" in this scenario, it's YOU!

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

This illustrates your fundamentally flawed thinking. Age 65 was a legislative response to allow the U.S. to remain a member of ICAO. Nothing more, nothing less. The "unions" had nothing to do with it.

Absolute false statement. Age 65 was stuck in legislative limbo until ALPA rolled on it and then it passed through the backdoors of Congress at blazing speed. Just because ICAO was doing Age 65 was no guarantee that it would have ever passed here in the US. Besides, not even all ICAO was Age 65. APA never budged because of the inherent flaws and safety concerns never addressed in the bill.

A year delay in the bill would have guaranteed it death here in the US due to the massive downturn in the industry.

The implications of Age 65 have staggering repercussions for many of us. Make no mistake, just like B Scale of the 80’s; this was all about the senior guys trying to save themselves at the expense of the younger pilots. It is indeed a transfer of wealth from junior to senior.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Fubijaakr]

You really weren't paying attention were you? Age 65 blazed through Congress ONE MONTH after ICAO forced the U.S. to allow foreign airline Captains to fly within our airspace over age 60.

You really should google "The Supremecy Clause of the U.S. Constitution." IF you can manage to read it, you will then understand why the ICAO treaty REQUIRED the U.S. to change the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots.

Why didn't ALPA vigorously oppose the legislation? Because the staff lawyers obviously understood the Supremacy Clause. You apparently have never heard of it. You can yell "FALSE STATEMENT" all you want. But that doesn't make your B.S. true.

 

[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."