I can assure you that John Prater does not share your vision. Nor do most of these guys who are cheering you on.
I have no concern for what Prater thinks, nor do I have any connection with him. His opinion is, therefore, irrelevant to me. That he may or may not share my "vision," means nothing.
I know nothing about others cheering, but I couldn't care less about what they think, either. I can think for myself.
I want to know what your employer thinks about guys like you who believe your entitiled to work for them as long as you want? The position is in fact created by them, and they hired those junior to you in the same way they hired you, along with every single one of us. What makes you think the company is cool with granting some employees a cradle to grave position and others stay furloughed for most of the time? You speak to continuous increases in retirement age like your absolutely certain all these old guys are exactly what the company wants. They aren't. I think some better HR types would like to know where you get off thinking your that special?
You may be deeply concerned about what my employer may think, but I'm certainly not. It's irrelevant. This is a matter of law. An act of congress. It's a done deal.
I said nothing about being entitled to work for my employer as long as I want, nor did I say anything about being entitled to work. I may or may not work for my employer for a given period of time. I am permitted by an act of congress to work until 65 for a Part 121 carrier if I choose and I am able. I'm not entitled to anything...but I am legally allowed.
What the company wants isn't entirely relevant, either. The company may not simply hire then fire when they feel the employee is too old. Certain protections do exist. The company isn't entitled to carte blanche authority to dispose of senior pilots with abandon.
The fact is that a pilot who has put in more time with the company than you, who has more experience than you, who has held the position longer than you, has more opportunity to withstand an impending furlough, just as he or she has more opportunity or liklihood of bidding a chosen line, time off, etc. It's no surprise, then, that should you get furloughed, the age 62 pilot who has 20 more years with the company than you may very well retain his seat. The fact is that the ability to remain past 60 isn't senior generations stealing out of your pocket, but an act of Congress and is law. If any entitlement exists at all, it's the ability of a citizen to act under the law, in accordance with the law, with such privilege as that law may allow.
Presently that privilege is the opportunity to work until age 65, under Part 121, if able.
A pilot outside tiny little stuffy world of the airlines, of course, may work much longer than that.
Same problem exists with what you desire in a constantly increasing retirement age for pilots. We would get to a point where a widebody upgrade would only fly for a few months before the medical'd out or hit retirement age. That's not how you want to run an airline.
I don't want to run an airline. No interest at all.
You're going to predicate public law on where an airline pilot might be able to upgrade? I think not.
Highly experienced, qualified pilots are a resource which should not be discarded for age or for your own selfish desires. Whereas you want what others have and think they should give it to you, you haven't hardly established a valid reason for restricting age beyond what you think should be yours.
As before, you want what others have, and cannot have it. This is greed, envy, covetness, avarice, and an unsavory trait which is unprofessional, unwarranted, unattractive, and juvinile.
Again it boils down to "get out of my way, old man. I want your job."
You're fully prepared to sacrifice your own job today to give it to those beneath you, then? Very well. We await word that you've given notice, as a good faith sign that you're not the hypocrite you appear to be. You may defer posting again until you can share the good news.
