Mark Twombly calls professional pilots "whiners."

[optimater]

Reading AOPA is like hanging on to your little kiddy blanky from the days of yore. You already fly airplanes for a living, stop being a dork and find a real hobby like motorcycles or something. AOPA sucks. Our airlines have to pay all the extra money for these guys to be weekend warriors eating into our profits. If they start paying their dues to the system my mentallity might change. But I guess even though they have nothing to do with the airline industry they want to have an opinion on age 65, you want to have an opinion then pay up!

Classic case of I got mine.

 

[IAHERJ]

I argued about this with my captain the other day. My point was that if I'm going to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas on my days off for my hobby, it's going into a boat. 1. More relaxing 2. More friends can join in the fun 3. You can sleep on it 4. You can drink while enjoying it 5. Girls tend to lose their clothes with ease on boats

etc etc etc

Now for those who just love to fly planes around on their days off, more power to you.

IAHERJ

 

[Wesb737fo]

In response to his article concerning the age 60 issue many of us emailed Mr. Twombly and voiced our outrage at his biased and uninformed story. Has anyone else received a reply? Here is the email he sent me:


Not sure how the legislation can be called a pyramid scheme. If makes sense
on the face of it. A pilot who is healthy, fit, able, and willing to work to
age 65 ought to be able to do just that. Airline seniority and union rules
determine the consequences of the rule on younger pilots.

Shame you wouldn't fly with my brother. He is a fine person and an excellent
pilot, unlike the many whiners among professional pilots.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

-Mark Twombly


Make no mistake about it, he just called us "whiners". Again, I encourage everyone to flood this guys inbox and let him know we do not appreciate his name calling.

He can be reached at [email protected]

Fly safe.

Let me get this straight. From your bio I see you are a SWA first officer. You work at one of the most highly respected, best run, financially stable airlines (where I'm sure you are banking close to six figures if you've been there a few years) and you are complaining about being called a "Whiner" by some guy in GA magazine.

The age sixty thing is done..keep moving on....the way I see it is that you won the lottery.

 

[flygirlqt]

I have been told I am a moaner but never a whiner. Except by REZ here on FI

 

[CitationUltra]

This is the email I sent him:


Mark -

The age 65 legislation is nothing more than pyramid scheme. Those at the top (your FEDEX brother) make out like bandits, while their windfall is completely funded by those at the bottom. His comment, "all these young dudes will just have to put up with me for 5 more years....I like that a lot", is typical of what has become known throughout the industry as the "I got mine" mentality. If this is what your brother thinks of his first officers he is probably high on the avoidance bid list. I know I wouldn't fly with him.

I have a bit more sympathy for your brother Steve. The pilots at Delta were absolutely robbed, and it's very unfortunate, but, as your article suggested, luck and timing are everything. Why do I have to be punished with another 5 years in the right seat because of someone else's bad luck? We all rolled the same dice and took the same chance.

Bottom line, your article was not researched thoroughly enough, and printing Gerry's crass comments was in poor taste. It's one thing to discuss this issue among other professionals, but to print a biased story like this in a magazine that caters mostly to GA pilots is irresponsible, and I have terminated my AOPA membership as a result.


I did not resort to name calling, but I did voice my opinion of his piece. I was very surprised by this unprofessional response. If he is going to write an article in a national publication that states any sort of opinion he needs to be prepared for criticism.

Believe me, I couldn't make this up if I tried...why would I want to?

Your assertion (Pyramid Scheme) is false and your whole premise is flawed.

The new age 65 policy merely ceases discrimination against pilots between the ages of 60 and 65. It will benefit every pilot who wishes to fly to age 65. Even in the unlikely event that it results in your being "punished with 5 more years in the right seat" it would also mean you could enjoy an additional five years in the left seat beyond age 60, should you choose to do so.

But the logic of your assertion regarding the five years is faulty to begin with, and so is not relevant to the argument.

 

[C-150ETOPS]

Typical goatspeak.

It's 1:15 EST, almost time for the afternoon nap followed by an early bird dinner.

 

[CitationUltra]

Typical goatspeak.

It's 1:15 EST, almost time for the afternoon nap followed by an early bird dinner.

Your point?

 

[samballs]

Your assertion (Pyramid Scheme) is false and your whole premise is flawed.

The new age 65 policy merely ceases discrimination against pilots between the ages of 60 and 65. It will benefit every pilot who wishes to fly to age 65. Even in the unlikely event that it results in your being "punished with 5 more years in the right seat" it would also mean you could enjoy an additional five years in the left seat beyond age 60, should you choose to do so.

But the logic of your assertion regarding the five years is faulty to begin with, and so is not relevant to the argument.

How is 65 not discrimination?

 

[IronCityBlue]

Your assertion (Pyramid Scheme) is false and your whole premise is flawed.

The new age 65 policy merely ceases discrimination against pilots between the ages of 60 and 65. It will benefit every pilot who wishes to fly to age 65. Even in the unlikely event that it results in your being "punished with 5 more years in the right seat" it would also mean you could enjoy an additional five years in the left seat beyond age 60, should you choose to do so.

But the logic of your assertion regarding the five years is faulty to begin with, and so is not relevant to the argument.

There are many logical argurments for age 65, and although I disagree with all of them, many are at least cognisant argurments. This is not one of them.

Anyone in the bottom 2/3 of any list will suffer from age 65 to the exact same proportion as they benefit. 5 more years on reserve, in the right seat, in lower paying equipment, more days away from family, more holidays away from family, more time on furlough, etc.

Best case is pilots at large airlines not already near the top of their lists will be forced to work that extra 5 years to end up in the same place they would have ended up at 60, including pay, retirement and QOL in the meantime. And they would have effectively paid dearly with 5 years of their retirement that t hey had to spend working to end up in the same place.

Now let's look at medical standards. Those extra 5 years are pure "bonus round" years for guys today. But for guys 15+ years from now, those 5 years will be ones they have to work to make up for what was taken from them in this bill. During those 5 years, it is much easier to medical out, so many pilots stand to lose out significantly.

Let's look at patern barganing. Every contract up for negotiations will now use revised actuarials planning on pilots at top scale for 5 more years. Earning top vacation and sick accrual for 5 more years. Higher 401(k), etc for 5 more years. Translation: keeping the status quo in your contract just got a lot more expensive. One more reason why you will be REQUIRED to work those extra 5 years to get to the same point as you would have been at 60 if the age didn't change.

Back to medical standards. They are fairly easy right now. You can still medical out, and many do, but what's tested for is pretty basic and friendly docs are easy to come by. Lots of wiggle room in the standards today. Expect that to change. Soon we will have astronaught type European physicals that far more age 60-65 guys will medical out on. Again, if an age 61 guy medicals out next year, no loss. If an age 61 guy medicals out 20 years from now, he just lost 4 years of his earnings that he needed to make to get to the same point at today's 60 year old.

I understand why you want age 65. But it has nothing to do with fairness. Its free time in the bonus round for you, at the direct expense of all junior to you. As for the making up for lost retirement arguement goes, guys working past 60 today are sacrificing their retirement years to "make up for" what was lost, so that's hardly any kind of victory for them. And the junior guys will be funding that pyramid scheme for generations to come.

 

[CitationUltra]

How is 65 not discrimination?

It is. I didn't say it wasn't. I assume that same people who advocated and worked on the change from age 60 to 65 will be at work to eliminate arbitrary discrimination on the basis of age altogether, as they should.

Bottom line: The right to fly should be based on objective--not arbitrary--criteria.

Professional pilots get to prove every six months whether or not they are medically fit to fly.