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.

 

[CitationUltra]

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.

The argument is preposterous. It assumes that everyone will fly to 65. It assumes that pilots age 60 and up are equally distributed among airlines. It assumes that the airlines will not grow, e.g., add equipment, expand, increase flying. It's a tempting argument for you, as you are illogically opposed to eliminating the bonus you thought you were going to realize related to discriminatory mandatory retirement, but you might want to try out a correspondence course in logic to overcome your obvious limitation in that area.

 

[Flopgut]

Considering that you have a civilian background, would you have been able to afford your flight training if user fees were part of the equation?

GP

I own a small plane and fly for fun. I think user fees would be OK. I'll maybe pay for FSS (for instance), but I'm going to insist on my monies worth! Some of us still call FSS, which is now consolidated and run by Lockheed (privatized). Say they want to start charging for a briefing? Well, I think that will be bad for business because who's going to pay for that? Even your's truly is going to go all electronic...Then, when the phone stops ringing, Lockheed will have to shutter the whole thing. OR, maybe Lockheed will enhance FSS? Offer something value added that we want to pay for? That would be my first choice (that's why I still call them. I want the briefers to have jobs) But I'm not betting on it.

I think we can afford user fees, I think GA needs to pay more of the bill (especially fractionals) and I think this consumerism would be a good thing.

I prefer EAA over AOPA. (been in both). AOPA is going the same way as FSS, really. 20 years from now, no one will be using/reading them.

 

[GuppyPuppy]

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.

Back on topic...

I just finished reading Mark Twombly's column. To me, it basically was Mark reporting on how his two brothers felt about the rule change and how it will effect their lives. That's it. I'm not quite sure what you may have read into it.

In his response to you I don't see where he called you or me a whiner. He said that there are many whiners among professional pilots. I believe that he is also a professional pilot on a business jet. For you to take such offense from that remark seems illogical. His brother's remark about the young "dudes having to put up" with him for another five years was said in jest (he laughed after saying it).

Add to that you've cancelled your AOPA membership over his response. That's certainly your right, but even if you feel offended by Mark, he is but one person in a large organization. Don't let one person ruin your support. I believe in and support the work that AOPA does for general aviation and have been a proud member for over 23 years, even though I haven't flown GA since 2001.

AOPA helped save my home airport back in the early '90's and I will forever be grateful.

GP

 

[waitin]

The argument is preposterous. It assumes that everyone will fly to 65. It assumes that pilots age 60 and up are equally distributed among airlines. It assumes that the airlines will not grow, e.g., add equipment, expand, increase flying. It's a tempting argument for you, as you are illogically opposed to eliminating the bonus you thought you were going to realize related to discriminatory mandatory retirement, but you might want to try out a correspondence course in logic to overcome your obvious limitation in that area.

CU,
Anyone who can pass the physical will fly to 65...to not fly until 65 would be "preposterous." At that seniority, it is almost free money.
Anyone near 60 just got a 5 year bonus. Anyone under 55 just got screwed (especially FOs).
Personally, I can recognize that timing is everything, so I don't get upset about anything BUT people who try and pass off the "but you get 5 more left seat years too" arguement...simply false.
Sorry for thread creep...

 

[denny]

I'm at a loss to understand the argument. Age 65 was a juggernaught that was coming no matter what any union or pilot organization had to say about it.

The rest of the world is age 65 and it wasn't likely that the US, expecting to participate in world aviation, was going to be a holdout. Age 65 was guaranteed to pass just as your local Congressman was guaranteed to get his pork barrel money for a worthless project in your district. That's politics! Pilots have a long ways to go to understand how politics works. And yes, we are whiners! Big time. But we refuse to put our money where our mouths are. That's the difference between us and the rest of the world.

 

[flynryan15]

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

But are you hot?

 

[IronCityBlue]

But are you hot?

Smooth.

 

[IronCityBlue]

The argument is preposterous. It assumes that everyone will fly to 65. It assumes that pilots age 60 and up are equally distributed among airlines. It assumes that the airlines will not grow, e.g., add equipment, expand, increase flying. It's a tempting argument for you, as you are illogically opposed to eliminating the bonus you thought you were going to realize related to discriminatory mandatory retirement, but you might want to try out a correspondence course in logic to overcome your obvious limitation in that area.

The bonus I thought I was getting? If by bonus you mean the exact same career expectation based on the mandatory retirement age of 60 as every single airline pilot in the nation has had every single day of their career up until now, then you are the one who needs a correspondence course in logic. You obviouslly are elated to get free money in the bonus round and you don't care where that money is going to come from. Fine, you can admit that or not, but to try and cloud the issue with trivial hyperbole about differing growth rates and not 100% of everyone staying til 65 (which I addressed in my original arguement anyway) is disingenuous at best. But go ahead and use it if it makes you feel better.

You were just gifted 5 free years in the bonus round, with 100% of your age 60 enhanced seniority and career long progression. You will use that free gift to hold back the careers of others junior to you in a manner in which your's was never held back. How future negotiating teams will have to equalize the actuarials of this new expense to the company is not your problem. Keep your seat, your seniority, your pay and your quality of life with zero additional cost or risk to yourself and let others junior to you worry about how to pay for it later. Nice.

 

[flygirlqt]

But are you hot?

I worked at a Hooters in college, still have the uniform, still easily fit into it.

 

[inline]

Cancelled mine years ago, after 9/11

Didn't believe they represented my beliefs concerning GA and aviation in general.

AOPA has its faults but they stood up to the FAA when they proposed very strict medical standards for all classes of medicals. AOPA said like hell you will and the FAA backed down. ALPA and APA didn't do this, AOPA did. For that it's worth the price of membership.