New AGE limit discussion

[The Prussian]

Age 65 is just an asinine way to make up for the lost income/retirement.

Then so is 60, or 55, or 50, or 45, or....

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Does your airline advance based on your performance?

You gentlemen are talking about two very different subjects here, my comments were in the context of the comparison of the merit system vs. the seniority based system, not about the effects on stagnation that has been experienced due to the rewrite of the rules and the movement of the gol post.
Under the seniority system, your date of hire will determine the start of your upgrade training, there is no assessment ( at least not anywhere near a command assessment like you would experience in Cathay, ANA, British Airways, Emirates) you pretty much are going to class when your date comes provided there is movement, if there is stagnation, there is no movement in any of the two systems, the only thing that will prevent you from reaching your command is if you fail training, hence my comment that it is mostly your performance that will be the determining factor. Under the merit system, there is a selection criteria that has to be met, all you records will be brought into the mix, your performance during your initial, recurrent, your record of missed days and the reasons, your personnality, how you get along with your coworkers, even the cabin attendants and ground staff sometimes have a say in your overall grade, it is an elaborate pleasing of the tribal elders ritual that in some companies is quite frankly demeaning. Evidently under neither of the two systems there would be movement if the sircumstances affecting the US industry today were present.

 

[waveflyer]

Then so is 60, or 55, or 50, or 45, or....

I don't follow-
Are we in your hypothetical world, or the real one?

 

[dedazo]

BS.... retire at 65 and be done....we need the retirements so we can all climb up the ladder (seniority, upgrades, quality of life). It was bad enough to extend the age to 65. Those old timers had their run, it is now our turn to become old timers.

 

[GG747]

BS.... retire at 65 and be done....we need the retirements so we can all climb up the ladder (seniority, upgrades, quality of life). It was bad enough to extend the age to 65. Those old timers had their run, it is now our turn to become old timers.

I agree, let us make the big bucks in the left seat so we can plan to retire. As long as these old timers have the left seat we can't upgrade.

 

[relief tube]

should have never gotten to 65 even. Worst case-take it to 62... a decade or so later 65 maybee, but not a 5 year "you're f-ed" all in one.

And nothing past 65, or we will find a way to revolt.

 

[waveflyer]

and nothing past 65, or we will find a way to revolt.

+1 ^^^

 

[flyboyike]

And nothing past 65, or we will find a way to revolt.

No, we won't. We'll take it lying down, just like we took age 65.

 

[laker4284]

Remember how quickly they shoved through 65, practically in the dead of night.

What in the world makes you think it was "shoved through, practically in the dead of night"?

Can't really respond to that on an IPad in my mother's living room but I found that comment to be un-freakn'-believable! Do you really believe that?

 

[Andy]

What in the world makes you think it was "shoved through, practically in the dead of night"?

Can't really respond to that on an IPad in my mother's living room but I found that comment to be un-freakn'-believable! Do you really believe that?

Please walk us through your scenario where you see it differently. The legislation was bottled up in subcommittee by Rep Mica. ALPA had Rep Mica release it from subcommittee on 5 Dec 2007. Bush signed it into law on 14 Dec 2007 after passing both the House and Senate. If that's not 'dead of the night' in Washington lawmaking terms, let me know how you define 'dead of the night'.