TAZ MAN said:
My point is prove that it will affect safety.
Exactly.
I'm not "trotting out" anything. We all know that this issue is about greed not safety. But the ones who bring up the "safety issue" are fooling themselves.
Granted.
I just don't see where there is any proof on either side of the issue.
Both sides are giving "proof" in their medical professional's testimony. The question is who is more believable when a large percentage of the people RECEIVING the testimony (Congressmen and Senators) are age 60+? They think they're at the top of their game, so you're going to have to explain to them why they're not. Unlikely.
And I personally think the burden of proof is on those to prove it won't.
I disagree. Since the rule is already set to change for the ICAO crowd and the rule change has so many supporters on the Hill, the onus of proof is on the crowd WHO DOESN'T WANT IT TO CHANGE.
You're going to have to convince the powers that be that the rule needs to stand because, as it sits right now, the rule is probably GOING to change. If you want to stop it, better get off your duff and PROVE TO THEM why it's unsafe.
Everyone can argue all day about this issue. But when it comes down to it, the ones who don't want the rule change are FO's and young Captains. The irony is that they will change their mind when they are not one of those.
That's a pretty big assumption, given that I'm a (relatively) young F/O (or will be starting on Monday) and I support the rule. The support / opposition is all over the map on this one, depending on someone's personal needs and desires.
I've seen some older guys violently opposed and some younger guys all in favor.
MattV1.1 said:
I hope the greedy over 60 crowd screws themselves royally if a change occurs.
Man, someone's a little bitter.
3)the IRS keeps the AMT and takes 50% of your gross and you get less than just hanging up your hat because the over 60 crowd overlooks the tax consequences in your desire to hang onto nothing
If you're paying the AMT, you need a better accountant who can steer your yearly financial planning in ways of contributions to charities, retirement funding, etc. There is no reason anyone in this business should be subject to that unless you simply ENJOY giving your money to the IRS.
4)new medical standards are issued that knock you out of even flying business jets or GA
A very real risk.
5)you cause the bankrupt carriers to liquidate because of the higher payroll or continue to remain uncompetitive against the LCC's and you lose your retirement payments because you have pushed for pension reform and kept the company from sending it to the governments PBGC and were unable to take your lump sum because of the deficit in your current system
Ummm... that rant is pretty much contradictory. First, if you believe in any way that NWA's or DAL's A-fund is going to be around much longer, you're dreaming. CAL's is even starting to look a little "iffy".
Second, most of the legacies have lost their "lump sum" already and I'd be very surprised to see it return.
Lastly, pilots will never lose their ability to collect PBGC benefits, IT'S INSURED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. So unless the United States ceases to exist as a government, they'll bail the PBGC out if and when they need to, regardless of pension reform (there's nothing in any of the proposed bills that elliminates the PBGC's responsibility to take over if the airlines default on their pension guarantees).
5)and whatever else could cause your greed to get more of your money and keep you off the golf courses and sweating away in the hot ######## wishing you would die to get a break.
Wishing they would die? Seriously, with that much animosity, it might be you who dies of a stroke if you don't relax a little...
BigBeerBelly said:
Actually, we used to two-engine ferry 727's back and forth from Europe. Only the most senior Captains were allowed to do it.
There's a LESSON in there, if you'll drop the "super pilot" mentality for a minute and realize that MOST aviation corporations, airlines, fractional, charter, and corporate alike, VALUE older pilots on the flight deck. Young is NOT the preference when a passenger looks up front and sees a 24 year old CA and an 18 year old F/O.
There's a lesson there, too. I'll give you a hint: even the most untrained person realizes that older USUALLY equals MORE EXPERIENCED which USUALLY equals SAFER.
Now the onus lies on those opposing the rule to prove that age 65 isn't just as safe as 60. Again, since the rule is facing less and less opposition, the losing team must step up to the plate and push it back the other direction. If you continue to say "the onus is on the other team when they're winning", you're basically burying your head in the sand hoping the predator about to eat you will go away.
