Stop extending Nja brothers

[billybob]

Cab,
Thank you

 

[Cavpilot]

Hey Cav
First off thank you very much for doing that, second if I may ask what fleet are you on, just wondering.

No problem. I couldn't look in the mirror if I did. My fleet? Well, we have lot's and lot's of them and we do a lot of work.

 

[Wankel7]

No problem. I couldn't look in the mirror if I did. My fleet? Well, we have lot's and lot's of them and we do a lot of work.

Thank you !

 

[Semore Butts]

Hey Buck!

Like most rumors, I heard it from a guy on the line that was talking with another guy that was talking to a Fed.

 

[BuckMurdock1]

Like most rumors, I heard it from a guy on the line that was talking with another guy that was talking to a Fed.

K. Assuming for a second that your rumor is the accurate one; how many NJA pilots on seniority list are 67+ (or even 66.5+)? Rough #s are fine.

 

[av8trinabarrel]

I get the feeling standing here on the sideline, that even if all the blue hairs were grounded, it wouldn't bring a furlough back. This emt would probably let the house of cards cave in before they admit defeat by bringing just one furlough back. It would make hiring waaaaaaay down the Road a bit more interesting.

 

[billybob]

Av8,
I'm joining you 495 screw club.

Hail president screw!

 

[BuckMurdock1]

I get the feeling standing here on the sideline, that even if all the blue hairs were grounded, it wouldn't bring a furlough back. This emt would probably let the house of cards cave in before they admit defeat by bringing just one furlough back. It would make hiring waaaaaaay down the Road a bit more interesting.

I'm with ya on the fact that even if this or the rumor I've heard (age 65) came to pass (not likely anytime soon since our fine "leaders" in DC can barely keep the 'essential' parts of the Gov't open, let alone get anything done legislatively), It certainly wouldn't trigger a NJA recall by itself. I'm just curious regarding rough #'s, straw poll, whatever: how many blue-haired gummers do you have aged 66+ currently. 100? 150? 200? More?

 

[gret]

Interesting commentary...you want help by not extending, then you are disrespectful, and wishing harm, to the older gentlemen who are still working and being asked to extend.

If I were in their position, you have made my choice much easier.

 

[BuckMurdock1]

Interesting commentary...you want help by not extending, then you are disrespectful, and wishing harm, to the older gentlemen who are still working and being asked to extend.

If I were in their position, you have made my choice much easier.

Unless my airline folds, I don't need the help and will stay put. As I've said before, I have many friends who would probably go back when recalled because they happen to be working a crappier gig than NJ and for less $. It is mainly for their sake that I keep my dog in this fight (and generally out of principle also).
Aside from using the term "gummers", etc. ..how am I being disrespectful? When I was 16 and my grandpa called me a "whippersnapper"; I took no disrespect. I'll be a gummer one day myself. Sooner than later if my brushing habits deteriorate. I submit that these people, by continuing to work as PIC of a high-performance business jet (in many if not most cases with a full military &/or airline pension) for "fun" or "extra $" ARE BEING GROSSLY DISRESPECTFUL TO ME AND THE OTHER MIDDLE-AGED WORKING STIFFS WHO ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES! They further disrespect safety itself when they choose to continue to fly while knowing that their skills/reaction time/memory/physical capabilities have deteriorated to a marginal level with respect to this job. They take advantage of the knowledge that they will not be busted out in training for fear of age-discrimination perception. I know--I saw it first-hand during my short time there.

You say I'm trying to "harm" them?! #1- I'm not a congressman who will be potentially voting in subcommittee on a measure to enhance aviation safety and bring the Pt. 135/91k world in parallel with Pt. 121 in this regard.
#2- Forcibly leading someone who is too stubborn, greedy or arrogant (thinks that the universal effects of aging could never apply to them) to the appropriate situation of enjoying the "golden years" with family and exploring other hobbies/interests ...including flying--(privately, in your own plane) is "harmful"...how?!??

Just to put this into perspective guys; there is a huge push for age 65 retirement legislation in the TRUCK DRIVING INDUSTRY! Can't be too long before legislators collectively apply the two against a common-sense 'reasonableness' test.