Prepare yourselves… 2023 AEs
12-09-2023, 08:32 AM
#6232
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 904
Yes, ignoring or silencing that which you disagree with but can't refute is definitely an advanced debate tactic.
The horse is definitely not dead. The obstacles have been cleared in the senate, Sinema is satisfied, and Schumer and Duckworth have agreed to let it move forward. Expect news after the new year. 67 is happening, and you better wrap your mind around it. This AE is going to be more important than some thought. Things may slightly slow down for a little while as the system adjusts and the company evaluates.
The horse is definitely not dead. The obstacles have been cleared in the senate, Sinema is satisfied, and Schumer and Duckworth have agreed to let it move forward. Expect news after the new year. 67 is happening, and you better wrap your mind around it. This AE is going to be more important than some thought. Things may slightly slow down for a little while as the system adjusts and the company evaluates.
12-09-2023, 08:47 AM
#6233
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 774
Selfishly (dare I say "b00merishly) waiting until the very highest seniority you'll ever hold to attempt moving the goalposts isn't "quick movement." It's a bowel movement.
12-09-2023, 08:50 AM
#6234
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 120
I don’t get the failure to understand. Have you read anything anywhere? Do you really not understand? I’m not saying you have to agree with ANY position…but not to understand it? Have you had actual conversation with opponents to 67 and still think “it simply gives everyone a chance to work longer”?
I absolutely understand Nick and 007’s position. I just don’t agree with it. And if you don’t already understand that not everyone WANTS to work until 65, nor stall their seniority progression out for two years, nor see their seniority peak two years later than it otherwise would, nor leave on their original timeline with two years’ worth worse seniority - I honestly don’t think you will ever understand. I guess that’s why this horse is pulp.
I absolutely understand Nick and 007’s position. I just don’t agree with it. And if you don’t already understand that not everyone WANTS to work until 65, nor stall their seniority progression out for two years, nor see their seniority peak two years later than it otherwise would, nor leave on their original timeline with two years’ worth worse seniority - I honestly don’t think you will ever understand. I guess that’s why this horse is pulp.
I know of only one pilot who retired before age 65 once it changed. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the pilots complaining about 67 will stay until 67. It makes no sense to me that all the pilots who might "benefit" from this should leave because there are a few younger pilots who have promised themselves that they'll retire at 65.
And again, where is the cutoff for good stagnation vs bad stagnation?
12-09-2023, 09:21 AM
#6235
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 861
I was hired when the retirement age was 60. I didn't see the 65 change as some apocalyptical, garment rending plague. Sure I stagnated (and for 2.5 times longer than this change would be), but I didn't insist the pilots who benefitted from it retire at 60. I was making enough to raise my family, even if I was just slinging gear.
I know of only one pilot who retired before age 65 once it changed. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the pilots complaining about 67 will stay until 67. It makes no sense to me that all the pilots who might "benefit" from this should leave because there are a few younger pilots who have promised themselves that they'll retire at 65.
And again, where is the cutoff for good stagnation vs bad stagnation?
I know of only one pilot who retired before age 65 once it changed. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the pilots complaining about 67 will stay until 67. It makes no sense to me that all the pilots who might "benefit" from this should leave because there are a few younger pilots who have promised themselves that they'll retire at 65.
And again, where is the cutoff for good stagnation vs bad stagnation?
12-09-2023, 09:23 AM
#6236
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 120
It comes down to a philosophy on work/life balance. Do you want to work longer and therefore have more dollars in your account? Or do you want to work less years and have the years you do work have a better seniority - and all that goes along with it? Also if you have/ had a plan to work to 65 or ANY AGE YOUNGER than 65 then 67 is a net loss for you.
I happen to like my job. At my BES level, I can modulate my seniority for a work/life balance that gives me the opprtunity to do both well. The ability to turn on/off my income stream is a nice perk that I like and, after a career's worth of black swan events, I feel like I've earned.
12-09-2023, 09:24 AM
#6237
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 120
The central argument is not that the pilots should all retire at 65 instead of 67 should the law change. Most are advocating for the law not to change at all. I have no beef with a pilot making a personal choice to work beyond 65 if it's legal, but would prefer (for a myriad of established reasons) that the limit not be changed.
12-09-2023, 09:33 AM
#6238
Can’t find crew pickup
Joined APC: Jun 2021
Posts: 2,232
It comes down to a philosophy on work/life balance. Do you want to work longer and therefore have more dollars in your account? Or do you want to work less years and have the years you do work have a better seniority - and all that goes along with it? Also if you have/ had a plan to work to 65 or ANY AGE YOUNGER than 65 then 67 is a net loss for you.
And before you call me selfish and a union of 1 or whatever else you want to, ask yourself what you are advocating for? Exactly what benefits you the most. Just like we all do. No matter how you try and justify it.
Edit: in any base not NYC.
Last edited by Whoopsmybad; 12-09-2023 at 09:46 AM.
12-09-2023, 09:50 AM
#6239
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 774
Yet here you are, feeling entitled to quick movement sometime in your career. Luck and timing picks winners and losers by chance. No one in this industry is guaranteed anything. Yet here you are, waiting until you're as senior as you'll ever be, and trying to move the goalposts. Entiled much?
What I see from you isn't "quick" movement, it's a bowel movement.
12-09-2023, 10:33 AM
#6240
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 997
Let me reply by saying it doesn’t matter what any of us think on 65 vs 67. The point of my posts is that we have a system that requires age 65 as the cutoff - changing that results in a net loss for anyone who wants to continue in that paradigm. The only real winners are at the top of the food chain when it happens. Mostly a net loss of QOL for everyone else. So explain to me your comment of “Their decision to do that should not have consequences for those senior to them.”. How is my deciding to retire at 65 or earlier a loss for someone senior to me? As I have said I (and other pilots) have no effect on the law change.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
