FangsF15

What does the VEOP have to do with age 67? My seniority number today is within a hundred numbers of where it would have been without the VEOP. That has zero bearing on 65 vs. 67.

Career earnings? Of course, but that's life (and not what's being discussed except by you). Some get lucky, and some don't. Why do you begrudge those who simply had luckier timing that you?

Buck Rogers

You are assuming way too much about me. APC turns into an echo chamber if alternative views aren't expressed. Sorry I don't fit the information bias that you possibly desire?

Really? No where can you see that you moved up quicker due to VEOP and Pay banding and locked in those inordinate "gains" that can/will compound until retirement/death? Yes, you have now reached equalibrium but you accrue those gains forever. The longer one's time horizon, the more beneficial.

I'm merely pointing out that any "good" that people accrue is glossed over but anything that might be harmful turns into the most epic travesty imagineable.

crewdawg

On the flipside, many of the pro-67 crowd assume the pilots hired in the last two years make up the whole group. They act like many hired early in the wave didn't spend a decade plus at the regionals. Or that lots of them started over at 2 and 3 airlines in the at time. They also assume that the good times are here to stay forever. This goes both ways.

Buck Rogers

I feel I have adequately acknowledged this.

One point of clarification .... there is a difference in actually experiencing something and that same "something" being but a mere possibility in the future.

The majority of the guys at the top actaully experienced bankruptcy and the pitiful ensuing contracts, merger, retrenchment(shrinkage) for the next decade and a half.

These discussions go better if one doesn't use abberations and construe it as the norm, as both sides are wont to do.

BTW your "many" referenced of the pro 67 crowd would insinuate there are more than 2 people that are pro 67 on APC. I haven't really seen that. Those two on APC are "loud and proud" and in your face. That's not the majority of 67 supporters. Sheesh, I'm not pro 67 ...I'm agnostic.

crewdawg

I'm mostly agnostic as well, but I do tend to lean toward the status quo. It's not so much just here, but also FB, CC, etc... Heck some even think that if it didn't happen while you were at Delta, then it didn't happen and doesn't matter. But I mostly agree with what you're saying. Both sides have valid reasons for their side of the argument. Both side also have invalid reasons. It's just a matter of what the individual considers invalid. I freely acknowledge what people have experienced, but to point at those to strengthen one side of the argument, then discounting anything in the future because it might not happen isn't a great argument in my mind. I also acknowledge what happened before they were at Delta as well. I tend to not get into this stuff very much not doing a great job lol) because I've had it pretty good and consider myself extremely fortunate. Then again, who knows what the future holds.

FangsF15

I'm 100% supportive of other/alternative views, especially when supported by arguments free of appeals to authority or emotion. Good debate is healthy. I don't know what you are saying about desiring an information bias. I'm simply asking what does the VEOP have to do with the debate on age 67?

Did you read the second paragraph you quoted of mine? I said "Of course" career earnings are affected by the VEOP. That's the luck favor, out of all of our control. As is the huge retirement wave (that the VEOP temporarily accelerated). There was always going to be some pilots who had good timing. YEARS before the VEOP, we had pilots getting MD-88 Captain positions, particularly in NYC, which required the company to scramble when some of them didn't have 1000 part 121 hours yet.

BTW, I've said multiple times I'm mostly agnostic on 67, maybe slightly lean against. There are bad arguments on both sides of the debate, but I'm not very tolerant of weak ones on either side. Poor/weak arguments dilutes any validity to the 'cause'.

Whoopsmybad

2 points:
1. The guys at the top experienced them here at DAL, yes, but to say people that weren’t at DAL didn’t experience low wages, garbage rules, etc… just because we weren’t here is absolutely disingenuous.
2. I’ve talked to many I’ve flown with in the past, both recently retired and about to (next couple years) that are hoping for 67. They may not be on SM, but there’s for sure more than the 2 vocal pro 67 on APC.

TED74

I’m not quoting your whole (butt-hurt) rant because it’s mostly irrelevant to the point I was making. I think you’re smart enough to understand one can make a point about a fact without addressing other points and other facts. That’s not cherry-picking - it’s clarifying one point of a complicated debate. I’m not arguing the totality of the 67 debate since I don’t think much has gone unaddressed.

I was responding to the idea that the bad of extending to 67 was offset by the good of more earning potential. For many (not all), that actually is untrue. There are a significant number of people who aren’t aware of this fact. I thought it worth explaining, but if you have a straw man or seven you want to crap all over that explanation, have at it.

IIRC, you have a kid or two in the industry. If you model 65 and you model 67, they’ll make less by age 65 if the rules change. That’s just a fact that they can use in their calculus to be for/against/agnostic age 67. For me, arriving at 66 with that I could have had at 65 makes me against the rule change. I may still arrive at 67 with what I could have had at 65, but that doesn’t interest me. Selfishly, I post my thoughts about my situation and my decision tree. I let others post about their own.

sailingfun

If you want something to send to your Senator against 67 forward this accident report.

https://www.wnct.com/wp-content/uplo...5_08_29-PM.pdf

OOfff

I’m just here for the covid comments