Search

Notices

67 is dead,

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-16-2024, 09:41 AM
  #261  
Bent over by buybacks
 
StoneQOLdCrazy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 829
Default

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers


Sh*t happens....things change. Sometimes it's beneficial, sometimes it's not.
exactly why there is no need to change the status quo due to some careers not working out ideally. No one is entitled to two more years, when they got where they are due to the current mandatory retirement age.
StoneQOLdCrazy is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 11:54 AM
  #262  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,258
Default

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
exactly why there is no need to change the status quo due to some careers not working out ideally. No one is entitled to two more years, when they got where they are due to the current mandatory retirement age.
Ok. Congratulations, you have convinced me. Age 67 is a bad idea. I won't change it!! ;>

I also commit that if the rule is changed, I will not work past age 65 as that would upset the status quo and screw the junior guys. As you said, "No one is entiteled to two more years". So. will you make the same commitment? /s
Buck Rogers is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 12:14 PM
  #263  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hillbilly's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 956
Default

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
This is the main thing.

The only guys who get an extra two years "on top" are those closest to retirement. Everyone else gets the extra time exactly where they are right now.

Yet the old guys shilling for 67 refuse to acknowledge that.
That is basically what happened last time when we went from 60 to 65. Very little movement for 5 years and then it started back up again. The movement we had from December 2007 to December 2012 had more to do with the merger than anything else (closing MEM, ANC, etc.). Without that, we would have been really stagnant. The extra year(s) added to your career are all at where you sit right when it gets enacted. A tad more palatable for a 350A than it is for a 717B or an RJ A or B.
Hillbilly is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 12:27 PM
  #264  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,466
Default

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
Ok. Congratulations, you have convinced me. Age 67 is a bad idea. I won't change it!! ;>

I also commit that if the rule is changed, I will not work past age 65 as that would upset the status quo and screw the junior guys. As you said, "No one is entiteled to two more years". So. will you make the same commitment? /s
this, ladies and gentlemen, is the beginning of a boomer baby fit….

this dude is totally for it but just doesn’t want to say it
Hubcapped is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 01:05 PM
  #265  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 903
Default

Originally Posted by Deedledee
Looks like the Dem's came through. Nobody needs to work past the age of 65!
67 is not dead . It will pass when Trump more than likely gets back in and the congress passes it . It's just temporarily delayed .
overqualified52 is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 01:10 PM
  #266  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 903
Default

Originally Posted by Hillbilly
That is basically what happened last time when we went from 60 to 65. Very little movement for 5 years and then it started back up again. The movement we had from December 2007 to December 2012 had more to do with the merger than anything else (closing MEM, ANC, etc.). Without that, we would have been really stagnant. The extra year(s) added to your career are all at where you sit right when it gets enacted. A tad more palatable for a 350A than it is for a 717B or an RJ A or B.
CMON man , you don't want to spend the rest of your career on the 717 or RJ ? 😂😂 If it wasn't for Covid Delta would still be trudging through the skies on the 88/90 and if ATC didn't require them to upgrade avionics they would still be plowing along with the DC9 10/30/50 models probably.

Last edited by overqualified52; 02-16-2024 at 01:11 PM. Reason: Spelling
overqualified52 is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 02:03 PM
  #267  
Has a furrowed brow
 
Wolf424's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,209
Default

I figured out the solution to all this.

All pilots should support age 67.

In order to make it fair for what younger pilots will lose…

ALPA needs to engage the company on a compromise. Us “juniorzoners” that will stagnate and lose out on potential career earnings should be provided cash, a min-balance if you will, on what we are going to lose out on.

We can call it the 5th pillar. Engage your reps! Ask them where the 5th pillar is!
Wolf424 is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 02:23 PM
  #268  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,012
Default

Originally Posted by Wolf424
I figured out the solution to all this.

All pilots should support age 67.

In order to make it fair for what younger pilots will lose…

ALPA needs to engage the company on a compromise. Us “juniorzoners” that will stagnate and lose out on potential career earnings should be provided cash, a min-balance if you will, on what we are going to lose out on.

We can call it the 5th pillar. Engage your reps! Ask them where the 5th pillar is!
I don’t care who you are…that’s funny!
TED74 is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 02:24 PM
  #269  
Leaves Biscoff crumbs
 
Meme In Command's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2020
Position: Blue Juice Taste Tester
Posts: 1,363
Default

Originally Posted by Wolf424
I figured out the solution to all this.

All pilots should support age 67.

In order to make it fair for what younger pilots will lose…

ALPA needs to engage the company on a compromise. Us “juniorzoners” that will stagnate and lose out on potential career earnings should be provided cash, a min-balance if you will, on what we are going to lose out on.

We can call it the 5th pillar. Engage your reps! Ask them where the 5th pillar is!
Im a step ahead of you, I'm already ****ed ALpA abandoned it on the last contract! 😡
Meme In Command is offline  
Old 02-16-2024, 03:03 PM
  #270  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 903
Default

Originally Posted by Wolf424
I figured out the solution to all this.

All pilots should support age 67.

In order to make it fair for what younger pilots will lose…

ALPA needs to engage the company on a compromise. Us “juniorzoners” that will stagnate and lose out on potential career earnings should be provided cash, a min-balance if you will, on what we are going to lose out on.

We can call it the 5th pillar. Engage your reps! Ask them where the 5th pillar is!
I'm not advocating one way or another about 67 but you're talking only 2 years of possible stagnation. Try being at a regional for 20 to 30 years or getting screwed on a merger ( Capitol , TWA , USAir, Republic, Ozark ) to name a few . How about getting screwed on bankruptcy and pensions , etc. Most pilots today are making tons of money and flying nice equipment. Try flying turboprops for 10 years or sitting sideways on the 727 . CMON, it's not that bad .
overqualified52 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sellener
Flight Schools and Training
10
09-10-2009 07:29 AM
usmc-sgt
Hangar Talk
11
08-28-2008 08:33 AM
multipilot
Hangar Talk
1
07-31-2008 04:53 PM
FlyerJosh
Hangar Talk
14
03-28-2008 08:16 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices