RJSAviator76

Fine, you support status quo. Why? Because of your own self-serving interests. Period. Full stop. The end. OWN WHY YOU SUPPORT IT - YOUR OWN SELFISH REASONS. that is literally all I'm saying.

How long have you been flying professionally? Were you flying in 2006-2007 timeframe when a whole load of us were having the same damn argument and then in mid and late 2007, we (anti-65) were all stabbed in the back by ALPA because they "feared if we maintain our opposition, we'd have no say in how it gets implemented..." Were you around then?

Newsflash... we also wanted to "preserve the status quo." And the most comical part of the whole thing was that our arguments were literally identical to yours.... status quo, furloughs, you-benefited-from-age-60-and-now-you-want-windfall, etc. And it all got unstatus-quoed by the stroke of a pen with the blessing of ALPA National despite that 56% of active membership opposed raising the retirement age to 65. In case you haven't been around then:

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/13009-alpa-flip-age-60-official.html

https://flightinfo.com/threads/alpa-...irement.98731/

https://flightinfo.com/threads/to-th...-older.133431/



Nothing's changed. It has nothing to do with safety, ethics or moral high ground.... In fact, virtually everyone here will happily take all your money if you let them and give you the moral high ground at the expense of your money. They may feel virtuous and throw a quarter in your styrofoam 2 day old cup if they're feeling really generous that day. And let's not kid ourselves, you would do the same exact thing to them for your own advancement.

Blah blah blah.... used that argument too back in the day. Here are two fundamental questions for you to answer:

1) Would you do whatever it takes to secure financial security for yourself and for your family? Nod and say yes.

2) Would you take away from your and your family's financial security for the benefit of me and my family? Shake your head and say no.

That's all you're doing. The rest is the same old tired emotional plea bullsh!t we were using back in the day to preserve Age 60. None of us fought to preserve Age 60 because we were genuinely worried about safety, but we sure as hell used that as an argument. We simply didn't want our careers stagnated by letting people on top stay for 5 more years in the left seat while we stagnated in the right seat and even worse, on furlough, as we had thousands of pilots furloughed back then. As I said, it was unstatus-quoed by the stroke of a pen and none of our whines or "moral high ground" mattered one bit.

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight for what you want; I'm saying don't be a hypocrite and pretend you're somehow righteous, or crack us up talking about some moral high ground.

If you want fairness, your mandatory retirement would occur when you could no longer qualify for the first class medical. And unless that's what you're advocating, you're merely picking a side that benefits you the most. Let's not pretend otherwise.

CBreezy

ALPA flipped because they are told it was happening and they could either hold their breath and take it in the shorts or be part of the implementation.

RJSAviator76

Ah, so screw representing tbe will of the majority of the membership... they know better? That sounds awfully familiar in so many ways.

More blast from the past... Big thread, but takes a few pages to get to the debate. Starts around Page 24-26 and go from there.

https://flightinfo.com/threads/age-60-informal-poll.73665/

CBreezy

Man, your on a real Google streak, eh?

And no, it's in the best interest of the pilots to be at the table. If they were told today that it has bipartisan support and there is nothing they can do to stop it, especially since ICAO had already raised the age back then, I'd fully support them abandoning their opposition to ensure it's done in the best manner to protect their pilots.

DogPit

Your argument only holds water if the one side was trying to lower the retirement age.

5tools

Classic. You have claimed the will of the majority should be protected because you claim the majority does not want it. Yet, these same majority did not want age 65 but ALPA rolled over like a little poodle, because they saw the dollar signs. LOL!!! And you were okay with it!! LOL!!

5tools

ALPA flipped because of the the green! LOL

CBreezy

Yes. The majority doesn't want it and we long and they would fight it until it's inevitable. And then once it becomes inevitable, they just to make sure they have a seat at the table. It has nothing to do with green. It's not my fault you don't know how anything works. You should take a civics class

StoneQOLdCrazy

let's not forget ICAO changed their retirment age to 65, which is what got the ball rolling.

Age 67 isn't even on ICAO's agenda right now. So you are basically comparing apples and unicorns.

Nice try, though

CRJCapitan

Age 65 matches ICAO and it gave people a chance to both earn until they can start claiming social security and an opportunity to have insurance until they qualify for Medicare. There were objective and practical reasons for changing the age to 65. There are no such objective reasons for 67.