nene

Unfortunately, many think age 65 will be moved to age 67 in a few more years (as far as SSA and Medicare are concerned) as soon as the bills and loans start coming due....

Jdub2

I don’t have a family and I am financially secure, so I guess I do have the high ground. It doesn’t affect me one way or another, I just believe in doing the right thing for its own sake. I guess that isn’t very popular nowadays. Perhaps we could be a little more enlightened than “every man for himself.”

Clearedtocross

RJSAviator is the kind of guy who goes to the World Trade Towers to sell water at 4x the price. Ugly!

SSlow

He's right though. Most people who end up very well off weren't worried about everyone else along with the way. They were looking out for number one.

Nobody is taking the high ground. In fact, the general attitude is "GTFO of my so I can make my money..."

CBreezy

Everyone gets to sit in the front of the roller coaster. We all patiently wait our turn until your ride is over before getting a turn. Now some people want to take two extra rides. When everyone behind them protests, they call us selfish even though the only reason they got to the front of the line as fast as they did is because everyone ahead of them only took one ride. Then they gaslight everyone and say we all will get three rides too, but that's a lie. We all still only get 1 ride. They are the only one getting three.

FangsF15

Fantastic analogy. This is exactly right, except… I would argue we do all get two extra rides, it’s just that those two extra rides occur in your present seat. The more junior you are, the further back on the train those two extra rides occur. And when I do finally get to the front of the roller coaster, it will be 2 rides later than I otherwise would have. AND, if I don’t have time to stick to the end because my family needs to go back to the hotel ‘early’, I never get to ride up front like I would otherwise would have.

And that doesn’t even address those who were later to join the ride, and will top out 2 cars further back on the coaster than they would have, possibly costing them the chance at that final upgrade…

But, yeah, I’m the selfish one…. /S

5tools

ALPA is big business! Big Business likes Green! How's that for your civic lesson and business lesson for the today. No homework tonight?

CRJCapitan

Everyone is wrong to some extent. I'd like to list my winners and losers from a theoretical increase to age 67.

Winner: Age 60+ pilots. They not only get two additional years, but they get the two addtional years at the top of scale and, often times, making WB CA pay. Pretty obvious.

Mild losers: Current airline pilots under 60 years old. Current "junior" guys will actually make more money over their careers if age 67 passes. They will net two years multiplied by whatever their curent annual pay is more than what their current career earnings project. The downside is these pilots will have to spend more time with lesser QOL, will have to work longer to achieve their career goals, and are at risk of furlough for a longer period of time (new hires). Current regional pilots have to wait two years longer, on average, to get to their destination airlines.

Big losers: Future airline pilots. People currently in the pipeline have to spend an additional two years as instructors, if the're lucky enough to be at that point. The CFI market would become completely saturated and current flight school graduates would get their certs with essentially zero prospects until people start retiring again.

I was tempted to add the general public as because ticket prices would surely go up as airlines' costs would go up, but I will avoid going into detail on that. The point is, this really isn't as much of "the old guys" vs "the new guys" as everyone is making it out to be.

Clearedtocross

The "Big Losers" category isn't relegated to just "future airline pilots", it includes nearly all pilots under 50 years old. These pilots will NEED to work 2 extra years at the end just to make the same amount as they would have if the age was kept at 65. It's basic financial planning - incorporates progression and the time value of money.
Problem for the 67 money grabbers is that their entire premise for raising the age no longer exists. There's no pilot shortage. Sorry fellas, you missed it.

Stretch45

What are those "couple more issues"?