You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
The pilots you inherited this profession would have never accepted working longer to make up for lost pensions. They would have had some guts and gone on strike so as not to lose the pensions in the first place.
I'm sure the founders of the profession would consider you to be the weak one. I won't call you a scab, but your feelings are "scab like." Me, me, me, me, me,....
Your counter will be to say that we - the younger pilots - are selfish and want to move up at your expense. Not really. I'm sure most of us would support lowering the retirement age if we could get our old pensions back. You know, sort of like what air traffic controllers have.
That's a way we could have left the profession in a better place than the way we found it. Now, it is undeniable that it is worse. Thanks, "Me-Me."
__________________
Choice is an illusion created by those who have power for those who don't...
The pilots you inherited this profession would have never accepted working longer to make up for lost pensions. They would have had some guts and gone on strike so as not to lose the pensions in the first place.
I'm sure the founders of the profession would consider you to be the weak one. I won't call you a scab, but your feelings are "scab like." Me, me, me, me, me,....
Your counter will be to say that we - the younger pilots - are selfish and want to move up at your expense. Not really. I'm sure most of us would support lowering the retirement age if we could get our old pensions back. You know, sort of like what air traffic controllers have.
That's a way we could have left the profession in a better place than the way we found it. Now, it is undeniable that it is worse. Thanks, "Me-Me."
The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule. Click here to see: The Chronology of the "Age 60 Rule"
In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”
Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA then saw the age 60 rule as a convenient vehicle to promote institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers these questions:
When did younger pilots became more valuable than experienced pilots?
Why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leaves them with reduced benefits?
ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA
“It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”
Safety is the lie that ALPA and APA have been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots. In reality, they are promoting institutionalized age discrimination against senior pilots, insuring early promotions for junior pilots. In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson:
“I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”
Understandably, junior pilots are worried that changing the “Age 60 Rule” would cause promotional stagnation. What junior pilots need to understand is that, if they haven't realized it yet, promotions today---yesterday---and forever are related to growth--not attrition. Most pilots remember the mid to early 90's when a hiring frenzy produced six-month upgrades to Captains. It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA could dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire. Our Constitution is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of this blatant violation of civil rights, ALPA, APA and the FAA will likely have hell to pay when the law suits start flying.
Funny, are you talking about the same law? The age 65 law, the one w/ NO ICAO retroactivity to Nov 2006? It would cost TONS to bring folks back and get them up to speed after 13 Dec 07. The law is about saving the airlines money and keeping experienced pilots flying as bandaids over our gummed up ATC system. Working instead of being on a retirement check, social security/whatever- the law keeping costs lower for airlines .
Seniority was obviously not a player in this law- even incrementaly, Congress was cool w/ keeping the seniors in the seat, though they fly less than a newhire, all else being equal, even w/ the newhire being paid less while quickly earning as much revenue.
The law has nothing to do with pilots that want or think they need to go and fly for foreign airlines, veterans or you. Did you even read what actually happened in Congress the week the law pushed through? You pick quotes a lot but actually change THE context to suit YOUR perceptions.
It's entertaining, in a sad way, seeing an elder not get it after it's been plated and served up steaming hot at the earlybird AARP special.
Ya know, the law has one good point- all being equal, we'll eventually get the right to do what YOU wanted to do by couldn't - WORK TO DEATH as a part 121 pilot!
Wait for it.......
YEAH................ Right.
Last edited by MoosePileit : 01-28-2008 at 07:22 AM.
Reason: politeness for mentally frail elders having senior months
I really feel sorry for someone like you Klako. Its really sad that you actually believe some of the stuff you say here.
Bitterness can eat you alive. Words may not mean much to you, but based on some of the things you say, You are OUT THERE!!! I find it hard to believe anyone would let you fly.
It is entertaining though!!!
__________________
If your not part of the solution, then..............
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
