Originally Posted by
org1
I realize you might not have seen this question answered the other 15 or so times, but here it is again: the reason for the FO under 60 is politics; it's what it took to appease the nay sayers. This requirement too will pass a few years down the road.
The one thing that really chaps me about this whole debate is the BS BOTH SIDES are using to try to place the emphasis on safety. Admit it: the whole argument is about MONEY. The young guys want it. The old guys want it. The only valid argument is, is it fair to force an individual to retire based solely on his age. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Is an old guy with 20,000 hours safer than a less old guy with 12,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, anyway. Is a less old guy with 12,000 hours safer than an old guy with 20,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, either.
The BS on both sides I certainly agree with! Which simply leads back to why change the rules we all knew existed when we started. If the pro 60 crowd is truly doing it to right the wrongs of the past, and only have honorable intentions then why not start the clock on all 121 or new ATP pilots from the day it is changed. NO windfalls to the old guys hanging out on the WBs.
After all the only way they got their WB captain's seat was because of retirements and age 60.
These are obviously personal views, so as you said. "The BS on both sides" is getting deep.
My orginal goal to this thread was more about unionism and having a specific group being polled and then having the union honor it's membership's wishes. I probably should have made that more clear.
Regards,
AAflyer