Originally Posted by
Roberto
You guys made so many incorrect statements that I'm tempted to reply, even though this issue is hardly dependent on one's personal circumstances, neither yours nor mine ... An ad hominem argument ... consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim ... It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
I went back to re-read my post to see if I indeed replied to your argument by "attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person (you) making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim…”
Really? I attacked your characteristics and/or beliefs in my post? Please tell me how and I’ll promptly apologize. Maybe someone else here can explain to me how my previous post diverted the attention from the real issue and instead attacked Roberto’s beliefs?
- Ok, here comes a joke - it's NOT an attack, ok?! I have to ask - did you by any chance use to work for the IRS? Your ‘plain talk’ explanations make me believe you must be a former IRS agent? Are you the guy who ‘simplified’ the IRS tax forms, huh? 
(this is not an attack, this is a joke, ok?)
I agree with everything biff said with the exception to the military retirement and health care benefits issue. I've said it before and I'll say it again – whether he or anyone else has military retirement and benefits is totally irrelevant. Military personnel deserve better benefits than they have and we should never include those benefits when comparing our pay and benefits because it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Roberto – my whole post was about asking you to look at the age 65 debate through another prism – one of the “young’uns” as you lovingly called them. Whereas you claim that the “young’uns” are trying to “
force out their more experienced union brothers…” I was trying to explain to you that many of the young’uns believe the >60 pilots are trying to 'force them out' of the left seat. The truth is both sides are correct because it IS all about greed. In this case, the old guys won the 'greed battle' but in my view the pilot profession lost the war. I say that because we'll now work longer and live shorter once in retirement - cannot see that as a win for the profession itself.
I did NOT avoid the issue by going after your beliefs or characteristics, instead I defended the “young’uns” you were attacking by claiming they were all trying to force you out. I simply wanted to show you that greed IS the common denominator in this equation.
I do not think the age 65 rule will affect us as as much as some believe however I am suprised at the lack of understanding from some of the older pilots on the resistance from the young'uns.
I sincerely think that at the very least every over 60 captain should make it his/her priority to purchase a new leather jacket to a new hire. It's less than peanuts to you yet its equivalent to one of his/her two monthly paychecks. Of course, because of the law you don’t have to worry about spending that money as we probably won’t see any new hires for a while.
You never answered my question by the way. So how many years did YOU have to wait to become a captain?