Originally Posted by
captjns
Why blame the rise of retirement to 65 for your financial woes? Many pilots lost their pensions. Many were relying on those accounts for their golden years. Many chose, not to displace you from the left seat, but as a necessity for their future.
Did you get caught up in the home balloon mortgage scam in the early 2000’s. Buy that SUV with zero percent APR for 5 years? How many years were you furloughed? You familiar with those caught up in the 70’s major furlough. Back in the day… many were furloughed longer than the were on the property. Rather obtuse to blame the the approaching 65ers for your ill fortune. They didn’t enact the law… Congress did. Blame your politician for voting for the law. Go back to the Genesis of the age 65 retirement age… ICAO. When and IF the retirement age is increased beyond 65, make your comments when the NPRM is issued. You choosing to work beyond 60 or 65 if raised will deprive those behind you the same of what you bring to this forum. Sort of be a double standard. Don’t you agree?
I do blame congress. That’s why I said to entertain an age increase then all the regional pilots need to be on the mainline seniority list and contract otherwise it isn’t about a pilot shortage it’s about keeping costs artificially low.
ALSO anyone over the age of 65 needs to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list with their longevity intact and pay at the highest category they were able to hold at age 65. This way the airlines get their pilots and the rest of us aren’t hurt seniority wise and the old guys keep the money coming in. Sure the 65+ QOL will go down being at the bottom and flying an RJ but they were planning to be retired anyway so it’s all just gravy for them. Also, their experience could be useful on that type of flying bc right now we have two inexperienced pilots trying to get out as soon as possible bc of the pilot cast system of regional vs mainline.