Originally Posted by
Nucflash
Nothing in your argument applies to the present day. The dudes that had to go out at 60 are all long, long gone. The situation at the time sucked. I was balled up in it (took a couple of 100% pay cuts) and yet I’m not whining and crying about the need to work longer.
The retirement age has been 65 for SIXTEEN years. Now select individuals want to change the rules they’ve been operating under for the last SIXTEEN years to suit themselves, thereby hosing everyone else's seniority for another 2. Nope! Thanks for your service and enjoy your retirement.
Not only that, but pro-67 is argued as if it only affects those pilots. Like it's between them and their retirement accounts and none of anyone else's business. This stuff has follow-on impacts to the
entire aviation market. A shortage of pilots is the best leverage professional pilots have had to make improvements to every corner of the job, maybe ever. So the idea of throwing cold water on it is anathema to me. "It'll only be 2 more years just be patient." Which presumes the momentum persists. It probably won't and Age 67 may well be the first domino in that chain. I oppose it just like I'd oppose eliminating the 1500 hour requirement, or any number of the other "let's do
anything but make the job more attractive" ideas dreamed up in corporate boardrooms. It's not about safety, or capability, or fairness. It's 100% about bailing companies out of having to improve labor contracts. There is no shortage of pilot bodies, there's a shortage of pilots who want the job. Want proof? 65+ can keep flying to "save the traveling public" or "mentor the next generation" from the bottom of the seniority list in an RJ where pilots are needed the most. Not on your life, right? Well then there you go.