Originally Posted by
joepilot50
So you call those anti-67 as entitled, but the people for 67 are not acting just as entitled?
Older generation tells the younger generation life is unfair, tough. Yet they don’t abide by their own statement by recognizing that yeah they had rough timing and their career didn’t go as well while the incoming guys/gals are potentially going to have decent careers. Life is unfair. You don’t get to change the rules as they become inconvenient and get to stop the career progression that the retirement age causes that you enjoyed.
So no one is entitled to ANYTHING. I’m not saying, “ Thanks for the service, now get out of my seat”. But same time you don’t get to go, “ I had it rough so I deserve those extra few years”.
I’m against 67 because it doesn’t solve the problem, kicks the can down the road, and further makes this career unattractive. While damaging peoples careers. You were damaged by age 65. You shouldn’t want to do the same thing to others.
You're one of those people who, when a brightly-colored parade with loud marching bands passes by, stares with excitement at a small circular dot on the pavement and shouts, "oooh, a penny!" Aren't you?
The point is, if you fail to grasp it, you may have missed the point.
Whether or not a 65 year old has had a long career, hard career, hard life, difficult time, challenged existence, or quasi-cosmic troubling bout with karma, is irrelevant.
There is no valid reason why a 65 year old pilot who is able and capable should not continue until he is 67.
Of course he should be able, should he choose, if he is able. She, too.