Originally Posted by
CincoDeMayo
That’s the thing people are missing, seems to people who were still doing steep turns on a 172 or in high school back in 2008….it’s not the single event of 65-67. It’s the coupling of that with an economic event. Hell, “Swiss cheese” model if you need it to make sense to a pilot. Life happens when making plans.
Maybe it time for the industry to give a nice kick in the teeth for some to understand this career has never been bourbon and “handies,” it’s a fickle girl who uses teeth.
Yeah and an asteroid might destroy the dominant life forms on the plane too, just ask the dinosaurs. But that wasn’t what some of us were saying that some of you thought “laughable,” What we were saying was:
1. The effect of 65-67 (if it were even to occur) would be substantially less than the effect of 60-65.
2. In the event of an economic downturn management would try to mitigate their furloughs by offering early retirement to the oldest pilots, like they did for COVID.
No one was claiming that there isn’t variability in the prospects of an airline career (or any other) because of even normal variability far less black swan events.