Originally Posted by
TED74
I don’t get the failure to understand. Have you read anything anywhere? Do you really not understand? I’m not saying you have to agree with ANY position…but not to understand it? Have you had actual conversation with opponents to 67 and still think “it simply gives everyone a chance to work longer”?
I absolutely understand Nick and 007’s position. I just don’t agree with it. And if you don’t already understand that not everyone WANTS to work until 65, nor stall their seniority progression out for two years, nor see their seniority peak two years later than it otherwise would, nor leave on their original timeline with two years’ worth worse seniority - I honestly don’t think you will ever understand. I guess that’s why this horse is pulp.
I was hired when the retirement age was 60. I didn't see the 65 change as some apocalyptical, garment rending plague. Sure I stagnated (and for 2.5 times longer than this change would be), but I didn't insist the pilots who benefitted from it retire at 60. I was making enough to raise my family, even if I was just slinging gear.
I know of only one pilot who retired before age 65 once it changed. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the pilots complaining about 67 will stay until 67. It makes no sense to me that all the pilots who might "benefit" from this should leave because there are a few younger pilots who have promised themselves that they'll retire at 65.
And again, where is the cutoff for good stagnation vs bad stagnation?