Originally Posted by
JamesBond
Then wouldnt it behoove you to get behind the change to ICAO rules? I don't particularly want to sit home and get paid for doing nothing, I have more work ethic than that. I also don't particularly want to downbid, but if we were displaced and pay protected, that woud be OK. But I assume you wouldn't fight for that pay protection either. All that does is show that what you really want is for me to get out of 'your' seat by any means possible. You might win, or I might win. But if I do, I would hope that you get behind the efforts to keep us working, or I will absolutely sit home and get paid. As I said, not my personal preference, but if alpa won't support us, then so be it.
As far as 67 goes, my union speaks for me: I'm against it. Not even worth debating that since we're not going to change anyone's mind.
If the retirement age in the US were to increase to 67 or beyond, I haven't made up my mind on what I'd want ICAO to do in response. My intuition is the most rational course of action would be to conduct another scientific study on the matter and look at changing policies through the scope of a SRA. This takes time. I'm not against pilots getting a good deal, though I can't imagine airline management teams aquiescing to letting most WB pilots above 65 sitting at home paid without contributing to solving the problem this was supposed to solve in the first place--manning.
Can you imagine what such a deal would look like? Would it only apply to pilots currently in a international category? What happens to a 64 year old 2 years after the policy if ICAO hasn't budged? Will there be some other form of age discrimination where pilots can't bid to international after a certain age? I'm sure there will be profit to be made among the chaos of it all, and I admit I am weary of paying the consequences of whatever negative externalities you won't have to deal with 10, 20 or 30 years down the road.