Originally Posted by
myrkridia
It was a rebuttal to the argument that pro-67 advocates miss characterize the anti-67 stance as "on their 65th birthday they are suddenly unsafe."
I thought the anti-67 stance here and with the FAA (generally speaking) is "we don't know" whether it is "safe."
Originally Posted by
myrkridia
Then she went on to explain what a mess this would have created and not solved the actual problem, which is a shortage of regional captains to supply those smaller cities. I thought the point she made while making eye contact with all those self-serving WB captains in the room trying to staple a couple years to their already maxed out career earnings was particularly salient–"I find it hard to believe those senior pilots flying international widebody aircraft would take a financial hit and go back to flying regional aircraft to serve those cities" (I'm paraphrasing).
I agree; I have a hard time imagining who in their right mind would. But wouldn't it have the effect of choking off the the upgrades from the Regionals if they stay on domestically?
I still don't understand this idea of how those folks are self-serving, anymore than anyone else trying to improve their career earnings or improve qol or whatever other goals they have set. So the friction comes from the rules being changed yet again and having to deal with the setback(s)? So I guess in a sense, a sort of fundamental fairness that those for Age 67 aren't adhering to?