Originally Posted by StinkyPete

Thank you, I appreciate that. And I most certainly appreciate the fact that this is most of everyone’s here primary way of providing for themselves and family. Flying was no less of a priority for me then than it is now; I walked off the ramp to support my family (which was the highest priority) in the way I felt best at the time. We all do what we gotta do.

I have to wonder though, if two years were quietly added and a wand was waved so everyone was “meh,” about it, would the effect have any noticeable or appreciable impact on upgrades - given retirements, loss of medicals, economic conditions etc.?

So that’s the one thing I can legitimately be accused and guilty of, is that I am completely ignorant of what impact 60 to 65 had on upgrades. So when I make an effort to treat others how I wish to be treated, maybe I would hold the opposite opinion if I was in (most of) your guys/gals shoes. I have no clue how seriously impacted a reg like this may have on others. Would it likely delay an upgrade by a year? Two? Maybe I would be saying, “get lost, loser.” But I kind of doubt it.

Reason being (and to address PineappleXpres) who would I be, to force another person out into retirement, who was here before me, who wants to work? Wouldn’t that make me the greedy one? Who am I to question their motivation(s) for continuing to work. Maybe it will be a hardship for them to leave, for whatever reason. And we know 121’s move into 135. I know of e.g. 121’s going to Mountain Air to fly Caravans. How freakin’ sad. It’s a good job (I’d jump at the chance), but how sad to treat someone who’s flown 30+ years, who wants to continue their current job, to force them out, retrain, and accept a lower salary. That just isn’t fair in my book.

One saying we had in the Marine Corps was, “we only go as fast as the slowest man (or woman).” We looked out for each other. No one got left behind. (All you prior service guys know what I am talking about.) So this is why I suspect I would be against maintaining an age limit, despite how it might impact me… and really, afaict, that in the very short term.

If there was a “wrong” created by a law, say the Age 60 rule back in ’59 (and that’s one of the ways we repaid the men and women of our greatest generation… “get lost old timer”) and it took such and such years to remove said law from the books and right that wrong… I don't see the problem.