Originally Posted by
FangsF15
The mental gymnastics it takes to describe keeping the status quo unchanged a “money grab” is actually amazing.
I don’t blame you for wanting 67 for your own reasons, That's your right. But demonizing those who want the same status quo we all expected to remain, indefinitely, diminishes your argument to zero.
Who said I want Age 67? Or don't for that matter? And I'm demonizing EVERYONE who claims that their side is NOT about money grab. Both sides are hopelessly trying to tug at our emotional side. Kinda pathetic, really.
Originally Posted by
PineappleXpres
Guess that’s what Rj is telling his kids.
What, to be successful, learn to be independent and expect no handouts is somehow a bad thing? OK....
Originally Posted by
PineappleXpres
Quantify how many winners and losers. Quantify how much those win make over those who lose. Unclear to me how you see it the same?
sorry your two 737 carrier jobs were suboptimal.
Well, let's see... 1 in 3 pilots don't make it to retirement. Medical. How long do LTD benefits last them? Mandatory retirement age. In light of pensions being lost and needing to make up the lost time, or how about far too many years flying RJ's for peanuts, perhaps having a few extra years might benefit a few on the bottom of the seniority list too... it certainly isn't limited to the very top end of the seniority list. Just an observation from various conversations.
And no need to feel sorry... my situation isn't nearly as suboptimal as yours flying A330's for "legacy" carrier operating a B-scale for a subset of its pilots, and even for the rest of the pilots having the total compensation and package that's borderline grossly inferior to my particular 737 job, depending of course what we're measuring here. I admit, you have much better crew meals and better looking flight attendants - mostly.
Originally Posted by
CBreezy
They aren't the same because the true analogy is there are bank customers and bank robbers. Me not wanting you to take all of our money for yourself is not a money grab. No one deserves to stay past 65. Just like bank robbers don't deserve the bank's money.
One trick pony with the emotional and hyperbolical garbage, aren't you?
There are two camps here, one of which you're in:
In the right corner, you have money-grabbers who for whatever reason want to stay at the top. They use emotional garbage and hyperbole to push Age 67, and they feel righteous in their cause.
In the left corner, you have money-grabbers who want to advance their careers and improve their positions in our seniority-driven industry. They also use emotional garbage and hyperbole to prevent Age 67 and ensure they get to advance their careers. They also feel very righteous in their cause.
Hypocrites... on both sides.
Personally, I'm on track to leave this industry well before any mandatory retirement age, and I still have plenty of years left, so I really couldn't give a damn one way or another. But it sure is funny watching the hypocrisy on both sides.