Originally Posted by
CRJCapitan
Everyone is wrong to some extent. I'd like to list my winners and losers from a theoretical increase to age 67.
Winner: Age 60+ pilots. They not only get two additional years, but they get the two addtional years at the top of scale and, often times, making WB CA pay. Pretty obvious.
Mild losers: Current airline pilots under 60 years old. Current "junior" guys will actually make more money over their careers if age 67 passes. They will net two years multiplied by whatever their curent annual pay is more than what their current career earnings project. The downside is these pilots will have to spend more time with lesser QOL, will have to work longer to achieve their career goals, and are at risk of furlough for a longer period of time (new hires). Current regional pilots have to wait two years longer, on average, to get to their destination airlines.
Big losers: Future airline pilots. People currently in the pipeline have to spend an additional two years as instructors, if the're lucky enough to be at that point. The CFI market would become completely saturated and current flight school graduates would get their certs with essentially zero prospects until people start retiring again.
I was tempted to add the general public as because ticket prices would surely go up as airlines' costs would go up, but I will avoid going into detail on that. The point is, this really isn't as much of "the old guys" vs "the new guys" as everyone is making it out to be.
Did you have a chance to view the polling that ALPA did in 2007 when we were REALLY seeing the "status quo" being disturbed? Only 56% of the respondents voted against raising of the age. I was one of those 56%. I sure as hell wanted the old guys out of what I saw as my seat. At least I owned what I wanted... GET OUT OF MY SEAT OLD FART! Wouldn't that hurt someone's feelings today?
Also, back then, we had thousands of furloughed pilots throughout the industry, unlike today.
You know what you omitted in your self-serving analysis? You omitted late starters... second career folks who start in the industry and pick a snapshot where they may be in the industry? Run into any of those? How about mil guys who are retiring or recently retired and are new hires? Poll them? Ironically, back in 2007 they were a surprising pro-change demographic even if they were junior. Or how about 1 in 3 pilots who don't make it to Age 65 because of an illness or loss of medical who actually manage to collect disability payments and not touching their retirement until mandatory retirement age?
I'm right around half way up our master seniority list and I have many years to go to retirement. I don't see old fogies having 2 more years as a threat to my career nearly as much as seeing disappearing of 2 pilot cockpits and going to single pilot, or elimination of manned flight altogether in my career-span due to AI or other factors. I'll probably see that fight in my active career and you as well. Yes, I have that many years left, and that's part of the reason why I'm financially preparing for an early exit.
I love how so many of you talk about "preserving the status quo." No, that was changed in 2007 and the status quo since inception was moved proving it can be artificially moved for no apparent reason, and even supported by the pilots union despite the wishes of the majority. And no, this isn't some ancient history - this happened in many of our career spans. Just own your side of the argument... don't be afraid to say why.
And yes, to the guy that talked about me selling water 4x at World Trade Center... if that was my business, hell yeah. You don't like the expensive bottled water, there's always the restroom faucet option or going thirsty... enjoy!