Originally Posted by
RJSAviator76
There are indeed winners and losers. What do you call a guy who gets hired at a legacy who happens to be over 60? We've had plenty of those around lately. It's just not nearly as simple as you make it out to be and 2 years, especially when we don't have thousands of furloughed pilots doesn't even register on my give-a-sh!t-meter. See my reply to Sliceback below. There are far bigger threats to your (and mine) career advancement than potential 2 more years at the top or getting "stagnated" in today's environment.
You can't fathom that someone would have an opinion on this based on rational reasons as opposed to purely self-serving reasons. My official positions are that: A) the "new guys" are not the biggest losers, so there does not need to be such a fierce "us vs them" discussion and B) That you need a reasonable argument in order to change the status quo on anything in life.
I'm not interested in what my, your, or anyone else's subjective opinion is. If the argument for changing the age to 67 was convincing enough to warrant a change from 65, I would not have a problem with that. The fact of the matter is there were real reasons for changing the age to 65 (hard to defend forcing people to retire before they can claim social security and get medicare, 65 aligned with ICAO standards) that don't apply to age 67.
It also doesn't matter if there is a guy who joined when he was 60 or is prior military. Not only did they know the deal (age 65) when they got into aviation, but it has nothing to do with why age 65 exists in the first place. It's there to protect the general public. I have yet to hear arguments from anyone, without any emotion involved, as to why the age should change.