Originally Posted by
CRJCapitan
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.
No, actually, I don't disagree with you on this. Either side can and does present what they consider to be a rational reason... i.e. Argument a) You knew what you were getting into and failed to plan financially and now you are impeding my advancement and growth opportunity for your own selfish money-grabbing reasons and that's not fair. Argument b) You will get your turn at the top. I have wisdom and physical fitness to still be doing this job. I cannot in good conscience walk away from an additional 1.5+ mil in income and retirement contributions, and any attempt to remove me from this based on my age while I can still hold Class 1 medical is age discrimination, and that's not fair.
But of course, it's never our side that's selfish. It's always the other side, right?
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.
No, it doesn't. It exists for political reasons and was changed in spite of all the opposition that was mounted. In fact, our own union sold us down the river and our left-leaning brothers and sisters would tell us that's OK because reasons.... Note how in previous post, one guy mentioned accused me of being "anti-diversity" among other things when he himself is deliberately and highly in favor of age discrimination for selfish reasons. Again... hypocrisy.
I can tell you both sides of the fence have an argument that they consider valid. For example, one of our arguments against raising it to Age 65 was cognitive decline in pilots. The counter to that argument is that Class 1 medical certification doesn't specify the age restriction. In fact, you can have a Class 1 medical and fly for JSX as a captain while being over 65.... as long as you can hold Class 1 medical.
So which is it? Or better yet, which side of the money grab do you align with and then for how long? Note those Flightinfo.com links I posted? Find Andy's posts... look at how rabidly he went after a senior United captain who had since passed away. Now, look at how his position evolved once he is upon his career sunset years. Principles? Safety? No... it's politics and money grab. Pick your side of the coin.