Originally Posted by SWAjet
One of the things I've noticed in the current Age 60 debate is that the guys that want Age 60 moved to Age 65 or whatever usually site that Age 60 is discriminatory.
If Age 60 is age discrimination, isn't Age 65 also? Simply sliding out a "discriminatory" barrier a few more years still leaves the same.
I know we're living longer and the industry now sucks {both points always were possibilities in this game}, but I feel it's changing the rules a little too late in the 4th quarter.
A few more years of Captain earning power due to this industry down cycle? Greed.
No . .65 is NOT age discrimination BECAUSE it has been the agreed upon, standard retirement age for normal people for a LONG time. To treat pilots different than other, normal people IS discrimination, pure and simple!
I think the GREED lies in the young guys, slobbering all over themselves for the promotion they get by booting the old guys out of their seats.
Obviously, folks like the writer above have no consideration or empathy for the myriad fellow pilots who found themselves out on the street, with NO seniority or retirement when Eastern, Braniff, PanAM, National, Frontier, Capital, People, yada. yada. . went tits up.
There are a LOT of our peers who had to start ALL over again and will hit Age 60 without enough longevity or vesting to make for a comfortable retirement. I really don’t think wanting to ‘make up’ for bad luck and fly another 5 years equates to greed!