![]() |
Originally Posted by TRZ06
(Post 2945710)
"some" won't jump on it? MOST will definitely jump on it. Forget your reasoning though. Who wouldn't like to retire with a million more in their pocket?
Signed Senior Guy. Have fun spending that extra million when you are dead shortly after retiring. |
Not that anyone cares but I'd be out if they changed the retirement age, or at least be on an expedited exit plan. 60 to 65 was a sham to begin with, this career needs to have more movement, not stagnant. Or better yet, get rid of the seniority based bidding system for people extending beyond 65, retain the pay but the "65+" pilot needs to go to the bottom of the bid status.
|
Originally Posted by Erroneous
(Post 2946558)
There goes career progression. Good luck staying awake on a redeye.
Some airplanes already do it if you don't make some kind of system input for 20 minutes. |
Originally Posted by Sniper66
(Post 2945939)
Only 2 have to my knowledge
Japan and Canada If EASA approves it to 67 The FAA will consider it |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 2946669)
You won't need to. The drone pilot at HQ will just send an "alarm clock" signal to get you up prior to descent.
Some airplanes already do it if you don't make some kind of system input for 20 minutes. |
Originally Posted by captjns
(Post 2946822)
The bloody alarm disturbs my naps:mad:
|
Originally Posted by LIOG41
(Post 2946655)
Not that anyone cares but I'd be out if they changed the retirement age, or at least be on an expedited exit plan. 60 to 65 was a sham to begin with, this career needs to have more movement, not stagnant. Or better yet, get rid of the seniority based bidding system for people extending beyond 65, retain the pay but the "65+" pilot needs to go to the bottom of the bid status.
|
I agree 100%, anybody staying beyond 65 should go to the bottom of the list. They benefited their entire career from people retiring at 60 and now 65. There used to be a term for those guys who refused to retire and became FEs.
|
Originally Posted by TransWorld
(Post 2945573)
Back when Social Security was established, the ages 65 and 62 were selected. 65 was the average age of death for women. Men only made it to 62, on average. So the odds were you would never get any benefits. In 1900, the average life expectancy for men in the US was 45. Average life expectancy was HIGHLY skewed by infant/youth mortality back then (especially from all those diseases the anti-vaxers are working so hard to bring back). If you actually survived long enough to pay into SS, odds are good you'd collect. Healthy adults didn't keel over dead at 45 much more frequently than they do now. Many of them actually got quite a lot of exercise and ate organic (if fat-heavy) foods. Google the founding fathers... on average their life spans were closer to 70 than 40. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2952089)
But you need the rest of the story...
Average life expectancy was HIGHLY skewed by infant/youth mortality back then (especially from all those diseases the anti-vaxers are working so hard to bring back). If you actually survived long enough to pay into SS, odds are good you'd collect. Healthy adults didn't keel over dead at 45 much more frequently than they do now. Many of them actually got quite a lot of exercise and ate organic (if fat-heavy) foods. Google the founding fathers... on average their life spans were closer to 70 than 40. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:57 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands