On our fleet, and others I have heard, they are back in the front. No limits on 'flight qualified supervisors' (Think of 'MEF' and it allows unlimited flying when it easily is manipulated to that box) . That is up to you and I to stop <ng>

Biff,

There might be some examples where we could agree upon a definition of greed. I would agree with you that the B-scale, where a group of pilots lowered the pay scale of those hired after them so that they could raise their own pay would be one. However, one could also argue that the desire of some young'uns to force out their more experienced <g> union brothers would be another good example. After all, those young'uns will be able to stick around longer also.

Setting that aside, however, there are many good reasons for hanging around past 60, but regardless of the reason, the FE position is not a bad job. I characterize it as Sergeant's work at Colonel's pay.

But it is "just" a job.

That was not the case with the front seat, whether left or right. Even in the middle of the night, once up and awake, the job was enjoyable. The fact that the Captain's pay is twice that of the back is just a bonus.

Roberto, how many years did it take you to upgrade to the left seat? …or were you hired as a captain? I’m asking because I know many guys/gals were hired into the left seat when UPS started up as an airline.

I don't think the "young'uns" are trying to force the older pilots out - they just want to preserve their upgrade expectations they all had when hired. The new law skewed those expectations tremendously. The way I see it, in one pen stroke their former "older union brothers" who'd been planning their retirements all those years all of a sudden got a 5 year bonus on the backs of the "young'uns."
The law is the law and there's nothing that you or I can change but I'm just pointing out that in the view of many "youn'uns" it's the older pilots trying to force out the younger pilots and not the other way around - force them out from the left seat.

It IS greed all right, from BOTH sides. The only difference is that the older guys got a HUGE retirement package increase they never even planned on getting and now they expect the younger pilots to be “glad” that all this "great experience" will stay in the cockpit with them for 5 more years.

Whereas YOU now have the option of retiring at 60, 61, 62 1/2, or maybe at 65 I bet you the "young'uns" will not have that option unless they are willing to take an "early" retirement option, meaning they’ll take a penalty.
I know you'll say that we have to fight for that option in our next contract BUT I bet you the company will throw in some kind of cash bonus for us to give up the possibility of retiring at 60 - …and the older guys will take the cash and just let the younger guys work longer. Nothing new – just look at the 1st year pay here – who cares about the “young’uns” right? After all, they now have 5 more years to pay off those credit cards.

I can already hear you say “well, but second year guys make sooo much money nowadays; it took me 5 years to break through 100K, etc...” Well, I’d argue that if you take the inflation into account your pay as a new-hire AND the following years was higher in the past than it is now. Especially IF you were hired as a captain…

Fire away…

Roberto,
The funny thing is I'll bet we could never "agree" on a definition of greed where it applied to you. You do agree of greed where B scale was put into play which is sort of funny. Let me do a little word editing of your words and see how this grabs you. "I would agree with you that the age 65 change, where a group of pilots raised the retirement age of those hired after them so that they could get five more years at the top would be another". Things that make you go hmmh...
The "young'uns" that you speak off all got hired with the same expectations you did Rob, that they would leave the front seat at age 60. I would bet most of them didn't get hired here after a nice 20 years of active duty with a juicy retirement check and health care.
I will agree that age 60 was discrimination however up until recently all wanted it left that way so we could have some life after work before death. Greed has now changed that for all. And the new number 65 is still age discrimination just moved further to the right. It's okay, just chant along with you, "I got mine, I got mine".
I have sat sideways at another company and know what kind of job it is. The fact that you get to go back to the front seat regardless of that fact that you are keeping someone else from getting what you got is that the pay is twice that of the back. Your ending statement is another example of greed senior Roberto.
Go thank the company that they kept you around after turning 60 even though the seat is way, way overmanned. Do you think they are actually going to put new hires or over displacements back there? They will get furloughed due to manning.
If no one else is glad for you because you got back to the front seat at their expense don't be surprised. Just go lock yourself in your hotel room and keep checking in on your bank account.
Biff

AV8OR and Biff,

You guys made so many incorrect statements that I'm tempted to reply, even though this issue is hardly dependent on one's personal circumstances, neither yours nor mine.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Whatever Roberto. Don't answer the points or the questions, keep playing dodge ball. It just makes you look more selfish and greedy.

I went back to re-read my post to see if I indeed replied to your argument by "attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person (you) making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim…”

Really? I attacked your characteristics and/or beliefs in my post? Please tell me how and I’ll promptly apologize. Maybe someone else here can explain to me how my previous post diverted the attention from the real issue and instead attacked Roberto’s beliefs?

- Ok, here comes a joke - it's NOT an attack, ok?! I have to ask - did you by any chance use to work for the IRS? Your ‘plain talk’ explanations make me believe you must be a former IRS agent? Are you the guy who ‘simplified’ the IRS tax forms, huh? ;) (this is not an attack, this is a joke, ok?)

I agree with everything biff said with the exception to the military retirement and health care benefits issue. I've said it before and I'll say it again – whether he or anyone else has military retirement and benefits is totally irrelevant. Military personnel deserve better benefits than they have and we should never include those benefits when comparing our pay and benefits because it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Roberto – my whole post was about asking you to look at the age 65 debate through another prism – one of the “young’uns” as you lovingly called them. Whereas you claim that the “young’uns” are trying to “force out their more experienced union brothers…” I was trying to explain to you that many of the young’uns believe the >60 pilots are trying to 'force them out' of the left seat. The truth is both sides are correct because it IS all about greed. In this case, the old guys won the 'greed battle' but in my view the pilot profession lost the war. I say that because we'll now work longer and live shorter once in retirement - cannot see that as a win for the profession itself.

I did NOT avoid the issue by going after your beliefs or characteristics, instead I defended the “young’uns” you were attacking by claiming they were all trying to force you out. I simply wanted to show you that greed IS the common denominator in this equation.

I do not think the age 65 rule will affect us as as much as some believe however I am suprised at the lack of understanding from some of the older pilots on the resistance from the young'uns.

I sincerely think that at the very least every over 60 captain should make it his/her priority to purchase a new leather jacket to a new hire. It's less than peanuts to you yet its equivalent to one of his/her two monthly paychecks. Of course, because of the law you don’t have to worry about spending that money as we probably won’t see any new hires for a while.

You never answered my question by the way. So how many years did YOU have to wait to become a captain?

AV8OR,
Rob's points were all directed at me. At least that is what he will claim since I'm the one calling him out character wise.
He doesn't like it because it doesn't make him feel good. I have dealt with people like this before. They dislike you because you hold up the mirror that allows them to see who they truly are not who they pretend to be.
I might be wrong about Bob, however since he won't answer any questions I have to assume he can't vice won't for fear of incriminating himself further.
His biggest worry is whether or not he will get to the front seat prior to age 65. Due to his position towards the bottom of the FE list with many, many folks above him in seniority his age or younger and the limited openings that are bound to happen over the next few years it might just end up a moot point.
Oh well time will tell.
Biff

Biff and AV8OR,

Next time I'm on reserve, with nothing else to do, perhaps I'll respond to your questions, and highlight all the mistakes, misstatements, opinions stated as facts, and incorrect premises. But if I do that, so what? It really won't change the situation.

A quick answer for AV8OR- 4 years to first-available FO, 10 years to first-available captain.

...........