Peoloto

And it wasn’t scripted

BobZ

Well when that giant lizard starts trashing nyc we're gona care a whole bunch.

full of luv

I'll say.... the Japanese people care what the Japanese are doing for 200 points!

badflaps

Everybody at Pearl.

Albief15

....and Korea, Nanjing, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, the Marianas, Thailand (once Burma), Vietnam (once French Indochina), Australia, parts of India, and parts of the Aleutians.

I'd say a few folks care very much what the Japanese are doing. Refitting two helicopter cruisers to now carry the F-35 around the Eastern Pacific has raised a few eyebrows.

3 green

At some point, probably after 65, it becomes a negative benefit for Companies. Enough guys will be out on medical to make it a negative change.

sailingfun

Exactly, our disability pays until you reach required retirement age. Age 67 would be very expensive for Delta.

DFW Refugee

So...

Who's side are you on? If only yours, why might you be against 65+ ?

Baradium

First, I'm going to point out that agreeing it's expensive for the company is not making a statement of desire for what happens. Are you going to argue that it's not true? Or are you just upset that he admitted it as truth? Dealing with facts isn't taking a side.


Secondly, we should all be against raising the retirement age further. Every additional year you work is your best retirement year that you are giving up. It also starts to increase health risks exponentially. While it would also increase the number of pilots able to take advantage of the disability program considering the increased chances of medical troubles, the overall impact to the pilot group as a whole is negative. Sure, some pilots who are just reaching retirement age get a few more years potentially at the top, but everyone else has a lower return with worse seniority at every year than they would otherwise. On top of that, I recall that the average retirement age is around 62 at this time. A large number of pilots aren't even waiting until 65. Every pilot who doesn't go to even 65 (as well as any pilot that left at 65) would be taking a loss from a change with reduced seniority at the end of their career. Even pilots that did continue to the new age would not really benefit except for the initial group as they would be losing seniority every year up until that point.

So what about you? Whose side are you on?

notEnuf

A "negative benefit." Wow, we are truly dancing around the issue. Detriment, liability, hindrance or just plain negative. I'm using this on on the kids. No you aren't grounded, this is just a negative benefit of your behavior!

Not meant to be disparaging, it just made me laugh.

I'm hungry for jumbo shrimp now.