The corrollary to that is 1) The job doesn't define me. Just pays the bills. Allows me to keep stashing $$$ for my early retirement. 2) Life is pretty short. You'll start to realize it once you turn 55. Things change, perspectives change. Especially as your children have children. 3) I'm not taking "zero" home after I retire. Over the years I've lived well below my means. Still married to same wife, still living in the same house we bought many, many years ago, drive used cars, don't own boat(s), vacay homes etc. (although I am a partner in a aerobatic airplane). Not humble bragging, but my retirement is pretty significant. I don't "need" to work.

I am looking forward to no more TSA smurfs, angry passengers and dealing with a management team that truly hates us. No thanks. I'm going to be teaching my grand kids to fly fish. Life is short. Work to you die, no thanks. Not my game.

If 67 is enacted, expect the geezers to immediatly push for 70 and/or no upper limit.

Many of them have stated so here, including our resident train wreck, James Bond.

Make no mistake, 67 is just the gateway. These guys want to stay at their highest seniority until they croak, by moving the goalposts and creating stagnation indefinately.

And aspiring pilots to the Delta ranks want to lower the hour requirements, make 4 year college degree an option, DUI's of the past insignificant, "exta-cirriculars" like voluntarism moot. So what's your point? People gonna be people. They are going to lean towards what benefits them the most. As they move thru life, those desires morph into something new. Doen't take a rocket surgeon to understand this and makes neither party right or wrong, greedy or benevolent. It just is life

Indefinate stagnation????.... my, that's a long time /s

Fair enough.

• I saw what happened after the 60>65 change (which was admittedly exacerbated by the underlying economy). There were far reaching effects which greatly delayed career progression up and down the industry. I don't want to see even a portion of that again. I find it interesting some of the same people who howled against 65, are now howling for 67. (which only proves people really only serve their own best interests).
• I notice the way you phrase who 67 WILL help. Those who are at the tippy top right now (who again, as I've argued in the past, were undeniably kicked in the junk by losing the pension (and age 65, obtw). But 18 years later, the sting of that past wrong should not, IMO, drive current policy. If it happens to help you, Great. But it's an ancillary benefit, not WHY the rest of us 'should' support the change).
• 67 will not help any other pilot in the same way though. It will 'hurt' many in the short run by delaying upgrade and/or seat seniority to varying degrees, and have zero payback unless they also stay to 67. And for some, that's an extremely delayed 'help'.
• ICAO may or may not follow suit in short order. IF they do not, it creates a massive training nightmare. Not just for the company. There will be displacements (which in some cases will actually allow some to move up to WB A mitigating the seniority effect, at some levels anyway), LOA's will have to be reached, etc.
• I would like my personal seniority advance at the rate I have been expecting since I was hired. Self interests, and all. I don't want to wait 2 additional years-ish for WB A. I will preemptively say, that's not the same as "get out of my seat". I'm not the one wanting to change the status quo, you are.
• While DALPA is here to represent Delta Pilots only, there are effects which go beyond this group. For me, my son is just entering the industry, and I don't want to see him stuck at his LCC longer than he otherwise would have been.

However, there admittedly are some benefits

• If you lose your medical, you will get LTD for 2 additional years, the equivalent of one extra year of full pay. It also bridges the heath insurance gap to Medicare, and delays any use of 401k/savings.
  • Which is also a CON, as DMPA is already hemorrhaging cash. 67 will almost certainly drive big dues increases to fund it, unless they simply stop paying at 65 (which I would likely support to ensure solvency).
• IF, and that's a big if, you still want to work, you can continue to earn good money, while keeping insurance (which is another reason I support 'fixing' retiree medical coverage, even though I'm on Tricare and it wouldn't help me).
• It does help a small portion of those who lost much in bankruptcy. While it doesn't do anything for those already gone, it does help at least some of those folks with a 'glove save'.

In the end, Congress will make the decision. So it's all academic. But I respect your position, and simply ask that you respect the position of those who want the status quo in return.

My point is they are the 62-65 crowd and vocal but greatly out numbered. Even if I give you 60-65 it's the seniors now who benefit the most. They argue for it because they want more and the rest of us should be good with it because... reasons. Self interests win the day on all sides. But, an end run around thier colleagues via the gvernment because they are outnumbered is shameful. You do you.

How does being a volunteer make you a more qualified pilot? Also, how does getting a DUI in college (10-15 years ago) make you unfit to be a Delta pilot?

If you don't like the job that much by all means, check out early and follow your passions. YMMV, but for me being super senior and flying a partial schedule is not "work til you die". Gotta have something to wake up for. IMO flyfishing and hitting the golf course everyday ain't it. Famed Value Investor Charlie Munger was reading and working on investments up to the day he died just shy of 100. To your point, he also heavily emphasized spending time with friends and family. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

Like button

the 70 is from General Lee in the 350-1000 thread. Hopefully there’s an announcement coming along with free beer tomorrow…