Originally Posted by Nick Bradshaw

There won't be stagnation. Not everyone is going to stay to 67. Many will be out on medical. This trope has already been refuted. Besides, what's 2 slightly stagnant years when junior is upgrading in 1-2 years on the ER, which took us 15 years?



Thanks for your opinion. And opinion is really all you have. Having an opinion isn't a debate. I told you facts. Things that are already happening and the plan going forward. The grievances will be for violating parts of sections 3, 11, and 22 when they try to shaft us. It's not a secret. You may think it's a fantasy, but that's like, your opinion man.

Now go ahead and look at your phone set on selfie and admire yourself and pat yourself on the back for being the reining king of APC with your "impressive" post count and the hours each and every day you spend here bestowing everyone with your amazing opinions on everything. I'm sure your opinions mean as much to the world as mine. In the end, we'll see who was right. But my money is on you being wrong, and I have a hell of a lot more of it where my mouth is than you do. You're just a guy on the internet with a strange obsession to prove he's The Smartest Man In The Room every day. I'm someone who was flying for this company when you were in grade school and know how stuff works.

Originally Posted by Nick Bradshaw

Cool story. You've held your breath, and stomped your feet and pitched a fit to that effect several times now. It's all about you you you. We boom er s need to get out of your seat and shut up and go away. We get it.

You and several others keep saying that it must go to a vote and your crystal ball says it will surely go down in flames. But what if I told you there won't be a vote? Play this scenario out:

Congress raises the mandatory retirement age to 67 (and our inside sources are telling us that the obstacles have been cleared and it's a done deal, expect a standalone FAA reauthorization bill in the senate late this month or early next month which Schumer and Duckworth have already endorsed). ICAO doesn't follow, and won't follow for quite some time, because they are always paralyzed by red tape. 65+ WBAs are now precluded from flying internationally, through no fault of their own. (That's completely unlike people who refuse to get a visa or got themselves a DUI, btw). The company will surely try some shenanegins to avoid paying us or to get us out of the seats. When they do, we file a a grievance. This puts ALPA in an awkward position since they unfairly and discriminatorily opposed 67, and most likely the first of the DFR suits for that will have already been filed against them (also in the works right now). ALPA always looks out for ALPA, and they don't want to cough up potentionally millions per affected pilot in the harm they caused abandoning us in that and abandoning the promised 4th pillar. Precedent has been set that the master chair can settle a grievance without using memrat. ALPA wants this problem to go away quick, so that's what they'll do. They'll negotiate us pay protection for our WBA seats, and there will be some giveback from the pilot group to pay for it. That will be a grievance settlement, and you won't get to vote on it. We'll be either sitting home if they choose to bypass us, or flying NBA at WBA rates for 2+ more years (expect a bill for age 70 or no limit next). Voila. We got our min balance and 4th pillar after all.

And why wouldn't you want that? James is right. Union of 1. You only care about what benefits you, and by god you aren't going to give something up that makes it fair for someone else. Fair only applies to you. Never mind that you'll have the opportunity to work 2+ more years at $500-$800K per year too. On a path we paved for you. But we know we won't hear a thank you and that's all right.

Originally Posted by Nick Bradshaw

There won't be stagnation. Not everyone is going to stay to 67. Many will be out on medical. This trope has already been refuted. Besides, what's 2 slightly stagnant years when junior is upgrading in 1-2 years on the ER, which took us 15 years?



Thanks for your opinion. And opinion is really all you have. Having an opinion isn't a debate. I told you facts. Things that are already happening and the plan going forward. The grievances will be for violating parts of sections 3, 11, and 22 when they try to shaft us. It's not a secret. You may think it's a fantasy, but that's like, your opinion man.

Now go ahead and look at your phone set on selfie and admire yourself and pat yourself on the back for being the reining king of APC with your "impressive" post count and the hours each and every day you spend here bestowing everyone with your amazing opinions on everything. I'm sure your opinions mean as much to the world as mine. In the end, we'll see who was right. But my money is on you being wrong, and I have a hell of a lot more of it where my mouth is than you do. You're just a guy on the internet with a strange obsession to prove he's The Smartest Man In The Room every day. I'm someone who was flying for this company when you were in grade school and know how stuff works.

Originally Posted by tennisguru

What makes you think upgrades will continue to go so junior if 67 passes? Yes guys will medical out or retire early but that already happens now. The fact is 500 retirements a year will all but dissappear for 2 years (or 5 if you get your way again). Yes we are still short staffed and the company is growing so there will still be movement, but no one in their right mind thinks that movement that occurs with age 67 will match the movement today. It WILL slow down, just how much is the unknown. You have a myopic view that junior upgrades means no one would be harmed. Every person ahead of a pilot in their category that was going to leave but doesn't has a negative impact on that pilot when it comes to vacation, PBS, GS, WS, etc. A pilot who is #11 in their category at age 63, and was going to end up #1 by 65, now is stuck at #11 (or maybe 9-10 if a couple of guys leave before 67) for 2 years. Now that pilot is 65 and now must stay to 67 if he wants to enjoy being #8 down to #1. Don't tell me with a straight face that he is not negatively impacted.

Originally Posted by Nick Bradshaw

We boom er s need to get out of your seat and shut up and go away. We get it.

Originally Posted by TED74

Care to share evidence of advocacy for retirement age extension you demonstrated more than five years ago? Have you written senators asking them to lift ALL age limits and force employers to re-hire retirees at their previous seniority, with back pay and a retroactive profit sharing re-distribution? Shaming folks for advocating in their best interests is pretty ridiculous if you ask me (you didn’t).

You know who impresses me? The pilots who say “I’ve had a great run and it’s time to move on like all those who moved on to my own benefit”. Something I hope to emulate myself down the road, somewhere around age 60. I’ve chatted with enough old timers to have internalized the false promise of another $500-800k in the out years when death is almost certainly less than 30 years away and basic mobility might even be gone in 5-10. 4,000 weeks is a full life on average; less than 800 Fridays left by age 65 is a pretty sweet time to walk away from working for the man. A forced-out is actually more blessing than curse IMHO. I know we’ve all got our own opinions but for the time being ALPA representatives are properly representing their constituents on the issue. I expect that trend to continue - amidst frivolous lawsuits or not.

Originally Posted by tennisguru

What makes you think upgrades will continue to go so junior if 67 passes? Yes guys will medical out or retire early but that already happens now. The fact is 500 retirements a year will all but dissappear for 2 years (or 5 if you get your way again). Yes we are still short staffed and the company is growing so there will still be movement, but no one in their right mind thinks that movement that occurs with age 67 will match the movement today. It WILL slow down, just how much is the unknown. You have a myopic view that junior upgrades means no one would be harmed. Every person ahead of a pilot in their category that was going to leave but doesn't has a negative impact on that pilot when it comes to vacation, PBS, GS, WS, etc. A pilot who is #11 in their category at age 63, and was going to end up #1 by 65, now is stuck at #11 (or maybe 9-10 if a couple of guys leave before 67) for 2 years. Now that pilot is 65 and now must stay to 67 if he wants to enjoy being #8 down to #1. Don't tell me with a straight face that he is not negatively impacted.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

They can't say it with a straight face. They don't want to fly to 67 to "save the industry." They want to fly to 67 ONLY if they get to keep their QOL and top relative seniority. If they have to lose that or sacrifice that, then they get upset and cry DFR lawsuits. It's purely a money grab by the super senior guys.

Originally Posted by TED74

Care to share evidence of advocacy for retirement age extension you demonstrated more than five years ago? Have you written senators asking them to lift ALL age limits and force employers to re-hire retirees at their previous seniority, with back pay and a retroactive profit sharing re-distribution? Shaming folks for advocating in their best interests is pretty ridiculous if you ask me (you didn’t).

You know who impresses me? The pilots who say “I’ve had a great run and it’s time to move on like all those who moved on to my own benefit”. Something I hope to emulate myself down the road, somewhere around age 60. I’ve chatted with enough old timers to have internalized the false promise of another $500-800k in the out years when death is almost certainly less than 30 years away and basic mobility might even be gone in 5-10. 4,000 weeks is a full life on average; less than 800 Fridays left by age 65 is a pretty sweet time to walk away from working for the man. A forced-out is actually more blessing than curse IMHO. I know we’ve all got our own opinions but for the time being ALPA representatives are properly representing their constituents on the issue. I expect that trend to continue - amidst frivolous lawsuits or not.

Originally Posted by DirtLZ

Can you imagine living your final 10-15 years on the planet reading lawsuit updates and praying you get a meaningless lawsuit pay day? I would rather be with my family while playing golf, fishing, and camping.

Originally Posted by Nick Bradshaw

Cool story. You've held your breath, and stomped your feet and pitched a fit to that effect several times now. It's all about you you you. We boom er s need to get out of your seat and shut up and go away. We get it.

You and several others keep saying that it must go to a vote and your crystal ball says it will surely go down in flames. But what if I told you there won't be a vote? Play this scenario out:

Congress raises the mandatory retirement age to 67 (and our inside sources are telling us that the obstacles have been cleared and it's a done deal, expect a standalone FAA reauthorization bill in the senate late this month or early next month which Schumer and Duckworth have already endorsed). ICAO doesn't follow, and won't follow for quite some time, because they are always paralyzed by red tape. 65+ WBAs are now precluded from flying internationally, through no fault of their own. (That's completely unlike people who refuse to get a visa or got themselves a DUI, btw). The company will surely try some shenanegins to avoid paying us or to get us out of the seats. When they do, we file a a grievance. This puts ALPA in an awkward position since they unfairly and discriminatorily opposed 67, and most likely the first of the DFR suits for that will have already been filed against them (also in the works right now). ALPA always looks out for ALPA, and they don't want to cough up potentionally millions per affected pilot in the harm they caused abandoning us in that and abandoning the promised 4th pillar. Precedent has been set that the master chair can settle a grievance without using memrat. ALPA wants this problem to go away quick, so that's what they'll do. They'll negotiate us pay protection for our WBA seats, and there will be some giveback from the pilot group to pay for it. That will be a grievance settlement, and you won't get to vote on it. We'll be either sitting home if they choose to bypass us, or flying NBA at WBA rates for 2+ more years (expect a bill for age 70 or no limit next). Voila. We got our min balance and 4th pillar after all.

And why wouldn't you want that? James is right. Union of 1. You only care about what benefits you, and by god you aren't going to give something up that makes it fair for someone else. Fair only applies to you. Never mind that you'll have the opportunity to work 2+ more years at $500-$800K per year too. On a path we paved for you. But we know we won't hear a thank you and that's all right.

Originally Posted by JamesBond

Would it be worth fighting for? Or should alpa just say, oh well, sucks to be you?

And you aren't getting displaced anytime soon. All this talk of stagnation if 67 passes is a bunch of hyperbolic horse****.