Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3749629)

About 40k. 1990

Originally Posted by CaptKochblauch (Post 3749458)

Someone sent this letter to me, which apparently the old guys are attempting to circulate in Washington. I recognize some names on here, including guys who have been retired for years and years...and have zero skin in the game. And a couple of current reps.

Their point so abysmally argued, that I have doubts about its legitimacy.

The premise of this letter seems to be "our careers did not meet our expectations, so we deserve more time! Waaaaa!" Typical of that generation. I'm sure fiftysome washed up ALPA "has-beens" "wannabees" and "never-weres" will move the needle./s

This is my favorite line: "As a pilot moves up in seniority, so does their position on the flight deck, with commensurate pay and benefits."

Translation: "We want to move the goalposts and give ourselves two more years at the highest seniority we will ever hold."

I love how they all attached their titles, as if anyone in Congress knows or cares what they mean.

A real union would kick these clowns out PDQ.

I highlighted the two current reps who signed in case anyone in Captain Forbes's or Captains Johnson's councils wants to have a talk with them.

Originally Posted by Wolf424 (Post 3749561)

I wonder how many of them would support 67 if it went into effect with 5 year implementation schedule?

I mean, it’s all about safety and mentoring right?

Originally Posted by tennisguru (Post 3749571)

I just have to say, Cooks ≠ Kooks…

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 3749655)

The last of the baby boomers. Most entitled generation in history. Not going to get into details because the points have been argued relentlessly. Their position is self-serving. I have yet to fly with a 64 year old that plans on retiring if age raised.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3749530)

I don't favor 67. I think 65 was the sweet spot between being fair and a decline in ability to multitask and handle complex situations. What I do find odd however is the current group of pilots screaming about the loss of what would probably be a year to 14 months of career advancement. I find it odd because pilots hired post 2007 have seen a unheard of level of advancement. They will also enjoy a retirement probably triple pilots who have retired in the last 5 years.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 3749675)

Ok - for the one millionth time, it is not the new and recent hires that will mostly be affected by this although they will experience some negative effects. It is the 1998-2001 hires who already lived through 5 extra years in the right seat, furloughs, BK etc that will be very negatively affected. Just when these guys are knocking on the WB-A door we are discussing moving the goalposts again.

As I am approaching geezerhood at 60, I am mostly agnostic on this issue. But if the decision were mine, I would not change the age.

Scoop

Originally Posted by tennisguru (Post 3749571)

I just have to say, Cooks ≠ Kooks…