Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Who Are These Kooks? Is This For Real? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/145882-who-these-kooks-real.html)

Gone Flying 01-11-2024 01:27 PM


Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3749701)
Point of Order. How old were you when your son was born? What is the difference in hiring age between you two? And how much are your year 4 "then year" dollars worth today?

40k in 1990 is about 100k today if you use CPI inflation numbers. But it’s also worth noting health insurance was free (or so I’m told) and cost of housing was much lower.

also based on the pay tables Timbo posted in another thread that seems to work out to an average of 60 hours a month as a 727 FE.

CRJphlyer 01-11-2024 03:17 PM


Originally Posted by Chico (Post 3749711)
Dude: You're wrong on most of those points, there are many older pilots who didn't get hired young like you probably did. I don't think Congress is too fond of the young guys calling "stagnation".

Can you point factually to a single point that is wrong? And your rebuttal wasn’t even a coherent response to anything I said. Where did I mention stagnation?

StoneQOLdCrazy 01-11-2024 03:33 PM


Originally Posted by Chico (Post 3749711)
I don't think Congress is too fond of the young guys calling "stagnation".

It's remarkable and laughable that you think Congress would or would not be "too fond of the young guys calling 'stagnation,'" whatever that means.

It's adorable that the 67 crowd thinks this is anywhere in Congress's top 100 priorites.

And now they're running around Washington, handing out a letter of such poor quality and so lacking in coherence an 8th grader would be ashamed to turn in at school. If anything, once Congress sees some of the folks handing out this letter, they might be terrified that these pilots want to keep flying.

Splert 01-11-2024 03:55 PM


Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy (Post 3749798)
It's remarkable and laughable that you think Congress would or would not be "too fond of the young guys calling 'stagnation,'" whatever that means.

It's adorable that the 67 crowd thinks this is anywhere in Congress's top 100 priorites.

And now they're running around Washington, handing out a letter of such poor quality and so lacking in coherence an 8th grader would be ashamed to turn in at school. If anything, once Congress sees some of the folks handing out this letter, they might be terrified that these pilots want to keep flying.

ALPA today posted that Age 67 will harm the public and raise prices and hurt the industry.

A moment before posting that gem ALPA posted:

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...mA&oe=65A55DA5

ALPA does not give two squirts about the public interest and most everyone with a brain knows it.

Planetrain 01-11-2024 04:01 PM

I sure would like to know what Alpa’s position is. Their published official position is anti-Age67, yet some of the names on that letter work/worked for DALPA actively lobbying Capitol Hill. I’ve seen their pictures in ALPA magazine on the front steps! Are my PAC contributions going to further stagnate my career? Maybe time to cut funding the PAC.

CRJphlyer 01-11-2024 04:04 PM


Originally Posted by Planetrain (Post 3749807)
I sure would like to know what Alpa’s position is. Their published official position is anti-Age67, yet some of the names on that letter work/worked for DALPA actively lobbying Capitol Hill. I’ve seen their pictures in ALPA magazine on the front steps! Are my PAC contributions going to further stagnate my career? Maybe time to cut funding the PAC.

ALPA has been crystal clear what their position is. They are against raising the mandatory retirement age to 67. And the signers of that letter are undermining ALPA, their peers, and this profession in the name of their own self-interest and greed. The vast majority of pilots do not support raising the mandatory retirement age to 67.

hockeypilot44 01-11-2024 04:07 PM


Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy (Post 3749798)
It's remarkable and laughable that you think Congress would or would not be "too fond of the young guys calling 'stagnation,'" whatever that means.

It's adorable that the 67 crowd thinks this is anywhere in Congress's top 100 priorites.

And now they're running around Washington, handing out a letter of such poor quality and so lacking in coherence an 8th grader would be ashamed to turn in at school. If anything, once Congress sees some of the folks handing out this letter, they might be terrified that these pilots want to keep flying.

Congress isn’t composed of educated people or even coherent people at this point. These people are some of the most immoral and corrupt people on the planet. They have no shame. Even the ones that went to Ivy league schools are compromised by political affiliation and not by independent thinking even if it causes them to throw basic common sense out the window.

CRJphlyer 01-11-2024 04:08 PM


Originally Posted by Splert (Post 3749805)
ALPA today posted that Age 67 will harm the public and raise prices and hurt the industry.

A moment before posting that gem ALPA posted:

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...mA&oe=65A55DA5

ALPA does not give two squirts about the public interest and most everyone with a brain knows it.

ALPA is supporting another labor group. Organized labor should support organized labor.

Age 67 would harm the public by raising ticket prices for a very logical reason:

If age 67 passes and ICAO doesn’t reciprocate (which they have indicated they aren’t going to. Even Canada just came out and said they won’t allow any U.S. pilots over the age of 65 to fly in their airspace) then there will be pilots sitting at home with pay every month, unable to fly. Or best case scenario ALPA (the organization they’re actively undermining) and the airlines negotiate a buy-out of those pilots… Either way those incurred costs will be tens of millions and those will be directly passed on to passengers. The airlines aren’t just going to eat those incurred costs.

PilotBases 01-11-2024 04:28 PM


Originally Posted by Planetrain (Post 3749807)
I sure would like to know what Alpa’s position is. Their published official position is anti-Age67, yet some of the names on that letter work/worked for DALPA actively lobbying Capitol Hill. I’ve seen their pictures in ALPA magazine on the front steps! Are my PAC contributions going to further stagnate my career? Maybe time to cut funding the PAC.

I don't think they'll be invited back.

Viper25 01-11-2024 04:33 PM


Originally Posted by PilotWombat (Post 3749692)
Ok, so, standard arguments aside, If 67 were to happen and ICAO takes a few years or more to catch on, wouldn't this be a great opportunity for negotiations? All of the costliest problems lay on the company side, and only by negotiating to change the PWA could they fix them. I would think ALPA could get some very significant asks out of this just to change anything. Am I wrong? Is there a reason the pilots would be the underdogs at that negotiating table?

How did this post get buried? It’s a great question worth discussing.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:49 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands