![]() |
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?
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. |
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".
|
Originally Posted by Chico
(Post 3749711)
I don't think Congress is too fond of the young guys calling "stagnation".
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. |
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. 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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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. |
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. 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. |
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.
|
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?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:49 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands