Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Who Are These Kooks?  Is This For Real? >

Who Are These Kooks? Is This For Real?

Search

Notices

Who Are These Kooks? Is This For Real?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-11-2024 | 01:27 PM
  #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,550
Likes: 217
From: UNA
Default

Originally Posted by FangsF15
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.

Last edited by Gone Flying; 01-11-2024 at 01:57 PM.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 03:17 PM
  #62  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 228
Likes: 56
Default

Originally Posted by Chico
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?
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 03:33 PM
  #63  
StoneQOLdCrazy's Avatar
Bent over by buybacks
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 638
Default

Originally Posted by Chico
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.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 03:55 PM
  #64  
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
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:



ALPA does not give two squirts about the public interest and most everyone with a brain knows it.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 04:01 PM
  #65  
Gets Weekends Off
10 Years
 
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 184
Default

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.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 04:04 PM
  #66  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 228
Likes: 56
Default

Originally Posted by Planetrain
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.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 04:07 PM
  #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
Default

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
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.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 04:08 PM
  #68  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 228
Likes: 56
Default

Originally Posted by Splert
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:



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.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 04:28 PM
  #69  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by Planetrain
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.
Reply
Old 01-11-2024 | 04:33 PM
  #70  
Viper25's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 304
Default

Originally Posted by PilotWombat
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.
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices