![]() |
Originally Posted by Profane Kahuna
(Post 3454864)
No, but nice try.
It would only be greedy young pilots if there was a faction pushing for Age 56 (same as air traffic controllers) or something. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3454893)
Pushing for 56 is the exact same thing as pushing to keep 65.
And no, by no stretch of the imagination, would continuing with the status quo of 65 be the same as pushing for Age 56. |
Originally Posted by Profane Kahuna
(Post 3454913)
None of the younger pilots are pushing for Age 56. And it was an example, it's not really a thing.
And no, by no stretch of the imagination, would continuing with the status quo of 65 be the same as pushing for Age 56. Also hate prune juice. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3455007)
you are the one who brought it up. I just said that everyone is in the game for themselves and trying to deny that is what I was calling out.
Also hate prune juice. Both groups agreed to a set of terms when they joined the profession. Now, one group wants to change those terms to benefit themselves. That is the difference. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3455007)
you are the one who brought it up. I just said that everyone is in the game for themselves and trying to deny that is what I was calling out.
Also hate prune juice. |
Greed, selfishness can outlast any career. Fit & still frisky, water cannon at 80. Why not?
|
If airliners aren’t all single/0 pilot 30 years from now I’ll eat my hat. I want my money now, not a longer career after 2-3 years of stagnation. I sincerely hope those who have been able to retire in aviation, and have been planning on retirement at 65 can enjoy their next chapter.
|
Originally Posted by Profane Kahuna
(Post 3455030)
Still a negative there. You calling the opposing groups the same doesn't make it so.
Both groups agreed to a set of terms when they joined the profession. Now, one group wants to change those terms to benefit themselves. That is the difference. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3455212)
Only thing I said was that your motivation to keep the status quo is exactly as selfish as those wanting to change it. And as far as agreeing to a set of terms, pulleeeze give me a break. 3 pilot cockpit, far 117, 1500 hour rule, do i need to go on? The only reason you are against age 68 is because you don't benefit from it. Admit it and move on. That's what I did when age 65 happened.
I would benefit from changing the rule to Age 68. So not only are you incorrect in your accusations against me, you are flat out wrong in your reading of other people's motivations. |
Originally Posted by Profane Kahuna
(Post 3455229)
You are about as far out of reality as that MyTime2025 troll.
I would benefit from changing the rule to Age 68. So not only are you incorrect in your accusations against me, you are flat out wrong in your reading of other people's motivations. What's your age? My guess is early 50s. Answer those questions and then we can talk about motivations. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:37 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands