Originally Posted by StinkyPete

Thank you, I appreciate that. And I most certainly appreciate the fact that this is most of everyone’s here primary way of providing for themselves and family. Flying was no less of a priority for me then than it is now; I walked off the ramp to support my family (which was the highest priority) in the way I felt best at the time. We all do what we gotta do.

I have to wonder though, if two years were quietly added and a wand was waved so everyone was “meh,” about it, would the effect have any noticeable or appreciable impact on upgrades - given retirements, loss of medicals, economic conditions etc.?

So that’s the one thing I can legitimately be accused and guilty of, is that I am completely ignorant of what impact 60 to 65 had on upgrades. So when I make an effort to treat others how I wish to be treated, maybe I would hold the opposite opinion if I was in (most of) your guys/gals shoes. I have no clue how seriously impacted a reg like this may have on others. Would it likely delay an upgrade by a year? Two? Maybe I would be saying, “get lost, loser.” But I kind of doubt it.

Reason being (and to address PineappleXpres) who would I be, to force another person out into retirement, who was here before me, who wants to work? Wouldn’t that make me the greedy one? Who am I to question their motivation(s) for continuing to work. Maybe it will be a hardship for them to leave, for whatever reason. And we know 121’s move into 135. I know of e.g. 121’s going to Mountain Air to fly Caravans. How freakin’ sad. It’s a good job (I’d jump at the chance), but how sad to treat someone who’s flown 30+ years, who wants to continue their current job, to force them out, retrain, and accept a lower salary. That just isn’t fair in my book.

One saying we had in the Marine Corps was, “we only go as fast as the slowest man (or woman).” We looked out for each other. No one got left behind. (All you prior service guys know what I am talking about.) So this is why I suspect I would be against maintaining an age limit, despite how it might impact me… and really, afaict, that in the very short term.

If there was a “wrong” created by a law, say the Age 60 rule back in ’59 (and that’s one of the ways we repaid the men and women of our greatest generation… “get lost old timer”) and it took such and such years to remove said law from the books and right that wrong… I don't see the problem.

Originally Posted by joepilot50

And they got where they are due to retirements. Status quo isn't greedy. Changing the rules when it benefits them and harms others is the definition of greed.

Originally Posted by StinkyPete

And my response to that sir would be, it could very well benefit you too. Maybe not. I get that. But it would apply to everyone. It would still be available in the future to everyone.

Originally Posted by Clearedtocross

Asking for 67 is greedy. Asking for retirement at 65 is NOT asking for anything more. How do you call someone greedy when they aren't asking for anything? The only way for the rest of us to reach the greed level of the age 67 proponents would be if we were asking for 63.

i lived thru the 60-65 age change. It was an unmitigated disaster that we now call "The Lost Decade".

Originally Posted by StinkyPete

What team? Naw. No. What I am going to do is I'm gonna look out for myself, and I'm gonna get mine." And I don't operate like that.

Originally Posted by joepilot50

If 67 was the only roadblock maybe I could agree. But I'm using the lost decade as my lesson here of it will cause more harm than good to careers the change doesn't immediately benefit.

You're keeping people at the regionals longer, maybe they get stuck at the bottom and then the recession they finally predict hits and now they are furloughed for 2-3 years. That's the damage 67 can do. Benefits the ones at the top, harms the rest. Pro-67 people keep on acting the lost decade will never happen to the new gens. That the industry will never, " lose money again" ( paraphrasing Doug Parker). Our careers will be sunshine and rainbows. So they are owed those 2 extra years cause theirs sucked. I'm sympathetic to how their careers went, but that's the life isn't fair they love to tell their kids when they complain. And I can't predict how the new guys will go.

It's funny how their attitude is our careers will be so much better. When they were sold the same crap when they were the new people. They are now selling the same BS they were sold.

Originally Posted by jerryleber

And yet you advocate for the parochial outcome sought by a small minority who went around our union/team to increase pilot supply BEFORE we had contracts while partnering with anti-labor operatives. Now they are even suing our union/team.

You are missing the big picture.

Originally Posted by StinkyPete

I don't think I have read things like this before (this piece of the picture) in this thread.

Originally Posted by jerryleber

Guess who we elect to represent us in determining the whole big picture? Our union. They are charged with considering all the implications for the entire membership. That is how we collectively made this career one worth having.

Originally Posted by StinkyPete

But that's hindsight right? How many depended on this idea of a union doing right by everyone before getting hired into 121?