Stop the gaslighting. You were trying to make all older pilots appear too slow both physically and mentally to do the job in a safe manner.

And frankly, you need to come to grips with the very high likelihood that the maximum retirement age will be raised.


You dealt with your 'share of emergencies where a poor or delayed decision would have resulted in poor outcomes.' Tell me more; I want to hear about your brilliant split second life or death decisions.

 

Coming in 2025:

"70 is the new 67"

 

I'm not gaslighting. Get a grip. I'm fully expecting it to go up to 67. I'm literally only saying it's not hypocritical of a 81 year old senator to support a mandatory retirement age because the skill set is vastly different.

 

This is absolutely going to happen in 2 years if it passes.

 

What makes everyone think age 67 would imply everyone goes to 67 since they currently don't go to 65? If it was changed to 120 do you think everyone would go to 120? The higher the number goes the less likely a pilot will go to that number. If you are worried about cognitive decline, join the training department. If the guy can't cut it take him out.

Nice "Thank-you" for the pilots that stepped aside during covid and took 1/2 pay for over a year so the jr pilots did not get furloughed. Now the jr pilot that was kept on the payroll is kicking the guy that stepped aside to the curb.

 

Pilot A wants to stay until 67. Pilot B wants out of the rat race as scheduled at 65, and has planned his life and retirement accordingly. So put simplistically, this upsets the apple cart for two years for the pilot B types who don’t want to fly ‘till they die. Everyone should play by the same set of rules. Moving the goal posts closer for your kick just because you are crying about being at 4th and long is BS.

 

Pardon me sir but who the hell are you to dictate what others should do. How many times on this damn site does this opinionated argument have to be brought up. If you want to punch out 65,60,55,35,29,23 do it nobody will beg you to stay. My choice, my life!! Your choice, your life!! There are pilots who are still actively flying their butts off to make back as much of their retirement that was obliterated thru recent bankruptcies and mergers. A lot of em didn’t have enough years left to recoup even a fraction of what they were promised for being a loyal employee for many years. There are families out there that lost a member due the numerous suicides that took place in the early 2000’s after losing everything due to pensions and retirement accounts being dissolved and taken over by the PBGC. Put yourself in the persons shoes who at 57 years old when the mandatory age was 60 leaving work one day knowing he has 2-3 million in a pension waiting for him only to show up for his next trip getting handed a furlough notice and oh yeah your only gonna get about 200,000 for retirement, thanks for your service. That entitled opinion of yours can go pound sand.

 

Nothing in your argument applies to the present day. The dudes that had to go out at 60 are all long, long gone. The situation at the time sucked. I was balled up in it (took a couple of 100% pay cuts) and yet I’m not whining and crying about the need to work longer.

The retirement age has been 65 for SIXTEEN years. Now select individuals want to change the rules they’ve been operating under for the last SIXTEEN years to suit themselves, thereby hosing everyone else's seniority for another 2. Nope! Thanks for your service and enjoy your retirement.

 

Not only that, but pro-67 is argued as if it only affects those pilots. Like it's between them and their retirement accounts and none of anyone else's business. This stuff has follow-on impacts to the entire aviation market. A shortage of pilots is the best leverage professional pilots have had to make improvements to every corner of the job, maybe ever. So the idea of throwing cold water on it is anathema to me. "It'll only be 2 more years just be patient." Which presumes the momentum persists. It probably won't and Age 67 may well be the first domino in that chain. I oppose it just like I'd oppose eliminating the 1500 hour requirement, or any number of the other "let's do anything but make the job more attractive" ideas dreamed up in corporate boardrooms. It's not about safety, or capability, or fairness. It's 100% about bailing companies out of having to improve labor contracts. There is no shortage of pilot bodies, there's a shortage of pilots who want the job. Want proof? 65+ can keep flying to "save the traveling public" or "mentor the next generation" from the bottom of the seniority list in an RJ where pilots are needed the most. Not on your life, right? Well then there you go.

 

So you call those anti-67 as entitled, but the people for 67 are not acting just as entitled?

Older generation tells the younger generation life is unfair, tough. Yet they don’t abide by their own statement by recognizing that yeah they had rough timing and their career didn’t go as well while the incoming guys/gals are potentially going to have decent careers. Life is unfair. You don’t get to change the rules as they become inconvenient and get to stop the career progression that the retirement age causes that you enjoyed.

So no one is entitled to ANYTHING. I’m not saying, “ Thanks for the service, now get out of my seat”. But same time you don’t get to go, “ I had it rough so I deserve those extra few years”.

I’m against 67 because it doesn’t solve the problem, kicks the can down the road, and further makes this career unattractive. While damaging peoples careers. You were damaged by age 65. You shouldn’t want to do the same thing to others.