|
Originally Posted by joepilot50
(Post 3795005)
At my regionals case, the 50 hour option was essentially Super Long Call reserve with only 10 days available( usually in 2 blocks of 5 day stretches) to the company with a 72 hour call out. Was essentially there in case the pilots that opted for the 75 hour option( both line holders and normal reserve) all went down with COVID and needed pilots to come in to keep the operation going.
It was essentially 50 hours to stay home as the only time I was activated off it was for my annual line check. Our agreement was very well received by the pilot group once things unfolded. The junior people were concerned the senior guys would gobble up the 75 hour option leaving them with the 50 hour option when first announced, but the unions bet that the senior would either opt for the COLA or the 50 hour option paid off. That is what they did while the junior people that wanted to fly or needed that 75 hour pay got it. And you're right, what I may find as reasonable, another doesn't. What I find be the limit, anothers limit is higher or lower. What I may find unreasonable, is viewed as reasonable. Nothing is perfect and is a matter of ones perspective. I just don't understand the view of since I had to go through it, so should you mentality. |
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
(Post 3795018)
A little hyperbole doesn't hurt anyone, right? I mean that's all the rage these days, particularly in political discussions. Money grab is on both sides, and you know it.
I don’t blame you for wanting 67 for your own reasons, That's your right. But demonizing those who want the same status quo we all expected to remain, indefinitely, diminishes your argument to zero. |
The mental gymnastics it takes to describe keeping the status quo unchanged a “money grab” is actually amazing.
Would you please refrain from using logic on APC. |
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
(Post 3794732)
You better believe it's a money grab. Why should the "boomers" care about you or your money or power? Clearly you don't care about them, so the feeling must be mutual. But really, why should someone else's money grab matter to you?
|
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 3795047)
The mental gymnastics it takes to describe keeping the status quo unchanged a “money grab” is actually amazing.
I don’t blame you for wanting 67 for your own reasons, That's your right. But demonizing those who want the same status quo we all expected to remain, indefinitely, diminishes your argument to zero.
Originally Posted by PineappleXpres
(Post 3795034)
Guess that’s what Rj is telling his kids.
Originally Posted by PineappleXpres
(Post 3795031)
Quantify how many winners and losers. Quantify how much those win make over those who lose. Unclear to me how you see it the same?
sorry your two 737 carrier jobs were suboptimal. And no need to feel sorry... my situation isn't nearly as suboptimal as yours flying A330's for "legacy" carrier operating a B-scale for a subset of its pilots, and even for the rest of the pilots having the total compensation and package that's borderline grossly inferior to my particular 737 job, depending of course what we're measuring here. I admit, you have much better crew meals and better looking flight attendants - mostly.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3795032)
They aren't the same because the true analogy is there are bank customers and bank robbers. Me not wanting you to take all of our money for yourself is not a money grab. No one deserves to stay past 65. Just like bank robbers don't deserve the bank's money.
There are two camps here, one of which you're in: In the right corner, you have money-grabbers who for whatever reason want to stay at the top. They use emotional garbage and hyperbole to push Age 67, and they feel righteous in their cause. In the left corner, you have money-grabbers who want to advance their careers and improve their positions in our seniority-driven industry. They also use emotional garbage and hyperbole to prevent Age 67 and ensure they get to advance their careers. They also feel very righteous in their cause. Hypocrites... on both sides. Personally, I'm on track to leave this industry well before any mandatory retirement age, and I still have plenty of years left, so I really couldn't give a damn one way or another. But it sure is funny watching the hypocrisy on both sides. |
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
(Post 3795061)
In the left corner, you have money-grabbers who want to advance their careers and improve their positions in our seniority-driven industry. They also use emotional garbage and hyperbole to prevent Age 67 and ensure they get to advance their careers. They also feel very righteous in their cause.
Age 67 was not proposed by the FAA or NTSB. To benefit the flying public. It is not some type of authentic truth proposal that has to be approved or disapproved by those who see authentic truth most clearly. Someone greased a congressman it slip it into a bill without any consideration towards the flying public. The 117 rest regs were changed due to a crash and were science based changes. The industry will never know how many crashes never happened because of the change. The industry will never know how many crashes never happened due to mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement serves the flying public and like all reg changes should require an unbiased science based change. At a minimum a reg change should have the support of the NTSB. If the proposal fails to achieve the support in an unbiased manner then it shouldn’t be changed. Sleep apnea testing was proposed by the FAA to benefit the flying public, and didn’t start with some one greasing a congressman. There is a process for unbiased change without waiting for a crash. |
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 3795078)
I don’t think this is true.
Age 67 was not proposed by the FAA or NTSB. To benefit the flying public. It is not some type of authentic truth proposal that has to be approved or disapproved by those who see authentic truth most clearly. Someone greased a congressman it slip it into a bill without any consideration towards the flying public. The 117 rest regs were changed due to a crash and were science based changes. The industry will never know how many crashes never happened because of the change. The industry will never know how many crashes never happened due to mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement serves the flying public and like all reg changes should require an unbiased science based change. At a minimum a reg change should have the support of the NTSB. If the proposal fails to achieve the support in an unbiased manner then it shouldn’t be changed. Sleep apnea testing was proposed by the FAA to benefit the flying public, and didn’t start with some one greasing a congressman. There is a process for unbiased change without waiting for a crash. |
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
(Post 3795080)
You're right. It was proposed by the self-serving pilots who wanted to take advantage of the pilot shortage and stay at the top. But at the same time, FAR 67 doesn't say that one has to be under the age 65. It only restricts 121 ops.
They collectively have less acceptance of risk to travel by air than an individual who owns or charters a plane. It’s presumed a member of the public who owns or charters a flight has more control over the acceptance of risk than a member of the public who seeks public air transportation on a common carrier. |
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 3795083)
Presumably because 121 is the flying pubic.
They collectively have less acceptance of risk to travel by air than an individual who owns or charters a plane. It’s presumed a member of the public who owns or charters a flight has more control over the acceptance of risk than a member of the public who seeks public air transportation on a common carrier. |
Except 121 also encompasses cargo...
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:24 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands