Guess that’s what Rj is telling his kids.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It’s because you aren’t going to congress with this presentation for an increase in the retirement age.

 

Who said I want Age 67? Or don't for that matter? And I'm demonizing EVERYONE who claims that their side is NOT about money grab. Both sides are hopelessly trying to tug at our emotional side. Kinda pathetic, really.

What, to be successful, learn to be independent and expect no handouts is somehow a bad thing? OK....

Well, let's see... 1 in 3 pilots don't make it to retirement. Medical. How long do LTD benefits last them? Mandatory retirement age. In light of pensions being lost and needing to make up the lost time, or how about far too many years flying RJ's for peanuts, perhaps having a few extra years might benefit a few on the bottom of the seniority list too... it certainly isn't limited to the very top end of the seniority list. Just an observation from various conversations.

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.

One trick pony with the emotional and hyperbolical garbage, aren't you?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In the 121 flying public there are more unsophisticated and nervous people. They have little ability for risk acceptance and risk avoidance.

 

Except 121 also encompasses cargo...