Originally Posted by RJSAviator76 (Post 3795061)

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.

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76 (Post 3795061)

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 Ski Bird (Post 3795125)

Unsophisticated packages there too. :)

Originally Posted by Jdub2 (Post 3795126)

There are two camps here.
In the right corner you have people that, for whatever reason want to F their coworkers.
In the left corner, there are people that, for whatever reason want to F their senior coworkers.

Rjsaviator: “it’s just so hypocritical and sad they won’t bend over and let their coworkers F them. Don’t they know there was a lost decade where they got no action, and all they want is to love you 😞😞😞

yes they are being selfish by demanding to F you, but you are also being selfish by not willingly giving yourself up. Please, it won’t hurt that bad, just be quiet and let it happen”

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76 (Post 3795110)

Except 121 also encompasses cargo...

Originally Posted by SD3FR8DOG (Post 3795127)

wow. You Southwest guys really are something. HAL has always had a QOL component you guys would never understand and despite the high cost of living we do pretty well. You guys are a large regional airline with ****ty IT and an out dated business model, not dissimilar to Kodak. We have zero people that would wanna switch with you, whereas at least 50% of your sheltered work shop tenants would switch in a heartbeat to fly a widebody, 1 leg to a 24hr layover. Get over yourself.

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76 (Post 3795129)

There.... fixed it for you.

The lack of reading comprehension here is simply astonishing. I would have never guessed it'd be this bad among the airline pilot population....

Originally Posted by OpieTaylor (Post 3795138)

All airlines haul cargo, are you talking about ones that have decided to repurpose their passenger compartment for additional cargo.

A larger cost saving “injustice” to the flying public is that their aircraft are certified and engendered to passenger standards.

If you properly increase risk tolerance because they are only hauling boxes, then their aircraft designs require a smaller safety factor and should be able to easily haul more payload than a comparable passenger jet.

They are completely ripping off the US consumer using their overly safe passenger conversion models to haul cargo.

They shouldn’t even be required to have a balanced field for takeoff, if an engine fails at V1 just clean up the wreckage and go get another one. Payload restrictions for SE climb should only apply to passenger aircraft.

The public has plenty of room to accept risk with a much better ROI for “just cargo” why should they be focused on pilot utilization past age 65 if there is much more lower hanging fruit.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 3795147)

Not wanting them to change the rules solely for their benefit is not f'ing okay the senior pilots. You could make that argument if we were arguing to return it to 60. THAT would truly be taking money from their pockets. Keeping the status quo is not doing a harm to anyone. That's why it's called status quo. You claim issues with reading comprehension but it really is you who can't read gooder