![]() |
Originally Posted by CRJCapitan
(Post 3795343)
Age 65 matches ICAO and it gave people a chance to both earn until they can start claiming social security and an opportunity to have insurance until they qualify for Medicare. There were objective and practical reasons for changing the age to 65. There are no such objective reasons for 67.
|
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
(Post 3795264)
1) Would you do whatever it takes to secure financial security for yourself and for your family? Nod and say yes.
2) Would you take away from your and your family's financial security for the benefit of me and my family? Shake your head and say no. |
RJSAviator is the kind of guy who goes to the World Trade Towers to sell water at 4x the price. Ugly!
|
Originally Posted by Jdub2
(Post 3795374)
I don’t have a family and I am financially secure, so I guess I do have the high ground. It doesn’t affect me one way or another, I just believe in doing the right thing for its own sake. I guess that isn’t very popular nowadays. Perhaps we could be a little more enlightened than “every man for himself.”
Nobody is taking the high ground. In fact, the general attitude is "GTFO of my so I can make my money..." |
Originally Posted by SSlow
(Post 3795400)
He's right though. Most people who end up very well off weren't worried about everyone else along with the way. They were looking out for number one.
Nobody is taking the high ground. In fact, the general attitude is "GTFO of my so I can make my money..." |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3795407)
Everyone gets to sit in the front of the roller coaster. We all patiently wait our turn until your ride is over before getting a turn. Now some people want to take two extra rides. When everyone behind them protests, they call us selfish even though the only reason they got to the front of the line as fast as they did is because everyone ahead of them only took one ride. Then they gaslight everyone and say we all will get three rides too, but that's a lie. We all still only get 1 ride. They are the only one getting three.
And that doesn’t even address those who were later to join the ride, and will top out 2 cars further back on the coaster than they would have, possibly costing them the chance at that final upgrade… But, yeah, I’m the selfish one…. /S |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3795336)
Yes. The majority doesn't want it and we long and they would fight it until it's inevitable. And then once it becomes inevitable, they just to make sure they have a seat at the table. It has nothing to do with green. It's not my fault you don't know how anything works. You should take a civics class
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3795407)
Everyone gets to sit in the front of the roller coaster. We all patiently wait our turn until your ride is over before getting a turn. Now some people want to take two extra rides. When everyone behind them protests, they call us selfish even though the only reason they got to the front of the line as fast as they did is because everyone ahead of them only took one ride. Then they gaslight everyone and say we all will get three rides too, but that's a lie. We all still only get 1 ride. They are the only one getting three.
Winner: Age 60+ pilots. They not only get two additional years, but they get the two addtional years at the top of scale and, often times, making WB CA pay. Pretty obvious. Mild losers: Current airline pilots under 60 years old. Current "junior" guys will actually make more money over their careers if age 67 passes. They will net two years multiplied by whatever their curent annual pay is more than what their current career earnings project. The downside is these pilots will have to spend more time with lesser QOL, will have to work longer to achieve their career goals, and are at risk of furlough for a longer period of time (new hires). Current regional pilots have to wait two years longer, on average, to get to their destination airlines. Big losers: Future airline pilots. People currently in the pipeline have to spend an additional two years as instructors, if the're lucky enough to be at that point. The CFI market would become completely saturated and current flight school graduates would get their certs with essentially zero prospects until people start retiring again. I was tempted to add the general public as because ticket prices would surely go up as airlines' costs would go up, but I will avoid going into detail on that. The point is, this really isn't as much of "the old guys" vs "the new guys" as everyone is making it out to be. |
Originally Posted by Jdub2
(Post 3795374)
I don’t have a family and I am financially secure, so I guess I do have the high ground. It doesn’t affect me one way or another, I just believe in doing the right thing for its own sake. I guess that isn’t very popular nowadays. Perhaps we could be a little more enlightened than “every man for himself.”
Originally Posted by CRJCapitan
(Post 3795431)
Everyone is wrong to some extent. I'd like to list my winners and losers from a theoretical increase to age 67.
Winner: Age 60+ pilots. They not only get two additional years, but they get the two addtional years at the top of scale and, often times, making WB CA pay. Pretty obvious. Mild losers: Current airline pilots under 60 years old. Current "junior" guys will actually make more money over their careers if age 67 passes. They will net two years multiplied by whatever their curent annual pay is more than what their current career earnings project. The downside is these pilots will have to spend more time with lesser QOL, will have to work longer to achieve their career goals, and are at risk of furlough for a longer period of time (new hires). Current regional pilots have to wait two years longer, on average, to get to their destination airlines. Big losers: Future airline pilots. People currently in the pipeline have to spend an additional two years as instructors, if the're lucky enough to be at that point. The CFI market would become completely saturated and current flight school graduates would get their certs with essentially zero prospects until people start retiring again. I was tempted to add the general public as because ticket prices would surely go up as airlines' costs would go up, but I will avoid going into detail on that. The point is, this really isn't as much of "the old guys" vs "the new guys" as everyone is making it out to be. Problem for the 67 money grabbers is that their entire premise for raising the age no longer exists. There's no pilot shortage. Sorry fellas, you missed it. |
Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
(Post 3795225)
weak trolling, bud. but Cruz has got a couple more issues in the bill that he wants more than 67. So he's going to jettison the geezers. Sorry
What are those "couple more issues"? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands