rjs, you seem to be incapable of understanding that two things can be true at once. age 67 can be opposed on both the grounds that cognitive decline is real and that nobody owes a 65yo more time to recoup the retirement they imagined for themselves

 

you haven’t been at a legacy for 20 years, so you have no opinion worth considering

 

Including mentoring younger pilots, age discrimination, social security retirement age, keeping experience in the cockpit for safety, etc.

This is all about money. Both sides.

The younger generation wants to keep the goal post where they are. No change to the plan.

The older generation wants to add more time to make more money. It’s just at the expense of the younger generation.

Don’t come back with “everyone gets 2 more years” because we both know no accountant would tell you to take a 2 year financial hit early in your career (and throughout) for the promise of 2 more years saving at the end.

 

I can’t tell if this is satire.
It is something I would say pretending to be some old timer to mock the older generation.
kind of like “those juniors don’t know how to fly fix to fix anymore” “well back in my F104” “You never read Flying the Line” “ALPO doesn’t represent me”

 

And so you can see how you have these beliefs, fabricated in your own mind, of who you’re talking to, how old they are, how long they’ve been flying, what their motives are - and most of it’s wrong. Maybe something to learn here about making assumptions?

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but am looking at what I believe is better for the health of the industry, safety, what the polling says, and most importantly, unanswered questions about FAA certification standards and cognitive decline that comes with age. It’s more big picture, less about me.

 

One side wants to leave things alone. This doesn't affect anyone positively or negatively. The other side is pushing for changes that affect a significant portion of the pilot group.

Does this really mean both sides are equally bad?

 

Yes, it's satire. It's a bit of an inside 'joke' on the DL forum.

 

Nope not at all.
Those opposed want to keep things the way they are.
Those in favor want to take from the younger generation for (insert greed related reason disguised as noble act here).

There are negative repercussions for changing the age across the industry.
-Negotiations with 401k, vacation, LTD at different values
-Medical standards possibly changing
-Stagnation on seniority list
-Have to work longer to achieve value of career earnings

There are not any negatives to leaving it as is.

My point is that it’s all about money. It’s not equal in greed. The older folks take from the generation behind them. This older generation that accuses the younger one of being selfish, sensitive, and entitled want to take from the younger generation and gets their feelings hurt when you call them out on it.

 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. But that's not the issue here. You seem to be missing the point that none of that is relevant if ICAO goes to 65 and there are ICAO member states already that either have scrubbed retirement age altogether or are flying to 67 or 68.

Right next door in Canada, they scrubbed the retirement age for pilots back in 2012 when they addended the Canadian Human Rights Act to remove artificial age restrictions in "federally regulated jobs." Did we see a spike in crashes in Canada? How about in AUS/NZ? Japan? No, we didn't. That's the pro-change crowd's argument. You're not gonna win ICAO over by whining about seniority and stagnation. You're gonna win them over by data that shows that pilots near 65 and older have been getting incapacitated at a much greater rate. The question is if such data exists.

Agreed. One small caveat tho... In 2007, you would be right about 2 more years being a big financial hit. However, today, given the pay rates, current 415c limits and ability of most major airline FO's off probation nowadays to max out those limits, those two extra years do yield extra millions for those on the bottom.

 

The “greed on both sides” argument grows tired and falls short of reality. For example, with the realistic timeline of the age change to 67, I’ll be a widebody Captain and will only benefit financially, yet I’m staunchly opposed.

The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.

I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.

New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.