Another worthless age 65 question/musing
09-25-2009, 05:41 PM
#31
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by FreightDawgyDog
I understand. You have no real defense of your generations greedy actions, including yours as a member of APAAD. It's all about changing the rules to help you at the expense of everyone younger than you, just like the author points out your whole generation is in the midst of doing. So instead of an intelligent rebuttal, you think of the most atrocious comparison possible, even though it has no relevance, and throw it out there. That tells me you have no intelligent rebuttal to that editorial. Thanks for your lack of input. Your silence speaks volumes.
Sc#%w the editorial, lets look at your words. You put a rather derogatory label on an entire group of people whom you know how many of? You know nothing of their motivations, but if they are "boomers" then they are greedy. They are symptomatic of some "Greater illness". It's called bigotry sir. It has no place on this forum. The members of APAAD whom I have met are outstanding individuals, and fine pilots whom have made a positive contribution to the profession. Disagree with them if you like, but please don't defame them on this forum.
I would also ask that you not question my intelligence on the forum either.
09-25-2009, 08:49 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Military Flight Instructor
Posts: 133
The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule.
In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE. The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilot’s career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”
Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting the abolishment of the age 60 rule for over twenty years. ALPA then institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers the question why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, force them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?
ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA:
“It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”
Safety was the lie that ALPA and APA used to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots to promote early promotions for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee:
" Congressman Anderson, I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “It would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”
The age 60 rule was perpetuated by big union politics for over 40 years but the reality of the situation is that a wrong has been corrected and attitudes must now change. Experienced professional airline pilots deserve the right to continue earning a living in their chosen profession.
In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE. The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilot’s career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”
Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting the abolishment of the age 60 rule for over twenty years. ALPA then institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers the question why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, force them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?
ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA:
“It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”
Safety was the lie that ALPA and APA used to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots to promote early promotions for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee:
" Congressman Anderson, I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “It would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”
The age 60 rule was perpetuated by big union politics for over 40 years but the reality of the situation is that a wrong has been corrected and attitudes must now change. Experienced professional airline pilots deserve the right to continue earning a living in their chosen profession.
09-25-2009, 09:33 PM
#33
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: A320, Left
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by Klako
The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule.
In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE. The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilot’s career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”
Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting the abolishment of the age 60 rule for over twenty years. ALPA then institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers the question why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, force them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?
ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA:
“It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”
Safety was the lie that ALPA and APA used to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots to promote early promotions for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee:
" Congressman Anderson, I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “It would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”
The age 60 rule was perpetuated by big union politics for over 40 years but the reality of the situation is that a wrong has been corrected and attitudes must now change. Experienced professional airline pilots deserve the right to continue earning a living in their chosen profession.
In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE. The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilot’s career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”
Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting the abolishment of the age 60 rule for over twenty years. ALPA then institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers the question why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, force them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?
ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA:
“It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”
Safety was the lie that ALPA and APA used to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots to promote early promotions for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee:
" Congressman Anderson, I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “It would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”
The age 60 rule was perpetuated by big union politics for over 40 years but the reality of the situation is that a wrong has been corrected and attitudes must now change. Experienced professional airline pilots deserve the right to continue earning a living in their chosen profession.
Could not have said it better.
09-26-2009, 03:29 AM
#34
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
Originally Posted by loungelzrd
Sc#%w the editorial, lets look at your words. You put a rather derogatory label on an entire group of people whom you know how many of? You know nothing of their motivations, but if they are "boomers" then they are greedy. They are symptomatic of some "Greater illness". It's called bigotry sir. It has no place on this forum. The members of APAAD whom I have met are outstanding individuals, and fine pilots whom have made a positive contribution to the profession. Disagree with them if you like, but please don't defame them on this forum.
I would also ask that you not question my intelligence on the forum either.
I would also ask that you not question my intelligence on the forum either.
BTW.. love your Eric Stratton impersonation! Next your going to accuse me of bad mouthing the USA right!? Way to try and change the subject..
YouTube - bad mouth the usa
Last edited by FreightDawgyDog; 09-26-2009 at 03:41 AM.
09-26-2009, 03:09 PM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Over 60 and Still Living the Dream
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by TPROP4ever
As usual the senior "union" pilots threw the junior guys under the bus for their own financial gain. nothing new here same ole story
09-26-2009, 11:36 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by paladin
Correct me if I am wrong but the tenor of your post's suggest that you feel you have a right to an airline job and that begs the question by virtue of what? Why should anyone sacrifice their financial gain for anyone else?
Now that you have proven my point :Why not read all my posts on this subject, and stop putting words in my mouth. What I do care about is a bunch of senior guys(APAAD) pretending they are all about the future of the industry and brotherhood, yet they push for this only when THEY needed it, not before when it would affect their career progression. These same guys holding seniority are bidding open time and in some cases at some airlines FO open time even if they are a captain, and all while junior pilots are on the street. It reeks of greed, You're right you are entitled to it, I am not, based on seniority, but at least have some stones and admit you care less about junior guys, quit screaming solidarity and brotherhood. It is insulting...We all know gen X (my gen) is going to pay for the lifestyles you baby boomers have lived, This is a sore subject that goes deeper than age 65, its about one generation robbing the next and leaving it to pay for the previous. If you were gen x facing no SS even though youve been taxed your whole life, no pension, and lowered 401k expectations youd be peeved too, oh and dont forget that since you have to get your SS, to go with your A fund, I'm not allowed to stop paying SS taxes and invest the money for myself because then you wouldnt have it, so my gen just gets screwed.
So let me reitterate, this is less about whether 65 is right or wrong, and more about me calling your GEN out for talking the talk but not walking the walk...THATS THE TENOR OF MY POST
Last edited by TPROP4ever; 09-27-2009 at 12:07 AM.
09-27-2009, 04:42 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by The Dominican
Age 65 is only an issue because of the current state of the industry, if the airlines where hiring 80 pilots a month like pre 9/11 nobody would say a word
Hey kids, I've got a question for you. Did you get all exercised about guys being hired with 200 hours and a commercial? They are a bigger threat to your perceived right to a rapid upgrade to wide body captain than the over 60 crowd.
Who is more greedy, one who wants to keep what he has, or the one who wants to take what is not his for himself?
09-27-2009, 05:32 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: KCCO
Posts: 767
Originally Posted by satchip
Quite right. The scarcity of jobs has increased the competition for each job and thus the Lord of the Flies mentality of the Gen Xers.
Hey kids, I've got a question for you. Did you get all exercised about guys being hired with 200 hours and a commercial? They are a bigger threat to your perceived right to a rapid upgrade to wide body captain than the over 60 crowd.
Who is more greedy, one who wants to keep what he has, or the one who wants to take what is not his for himself?
Hey kids, I've got a question for you. Did you get all exercised about guys being hired with 200 hours and a commercial? They are a bigger threat to your perceived right to a rapid upgrade to wide body captain than the over 60 crowd.
Who is more greedy, one who wants to keep what he has, or the one who wants to take what is not his for himself?
I fully support the change to mandated minimums. I would be fine if they were 2500tt or more, let alone 1500TT. Our issue is that you guys are where you are because the guy in front of you moved on, and now that isn't happening. Its easy to say "tough, thats life" when you are there, where you wanted to be but put yourself in our shoes. Yes, you've earned it, you put in the work and should enjoy it but don't screw over the guy behind you. We're earning our way to your seat right now, and there will be a generation of pilots coming in behind us that I hope I can help however I can.
To answer your question, both are equally greedy in this case. Enjoy your seniority, but move on so those under you (not necessarily the 200hr wonder kids, but the guys who have earned it) can move up. I, for one, am glad we won't see people getting hired with that much time for a long time.
09-27-2009, 07:52 AM
#40
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
Originally Posted by satchip
Quite right. The scarcity of jobs has increased the competition for each job and thus the Lord of the Flies mentality of the Gen Xers.
Hey kids, I've got a question for you. Did you get all exercised about guys being hired with 200 hours and a commercial? They are a bigger threat to your perceived right to a rapid upgrade to wide body captain than the over 60 crowd.
Who is more greedy, one who wants to keep what he has, or the one who wants to take what is not his for himself?
Hey kids, I've got a question for you. Did you get all exercised about guys being hired with 200 hours and a commercial? They are a bigger threat to your perceived right to a rapid upgrade to wide body captain than the over 60 crowd.
Who is more greedy, one who wants to keep what he has, or the one who wants to take what is not his for himself?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
