message deleted . . . . . .

I don't expect you to admit that greed was behind APAAD. I was hoping you, or another APAAD member, could offer a reasonable rebuttal to the author's opinion of the Greediest Generation's behavior. Instead you continue a red herring attack on me. I was actually using the editorial to show that it was more a a generational problem than just airline pilots who used the Age 60 rule to their advantage and then wanted to change it when it was their time to go and make room for someone else. It's obvious you have no defense of that behavior.

As far as comparing your issues with those of minorities and women, you truly weaken the term "discrimination" with your comparison. It's like the girl who regrets sex the next day and cries rape..it only cheapens the crime to the real rape victims. There is a huge difference between a group being held out of jobs because of race or gender and those APAAD supporters who have had the best jobs in the industry and sucked all they can out of Age 60, and then wanted to change it to get 5 years more at the top at every one else's expense. Anyway, if you have nothing more relevant than baseless comparison's to add to this conversation I see no need to continue it. I'd feel better if you all just owned your victory for what it was..a triumph of the greed of a few over the needs of the many. You won, everyone else lost. I hope 5 more years was worth the price you paid to get it. I suspect as time goes on that op-ed will be just the beginning of articles about how groups like APAAD will be viewed in the near future..

"It's obvious you have no defense of that behavior."

Just so we're clear, ALPA was opposed to age 60 when I was hired. When they changed their position I did not. I don't speak for other members of APAAD.

"You won, everyone else lost. I hope 5 more years was worth the price you paid to get it."

Check the box to the left. It says retired. It's not because I hit 60 last week, and gave up the job because that's what the rule was when I got hired. It's because I hit 60 prior to 12-13-07.

"There is a huge difference between a group being held out of jobs because of race or gender and those APAAD supporters who have had the best jobs in the industry and sucked all they can out of Age 60, and then wanted to change it to get 5 years more at the top at every one else's expense."

It would seem that the US Senate and House of Representatives disagrees with you on that issue.

You mean the US Senate and House of Representatives that is made up mostly of The Greediest Generation? The Average age of a US Senator is 62 years old and it is 56 years old for House members. They obviously are part of the problem..

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RS22555.pdf

You mean the Congress who has an approval rating of 18% when they passed the Age 65 change? I am proud to be part of the other 82% and wear that as a badge of honor.

Gallup: Approval rating for Congress matches lowest ever recorded - On Politics - USATODAY.com

Congrats on missing the Age change date. I think you are very lucky and will likely live longer since you did. It sounded to me that you are/were a member of APAAD though which is why I addressed you as one. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies. I am still waiting for someone to defend APAAD's actions as anything other than greed. My guess is they are to busy working on changing the Age to 70 by 2012 to answer...

Graveyard
 

FDD: "I am still waiting for someone to defend APAAD's actions as anything other than greed. My guess is they are to busy working on changing the Age to 70 by 2012 to answer...[/quote]"

It has been nearly two years man, find a new schtick cause this is getting old! Why would you think anyone is on here who was directly involved with APAAD and has nothing better to do than debate you. IT... IS ... A...DONE... DEAL.

You'd think this whole generation gap thing was something you invented. It has been going on for ... well for generations of course!

"It sounded to me that you are/were a member of APAAD though which is why I addressed you as one. "


I am, or was. I just don't speak to the motivations of all in the group. Only my own. I was pro 65 my entire career.


"They obviously are part of the problem.."

As much as I hate to say this , I agree. Just not for the same reason. If,as you infer , they did this only because they are part of my greedy generation , then 65 would have passed long ago. Unfortunately they are not only boomers, but also republicans and democrats. So long as ALPA was opposed to 65 the dems, even as the minority party, could did keep the legislation from coming to a vote. The minute ALPA came out in favor of 65 [ they were the majority by then] it became a stand alone bill, and passed unanimously. Go figure! Regardless of their approval rating, they do make the laws. While I don't know all the details I believe what I just said is for the most part accurate.

"It has been nearly two years man, find a new schtick cause this is getting old! Why would you think anyone is on here who was directly involved with APAAD and has nothing better to do than debate you. IT... IS ... A...DONE... DEAL.

You'd think this whole generation gap thing was something you invented. It has been going on for ... well for generations of course!"


You're right and you're wrong..

"

Many perceive the me now generation as impatient and greedy.

I was an active member of AAPAD and had always opposed the damn age 60 rule. When I was still in high school I helped stuff envelopes for my next door neighbor, a Western Airline Captain who was fighting the age 60 rule at the time. He said that the rule could not stand, that it was blatantly unconstitutional. I cannot believe that it was still in place over 42 years later when I turned age 60.

Most of the AAPAD members were forced into unemployment before the age 65 rule took effect including me. Too many of the AAPAD members were those who lost their pensions, who at one time worked for Braniff, Pan Am, Eastern Frontier, or other carriers gone bankrupt,merged or otherwise forced to seek employment elsewhere, starting on probation wages.... again. Many had four or five different uniforms in their closet, gaining seniority only in age, and needed to work beyond age 60 to enjoy a decent retirement. The age 65 rule came too late for too many pilots who are now suffering the guillotine of the “Age 60 Rule”.
Why should any airline pilot be forced out of employment and loose seniority solely because of age? No one has the right to take away one’s profession without due cause, it is just plain wrong.In the real world people retire when they want to, not because of some stupid notion that they should move over just so younger people can advance in their careers a few years earlier.I fought the good fight to end the Age 60 Rule and until the very last, I was confident that the Congress would vote on changing the age 60 Rule before my 60th birthday.I flew for a regional airline based in my hometown. When I hired on to that company in 1989 over 90% of the pilots senior to me were also younger than me. I can tell you that I was able to up-grade to the left seat not at the expense of one pilot who was forced to retire. I progressed up the seniority list mostly by my company’s expansion. When I first started flying for my company, we were a part 135 carrier and for that reason I chose to stay because I wanted to build my seniority until age 65 when my 401K would allow me to retire. Then in 1995 the FAA changed the rules and forced my company to convert to Part 121.
:cool:

Good for you, but the majority of us rarely get that big expansion.

Thank you for your response Klako.

While I certainly agree that American society in general has become a more "want it yesterday" attitude, I don't think wanting things to stay the same so no one benefits unequally from a rule change is really the same thing, and certainly not greedy. Greed is all about an excessive desire for things you do not have, not keeping what you do. I also appreciate your long term opposition to Age 60, and the fact that those that lost pensions and were forced to retire did not get a fair shake. Any idea why APAAD did not fight harder to make that happen? I agree, they certainly need it more than those still flying over 60 who have a pension available to them. As far as your personal situation, as another poster pointed out, it is certainly the exception in this industry. I guess the bottom line is if APAAD was really about the perceived inequity of the Age 60 retirement age, and not about getting 5 more years at the top for their members, they would have pushed for an age change to be effective for all those getting their ATP after the law was passed. In other words, no one who is currently flying gets any benefits from the change, but the perceived inequity is fixed for those behind them. They didn't and I think that says a lot. Anyway, thank again for your response..