Here's another point of view to consider. Attitudes like that make me sorry that I put my career on the line and went on strike to help eliminate the b-scale at UAL in 1985. This for people not even on the property.

Attitudes like what? Caring for people who are out of a job for 6 years running and simply want their chance based on the same rules as the guys pushing for the change?

Oh my gawd, what an awful attitude, to actually care about those guys.

It wasn't me standing up before the FAA Administrator and the media claiming that I would be relegated to poverty after 37 years at United. That was Mr Undaunted Flyer from that other website. Talk about no shame. How could he stand there and say that with a straight face I can't even imagine.

If I had gone on strike to protect a guy like that, then I would be sorry too.

FJ

:mad: Let's see....right now foreign pilots can fly US passengers without being subjected to the same drug tests that US pilots are.....foreign carriers can fly with combis with cargo in the back and pax up front (opposite FARs)...Air France allows their pilots to have a glass of wine with dinner....yeah there is inequity...so what. If a 60 year old US pilot still wants to fly let him/her fly for Air Mozambique or Emerates...just not UAL or NWA etc! Ripper

Where have all the pleasent redtail pilots gone? I heard one yelling at ATC for a late turn on to the ILS last night.
I plan on living for a while, maybe 85. I think hanging out on the flightdeck 'till I'm 65 might be good for me. 25 years is a long time to be saying "I used to fly an Airbus 320", "I used to be a CFI".
I've been a Pilot for 25 years! I love it! Why is everyone in this biz so bitter.
I work a hell of alot less then anyone else in my neighborhood. I travel more too! The world is changing around us. Bend like a sapling or break like a tree its up to you.

Make it a great day!!

104 Rule
 

The combined age of two required pilots must not exceed 104 years if one crewmember is over 60.

This whole thread smells like dogxxxx. Looks like someone's running a gullibility check.

Odd statement. I'll assume that you don't want to talk about what the United pilots of your era did to their Frontier and Continental brothers.

Okay, I'll bite. What did they do?

Does the Torque campaign ring a bell???

Actually, it wasn't the the pilots that did Frontier in, it was the company.

The company "offered" to take the Frontier operation over, but their pilots had to come to United on some sort of B-scale, the specifics I don't recall. Our MEC rejected the company's "offer", but stated they were willing to sit down and negotiate. I was not privy to the parameters given to the negotiating committee, as I was no longer on the MEC, having completed my term of office about a month prior.

The company flatly rejected any negotiations - they said it was a take it or leave it deal, after and not before the "offer". This method of negotiations was their tried and true tactic back then. They immediately announced the deal was off, "blaming" the pilots. Frontier shut down shortly thereafter.

United got just what they wanted, the Denver operation basically to themselves, and they got to blame the pilots to boot. Not a bad outcome for them.

So you can blame the United pilot group if you want, but the truth is that it was the company that killed the deal. The United MEC was indeed quite willing to negotiate.

Actually, I think the outcome was exactly what the company wanted from the get-go.

I do think the UAL-MEC was out-maneuvered by the company.