I can't wait.

 

Do you really know why you do not make more than $35K/yr.? This is why:

1: Aviation universities who charge you a small mortgage while enticing you all through college with dreams of flying international widebodies - and people who willfully go into debt pursuing the "dream".

2: People who willingly take jobs for minimum wage because of the "coolness factor".

3: Conflict of interest: major pilots who want to retain much of the flying while regional pilots want more of the flying so they can get the coveted "1000 hours PIC" and move onto a major all the while saying scope laws need to be improved at the majors so there will be more jobs but who willfully accept flying the mainline routes at their respective regionals. Oh yeah, one union that usually represents both mainline and regional pilots with a built-in conflict of interest.

4: Jobs that were once considered time-builders or stepping-stones to a major are now career destinations for many. (related to point #3)

Actually, you are also entitled to an extra 5 years if you want it too.

Your choice. Nobody will force you to work past 60, nor will anyone feel sorry for you either. Good luck.

 

Does this mean my jelly of the month club membership won't be honored?

 

True, but NOT every pilot goes to one of those schools and saddles themselves with that kind of debt.

But just like the legacy pilot that willfully lived beyond their means, as well as willfully voted away scope pre 9/11 for a big fat paycheck.

It's fun for some to point their finger at the regional side and play the blame game, "Woe is us the mainline pilots, the ones that had our scope taken away by those RJ pilots"

For every 20 something regoinal pilot that's mad and trying to blame the older guys for age 65, you've got an older guy trying blame a regional pilot for his own career woes.

See above. Just like pilots that willingly voted away scope for the paycheck.

True on some levels, a completely ignorant blanket statement on others. There are pilots at the legacy level that were allowed to get their time and get out of the regionals, all because of scope relaxation. When they get to the legacy, they want scope, as they should. However, had it not been for the relaxation, they NEVER WOULD HAVE MADE IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If ALPA truly wanted to eliminate the conflict of interest, scope would be taken back with a extreme prejudice. The effect would be two fold;

1) Keep the flying at mainline, preserving as well as creating jobs. This is first and foremost.

2) Returning the regional to what it once was. A place with a 2-4 year lifespan before moving on.

True, some by choice, some not.

True. It would be hard to calculate what the ROI would be on getting hired at the legacy 5 years earlier though. Negating the "need" to work 5 years on the back end.

Again, true. Nobody forced legacies to give up scope pre 9/11.

And NOBODY should feel sorry for the over 60's that can't afford the third wife, the second set of kids, the houses, the cars, etc etc etc.

I'll say it again;

For every 20 something regoinal pilot that's mad and trying to blame the older guys for age 65, you've got an older guy trying blame a regional pilot for his own career woes.

 

It is actually not ironic at all. How many republicans have you seen vote against our freedom and liberties? Lots and lots.

I'll probably get fried for this one but what the heck.

Since when did we begin to think it was ok for the government to tell us when we had to retire, what wages we got, when we could start work, etc. Is it really all about protecting us from those big bad corporate CEO's or from our own highly self destructive tendencies? Are we all so stupid that we need some bureaucrat that is theoretically smarter than us to decide what is good for us and what is not? I think most people would be offended at that notion yet we allow and in fact embrace it all the time.

So we hurt one pilot group to help the other? I would rather see no mandatory retirement age and leave that up to the judgment of either the individual or the company, or a combination of both or the AME. Because when you all of a sudden become 65 (and if you are not ready to retire) you are not allowed to change your mind if you know what I mean.

Really, most of the time these laws backfire on themselves and cause more problems than they solve.

Ok I am done now with my lesson in free market economics.

- note the smiley face but at the same time I am serious.

 

I think "the truth" has been coming to light in more significant ways in the past few years given 1. ever increasing internet resources/capabilities 2. the fallout and publicity from the Buffalo crash. And possibly a number 3. the boom of young regional pilots from the 2005-2007 era have been able tell their young friends what's *really* going on.

When I was in high school, getting my private at the local airport, all I had was the my (GA-only) instructor's two cents and what I could scrounge at the local library. Let me tell ya, that was *nothing* like the information a person can find in 10 minutes on the internet these days.

 

Or how many hours we could work in a day, how long our rest periods had to be, when we could drink alcohol, what kind of medications we could take, or what kind of equipment had to be operational on our airplanes. Aviation is regulated because individual pilots would make stupid decisions and passengers would pay with their lives.

 

Now don't go putting words into my mouth. I did not say we don't need any FAA regulations did I? While age 65 is obviously flying related I really do not think we would see a bunch of old geezers crashing airplanes left and right. I have seen 50 year old guys fly like they were 90 and 80 year old guys fly like a 25 year old. Their is a first class medical required after all.

I argue that it can make it less safe. Here we are telling the most experienced captains they cannot fly any more. Effectively it can water down the experience level in the pilot community as a whole. And this is coming from a guy who is just getting in the door at 40. It's like the throwing stones in glass houses.

 

I'm all for government butting out of my life. But what they did, overnight, to all the younger guys was terrible. I'm all for taking away mandatory retirement, but in a controlled manner such as 1 yr up every 3 yrs or so, like someone said in a previous post. It was a 5 yr seat lock in positions that weren't designed for long term prospects.

I'm just happy there - might - be a light at the end of this long, terrible paying/QOL tunnel soon.

 

I agree, and this is what I am saying about unintended consequences. One party always gets duped in favor of the other one in the interest of "fairness" or "safety" or "something else".