Roberto

Biff,

Why do you think I was talking about you <g>?

Seriously, I visit the forum to receive and provide information. I tend not to respond to argumentum ad hominem. If I do, it is just for fun.

I think discussions about greed are among the most fatuous, and are best left to politicians and demagogues.

bifff15

I guess I'm confused. Are you saying you weren't talking about me?
I'm not being abusive or circumstantial. I'm simply stating that greed is a strong motivator. There are far too many examples of it in this industry of the old guys selling out the young guys. The B scale is probably the most glaring. H--l, our government is guilty of the same thing. Take a look at what senators get for just doing one term. If they can vote themselves a good deal then why not, right? Is a union so different? How about special interest groups? The examples go on and on. Human nature is what it is.
These forums are a good thing, however posting here opens the door to being asked questions. If you don't want to answer them then that is your choice. However that doesn't mean you won't get asked. Choose not to explain yourself, however you will start to get a following much like RJLavender has over in the FedEx forum.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

I see, makes sense. Roberto, are you management or line pilot? If you are mgmt - how does the age 60 apply to you? Will all age 60+ mgmt pilots go back to the left seat or is there a limited number of the left seats available? Tx.

1800 RVR

Roberto is one of us - IPA.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Got ya, tx.

SaltyDog

On our fleet, and others I have heard, they are back in the front. No limits on 'flight qualified supervisors' (Think of 'MEF' and it allows unlimited flying when it easily is manipulated to that box) . That is up to you and I to stop <ng>

Roberto

Biff,

There might be some examples where we could agree upon a definition of greed. I would agree with you that the B-scale, where a group of pilots lowered the pay scale of those hired after them so that they could raise their own pay would be one. However, one could also argue that the desire of some young'uns to force out their more experienced <g> union brothers would be another good example. After all, those young'uns will be able to stick around longer also.

Setting that aside, however, there are many good reasons for hanging around past 60, but regardless of the reason, the FE position is not a bad job. I characterize it as Sergeant's work at Colonel's pay.

But it is "just" a job.

That was not the case with the front seat, whether left or right. Even in the middle of the night, once up and awake, the job was enjoyable. The fact that the Captain's pay is twice that of the back is just a bonus.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Roberto, how many years did it take you to upgrade to the left seat? …or were you hired as a captain? I’m asking because I know many guys/gals were hired into the left seat when UPS started up as an airline.

I don't think the "young'uns" are trying to force the older pilots out - they just want to preserve their upgrade expectations they all had when hired. The new law skewed those expectations tremendously. The way I see it, in one pen stroke their former "older union brothers" who'd been planning their retirements all those years all of a sudden got a 5 year bonus on the backs of the "young'uns."
The law is the law and there's nothing that you or I can change but I'm just pointing out that in the view of many "youn'uns" it's the older pilots trying to force out the younger pilots and not the other way around - force them out from the left seat.

It IS greed all right, from BOTH sides. The only difference is that the older guys got a HUGE retirement package increase they never even planned on getting and now they expect the younger pilots to be “glad” that all this "great experience" will stay in the cockpit with them for 5 more years.

Whereas YOU now have the option of retiring at 60, 61, 62 1/2, or maybe at 65 I bet you the "young'uns" will not have that option unless they are willing to take an "early" retirement option, meaning they’ll take a penalty.
I know you'll say that we have to fight for that option in our next contract BUT I bet you the company will throw in some kind of cash bonus for us to give up the possibility of retiring at 60 - …and the older guys will take the cash and just let the younger guys work longer. Nothing new – just look at the 1st year pay here – who cares about the “young’uns” right? After all, they now have 5 more years to pay off those credit cards.

I can already hear you say “well, but second year guys make sooo much money nowadays; it took me 5 years to break through 100K, etc...” Well, I’d argue that if you take the inflation into account your pay as a new-hire AND the following years was higher in the past than it is now. Especially IF you were hired as a captain…

Fire away…

bifff15

Roberto,
The funny thing is I'll bet we could never "agree" on a definition of greed where it applied to you. You do agree of greed where B scale was put into play which is sort of funny. Let me do a little word editing of your words and see how this grabs you. "I would agree with you that the age 65 change, where a group of pilots raised the retirement age of those hired after them so that they could get five more years at the top would be another". Things that make you go hmmh...
The "young'uns" that you speak off all got hired with the same expectations you did Rob, that they would leave the front seat at age 60. I would bet most of them didn't get hired here after a nice 20 years of active duty with a juicy retirement check and health care.
I will agree that age 60 was discrimination however up until recently all wanted it left that way so we could have some life after work before death. Greed has now changed that for all. And the new number 65 is still age discrimination just moved further to the right. It's okay, just chant along with you, "I got mine, I got mine".
I have sat sideways at another company and know what kind of job it is. The fact that you get to go back to the front seat regardless of that fact that you are keeping someone else from getting what you got is that the pay is twice that of the back. Your ending statement is another example of greed senior Roberto.
Go thank the company that they kept you around after turning 60 even though the seat is way, way overmanned. Do you think they are actually going to put new hires or over displacements back there? They will get furloughed due to manning.
If no one else is glad for you because you got back to the front seat at their expense don't be surprised. Just go lock yourself in your hotel room and keep checking in on your bank account.
Biff

Roberto

AV8OR and Biff,

You guys made so many incorrect statements that I'm tempted to reply, even though this issue is hardly dependent on one's personal circumstances, neither yours nor mine.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.