Or perhaps this generation is wise enough to know that the same crap will most likely happen to them at some point in their careers and that the rules shouldn’t be changed after the game has begun to make us pay for the past and (likely) future problems.

 

Well, there will be ups and downs. I think(bar single pilot ops) now is different as far as the magnitude of the swings. I propose the ending of B-scale and extraordinary LOA's to mitigate furloughs as my evidence of the changes that have occurred to make the profession better. Those 2 examples only cost the pilots(and senior pilots) $$$ to make life significantly better for the new hires. Comparably, ALL gain no pain for the bottom of the list. Only pain and pain for those that fixed it. Pain because they endured it (B-scale and possibly 2 furloughs) and then $$ pain to fix the 2 issues and ensure no furlough for the new hires. That sounds like a paradigm shift to me at the expense of those "greedy senior pilots"

If there was a rule change you don't have to retire at 65 so you aren't paying for anything past or future. You have the opportunity to work till almost full SS retirement age too.

 

No one's entitled to anything in this job. Every generation of pilots will have ups and downs. I've watched every moment of serious traction get sidelined by something. 9/11, Age 65, the recession, then Covid. I have enough of a career ahead of me with enough black swans to worry about, that watching the outgoing generation crab-in-a-bucket the new folks and fight to cool off the momentum we've finally got is just painful. I can still retire when I want? How about any legacy pilot 65+ can still go work for any number of non-121 flying gigs and make good money there. Both arguments are essentially greedy when you get down to it. Difference is, the anti-67 argument has precedence on it's side. We're not campaigning to lower the retirement age, you're campaigning to raise it. Which sounds more like entitlement to you? You're the ones with a case to make, and "helping the company" and "I deserve it because I had a rocky road" don't make great ones, sorry. All the young whipper-snappers coming up now will undoubtedly face many hurdles of their own, if that makes you feel any better.

 

The debate over increasing the age is really about money and QOL, not safety. Those in favor have benefited in terms of seniority progression and advancing pay from others retiring but now don’t want to be forced off of the gravy train themselves. Most of us who are opposed don’t want to work longer, yet we want to experience the same gains in seniority and income that others have. If they change the age it won’t affect when I retire, it will however slow my seniority progression and mean that unless I decide to work longer than I ever intended, I will never see WB captain and advance to higher pay rates. Safety is a side issue that each side tries to manipulate to fit their narrative.

 

Lucky them (seniors). Some of us have been here pre C2000 too, and spent many many years on furlough over the course of two separate furlough events. The second furlough extended in part due to the first age increase. Along with a kick in the you know what when it came to ISL.

Not everyone that was here prior to the first age increase got the 5 extra years. Most of those 5 extra years were spent on the freakin street.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/...rtise-99972815

“Some other contentious topics were left out, including raising the mandatory retirement age of 65 for pilots”

 

Did you financially support previous pilot generations that experienced hard times? Write them a check, perhaps?

if younger pilots support age 67, and then fall on a rough patch in the industry in future years, will you subsidize them?

no?

then why do you expect younger pilots to do the same for you? You are not and never were entitled to a perfect career. None of us are.

I appreciate the work the alpa PAC has put in to kill age 67, and I intend to raise my contribution. This might be their biggest win ever.

they’re going to need all the resources we can provide to fight the provision inserted into the bill mandating flight deck voice and VIDEO recording within seven years.

That’s what we need to focus on now that age 67 is done.

 

Age 67 is all about greed. If it was about loving to fly they’d leave 121 on schedule and continue flying GA.

 

By that logic senior pilots should vehemently oppose any change to reserve rules that raise the quality of life for junior pilots? Reserve is a choice, right?

“Those greedy junior pilots can’t understand that this is simply how the industry is, how dare they not understand their rightful place sucking hint teet”

Have fun in the congressional hearings with your greed argument, A4A will eat your lunch.

I don’t support age 67, but I also don’t understand how DBs like you can call yourself a union pilot.

 

Perceived self-entitlement is a wonderful thing, huh?

Get a few furloughs under your belt, lose a pension in bankruptcy, get hosed on an ISL, stagnate in the NB right seat for a decade because scope got dashed in bankruptcy too.

Yeah, I hope you get to experience that so you can “enjoy the same gains”.