For all the data that was used to come up with 60 there was just as much to refute it. No 60 isn't less arbitrary than 65. So just eliminate the mandatory age all together. 18 to vote and 21 to drink has gone back in forth a couple of times. Moving social security from 65 to 67 was done in the middle of night congressional session.

356 .

I've Got Mine

Familiar attitude. So which are you - CAL '83 or UAL '85?

Disgusting.

Neither, but what's your point? you saying UAL is a flying club and they have an obligation to have their instructors train unemployed pilots?

It's not a flying club, it's also nonunion.
Unless flying 90 hours a month, flying days off, etc is considered sticking together.

Here is my point...if you believe in the brotherhood of a union or even just being a fellow Human being, American or veteran: just because your timing was good and mine wasn't maybe you don't need to be such an twit with your comments that serve only to infuriate the less fortunate furloughed pilots that have paid their dues waiting for you to beat it. You are my hero.

What comes around goes around...Karma...ect!

Karma is a beautiful thing...

Interesting that most indviduals are retired from there respective professions by 65. Even if what they did was thier passion, they seemingly look forward to enjoying retirement. I know there is small population that solider on in some fields, such as medicne. I also know flying is a passion to most pilots, regardless of age, however what I don't get is why so many pilots insist on staying to 65. Can a passion not be enjoyed outside a widebody cockpit? Maybe I'm waaayyy wrong on this,(and I'm sure I am to some), but wouldn't a career pilot at 60 let alone 65 have the money to purchase or otherwise aquire an interest in a plane that they could continue the pursuit of their passion in without having the hassel and "work" related strings of commanding an airliner?
Sure I know their not getting paid outside of retirement accounts, but then is $ the passion or flying?

Again I'm sure there are those that will cheer me and those that will curse me, but that is my first musing on the age 65 debate.

It may be true that most retire from their respective professions at 65. There are some who retire at 55, but whether they retire at 55 or "soldier on" to 65 that is their choice isn't it? And just maybe, they don't think pursuing their passion is "work" or a "hassle". As far as acquiring a small interest in a plane, all things being equal, I'd rather be paid to pursue my passion. Then if that doesn’t satisfy it; well you know what they say: it’s cheaper to rent.

I'm a furloughee, and can't really agree with your logic here. First of all, the age 65 rule is here to stay and we have to live with it, period. Second, if someone has a passion, they are always happier to get paid for it too. "I love what i do, and it's even more amazing that i get paid to do it". So if they want to stay to 65, they can, and why hold it against them now. It's done. Most of the younger guys like me will most likely stay to 65 now also, because we have to make up for 5 years of stagnation, or backward movement. I think the focus should be on the scabs that picked up extra time, junior manned, or didn't vote to decrease flying time to help everyone.