American to furlough again...

[SteveC]

So my second paragraph didn't provide enough clarity for you?

Nope, maybe I'm dense. When I read this:

Those who have left the airline profession, who do not fly for a living anymore, or have no ambition to return to the profession, have no vested interest in the result of the Age 65 ruling.

...all I read is that those without a vested interest have no vested interest. It appears to me that you are implying that those without a vested interest cannot have a valid opinion on the topic, or at the least should refrain from voicing them, even if they have valid insights or understandings of the situation based on their past experiences. Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'm asking for clarification.

 

[joliet]

The comparison would be regional airline X gets some big payraise from management for their pilots (hypothetically) and every other pilot in every regional airline calls those pilots of Airline X scumbags for taking the payraise, since the pilots at the other airlines don't get that opportunity.

Not at all. We would all be excited, and would strive for the same pay raise at our respective properties. That is a terrible comparison. Like apples to pieces of gravel. Age 65 only benefits a small, greedy, percentage of airline pilots. Everyone before them, and everyone after them will never be able to benefit from it.

People will be furloughed for five more years, be a first officers for five more years, be a reserve captain for five more years, and have to work until they possibly keel over, or retire with 5 years before the average life expectancy for an airline pilot if they are lucky. What more than half of airline pilots will not do is make up for those lost 5 years.

 

[derg]

Oh, I'll bet you a steak dinner that it'll be "Age 70 -- NOW!!!!" in another five years.

I'm serious!

 

[MikeD]

Age 65 only benefits a small, greedy, percentage of airline pilots. Everyone before them, and everyone after them will never be able to benefit from it.

Greedy? Your own ALPA President was in favor of it. Who's the greedy one? The age 60 pilots simply are in the position to take advantage of it.

Does it suck for some of the other fallout reasons you mention? I'm sure it does. But place the blame squarely where it goes, the national President and the FAA if you don't like it.

I'm sure there are guys near and over 60 now who didn't support it necessarily, and are still working because of the opportunity. They're greedy now too?

I realize that the Age 60 has been the way it's been for awhile now......the essential "rule of the game". But those rules changed, and I don't believe it to be 100% the fault of the age 60 guys themselves.

Look at it from this angle too: Whats to say YOU aren't greedy for wanting the jobs THEY already have?

And remember, for those looking for "guarantees" in life; there aren't any.

 

[joliet]

Greedy? Your own ALPA President was in favor of it. Who's the greedy one? The age 60 pilots simply are in the position to take advantage of it.

Does it suck for some of the other fallout reasons you mention? I'm sure it does. But place the blame squarely where it goes, the national President and the FAA if you don't like it.

I'm sure there are guys near and over 60 now who didn't support it necessarily, and are still working because of the opportunity. They're greedy now too?

I realize that the Age 60 has been the way it's been for awhile now......the essential "rule of the game". But those rules changed, and I don't believe it to be 100% the fault of the age 60 guys themselves.

Look at it from this angle too: Whats to say YOU aren't greedy for wanting the jobs THEY already have?

And remember, for those looking for "guarantees" in life; there aren't any.

Mike,

Let me clarify my position. My disappointment with the age 65 rule is in the gentlemen who championed this new age 65 rule, and the way it was done with no regard for anyone but the few at the top. The rule itself is mostly what I have a problem with.

It is true one cannot blame someone who is over 60 right now flying the line that is only playing by the new rules. I have no animosity towards the average over 60 line pilot. My disdain is for the rule itself, and like I said those who championed it. Those who rammed it down our throats under the guise of it is ICAO standard, it is age discriminatory, and it was 65 before it was 60.

Age 65 could have been done better if not done at all.

 

[MikeD]

Mike,

Let me clarify my position. My disappointment with the age 65 rule is in the gentlemen who championed this new age 65 rule, and the way it was done with no regard for anyone but the few at the top. The rule itself is mostly what I have a problem with.

It is true one cannot blame someone who is over 60 right now flying the line that is only playing by the new rules. I have no animosity towards the average over 60 line pilot. My disdain is for the rule itself, and like I said those who championed it. Those who rammed it down our throats under the guise of it is ICAO standard, it is age discriminatory, and it was 65 before it was 60.

Age 65 could have been done better if not done at all.

Thats a fair retort, and essentially the same thing I'm trying to say. Does the rule suck? For many yes, it does. There's a number of fallouts from it that wouldn't have been there before, especially in regards to upgrades, hiring, etc. Fully understandable. The unfortunate thing is, that it's here. And my only point is that the disdain for it's being here should be put squarely on the true people responsible, and that isn't the average rank and file pilot, regardless of age or degree of geezardness.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Well aint this a B.

 

[wheelsup]

I'm much more pissed off at the senior pilots for selling out the junior guys with things like "scope relief for pay raises" and B and C scale wages. Age 60 -> 65 was just an extension to that.

 

[MikeD]

I'm much more pissed off at the senior pilots for selling out the junior guys with things like "scope relief for pay raises" and B and C scale wages.

Similar to J4J scope relief.

But B scale wages happened long before anyone here was eligible for A wages. At best, people here weren't even born when it happened, at worst, they were getting their PPLs when it started (like me). So sweating something you were never even eligible for in life in the first place is wasted effort. C scale and worse wages? I hear you on those.

 

[surreal1221]

Well, I won't say you're dense, but I dont feel I need to provide any further clarification. I will say, that it should be clear that I am not restricting ones ability to express an opinion. All the best.

Nope, maybe I'm dense. When I read this:...all I read is that those without a vested interest have no vested interest. It appears to me that you are implying that those without a vested interest cannot have a valid opinion on the topic, or at the least should refrain from voicing them, even if they have valid insights or understandings of the situation based on their past experiences. Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'm asking for clarification.

 

[SteveC]

Well, I won't say you're dense, but I dont feel I need to provide any further clarification.

So is my interpretation of your position correct or not? I would feel awful were I to misconstrue your intent!

I will say, that it should be clear that I am not restricting ones ability to express an opinion. All the best.

Actually you don't have the power to restrict their ability to do so on this website, so that's a moot point. Is it your opinion that those without a "vested interest" should stay out of the discussion?

 

[Maurus]

The funny thing is that most of the people that are against the age 65 rule will most likely benefit as they were able to collect five extra years of pay. Once they hit 60 they will understand the 5 years actually increased their total pay through their life.

The only people the were affected were the furloughees, but then again the ICAO standard would have been accepted eventually and instead of the furloughees of today we would have a different set of furloughees in the future.

The people already in the airlines for a number of years seem to always talk about the entitlement of the younger pilots that have yet to enter the industry when they exibit the exact same mentality to the pilots senior to them. To me it just seems you all need to visit JG Wentworth because "I want my money now" seems to be what I am seeing instead of some patience.

 

[wheelsup]

Similar to J4J scope relief.

But B scale wages happened long before anyone here was eligible for A wages. At best, people here weren't even born when it happened, at worst, they were getting their PPLs when it started (like me). So sweating something you were never even eligible for in life in the first place is wasted effort. C scale and worse wages? I hear you on those.

I'm not sweating it I'm just giving examples of how the senior guys always screw the junior guys.

In a profession that likes to proclaim that we are "unified brothers and sisters" I just have to laugh.

 

[kellwolf]

Oh, I'll bet you a steak dinner that it'll be "Age 70 -- NOW!!!!" in another five years.

I'm serious!

If that happens, then we'll know the true colors. You can't get behind the Age 65 thing chanting "ICAO STANDARD!" then try to push for another 5 years.

I honestly don't see why anyone that can retire at 60 wouldn't. My plan is to get out at 50-55 somewhere in there. Talking to some of the FedEx guys, the ones that stick it out until 65 generally don't stick around much after that. FedEx has killer retirement benefits. The downside is, the company knows they often don't have to pay those benefits for very long.

 

[skydog2]

What really kills me here is the assumption by so many youngsters that the only thing keeping them out of either the left seat, or a major airline seat, is the fact that the "geezers" are sticking around for another 5 years, as if that was the ONLY thing keeping them out.

My question is, if the next hiring wave comes and goes, and you don't get hired, will you still feel like you were screwed?

I guess I just don't understand people who spend more time worrying about what they don't have, then enjoying what they have.

 

[derg]

I'm much more pissed off at the senior pilots for selling out the junior guys with things like "scope relief for pay raises" and B and C scale wages. Age 60 -> 65 was just an extension to that.

Without scope, might as well throw your contract in the hopper.

Thank you Moak administration, "Yes" voters and RJDC.

 

[derg]

If that happens, then we'll know the true colors. You can't get behind the Age 65 thing chanting "ICAO STANDARD!" then try to push for another 5 years.

I honestly don't see why anyone that can retire at 60 wouldn't. My plan is to get out at 50-55 somewhere in there. Talking to some of the FedEx guys, the ones that stick it out until 65 generally don't stick around much after that. FedEx has killer retirement benefits. The downside is, the company knows they often don't have to pay those benefits for very long.

If my diabolical plan to take over the world comes to fruition, I'll pull the handle at 55 so I can enjoy my retirement with some health, rather than in a medicare-provided mobility device with a "Keep YOOR Guvvament hands off muh Medicare!"

 

[MikeD]

Without scope, might as well throw your contract in the hopper.

Thank you Moak administration, "Yes" voters and RJDC.

RJDC.......lol. But, they did get what they were asking for, so to speak. Now they're seeing the effects.

 

[surreal1221]

So is my interpretation of your position correct or not? I would feel awful were I to misconstrue your intent!



Actually you don't have the power to restrict their ability to do so on this website, so that's a moot point. Is it your opinion that those without a "vested interest" should stay out of the discussion?

Your interpretation is incorrect.

If it must take me explaining this down to the 1st grade level I really don't mind, but I think that you can figure out what I was writing and implying without needing me to provide further clarification. It was a one sentence phrase, that doesn't need multiple paragraphs to explain. If you need more clarity, then perhaps a PM is the best route to take?

 

[Ian_J]

Your interpretation is incorrect.

If it must take me explaining this down to the 1st grade level I really don't mind, but I think that you can figure out what I was writing and implying without needing me to provide further clarification. It was a one sentence phrase, that doesn't need multiple paragraphs to explain. If you need more clarity, then perhaps a PM is the best route to take?

Or you can just stop talking in circles and say whatever the hell it is you mean. Do you think people not in the airlines could have a valid point of view about the age 65 stuff? That's what SteveC is asking.