Age 60 Rule is now Age 65 Rule

[Kingfish]

I'm not a huge fan of Dubya, but I gotta give him credit... Today he
signed the bill raising the mandatory retirement age to 65 for pilots.
The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Kingfish wrote:
> I'm not a huge fan of Dubya, but I gotta give him credit... Today he
> signed the bill raising the mandatory retirement age to 65 for pilots.
> The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
> overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
> issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.

Great news for just about everyone concerned.

I wonder does the APA represent more young(ish) pilots than the ALPA?

[F. Baum]

On Dec 14, 8:57 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>
> Great news for just about everyone concerned.

???????????? Let me guess, You are sittin pretty high on your
senoirity list ;).

>
> I wonder does the APA represent more young(ish) pilots than the ALPA?

This is a good question, But I am sure the fact that the AA guys
managed to maintain their DB plan through all of the industry turmoil
has alot to do with the APA's stance.
FB

[F. Baum]

On Dec 14, 8:25 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
> overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
> issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.

"Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.
FB

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:14e4ca40-bfd5-4929-b837-
:

> On Dec 14, 8:25 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>> The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
>> overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
>> issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.
>
> "Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
> sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
> hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
> although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.


I agree. I can;t understand the attraction for most of them, in fact...

Bertie
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> ???????????? Let me guess, You are sittin pretty high on your
> senoirity list ;).

A higher retirement age is bad news in the short term for pilots still waiting
to get into the left seat, but it should work better for all pilots in the
long term ... because it gives them another five years of flying, and for most
pilots that's the whole reason for becoming a pilot.

Age sixty was always way too young. Personally, I think that anyone who can
pass the medical should be allowed to fly indefinitely. If there is a concern
about having 90-year-old pilots flying airliners, just change the medical
requirements at different ages to reflect the increased incidence of
potentially troublesome conditions.

I also don't think seniority is a good basis for promotion of pilots. It
implies that they are no more skilled than flight attendants. Or is that
actually true??

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> "Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
> sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
> hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
> although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.

But doesn't this mean that he'll ultimately fly longer? He may not be
thrilled over the short term, but it means five extra years at the peak of his
career.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> ???????????? Let me guess, You are sittin pretty high on your
>> senoirity list ;).
>
> A higher retirement age is bad news in the short term for pilots still
> waiting to get into the left seat,


Which would rule you out.

in any case, you are wrong again, moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> "Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
>> sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
>> hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
>> although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.
>
> But doesn't this mean that he'll ultimately fly longer? He may not be
> thrilled over the short term, but it means five extra years at the
> peak of his career.

You are an idiot, you don;t fly and this is a complete non sequitor.


Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 14, 8:57 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> Great news for just about everyone concerned.
>
> ???????????? Let me guess, You are sittin pretty high on your
> senoirity list ;).

Actually I'm sitting right at the top but my job has nothing to do with
flying. I probably should have added, "...in the long run" to that sentence.


>
>> I wonder does the APA represent more young(ish) pilots than the ALPA?
>
> This is a good question, But I am sure the fact that the AA guys
> managed to maintain their DB plan through all of the industry turmoil
> has alot to do with the APA's stance.
> FB
>

[Kingfish]

On Dec 14, 11:35 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
> > The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
> > overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
> > issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.
>
> "Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
> sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
> hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
> although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.
> FB

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The ALPA has long objected to
overturning the Age 60 rule, and in the last year has reversed their
position, which I found interesting. Do you fly for an airline? Why
would this change affect legacy carriers more than LCCs?

[F. Baum]

On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, Kingfish > wrote:

> > > The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
> > > overdue IMHO - >
> I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The ALPA has long objected to
> overturning the Age 60 rule, and in the last year has reversed their
> position, which I found interesting. Do you fly for an airline? Why
> would this change affect legacy carriers more than LCCs?

The reason I ask about your sincerity is that you seem to have strong
opinions about this matter and yet your comments sugest that you dont
understand the situation. Many, if not most ALPA members have been
covered by DB plans, so the motivation to work longer was never there.
The situation has changed dramatically in recent years so the age 60
rule became one of simple economics for most ALPA members . ALPA
conducted a poll last year to see what the members wanted, and the
rest is history. Most the LCCs have never offered a retirement
package so those pilots will gain the most from the new law. An
example of this is Southwest, who has lobbied for changes to the age
60 rule for years. It is beyond me why they didnt just offer their
pilots a simple DC plan . In other countries the regulating agencies
made the medical requirements more stringent when they raised the
retirement age and I have heard from ALPA and the FAA that this has
caused more pilots to medical out than pilots who have been able to
stay on past 60. Its gonna be interesting.
FB

[Kingfish]

On Dec 14, 5:07 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, Kingfish > wrote:
>
> > > > The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
> > > > overdue IMHO - >
> > I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The ALPA has long objected to
> > overturning the Age 60 rule, and in the last year has reversed their
> > position, which I found interesting. Do you fly for an airline? Why
> > would this change affect legacy carriers more than LCCs?
>
> The reason I ask about your sincerity is that you seem to have strong
> opinions about this matter and yet your comments sugest that you dont
> understand the situation. Many, if not most ALPA members have been
> covered by DB plans, so the motivation to work longer was never there.
> The situation has changed dramatically in recent years so the age 60
> rule became one of simple economics for most ALPA members . ALPA
> conducted a poll last year to see what the members wanted, and the
> rest is history. Most the LCCs have never offered a retirement
> package so those pilots will gain the most from the new law. An
> example of this is Southwest, who has lobbied for changes to the age
> 60 rule for years. It is beyond me why they didnt just offer their
> pilots a simple DC plan . In other countries the regulating agencies
> made the medical requirements more stringent when they raised the
> retirement age and I have heard from ALPA and the FAA that this has
> caused more pilots to medical out than pilots who have been able to
> stay on past 60. Its gonna be interesting.
> FB

Did I sound as if I had a strong opinion on this? Hmmm, I didn't think
so (I really don't) but ALPA's reversing their position on the Age 60
rule is what I found curious, as they have always supported it. While
I admit I don't know all the ins & outs of the issue (didn't know
about them polling their members last year) I've felt for a long time
that a pilot shouldn't be forced to retire at 60 if they want to keep
flying, as long as they're fit to do so. I do understand the economics
that have been altered by the industry's downturn after 2001. I don't
understand why SWA was so interested in overturning the old rule...
how do they benefit? Unless they just want to keep turnover down(?) I
interviewed with a few regionals in '05 and decided that at 37 (then)
I was too old to start over making $23k/year and am looking into
corporate/charter gigs. Fortunately there is no mandatory retirement
age for Part 135 AFAIK.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
...

> I don't understand why SWA was so interested in overturning the old rule...
> how do they benefit?

I believe their retirement plan is profit sharing and/or SWA stock. They never had a DB
plan, so they also will appreciate the extra five years of drawing a paycheck.

> Unless they just want to keep turnover down(?) I
> interviewed with a few regionals in '05 and decided that at 37 (then)
> I was too old to start over making $23k/year and am looking into
> corporate/charter gigs. Fortunately there is no mandatory retirement
> age for Part 135 AFAIK.

Right. Part 135 always was far less stringent than 121 ops. That's why FAA redefined it
down to a/c with less than 10 seats and moved the bigger Part 135 a/c to 121 under their
"One Level of Safety" initiative.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not a huge fan of Dubya, but I gotta give him credit... Today he
> signed the bill raising the mandatory retirement age to 65 for pilots.

I wouldn't confer any kudos whatsoever for that. The bill passed unanimously in House and
Senate so a veto would be pointless, plus he's in a major showdown with Congress over
spending bills (where the Age 65 language originally resided) and doesn't care squat about
the age limit anyway, so why would he needlessly antagonize his opponents when he has
bigger fish to fry?

> The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
> overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
> issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.

IIRC a few in-house pilot unions also still opposed change, but between the new ICAO
policy, an about-face in FAA's thinking, and growing Congressional intolerance for any
form of age discrimination, the notion that a rule change could be blocked was DOA last
January.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> F. Baum writes:
>
>> "Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
>> sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
>> hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
>> although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.
>
> But doesn't this mean that he'll ultimately fly longer? He may not be
> thrilled over the short term, but it means five extra years at the peak of his
> career.

Wrong again. All other things being equal, the last five years are going to be your
career peak regardless of whether it happens from 55-60 or 60-65. But since you're not a
pilot we don't expect you to know that, either.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> Wrong again. All other things being equal, the last five years are going to be your
> career peak regardless of whether it happens from 55-60 or 60-65.

The longer the career lasts, the higher the potential peak.

> But since you're not a pilot we don't expect you to know that, either.

It's a business and career issue, not an aviation issue.

[Tina]

So says a man with neither a business or a career. Of course, this is
the same expert who offers advice on the sex or flying thread, two
areas in which he has become expert by the use of google.

He is, however, an outstanding example of ego.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Wrong again. All other things being equal, the last five years are
>> going to be your career peak regardless of whether it happens from
>> 55-60 or 60-65.
>
> The longer the career lasts, the higher the potential peak.
>

idiot.



>> But since you're not a pilot we don't expect you to know that,
>> either.
>
> It's a business and career issue, not an aviation issue.
>

Wrong again.


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Dec 14, 6:03 pm, Kingfish > wrote:
>
> Hmmm, I didn't think
> so (I really don't) but ALPA's reversing their position on the Age 60
> rule is what I found curious, as they have always supported it. While
> I admit I don't know all the ins & outs of the issue (didn't know
> about them polling their members last year) I've felt for a long time
> that a pilot shouldn't be forced to retire at 60 if they want to keep
> flying, as long as they're fit to do so. I do understand the economics
> that have been altered by the industry's downturn after 2001. I don't
> understand why SWA was so interested in overturning the old rule...
> how do they benefit? Unless they just want to keep turnover down(?) I
> interviewed with a few regionals in '05 and decided that at 37 (then)
> I was too old to start over making $23k/year and am looking into
> corporate/charter gigs.> - Show quoted text -

The reason why SWA, Jetblue, Airtran, etc, wanted a change to the rule
is because they do not offer their pilots any kind of benifits
package. By lobbying congress and the FAA to alow them to work longer,
it took some of the pressure off of management at contract time.
Imagine going to work for an LCC knowing full well you will retire
broke. After ALPA polled its membership they went to the FAA and this
was the main motivation for the most recent (and sucsessful) hearing.I
would say that most ALPA members would rather not work past 60 but
with the loss of their DB plans many have no choice.
Best of luck with the career goals. Stay far away from charter if you
can help it.
FB

[F. Baum]

On Dec 14, 11:07 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
> But doesn't this mean that he'll ultimately fly longer? He may not be
> thrilled over the short term, but it means five extra years at the peak of his
> career.
MX, I usually dont respond to your posts, but I am thinking there may
be others with the same question. You have to consider that most
pilots dont WANT to fly longer. In the states, people typically retire
at 65. How would you like to be told that you will have to work an
extra 5 years to get your benifits ? The typical DB and DC plans are
geared toward a full career and a pilot takes a hit if he retires
early.Typically 2.5 to 5% per year. Most of us would rather make
captains pay 5 years earlier so the money in our DC plans and 401Ks
has that much longer to grow, not to mention the B funds (for those
who still have them).
The job is not as easy as it looks, a pilot is away from home more and
more, it gets harder to recover from jetlag, there is alot of industry
volitility, etc. I am in my mid 40s and I cringe at the thought of
doing this job in my mid 60s. Most of us would rather hit that peak 5
years earlier .

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> MX, I usually dont respond to your posts, but I am thinking there may
> be others with the same question. You have to consider that most
> pilots dont WANT to fly longer.

I thought people become airline pilots because they love to fly.

> In the states, people typically retire
> at 65. How would you like to be told that you will have to work an
> extra 5 years to get your benifits?

Depends on whether or not I'm getting the same deal as everyone else. If it's
65 for everyone else, and mine is raised from 60 to 65 as well, I can't really
complain.

> The job is not as easy as it looks, a pilot is away from home more and
> more, it gets harder to recover from jetlag, there is alot of industry
> volitility, etc. I am in my mid 40s and I cringe at the thought of
> doing this job in my mid 60s. Most of us would rather hit that peak 5
> years earlier.

But as you say, people typically retire at 65, so why should pilots get to
retire five years earlier?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> MX, I usually dont respond to your posts, but I am thinking there may
>> be others with the same question. You have to consider that most
>> pilots dont WANT to fly longer.
>
> I thought people become airline pilots because they love to fly.


No you didn't


Bertie

[george]

On Dec 16, 8:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > F. Baum writes:
>
> >> MX, I usually dont respond to your posts, but I am thinking there may
> >> be others with the same question. You have to consider that most
> >> pilots dont WANT to fly longer.
>
> > I thought people become airline pilots because they love to fly.
>
> No you didn't
>
Mixed up claiming he thinks eh....
bad choice of words

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Dec 16, 8:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > F. Baum writes:
>>
>> >> MX, I usually dont respond to your posts, but I am thinking there
>> >> may be others with the same question. You have to consider that
>> >> most pilots dont WANT to fly longer.
>>
>> > I thought people become airline pilots because they love to fly.
>>
>> No you didn't
>>
> Mixed up claiming he thinks eh....
> bad choice of words
>
>

If he only made yes /no posts he'd still have less than a 10% chance of
being right.

Bertie

[Kingfish]

On Dec 15, 2:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> I thought people become airline pilots because they love to fly.

Most do, although if you do anything long enough you'll get tired of
it eventually. Like reading your moronic responses.


> > The job is not as easy as it looks, a pilot is away from home more and
> > more, it gets harder to recover from jetlag, there is alot of industry
> > volitility, etc. I am in my mid 40s and I cringe at the thought of
> > doing this job in my mid 60s. Most of us would rather hit that peak 5
> > years earlier.
>
> But as you say, people typically retire at 65, so why should pilots get to
> retire five years earlier?

Until last week, pilots didn't "get" to retire five years earlier -
they had no choice. Have you read through this thread at all?

Dope.

[Kingfish]

On Dec 15, 12:03 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:

> Best of luck with the career goals. Stay far away from charter if you
> can help it.
> FB

Thanks. Not real big on charter jobs, huh? I figgered I'd do it for a
few years then try to get a fractional gig.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most do, although if you do anything long enough you'll get tired of
> it eventually. Like reading your moronic responses.
>

Why do you read his responses?

[Gig601XLBuilder]

F. Baum wrote:

> The reason why SWA, Jetblue, Airtran, etc, wanted a change to the rule
> is because they do not offer their pilots any kind of benifits
> package.

Really, none at all?

http://www.southwest.com/careers/benefits.html

[Kingfish]

On Dec 17, 8:59 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
>
>
> > Most do, although if you do anything long enough you'll get tired of
> > it eventually. Like reading your moronic responses.
>
> Why do you read his responses?

'Cause I can't figure out how to block them with my reader? I usually
just ignore him, but find meself feeling rather grouchy this morning
and got sucked into the MX vortex of stupidity...

[F. Baum]

On Dec 17, 7:21 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>
> Really, none at all?
>
Did you see a DB plan listed. In the industry this what what people
mean when they use the term benifits package. How has your profit
sharing done over there. If you are senior I am sure you are quite
happy. If you are junior, well,,,,,,,you gotta be wondering why they
set up a two class system. I hope you work out a better deal in your
next contract.
FB

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
...
>
> 'Cause I can't figure out how to block them with my reader?
>

I suggest you figure it out or change newsreaders.

[Angelo Campanella[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, Kingfish > wrote:
>>I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The ALPA has long objected to
>>overturning the Age 60 rule, and in the last year has reversed their
>>position, which I found interesting.

This is the expected position of a union. They cater to the young bucks
since it gives them (the union) a longer ride for a given recruiting
effort. Why sign on a 59-year old ATP?)

>>Do you fly for an airline? Why
>>would this change affect legacy carriers more than LCCs?

It favors all airlines. The last thing they need is an inexperienced
pilot. (I am a 70+ private pilot still flying.) And the 60-year old
thinks about salary differently. "Enough is enough" replaces "More is
enough". If there is fair or reasonable pay, it's enough (to add to
retirement $ reserves).

> The reason I ask about your sincerity is that you seem to have strong
> opinions about this matter and yet your comments sugest that you dont
> understand the situation. Many, if not most ALPA members have been
> covered by DB plans, so the motivation to work longer was never there.

Forget about the pilot organizations. Consider the pilot himself. I can
say with experience that the mindset at age 60 is different than that of
a 30-year old. At 30, 60 looks like dusk followed by darkness. At 60, it
is sill full daylight and all days are a little more appreciated. The
discriminator become health itself. With any sense, a 60 year old will
stay close to his physician, especially to pass medicals but also to
preserve his health. Good practices (little or no drinling or smoking)
keep him/her sharp, and memory serves well to avoid in-flight problems.
Flying is a dream since easy-to-use automation (autopilots, cell phones,
GPS, moving maps, radar, etc.) make flight tasks ever simpler and more
accurate. Judgment is outstanding.

> The situation has changed dramatically in recent years so the age 60
> rule became one of simple economics for most ALPA members . ALPA
> conducted a poll last year to see what the members wanted, and the
> rest is history. Most the LCCs have never offered a retirement
> package so those pilots will gain the most from the new law.

Modern personal economics are a disappointment. Our "critical mass"
bank account ( where $interest=living costs) becomes larger than ever.
What may have a comfortable retirement $ income at age 55 becomes
marginal at age 60, then insufficient by age 65, so a real need (to be
comfortable) arises as we all age. Five more earning years are extremely
welcome.

Working, especially piloting domestic transportation, remains to be a
pleasure, especially with the conservative rules already in place via
the FAA (hour per day flight limit, etc.) really cater to the elderly
population. So I certainly favor the extension to 65, maybe 70 some day.

> An example of this is Southwest, who has lobbied for changes to the
> age 60 rule for years. It is beyond me why they didnt just offer their
> pilots a simple DC plan . In other countries the regulating agencies
> made the medical requirements more stringent when they raised the
> retirement age and I have heard from ALPA and the FAA that this has
> caused more pilots to medical out than pilots who have been able to
> stay on past 60. Its gonna be interesting.
> FB

"Medicaling out" is an interesting twist. I would think that merely
holding requirements constant should be sufficient. Perhaps they mean
that more factors are wound in as pilots age (cancer, memory capability,
i.e. geriatric factors not associated with young persons).

Angelo Campanella

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> Until last week, pilots didn't "get" to retire five years earlier -
> they had no choice. Have you read through this thread at all?

I note that opinions vary, both here and elsewhere. Some see this as an
advantage, others as a burden. Not all airline pilots are in agreement about
the change in retirement age.

[Mxsmanic]

Angelo Campanella writes:

> "Medicaling out" is an interesting twist. I would think that merely
> holding requirements constant should be sufficient. Perhaps they mean
> that more factors are wound in as pilots age (cancer, memory capability,
> i.e. geriatric factors not associated with young persons).

The requirements should remain constant, but more vigilance is required
(perhaps more on the part of the pilot than on the part of his AME), as health
problems become more frequent with age. I don't see any reason for
instituting special health requirements just for older pilots; if the older
pilots need some specific capacity, so do the younger ones. And with modern
automation, if he can safely drive, it's almost certain that he can safely
fly.

The heavy automation and the general nature of airline operations favor older
pilots, because good judgement, a cool head, and a lot of experience count
more than fast reflexes (and some older people have pretty fast reflexes,
anyway). They are not quite in the position of cruise-ship captains, but the
principle is the same.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kingfish writes:
>
>> Until last week, pilots didn't "get" to retire five years earlier -
>> they had no choice. Have you read through this thread at all?
>
> I note that opinions vary, both here and elsewhere.


What, some places the concesus is you;'re an asshole and in others it;s
that you're a dickhead?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Angelo Campanella writes:
>
>> "Medicaling out" is an interesting twist. I would think that
>> merely
>> holding requirements constant should be sufficient. Perhaps they mean
>> that more factors are wound in as pilots age (cancer, memory
>> capability, i.e. geriatric factors not associated with young
>> persons).
>
> The requirements should remain constant, but more vigilance is
> required (perhaps more on the part of the pilot than on the part of
> his AME), as health problems become more frequent with age.


You have no idea what you're talking about , fjukkwit.


As always.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> So says a man with neither a business or a career. Of course, this is
> the same expert who offers advice on the sex or flying thread, two
> areas in which he has become expert by the use of google.
>
> He is, however, an outstanding example of ego.

And don't forget his professed expertise in breastfeeding.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4769eb30$0$27491
:

> Tina wrote:
>> So says a man with neither a business or a career. Of course, this is
>> the same expert who offers advice on the sex or flying thread, two
>> areas in which he has become expert by the use of google.
>>
>> He is, however, an outstanding example of ego.
>
> And don't forget his professed expertise in breastfeeding.
>

Well, he is a bit of a tit.

Bertie

[the warlock society]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4769eb30$0$27491
> :
>
> > Tina wrote:
> >> So says a man with neither a business or a career. Of course, this is
> >> the same expert who offers advice on the sex or flying thread, two
> >> areas in which he has become expert by the use of google.
> >>
> >> He is, however, an outstanding example of ego.
> >
> > And don't forget his professed expertise in breastfeeding.
> >
>
> Well, he is a bit of a tit.
>
> Bertie

Bertie I understand your penis is really small and you have a lot to
compensate for; its fairly obvious what an insecure, insignificant
life you lead as well but... do me a favor?

Could you come up with an insult that demonstrates a little more wit
than 6 year old? I mean come on... you're a pilot right? Try acting
like one! The mere thought that the pilot of the aircraft I'm
trusting my life with could possibly be you... it makes me cringe.

Every time maniac posts I roll my eyes because I know it's gonna be
followed up with a dozen dimwitted, sophomoric responses from you like
"you're an idiot" or "shut up moron"... I mean jesus... its like my 3
and 4 year old kids fighting with each other ... just try and raise the
bar a little ok buddy? It's not that hard...

Your posts are infinitely more annoying than anything maniac has ever
said or will say and it's pretty obvious you're just trying to
artificially inflate your sad little ego... so either say something
funny; witty... come up with something original... or just be a big boy
and shut the **** already; K? thanks.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

the warlock society > wrote in news:be926999-3a4a-4919-
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4769eb30$0$27491
>> :
>>
>> > Tina wrote:
>> >> So says a man with neither a business or a career. Of course, this
is
>> >> the same expert who offers advice on the sex or flying thread, two
>> >> areas in which he has become expert by the use of google.
>> >>
>> >> He is, however, an outstanding example of ego.
>> >
>> > And don't forget his professed expertise in breastfeeding.
>> >
>>
>> Well, he is a bit of a tit.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bertie I understand your penis is really small and you have a lot to
> compensate for; its fairly obvious what an insecure, insignificant
> life you lead as well but... do me a favor?
>
> Could you come up with an insult that demonstrates a little more wit
> than 6 year old? I mean come on... you're a pilot right? Try acting
> like one! The mere thought that the pilot of the aircraft I'm
> trusting my life with could possibly be you... it makes me cringe.


Ok..

>
> Every time maniac posts I roll my eyes because I know it's gonna be
> followed up with a dozen dimwitted, sophomoric responses from you like
> "you're an idiot" or "shut up moron"... I mean jesus... its like my 3
> and 4 year old kids fighting with each other ... just try and raise
the
> bar a little ok buddy? It's not that hard...

But it's besides the point. You're focusing in the wrong direction.
>
> Your posts are infinitely more annoying than anything maniac has ever
> said


Oh, maybe you are getting the point.


or will say and it's pretty obvious you're just trying to
> artificially inflate your sad little ego... so either say something
> funny; witty... come up with something original... or just be a big
boy
> and shut the **** already; K? thanks.
>

Mm, not going to happen.

You could try a couple of things to make your life less miserable,
though.

You could whine bitch and komplain to my server. He always enjoys a good
laugh,

Or you could blow me.



Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Dec 20, 1:28 pm, the warlock society > wrote:


> Could you come up with an insult that demonstrates a little more wit
> than 6 year old? I mean come on... you're a pilot right? Try acting
> like one! The mere thought that the pilot of the aircraft I'm
> trusting my life with could possibly be you... it makes me cringe.

Lets hear some of your material.
>
> Your posts are infinitely more annoying than anything maniac has ever
> said or will say and it's pretty obvious you're just trying to
> artificially inflate your sad little ego... so either say something
> funny; witty... come up with something original... or just be a big boy
> and shut the **** already; K? thanks.- Hide quoted text -
>
I think its spelled fjuck.
;)))))))))

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:f7d31956-d103-4a35-8580-
:

> On Dec 20, 1:28 pm, the warlock society > wrote:
>
>
>> Could you come up with an insult that demonstrates a little more wit
>> than 6 year old? I mean come on... you're a pilot right? Try acting
>> like one! The mere thought that the pilot of the aircraft I'm
>> trusting my life with could possibly be you... it makes me cringe.
>
> Lets hear some of your material.


He's missing the point with Anthony anyway. The kook is the star. I only
put a spot light on them to allow them to shine.


>>
>> Your posts are infinitely more annoying than anything maniac has ever
>> said or will say and it's pretty obvious you're just trying to
>> artificially inflate your sad little ego... so either say something
>> funny; witty... come up with something original... or just be a big boy
>> and shut the **** already; K? thanks.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> I think its spelled fjuck.
> ;)))))))))
>
At last someone gets me.


Bertie

[LWG]

Only in the fjords.

> I think its spelled fjuck.
> ;)))))))))

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 21, 1:49*am, "LWG" > wrote:
> Only in the fjords.
>

But not the Chjevvies.


Bertie