Apple Tree:
For the A scalers, it was their expectations of a market leading salary.
I for one would like to see the contract language that guaranteed you market leading salary ? If it was not written that way exactly in your contract and was only an "expectation" then you cannot really compare it to the retirement age issue. The retirement age was written into our contracts. It affects all manner of the job. No matter what your prediction of how it will increase time to command, it will increase.
Please let me be clear I am on your side when you express concern over your pay not keeping up to the industry. However please do not muddy the issue of retirement by trying to compare apples to oranges.
Also, try and stay positive. If the company does not offer a reasonable deal to accept retirement age 65, then we vote no. If it is changed without agreement then that is something that can easily be defended in court. Also we can wait under the current contract until the courts decide. Even if it takes years !!
Pee Bee:
I sympathise with you that those that joined under the ban, have little or no grounds to object to anything. They should be dealt with as a separate group on their own with the company.
However there are plenty of us that did not join under that ban that are directly affected by this. So for us please distinguish between other politically sensitive groups !!
Ice Man:
This is not about a guarantee of command. However there is legal, ethical and moral grounds to defend the argument that many officers will be disadvantaged by an increase in retirement age. In any situation this will decrease career earnings on a per year percentage (ie you will work longer but the total amount divided by the number of years worked will be LESS per year)
FG