scroggs,
Nevertheless, you will discover, if you research further, that most airlines' maximum age for employing pilots is around 5-7 years younger than their notional retirement age, i.e. about 48-55. That is to allow the individual a reasonable chance to advance to command
That seems reasonable to me. I mean, if one of the qualifications for taking on F/Os is that the individual concerened has command potential then it stands to reason that there has to be enough working life left for this to be a practical reality.
It is only the entry into sponsored ab-initio training that is limited to young people. It's not discrimination, it is risk management.
Again, I have no problem with this. This is really a level removed from the employment stage. I don't see it as the employer's responsibility to train people who they do not currently employ - although it may make commercial sense to. We all have a personal responsibility to do what we can to ensure we are employable. It just so happens that for ATP roles this is expensive, but cost does not change the parameters of the argument IMHO. If someone wants to pay for my training prior to selection then that is a bonus.
Discrimination is actively choosing not to consider/select a person qualified for the job because of characteristics/attributes not related to the ability to do the job and I mean the whole job, not just flying the plane.
As for age. It just is not possible to say that age affects the ability learn. The RAF example maybe true(ish) but then there are a whole stack of factors that may make life difficult for older people with the net effect being poor performance in training. Take for example the pass rate and pass mark of mature undergraduate universtity students; considerably higher than school leavers and that is also a 'fact'. Take that on face value and you have the opposite view.
BTW, is that what psychologists call being in "violent agreement"
