Introduction of Anti-Ageism Regulations 1st October?

[nomercy]

There are many mature pilots whon are looking for their first airline job and are hitting a brick wall with some small- minded companies. They are intent on taking young low houred pilots (nothing personal) who will admit to wanting to climb to the top of the ladder perhaps flying big jets. The problem is that obviously they will not stay at smaller companies for long which incurs high training costs. A more mature pilot would be more likely to stay and progress to captain (and reduce training costs).

The next argument is that older people are harder to train- crap, it is all down to the individual and their enthusiasm. Most mature pilots will also probably have experience and even if this is in light aircraft it is good experience - in command time, dealing with the weather, dealing with people and so on.

The problem is that a lot of these companies follow like sheep and adopt each others policies. There are a few who do not - thank god! Next year legislation comes into force that is supposed to stop this but i am sure they try to find a way around it.

If their are any mature pilots out their who are finding themselves up a creek wiithout a paddle i will interested to hear of their xperiences

I've edited the layout of this post to make it more readable. Please note that you do not need to use the carriage return (enter) key to add a line in the 'add post' area, the software will add new lines where necessary. You'll note that I haven't altered your spelling or grammar! ;)

Scroggs

[zedex7rrrrrrr]

You are correct about most of the young pilots not sticking around for too long and the airlines are well aware of this. That's one of the main reasons that more and more ailrines are asking the new recruits to fund their own type rating. Ryanair are a perfect example of this... you pay for your training and for the first couple of years, your wages are... crap? But stick around and you'll eventually be reaping the rewards of a large pay and a lot of experience. By that time, you may find better conditions elsewhere but not many airlines that can equal the pay scale.

There have been plenty of stories on here about older guys getting their first jobs and I hope you get some positive response and advice.

[Easy Glider]

Have to disagree. Most companies look for young EXPERIENCED pilots. They are easier to train and already a known quantity.

[Dictionary]

Well said nomercy, it is about time that airline management look more seriously at older low hour pilots for their first position. A good mix of younger and older guys as junior FO's would give a very good balance to any companies experience levels and commitment to the company. Chief Pilots,Training Captains as well as HR should look more closely into what an individual can offer a company in return for that first job!

[scroggs]

While there is a degree of age bias in airline recruiting, it is largely on the basis of 'experience commensurate with age'. However, and it may be an unpalatable premise, but the concept of complex training becoming more difficult to assimilate with age is fairly well established - and is one of the main reasons why the RAF and Royal Navy do not recruit pilots older than 23.

I suspect - though I may be wrong - that this factor will mean that the legislation in 2006 will have a fairly minimal effect on airline recruiting policies. It will have a far greater effect on retirement age.

That said, there are some companies that do recruit older inexperienced pilots.

Scroggs

[fireflybob]

Does Age Discrimination exist? - Yes, I believe so.

Never mind lack of experience - here I am 54 years, 14,000 hrs total, 9,000 hrs jet, 4,500 on B737 variants, 1,800 on A320, 2000 hrs simulator instructing, 9 years as training captain in excellent health but I cant get a job in the airline industry!! Trouble is I am not current on type and the bank balance does not permit me to pay the money and do that myself.

Well its 4 a.m. and I am off to do my job in the Railway Industry!

Dont get mad though - get even!

[fullandfree]

Age Discrimination? No such thing. Ex mil nav, 3500 hrs on a varierty of types, + MEP/IR instructor, close on 2000 hrs BUT over 40. Not even a hint of an interview in 2 years. I have been selective with my c.vs. and applications, not wishing to waste the time of those whose criteria I do not meet, but surely someone would value such experience?

We, I am sure, can all understand to a degree the preference for young, keen minds that learn quickly. However, there is a much-cited and very real other side of the argument. Us oldies want to settle into a niche, progress within one company and make our mark there. Not for us the constant clamouring to move on. We can offer much - maturity, experience, dogged determination, stability, and we have proven ourselves up to the task to date, etc.

I know, you've all heard it before. So, I'll get back in my box and keep on plugging away.

[rotatrim]

There have been some small glimmers of hope for us oldies recently - the successful ones have mostly been ex-Instructors.

Despite that, it's very obvious that we generally aren't even called for interview so the decision is taken long before we have a chance to make a case face-to-face with the recruitment people.

Loganair's recruitment policy is a mystery to me. Their recent recruits are what I would consider to be prime candidates for airline employment (young, integrated course graduates) but how many will stay even a year before looking for a jet job? It must surely make better economic sense for a small local airline operating basic turboprops to look for a mix of candidates including a number who'll stay for a reasonable length of time?

[Bob Fleming]

i'm trying to resist posting but i can't.

this seems to be the unwritten policy of a lot of airlines like BA and britannia.

so how exactly does a 21-23 year old manage to come thru an integrated course? either by being given the money or remortgaging the parents house. yet someone slighty older who's saved or had a prev career then put themselves thru the training on their own two feet, and it's held against them?

it abs true about young pilots pissing off to the bigger operators even before the bond is out.

maybe the capts concerned feel more comfortable with a youngster next to them.

[Compass Rose]

I think there is another issue here. Given that the industry has become much more commercially aggressive then there is a net benefit in employing younger people. Us oldies (44 here) are less maleable, more likely to speak up if there is something wrong with the operation and know what standards in the industry really mean.

To an employer with a slimmed down management team it must seem more attractive to employ young, green pilots.

This is, of course, until the day when an airline with a such a workforce has an accident and is called to account over its experience base.

[scroggs]

It would be lovely to think that there was some kind of consistency across the industry in this area, but there isn't. As far as I can tell, after several years of observing wannabes attempting to join the airlines, things such as your age, which school you went to, whether you did integrated or modular, how many instructional hours you have, and whether you wore a Simpsons tie to the interview, are entirely down to the prejudices of the recruiting manager of each individual airline.

One airline may swear blind that Oxford-trained applicants under 25 years old are the business, while another may prefer FIs, ex-modular, with a few years under their belts (and yes, I know these airlines are in the minority). There is no supportable objective reason for any of these prejudices, yet they exist. It may be that the new legislation could give those of you with deep pockets the weaponry to get an individual airline's recruiting policy subjected to legal review, but I doubt that many of you out there would go that route on your own. The answer may be to join and pressure BALPA or the IPA to make this one of their issues to pursue.

Scroggs

[RAPA Pilot]

The age question is my biggest worry. At 36 I'm already thinking that I'm at the top of the hill looking down the other side. I have good hours under my belt but feel that if I'm not in an airline by the time I'm 40 then thats that. I agree with a lot of the posts here. Companies like Flybe are loosing pilots to the big boys left right and centre. These are young pilots looking to move on. I and many others a little older would more than likely stay with such companies for the rest of their flying career thus saving them vast amounts in ongoing training costs. Wake up to the the more mature pilots and have a stable work force. B&Q have done it, actively employing more mature staff and it has worked. The measure of a good company can be proven by its staff turnover.
So come on aviation world apply some logic in HR and dont write off a pilot just because he cant fit all his candles on his cake anymore.
Oh and Flybe was just and example but they can call me anytime.:ok:

[Dictionary]

Flybe is a good example!!!!!!!!!!!

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

A lot of companies do recruit older guys, however, there are a lot of ex-mil with 2/3000 hrs behind them out there. This way the airline gets a blend of youth and experience.

These guys also suffer from ageism with the regionals. I think the earlier point about wanting young malleable FO's is valid. I also agree with Scroggs' comment about wanting experience commensurate with age. Individual airlines will decide what level they require.

As the Big Boys open up their recruitment, there will inevitably be vacancies at the other end. Things can only get better!

[High Wing Drifter]

but the concept of complex training becoming more difficult to assimilate with age is fairly well established - and is one of the main reasons why the RAF and Royal Navy do not recruit pilots older than 23.
It is so well established that nobody actually knows where the idea came from in the first place. Comparing demotivated grumpy old gits who fear change with highly motivated and demonstrably flexible older candidates is quite wrong.

Just a couple of points on the RAF issue. They block recruiting at 23 so they have no data to support the notion that older new trainees are less capable. Also, their training regime is the probably the worlds toughest. Suggesting that a civil pilot needs the reactions of a FJ or herc dropper is like saying I couldn't be a cabby because I have no F1 experience.

Speaking personally, at 37, I find it just as easy to learn, both in terms of cognitive and motor skills.

[scroggs]

Actually, the RAF does have experience of teaching people to fly over the age of 23. Several times over the past 30 years the RAF has recruited from within. I shared a course in basic training (in 1977) with a bunch of people who had been Suppliers, P Ed, Admin and others - the oldest was well over 30. More recently, the RAF took a number of Tornado F3 navigators to retrain as pilots. On both these occasions, the results suggested that the standard policy was correct - and that they should have paid more attention to recruiting sufficient new blood in the first place!

The Royal Navy has very recently reduced its maximum entry-into-training age from 26 to 23 partly, though not entirely, for similar reasons. On top of that, both the RAF and the RN regularly re-train pilots on new types or variants throughout their flying careers, which can last exceptionally to age 62. All these factors give these organisations a considerable database of relevant and reliable information.

There are exceptions to every rule, and it's quite true that the demands of civilian airline training are not directly comparable to those of the armed forces, however many of the recruiting managers in the airlines you're targetting are ex-forces and so are already disposed towards this point of view. I suspect you'll also find that the HR departments are giving them similar advice. Lastly, it's a salient point that young trainees are more malleable and less likely to complain at bad treatment; I'm sure this is a factor in many airlines' thinking.

Scroggs

[High Wing Drifter]

Lastly, it's a salient point that young trainees are more malleable and less likely to complain at bad treatment; I'm sure this is a factor in many airlines' thinking.
Hmmm. It depends if you are thinking of experienced mature pilots, with their feet firmly under the instruments, or low houred new starters who, regardless of age, will be very keen not to rock the wings.

OK replace my comment of "no data" with "not much data" :)

[Compass Rose]

I joined the RAF at age 23 - at the top end of the age limit. I remember that, before I commenced flying training, OC 100 Sqn told me (at a B of B cocktail party) that the RAF were really interested in the 17 - 18 years olds due to their steeper learning curve.

Funny old thing, most of the younger guys on my Jet Provost course were chopped. I fought my way through to multi's relying on my few extra years maturity to overcome the various pressures and obstacles.

My point is that it really is a balance. Yes, it is a help to be young, flexible and a fast learner. However, flying is for grown ups and that helps too. The skills and experiences (once learned and honed for a few years) don't go away.

I am really irritated by (and sympathetic to) the plight of fireflybob. I once knew a pilot who took voluntary redundancy from BA and spent 17 years running a business. He returned to commercial flying in his fifties and ended up with a B737 command.

It really worries me this trend towards young and cheap pilots and I am sure I'm not the only one. Airlines know the price of everything and the value of nothing these days.

Toodle Pip

[nomercy]

I have read the responses to my post with interest - obviously this is a major problem for many.

With regard to learning , on my ATPL course myself and another "oldie" recorded the second and third highest marks out of ten - On the course for my MPA type the older guys also done very well which shows that if you have some ability and determination age has no bearing.

The airlines have many silly phrases when translated mean they think you are too old. If you are good enough age should not matter. Also older guys are more of a known quantity because they have a work history which shows their qualities and abilities.

I have ensured that this issue has drawn the attention of several influential people and i hope that some airline companies see sense and give everyone a chance regardless of age.

[fastjet2k]

To an employer with a slimmed down management team it must seem more attractive to employ young, green pilots. This is, of course, until the day when an airline with a such a workforce has an accident and is called to account over its experience base.

How is this any worse than a workforce of older, green pilots? With regards to having young and inexperienced pilots in airlines, where else do people start their careers?

[RoyHudd]

Started training in my early forties. Age 49, flying a new generation widebody across the Atlantic, right-seat. (A330) Now early 50's and thinking of a jet command before long. And yet.......

I have to agree that it's a harder learning curve later in life, and enthusiasm plus ability are needed in bigger amounts to succeed. And the ageist bias exists in all walks of life, probably always has.

[MJR]

Roy, thats an inspirational story, particularly for old gits! Perhaps you could enlighten us how you managed to achieve your present flying status?

cheers

MJR

[Malc]

I think that, in many ways, being older has made the training easier. I can't imagine having gone through the same training in my 20's - but with a bit of experience behind me, I found it quite motivating to set and them meet my own self-imposed deadlines. Making my own choices about where/how to do the training has been almost as fulfilling as getting the licence at the end of it all.

There does seem to be a dichotomy in terms of recruitment of "oldies" - even within the same airlines. I have a letter from one Flt Ops Director who tells me that his airline is always keen to see older pilots who can bring experience to the organisation, yet the HR department of the same airline is rumoured (on a well known professional pilot's rumour network) to be not interested in any candidates over 35. The lack of a phone call/letter from the HR part of the organisation, despite a recommendation from the Flt Ops Director, seems to bear this rumour out.

It's ironic that, due to fears of complaints of ageism, no (or very few) operators will publish a statement such as "candidates over XX years need not apply". If some of them took this stance, it would cut down on the number of applications they received that were of no interest to them, for whatever reason. It would save their time, the applicants time, and generally benefit everyone in the long run by setting out what the criteria for consideration were.

I'm not advocating that every operator should advertise solely for older candidates that aren't looking to just build hours before moving on to something bigger/faster but are looking for steady career progression (although this would suit me very nicely thank you) but I think that a good mixture of age/experience in an intake of new F/Os would be in everyones interest in the longer term. Aren't the smaller operators suffering by recruiting solely younger, low-hours F/O who clear off once they have the requisite number of hours to work for a "bigger" operator?

Finally, before I put my soapbox away for the day, it's been suggested that an older F/O is "more likely to speak up if there is something wrong with the operation and know what standards in the industry really mean" - and that this is a negative thing to be doing. As long as it's done in the right way, surely it's better to have someone who will constructively suggest areas for improvement (and possibly even have some experience to suggest how the improvements may be brought about) than to simply just seethe in silence about terms/conditions etc, before finally becoming resentful and clearing off to another operator without bringing about any improvement where they were originally. Isn't speaking up at the right time, in the right way, what CRM is all about?

Rant over - now back to the CV..........:*

[cosworth211]

So what age do most airlines consider the turning point at the moment? I have read the archived threads, but the answer keeps changing. I am a PPL holder, and finishing uni this year @ 26 years old. Providing I pass Class 1 next month Im off to EFT in sept on an integrated course (will have just turned 27), and will be 29 upon completion and after working as a FI for a year.

At 29-30 are my career opportunities seriously limited in comparison to a 21-23 year old in this scenario????

[Dictionary]

No, you shouldn't have a problem, plus all the signs are good for the next couple of years at least. Good growth in the industry is predicted. It only really starts becoming a big problem in late 30's early 40's

[smith]

I know this is at a basic level, but when I did my PPL at a sausage factory in the US, there were about 30-40 of us doing the same but at different stages. I am 38 and people said to me that my learning capacity would be less than the young ones.

However I zoomed thru the 7 writtens first time, usually with marks in the 90's, while the younger ones were taking 2 or 3 attempts to get through, usually scraping by with 76.

Maybe the learning curve of the youngsters is better but they also have the distraction of the pub and the fairer sex to contend with also.

[RoyHudd]

Not bothered about the pub or the fairer sex at 38? Crikey!

[fireflybob]

I find stereotypes of "old age" amusing. Recently there was a feature on the news about pensions and they immediately showed a shot of people walking around with zimmer frames!

There are plenty of "old" people out there who have/are doing fantastic things with their lives - its all purely an attitude of mind.

Even Steve Fosset who has just flown round the world is 60 years old and, I believe, Sir Francis Chichester was 65 years old when he sailed around the world single handed.

Tony Buzan in his book "Head Strong" dispels the myth that as we get older we lose brain cells and therefore brain power - it just is NOT true UNLESS you have a deep seated belief that as you get older you will begin to fail since this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy!

[smith]

Roy Hudd

Point taken he he, however going night clubbing til the wee hours in the morning, trying to pull a bird and get lucky is just not my scene anymore.

[Airist]

Isn't one element of the age discrimination thing simply that it's just another excuse to eliminate a number of candidates? It's rare that the megapiles of CVs are actually vetted by pilots. It's done by HR people, who can only go by box-ticking. And the more Anti boxes they can tick, the easier everyones' life is later.
I'm sure if you asked the training captains, most would say that older people have as much, or more, capacity to learn as younger ones.
I for one have found that mine has increased as I've got older, rather than the reverse. It's not just about speed of chemical transmission (tho' heck, whoever said that grinds to a halt at 35??); it's also about confidence, commitment and determination.

[airpilot]

Hi chaps,i'm new to this site and was just having a read of your thoughts on this topic.

I'm sick to death of hearing that once your in your thirties your to old and ****** and that your be in a nursing home sooner than you think.

Human resources- what a load of bollocks. I hate it when you have to talk to the monkey and not the organ grinder.

I'm only 31 so have sometime yet but do sympathise with the more older 30 something. Being in your 30's i think is the best time, lots of life experience and still able to give another 30yrs to the aviation world.

Anyway thats my thoughts

[carbonfibre]

well just to add mine in, im 38 with first time passes at all flight tests and only 2 retakes at the groundschool, I am well educated and a very flexible approach to my work and change management, willing to take an enourmous pay cut and work for a regional which is what i would like to do, perhaps if i could get in work my way upto the left hand seat and perhaps upto training.

However despite all this i cant get a sniff of an interview probably due to hours / age consideration. As with some views theres a lot to be said for life experience, especially regarding the decision making part of flying, if i remember correctly your responses become slower it terms of decision making about 0.25 of a second slower upto the age of 55, but they are more accurate.

I apologise in advance for spelling and gramatical errors im knackered, probably from being too old

:ok:

[sidtheesexist]

A long time lurker at last joins the fold merely to encourage the 'older' chaps out there - RAPA pilot, nomercy I hope you gain some encouragement from my experiences. Gave up secure employment in Aug 98 aged 32, completed frozen ATPL (if there is such a thing - see another thread) in Mar 2000. No flying for a year, the usual story of making ends meet. Reluctantly bit the bullet and became an instructor in Apr 2001 (increased debt), part and full time FI work until late 2003 when I got my break as a turboprop driver. After about a year on tprops, now in hold pool for a jet operator. From my limited experience, I would say that determination, perserverence and PATIENCE are needed in v large quantities if you are going to succeed. I came close to quitting on at least two occasions. I hope this post might in some small way give you a modicum of hope. Regards, Sid :ok:

[scroggs]

To clarify what I said earlier, as a keen observer of the ailine employment market: age discrimination does exist in the employment of new entrants to airline flying. It shouldn't, but it does. It is justified in a number of ways, some have some basis in fact, some don't. In my opinion, the legislation due to take effect in 2006 is unlikely to change things very significantly, but I would love to be proved wrong.

For the moment, those of you over 35 will have to accept that for you the road is rockier and the slopes steeper. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but, like staying slim and fit, it gets more difficult as you age!

Best of luck to all of you.

Scroggs
50 this year and as fit and gorgeous as any 25 year old! ;)

[airpilot]

Yes I would have to agree with what Sid is saying.

All you need is lots of determination,dedication and perseverance.

Did you know you can join the Police at the age of 50. Just think how much they have to learn and remember in just a short period of time. Exam pass mark even higher than 75%.

[spaceman1000]

I would be happy to create a website, I will mention airline using discriminations.

Please, send me a PM with a copy of their answer. (if they are enough stupid to write ).
I think some people would be interested to sue them.

so gohead, send me all u have,and if ou have any idea, let me know ...

[redsnail]

Scroggs,
25 year old what? :E

[nomercy]

Thanks for the encouragement SID. Personally i have never thought of giving up and have no intention of doing so. I have been looking for five years and in that time i have logged 900 paper applications and several hundred by e-mail.

I know there are lots of guys out there looking for that elusive first job but it amazes me how many are still training.

After putting so much effort and money in - you just have to keep plugging away!

[scroggs]

Redders: anything I can get hold of!

[Tallbloke]

Scroggs: My girlfriend has a 1972 Triumph Spitfire if you fancy something a bit older :ok:

[haughtney1]

I remember when I was 25

I could run 3 k's in 10 mins
I could down 3 pints in 5 mins
And I could look down and see my 6 pack

Now I can drive 3 k's in 2 mins
I can down 4 pints in 5 mins
And when I Bend down I can pick up a six pack!

ahhhhhh youth:}

[A and C]

You have all missed the point.. at the moment airline recrutment is not a selection process it is a REJECTION process.
It's quite simple the HR numptys have a lot of CV's and so to get down to a reasonable number for interview they set all sorts of silly rules.
The tide however is now turning and no doubt in a year or two's time a dog licence will get you a start at one of the "bottom feeders" in the industry.

It's not discrimination ......... just supply and demand !.

[Pilot Pete]

Chatting to one of our senior trainers who actually looks after the sponsored cadets the other day, I asked him about the age limit in our airline. He told me that they had 'bad' past experience taking older guys on who struggled to meet the standards required and hence cost more money. Unfortunately all applicants of a similar age have been tarred with the same brush, unless they come with 'experience commensurate with age'.

This would appear to be the opinion of a great many airlines regarding this issue. It appears to be unfair, but I guess it's just another filter to get the number of applicants down to a manageable level for selection. The whole selection process is designed to find the best applicants who present the least risk. So I guess it is no different than discriminating based on education, personality, determination, experience, teamwork skills or any other parameter you can think of in a selection procedure......

It's not impossible, just more difficult for the older Wannabe. Keep plugging away and whatever you do don't fail to build more hours whilst you are job hunting.

Good luck.

PP

[fireflybob]

I am sure our time will come. I can recall a time during the middle 1980s where aviation was going through a big expansion and I was training for a "leading" charter airline. We just could not get enough pilots to support the commercial operation - as soon as we trained a pilot, another one would hop off to, say, Cathay Pacific - and who can blame them?

This put a lot of extra strain on the training dept. - you end up promoting people to training captain who, perhaps, dont quite fit the ideal profile and they end up training entrant pilots who also may not be quite up to the selection standard required - this is NOT to cast aspersions on these pilots - most of them did a fantastic job and rose to the occasion. It just means that, for a while, the level of safety normally enjoyed may be compromised - in simple language the company might go around keeping its fingers crossed for a season or two!

By this I am NOT saying that the long awaited "pilot shortage" is just around the corner (I wish!) but I do think that before long companies will start to resort to the "bums on seat" philosoph, ie if he/she has got a licence we will give him/her a job ESPECIALLY if by not doing so it affects the commercial operation - ie you have to cancel flights due lack of crews. I am reliably informed that this has already happened in at least one LOCO airline.

So dont worry, guys and girls - our time WILL come - with the expansion in the Middle East and ex pats taking up the jobs over there it will not be too long! Roll on the revolution!

[nomercy]

With ref to the post by pilot pete - His company quoted "bad" experience with older guys. Plenty of companies have had "bad" experience with young guys also, in particular a well known south west based operator. If an older guy did take slightly longer to train the extra financial cost would be ten times cancelled out by the benefit of him probably staying long term with the company (and reducing further training costs).

Unfortunately most airlines are not capable of thinking long term and most only want immediate short term fixes(although some claim otherwise).

Working as a pilot is a constant and ongoing learning process and i am sure if learning for older guys is so difficult the retirement age for pilots would be much lower than it is at present.

The fight goes on!

[8028410q]

I've waited long enough, reading this thread, and waiting for a response from 'a leading low cost airline'. I attended their selection in January and passed, only to find out that my application was 'on hold'. No reason was given, but my contact believes it was because of my age.

Today, I have found out that my application has been formally rejected, no reason given, but the unwritten answer from my contact was 'you're too old'.

Why have I waited 3 months to hear this?
Why couldn't they have told me that on the interview? (I recal the HR guy at the interview saying 'no problems, I'm happy' - it must have gone to another HR guy, then another before someone else made the decision).
Why wasn't I informed upon my initial application?

FWIW I'm 40, a low hours (400'ish) integrated student.



8028410q.

[carbonfibre]

Getting that job is hard, I will be embarking on my FI rating soon just so I can hours build, i personally find this a poor situation to be in, i am doing it because i have to rather than wanting to.

I will however put all the extra effort into doing a good job in instructing as i know what students go through, but its not what i want to do.

For airlines to think that whizzing around an airfield in a 152 is constructive is beyond me, they also say you can have too many SE hours, so you have lost either way, if your an FI for longer than 18 months your likely to have 1500 SE time which they say is too much.

All i can say is that many people fell at the first hurdle with ground exams etc and most of them a lot younger than me, a significant proportion of these had been given the pre-entry exam by OATS too, so the age to me is not the issue, and it showed that he entry testing was flawed or not tested well at all.

As nomercy has already stated, if some of these airlines think more than 3 months ahead they could reduce there training costs, improve attendance and probably increase there overall profit in the long run.

PP i agree with what your training Captain has stated for your airline case, because people are less likely to leave somewhere as in your airline, jets to start, pay's pretty good and range of Long and short haul.

So im going back to work and weld me a new zimmer frame, just in case

Keep going for it people :ok:

[sidtheesexist]

airpilot - do I detect a degree of sarcasm/cynicism in your last post or I am I simply misinterpretting your comments? I never said 'ALL you need is dedication, perserverence and patience' The point I was attempting to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) was that in ADDITION to all the skills/quals/aptitudes etc etc required to obtain an FATPL, large amounts of the aforementioned would greatly help in the quest for the holy grail which is that elusive first job. If I have taken your comments the wrong way, please disregard the above. :)

nomercy - delighted to hear that you've not contemplated giving up. Thinking back to my ATPLs at coventry with ATA, through CPL and IR training at SFT (as was) I can think of quite a few who have ' fallen by the wayside' - do believe that sticking with it will ultimately pay off. Best of luck. :ok:

carbonfibre - just seen your last. For your info, I had approx 1750 hrs TT when I landed my turboprop job - 1700 of those were SEP. One of my training captains remarked that there was no substitute for airborne experience - i.e. hours.

[bikerboy]

Interesting topic-just got turned down by FR because of my age(40) even though I passed the sim check and sailed through the interview-those of you over 30,you have been warned!!

[jamestkirk]

It's funny about age and ability.

I did my ground exams at oxford on the modular route. The class i was in was quite an extrovert bunch and had the makings of a comedy ensemble theatre production.

We were in no way in competition with the integrated guys and girls. The whole integrated/modular "which is best" was not a concern to us at all.

There were alot of older people in the class. late 20's early 30's, who DID NOT go through any selection to get on the course.

Straight from the mouth of the instructors, we were told that our mock and caa exam results were far better than the younger integrated courses running along side.

Myself and two other 30+ who i flight trained with got attempt 1 series 1 passes on the CPL/IR. Our overall experience accross the age groups was very similar.

Now, I know this is just a snapshot, and it is based purely on my own experience.

If there are any airline recruitment people looking through this thread, maybe you could give me and others an insight into the age policy. If there is one.

In my opinion, ageism seems to have been an idea by a couple of bigger airlines and alot of others have followed.

[carbonfibre]

Sidthesexist

I agree with you in certain conditions but some airlines like it and some dont they all vary. I have been told that too many SE hours can be a downfall and yes it was by an airline Captain. I agree totally with you in that some perseverance goes a long way, along with your ability to be flexible a good teamworker etc and for the most a lot of pilots from PPL to CPL/IR have all been.

What i am saying is that although you make command decisions and make very sound judgement on peoples abilities etc as a flight instructor, for which i admire greatly having to put up with people trying to kill them all day you actually do very little of the flying especially in the last 30+ hours of a students PPL so its airbourne time yes, but its mostly theres, although you log it as P1 you are if the student is capable an observer of skills.

I intend to take my FI rating and do as good a job as is practicable, but as I said its to build hours which i find a poor state of affairs, meaning there is a place for career instructors if the money was right and there are a few schools like that, but thats another talking point.

In the end i dont agree or disagree with the age problem because every person should be taken on merit, as James T has said and I have previously said, some have passed by the wayside through various reasons and "US" golden oldies have beaten the odds with some very good results and willing to pursue a career in which we are being told that we should have more hours especially multi crew or aircraft greater than 15tonnes, now as far as i can tell to get that experience they have to give you a job, viscious circle i know but it has to stop at some point and if thats to get the magic 1000 hrs in a 152 buzzing the airfield then so be it.

Anyway all keep plugging at it, have fun doing it



:ok: :cool: :p :ooh:

[airpilot]

No sarcasm intended sid.

[Arrowhead]

I know several guys in their 30s and 40s who have got A320 jobs from minimal experience. Four currently work in Asia, one for Monarch, one for Lauda, and one for Eurofly. I also know of some that just got placed into MyTravel. And if they want to jump back to a major airline, I'm sure they could (although most dont want to).

Older guys tend to have one advantage that the younger guys generally cannot compete with - CASH. They paid for their type ratings and some line training, and all now fly for airlines. The cruel irony is that when times are tough for the airline industry (ie now), some oldies gain a competitive advantage, our savings/assets.

So long as you dont tell the wife how much you're spending (its nice to get our own back), go ahead and apply for a type rating and simultaneously call Eaglejet or Contractair. You can pay these training costs back in under 2 years, if you go to the right places. Yes there are risks, and you need an understanding wife. But life is not a dress rehearsal.

And if you think buying your way into a job is not fair, try explaining how the whole integrated/modular thing is fair. Or how people with relatives already flying airlines seem to get jobs, despite sometimes having personality or ability defects.


BTW, in response to the FI issue... some airlines do have insurance restrictions regarding pilots average experience. So building time can make sense in some cases. But all airlines want time on type. So I say save the money from the FI rating, save the 2 years of scraping by on a miserly wage, and just get on with the rating/line training, and pay it back when you are a paid jet FO building time.

>>----->

[sidtheesexist]

airpilot - as I suspected, I misinterpretted your comments - my apologies.

carbonfibre - you make some valid points. There are many old sayings etc relating to teaching/instruction. One of the more positive goes along the lines, a good way of really learning about a 'subject' is to teach it!!! Having to demonstrate and explain various skills and techniques MUST make you the instructor a better pilot - ASSUMING you're putting any effort into the job. From my 3 yrs or so as an instructor, I'd say the vast majority of FIs that I encountered, were committed to their profession. The problem of earning a decent wage as an FI is perennial one - I am blowed if I know the answer. In conclusion, I would encourage you to see the FI job as an opportunity to gain knowledge and develop as a pilot - easy for me to say I know, but I have done my time at the coalface :) I am glad I did a stint as an insrtuctor and have made some lifelong friends as a consequence!!

Arrowhead - I respect your point of view re 'self sponsored TRs' but have to disagree in the STRONGEST possible terms. One of the biggest causes of the continuing degradation of pilots' terms and conditions is the exponential growth in the number of persons prepared to pay for their own training. I won't labour the point - it's a philosophical type issue IMHO - you are either against them on principle or you are not. The only way SSTRs will be consigned to history is by US, the pilot fraternity, making a principled stand. Rant over. :{ :mad:

[FAB]

Hello Arrowhead, I sent a PM to you.

[nomercy]

Does anyone know from experience airlines who DO NOT discriminate with age? I will be grateful for any further info either by post or pm.

[rotatrim]

Maersk Air's requirements include

"Max age before sitting entrance test 38 years"

[sidtheesexist]

nomercy - check your pms ;)

[High Wing Drifter]

Sid,

Feel free to PM me too :)

[leading edge!]

Just looking for thoughts!

As of the 1st October 2006, new regulations are coming in re discrimination against individuals on the basis of age.

Just wondering what the implications are for airline recruitment for us 'more mature' individuals (aged 38, fATPL looking for 1st job).

I believe that CTC have a age 'cut off' of 34......Are they going to have to change?

Would be good to know more...

[dartagnan]

my attorney can not wait for the 1st october!

he is already jumping on his chair like a kid..."I am going to make a fortune"...

BA, watch out!!!!!:p

[Flying Farmer]

I cannot see that anything will change much.

What I do imagine changing though is that companys will have to be seen to be interviewing people on the experience they have, regardless of age. This dose NOT mean you will pass the interview stage though does it!!

Got the t shirt as far as ageism goes as a newcomer at the ripe old age of 44 :\

[sicky]

I have to agree that i don't see much changing. I can't see it being easy to prove that age is the reason they have turned somebody down, without them actually giving it as a reason.

Maybe the only difference would be the cut-off age, but they may just remove the cut-off but just say sorry, you were unsuccessful. However, after a few years when nobody over a certain age gets through...people may get suspicious!

So for now, i don't see much changing!

However don't forget that this works both ways. I have a feeling there is going to be a thin line when accusing people of having "no experience" and with being "too young".

[whiskey1]

Hi Flying Farmer,
What you up to now. Was one of your Ground Instructors before SFT went bust.

Expect the same thing with age as happened with Gender when Gender Discrimination first became illegal.

If you can show that a person with fewer hours got a job and you didn't, See you at the tribunal. Companies will need to be able to justify every decision and all subject to disclosure to opposing counsel.

[scroggs]

For an analysis of the efects of the new legislation, see this article. (http://www.hays.com/hr/ageism-legislation-2006.aspx) Remember, this is one man's opinion of the effects and thus is subject to challenge, but there are a number of interesting points within it:

- For example, in job advertisements, specification of a ‘minimum’ of experience (not a maximum) is feasible but this will need to be clearly justified by referring to specific technical skills and qualities that requirements and explanations will have to be included.

This would appear to suggest that a company can demand a minimum experience level commensurate with its business and operational model. This, obviously, would effectively exclude younger rather than older applicants, but is one example of how exceptions to the law can and will be applied.

- Another important area comes under the heading ‘Genuine Occupational Requirement’ (GOR). Examples of this include Health and Safety and general welfare of the employee – in such cases, the nature of the work will have to be considered to see if a particular policy is deemed to fall in the GOR category.

This is another area open to interpretation (and thus testing in court). It may well be that some airlines try to appy the GOR rule as a justification for capping age on recruitment. We'll have to wait and see whether this is accepted by the law.

An interesting aspect of this legislation is that it is stronger, and carries heavier penalties, than sex and race discrimination legislation. It also covers vocational training - which means that age limits on CTC/OAT/FTE 'sponsored' courses will probably have to be dropped. However, Armed Forces age restrictions are exempt from this legislation and will presumably continue.

For more information, see here (http://www.agepositive.gov.uk/newsdetail.cfm?sectionID=44&newsid=661).

Oh, before anyone leaps to conclusions about the effects of this legislation on seniority-based benefits and rewards (as happened here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=223784&highlight=seniority)), this paragraph is almost certainly sufficient to justify the status quo: After the 5-year exemption, employers must show that there will be an advantage from rewarding loyalty, encouraging the motivation or recognising the experience of workers by awarding benefits on the basis of length of service.

Scroggs

[bjkeates]

I agree with Sicky and Flying Farmer. While the obligatory removal of age limits on applications might open the way for older people to apply, it might not necessarily mean those who can now apply actually get those positions. If age limits were dropped, how would an older applicant - subsequently rejected - prove that he/she was rejected on the basis of age? I'm no lawyer, but to my legally uneducated brain how exactly would such legislation be enforced? Surely it would be too easy for any FTO or any other organisation, aviation related or not, to present evidence that the older applicant did not possess the skills and/or ability required. How could the rejected applicant argue against that? I must stress that I'm not advocating dishonest practices here - I'm just asking "what if".

Furthermore, what happens when - hypothetically speaking - an organisation continuously maintains its pre-legislation age limits by simply telling the older candidates that they didn't perform well enough at interview? If the interview records are confidential, what's stopping them doing this even if the older candidates were on an equal footing with their younger counterparts?

Say, for example, you own a company. You have ten jobs available, and 100 applicants. Out of the 100, 50 are older than the maximum age limit you used to set before the new legislation came into force. Imagine that the best ten applicants, the ones you feel could totally out-perform all others attending the interview, all fall into the younger age category. You own a business, you want to maximise your productivity and success so surely you offer the jobs to the best ten, who all happen to be younger. Or do you? What if you're scared of being sued silly by some of the older applicants who claim that because you employed a bunch who fell within the now-obsolete age limits, you're discriminating against them? Do you have to employ five of them and five of the younger bunch, to make yourself appear non-discriminatory? Not only is this unfair to yourself and your business, it's also positive discrimination.

What do you do? I'm not trying to make a point here, I genuinely don't know. If an FTO is put in this situation due to the new legislation, what must it do? Take on the best lot, the vast majority of whom happen to be younger, or take on some less promising hopefuls at the expense of the better ones to avoid being labelled as "ageist" and dragged through court?

So, let's say we going to come to a situation where an FTO has to recruit a certain number of older candidates to show that it is not discriminating? If so, where does it stop? Is it then going to have to then adopt a policy of taking a certain proportion of other groups (women, gay people, ethnic minorities, etc)? (I know this happens - I have a friend who works for a large, well known supermarket chain; he told me that to satisfy equal rights requirements, a certain proportion of the workforce at his store had to be of an ethnic group other than white.)

My personal opinion is that if I start up a company, I would want to take on whoever the hell I like. I want the people who are going to be best at what they do. It doesn't matter if they're 7 or 70, black or white or pink with yellow spots. I don't want some lawyer banging on my door telling me I'm discriminating because I'm not taking on enough people of a certain age, even if I am giving them the chance to apply by not having an age restriction in force.

Thoughts anyone? Have I completely missed the point and gone off at a tangent, or could any of these scenarios potentially develop?

[jamestkirk]

I have read most of this thread (some posts are reaally longg).

I would assume that most of us posting on this thread are a little older than the average. Compare this thread to some of the others when people disagree and you will find insults and intended tarnishes on a persons parentage.

Just goes to show we are a little more mature and understanding of the world without the splash of ego.

Please everyone remember , that an HR dept. know all about CV filing, lunch break legislation, where 9 and 5 are on a clock and how to hug other employees. I think they call it a CIPD course. I know this as i worked in HR myself for 5 years (albeit in training so don't hire any witches to curse me. If you do want to do that, you'll find an ample suplly in most HR departments).

I am still instructing and still looking to fly something with air conditioning. When i get there I will tell you all 1).where 2). who to send your CV to 3). any personal information that would buy a HR operative and impress the Chief pilot.

And SCROGGS, you can quote me on that. Just the last paragraph, not the whole post!

[sicky]

bjk you've hit the nail on the head. Without meaning to press onto a point that is potentially offensive to people, and i don't mean it in that way, but did a similar thing not happen with race, gender etc? Again, it's all potentially PC gone mad. New laws come in and people tend to panic.

Obviousley there are going to be older people who can perform as well as younger people, females who can perform as well as males, and people of different races who can perform as well as eachother, and in all cases vice versa.

Let's just hope people begin to use laws like this in a level headed way, if you know what i mean. Unfortuinately for this industry, the reason they tend to prefer younger pilots, and correct me if i'm wrong, is because of a steep learning curve, and a large investment (so they can get some extra years back in service), oh and a slightly lower retirement age (in a fair few cases)

[AlexL]

As someone in their mid / late 30's I get quite annoyed when people disqulify me from applying from jobs, quoting things like 'most' 35 year olds fail the training, or 'most' 35 year olds can't learn new skills etc. I am not 'most', I am me. This is no different to saying that 'most women' can't do say a physical job. Yes on average women are not as strong as men, but that is no reason to refuse to consider any woman for a physical job.
I've got no problem with anyone excluding me from a job on a personal basis, but to exclude me on a blanket reason for my age is out of order. I bet I can knock spots off most 20 year olds, 'most' 35 year olds probably can't, but I can.
This is why this legislation is needed. No it probably hasn't got any teeth, and no I certainly wouldn't use it to sue anyone. I'm resiliant and persuasive enough to get my own job thank you very much.
However the very fact that this legislation exisits will probably cause many HR departments to re-examine their motives, and perhaps start looking at older applicants - this in itself will be sufficient cause for the existance of the legislation.
Its quite daft that someone who is 35 is considered over the hill when in fact only about 10 years of a useful 40 year career have passed

As to my view of how this legislation will be enforced, I suspect it will be looked at the same way as other discrimination legislation. i.e if, say 10% of your applicants are over 35, then you'd better have a damn good reason why 10% of your recruits are not over 35. Its not to say that such a reason may or may not exist, but at least you have had to think it through.

[dartagnan]

I am happy of this new legislation.Very happy!

at 25, I was to young, now 10 years later, I am now to old...what kind of EU joke is that?

and I guess you can not send your picture , or state your age on a cv.


this is what the do in france to inforce the law, when you want rent an appartment.

they(anti discrimination association) send a black guy, and the agency says:"sorry, we dont have any vacant appartments",

3 minutes later, a white man enters... "hello sir, yes, we have lot of appartment to rent for you"

the next day they are fined for 20'000 euro! :E

[ICING AOA]

I think those new regulations are bull**** and there wont be any significant change in the future.
Airline companies are not really discriminating on the age anyway. They just want a minimum of experience in proportion with the age. Everybody knows that the older you get, the less efficient you are..(and in such case, experience is here to try to compensate).

[fireflybob]

>Everybody knows that the older you get, the less efficient you are..(and in such case, experience is here to try to compensate).

Really? On what statistical evidence do you make this comment?

[ICING AOA]

Well, I am not a doctor and I have no figures to provide you with, however I am sure you can find lots of explanations via www.google.com (http://www.google.com) :)
Also, may I suggest you to go to an aeroclub and see how long it takes for a 17 years old guy to get the PPL licence, compared to a 50 years old one !

Basically, everyday we are losing many cells forever; reaction time, memory, hears, vision, etc are getting worse and worse and worse with time !
(And sooner or later, you will have to buy Viagra as well :{ )

[AlexL]

I think those new regulations are bull**** and there wont be any significant change in the future.
Airline companies are not really discriminating on the age anyway. They just want a minimum of experience in proportion with the age. Everybody knows that the older you get, the less efficient you are..(and in such case, experience is here to try to compensate).
I think you've missed the point of the legislation! Its exactly that stupid attitude that the legislation is for.
Yes, on average older people cannot learn as quickly as younger people. But if you then refuse to look at all older people on that basis then that is discrimatory.
Its not acceptable to refuse to employ women because 'on average they are weaker' why is it acceptable to do the same to older people.
Airlines do discrimiate - CTC for example say under 34 on application. In the eyes of the law, (and anyone who thinks things through) that is now the same as saying, no white people, no black people, no women etc etc.
There are 40 year olds out there who will make excellent pilots and there are 20 year olds who are morons.
People deserve to be assesed individually, not have assumptions made about there performance based on some random pidgeon holing.

[ICING AOA]

The thing is women are not weaker than men, and it has been proved that they have the faculty to do various things at the same time, whereas men can only do one thing at a time. :ok:

Old people are weaker than young people.. but they still can compensate it if they have some good experience. So the door is already open to everybody !

[unfazed]

Flying is all about exceeding a required standard and maintaining that standard. It is very cut and dried and age is irrelevant

You can either exceed the required standard of you can't :ok:

[jamestkirk]

Old people are weaker than young people.. but they still can compensate it if they have some good experience. So the door is already open to everybody !

Are you generalising here beacuse so far I have beaten everyone under my 35years in an arm wrestle. Although I am 6'3'', 16 stone and quite a well built bloke. My god, I sound like i am putting my details on an internet date site.

Well you know what i mean.

[dartagnan]

The thing is women are not weaker than men, and it has been proved that they have the faculty to do various things at the same time !

not true!!!

do you know why they send a woman in the space shuttle...
?

cuz it s lighter than a washmachine!!:p

[provo]

Has this ever been defined or is it, like many other things, a purely subjective assessment by those doing the hiring.

Anyone know the answer?

[moggiee]

This Government's own National Minimum Wage legislation allows for age discrimination in that it sets a lower wage for under 18s than for older people (I think that's the cut off point).

So, does the anti-ageism legislation make the NMW legislation illegal? Common sense wopuld say so ...............but why look to this government for common sense!

[waveydavey]

I think it's worth remembering that we are discussing the differences in human performance while at the controls of commercial aircraft. I don't believe there will be very much between a 23 year old and a 35 year old at this level. Operating supersonic aircraft for example, then yes I agree there is an undeniable increase in performance for the younger person.
As for training - if both ages have recently passed ATPL's then the question of being able to learn has been proven.

[dxbpilot]

Is it really that bad to employ younger people over older people when a airline has to train a person to do his job(i know most people pay for their type but what about the line training?) ? They obviously want to get the longest amount of working time back from their investment especially when there is the retirement age rules in place for pilots.

I'm not saying that a person who has undertaken their pilot career at a later stage in life should have no chance of a job, but it is to be expected that it may be more difficult.

good luck with the job searches

[moggiee]

Operating supersonic aircraft for example, then yes I agree there is an undeniable increase in performance for the younger person.
Do you mean supersonic military aircraft or Concorde? I might agree with you if you are talking about Tornados or Typhoons, but not if you are talking about Concorde.

Life is a trade off between reactions, eyesight etc. and experience. I have flown with excellent older people and awful younger ones. I have also flown with excellent young crew and awful older ones!

It is down to the individual - experience, age, ability, reactions, ATTITUDE (above all else), personality etc. etc. etc. are the factors that make a person either suitable or not. From a Multi Crew viewpoint, I believe that by and large life experience counts for more than many people realise - people with experience of working in teams bring valuable skills to the flightdeck. They make take a little longer to pick up the threads of what they are learning, but often the overall package is more effective.

Mind you, an employer needs to consider return upon investment. If you need to invest time, energy, money and resources into training then you need to be fairly sure that the trainee will be a) able to complete the training successfully and b) there long enough to pay back the expense.

[Northern Highflyer]

They obviously want to get the longest amount of working time back from their investment especially when there is the retirement age rules in place for pilots.

Very true, but where is the evidence that a 23 year old will stay with a company longer than a 43 year old ?

Reading the posts in the Easyjet thread, many of the CTC cadets are bailing out for BA after 12 months. Not much return on investment there then.

[scroggs]

I think it's worth remembering that we are discussing the differences in human performance while at the controls of commercial aircraft.
No we're not. We're discussing legislation. The two are not remotely linked.

As for training - if both ages have recently passed ATPL's then the question of being able to learn has been proven.

Not true. Until a compulsory, demanding time limit is placed on training, the mere possession of the qualification is a very imperfect comment on ability and suitability for employment, and is one of the major reasons why employers build in further selection filters. There is potentially a world of difference between someone who has completed zero to CPL/IR with ME and MCC within, say, a 15-month timescale, no failures and first-time passes at all exams and another who's taken three or four years, failed a few exams and skill tests, and finally gets there out of sheer bloody-mindedness (and deep pockets). That's not to say that the latter is automatically unsuitable, but it's much more difficult to make an objective judgement based on such a training record.

The military have age restrictions for a number of very good and demonstrable reasons, not all of which are appropriate or applicable to civilian flying. The successful completion of basic fATPL training should be sufficient to take an applicant on to type-specific training, but it's not - because the playing field isn't level. Whether it ever will be is open to debate.

Anyway, that's an aside! Back to the ramifications of the legislation, please...

Scroggs

[Flying Farmer]

Scroggs I fully agree with what you have to say BUT as an older modular candidate (44 now) who got through in minimal time ie: matched the 15 months you suggested and with first time passes my observations are that ageism is rife within the industry.

Yes I can back this up, but it would be foolish as the industry is too small, do you see where I am coming from :ugh:

I await the new legislation with baited breath, although as I have said recently I suspect little will change.

[dartagnan]

do you remember the "age of cristal "movie, when older than 40 yo,you must die or shut by cops...
IS THIS THE KIND OF SOCIETY YOU WANT?
----

"Some employment lawyers, citing experience in other countries, including the United States and Ireland, have predicted that the latest age discrimination legislation will prompt a significant rise in employment tribunal cases."

good new for our attorneys!;)

------------------------

and here for recruiters : to avoid you some troubles(read 5 times every monday morning)

The regulations will:

prohibit discrimination in terms of recruitment, promotion and training;
prohibit unjustified retirement ages of below 65 years;
remove the current age limit for unfair dismissal claims and redundancy payments;
introduce a duty on employers to consider an employee’s request to continue working beyond retirement age;
require employers to inform employees at least six months in advance of their intended retirement date, and their right to request to work beyond that date.

[nomercy]

The new law will hopefully give older guys more opportunities. The problem is getting to the interview stage and having the opportunity to show your worth to the company. I am sure that many airlines currently employ screening methods which immediately eliminate all people over a certain age. When the new law comes in they will not be able to do this and they will be watched very closely. Yes they can always find a reason to decline you at interview but at least you have had the chance to put your case forward!

[dartagnan]

but at least you have had the chance to put your case forward!

exactly, you will have the occasion to present yourself in person...this mean you can not write your age on your CV.
and if they call you and ask for your age, you have the right to lie because asking for your age will be illegal...
--------
‘Any employer who has not got age equality as a priority in their business is going to be in trouble’.

yep, he will!!!:ouch:

[Flying Farmer]

Thats done it for me then I look 50 already :}

[scroggs]

Scroggs I fully agree with what you have to say BUT as an older modular candidate (44 now) who got through in minimal time ie: matched the 15 months you suggested and with first time passes my observations are that ageism is rife within the industry.
Yes I can back this up, but it would be foolish as the industry is too small, do you see where I am coming from :ugh:
I await the new legislation with baited breath, although as I have said recently I suspect little will change.

FF, I very much hope that the new legislation will allow you, and others like you, to be assessed solely on your merits. However, like you I'm sceptical, It's just too easy to disguise ageism (or any other discrimination) as 'getting the best people for the job'. That said, a consistent record of taking only young people will be difficult to defend, so there may be hope...

Scroggs

[The Real Slim Shady]

Just as an aside, we plan to utilise active retired people on a part time basis to augment the contracted staff as they have better life skills, more patience and can problem solve effectively. In some instances they are infinitely more suitable than younger staff.

And I dont have a problem with older, newer qualified pilots either so long as they understand the limitations imposed by lack of experience; same goes for new 200 hr guys.

[dartagnan]

Thats done it for me then I look 50 already :}

well my friend, I give you 2 choices:

1.you shoot yourself a bullet in the next 48 hours.You are not authorize to live after 40, you are the gangraine of our society and we must get rid of you...

2.Or I send governmental agents to take care of you...

(hide yourself until the 1st oct then you will be free:ok: .)

[backofthedrag]

There is hope for the older inexperienced pilot wanting to join an airline , after October 1st.
Any airline wishing to retain a seniority list would need to show that this did not directly or indirectly discriminate against any group protected by discrimination legislation.
The use of such a list for redundancy , for example, would need to show no great imbalance between those retained and those made redundant in terms of gender, race, creed , sexual orientation etc . Normally , of course , in a large airline, the statistical distribution would show no obvious bias .
However , now that age comes into the equation , the fact is that in this industry , the younger ones are at the bottom of the list, and this could be seen to be disadvantageous to a particular age group . Any airline wishing to maintain that situation would need to justify it or risk a challenge under the new regulations with unlimited liability.
It might be easier to to recruit a few oldies at the bottom of the list , and , hey presto , the situation is solved.
This is a very different situation than trying to prove you were discriminated against in a job application because of your age - the airlines will need you !

[ToneTheWone]

Can anybody see what the airlines have done over the last few years by prefering younger candidates?

They've been filling their boots with young fresh faced pilots knowing that after 1st October they will have to give us oldies a chance.

So old fogies of the world stand up and be proud. Suck in that pot belly, wear your combe-over with pride - our time has come:ok:

[jamestkirk]

Getting an interview is the hard part for me being 35.

I find it astonishing that a numeracy test etc. would give a more balanced view of an individual that a good structured interview. Some call it screening. I call it lazy.

Personally that it the biggest frustration for me.

ToneTheWone : why did'nt yo say anything about the combe over being back in fashion. I have just had a grade 2 done all over. You will easily get the job ahead of me now.

Oh, and in the movie 'Logans Run', you had to sacrafice yourself at 30 years of age. Apparatrenly you are not capable of flying an aircraft after that age so the story must have been written by members of GAPAN, BA, CTC, Easyjet etc.

[ICING AOA]

I think this new legislation will be (maybe?) benefic to old people who want to do a ground staff job, or becoming a cashier in a supermarket, things like that, but I dont think airlines will change their policy about pilots recruitments.
It is already hard like HELL for a very young pilot to find a pilot job without experience anyway !

[ToneTheWone]

Dear James

Don't be too down hearted about missing out on the combe-over. If you've got a bit of a bald patch great, if not the create one and draw attention to it by making it stand out. I find bees wax does a wonderful job.

When you do get an interview, I would also suggest a couple of other tricks. Such as tilting your head to one side and pretend to be just a little deaf. Express an interest in gardening and bowling - not ten pin as this will give the game away! Refer to yourself as Jim and not James and wear sensible shoes. But to really impress them, wear a tie with just a hint of yesterdays dinner on it!

Good luck:ok:

[jamestkirk]

With that advice, may i say that you are a god amongst mortals.

I would even put you up there with David hasselhoff

[Stratman]

I would love to see this age discrimination act being adopted or being used by pilots who consider that their age was the reason for their applications being rejected.Trouble is that its very difficult to prove as the prime reason.
Airlines will tell you that ageism has never been their policy,but self evidently it is normally their practise. Depending on who is running the show at the time their reasons for age cut-offs vary, most of them nonsense in my experience.Their has always been an eliteist overtone in this industry and that has set it apart from many jobs giving weight to outmoded and irrelavent examinations and strange selection procedures , very little of which mean anything really. Ultimately flying an aeroplane is just another job, some people do it very well and are very accurate, others are fine but maybe not so polished, this is the same in any industry and rarely has anything to do with age.One of the worst things about aviation is people running around with the attitude that being a pilot is something special and therefore the preserve of certain age groups or people with certain accents.I came from a marine engineering background where after 8 years of training being in charge of a 250,000 tonne ships engine room made the inside of any flightdeck that I have worked on look very bare by comparison. A far more complex job in every way believe me , yet there were none of the attitudes and predudices and any of the engineers that I worked with would have found flying very straightforward probabaly boring , but at least you remain clean. In conclusion you need a balance of ages in any job after all you have to sit next to one another for long enough, and I get fed up with people who have never heard of Led Zeppelin or Barry Sheene.

[touch&go]

Legislation prohibiting age discrimination in the workplace

While watching Working Lunch today and an item on the show was about age discrimination and the new law coming into place of the 1st October and has got me thinking about CTC, back in 2000 I came out of college with an Frozen ATPL and looked at how I was going to get an airline job, one of the only ways into a large airline then was through the CTC scheme, but as I was just over the age limit I couldn’t apply, this did hack me off and felt was unfair so I just went out and got a job on my own, and now six years down the line I am sitting in a 80 ton jet so who needed CTC.

My point is with the change in the law how come CTC are still discriminating against age, I have put the following quotes from there web site.

Quote:

On the date of application you must be aged between 19 years and 34 years (within 3 months of your 34th birthday)

The programme is a partnership between CTC, participating airlines, cadets and young pilots seeking their first airline experience. There are two routes into the programme – Wings Cadet entry, for young people who have little or no flying experience, and Wings ATP entry, for pilots holding a JAA CPL.

[iamtheone]

If you look at other sponsorships in the aviation industry you will see that they too have their age limits. For eample NATS - you cannot apply after 28th birthday... Eurocontrol - you can not apply after your 26 birthday. I suppose that CTC must have criteria they have to meet from the corporate partners. CTC must have to draw the line somewhere. Generally where they get the best results. I dont know how peoples performance in different age brackets corrolate - maybe that isnt even an issue. I suppose it may not seem fair, especially if you have just crossed that upper age boundary. I dont think it is discrimination, i think its a personal preferance from the company. They couldnt train a 55 year old from scratch because his/her service life would be too short so there would be no benifit to anyone in doing so. I have always heard that you learn faster as a younger person, thats not to say anyone older cannot learn fast either.. but in an ab-initio scenario it must keep the costs down for CTC if the cadets manage to get through everything easily.

[Lucifer]

I believe that since CTC is a selection for a training scheme and not a job per se, there is no applicability of age discrimination law to their method of selection. Perhaps a lawyer would confirm?

[touch&go]

Lucifer your probably right but with them placing people with airlines I think it could be a grey area,as anyone at the time with low hours who wanted to work for Easyjet had to go through the CTC scheme so it was kind of a job interview.

[high-hopes]

there is a little difference though...

NATS train you for free and also give you a salary while training. And on completion of training, guarantee an immediate job.
CTC don't, and will get the money back from you plus interest.

In a certain way, you are a customer to CTC, although they recruit on behalf of the likes of easyjet

[will fly for food 06]

I was just wondering whats the latest,
hi im only 23 and are just in the process of leaving my current aviation employer, with only 350 hours and being young i want to see the world and maybe do a degree, which means il be most likely 28-29 when i look at funding my licence. will that be too old for most schemes?

[Willing to sell soul]

With the new age discrimination laws now in effect, I just wondred if fellow prunersa are omitting age and date of birth from your CV's?

Also, has anyone noticed if the like's of Flybe, BACON, CTC etc. have revised their application forms as yet?

Cheers,
WTSS

[Dr Eckener]

I would imagine young people will leave their DOB on, and old people will not, so still easy to check age. This law is not going to be a magic wand for us older folks.

Also, even if they remove the DOB request from online apps, they still ask lots of other dates, such as school exams, so won't take a brain surgeon to work out how old we are.

Personally I am going to leave my DOB on (not that old, more intermediate!). I don't want to turn up for an interview and get a look that says 'oh we were expecting someone younger'.

Anyway, 1500+ hrs, 300+ multi, mid-30's, still looking.

[Thumperdown]

BA Connect has, in the not too distant past, started 2 F/O's. One was 52, the other 46. The website for application is not open at the moment but will comply with all current legislation when it does. The company has a reputation for fair employment and recruitment and has never discriminated for any reason.
Regards
Thumper

[magicmick]

I would be grateful if anyone out there who is clued in on the new anti ageism legislation can help me out with a query.

I understand that the new legislation outlaws ageism in employment and vocational training but I have noticed that certain training organisations still apply age limits to their training courses (CTC AQC). Also some airlines who offer training sponsorship and provisional employment schemes still apply age limits to those schemes.

I did recently challenge an airline over sponsorship age limits and was told that because they were offering sponsorship for training and not direct employment they were within their rights to apply age limits.

My query is does the word or the spirit of the legislation allow training schools and sponsors to apply age limits or are they operating outside the law?

My own opinion is that the new legislation will have little effect on ageism other than driving it under ground ie oldies will be interviewed and tested but will be informed that they have been rejected because they did not interview well or their sim check was no good.

[Re-Heat]

I did recently challenge an airline over sponsorship age limits and was told that because they were offering sponsorship for training and not direct employment they were within their rights to apply age limits.
My understanding is that this application of the new law is indeed correct, and that these are an offer for training and not job.

[High Wing Drifter]

The CTC schemes are selection and training specifically for employment to the employer's requirements. EasyJet specifies that the CTC schemes are the only way to get into Easy if you don't qualify for DEP. Therefore, I think it is a fair point, the age limit (especially for the ATP scheme) does seem to fly in the face of the new law.

[scruggs]

So does this means schemes like Air Atlantique, Highland Airways, CCAT FlyBe etc will have to remove the upper age limit restrictions?

I have a sad feeling that airlines will always be able to get around these kinds of laws and continue to discriminate. :sad:

[UlsterPPL]

Thumperdown,

Just a little bit outside the topic. You mentioned that there were two people joining recently at age 52 and 46. Do they have many hours on their licence already? Since it looks like age is not an issue for EXPERIENCED pilot but low hours wannabes.

[High Wing Drifter]

For eample NATS - you cannot apply after 28th birthday
The NATS upper age restriction seems to have been removed :)

[scroggs]

The intention of the new legislation is to remove all age discrimination in vocational training and employment, leaving only aptitude and character as the grounds on which to accept or decline an applicant (with the only exceptions being, as far as I am aware, the military and the police). Any company that continues to operate a policy of excluding applicants by age is leaving themselves open to litigation under the new legislation. I have no doubt that a test case or two will be required before they all drop into line, but into line they will have to come, no matter how much they don't like it.

Scroggs

[casino335]

Hi,
To the best of my knowledge the new age discrimination laws do apply to vocational training courses as mentioned before. I do believe that in the case of CTC (which provides two training programmes) and other training courses, who apply a maximum age limit policy for applicants, will have no option but to change their policy on upper age limits as currently (you could say) they are illegal and open to prosecution - i guess we are just waiting for a precedent case. In my opinion, application forms will have to omit D.O.B and school/college/work dates (using school/college/work periods of attendance instead....e.g. 3 years at college), so as not to discriminate on the grounds of age - mind you, why do some application forms still ask for "race", and why does it seem that everytime i get invited to pilot sponsorship selection days that fellow applicants are nearly always young, white, middle-class males...ermmm?

To be fair, i think the new age laws are a good thing (maybe not so if your early 20's as competition could be even more fierce:bored::i'm late 20's btw:E), and i really believe that if an applicant for a pilot training programme, say in their late 30's, passes pilot aptitude tests (which i thought measured an applicants suitability for pilot training irrespective of his/her age), interviews, and generally outperforms younger applicants then he/she should unquestionably be selected. You could argue that an older person in pilot training has less working years ahead of them once employed by an airline, but how many people today stay with the same company (or airline) during their working lives?

As regards to current RAF age limits of 23 for pilot (even less when you consider you usually have apply 6 months before your 23rd birthday), well, i'm kinda on the fence. Yes, pilot training in the RAF seems to be longer, than say for an airline pilot, as they seem to put a good deal of emphasis on making potentially good officers into pilots, rather than good pilots into officers. Futhermore, it's one thing to be able to fly a complex military fast jet at treetop height: it's another thing being able to use the aircraft as a weapon. There is a strong case for the RAF that 'cause of the complexity and length of its officer/pilot training that a younger person would be more suitable than someone older, although it's worth mentioning that the USAF, RAAF (and many other airforces) have much higher age limits for recruiting their aircrew and (arguably) have as good training, equipment and pilots, if not better than the RAF. It might also be worth saying (and maybe it's totally obvious), that nearly everyone that strolls into a RAF AFCO wants to be a pilot (don't blame them to be honest) with much of the other RAF officer careers going untouched in comparison. My final thought of the day (hurray) although a little wild: will the RAF have an age limit on transferring its frontline fast jet pilots to train on the new typhoon fighter which is considerably more sophisticated than current RAF fighters?

Sorry for dragging on for so long.....:ugh:

[smith]

(with the only exceptions being, as far as I am aware, the military and the police)

Casino

Age discrimination not really applicable to the RAF.

[scroggs]

The politics of age 'discrimination' in the Services is not appropriate to this forum, which exists to discuss civilian commercial flying. Suffice to say that war is not an old man's game, and never will be. As such, military recruitment will always be aimed at young people.

Scroggs

[bjkeates]

You 'younguns' need to start worrying because the oldies are coming up behind you and you may be getting some competition, the glorious smell of stale urine and preparation h[?] may soon be creeping into certain training organisations. Be afraid.........be very afraid.


Ever since these regulations were announced, there has been an overwhelming attitude in these forums from some of the older posters - an attitude that now the age restrictions have to disappear, they will have an automatic ticket into the industry. (I'm not directing this specifically at you, magicmick, this is just a general impression I'm getting.) What these people have to realise is that all it allows them to do is pass the initial application requirements - there are often still some very hard stages of selection to pass, depending on the route chosen (airline, training scheme, etc.) What makes you assume you'll automatically be better during selection than the younger ones you might now be competing against?

It's not just that; also these same people think they're far more likely to get into jobs/training schemes because they have more "life experience" than the young'uns coming out of school and university to talk about in their interviews. I hate that phrase "life experience" - it's meaningless. So what if you know more people than you did when you were 20, you've held down a steady job in an accountant's office for 15 years or you've travelled and seen half of the world? Great, but it doesn't necessarily make you airline pilot material!

I'm all for fair and unbiased selection and would wish anyone who is able to take advantage of this new legislation and apply, where they would previously not have been able to, the best of luck. Go for it. My paragraphs above are based on the fact that there are a few contributors, not just on this thread, who IMHO need to be a bit realistic - it's very hard for young'uns to get into the industry, and it may well be equally hard for you oldies as well! ;)

[smith]

So what if you know more people than you did when you were 20, you've held down a steady job in an accountant's office for 15 years or you've travelled and seen half of the world? Great, but it doesn't necessarily make you airline pilot material!


Agreed, may not make you a better pilot but may make you more interesting to the Captain sitting beside you in the LHS for six or eight hours.

I am sure some of the selection criteria is how one would get on with fellow flight crew especially captains.

Talking about university, accountancy and world travel may be more enjoyable than talking about the latest clearasil products, your first wet dream and whose going to win X Factor to an experienced captain heading for reitrement.

[LAX]

I was 20 when I started to learn to fly (no money), 32 when I was in a position to consider a career as a commercial pilot, just turned 36 when I started my first job. I agree with bjkeates that if your an older candidate and expect the new laws to suddenly open up new jobs your very much mistaken. I have to say that of all the airlines I have interviewed with (in the UK), they are more than fair in considering all aspects of what a person has to offer. They dont care about age! For example, there was a thread on pprune regarding Ezy not wanting to recruit anyone over 40, then supprise supprise a training capt posted that he had flown recently with a low hrs guy in his 40s. Like I say I think today most airlines are more than fair and give everyone consideration regardless of age. The fundimental problem for all starting out in this business is too many wanabees, low hrs and not the experience the airlines are looking for.

On saying that, when I was 22 with a brand new Engineering degree the first company I worked for approached me and asked if I would like to work for them..........so they made me an offer and accepted. Thats life.....companys always have and always will want to recuit early 20s something, bright, high calibre boys and girls. As regards CTC, yep I have nothing but contempt for them as I was just a few months to old to apply for their wings scheme, however, like so many before I succeeded without them. Get over it!

Look back through this thread and others and find posts by ROY HUDD, theres a guy who started when he was older but knew what he was doing. Take his advice and wise words. I think many fail to get work not because of age but the fact that people put all their effort into getting the Licience and have no real plan of action of what they are going to do to get a job and how to make themselves stand out in the pilot pool.

The real question today for anybody starting out is as you get older are you going to get a real return on your investment considering the cost of training, loss of earnings and intrest payments?

Good luck to you all. Dont beat yourselves up over age. Most airlines today are fair if you have what they are looking for.

[BobbyK]

Talking about university, accountancy and world travel may be more enjoyable than talking about the latest clearasil products, your first wet dream and whose going to win X Factor to an experienced captain heading for reitrement.

Haha that made me laugh.

One thing that did just come to mind is a lot of the flight schools talk about risk minimisation when they look for candidates. Whether its good aptitude or a passion for flying in interview that convinces the flight school you will be low risk is down to the candidate but with the new anti age laws there could be something else which may prevent older pilots from being accepted. First of all as you get older you may have more health problems and this may lead to older candidates not passing the initial medical but assuming they do, at 40 you have to retake your medical every 6 months. Now is a flight school going to consider a 40+ applicant low risk, if they know full well that within 6 months they could no longer be eligable to fly? Can they use this to discriminate even when age laws state they cant refuse applications from pilots of any age? Just a thought, interested to hear what other people think of this

Rob