Air NZ discriminating against older pilots!
 

Makes for an interesting read!

Air New Zealand 'shafted' elderly pilots over Airbus training | Stuff.co.nz

Yes it makes sense to put the youngsters on the computers, if you want them put through a course quickly, therefore on the cheap.

I've been over 40 years in this business and I know you can take a kid out of an amusement arcade and they would do a quicker job than I ever could pushing buttons. Forget about flying skills as they don't rate very highly now if at all, among management types, as it is all about money. Experience of the older pilots? Not worth a damn now. Airbuses are "un-crashable" aren't they? Except when they are blown up or otherwise interfered with.

Pilot less aircraft here we come and we had better get used to it.

"If it ain't Boeing I'm not going"

The sooner we take pilots out of the flight deck the sooner we lower the fatality rate even more, since most aviation accidents are caused by human error. The technology isn't quite there yet but it isn't far off. Once driver less cars are the norm aircraft are sure to follow. I am okay with that.

Human error is a function of all humans. Accidents are a function of numerous causes. Engineering maintenance, air traffic, management, cabin crew, loading and ground operations just to mention a few. Pilotless planes and driverless cars are open to cyber hacking.

Certainly is an interesting read, but what an absolute joke! Not the fact that they are over 65, that's up to them, but the fact that a few bits of information were either missing or grossly incorrect.

They were given the same course as everyone else. Everyone else had also come off a Boeing. Everyone else passed the course. But, everyone else does not get the luxury of repeating the course when they fail it and then repeating it again as a first officer when they fail it a second time as a captain.

I personally don't have an issue with them working over 65 if they are fit and competent, but to expect special treatment when they have riden the pigs back most their careers and can no longer chin the bar that the rest of us have to chin is rediculous!

And then to try and pin it on the training department or your fellow colleagues who you are observing with? Look in the mirror, the time to bow out gracefully has passed. Stop trying to milk the cow and leave some for those who still have their careers ahead of them!

I think it's quite telling that the course referred to by John* was the first to have had its training content reduced.

Something definitely afoot, there. Sure, it may be legal, it may even be "Best practice", but it comes across as a bit underhand to me.

The training course had not been reduced. It was the same course that had been completed by everyone else in the 2 years previous. It may have been longer once upon a time, but that was long before any conspiracy of culling any elderly pilots.

Ask Tesla how that's going!

Iron Hide,

Your post reminds me of the story of the old bull and the young bull, the one where the young bull wants to race down and cut out one cute cow, and the old one replies that perhaps it be a somewhat better idea to just wander on down and cut them all out.

Thankfully, I have had the advantage of riding on the pig's back. I have flown when aviation was a fantastic job, made a shed load of money, and have never had to be an aviation prostitute - have you?

Not only can I still do profile in my head, I can string sentences together so that they make sense, and I can spell simple words such as 'ridden' and 'ridiculous' without consulting this big ol' book they call a 'dictionary' - you might like to look that one up yourself.

Whilst I would be happy to retire and sit quietly on the riverbank, with the fly rod in one hand and a lovely merlot in the other, I continue to drag my poor sorry backside to work. This is in part to ensure that those impetuous youngins, who can neither spell nor craft a proper sentence, let alone be left in the flight deck unaccompanied, aren't promoted to the left seat before they are capable.

But I suspect you were trolling for a reply such as this and I have thus engaged in your game. With the attitude you portray, well... enjoy your career in the right seat :)

Square Bear; Re the third and fourth paragraphs of your post;

Should we ever meet, the drinks are on me!:ok:

Square Bear :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

Square Bear. Wonderful.

says it all really.

see ya john*

Biased, underhand reporting - nothing new there. All the details you need are in Iron Hide's post #5.

While Square Bear's retort is rather eloquent and I agree with the gist of it, I think the point is being missed here a little!

You guys are trying to turn this into a "young vs old" pilot argument. The simple fact is that these guys are getting far more training offered to them than an under 65 pilot and yet they are still not able to get through. What do you suggest? Lower the standard so they can keep a command? There is nothing particularly difficult about an Airbus type rating, it just requires work. If you turn up for the course at 9am and wait to be taught, you will fail, young or old. You need to put in a lot of hours on your own time and be genuinely motivated to pass. One of the big complaints is that the manuals are too difficult to navigate! Are you kidding me? They are written by Airbus. Should an airline produce an Airbus For Dummies big print version?

And for the guy who says he is only sticking around to prevent younger pilots being promoted to save us from ourselves, where do I start? It's not like the average candidate for command is a 25 year old " child of the magenta line". I don't know of any captains under 40, and would say the average upgrade would be between 45 and 55. These are vastly experienced pilots who pass their checks and get the job done. But hey, thanks for sticking around and showing us how it's done.

Interesting article,We have/had the same issues where I'm at.The Boeing rollovers definitely have the issues,not sure why because we had many come from RJs,Dash,embraer,and pass the first time around.The Airbus philosophy can be difficult to grasp,but as posters have said,you need to do the hard yards.The training,we were given 18 sim sessions,and those that had difficulty were paired and extra training given,failure on the 3rd check,your out,and we did lose quite a few.

The key to the training was anytime use of CPT trainers,video,and volunteer pilots,24/7.I personally volunteered my time with the problem boys,and most got through with the additional poundings,some,just NEVER get it,bloody tough for sure.

My personal opinion ,there is no reason to wash this type of experience down the drain,irregardless of "your in my seat attitude".Programmes need to be designed to at least proffer extra training within "reason"to those having difficulty.Years of ingrained training has paid off for the airlines in question,they need to be receptive of that and cater to it.For those that don't agree,put yourselves in the same position.You may find yourself in "that" position one day.Its not "special" training,it's maximizing the return on your investment.

Square Bear....you have got to be kidding?

Calling the Air NZ lot young??

Then saying without you there to save the day.....?

The level of arrogance in your post rivals that in the newspaper article.

Get your head out of your ass.

Standards should not be dropped for young nor old.

Do the work.

Pakehaboy, I agree entirely. And anyone struggling does get additional training. I can't say how much as I'm not in the training department so it is all second hand, but it is significant. Some even pass the type rating but are failing line training. Which points to issues more around decision making and airmanship than technical manipulation. The last I know of had a full command line training programme, a failed check, extra line training, a right seat conversion, six months in right seat, much with trainers in the left, another left seat conversion, and then another failed check. Sounds pretty generous to me. Do you want that guy flying your kids around?

Everyone deserves a fair crack, and if some don't think they have had it, fair enough. You have the right to fight your corner. BUT, be honest about the training you received and the reasons for your failure. If a guy off a turboprop can get through, while having to learn all company procedures, SOPs etc on top of the type rating, surely a vastly experienced company veteran should be able to manage.

Training for the Airbus is running at absolute capacity and Captains are desperately needed on line. The last thing the company would want is to tie up the sim for weeks on end, and still not get a type rated pilot at the end of the process.

Offcut,ditto on your post.Do not get the impression that I'm in favour of favour,s and lowering standards,definitely not!!The issues you highlight,are the issues I see everyday,and yes,the line is where it is the biggest issue,not the type ride.You must reside in the training environment that is offered,and the hard yards must be done whether it be on the company's or your time,difficult choices and decisions must be made.No argument here on your post.

I just don't see it, if you can't reach the required standard within the training environment at your particular airline then obviously there are consequences. With Air NZ desperate for A320 crew I can't see them going out of their way to 'fail' anyone.

The article to me seems to highlight a person who will not take responsibility for his/her own failings, instead looking for other reasons to blame. When I joined my first 'proper' airline the A320 rating had just been shortened from 14 sim sessions including check down to 10 sessions including check. The length of each session had also been reduced from 4 hours down to 3 hours, this was done as there was a massive training load on the A320 fleet. Most of us passed with a lot of hard work, a couple of guys failed and were offered some extra training that didn't go well and they were let go, age had nothing to do with it.

On the flip side of his/her argument, should the amount of training you get be reliant on your age or experience. O.K so he flew boeings his whole career, does that mean he gets special treatment when he converts to a non-boeing type, what about long haul to short haul, turbo-prop to jet. I assume when he accepted the transfer he did so with the knowledge of the length and type of training.