Flybe MAPS

[sicky]

They also fund an upset training course aswell as the JOC and TR.

It's not exactly a sponsorship, but it's not too different to what the other "sponsorships" actually are either.

I have a CTC stage 2 resit in Setpember, but i'm not holidng out for anything, i'm trying to keep all my options open and having a go at every possible option aswell. It seems like the most sensible thing to do!

[no sponsor]

Definitely select CTC over and above the Flybe scheme. You do get a job at CTC if you make it through to the end, and it will be on 737, 757 or A320s.

Most who joined Flybe through the sponsored schemes will leave to go to other airlines. I can never quite figure out why these airlines do these schemes when they have a low retention rate. For BA yes, as most stay until retirement, but not the case here.

There already is a huge pool of wannabes to select from.

[Superpilot]

The reason why FlyBE cannot retain their pilots boils down to one thing. No muppet is going to hang around earning less than 30k for 5 or more years, especially with a huge loan to pay off. And as you get older, you will be settling down, marriage, a house+mortgage. How can anyone cope?

As has been mentioned many times before, the FlyBE MAPS scheme should be the most economically unviable option out there for those who will need to take out a loan. All your loan repayments will be made from your (after tax) salary. Just look on www.ppjn.com for the current salary scale, I've been earning more than a 5 year FlyBE Turboprop FO salary for two years as a mere IT bod, and I'm still only 24. Career or no career, although I've been wanting it all my life I'm prepared to wait another 6 years if I have to but will never succumb to schemes such as the above. If they considered Modular students, I'd think differently.

[fat_albert]

Anybody know if the loan with BBVA will be unsecured on the MAPS scheme? I'd love to say I have a large pile of cash down the back of the sofa, but I haven't.

Looks like it'll be a trip to the bank begging!

[Superpilot]

I meant MAPS scheme considering "structured Modular" students.

[sicky]

On the bright side though, it would giveyou a job, and "hour building", so tospeak.

[LD Max]

Flybe MAP scheme soon illegal?

I post this for general discussion.

This is the "candidate profile" for acceptance into the Flybe MAP scheme as posted on the Flight Training Europe Website:

Candidate Profile: We are looking for high calibre, motivated individuals who are keen to work for the UK’s largest independent regional airline.

To be eligible for this scheme you must be between 18 and 35 years of age on application, have a minimum of 2 A-Level passes, Grade C or above (or equivalent), and have 5 GSCE passes including Maths, English and a Science subject at Grade C or above, as well as the right to live and work in the UK.

I would postulate that the age restriction of 18 - 35 years of age will soon be illegal, although the Flybe MAP scheme is not the only one to blatently discriminate unfairly on the issue of age. The Easyjet / CTC "Wings" scheme is similarly restrictive to older pilots.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 will come into force on 1 October this year.

Section 7(1)(b) provides that it will be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee "in the terms on which he offers that person employment". This will include the length of any contract or the availabilty of training and selection programs upon which any offer is conditional. Unjustifiably treating someone less favourably than another person on the grounds of their age will amount to discrimination.

The majority of cases brought under the regulations are likely to focus on the meaning of 'justification'. The regulations actually state that the act or policy in question must be a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim", but no further guidance is given. It will therefore be up to individual tribunals and appellate courts to determine what is and isn't justified.

Any Comments?

LD Max

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by LD Max

Any Comments?
LD Max

Yes - remove the age restriction from the adverts, and throw away any applications from people over the age of 35!

They don't have to tell you why they rejected you, after all!

[A38lephant]

Section 7(1)(b) provides that it will be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee "in the terms on which he offers that person employment". This will include the length of any contract or the availabilty of training and selection programs upon which any offer is conditional. Unjustifiably treating someone less favourably than another person on the grounds of their age will amount to discrimination.


I guess the key here is whether MAPS scheme amounts to an offer of employment..I haven't looked at it in any detail however if it is like most mentored/scholarship schemes it will not per se amount to an offer of employment. Lawyers can be very literal if they want to.

As I said not looked at it in much detail so not 100% sure

[LD Max]

Are you serious?

Moggiee... So what if you're Ethnic, Female or both?
Discrimination is discrimination, on whatever grounds. Employers will have to comply with anti-discrimination laws in all respects and woe betide those which don't.
I would be interested to hear what the Unions are doing...
LD Max

[LD Max]

I guess the key here is whether MAPS scheme amounts to an offer of employment

Nope... indirect discrimination covers training for employment too - especially when an offer of a contract is dependant upon participation in a specific training scheme.

General guidelines can be seen here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/...9&chk=q3aE%2B4

Stop unjustified age discrimination in employment and work-related training

Employers will have to make sure that any redundancy policies don’t directly discriminate against older workers. They should also not discriminate indirectly – for example, by selecting only part-time workers for redundancy, when a large number of these may be older workers. The only exceptions will be where an age requirement can be objectively justified.

LD Max

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

My understanding is that such age requirements will have to be dropped. UNLESS they can go to great length to prove that they are justified. Which essentially they can't.

Cheers

WWW

[potkettleblack]

As with all legislation there are ways and means around it and I can't see the airlines or CTC or for that matter any employer losing any sleep over it. As mentioned above they can of course remove the ageist bits in their adverts and simply bin the cv's that don't fit the profile they are after. Of course some on the ball HR person might point out that if they don't interview anyone over 35 then they might be open to criticism/legal action so of course they can select 1 lucky punter and go through the hoops and then bin them at a later date. There is of course no need to give a reason for the binning and in fact with the way that EU legislation is heading it is in the interests of employers to say very little for fear of recrimination. So in summary nothing will change, well not unless the airlines change their view that anyone over 35 is suddenly less of a training risk which is primarily why the "old" age limit was there in the first place.

[LD Max]

not unless the airlines change their view that anyone over 35 is suddenly less of a training risk which is primarily why the "old" age limit was there in the first place.

A training risk to whom? Nowadays, the candidate is having to pay for just about everything from SIM assessment through to Type Rating. The airline just picks up the line training, and that costs them bu**er all because they are getting a body to sit in the co-pilot seat for substantially less than it would cost them for a fully qualified person.

As mentioned earlier, the legislation states (vaguely) that in justifying an age limit, the act or policy in question must be a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". It would be disproportionate to disqualify a candidate from a training course on the presumption that he / she was less likely to pass it on the grounds of his / her age, when in fact the contrary is more likely to be true. Substitute "gender" or "race" for the word "age" and it makes more sense.

Of course some on the ball HR person might point out that if they don't interview anyone over 35 then they might be open to criticism/legal action so of course they can select 1 lucky punter and go through the hoops and then bin them at a later date.

I just don't see that this has any mileage. The true test is "proportionate representation", as applied to all other areas of anti-discrimination law. If a disproportionate number of recruits are under 35, two or three years down the road it will be obvious what is happening. In the meantime, I would predict a couple of lawsuits will already be in the pipeline.

LD Max

[Keygrip]

So, LD, what about "body mass index" (or whatever it's correctly called).

Imagine someone with two ATPL's (different countries), thousands of hours of commercial experience, two class one medicals - but being told height/weight ratio not suitable.

Is that discrimination, too? Should they get a lawyer and start legal action?

[A38lephant]

Nope... indirect discrimination covers training for employment too - especially when an offer of a contract is dependant upon participation in a specific training scheme.

LD MAX, Were you referring to

"Stop unjustified age discrimination in employment and work-related training :
Employers will have to make sure that any redundancy policies don’t directly discriminate against older workers. They should also not discriminate indirectly – for example, by selecting only part-time workers for redundancy, when a large number of these may be older workers. The only exceptions will be where an age requirement can be objectively justified."

The point I was trying to get across (sorry i was in a rush earlier and not very clear) was that you are neither offered employment until you complete the scheme and, even if you complete the scheme you still may not be offered employment.
You are offered a place on a specific training scheme, (not employment)which increases your chances of an offer of a job.
Hence you will not be "employed" nor an "employee" until there is a job offer made and accepted. This would make this wording difficult to enforce for schemes such as Flybe/CTC.
My interpretation would be that "work related training" refers to those already employed - i.e not selecting a person because they are older for further type rating training. Being neither a lawyer nor a pilot I'm only giving my interpretation. Its an interesting debate though!

[LD Max]

KG...

So, LD, what about "body mass index" (or whatever it's correctly called).

I'd support the view that it is potentially discriminatory - certainly. The question is really whether or not there is legislation which covers it, and this thread is to discuss the effects of the new legislation being introduced in the UK.

If the person in question is fit enough to qualify for a Class One medical, the limiting factor must be whether or not he / she can perform the duties required. This question must take into account physical ability and dimensions e.g. too tall or too short as well as too wide!

But for all practical purposes an otherwise fit individual who has an unfortunately high BMI should not be declined an airline job on this basis alone.

To specifically address the issue you've raised though - I'm not sure what legislation you would need to refer to. My first thought is perhaps the Disability Discrimination Act. I did a little research and came up with the following:

The Government published statutory guidance in 1996, primarily to assist adjudicating bodies like courts and tribunals in deciding whether a person is a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act. This guidance can be viewed here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/ExternalLin...w/practice.asp

For the purposes of the Act:

"Substantial" means neither minor nor trivial;
"Long term" means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions);
"Normal day-to-day activities" include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping;
A normal day-to-day activity must affect one of the 'capacities' listed in the Act which include mobility, manual dexterity, speech, hearing, seeing and memory.

At first sight, I doubt that being overweight would fall within the scope of the act unless it affected day to day activities - and then I doubt the candidate would qualify for a Class One Medical if this were the case.

So the honest answer is, "I don't know", but I would certainly agree with your example in principle.

[jb5000]

So which CTC partner airline would you sue for discrimination?

I can't imagine you could ever sue CTC because they are just putting limits on the people who can apply to them. We are not talking about a university or school but a company that can quite rightly choose who it wants to have as customer.

It just seems that people are looking for somewhere to vent their anger and frustration with the industry as a whole.

[potkettleblack]

So which CTC partner airline would you sue for discrimination?

No one will sue. Aviation is littered with hot heads threatening this and that and nothing ever comes of it. Read these forums for long enough and you will see many a tale of woe for the poor old pilot.

At the end of the day what wannabee wants to spend their hard earned on a long drawn out law suit with no certainty of success and the risk of "dirtying" your name in what is a very small tight knit industry. If a quango and regulator are appointed then I am sure they will be more interested in pursuing cases other than a >35 year old pilot rejected for a job. Were just not in the right "pc" category these days. Now a 62 year old from one of the accession states who has no relevant qualifications, poor at best grasp of english - now there is a case they would pursue for sure!!!!

[LD Max]

So which CTC partner airline would you sue for discrimination?

I started this thread on the premise that the Flybe MAP scheme may soon be illegal. It is merely representative of other schemes which, as you rightly point out, are operated by CTC on behalf of other partner airlines. There are many others also.

I would have thought that the basis of any case must be specifically to do with an individual's eligibility to enrol in a particular scheme on the basis of an advertised employment opportunity. Are the entry conditions discriminatory?

For example: "Clean Shaven Pilots only need apply", would most likely breach the race and religious discrimination act.

On this basis the scheme operators would be liable... and IMHO this would place joint liability on both the training providers and the employers, (and possibly even the publishers of the advertisement). The case would simply be about whether the ??? discrimination act has been breached.

No one will sue. Aviation is littered with hot heads threatening this and that and nothing ever comes of it.

PKB, I am not trying to stir up any hotheads here. But employment legislation is a very active sector for the legal profession and I do not see why Aviation should be exempt. What should be remembered is that "equality" is all about finding the best person for the job. It is in employer's interests to treat all people equally regardless of race, colour, creed, sexual persuasion and, (imminently), age.

The industry's resistance to employing older pilots is archaic, unfounded, entrenched and unfair. It needs to be challenged, but until such time as the new age discrimination legislation becomes Law, there has been no instrument with which to do it.

ACAS has some very useful guidance on equality policies which many airlines could do well to adopt. But in fact, many employment related legal cases which are brought by individuals, are supported or even funded by their unions.

I'm not a Lawyer either and as I said earlier, I would be interested to hear what the Union Reps have to say about this. (and lawyers too!!)

Regards,

LD Max