Flybe MAPS
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A38lephant
[B]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!
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!
In short... finding the best person for the job.
I'm glad you find it an interesting debate. I thought so too, because we know that this "ideal" doesn't happen in so many areas already - not just in relation to age. This is why strong Unions are so important. We need to debate these issues and raise the profile of equality in this industry.
Regards,
LD Max
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Well its a bit of a moot point really, Flybe are not suddenly going to start spending their money on sponsoring old gits that they don't really want in the first place, just because of some EU anti-ageist legislation!
If Flybe are only looking to sponsor hot sh!t young maverick impersonators aged 20 or under, and the EU tells them they can't sponsor that kid and they have to sponsor some 48 year old stockbroker career-change daydreamer instead, because of some bollocky EU legislation - then of course they will just bin the scheme altogether. They aren't going to go out of their way to do something they are not obliged to do - spend money on training student pilots - unless they can get the ideal candidates. As so many on this forum love to point out, there are plenty of already-qualified young FATPLs floating about so why do airlines feel the need to sponsor in the first place?
Either way, the chances of 'older' people obtaining sponsorship are not going to rise above zero.
If Flybe are only looking to sponsor hot sh!t young maverick impersonators aged 20 or under, and the EU tells them they can't sponsor that kid and they have to sponsor some 48 year old stockbroker career-change daydreamer instead, because of some bollocky EU legislation - then of course they will just bin the scheme altogether. They aren't going to go out of their way to do something they are not obliged to do - spend money on training student pilots - unless they can get the ideal candidates. As so many on this forum love to point out, there are plenty of already-qualified young FATPLs floating about so why do airlines feel the need to sponsor in the first place?
Either way, the chances of 'older' people obtaining sponsorship are not going to rise above zero.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my attorney can not wait to sue these 
.
he needs money and he will be very happy to have a talk with you.
the deal is 50%.
BA, BMI, easy jet, ...watch out! it is now time to pay for your CRIME.
How to trick them?
send 2 CV, on one you are 29 years old, and one with 40...(use some pseudo emails address)
you can do the same thing with religion, race,... and see how they will answer .
happy sueing!!!
.he needs money and he will be very happy to have a talk with you.
the deal is 50%.
BA, BMI, easy jet, ...watch out! it is now time to pay for your CRIME.
How to trick them?
send 2 CV, on one you are 29 years old, and one with 40...(use some pseudo emails address)
you can do the same thing with religion, race,... and see how they will answer .
happy sueing!!!
As far as the BMI thing goes, if you don't fit the required specifications for the job then you may well not be able to do it for physical reasons. Air forces around the world impose these limitations on perfectly healthy people because they just don’t fit in the plane. Can you imagine the hassle required by a company to replace the pilots’ seat every time you fly? Let’s say you’re too tall, even if they lower the seat to its bottom stop your head may still touch the roof!
And if your a bit to wide (and may still pass medical) then your girth could affect the control movement, and infringe on the co-pilot side (Basic trainers c152, c172 are a tight fit even for regular size people). [Slightly off topic, there is a story of a large lady suing Robinson Helicopters because she is to big to fit in the R22, and exceeds the seat limit]
As for age, yes it does take longer to teach older people to do new things (old dog, new tricks) and you may argue 'but they are the ones paying for it themselves' however what about promotion? System upgrades? New aircraft? All these require more training paid for by the company, why should they employ an older pilot who well cost them more when a younger pilot with the same experience can be trained at a cheaper cost?
As for base training being cheep, not only do they have to employ you to sit in the right hand seat, but they employ someone else to sit behind you to take-over if/when you stuff up. That’s one extra wage.
Sure something’s seem unfair, but there are reasons for them.
Just to stir the pot here is a quick question for you: A company refuses to employ a man/woman (not a sex issue) because they refuse to remove their head gear while flying, is that the companies fault and a racial issue? Or the pilots fault for not respecting the dress code?
Safe Travel
And if your a bit to wide (and may still pass medical) then your girth could affect the control movement, and infringe on the co-pilot side (Basic trainers c152, c172 are a tight fit even for regular size people). [Slightly off topic, there is a story of a large lady suing Robinson Helicopters because she is to big to fit in the R22, and exceeds the seat limit]
As for age, yes it does take longer to teach older people to do new things (old dog, new tricks) and you may argue 'but they are the ones paying for it themselves' however what about promotion? System upgrades? New aircraft? All these require more training paid for by the company, why should they employ an older pilot who well cost them more when a younger pilot with the same experience can be trained at a cheaper cost?
As for base training being cheep, not only do they have to employ you to sit in the right hand seat, but they employ someone else to sit behind you to take-over if/when you stuff up. That’s one extra wage.
Sure something’s seem unfair, but there are reasons for them.
Just to stir the pot here is a quick question for you: A company refuses to employ a man/woman (not a sex issue) because they refuse to remove their head gear while flying, is that the companies fault and a racial issue? Or the pilots fault for not respecting the dress code?
Safe Travel
Yes but the point is that if someone did make a legal case against them they would have to defend their assertion that it takes longer or is harder to train a 42yr old than a 18 - 29yr old as advertised for. They couldn't just claim it without evidence that was strongly related to the job advertised for.
I cannot see where or how that evidence could be found.
Any defence relating to length of service post training would be severely undermined by examination of the turnover rates of pilots and the average length of service thus existing.
You can't just say well we'll just bin any over 30 CVs anyway or bin them at a later stage without giving a reason. Because if just one of those over 30 CVs happens to be black, gay, catholic etc and makes a claim then you are going to be standing up with nothing to say at a tribunal for discrimation upon which there is no limit for damages or compensation awards.
So your HR Manager won't let you just bin any CVs.
Cheers
WWW
I cannot see where or how that evidence could be found.
Any defence relating to length of service post training would be severely undermined by examination of the turnover rates of pilots and the average length of service thus existing.
You can't just say well we'll just bin any over 30 CVs anyway or bin them at a later stage without giving a reason. Because if just one of those over 30 CVs happens to be black, gay, catholic etc and makes a claim then you are going to be standing up with nothing to say at a tribunal for discrimation upon which there is no limit for damages or compensation awards.
So your HR Manager won't let you just bin any CVs.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put WWW.
I was just going to add in my response to rmcdonal that his "old dog new tricks" argument is just too anecdotal. Young dogs have trouble learning new tricks too and there are plenty of experienced older pilots out there who are being promoted, doing training, learning new systems and aircraft.
I just don't see any evidence at all that an older pilot represents more of a training risk than a younger pilot at the recruitment stage.
As far as I can see, the only area where an airline could reasonably argue that age makes any difference is in relation to length of service. But with retirement ages already moving upwards thanks to new guidance from ICAO, this would be a very hard argument to justify. In any case, equally anecdotal evidence suggests younger pilots are much more likely to leave a Company after unfreezing their ATPLs.
The real problem seems to be that this is the way the industry has always done it and there is always resistance to change. It is up to us to stand up for our rights - otherwise nothing will change.
Luke Sky Toddler... The issue is not only about sponsorship per se. It is about recruitment policy. If you "require" an applicant to be either:
1) Type rated with 500 hours on type and 1500 TT OR
2) Undertake training with XYZ
...then option 2 should be open to everyone - not just those under 35.
I would also add that the tone of your post is quite unnecessary. We are not talking about "hot sh!t young maverick impersonators" nor "48 year old stockbroker career-change daydreamers", and I personally would prefer not be referred to as an "old git". This is discriminatory language and if you made similar comments regarding colour or gender it would be clearly unacceptable.
Ageism is as much an issue as racism or sexism, and don't forget that unlike these you will be amongst us one day. Hopefully your career prospects will be better than ours by the time you get there.
Your perception seems to be that "older" is somehow "worse", when in fact it should make no difference. An older person is not asking to be treated favourably against a younger person. He / She just wants the same chance to apply for a job on his or her own merits.
LD Max
I was just going to add in my response to rmcdonal that his "old dog new tricks" argument is just too anecdotal. Young dogs have trouble learning new tricks too and there are plenty of experienced older pilots out there who are being promoted, doing training, learning new systems and aircraft.
I just don't see any evidence at all that an older pilot represents more of a training risk than a younger pilot at the recruitment stage.
As far as I can see, the only area where an airline could reasonably argue that age makes any difference is in relation to length of service. But with retirement ages already moving upwards thanks to new guidance from ICAO, this would be a very hard argument to justify. In any case, equally anecdotal evidence suggests younger pilots are much more likely to leave a Company after unfreezing their ATPLs.
The real problem seems to be that this is the way the industry has always done it and there is always resistance to change. It is up to us to stand up for our rights - otherwise nothing will change.
Luke Sky Toddler... The issue is not only about sponsorship per se. It is about recruitment policy. If you "require" an applicant to be either:
1) Type rated with 500 hours on type and 1500 TT OR
2) Undertake training with XYZ
...then option 2 should be open to everyone - not just those under 35.
I would also add that the tone of your post is quite unnecessary. We are not talking about "hot sh!t young maverick impersonators" nor "48 year old stockbroker career-change daydreamers", and I personally would prefer not be referred to as an "old git". This is discriminatory language and if you made similar comments regarding colour or gender it would be clearly unacceptable.
Ageism is as much an issue as racism or sexism, and don't forget that unlike these you will be amongst us one day. Hopefully your career prospects will be better than ours by the time you get there.
Your perception seems to be that "older" is somehow "worse", when in fact it should make no difference. An older person is not asking to be treated favourably against a younger person. He / She just wants the same chance to apply for a job on his or her own merits.
LD Max
Yes LD Max you are correct. Younger pilots do also have problems with learning. Every age has some learning difficulty. However I have instructed both younger and older pilots at a Basic Training level and have discovered that the older generations are harder to teach and take longer to pick up on important skills.
I am in no way saying a 300hr 20YO should be given a job over a 8000hr 40YO. But if I had the choice between 2 pilots with the same times the younger would most likely win. Exception to case would be if the pilot was too young (Less then 23ish, you need the added maturity).
Never said it was fair, just giving a separate view.
Edit due sepling
I am in no way saying a 300hr 20YO should be given a job over a 8000hr 40YO. But if I had the choice between 2 pilots with the same times the younger would most likely win. Exception to case would be if the pilot was too young (Less then 23ish, you need the added maturity).
Never said it was fair, just giving a separate view.
Edit due sepling
Last edited by rmcdonal; 26th Apr 2006 at 12:08.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rmcdonal: I appreciate what you say and as a Flight Instructor myself I can relate to the example you gave.
However at PPL level, many of the older students are either: Not persuing an airline job and are doing it for the "challenge", or have other factors to balance like existing careers and families, which intrude on the amount of commitment they can give at this level.
By the time an older pilot has attained his / her CPL/IR their priorities are the same as everyone else's. Get a job!
This puts a completely different emphasis on their motivational differences and constraints - which as you will know from teaching theory are the major influences on learning performance.
Of the more mature students I have taught or flown with who are aiming for an airline career, I would honestly say that on average they are equally motivated and just as capable as their younger counterparts and there is little to choose between them.
The point which I try to keep repeating is that older pilots need the same opportunities to apply for jobs and job related training as younger pilots. When it comes to interview and selection, then each person must be selected on their own merits and performance - not on some perceived generalisation such as purely their age.
LD Max
However at PPL level, many of the older students are either: Not persuing an airline job and are doing it for the "challenge", or have other factors to balance like existing careers and families, which intrude on the amount of commitment they can give at this level.
By the time an older pilot has attained his / her CPL/IR their priorities are the same as everyone else's. Get a job!
This puts a completely different emphasis on their motivational differences and constraints - which as you will know from teaching theory are the major influences on learning performance.
Of the more mature students I have taught or flown with who are aiming for an airline career, I would honestly say that on average they are equally motivated and just as capable as their younger counterparts and there is little to choose between them.
The point which I try to keep repeating is that older pilots need the same opportunities to apply for jobs and job related training as younger pilots. When it comes to interview and selection, then each person must be selected on their own merits and performance - not on some perceived generalisation such as purely their age.
LD Max
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LD Max
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
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
There are many ways to say "sorry, you're not for us" without mentioning age etc.
I am not advocating ageism as such but to be honest, it HAS to be a factor in SOME jobs. You couldn't recruit a 58 year old into the Infantry and it may well be a poor return upon your money to recruit a 55 year old pilot.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman
Yes but the point is that if someone did make a legal case against them they would have to defend their assertion that it takes longer or is harder to train a 42yr old than a 18 - 29yr old as advertised for. They couldn't just claim it without evidence that was strongly related to the job advertised for.
Seriously, there IS evidence that oldies are harder to train. Of course, experience may offset some of the learning issues - but there is no guarantee. Remember also that older people are more likely to suffer heart disease, strokes, cancer, eyesight and hearing degradation etc.
I am far less likely to see and hear an approaching lorry than I was 20 years ago and it will only be a question of whether or not the heart attack or the impact puts me into Intensive Care. This last bit is not entirely tongue in cheek.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
LD Max
I do apologize for the tone of my post, written while under the influence of half a dozen Fosters last night, I am excessively prone to hyperbole and wild exaggeration with most of the things I say and do but generally I'm on the side of the good guys honest
However I have to say it doesn't matter what your opinion or indeed my opinion is of the trainability and/or desirability of the older wannabe - my point was that these schemes are wildly desirable and snowed under with applications from all walks of life, to the point where they have to put you all through batteries of brutally hard and basically unpassable tests just to weed out 99% of you to get the numbers down to manageable levels, before they even start looking seriously at individuals. Ergo, you can't force any airline to sponsor anyone they don't want to sponsor, on the grounds of ageism or sexism or anything else.
At the end of the day how are you, and the 999 out of 1000 other unsuccessful applicants, going to prove that the one guy who was successful got there because of 'age discrimination' against all the rest of you? For a start all they have to do is just turn round and say well he scored higher in the psychological profile than you - and no we can't show you his psychological profile because that's infringing on HIS rights under the human rights act. * Oh and by the way 'the other guy' is used in this context for simplicity of grammar alone and in no way signifies a sexist bias in my ppruning
*
In fact I can't prove it but it's just a hunch based on many years of instructing, but I would bet that the young ones DO score higher on average in these tests than the older ones.
Anyway it's all just people running their mouths off on the internet, none of it matters to the people that do the hiring and firing. I would place money on the fact that we will see the end of sponsorship schemes in general before we see them open up to over-35-year-olds, EU legislation or no.
<<edit: Nice post, Luke. Wish there were more like this on PPruNe.>>
I do apologize for the tone of my post, written while under the influence of half a dozen Fosters last night, I am excessively prone to hyperbole and wild exaggeration with most of the things I say and do but generally I'm on the side of the good guys honest
However I have to say it doesn't matter what your opinion or indeed my opinion is of the trainability and/or desirability of the older wannabe - my point was that these schemes are wildly desirable and snowed under with applications from all walks of life, to the point where they have to put you all through batteries of brutally hard and basically unpassable tests just to weed out 99% of you to get the numbers down to manageable levels, before they even start looking seriously at individuals. Ergo, you can't force any airline to sponsor anyone they don't want to sponsor, on the grounds of ageism or sexism or anything else.
At the end of the day how are you, and the 999 out of 1000 other unsuccessful applicants, going to prove that the one guy who was successful got there because of 'age discrimination' against all the rest of you? For a start all they have to do is just turn round and say well he scored higher in the psychological profile than you - and no we can't show you his psychological profile because that's infringing on HIS rights under the human rights act. * Oh and by the way 'the other guy' is used in this context for simplicity of grammar alone and in no way signifies a sexist bias in my ppruning
*In fact I can't prove it but it's just a hunch based on many years of instructing, but I would bet that the young ones DO score higher on average in these tests than the older ones.
Anyway it's all just people running their mouths off on the internet, none of it matters to the people that do the hiring and firing. I would place money on the fact that we will see the end of sponsorship schemes in general before we see them open up to over-35-year-olds, EU legislation or no.
<<edit: Nice post, Luke. Wish there were more like this on PPruNe.>>
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke Sky Toddler: Thanks for the apology. I can relate to a few fosters too!
I have to admit I generally agree with your analysis that the airlines will do anything to weed out 99% of the applications to get them down to manageable proportions. And I also agree that us "running our mouths off" here is unlikely to affect Company Policy.
However, the benefit of such a discussion is it makes people (us) consider the arguments, and we do know that these threads are also read by the media and policy-makers alike.
But I still hold dear my belief that any company which applies a discriminatory policy deserves to suffer the full weight of public criticism... and if they ignore or disregard their obligations, then they should suffer the full weight of the Law too.
I am 42 years of age, and I don't regard myself anywhere near being "on the shelf" or slow to train. Being equally skilled and licenced with over 600 hours under my belt, I think I deserve as good a crack at a SIM check as the next guy (or gal).
It's really that simple.
LD Max
I have to admit I generally agree with your analysis that the airlines will do anything to weed out 99% of the applications to get them down to manageable proportions. And I also agree that us "running our mouths off" here is unlikely to affect Company Policy.
However, the benefit of such a discussion is it makes people (us) consider the arguments, and we do know that these threads are also read by the media and policy-makers alike.
But I still hold dear my belief that any company which applies a discriminatory policy deserves to suffer the full weight of public criticism... and if they ignore or disregard their obligations, then they should suffer the full weight of the Law too.
I am 42 years of age, and I don't regard myself anywhere near being "on the shelf" or slow to train. Being equally skilled and licenced with over 600 hours under my belt, I think I deserve as good a crack at a SIM check as the next guy (or gal).
It's really that simple.
LD Max
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saaaaaaffffhampton
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldie application
Proving is no longer the issue of the applicant this is the repsonsibility of the employer designate if so challenged, you as an employer prove that someone was unsuitbale if they meet your criteria.
Then if you take someone on who did not you must provide written evidence that you made sound judgement,i.e your company criteria. You will find most companies these days have at least 2 people as to confirm the agreement mainly for this reason.
Then if you take someone on who did not you must provide written evidence that you made sound judgement,i.e your company criteria. You will find most companies these days have at least 2 people as to confirm the agreement mainly for this reason.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wannabe's
Obviously there isn't a big enough pool of capable/suitable wannabe's for Flybe. They would never waste company resources by getting involved in this scheme if they did'nt need to!