Age requirements (and hours) in ME!! carriers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age requirements (and hours) in ME!! carriers
I wonder why the ME carriers have age requirements for fresh CPL holders?
If they have a strong need of pilots, why do they eliminate those, who for a number of reasons couldn't start their career early (personal, financial, etc...).
For sure there are among them perfectly outstanding and professional individuals who could be excellent members of the flight deck.
I've asked to a HR manager from one of these carriers, why was it like this and the answer was that young CPL holders are seen as an investment and after 30 years old, the period to recover from that investment is short!
To rebate this, I must ask how many years (average) does a pilot who changes his career to ME, stays in?
I would say, by reading some other posts and forums that a good number it would be 6 to 10 years!
After that they normally return to be near home based or retire!
So using these numbers, how come airlines do not extend their initial age requirement?
Let's make an backward reasoning:
- Retirement it's about 65/60
- Time to command about 4/5 years
- Time in command to return the investment 6/8 years
- Time as an SO 1 year
So 60-5-8-1= 46 years!!!
So, using this logic, a company can perfectly hire someone until mid forties and can still profit from it!
So if they don't eliminate them, why just not give a chance for an older than the stated 30, prove himself and show that he is an outstanding pilot who can as well contribute for these companies growth!
I've made this numbers which seem adequate to me. Feel free to discuss it!
So with the lack of suitable pilots, I would tend to think that eliminating the age limit for new starters, would help the expansion of these carriers, maintaining their quality and professionalism.
I do now that the majority of ME carriers tend to hire experienced pilots with heaps of hours!
However, with the planned growth, somewhere in the future they will have the need to hire fresh CPL holders as well. I think that's inevitable.
And that's not a bad thing! Who says that an individual with thousands of hours is more professional or more capable than a low timer? He certainly has more experience, but not always the experience counts to define a good and capable pilot!
Let's look at the flag carriers from Europe, that are the ones I know. The vast majority prefers to select fresh low timers candidates and then train them and educate them as per their company policy.
The focus is in selecting the right candidate with the potential to grow within the company. The hours don't count, simply as that!
Of course I'm in these referred situations, that's why I want to raise these issues, so companies can realize they can broaden their requirements and still gain with that, whether in economical terms, whether in professionalism ones.
If they have a strong need of pilots, why do they eliminate those, who for a number of reasons couldn't start their career early (personal, financial, etc...).
For sure there are among them perfectly outstanding and professional individuals who could be excellent members of the flight deck.
I've asked to a HR manager from one of these carriers, why was it like this and the answer was that young CPL holders are seen as an investment and after 30 years old, the period to recover from that investment is short!
To rebate this, I must ask how many years (average) does a pilot who changes his career to ME, stays in?
I would say, by reading some other posts and forums that a good number it would be 6 to 10 years!
After that they normally return to be near home based or retire!
So using these numbers, how come airlines do not extend their initial age requirement?
Let's make an backward reasoning:
- Retirement it's about 65/60
- Time to command about 4/5 years
- Time in command to return the investment 6/8 years
- Time as an SO 1 year
So 60-5-8-1= 46 years!!!
So, using this logic, a company can perfectly hire someone until mid forties and can still profit from it!
So if they don't eliminate them, why just not give a chance for an older than the stated 30, prove himself and show that he is an outstanding pilot who can as well contribute for these companies growth!
I've made this numbers which seem adequate to me. Feel free to discuss it!
So with the lack of suitable pilots, I would tend to think that eliminating the age limit for new starters, would help the expansion of these carriers, maintaining their quality and professionalism.
I do now that the majority of ME carriers tend to hire experienced pilots with heaps of hours!
However, with the planned growth, somewhere in the future they will have the need to hire fresh CPL holders as well. I think that's inevitable.
And that's not a bad thing! Who says that an individual with thousands of hours is more professional or more capable than a low timer? He certainly has more experience, but not always the experience counts to define a good and capable pilot!
Let's look at the flag carriers from Europe, that are the ones I know. The vast majority prefers to select fresh low timers candidates and then train them and educate them as per their company policy.
The focus is in selecting the right candidate with the potential to grow within the company. The hours don't count, simply as that!
Of course I'm in these referred situations, that's why I want to raise these issues, so companies can realize they can broaden their requirements and still gain with that, whether in economical terms, whether in professionalism ones.
Last edited by rbaiapinto; 8th Sep 2011 at 10:51. Reason: Title change!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 242 ft amsl
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much to discuss about, I think. This problem exists in most countries, and does not concern only pilots but more or less any kind of job:
Once you're beyond your late forties, you become unappealing: you may be experienced, but you MIGHT also have difficulties to adapt and change in your ways, you might also be a potential source of trouble, and you might also develop a health-condition which renders any investment in you worthless (as far as the company sees it).
So why take the risk, if there is somebody else available who's sixteen years younger than you.
A new employee may have that much less experience, but he will be very motivated and eager to learn. He probably has less expectations, because he hasn't seen anything better yet. He just needs some training and the prospect of making personal progress, and will be happy with even less salary.
So being more specific about pilots:
The older guy with 12.000 hours and experience on five different aircraft types in four airlines, who can fly the perfect NDB-DME approach with only one engine and restriced flight controls - he will expect a high salary, he will argue with the checker inside a simulator, and he will talk about all the benefits he used to have in his former airlines. He will also stand up to management with self-confidence.
The young guy, with only just 500 hours on a jet on the other hand: He'll be happy to accept a small salary, if in turn he can expect an upgrading within a few years. Guess what, he can also fly an approach, and is quick in understanding a new aircraft type and learning new procedures. He'll go chasing cabin attendants, and stay well out of the way from the offices and managers.
In the end, the company is interested in the better financial bargain, which they get from their statistics. And that's all there is to it.
Once you're beyond your late forties, you become unappealing: you may be experienced, but you MIGHT also have difficulties to adapt and change in your ways, you might also be a potential source of trouble, and you might also develop a health-condition which renders any investment in you worthless (as far as the company sees it).
So why take the risk, if there is somebody else available who's sixteen years younger than you.
A new employee may have that much less experience, but he will be very motivated and eager to learn. He probably has less expectations, because he hasn't seen anything better yet. He just needs some training and the prospect of making personal progress, and will be happy with even less salary.
So being more specific about pilots:
The older guy with 12.000 hours and experience on five different aircraft types in four airlines, who can fly the perfect NDB-DME approach with only one engine and restriced flight controls - he will expect a high salary, he will argue with the checker inside a simulator, and he will talk about all the benefits he used to have in his former airlines. He will also stand up to management with self-confidence.
The young guy, with only just 500 hours on a jet on the other hand: He'll be happy to accept a small salary, if in turn he can expect an upgrading within a few years. Guess what, he can also fly an approach, and is quick in understanding a new aircraft type and learning new procedures. He'll go chasing cabin attendants, and stay well out of the way from the offices and managers.
In the end, the company is interested in the better financial bargain, which they get from their statistics. And that's all there is to it.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logic won't work in this case 
The usual arguments against older low experienced pilots like adaptability, trainability, health and wot not are tedious and misguided.
Older inexperienced pilots have no problems learning new stuff either. Anybody who managed to pass ATPL exams without too much bother and got his CPL ME/IR without too much difficulty (partial pass or 2nd attempt) is unlikely to struggle with any further training. Anybody who is happy to upsticks and travel the world to get that job has no issues with adaptability or flexibility and to suggest otherwise without further assessment (i.e. an interview) is a tad irrational.
Of course, sometimes the CP just can't get his head around older trainees, because it wasn't like that in his day. But I think also that many restrictions actually stem from the national authority. Stuff, like the need to have an ATPL or 500 hours on type etc. These are usually requirements for transfer licenses and ratings. The ability for an airline to get approval for cadets (low experienced guys of whatever age) is often quite long winded (months of work) and tedious. Most don't bother. Sometimes it is easier to get approval buy narrowing the scope to fit the usual and naive received wisdoms.
I have never been able to deduce a clear rationale.
The usual arguments against older low experienced pilots like adaptability, trainability, health and wot not are tedious and misguided.
Older inexperienced pilots have no problems learning new stuff either. Anybody who managed to pass ATPL exams without too much bother and got his CPL ME/IR without too much difficulty (partial pass or 2nd attempt) is unlikely to struggle with any further training. Anybody who is happy to upsticks and travel the world to get that job has no issues with adaptability or flexibility and to suggest otherwise without further assessment (i.e. an interview) is a tad irrational.
Of course, sometimes the CP just can't get his head around older trainees, because it wasn't like that in his day. But I think also that many restrictions actually stem from the national authority. Stuff, like the need to have an ATPL or 500 hours on type etc. These are usually requirements for transfer licenses and ratings. The ability for an airline to get approval for cadets (low experienced guys of whatever age) is often quite long winded (months of work) and tedious. Most don't bother. Sometimes it is easier to get approval buy narrowing the scope to fit the usual and naive received wisdoms.
I have never been able to deduce a clear rationale.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All good prose...
A certain sub-continent psycologist working for a dominant Middle Eastern carrier told me (years ago now) as he reviewed my "profile" during a three day visit to a city with a rather tall, empty building, that due to my age, I would not be a good fit for them. (not sure why they invited me all that way after that comment, but never mind, I was on their dollar)
When I questioned the 'age thing' he stated (well rehearsed I might add) that the airline didn't believe someone my age would ever accept a 'younger' person in a position of authority. Say....the Captain?
Since it was understood (by me) that I wasn't going to be accepted by this company, I explained to him that I only wanted to fly a shiney new Fatbus and to look good whilst doing it. Besides, most companies fire Captains who screw up, not F/Os. (with the odd exception)
I should think aviation and aviation companies are screwing themselves by NOT looking at anyone suitably experienced and qualified for the job. Pilots are becoming harder and harder to find in suitable numbers and some of these companies are going to be crying in their beer soon. That is of course if what we read about shortages is even half true. Meanwhile, us older folks keep drifting further and further away from the 'dream' that got us into this profession, which is unfortunate. But all good things come to an end. Don't they?
As for a return on investment, if you only have a limited number of years left to give a company, it's highly unlikely you'll be moved from fleet to fleet.
Sorry, but flying one type does NOT take years to repay or recover and it does give a company time for one of it's cadets to get up to speed and take over. That's a make-it-happen-now proposition no one seems to be interested in.
I have to admit, retirement is starting to look more appealing than a shiny new aeroplane. (Let's be honest, the A380 is just ugly)
Willie
A certain sub-continent psycologist working for a dominant Middle Eastern carrier told me (years ago now) as he reviewed my "profile" during a three day visit to a city with a rather tall, empty building, that due to my age, I would not be a good fit for them. (not sure why they invited me all that way after that comment, but never mind, I was on their dollar)
When I questioned the 'age thing' he stated (well rehearsed I might add) that the airline didn't believe someone my age would ever accept a 'younger' person in a position of authority. Say....the Captain?
Since it was understood (by me) that I wasn't going to be accepted by this company, I explained to him that I only wanted to fly a shiney new Fatbus and to look good whilst doing it. Besides, most companies fire Captains who screw up, not F/Os. (with the odd exception)
I should think aviation and aviation companies are screwing themselves by NOT looking at anyone suitably experienced and qualified for the job. Pilots are becoming harder and harder to find in suitable numbers and some of these companies are going to be crying in their beer soon. That is of course if what we read about shortages is even half true. Meanwhile, us older folks keep drifting further and further away from the 'dream' that got us into this profession, which is unfortunate. But all good things come to an end. Don't they?
As for a return on investment, if you only have a limited number of years left to give a company, it's highly unlikely you'll be moved from fleet to fleet.
Sorry, but flying one type does NOT take years to repay or recover and it does give a company time for one of it's cadets to get up to speed and take over. That's a make-it-happen-now proposition no one seems to be interested in.
I have to admit, retirement is starting to look more appealing than a shiny new aeroplane. (Let's be honest, the A380 is just ugly)
Willie
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie, that dominant middle eastern airline hired me into the RHS in my early forties with 10000 plus hours and a decade in command so maybe the psyche saw something else in your profile.....?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smiffy
I don't doubt in my particular case there was more to it than just age. At least, I think of it that way. But that was definitely part of his concern. My age (at the time).
Age limits seem to be rising lately though. I see some will accept 63 year olds with the right credentials.
As for me, not everything I touch turns to gold so things usually go a certain way for certain reasons and I'm sure pilots who play the interview "game" do a much better job of it than I. The interview process is a two way street so, in retrospect, I'm not sure it would have been a good fit for me either. Maybe that occurred to them more quickly than it did to me? Some aspects of their interview process (again, at that time), I found bothersome, inappropriate and annoying which didn't actually put me in the right frame of mind from the get-go. When you're jet lagged, even after a days rest on arrival, things don't always fall into place. But simply stated, I'll never know, and it really doesn't matter now. I'd say I didn't deliver the goods on the day so they didn't hire me, but it was never discussed and did that matter?
I started flying later than most (29) and have always been on the trailing edge of the hiring waves since 1978 and the age factor has been my nemesis from day one.
I've been quite happy with what I've had over the years and how things have turned out and that's all I can or ever should expect. My employer seems pleased with my attitude, work ethic and performance. Perhaps they just have lower standards and expectations than that dominant middle eastern carrier. But HEY, whatever works.
FWIW, early 40s is anything but old.
Have a great career.
cheers,
Willie
I don't doubt in my particular case there was more to it than just age. At least, I think of it that way. But that was definitely part of his concern. My age (at the time).
Age limits seem to be rising lately though. I see some will accept 63 year olds with the right credentials.
As for me, not everything I touch turns to gold so things usually go a certain way for certain reasons and I'm sure pilots who play the interview "game" do a much better job of it than I. The interview process is a two way street so, in retrospect, I'm not sure it would have been a good fit for me either. Maybe that occurred to them more quickly than it did to me? Some aspects of their interview process (again, at that time), I found bothersome, inappropriate and annoying which didn't actually put me in the right frame of mind from the get-go. When you're jet lagged, even after a days rest on arrival, things don't always fall into place. But simply stated, I'll never know, and it really doesn't matter now. I'd say I didn't deliver the goods on the day so they didn't hire me, but it was never discussed and did that matter?
I started flying later than most (29) and have always been on the trailing edge of the hiring waves since 1978 and the age factor has been my nemesis from day one.
I've been quite happy with what I've had over the years and how things have turned out and that's all I can or ever should expect. My employer seems pleased with my attitude, work ethic and performance. Perhaps they just have lower standards and expectations than that dominant middle eastern carrier. But HEY, whatever works.
FWIW, early 40s is anything but old.
Have a great career.
cheers,
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 9th Sep 2011 at 02:30.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
late 30's not 40's
FWIW, early 40s is anything but old.
The issue I was trying to explain, perhaps not with the best wording, was age limits after 30!
And I'm over 30... over 35 to be precise
Just trying to show that until mid forties, it's still a good move for the companies, even for a low timer.
Very interesting and eloquent posts! Thanks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways requirements
By the way, did anyone noticed in the BA FPP, the age range is [18 - 55]!!
And that is for ab-initios who have to undertake the ATPL course plus MCC/JOC and Type-rating!! That should take one to two years!
So ME carriers should look at this!
The abilities are within an individual, whether he is old or young, whether he has much or little experience.
And that is for ab-initios who have to undertake the ATPL course plus MCC/JOC and Type-rating!! That should take one to two years!
So ME carriers should look at this!
The abilities are within an individual, whether he is old or young, whether he has much or little experience.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Arabia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes that true the BA age range is big, but that is for legal reasons in the UK, they can't discriminate just based on age. The reality is that they might make it more difficult for older pilots and in some cases fail them just because they don't want to take them, just read this account:
http://www.pprune.org/interviews-job...-disgrace.html
Its not BA but it might well still apply to them. Most people just can't see past age, I'm pretty sure it would be the same in any industry. I'm sorry to hear your story, and I certainly would never suggest anyone past as young as 26/27 to consider aviation as a career, stick to what your doing and fly on the weekends as a hobby.
http://www.pprune.org/interviews-job...-disgrace.html
Its not BA but it might well still apply to them. Most people just can't see past age, I'm pretty sure it would be the same in any industry. I'm sorry to hear your story, and I certainly would never suggest anyone past as young as 26/27 to consider aviation as a career, stick to what your doing and fly on the weekends as a hobby.
Supply and demand, rb.
There are only a small number of openings for fresh CPLs in ME Airlines (mainly things ike QRs second officer scheme) and a HUGE number of potential candidates. These schemes take a lot of investment from the airline, a fresh CPL is under training for a lot longer than a Jet experienced SFO new-joiner, so of course they want to maximize their investment.
Get some jet hours, and suddenly age is less of a factir. Plenty of guys in their 40s and even 50s being employed if they have the requisite experience.
Like the L-1011 debate you started, you have to face reality!!
There are only a small number of openings for fresh CPLs in ME Airlines (mainly things ike QRs second officer scheme) and a HUGE number of potential candidates. These schemes take a lot of investment from the airline, a fresh CPL is under training for a lot longer than a Jet experienced SFO new-joiner, so of course they want to maximize their investment.
Get some jet hours, and suddenly age is less of a factir. Plenty of guys in their 40s and even 50s being employed if they have the requisite experience.
Like the L-1011 debate you started, you have to face reality!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to disagree with the idea that age is unimportant.
I personally find every type/role change harder than the last, and in training we always find that the young 18/19yr olds win the prizes despite generally very poor work ethic and partying a lot whilst the older (late 20s early 30s) guys have a far better work ethic but struggle.
I recently had the misfortune to be crewed with a very experienced aviator, who from his background must once have been an exceptional pilot who was frankly dangerous in terms of handling skills to the point where I was concerned about early onset altseimers (he was late 50s).
The simple fact is that whilst experience grows as you get older (to some degree. I'm not convinced that anybody is learning much from doing the same thing 1000 or 2000 times), the basic skill diminish with time. There is a reason why nobody fields 60yr old fighter pilots. I realise that these skills are vastly more important to the military, but they are still important to a lessor degree in all flying.
The older you are after a certain point, the harder you will find the training, and the more likely you are to give an airline expensive medical bills.
It sucks, and I am certainly past my best point on the curve, but that does not mean it is not true.
I personally find every type/role change harder than the last, and in training we always find that the young 18/19yr olds win the prizes despite generally very poor work ethic and partying a lot whilst the older (late 20s early 30s) guys have a far better work ethic but struggle.
I recently had the misfortune to be crewed with a very experienced aviator, who from his background must once have been an exceptional pilot who was frankly dangerous in terms of handling skills to the point where I was concerned about early onset altseimers (he was late 50s).
The simple fact is that whilst experience grows as you get older (to some degree. I'm not convinced that anybody is learning much from doing the same thing 1000 or 2000 times), the basic skill diminish with time. There is a reason why nobody fields 60yr old fighter pilots. I realise that these skills are vastly more important to the military, but they are still important to a lessor degree in all flying.
The older you are after a certain point, the harder you will find the training, and the more likely you are to give an airline expensive medical bills.
It sucks, and I am certainly past my best point on the curve, but that does not mean it is not true.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Arabia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya, when you're young you're brave and stupid and throw the plane around, that probably saves your ass more than anything else. Once you get older you're not as brave with the controls but you have the experience so you know where to put the plane ahead of time so that you don't need to fly like a cowboy.
Maybe someone can plot us the induced experience vs. parasite stupidity curve and show us the point of minimum experience and stupidity.
Maybe someone can plot us the induced experience vs. parasite stupidity curve and show us the point of minimum experience and stupidity.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, then!
I still think that companies should consider the applications on an equal basis without negative regards to age!
But hey, I'm not gonna change the world!
Its like you say Wiz
The only issue is how to get those jet hours
I still think that companies should consider the applications on an equal basis without negative regards to age!
But hey, I'm not gonna change the world!
Its like you say Wiz
Get some jet hours, and suddenly age is less of a factir
