I have worked with kids and have kids and feel I'm pretty good at spotting porky pies a mile off. Jetgo's damage control "story" is bigger bollocks than dangled from my great grandfather's prize-winning bull.
(They were pretty big...)

Is this the same unauthorised person sitting infront of an open computer within your organisation who is accidently also sitting infront of a whole pile of Resumes that were sent to your company, most of whom would/could be "in-confidence" ?.

Good on you for responding, I feel your response does not pass what I consider a reasonable logic test.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....................

What would pass is: Employee "A" acted like an immature jack ass and was sacked due to the potential damage he/she has done to the image of our company and the associated potential liability.

Neiili seconded you're a **** stirer of the highest order. Mr Leafeblower thanks for weaving some sense into it. The whole discussion is a massive wank. What a waste of time and effort. Really...get a life.

wotajoke, you aren't the 'unauthorised person', are you? :rolleyes:

With 5c left on the clock....
 

There is an old, old, dusty story – from back in the day; an Australian crew was in the Heathrow 'facilities' taking their ease before getting on the bus. The BA crew followed them in and, the place being crowded, waited their turn. As the Oz crew left, in a teddibly pucker voice, the BA skipper exclaimed - "Oh, don't they teach you to wash your hands?' – "Nah" says the Oz FE: "we, were taught not to piss on 'em".

Stinkfinger puts forward a reasonable scenario. Some HR clown f$cked up and needs their botty spanked. End of story, and probably end of thread.

Unfortunately while the ones that deliver the actual service, ie. the crew, are accountable for every action, thought, breath, and potential implication, back office HR types seem to get away with murder. But of course, they are the ones that discipline others, why would they discipline themselves?

wotajoke, what, if anything, is bleaving? Also, there are myriad other websites that would cater to your taste for a massive wank, or the stirring of sh!t.

Some old geeza applies for a job, there are 100+ applicants for a handful of positions. He doesn't get the job. He asks why and is told he is too old. He threatens "discrimination legislation" and receives a politically incorrect letter.

5 pages of drivel follow.

Reply to Aussie Bob
 

Dear Aussie Bob,

Firstly, I don't appreciate being called "Some old geeza", pretty rude I thought. 61 hardly puts you in a retirement home. Maybe you'd like to meet up some time and see how old and feeble I am, please PM me if you're interested.

I didn't ask the reason why I didn't get the job, that was provided completely free of charge. Please read the threads a little more carefully before posting your valuable opinion.

Do you really think being threatened with Blacklisting (what this thread is about) is just politically incorrect ?

As for 5 pages of drivel, what is any on line forum for, but to share views on a particular topic. This thread has explored and highlighted some very important issues and alerted an employer to serious problems within his HR department.

If you are so bored with this thread as to call it 5 pages of drivel, please find another one where you can share your wisdom.

"WP" you can rest assure that most on here support yr thoughts on this matter & fortunately there are not too many narrow minded 'Aussie Bob's around.
The very fact that there is 5 pages is a sign that this behavior is not acceptable, well to most anyway.

Stick to yr guns 'WP' as you only need to be true to one person, YOU:ok:


Wmk2

Sounds a bit like a threat, are you going to beat him up, old and violent too?;) :)

Yes, but we only got your side of the story.

We saw the bad reply from the company, but we did not see a copy of the mail you sent them, that might have prompted they reply.

I'm sure that your mails were all nice, but maybe someone might have some doubts.;)

JetGo are man enough to apologise
 

I give JetGo full marks. A mistake was made and they publicly apologised to 'old mate'. They didn't have to apologise. They could have tried to bury it further. And i have no doubt they could have also released some of 'old mates' email correspondence that he has perhaps not shared with us? Who knows. At the end of the day they have apologised, tried to right a wrong, not many people will do that these days.

Fly dive, by meeting up with Why Panic you may, perhaps, see that he is fit and spritely. There is no suggestion that he he violent, only your interpretation - classic creation of a Straw Man argument on your part.

As for Jetgo :

- inappropriate to send email with age listed as rejection criteria.

- inappropriate to make a threat of blacklisting.

-inappropriate to make a public apology on a public Internet forum which actually revealed a reluctance to fully own the problem. Instead, we were treated to a "it's not my fault, man" defence in which it was inferred that any criticism of Jetgo was unreasonable.

Cactus, for Jetgo to release some of "old mates" emails would also be inappropriate. That would not be the action of a worthy organisation. A sincere apology is a start, but words are cheap and fail to address a tangible wrong.

It's very difficult to see how Jetgo can reasonably make this up to Why Panic, who has been treated very badly.

Some suggestions as to how Jetgo could make amends are :

1) commit to tighten their IT use to include a mandatory employee sign-in on company computers.

2) removal of the author of the emails that were sent to Why Panic.

3) training to reinforce anti-discrimination legislation and its implications to their staff. Ensure that the cultural shift is real and enduring.

That would be a start. Other than a real offer of employment to Why Panic where Jetgo pay for his type-rating, I can't see how Jetgo could ever make reasonable amends for what has transpired.

One would think the OP has had his first born kidnapped and held to ransom reading some of these replies. Get over it. He has declined an offer to revisit his application and the company has apologized. Move on! Oh the golden age of entitlement.....

As you get older and gain wisdom from life, you gain more respect for yourself and tolerate a little less idiots that you come across, and your spine becomes a bit more hardened for you to stand up for yourself against such types. 'Why Panic' is a good demonstration of this.

I do wonder, and so should others, if the HR person concerned is responsible for pilot applications being filed in the circular bin that might have otherwise been inline for a job? Certainly my own experience of calling up when I was in Brisbane asking to come and say hello in person and being told "don't call us we'll call you" makes me think so.

As someone who has, in the words of someone else I might add, and he borrowed them from elsewhere, suffered more than the usual share of the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' ('That's Life, deal with it!' has been my attitude, generally) and is about to reach the big 60,* I second the above remarks.:ok:


* Yeah I know, Griffo and others; I'm still a young bugger!!!:eek:

Goodness Pinky!

I first met you in 1969 when you were a teenager. But fortunately, I remain younger than you... :p

Gas Bags,
I think you missed the point.
Suggest you go through the thread again.


I like to think I'm anything but precious - however, there's a valid point being made here.

Reply to Why Panic
 

If we ever meet, you can return the favour, I am about your age, not quite the hours though.

In this politically correct time, it is incredibly rare to get a reason for not getting a job and I suspect that Jetgo will never again tell someone they are too old even if it is the truth (in their minds). In the distant past I was told I was too heavy for a seaplane job flying a Maule, it can hurt.

On another thread somone was lambasting a skydive company for having the temerity to advertise for a pilot under 80kg. In my mind it was the mark of a good skydive operator. Calling a spade a spade is not wrong.

The sad part is that with your experience, finding a job is difficult. Makes me thing the industry is doomed. I wish you well in your endeavors.

Aussie Bob,

Somehow I don't think you understand the situation here. You're confusing operators imposing a weight limit for what sounds like very limited payload reasons with blatant discrimination based on age and say that's calling a spade a spade!!

Put it this way, are you happier walking past the door and seeing a grey headed dude with 4 bars on his shoulders exuding 20000 hours sitting in the left seat doing a pre-flight, or some 27 year old with more product in his hair than the CC combined, wearing mirror raybans and chatting up the CM?

When I'm in the cabin give me hours over youth any time. I'd be happier to fly with Bob Hoover than most pilots I know, put it that way.

Can't argue with that Hempy.:ok:

Good ol Bob, some fond memories there, what a legend! And I agree, I would fly with Bob any day over some kid with a handful of hours and a 'sucked mango' hairstyle :ok:

.....just ROFLMAO....hahaha. :ok:

I understand the situation perfectly. Here is a company who wants younger startups. The regulator is also discriminatory, they demand flight checks every 6 months for pilots over 60. Getting old sucks.

Agreed Aussie Bob, but it beats the alternative!

I also agree with Aussie Bob and Pinky and Hempy......but I do love my RayBans.....they make me feel young and topgum...topdumb...topbum...damn Alzheimers. :{

Age discrimination
 

Well, l do understand your plight and go for it 100%, as it's totally disgusting. If these Airlines were in the USA, they would be taken to the cleaners. Though all Airlines in Australia display age discrimination, especially if your a mature pilot with Airline experience outside of the small mindedness of Australian aviation. If your over 25 years old, your considered over the hill. 15 years ago if you had Papuan experience with 4,000 hours twin time, you were considered an experienced pilot to have survived the hard times and filthy living conditions. But now times have changed by the Powers to be and the big two airlines of Oz consider newby pilots with a can of hair gel in their hair with a bare CPL, 200 hours in a 40 yr old C172 can of bolts, more experienced. WORK THAT OUT.!!!!!
Or if the young 200 hr C172 top gun personally knows the CP, or is the son of a Captain, he gets a gold pass to the Brainless pit. It truly is a laughable joke, the state of affairs in Australian aviation. It's a kindergarten of immature school kids in the Brainless pit.

Come on, don't hold back, tell us what you realy think.:E

Ahhh I seriously doubt it! Tell me one American Part 121 carrier that would hire a 61 year old pilot?

After ICAO brought in the age 60 limitation in 2006 even the FAA followed suit until Congress passed a bill allowing American pilots to fly in international airspace until they are 65 provided they have a pilot aged under 60 in the operating crew endorsed for all phases of flight. However there is nothing in that bill that "requires" airlines to hire pilots over age 60.

The wording of the bill allows for continued employment of a pilot who reaches age 60 on or after 13 Dec 2007 but actually does not allow for the hiring of a new hire pilot who has attained the age of 60 on or after 13 Dec 2007

USA aviation
 

Hiwaytohell, you have no idea of flying in the USA. That's obvious.!!!! :D

On a corporate perspective costs of flying at 60+, the company has more down time with a 60+ pilot than someone below that due to checks both flying and medical. Other stipulations include having someone under 60 fly with you blah blah blah...

These are rules that have been set to this present day, want to make a change then fight for rule changes.

Considering that most operators require pilots to renew medicals in their own time, and conduct at least two checks per year on all pilots, the extra time and cost to the company for us silly old buggers to maintain a licence is three eighths of five eighths.

The only real issue is that certain international flights can't be done by over 65s. Therefore it is quite reasonable for an operator with predominately international operations to reject applicants nearing that age cutoff. They can even say so without fearing any age discrimination proceedings.

What really bothers some managements is that most of us are a bit too independent and street-wise to tolerate bull****.

BINGO! :}

Oh yes, how true!

Golden Mach.
 

Give the man a key to the Tim tam cupboard.

http://thumb7.shutterstock.com/photo.../119471821.jpg

:D:D:D
Fantastic!!
Yes that sums airlines up for sure when it comes to assessing people.
Are you really a sheep to Company BS.

Mach..well said..a truly unique industry

Delta..you may want to add most of the flight schools , sorry aviation academies, to that airline list

They are running on the smell of a oily rag. Watch this space I am told

Looks like the 'Jetgo blacklist' is coming back to haunt them.

"The AFAP is currently pursuing a general protections case against Jetgo in the Federal Circuit Court. The case involves whether the company breached the Fair Work Act when it decided to terminate the services of an older pilot because of higher insurance costs related to his age."

do you have a link or a citation reference so I can follow it, please?

Kaz

Ned,

I think you might have the wrong end of the stick about this, the thread started about initial employment, age at employment and time of useful service to a company.

The issue you're referencing here is different from what I've heard. The current AFAP action is about termination due to age and insurance, or as I hear it, an inability to get anybody to insure a 75 year old pilot.

As you'd be aware it's a legal requirement for all AOC holders to have "Carriers Liability Insurance"http://www.casa.gov.au/operations/st...lity-insurance.

From what I hear, nobody wants to, or will, insure a pilot of that age for an AOC operation. I also hear this is becoming a problem for other carriers as well due to pilots continuing to fly well past what's generally considered retirement age around the World.

Apparently, and I'm definitely not an expert on this, all the insurers here in Oz reinsure with overseas companies and it's there where the problem lies for insuring a pilot of that age on an AOC operation.

I'm guessing the actuaries from the insurance companies don't give a rat's ar*e about whether it's an Australian's right to work in whatever job they want until they drop off the perch but are more concerned about the probability of a big payout if an older pilot is involved in an operation that has an incident or accident.

So, the problem, disregard the CASA requirements regarding insurance(Commonwealth Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959) and fly uninsured or terminate a pilot for whom you can't get insurance.

Both options, IMHO, are not something you'd want to do, unless you either want to be prosecuted, and probably lose your AOC, and therefore your method of keeping the wolf from the door and keeping your other people employed, and or, be bankrupted, if bad sh*t were to happen with a 75 year old involved, and you're not insured or you have to tell someone that their time is up and get taken to court by the aggrieved pilot.

Not a choice I'd want to make nor something that many of us would want to risk.

As an older pilot, though not quite at retirement age yet, this is probably something that will affect more of us, unless there's either a change in either the Commonwealth Civil Aviation(Carrier's Liabilty) Act insurance requirement, not likely IMHO, or the insurers change their way of doing business, even less likely than a change in the CCA(CL)A.

I guess some will say, "Bad luck, you've got to keep him/her on the payroll at whatever cost" and others will take the attitude of "Retire and let other people have a go at a career in flying". Neither really are real World solutions to the problem.


Seaeagle109