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