Jetgo Blacklist
 

Jetgo Blacklist

I applied to Jetgo a few days ago. With 10,000 plus hours of large Jet time, training captain, etc, and having agreed to their requirement to fund my own type rating, I was naively expecting my application to get some sort of serious consideration. Instead I got an email back saying that at 61 I was too old for them, as I couldn't fly internationally at 65. I replied that this sounded like age discrimination to me, and I was going to make a report to the Age Discrimination Commissioner. This prompted a further email that I can only describe as an angry rant. It accessed me of threatening to sue them and that they would Blacklist me. This is a cut and paste from this email:

"The fact that a professional pilot has threatened to sue us instead of taking a graceful retirement from a flying role is noted and will be passed on at CEO level to all HR heads at major Australian operators therefore black banning you from Australian Aviation. Your Call
Have a great Day"

This seems all wrong to me. I could only call it bulling and intimidation. I also suspect this has opened the door to the legal issues of Defamation and Damages. I would be very interest to hear the opinions of anybody with legal training.

If anybody thinks this post is just sour grapes, then I can assure them that, yes my grapes are definitively sour after this email, which prompted me to go ahead and file a formal Age Discrimination complaint. Will update this post with developments there.

I get no pleasure from slagging-off an operator that is providing valuable jobs to Australian pilots, but it seems to me, their HR department is clearly out of control.

If this is real then it is a gutsy call by the person that sent the email!

Not sure why you couldn't get a return on your training investment in four years, given that the type rating is funded by the applicant, and that assumes that the person turns into a pumpkin at 65 which shouldn't be the case.

Jetgo fly internationally? They must have grand plans.

Why Panic, check your PM.

If someone at Jetgo did send you such an email, you probably could go them
not only on age discrimination but for threats - even if they have no hope of carrying them out with any effect. You obviously need to take legal advice on the latter, but the former would appear clear cut enough.

I recall back at the time of the great pilot dispute of 89 a couple of hotheads touring flying schools making threats to the young hopefuls that if they took airline jobs from the old mates, these kids would be blacklisted forever. It was a pathetic and empty threat by a few very immature individuals.

One would have thought that a new company rapidly expanding would be looking for your experience-after all at 61, you could still be flying for a few more years yet!

Nothing lost I would think.

While I admire them for having a go and hope for everyones sake they succeed. But to be honest Jetgo makes no more sense than SkyAirWorld did.

Last year they were doing Bill Peach runs to London and plus charters to PNG.

"The fact that a professional pilot has threatened to sue us instead of taking a graceful retirement from a flying role is noted and will be passed on at CEO level to all HR heads at major Australian operators therefore black banning you from Australian Aviation. Your Call
Have a great Day"

Ring Ring !!!!
G'day Alan/Jane/John/etc,
Yeah mate I got this old pilot who is a dic*%ead so you cant employ him okay !
No worries mate !

Gotta love the delusional "you'll never work in this industry again types"

Two points however

1) You probably wouldn't want to work for an operator like that
2) If that email is legit you definately have a case for age discrimination and should pursue it vigorously just to put clowns like that in their place.

Graceful Retirement My Arse ! :yuk:

Thats the mother load right there, follow that up and you won't need to work again...

I rarely say anything here but after a conversation with one of my good mates in the last couple days I cant keep quiet now.

With all respect, I can appreciate that you have been in the industry and seen there and done that, now how about thinking about letting someone else have a go.

This week a mate of mine who has been at QF for nearly 15 years was displaced by about 300 people in front of where he was a mere month ago. He now reckons that his time to command has now blown out by another decade.

So let me guess you have now been passed over for an interview and you did not get the answer you expected. As Jetgo said in the other thread they have had over 500 applicants for a few jobs.

To be brutally honest, the way you have aired your dirt laundry here really smacks of nothing but sour grapes and an attitude and it is not any wonder that Jetgo have passed you by on this alone.

To the best of my knowledge jetgo have been more than prepared to give young and older people a go playing with their toys but I reckon it has to do with their attitude. There was even an article in AA about one of their captains retiring with after flying for 50+ years or something stupid, so to stomp your foot here saying i'm going to blacklist them and they are discriminating really has no leg to stand on

On Wednesday met a guy who has just started with them, lost his job with Brindy and now just landed his first jet job. He was stoked and bloody good luck to him.

Dude 10000 hours large jet time means that you have gotten out there and lived the lived the life its also a hell of a lot different to 1 hours sectors, half OCTA and humping bags like I have seen the the Jetgo guys do in Townsville.

Maybe they did not think you fit the mold of what they want, it is their train set after all not yours and having seen in the other thread that they are getting more jets and getting bigger, it really comes across as if you feel you deserved it not earnt it.

the whole purpose of the OP's thread has, it seems, gone straight over the top of your head and into the abyss.

The fact also that you have absolutely no idea of the personal circumstances surrounding his decision to continue to pursue a flying position but suggest he "let someone else have a go", just proves how ignorant you really are.

WP
Your posts seem more like you are overreacting to an honest reply from Jetgo telling you why you were not accepted. Then you threaten to sue them! Nice!!!

Maybe you should have checked your facts before "slagging off"... Google is your friend!

The fact is that an airline can "discriminate" based on age:

Qantas v. Christie is the lead case which is a High Court decision.

Here is the ALRC ruling:
The inherent requirements exception

31.2 Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) it is lawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability if the person is unable to carry out the ‘inherent requirements’ of the particular job or would, in order to do so, require services or facilities that would impose an ‘unjustifiable hardship’ on the employer. This defence is available to an employer only in relation to ‘hire and fire’ decisions, namely, determining who should be offered employment or dismissed as an employee.[1]
31.3 The Inquiry has considered two aspects of the inherent requirements exception as it relates to genetic information: how to define the inherent requirements of a particular job; and whether an employer should be able to discriminate against a job applicant or employee on the basis that, while he or she is currently able to perform the inherent requirements, this may not be the case in the future.
Current law

31.4 The term ‘inherent requirements’ is used in the DDA, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1984 (Cth) (HREOC Act) and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WRA). The term is also used in New South Wales, Tasmanian and Northern Territory anti-discrimination legislation, while other jurisdictions use terms such as ‘work genuinely and reasonably required’.[2] The term ‘inherent requirements’ is not defined in the DDA, the HREOC Act or the WRA.
31.5 In HREOC’s view, inherent requirements must be determined in the circumstances of each job and may include:

• the ability to perform the functions that are a necessary part of the job;
• productivity and quality requirements;
• the ability to work effectively in the team or other type of work organisation concerned; and
• the ability to work safely.[3]

31.6 There has been some judicial consideration of the term ‘inherent requirements’ as it appears in the WRA and other industrial relations legislation. In Cramer v Smithkline Beecham,[4] two employees of a pharmaceutical plant were dismissed because of their sensitivity to penicillin, to which they were exposed at work. The Federal Court decided that penicillin tolerance was an inherent requirement of working in the pharmaceutical plant and therefore the dismissals were lawful.
31.7 In Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie,[5] Qantas had dismissed a 60-year-old international airline pilot on the basis of his age. In deciding whether the pilot could fulfil the inherent requirements of his position, the High Court considered it relevant to look at the surrounding context of his employment, as well as his physical ability to perform the task. As most countries prohibit pilots over 60 years of age from flying in their airspace, the Court decided that the surrounding context meant that he was not able to fulfil the inherent requirements of the job even though he might be physically capable of flying.

The OP is 61 not 65 so he has some four years before any limitation on international flying in the immediate region would kick in. He makes the point that he would have been required to self fund the type rating, so the employer can't really claim any commercial penalty in employing him.
In any case, I thought that the jobs advertised were for domestic flying out of Sydney. If so, age would not be limiting.
Seems more like these guys don't want people with too much of a proper airline background. In which case, why not say something to the effect that preferred applicants should have recent time in GA because they want them to hump the bags, refuel and clean the cabin? There is no law against setting any practical requirements that the job may demand.
So blatantly playing the age card and compounding it with threats to blacklist with other operators demonstrates a very poor grip on how the game is played in these politically correct times.
As for the statement that he (or anyone) should retire gracefully, try telling that to the medical experts and governments who encourage us now to remain actively employed as long as possible. I know several pilots over 60 and two in their 70s who are sharper than some under 40 and who have more stamina when it comes to long duty days.

Ah no.

If the applicant was over 65 then I would agree IF the operator was an international operator or predominantly an international operator.

For a domestic operator to try and rely upon that as a precedent would be an interesting move I would think, but then again I am not a lawyer.

The fact that they just had a bloke as another poster mentioned retire after a kazzilion years means that the the age 65 thing wasn't too big an issue for them.

As for giving the young uns a go, well I am not close to 60 yet, but I know that when I am I will still need to work well into my 60's to put my kids through school and uni (and no they are not a second family and no I don't have multiple ex wives to support). To have to pull the pin at 60-61 would be financially devastating for myself and my family. If I found myself looking for jobs at that age and got that sort of response I would be well bent out of shape as well. It is no different to saying we won't hire you because you are fat, ugly, Jewish, Christian, thetan or a girl.

Fair enough if there are better candidates, but to write someone off because you can only get 4 years out of them (which is debatable anyway) is well out of line in my opinion.

That all said it is a report on an internet site and may not be true!

Reply to IHD
 

I too have friends as QF FO's. I am very sympathetic to their plight. It must be frustrating for them with such a long time to command. On the plus side, they do enjoy terms and conditions that most of us only dream about.

Regarding the old blokes should get out to make way for the young ones argument - I always wonder how many of the people that say this will give up their careers when they're +55 to altruistically donate their job to some worthy up and comer - Put my family into poverty - No Problem.

Regarding Jetgo, it's not that I didn't get the answer I expected, I didn't get the reason I expected, and I certainly didn't expect to get threatened with an industry wide Blackban. My "atitude" as you call it was a result of their email after their denying my application. Do you think I applied saying "Give me a job or I'll sue you".

One hour sectors half OCTA - You should try 20 minute sectors doing domestic flying in an A320, training a new cadet, through a Polish winter where the vis hardly gets above 800m. Just business as usual.

Finally, sour grapes, yes as I said in my initial post, and the dirty laundry, who does that belong to?

Dear hiwaytohell
 

You wrote:
Your posts seem more like you are overreacting to an honest reply from Jetgo telling you why you were not accepted. Then you threaten to sue them! Nice!!!

Just to make this perfectly clear, I did not threaten to sue Jetgo. As I said in my initial post, they accused me of threatening to sue them.

My understanding is that in past court cases employers within Australia can no longer discriminate against pilots due to age who are medical fit. Internationally I have heard of people still flying after 65. Anyway the matter has no been handed over to the ADC who will decide. As I said, I will post any new developments.

I would say that they will be in serious strife should you go public.

With Tony Abbotts pension age hitting 70 we need to work until we are older (if we need to rely on it due to our personal circumstances) so how can we get a decent job with tossers like this out there in the industry?

Hit em hard and good luck!

You perhaps do not have information on their specific insurance policies, which are confidential. There may be a clause specifying that a pilot of a certain age cannot be covered by insurance, so it would be criminally liable of the company to put him in an aircraft cockpit.

Just a thought...

You can't discriminate because of what insurance you've chosen to pay for. It's up to you as an employer to pay for insurance that covers your needs. You can't pick and choose employees to suit your insurance.

Arrogant, cockheads. Who'd want to work for them anyway?

@hiwaytohell - thanks for sharing those cases.:ok:

Why Panic gets told that he is considered too old for the position, although he is four years short of the max age for international flying, let alone there being no such age barrier to flying domestically in Aus.

Qantas v. Christie is different. In that matter the pilot was too old at that time to fulfil his role as an international pilot. It was not that he would be too old in 4 years time.

The Australian Human Rights Commission website states: "Age discrimination is when a person is treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation, because of their age". Certainly seems to be the case here.

In regards to:
,

Absolutely disgraceful. A guy applies for a job, gets a knock back based on purely discriminatory grounds (geez, they didn't even have to give a reason however they did and it was an illegal one!!) and then not only does he receive a patronising suggestion that he retire gracefully, he get threatened with "blacklisting" after he mentions his legal rights.

I cannot for the life of me understand how some here are justifying the position of Jetgo.

"WP" I feel for you & fortunately most here are sympathetic to yr plight, shame about the few who think somewhat oddly but I guess we are all entitled to an opinion right or wrong.

I hope you can get some legal advice to yr benefit & turn the big stick around & whack them over the head!

In a strange sort of way JetGo have done you a favour by saying such school yard bully crap as it shows their mentality already to treating pilots & you don't even work for them!

I note "PB" is listed as the MD, interesting, haven't heard that name in many years.

GoGetEm:ok:

Wmk2

Ascend Charlie. The company would not be criminally liable for anything should their insurance not allow a 60+ yr old pilot at the controls !

Criminal = persons who commit indictable offences.


I would suggest that the OP start calling news papers, TV and radio stations and expose this mob !

Amen, Square Bear.
Really showing their colours now aren't they!?
Arrogant biz-jet jockeys full of their own self importance... how sad.

Happy Landings :ok:

Sadly, discrimination complaints seldom find even the bastard son, let alone the mother, but I strongly encourage you to pursue your rights vigorously.

The threats would possibly open a victimisation/harassment claim as well as one of age discrimination...it's certainly an aggravation.

Talk to your legal team about which legislation they will be lodging the complaints under. Ask them who they will be briefing, especially if going to the Federal Court. I have briefed Fiona McLeod SC who practises out of Melbourne. Strongly suggest you seek an opinion from her if she is available.

Kaz

My prediction....

The response to the ADC would look something like...

"This email response was written by a staff member who was not authorised to do so and does not reflect the view of the company.

The staff member concerned has been counselled and no longer has any association with pilot recruitment

The management regrets any offence caused and apologises to mr XX. We would be happy to review mr xx's resume should he wish to apply again."

He would then be interviewed and oddly be unsuccessful.

But again that is only a prediction.

It seems Google didn't do much for HWTH...Christie was a High Court case published in the Australian Law Reports (ALR) amongst others. The decision most definitely did not involve the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC).

Discrimination is proscribed by the Age Discrimination Act 2004, not the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Do you honestly believe, HWTH, that today in Australia a 61 year old pilot who meets the health and competency standards imposed on his colleagues of whatever age should be denied work on the ground he doesn't comply with the inherent requirements of the job simply because of his age?

Give me a break!

Kaz

Edit: the employer is vicariously liable under the Act.


Edit: couple of trolls here, perhaps?

So before everyone and their bar room lawyers get a bit too overheated maybe we should take a look at the requirements of Part IVA of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Act).

It is fact that it has been tested by pilots and companies with FWA & the AFAP in relation to so called age discrimination, and to be honest it never ends up good for the pilots. The provisions of the act override the Human Rights Commission laws.

Sorry champ but that too does not stand up in court, there is no law as to insurance coverage other than the value and the fact it needs to be carried.

It has nothing to do with the organization, and everything to do with the level of risk the underwriter and insurer are prepared to carry.

The level of risk they carry, then dictates the minimums, time on type, etc that the company has to stick by even before someone comes up with a premium. I have seen it in several companies and I agree it is the **** end of the stick where a very capable pilot gets passed over because he does not meet the requirements of an invisible line in the sand for another seat warmer of much lesser capability.

I have been and still am an AFAP member my whole career and prior to that I was even a TWU member (remember the days of no ticket, no start at the airport) each and every time the union has become involved in this kind of action it ends in tears, and the pilot walks away bitching and moaning and the AFAP spend more of our member fees on no win situations.

I dont mean to single out the AFAP, it also applies to AIPA, VIPA and the previously unmentionable PA.

Why would any company choose to market itself in such a haphazard, problematic way? Who in their right, business mind would ever think it ok to sign off a corporate communications with............ " Your Call. Have a great day"? BIZZARE!

Based on the information you have provided Why Panic, good on you for firstly challenging the Jetgo response & secondly for publishing the situation here.

In fact, I believe you done the right thing. Rather than have them recieve a call from The Anti Discrimination Commissioner, you professionally informed them of the action you intended to take. They had your details & thus you afforded them the opportunity to nip this in the bud, pick up the phone and talk it over with you.

But worst for them, the word is out that their puerile, playground-like handling of your concern is quite possibly what's in store for future staff. For mine, this may well be either ops normal for Jetgo or company management/ founders aren't implementing a systemised, training process to cover 'how we market ourselves'.

I wouldn't expect this venture to be a high flyer if this sitaution was to be repeated. Tread carefully if you are planning to invest in a 145 rating.

As for the bozo who suggested you step aside and give someone else a turn, we're not down at the park palying on the swings. You have as much right to be on the team as anyone.

Good luck with the outcome & please keep us posted.

What a dumb and naive reply.

How about a reply such as, "Your application has been unsuccessful. Thank you for your interest."

Sounds as though they have young, inexperienced and immature HR staff.

If that puerile response to the applicant is for real - as it seems to be - it did not come from a trained HR person. Even your average 18 year old student HR wannabe would have been trained enough to know the perils of threatening and belittling adult professionals.
That email has pilot-manager ego written all over it. And not very bright pilot-manager at that, but at least the ego part has evolved to a high level.

Jetgo Management is very quiet? They're normally on here debunking any untruths...

I can just imagine Mr Borghetti getting the blackban call.

'Jet who? Oh Jetgo, yes of course. I've heard of you' (covers mouthpiece and mouths to secretary 'who the fark are Jetgo?'

Mach E, yep:ok: but here is the real reason older people don't get hired by HR.

There was an interesting thing that happened in Canada a while back.

All of the young pilots got together and forced changes that made mandatory retirement at age 65 be put in place.
15-20yrs later down the track, these guys are up for retirement and are now fighting tooth and nail to have that age limit removed so they can stay in their positions for a few years longer.

Its always interesting when the shoe ends up on the other foot.

Has anyone over 50 ever got an interview with any of the major airlines, eg Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar? I doubt it very much. How does this case differ then?

Only in that I very much doubt QANTAS, Virgin, Jetstar would forward a rejection to an applicant that read....

A "professional" (using their words) Airline Company would send a less condescending and threatening NO THANKS reply. So it is not about why panic not getting hired, it is about the reply that was sent.

Anyway, good for you and those that support this kind of behaviour, just that I, and a I would suggest a good percentage of decent people don't.

Has anyone over 50 ever got an interview with any of the major airlines?

Quite obviously. Yes!

How does this case differ then?

There are a lot of high horses being ridden here.....

Chocks Away, love ya work!

Reminds me of when I applied to Virgin a few years after they started up. I was already well over 50. Some chick from HR was tasked with doing preliminary telephone interviews. She had a list of stock questions such as "what are your strengths and weaknesses?" When she got to "where do you see yourself in 10 years?" I replied "retired and sailing the Pacific - by the way do you get seasick and can you cook in a confined space." Dunno why I never got the job.

There are quite a few over 50 CzFOs and FOs at Virgin.

The argument that the employee "was not authorised to send the email" won't hold water. The company holds responsibility to ensure that all staff comply with legislation, including the Anti-Discrimination Act. There is NO wriggle room for them on this one.

I had a brief moment where I considered applying for a job with them as a DEC. This confirms my correct choice in not doings so. They'll be out of business in 2 years anyway.

As for the silly comment regarding retiring to give some " younger guy a go", over 60's pilots have every legal and moral right to work as long as their Class 1 medical remains valid. :cool: