BA recruiting now for service pilots only.
 

Just received an email from BA recruitment website. Good luck to all you service guys & girls!



Ref UKLHR1232
Region UK - Heathrow
Location London - Heathrow
Category Technical & Operations
*


Job Description

The*Managed Path Direct Entry Pilot Scheme*is for experienced, high calibre qualified service pilots of the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army Air Corps who want to develop their careers with one of the most progressive international airlines in the business.
*
Please note that this is a dedicated recruitment path for service pilots only. Please do not apply if you are not a UK service pilot.

Principal Accountabilities

You will need:
A minimum of 1500 hours flying experience on any service aircraft.
If you are interested in being streamed to a longhaul vacancy in British Airways straight from your military service you will also need to satisfy additional hours and licensing requirements which are: A UK issued*JAA/CAA ATPL(A), 2000 hours total flying time including 1000 hours on Jet transport category aircraft with MTOM greater than 25 tonnes, or Multi-crew turbo-prop transport aircraft or Military equivalent with MTOM greater than 50 tonnes. You must also have flown the qualifying aircraft*in the*relevant, aforementioned weight category,*in the*12 months preceding the start of your conversion course at British Airways. Further advice is available from the Pilot Recruitment Team.
Please ensure you have these hours now, at the point of application.

The Individual

You will need to obtain a UK issued*JAA/CAA ATPL(A) or*'Frozen' ATPL before you commence your employment with British Airways, although you do not need to have any civilian flying qualifications at the point you make your application to Managed Path. Please refer to the CAA guide LASORS - Section G2 for more information.
You will need a first class flying record and a good level of physical fitness
You will demonstrate evidence of leadership, intellect, resilience, reliability, adaptability, high personal standards, motivation and flexibility, together with well developed customer service skills and the ability to build strong working relationships
You will be physically fit and in possession of a JAA/UK CAA Medical Licence (Class 1) and able to satisfy British Airways medical requirements. Please note that British Airways’ medical criteria for employment is of a higher standard than the CAA requirement
Height between 1.57m (5'2") and 1.91m (6'3") with weight in proportion to height (height is accurately determined during the assessment process). Qualified pilots who are taller than 1.91m may submit an application but will be required to undergo a functionality check to confirm their ability to meet the requirements of the seating positions in the British Airways fleet of aircraft
You will have fluency in spoken and written English, and will hold ICAO Level 6 Language Proficiency in English.

Application Process

All applicants are required to answer the following questions, each within 250 words. Please prepare your answers in advance.
What are the behaviours that demonstrate your motivation and commitment to your current service employer?
Give a recent example of when you have made an important decision. Consider the sources of information you used to make your decision, how you prioritised your actions and how you influenced others to implement your decision
Give an example of when you have been involved in a major change in the work environment. How did you adapt to this and what did you learn?
Explain the competitive threat facing British Airways at present. Describe how you, in the role of Flight Crew, can contribute to the overall success of the business

Any reason why a QSP with a UK issued*JAA/CAA ATPL(A), 2000 hours total flying time including 1000 hours on Jet transport category aircraft with MTOM greater than 25 tonnes, or Multi-crew turbo-prop transport aircraft or Military equivalent with MTOM greater than 50 tonnes, can go straight onto BA longhaul. However a civi guy with same experience on say a 320 or 737 had to be rated to apply for the B747?

So that 75,000 pilots don't apply? Sifting through 75,000 applications would be too much work. I'd have thought 99.9999999999999999999% of pilots under 35 in Europe would apply. And probably 70% of pilots in the 35-40 bracket. Plus all the pilots in the middle east. It's not fair as such but it is understandable. HR don't like working hard at the best of times in my experience.

Recruiting only Service Pilots Is it discrimination ?
 

If an airline has a policy of recruiting military pilots with lower professional qualifications and experiance than the civilians its prepared to recruit could the airline be accused of discrimination.

In order to become a UK military pilot you have to be a British and also have to satisfy British residency requirements.

It would not be possible for European pilots who have the right to live and work in the UK, for example individuals from Germany or Portugal, to meet the nationaliity requirements to serve in the British military and so the airline by stipulating British military only is potentially being racially discriminatory.

While the UK MOD has immunity from many aspects of employment law airlines do not have such immunity.

By saying RN, AAC and RAF qualified pilots its the equivalent of saying British only need apply and im wondering if this is okay under employment law.

Of course be a very brave bunny to take a pop at an airline for this policy but is this something that BALPA should have a look at ?

Or you could check the date?

McC Is this a April fools joke ?
 

Brilliant if it is ?

I bit !

Don't fret; you'll find that most military pilots won't qualify. It's targeted at a small number who fulfil a particular contractual requirement.

It won't make any significant threat to the job market for non tr civilian pilots.

Maybe it gives BA the opportunity to select British pilots, much as European flag carriers discriminate against the Brits on language proficiency ... ?

In principal I do not have any problem with Flag carriers having a preference for their "native" pilots ... This may be a mechanism for them to realise this preference too ..

I. Duke

Not an April fools joke, it's on their jobs website.

Paul Rice, you probably should have worked harder at school, then you wouldn't have to play the discrimination card :ok:

I wouldn't worry.
There are so few of us left nowadays, we really won't affect the numbers much.:bored:

This isn't new. 'Managed Path' is the child of another scheme set up in the late 1990s which was called RAFCARS (the RAF Civil Airline Recruitment Scheme) which was actulally set up by the RAF itself and was designed to seamlessly transfer pilots who has completed their RAF engagements directly into airlines participating in the scheme. The benefit to the RAF was that pilots would complete their full contracts and not be tempted to leave early safe in the knowledge thay have a job lined up. The benefit to the airline was that they could cherry pick some quality candidates. There were about six or seven ailines in the scheme including BA, Air 2000 (at the time) and Monarch. the scheme was set up with BALPAs approval - and although BALPA can't represent RAF pilots, many were members.

But it didn't necessarily give the pilots an easier time. The airlines had access to information that would not be available for other candidates. I joined the scheme when it started and I was suprised at how involved the application form was. Far more information that required of a normal application and I had to write down my Commanding Officer's assessment of my ability for each tour of duty. Far more information on my ability as a pilot was available to the particpating airlines than with any regular applicant for employment.

I'm not sure how many people got jobs through RAFCARS. I only know of three - including the chap at the Personnel Admin centre who set it up! I didn't as my main target for employment wasn't part of the scheme. It seems that BA have resurrected it. It makes recruitment easier for them as they know exactly what they are getting and a lot of their selection process has already been done for them by the military.

Is it fair? Depends on your point of view. But most things in life aren't, particularly so in this industry.

DW
 

Great to see a well-informed, honest post on the subject. Cheers Dan.

Several Nimrod mates entered by this method. The RAF, Balpa & the CAA actively encouraged the process. Ratings were awarded by CAA examiners during flights & simulators with the hours provided freely by the RAF.

The advantage to the airlines was that the RAF had done all of the initial selection, training etc. It was a low cost, virtually risk free method of recruitment & it rewarded experienced military pilots who had willingly served their country.

For people to talk of discrimination & legal action only serves to prove how this country has changed, for the worse. :ugh:

On one hand I do value the hard work and risk to life and limb undertaken by our service personnel in the name of Queen and Country. They do not get sufficient recognition or support in our modern society. I studied with a few of them during my ATPL groundschool. They were great people and I wish them well.

On the other hand, service personnel have benefitted hugely from extensive and very expensive flight training at the taxpayers' expense, good wages from a young age and they get a golden goodbye from the MoD in most circumstances. The recent BA recruitment drive did not discriminate against them.

It is a basic moral and legal principle that discrimination is unfair. Are we to forget this principle when those who benefit deserve it? :hmm:

Maybe that's so within the EU. Oh b*gger, UK's a member. Let's have a referendum so that we can leave & ditch the European Court of Justice at the same time!

Iron Duke, Paul Rice, MH and all others mentioning the D-word,

Let's not confuse things here. It is perfectly legal for a company to decide on which criteria they use to select candidates (including employment history, training and language skills), provided they comply with the prohibition of discrimination. Allow me to explain:

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) forbids discrimination based on sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status with respect to rights under the Convention. These are not infringed by not offering you a job or denying access to a selection process based on the fact that you don't speak a certain language or have a specific training/employment history. It would be illegal for a company not to consider you as a candidate based on the fact that you do speak a certain language or have a certain training/employment background.

The right to live and work in any country in the EU is therefore not affected by asking for the ability to speak a certain language (you are free to learn it). IMHO it would be more appropriate to blame the UK government or education system for not stimulating it's citizens to speak more than only English.

Back on topic: the BA requirements for military pilots to meet are pretty stringent and will result in only few candidates. Then again: a good military pilot does not necessarily make a good commercial pilot...

"On the other hand, service personnel have benefitted hugely from extensive and very expensive flight training at the taxpayers' expense, good wages from a young age and they get a golden goodbye from the MoD in most circumstances."

Go on then, explain how we have benefitted.:rolleyes:
Our expensive flying training might make us good at flying military aircraft, but as has been pointed out many times, this does not make us good civvy pilots, and anyway, civvy airlines seem to have absolutely no interest how good you are as long as you pass the minimum on courses/checks, and it certainly does not get us our licenses.
The taxpayer spends a lot of money to make us good at our job, and then gets the full benefit back from us doing our jobs in the military.

Good wages, dont make me laugh. It is ok, we don't starve, but we don't do it for the money.
Find out what a 20 year captain of a C17 or tristar or VC10 gets and then compare that to a 20yr seniority civvy captain.
Of course along with this is the fact that the Officer also has his real job of being an officer to do, so we should be compared with management wages for fairness.
Why do you think we get flying pay and retention bonuses to stop us leaving for more money!?

The Golden goodbye, as you call it is the standard payment to all ex military to aid reintegration into the civvy world. Hardly a special gift. Plenty of civvy companies do the same after a long career. Added to this, our pension des not even take our flying pay into account.

To those who are playing the discrimination card, seriously, get a life. I sincerely hope to never end up in a cockpit with anyone who could look themselves in a mirror and honestly believe that an ex mil pilot has somehow hed an easy route into an airline.

Airlines have been discriminating in favour of military pilots ever since the days airlines came into existence. The military has always been one of the favoured sources for recruiting experienced pilot applicants.

The discrimination is the same sort of discrimination that favours type rated and experienced applicants over non-type rated and inexperienced applicants. It is the same sort of discrimination that favours integrated full time courses for cadet applicants, over modular piece meal programmes for cadet applicants.

It is the same sort of discrimination that allows a company or an individual to recruit what they perceive as the best applicants for a particular role. Discrimination is positive, and at the basic level a survival necessity. It may be "unfair" on ocaissions, but is neither unlawful nor immoral.

There are forms of discrimination that are unlawful, but since there is no suggestion that these companies are excluding anybody by virtue of that persons race, gender, sexual orientation or age, that wouldn't appear to be the case here.

Those pulling the D-card really need to get a grip of themselves and look at the big picture. Since the thaw a few months ago there have been five recruitment openings into BA: 4 for civvies, one for military guys. Hardly discriminatory is it?

And regarding 'well paid', a first year Ryanair FO contractor takes home more than a middle seniority Flight Lieutenant on middle rate flying pay.

That just tells you how much worth it has defending your country nowadays. :(

There is way too much wringing of hands and nashing of teeth over this.

So BA are offering selection to a handful of military pilots. So what?

Throwing the discrimination word around is pretty pathetic and no doubt why we recently had some faceless bureaucrats decide that insurance companies can no longer offer cheaper premiums to female drivers based on the statistical fact that their total claim value is less than mens.

I don't see how anyone can, in any way, begrudge someone who has given up a significant portion of their life (is it 20 years?) to drag their family around the world to do a hugely demanding job for a relatively insulting wage from getting the chance to transfer those skills to a civilian environment.

Are BA saying they will never take non-service again? No. Will any of sign your name to a letter to the head of BA recruitment to tell them what you think (or perhaps just stick to anonymous whinging on a forum whle waiting to fire your own CV in as soon as general recruitment reopens).

If only those lovely no-win-no-fee parasite lawyers would take up your worthy discrimination case....

No one seems to have pointed this out but there seems to be a link for civvy street guys to apply on their website also. That ought to stop all this arguing!

I really don't see what the problem is here. Ever since the closure of Hamble BA has taken recruits from a variety of sources mostly successfully but with a few hiccups.

At one time after a series of recruits needing extra training recruitment had to be very wary of applicants from some operators and that did include some RAF applicants with 2 tours in the RHS.:ok:

Discrimination? - Utter rubbish. Many LoCos will only recruit FOs with minimal experience so they can exploit them cheaply-is that discrimination as well? Also BA are actively recruiting 320 TRs. Dry your eyes!

Lets put this one to bed shall we.

The RAFCARS scheme (as was) only enabled military pilots to apply for BA within their last 2 years of service whilst they were gaining their civilian qualifications.

The reason the scheme and subsequent schemes are in place is that in order to access the standard BA recruiting site or, in the past, to get past the 'not qualified' filter, all applicants were required to submit their licence number to proceed.

The military applicants are afforded no further advantage than that. The requirements for the interview, numpty testing and the simulator are exactly the same.

Those throwing 'discrimination' around are scraping the proverbial barrel bottem as it is impossible to claim such when a company is only hunting down the most suitable. If such PC rubbish got that far then the banks and the head hunting companies would be worried.

If you're not yet qualified then apply when you are.

Discrimination
 

The UK MOD has Nationality requirements which restrict non Brits from joining the armed forces. They are able to do this under the cloak of crown immunity.

The UK MOD until recently restricted the employment of homosexual people and also until recently the employment of women in many job categories.

Under the cover of Crown Imunity the MOD was able to drive a bus through UK anti discrimination legislation.

Now airlines do not enjoy Crown Immunity. By biasing recruitment policies towards service applicants the airlines may inadevertantly be indirectly discriminating against non British people with the right to live and work in the UK, discriminating against homosexual people and also discriminating against women.

Now im not playing any cards here just pointing out what may be an interpretation of employment law and it is surely the right to live in a free and fair society regulated by democratic law that the military should be serving to protect.

The notion that by positively seeking applicants from the armed forces airlines are seeking highly motivated, disciplined and capable candidates overlooks the fact that all the above qualities are required by any commercial pilot be they a flying instructor, air taxi pilot, turbo prop pilot or jet pilot. Those qualities of motivation , discipline and capability are required by all aviators and are not something that the MOD has a monoploy over.

While service pilots have had a standard of training second to none on leaving the services many are inexperianced, low houred and underqualified compared to pilots currently on the market.

Its interesting how the FR brigade are throwing around the discrimination card. They seem to think it is some sort of right of passage to pay their way into a job and then when they realise that the prospects aren't so bright afterall jump ship to a proper airline with career progression and union recognition.

I wonder if the perfectly able guys and gals out of flying school who couldn't muster 30k for a type rating feel discriminated against?

Calm down guys. I was merely asking a perfectly reasonable question, which was first posed by another poster and subsequently discussed by others. Re-read my post and you will see that I'm a fan of the Armed Forces, especially their pilots, some of whom are friends of mine. As I said, they deserve all the luck they can get.

I take the point about discrimination of this sort being lawful. I think that is correct. I was referring to fairness in a general sense. You see, as a big fan of the doctrine of meritocracy (rather than politically correct quota systems), I just want everyone to have the same opportunities.

Good luck to all the applicants. :ok:




PS:

@MCDU2: Has it ever occurred to you that most people who pay for their Type Ratings do so from funds they've earned and saved or have to take out loans which they pay from their income. The notion that they're all undeserving rich kids is a myth.

Sorry I think your arguments are weak:
Not quite. Also Commonwealth citizens and Irish Republic nationals are permitted to join.
How do you define recently? It was 2000 which is 11 years ago.
Again, how do you define recently? There were female pilots training in 1990, which is 21 years ago. After opening the aircrew trades (women were employed as AQM/ALM for many years prior to 1990), Firefighter and Aerial Erector, only RAF Regiment remains a closed restricted 'job category'.

Oh dear.

Paul,

You may be
but your interpretation is absolute hoop. I refer you again to the fact that in the last few months BA has been advertising for civvy pilots for 737 LGW, A320 LGW, A320 LHR and 747 against one ad for this specific military scheme. Why are you not concerned about the military guys who are 'discriminated against' because they are ineligable for at least four of the five schemes listed? (The answer, of course, is because there is no employment law discrimination going on here at all).

MCDU2,

I suppose you could call me one of the FR brigade. Read my posts again. Your assertion is the absolute opposite of my opinion and that of the majority of FR guys, many of whom have done very well out of BA's recent recruitment. I fully support the diversity of BA's recent recruitment drives including the RAF managed path even though I was unable to take advantage of it. It is only a small proportion of military pilots that will be able to benefit from this scheme.

Luchboxlegend,

I am well aware of the value of the benefits that go with an RAF career, but was simply trying to provide some perspective to the 'RAF are well paid' assertion. The two specific examples I compared were not random choices, if you catch my drift.

Discrimination
 

Im grateful for Mr Ripley's confirmation that the MOD has been discriminating. He confirms that if you are not from Britain, the Commonwealth or the Irish Republic that the UK MOD will racially discrimante against you even to this to day. Notwithstanding that memebers of the EEC have automatic right to live and work in the UK.

He also confirms that until 11 years ago that the MOD discriminated against homosexual people. This means that with a cut off age of 24 years for pilot training any homosexual currently aged over 35 years will have been discriminated against by the MOD and with women being barred from employment as pilots by the MOD until 20 years ago any women currently aged over 44 years will have also suffered discrimination.

So under the umbrella of Crown Immunity the MOD has been able to get away with discriminatory practices which in civil society have been legislated against. Even the MOD cut off age of 24 years for pilot training falls short of existing standards required under Age Discrimination Legislation.

Torque Today makes the point that BA have run a variety of entry schemes for qualified and type rated pilots which have been open to all whatever their background including service personnel if qualified. He finds it unfair that civil pilots have gained operating experiance on civil types and are therfore qualified for these reruitment schemes. The point is that entry to civil aviation is not restricted by racial orgin, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and age in the way that entry to the MOD is and has been.

The concern is that here we have an entry scheme aimed at unqualified, non type rated pilots. It precludes those from certain racial origins including those with the right to live and work in the Uk. It precludes homosexual people currently aged over 35 years and it also precludes women currently aged over 44 years.

It is therfore by being restrictive to service personnel only potentially indirectly discriminatory.

Actually he doesn't. The irony of my sentence, to which you refer, was obviously lost on you, despite the following sentence spelling it out in clear terms. You also seem to be confusing race and nationality.

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder and seem to be looking for discrimination where none exists. Regardless of your gender, sexuality, nationality or race, you can apply to BA if you have the required professional pre-requisites for one of its job ads. Describing military pilots as unqualified is disingenuous - differently qualified would be more honest.

There are females pilots, gay pilots, ethnic minority pilots and non-British pilots in the RAF who may qualify for this scheme. Nationality is resticted when it comes to the armed forces, but such restriction is permitted in law and is entirely appropriate to national defence. Give it a rest fella, or find a parasitic PC no-win-no-fee lawyer to put your theory to the test.

Perhaps BA should rewrite there add to state that they require applicants with one of the following TRs: Typhoon, Tornado, Sentry, Nimrod, C-130 etc

I'm sure BA would interview a German Tornado pilot or Italian Typhoon jocky.

Would this satisfy you Paul.

Regards

Discrimination
 

Restricting entry to the following types Typhoon, Tornado, Sentry, Nimrod, C-130 does not solve the discrimination issue.

How does such a restriction begin to deal with the clear discrimination built into the service pilot only scheme ? How does it deal with the discrimination againsta homosexual pilot aged over 35 years ? or a woman aged over 44 years ? or a pilot from a non British or non Commenwealth non Irish Republic origin ?

The answer is it of course it does not deal with this discrimination.

What would be okay is to have a recruitment scheme open to all pilots with say 1500 hours total time on turbo prop or jet aircraft of any type with the right to live and work in the UK.

Then high quality service personnel could be judged and assesed side by side high quality civilian pilots competing openly for the available jobs based on experiance, capability personality fit and all the other legal factors.

Paul,

If you have a close read of the BA advertisement you will notice that applications are invited for "Managed Path", not for direct entry. Are you aware of the difference?

Andy, they were advertising for DE with Airbus or Boeing type ratings, it was there 24 hours ago.

On that point I have neither of those ratings I am, therefore, being discriminated against.

Edit to add it's still there!

Bloody H£ll. What whingers.

Just get on with it will you instead of debating on pprune till kingdom come.

Paul
Dont forget the way these companies discriminate against blind and deaf applicants purely based on the discredited and non pc thinking that they may not be capable of doing the job without crashing.
Dont get my blood boiling on how they also require you to pass the odd exam and interview here and there.Clearly keeping out thick applicants is soooo discriminatory against stupidity.
Where will it all end?
I wanted to be a brain surgeon but wasn't allowed to be because I was rubbish with my bed side manner.
Who can I sue? Its soooo unfair.:{

Discrimination
 

The*Managed Path Direct Entry Pilot Scheme*is for experienced, high calibre qualified service pilots of the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army Air Corps who want to develop their careers with one of the most progressive international airlines in the business.
*
Please note that this is a dedicated recruitment path for service pilots only. Please do not apply if you are not a UK service pilot.

Thus :

You will not be able to apply if you are not from Britain, the Commonwealth or Irish Republic. You will not be able to apply if you are homosexual and currently aged 35 or more and you wont be able to apply if you are a woman and aged 44 years or more.

Irrespective of your experiance or calibre.