You don’t know his grandpa. He got busy, super young. Haha

I've seen that at multiple companies. We even elected just to pay a guy Captain rates instead of upgrading him. He had about a year left before he aged out.

That worked out for both parties. He got his Captain pay and a younger guy got to move up to the left seat.

What is the guidance on age discrimination protection? Curious. It’s one thing to have it be unspoken but to publicly state you won’t hire someone medically eligible, regardless of qualifications, point blank because of age, while being legal to fly...sounds like it runs against the age discrimination act.

Actually, you might want to go back through the thread and try reading it for comprehension. I never said we WOULDN'T hire some one. I said we would prefer pilots who can fly the line for two years.

We would always consider pilots who could continue after 65, especially in a Training Department capacity. The key is recovering the investment you make in a pilot for training and qualification. Period.

As an aside, you could make your same argument about the Age 65 rule. Especially considering pilots over 65 can still fly Part 135 and Part 91 flights. Now that's age discrimination.

Municipalities around the country have strict age cut-offs for fire, police and ems. Not to mention the military. I imagine there is plenty of case law if really interested..

Try reading the Age Discrimination Act (ADEA), you know, for comprehension, and you will see how this is incorrect and how the Age 65 rule is legal and not a violation of the ADEA. Having a rule of thumb against hiring someone who wont give you 2 years doesn’t qualify under BFOQ as a hiring practice.

I get financially it doesn’t make sense for a company to hire someone who can’t work long enough to pay for training, but a 35 year old pilot can leave after a year as well and not pay for his training.

Again, not saying you HAVE to hire someone who is 63, but you can’t have it as a stated “rule of thumb”.

A mandatory retirement age has nothing to do with a “rule of thumb” hiring practice to not hire someone solely based on age. This doesn’t matter if he is 64 or 41, it still applies for the law. You don’t need to hire someone who is 64, but you can’t have a standing “rule of thumb” that you won’t hire anyone who won’t give you 2 years. Just like you say “we have a rule of thumb to not hire women because they get pregnant or take maternity leave”.

Cut-off age for hiring is what is unique about municipalities and the military.

Military is not subject to ADEA

Municipalities often try to claim BFOQ for physical standards on hiring. The argument is that police and firefighters are dealing with public safety so physical fitness is crucial and qualifies under BFOQ. It has been tested many times in court and has failed many times as well. Many cities have been removing a max age for a police recruit based on fear of being sued and the fact that most cities need more recruits.