Age
10-16-2019, 02:28 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2019
Posts: 813
Originally Posted by Packrat
Why? There's a financial cost to hiring and training a pilot. It doesn't make sense to hire a 64 year old who may only give you 6 months of line flying before he ages out.
Pilots have to be weighed in terms of asset/liability. If what the pilot brings in line flying is less than what it cost to train him, they're a liability. If they bring in more, they become an asset.
What is it you don't understand about that simple equation?
Pilots have to be weighed in terms of asset/liability. If what the pilot brings in line flying is less than what it cost to train him, they're a liability. If they bring in more, they become an asset.
What is it you don't understand about that simple equation?
Second, it’s not the equation. It’s that people like you have a “rule of thumb” that says we need 2 years or more. Or in other terms; 63 and under are fine. How many applicants do we get that don’t fit this very selective “rule of thumb?” Do we have a stack of 64 year old applicants trying to come to Spirit so they can be on first year pay and then retire.
So yes, it’s a stupid rule of thumb because it essentially doesn’t rule anyone out and perhaps your “rules of thumb” should include things like “clean record,” “good personality,” flight experience” etc.
Focus Packrat, focus.
Wait, do you even work for Spirit? Or are you that arrogant that you answered a hiring question specifically for one airline, and you work for another, and then share your “rules of thumb” for another airline?
Haha. Pack, come on man
10-16-2019, 08:46 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: NK CA
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by Omniscient
First, don’t be a tool.
Second, it’s not the equation. It’s that people like you have a “rule of thumb” that says we need 2 years or more. Or in other terms; 63 and under are fine. How many applicants do we get that don’t fit this very selective “rule of thumb?” Do we have a stack of 64 year old applicants trying to come to Spirit so they can be on first year pay and then retire.
So yes, it’s a stupid rule of thumb because it essentially doesn’t rule anyone out and perhaps your “rules of thumb” should include things like “clean record,” “good personality,” flight experience” etc.
Focus Packrat, focus.
Wait, do you even work for Spirit? Or are you that arrogant that you answered a hiring question specifically for one airline, and you work for another, and then share your “rules of thumb” for another airline?
Haha. Pack, come on man
Second, it’s not the equation. It’s that people like you have a “rule of thumb” that says we need 2 years or more. Or in other terms; 63 and under are fine. How many applicants do we get that don’t fit this very selective “rule of thumb?” Do we have a stack of 64 year old applicants trying to come to Spirit so they can be on first year pay and then retire.
So yes, it’s a stupid rule of thumb because it essentially doesn’t rule anyone out and perhaps your “rules of thumb” should include things like “clean record,” “good personality,” flight experience” etc.
Focus Packrat, focus.
Wait, do you even work for Spirit? Or are you that arrogant that you answered a hiring question specifically for one airline, and you work for another, and then share your “rules of thumb” for another airline?
Haha. Pack, come on man
10-16-2019, 08:50 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2019
Posts: 813
Originally Posted by Lincoln Osiris
Dude he was just talking about age and hiring take a huge chill pill and move on. Or are you gonna call me a "tool" next?
And of course I never called him a tool. That would be uncouth. It was simply a cautionary suggestion to not be one.
10-16-2019, 09:06 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: A-320
Posts: 680
Almost every airline uses the logic Packrat mentioned, not sure why things got personal. Spectre it’s not a factor, plenty of older folks hired but you’ll generally see more of a younger group in class simply because that’s who makes up more of the applicant pool.
10-17-2019, 12:03 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Packrat
Why? There's a financial cost to hiring and training a pilot. It doesn't make sense to hire a 64 year old who may only give you 6 months of line flying before he ages out.
Pilots have to be weighed in terms of asset/liability. If what the pilot brings in line flying is less than what it cost to train him, they're a liability. If they bring in more, they become an asset.
What is it you don't understand about that simple equation?
Pilots have to be weighed in terms of asset/liability. If what the pilot brings in line flying is less than what it cost to train him, they're a liability. If they bring in more, they become an asset.
What is it you don't understand about that simple equation?
10-17-2019, 05:18 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: ????
Posts: 579
Unless things have changed, I was hired in 2017 at age 59. Almost didn’t go thinking I was too old. I was hired at a Meet-the-Chiefs event and Walked out with all paperwork, posters etc. I was shocked to the core at what had just happened.
10-17-2019, 06:30 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2019
Posts: 813
Originally Posted by squawkoff
Unless things have changed, I was hired in 2017 at age 59. Almost didn’t go thinking I was too old. I was hired at a Meet-the-Chiefs event and Walked out with all paperwork, posters etc. I was shocked to the core at what had just happened.
10-17-2019, 10:29 AM
#19
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Originally Posted by squawkoff
Unless things have changed, I was hired in 2017 at age 59. Almost didn’t go thinking I was too old. I was hired at a Meet-the-Chiefs event and Walked out with all paperwork, posters etc. I was shocked to the core at what had just happened.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
