Age
 

Would age be a factor in getting hired? Spirit seems like a young pilot group would they hire someone older say late 40’s or early 50’s?
Thanks.

We’ve hired plenty in that age range. Just flew with a recent hire that was 56. Age shouldn’t have much to do with it. We need qualified bodies and those will be harder and harder to find.

It's a young pilot group but that has nothing to do with hiring practice. Plenty of new hires in the 40s-50s age range.

A couple years back, my sim partner for the PC was doing his first Airbus PC at 60.

I was hired seven years ago at 52.

I’m in my mid 30s and was in the middle of my class seniority wise (done by age).

I've hired several over 60 pilots. Our rule of thumb...if a pilot can give us two good years, he's made up the investment we made in him for initial training/qualification.

Sad that’s the “rule of thumb”

It’s a business, not a charity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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?

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

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?

Haha. You already know the answer.

And of course I never called him a tool. That would be uncouth. It was simply a cautionary suggestion to not be one.

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.

I'm with you, Packrat. Makes perfect sense to me.

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.

That was the benefit of getting hired in 2017 when we were offering jobs on the spot. They would have hired you and your grandpa.

Well, his grandpa would've been too old.

I would have hired you as well. You're going to give us 5.5 years of productive flying after you've been trained and qualified? You're an asset that should be treated as such.

Two years seems a very fair figure in this respect. In my company you're not allowed to upgrade anymore unless you have three years left. I think it used to be five even.

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.