Laws on recruiting/hiring graduates from select establishments

[NadJ]

I am a UK based commercial pilot who has just landed my first job after nearly 4 years since graduating. Myself and my peers (late 20s, early 30s) have suffered long and hard due to lack of opportunities. During this period, 4 out 5 UK airlines were busy hiring pilots who completed their training at the airlines' "preferred" schools. Yes, guys who started their training 2 years ago were flying a year later whilst applications from us were not even invited ! That’s right, these jobs are not even advertised. The qualifications achieved by us are identical to those who have gained them at the "preferred" schools with one difference, the other guys paid approx double the price we did and at flight schools who are headed up by former employees of the airlines or best buddies of those who head up the recruitment departments at airlines – The “old boys” network.

 

The other graduates are primarily 18 to 22 year olds (much younger). Upon graduation the vast majority go into their first jobs with over €100,000 of debt and thus are keen to take up whatever offers the airlines lay down on the table in order to start earning and paying the debt off. The airlines offer them deals that capitalise on their relative naivety and lack of need for job stability and good conditions. The only offer is a summer contract (with a promise of offering the same the following summer) paying by the hour worked, and the airline gets to decide when you work! Furthermore the contract stipulates that the airline can base you anywhere within Europe with 1 weeks’ notice and the cost of relocating and living is entirely yours! You can see why these guys are preferred over 30 year olds who require a steady salary and a basing policy that offers some sort of life stability.

 

Airline pilot recruitment in this country is so heavily price and policy fixed (you can only get a job now if you go to one of 2 big schools) that it favours those who have no other objective in life and will do it at any cost to their future (debt for 10 years). Those who choose to do their training at smaller schools, often part time to work around family/work life and above all debt free, are ignored by the airlines who cite lack of “training continuity” as their primary reason for rejecting us, even though we pass the same exams and the same flight tests (often with the same independent examiners!) to the same standard. There is only one standard – that which rewards you with a qualification.

 

This practise might sound horrific to a lot of people but is now the industry norm. The public relishes cheap fares but the only way these are achieved is by the airlines following a 'hire the cheapest labour' policy even if it means blatant age discrimination. These young pilots don’t complain for fear of losing their only means of paying of debt but I’m a little different in that I have an alternative career and though I love my new job, it’s not everything. If I can fight for what’s right, then I’ll do it.

 

I have 2 questions:

 

Can the airlines reject candidates based on WHERE they completed their training, even though it’s to the same qualifying standards?

 

What can be said about a recruitment practise which by design only attracts those of a lesser age and who don’t mind becoming heavily in debt? Is this not ageism by proxy? What can be done about it?

Edited February 16, 2012 by NadJ

[Bigredbus]

First of all, let me congratulate you on both obtaining your ATPL (even if it's slightly belated), and landing a job in the industry... Costly, but rewarding!

 

Now, a few large airlines have their own training schools or have pre-arranged agreements with training academies. British Airways has just launched the ''Future Pilot Program'', a sponsored pilot training scheme. They choose young graduates and finance their ATPL, thus guarantying a position upon the obention of their license... and a longer return on investment.

[mariefab]

It seems that you've already answered your questions but...

 

1. Yes, because a Company can use whatever criteria they like in recruitment as long as it isn't discriminatory and they would contend that 'training continuity' is their highest priorty and that this is their reason for selecting employees from the 'preferred' schools.

 

2. It can be said that such a practise will be likely to attract employees who could be prepared to work on inferior terms. Unless you can evidence that the 'preferred' schools will only accept candidates under a certain age, it's unlikely that anything can be done about it.

[Bigredbus]

...and as for the rest, 'Mariefab' said it all!

 

[NadJ]

Sorry, allow me to clarify. The training continuity is what they cite but the reality is different. You can do your training in a continuous manner (not part time) if you choose at your choice of flight school. The difference is their preferred schools don't allow it as a matter of policy. In reality it's just smokes and mirrors designed to line the pockets of their buddies at the bigger flight schools whilst taking advantage of outside industry ignorance.

 

But again, does it not matter the regulating bodies accept both styles of teaching in order to grant a license? yet the airline can discriminate by favouring those who have completed their training at the bigger (buddy buddy) schools?

 

Airlines are able to price and policy fix how much we pay for our training by teaming up with horrendously expensive training establishments who have sole exclusivity for sending graduates forward for jobs. Is there not even an anti-competition argument here? It is accepted as a professional qualification by this government yet employment opportunities will not come your way unless you line the correct pockets along the way. I dunno, maybe I'm naive but it just doesn't sound right.

Edited February 16, 2012 by NadJ

[mariefab]

No, it doesn't matter because discrimination on the grounds of which school an applicant attended isn't unlawful.