Ok here's a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[pilot602]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
There's a big difference between what's fair and moral versus what's legal .

[/ QUOTE ]

This is understood (see earlier post).

The issue is how can a business legally seperate one group of potential employees and hire them, well below the businesses own "minimum qualifications," based on the sole criteria that they were part of an agreement with another business. While at the same time those (the vast, vast majority of applicants) who were not privy to this agreement not only rarely get an interview at the advertised "minimum qualifications" they rarely get hired with nothing less than quite a bit more than the advertised minimum quals.

I guess another way to attack the question would be to ask why, if some people were hired at 300hr, a 1,200hr pilot would be turned away (assuming slots are open, etc.)?

 

[Center_Mid]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

"Make my day"? Wasn't that Eastwood?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
Get a sharp enough lawyer and you can just about do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]An unfortunately common misconception.

 

[pilot602]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

Then tell me why we have a bunch of lardo's (no offense to any fat folks) suing McDonalds for making them fat?

The first time it was tried it was thrown out. Don't think this new suit will make the same mistake(s).

Hence a sharp enough lawyer ...

 

[JDMcFly]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

"This is understood (see earlier post).

The issue is how can a business legally seperate one group of potential employees and hire them, well below the businesses own "minimum qualifications," based on the sole criteria that they were part of an agreement with another business. While at the same time those (the vast, vast majority of applicants) who were not privy to this agreement not only rarely get an interview at the advertised "minimum qualifications" they rarely get hired with nothing less than quite a bit more than the advertised minimum quals.

I guess another way to attack the question would be to ask why, if some people were hired at 300hr, a 1,200hr pilot would be turned away (assuming slots are open, etc.)? "

Why don't you first explain where it would be *illegal*.. There is no such thing as discriminating against someone with more hours

.

The company has every right to hire from whatever *source* it wishes. Company hour minimums are not legality, and they can definately be 'bent'.

 

[Mavmb]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about this for awhile now and thought I'd toss it out here and see what kind of flame fes... err "intelligent discussion" we can get out of it.

All these schools that advertise "get hired at 300 hours" at some point did have at least a few folks getting hired under the advertised minimums of whatever airline they were sent to.

How is this not discriminatroy hiring practice on the part of the airlines doing the hiring?

If I had sent my 300 hour resume into the same airline at the same time (or even the few that still have "bridge" programs and are hiring now) I would have to meet the advertised minimum quals (if not the "competitive quals) ... so how is it that the airlines can legally hire a select few at 300 hours yet hold everyone else to a different standard?

Seems to me if you hire one at 300 (or 700 or whatever the number may be - yet, under the advertised minimum times needed to qualify for the job) in essence you've set a new minimum and thereby must now hire everyone at the new lower number.

Discuss it amongst yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one fact to note is that many of the big flight schools are lying about how many of their pilots are actually being hired at the airlines and how many of their pilots continually work for the airlines. Those people that try to buy a job, and realize that they took out an 80,000 dollar loan for nothing get quite upset after they graduate and find that despite the so called "airline training" and unloggable sim time they got; they are now just another 2 to 300 hour pilot looking for a flight instructor job like everyone else.

It's very seldom that a 300 hour pilot gets a job flying for an airline anywhere, and if they do, it's usually because they had a family member or friend walk a resume in.

 

[pilot602]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you first explain where it would be *illegal*.. There is no such thing as discriminating against someone with more hours .
The company has every right to hire from whatever *source* it wishes. Company hour minimums are not legality, and they can definately be 'bent'.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were a pure preference or perogative that were allowing these 300hr pilots to get hired that's one thing. perfectly fine, legal, whatever.

My point. And, apparently everyone is missing the point, is that these are essentially contracts between two businesses (in many cases seperate businesses) that seperates a group of individuals from the general population and allows them to be hired BELOW the hiring companie's own minimum qualifications.

If it were not for the contract between the two entities everyone would be "hired" at or above the minim qualifications presented by the given company.

It's the same, as say, Microsoft saying that in order to take a job as a programmer you need to know DOS, QBASIC, Windows, and C++ - but if you go through say Joe's Community College they'll hire you once you only learn DOS. However, if someone else comes along, who only knows DOS, but didn't attend Joes Community College he or she won't be hired because they lack the requirements for the job.

How does Microsoft then justify the hiring of one person who knows DOS and not hiring another (assuming all other factors are about equal)?

(edit: here down is "new")

Or how does a company justify having two different sets of requirements for the same, exact job/position?

And Mav - I know no one is really getting hired at 300 hours anymore. But all it takes is one or two to make it not right. I'm just using 300 as a number to avoid typing out "a pilot who was hired under the minimum hourly requirements."

 

[Center_Mid]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

To echo what others have said, hiring a 300-hr pilot over a 1200-hr pilot may be unfair, but it is probably not illegal at all, except in very limited circumstances (govt contract violations, for example). Businesses are free to hire anyone they want to, as long as they do not discriminate or break any other laws.

In theory, an airline could hire a pilot with 0 hours. They couldn't let them fly at all, of course, but they could hire them and pay them as "pilots" - not that this would make any sense, except maybe as a fraud scheme.

 

[Center_Mid]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

I guess I should add that internal hiring qualifications are not contracts and they are not law. They are standards set up by a company and usually subject to exception by the company.

 

[aloft]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me if you hire one at 300 (or 700 or whatever the number may be - yet, under the advertised minimum times needed to qualify for the job) in essence you've set a new minimum and thereby must now hire everyone at the new lower number.

[/ QUOTE ]Sounds like a case of wishful thinking on your part.

The fact is, private enterprise is free to hire--or NOT hire--whomever they choose, provided the protections that certain classes of people enjoy under federal law aren't violated. Other than that, there are no rules. An airline's published minimums mean nothing whatsoever; they're simply put forth as a way of saying "if you don't meet these, don't waste our time by applying". Doesn't mean in the slighest that they're not at liberty to hire interns, minorites of all stripes, or even applicants offering sexual favors, simply because they haven't met the company's "advertised" minimums. ("Advertised" is a misnomer IMHO, as it might imply that such minimums are subject to "truth in advertising" laws. "Published" is more accurate, IMHO.)

 

[Bell47]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

pilot 602:

I know from watching your previous posts that you are an intelligent, thoughtful and professional responder to this forum; therefore I will respond to you as best I can:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There's a big difference between what's fair and moral versus what's legal

This is understood (see earlier post)."

SorryI missed that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" based on the sole criteria that they were part of an agreement with another business. While at the same time those who were not privy to this agreement"---

<font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font> That's the key word "agreement". They were, you were not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"rarely get an interview at the advertised "minimum qualifications" they rarely get hired with nothing less than quite a bit more than the advertised minimum quals".

That's their right as an employer <font color="blue"> </font>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep the Faith,
Jeff
I
P.S. Sorry if I've responded and paraphrased your statements incorrectly. I'm not very computer literate and can't fly worth a sh#$, either.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
Hence a sharp enough lawyer ...

[/ QUOTE ]You clearly have a line on some information that I know nothing about. I'll defer to your wisdom.

 

[Mavmb]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

My only point was any low time pilot getting hired for an airline probably had a family member or friend walk a resume in; and that was most likely the case in getting the job, although the school will certainly take credit for it.

It's just not a fair world. I knew a flight instructor who's daddy was an airline pilot, and after 1500 hours of flight instructing and around 200 multi he got a corporate job flying a Falcon jet for 45000 a year starting out.

I agree; it's not fair, but companies do have a right to hire anyone they want. Sucks, but it is better than the government telling the companies who they should hire because, if that's the case, suddenly the business can't hire who's best for them or who's in the company's best interest, and everything goes downhill from there.

 

[Bell47]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

"Make my day"? Wasn't that Eastwood? "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOPS!

I was certain that quote came from Arnie Eastwood in the Dirty Dozen.

LOL!

Actually, I was just checking to see if anybody really reads this stuff.

Have a nice day

 

[C_J]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

I think a lot of these bridge programs work well for the regional airlines whenever the aviation industry is booming. I know if you do not attend a special academy then most bridge programs require you to do an unpaid internship. In some strange sort of way this is a way of "paying your dues" so to speak, although it in no way can compare to long days as a CFI at an FBO or flight school, working long hours for little pay. At one airline with a bridge program you have to do your internship in the Washington DC area. Talk about expensive and those 13 weeks of ZERO pay can be really hard, but it is an opportunity that if you can take that you cannot pass up because of the POTENTIAL benefits. If you think about the regionals benefit a good deal. For example (THIS IS ASSUMING AIRLINE INDUSTRY IS BOOMING):

If ABC airline hires a bridge pilot with about 400 hours into the right seat of a CRJ then 9 times out of 10 that pilot will be at the regional for a while. The tunover rate for that pilot is reduced because that pilot can not jump to a major because he or she has not accumulated anywhere near competive minimums the majors seek. So now this low-time FO must sit in the right seat for at least another 1000 hours or so just to be ELIGIBLE to upgrade to captain on the CRJ. Now he or she should have enough seniority by a couple of years gaining that much needed 1000 hours in the right seat. Now once he or she upgrades to captain, then he will have to sit in the left seat for a while just to gain time just to meet the minimums at a major. Depending on the amount of flying per year this could take a while, and therefore when it is time to step to up to a major the pilot then has to consider the opportunity costs of losing the seniority at the regional to go to the bottom at the major. Some pilots may just stay at the regional. If this happens the regional gains a pilot that may just stay, therefore reducing turnover costs in the pilot ranks. In any event the low-timer will be at the airline for a good amount of time to build up some decent time.

CJ

 

[stuckingfk]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
So now this low-time FO must sit in the right seat for at least another 1000 hours or so just to be ELIGIBLE to upgrade to captain on the CRJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

CJ,

Upgrades to captain are all based on seniority, which is based on date of hire. From that point on (DOH), total time doesn't mean a thing within that particular airline.

If the pilot was hired under reduced minimums at a regional, they could be there a little longer to build up more time to be competitive at a major.

 

[aloft]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

[ QUOTE ]
Upgrades to captain are all based on seniority, which is based on date of hire. From that point on (DOH), total time doesn't mean a thing within that particular airline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrectamundo. You need an ATP certificate to upgrade, and the FAA doesn't give a crap about your date of hire. If you don't have the hours or aren't old enough for your ATP (min age: 23), you can't upgrade until you've met those requirements.

 

[stuckingfk]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

I forgot to say that, thanks for correcting me. I did know that you need an ATP.

My point with CJ's post was it seems he thinks a pilot cannot upgrade within his/her airline without having competitive time. Once this pilot has his ATP, he can upgrade whenever he wants based on his seniority.

Maybe I missing something here?

 

[aloft]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

Yes, you're correct as far as you went; provided a pilot is otherwise qualified to upgrade (ATP, and most airlines have a "company hours" minimum), upgrade is a matter of seniority, not "competitive time". Remember that the only hours the majors are concerned with are "turbine PIC"--which you generally need a minimum of 1000 hrs of, and you can't start logging that until after you upgrade. Given a 2-3 yr upgrade wait at a regional, most pilots will have 4000-5000 TT by the time they've accumulated that 1000 hrs of turbine PIC time. Note that this is a generalization, not a hard and fast rule--just as pilots can get hired at the regionals with less than the published minimums, so can mainline pilots. I seem to remember both Doug and DE727UPS saying they still don't have that 1000 turbine PIC.

 

[C_J]

Re: Ok here\'s a brain twister : how is it legal ...

Sorry I should have stated that. At Part 121 carriers from what I understand you need to have an ATP rating to act as PIC (Captain) of a flight. FAR 61.159 says you need at least 1500 hrs TT and I should have stated it will take a little while for a low-time pilot to build up the time while SIC (FO).

CJ