*******************************************************************
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81195647/elderly-pilots-claim-air-new-zealand-shafted-them-over-airbus-training

[Did?] Air New Zealand 'shafted' elderly pilots over Airbus A320 training

It was an inglorious end to John's* decades-long flying career....

* Name changed on request.

He was already over-age when the International Civil Aviation Organisation ruled in late 2014 that pilots 65 and over could not serve in any capacity on international flights, so had no choice but to give up his career co-piloting Boeing 777s on long haul routes.

He took up an offer from Air New Zealand to retrain on the Airbus A320, captaining domestic and trans-Tasman flights.

New Zealand and Australia have no mandatory retirement age and human rights legislation prohibits discrimination on the grounds of age.

Air NZ pilots transferring from Boeing aircraft to the new Airbus planes, pictured, have had to undergo training courses. There are concerns about the failure rate.

But the company had recently reduced its A320 training course content and scope, and it soon became apparent to John there would be no extensions for those who were struggling with the workings of the Airbus A320, which is completely different to a Boeing.

"Because I had flown Boeings all my life, there's quite a lot of re-learning to be done. We all knew that, we knew it was going to be tough and we put the hard yards in," John said.

"I was told by Air New Zealand that we would get a standard course.

We got 10 simulator duties, whereas the course before us got 15.

"The daily [instructor] write-ups were such, I thought 'shit, they're going to shaft me on this', and they did.

They refused to give me any further training. There was no other option but to resign.

It's one hell of a way to end a career."

It's understood that of 12 pilots aged over 65 who sat the course in late 2014 and early last year, only two passed.

"It was used as a culling exercise," John said, adding that he believed he and his older colleagues were set up to fail so that younger pilots could be brought through the ranks.

"To be tipped out because of dirty politics, it's pretty hard to take."

Material obtained from the Civil Aviation Authority under the Official Information Act shows that those who failed the training chose to retire, were on long-term sick leave or lost their medical clearances

Both Air New Zealand and the CAA refused to provide figures on overall pass rates. The CAA said the numbers were provided in confidence.

The national carrier has 1430 pilots across its jet and regional fleets, about 14 of whom are over 65.

The airline did not respond to the allegations of discrimination. David Morgan, chief of flight operations and safety, said in a statement:

"Our A320 pilot training/conversion programme is world class, rigorous in its detail and approved by the CAA."

Many of the officers who failed had flown for Air New Zealand for decades and some were decorated ex-Air Force pilots.

"To say we find ourselves shamed by the experience is an understatement," John said.

It's an issue that is confronting industries worldwide as baby boomers pass retirement age and companies struggle to get older employees to retire without discriminating against them.

It's argued by some in aviation that pilots' performance declines with age, but the Aerospace Medical Association says there is insufficient evidence to support any age limit.

Some countries are raising the mandatory retirement age in response to a drastic pilot shortage - the US raised the limit from 60 to 65 in 2009 and in 2015 Japan allowed pilots to keep flying until they turn 68.

It's not the first time Air NZ has found itself accused of ageism. In a landmark case in 2009, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal of pilot David McAlister, who claimed the airline had discriminated against him by saying at 60 he was too old to be a pilot-in-command.

In 2011, it was reported that eight pilots were suing the airline for millions, claiming they retired or were demoted between 2003 and 2006 without being told that international rules were changing, which would have allowed them to continue until 65.

The case settled out of court in 2013.

John said he and his colleagues were now considering a lawsuit and experts predict many more.

Employment lawyer Jim Roberts, who represented the pilots in the 2011 case, said he expected more people would take action under human rights legislation rather than in the Employment Relations Authority as remedies seemed to be about 10 times greater.

"If you can establish something that looks like discrimination it's pretty much treated as discrimination and it puts the onus on the other party to prove that it's not."

'A THREAT TO FLIGHT SAFETY'

Captain David Morgan said the safety and security of passengers was paramount "and we make no apology for maintaining high standards in our pilot training programme".

The insinuation being that anyone who fails isn't up to scratch. But others say it's the training that's not good enough.

An "Aviation Related Concern" complaint sent to the CAA last year - filed anonymously to "avoid retribution" - was damning of the "poor ground training of the Air New Zealand Airbus A320 type rating ground course".

It said the failure rate of older pilots was evidence of the low quality of the training.

"Considering all these pilots were very experienced and deemed competent pilots on the Air New Zealand Boeing fleets, for so many to not succeed is clear evidence that there are serious training quality issues," the complaint said.

It listed a number of "deficiencies" around manuals, teaching methodology and instructor skills and said the course footprint had been reduced by about 30 per cent from its original form, reducing it to a "box ticking exercise".

This resulted in a "significant number of pilots being released [to fly passengers] without a full technical understanding or familiarity of the A320 operation and procedures," the complaint said.

"This deficiency has the potential of crews mishandling non-normal procedures and is a threat to flight safety."

But the CAA dismissed the complaint. A spokesman said an investigation found "no valid safety concerns" and the A320 courses were of a similar or greater length to those overseas.

If a slightly higher failure rate was apparent, the spokesman said, "it would seemingly indicate that the operator was maintaining standards".

But an Air New Zealand pilot in his 50s believes the A320 training is insufficient, requiring only about 20 hours of actual flying compared to around 100 hours for his initial command training.

"Boeing and Airbus are completely poles part in technology, their logic. You've got to go right back to basics and re-learn all over again.

"For any guy who has flown a Boeing for 30-plus years, there's certain habits formed and it's difficult to pick up the new logic."

The pilot believed Air NZ had used the training as a way of "weeding out" older staff.

"Some instructors are brilliant, however one in particular is absolutely diabolical. All they have to do is bring out the bad cop and you're sure to have issues.”

"These guys aren't being given the chance to make the grade, they're not being given the training. It's a culling for sure."

'CREAMING IT'

But not all pilots have sympathy for their older colleagues.

One told Fairfax in 2011 the refusal of pilots in their 60s to quit was hampering the career prospects of younger pilots and causing headaches for Air New Zealand.

He claimed they didn't want to retire because their jobs were so lucrative - captains of B747s and B777s earning between $200,000 and $300,000 a year.

"The company can't make a redundancy package attractive enough to encourage older pilots to leave. It's all about the money. They're creaming it," he said.

Tim Robinson, president of the Airline Pilots Association, said pilot promotions were based on seniority.

"The younger guys are always at the bottom of the list and have to work their way up, so there's always that little bit of jealousy."

Robinson said older pilots who'd always flown Boeings might find Airbus training difficult, but generally they were offered more training where needed.

The union had litigated on behalf of senior pilots in the past, he said, to ensure their rights were upheld as international age restrictions changed.

But sources say the union has been reluctant to get involved in claims because of the conflict of interest with its younger members.

"For younger pilots to get command, they've pretty much got to wait for someone to die"

"They want those roles, those Captains positions, and they know if they can't be forcibly retired they will have to wait even longer," a source said.

Irene King, former head of the Aviation Industry Association, said there was data coming out of the US showing some pilots older than 65 were having performance issues, so she wasn't surprised that several failed the A320 training.

"My experience is that [Air NZ] have simulator instructors putting them through pretty rigorous routines and they have a pretty standard level of performance and you either come up to the standard or you don't.

"Some people just cannot move from old technology to new technology."

But John believes it's not an even playing field.

During observational flights on Airbus aircraft, he noticed that pilots who'd already completed their training had a similar error rate to him.

"It was nothing reflecting directly on flight safety, but perhaps had the potential to."

He said there was no reason why he and the others who failed couldn't have continued flying for a few more years.

"There are enough checks and balances with medicals, simulators, aircraft refreshers, we are looked at more or less nine times a year," he said.

"The trainers said my airmanship - the ability to keep the aircraft and its crew safe - was beyond reproach. They said it was great but everything else was a write-up for failure."

If the case goes to court, "it will revolve around what they think of the person who failed [the training] versus what the person thought".

He said he and his colleagues didn't expect much public support.

"The public will say 'oh they're too old to fly now' but nothing could be further from the truth."

Most pilots realised when they were no longer fit to fly and quit before that happened, he said, as no-one wanted to endanger lives.

"I think I was up to it, and I know a lot of other people were, but because of the attitude of Air NZ we were just hung out to dry."

********************************

COMMENTS RECEIVED:

I was somewhat surprised to see this newspaper article was emailed under “On Blox Bulletin“ labelling.

I was also surprised to see “Name changed on request”. If ”John” wants support or sympathy then stand up and say so.

Obviously there were avenues he could have gone down rather than resign.

He mentions pilots including Dave McAllister who stood up and won, [and good on them].

He alleges a conspiracy without any names or facts.

If this is another “orchestrated litany of lies” and is in fact a conspiracy there will be a paper trail which should emerge under discovery, if he were to take a case. Similarly the ‘confidential pass rates’

Otherwise this article is just a slur on a great number experienced operators.

If he thinks a particular instructor is “diabolical’ name him and bring out the evidence don’t paint everyone with the same brush.

Finally as a past President of NZALPA I reject the “sources say the union has been reluctant to get involved in claims because of the conflict of interest with its younger members” is another slur.

What sources? Unless the union has completely capitulated any member [assuming this individual was in fact a member] who asks for support is given it.

I well remember embarrassingly supporting hopeless cases [admittedly after trying to dissuade them going to court] but that was the duty of NZALPA to give the member his day in court.

I don’t necessarily think this is a hopeless case but he is going to have some guts and stand up and come up with facts and Names.

Please publish this on your blog as an open letter .

On a lighter note there is life after flying but old age is not for sissies.

Regards

Peter H-Bennett

********************************

Hi Guys

I’m not sure if you are aware of my case.

In Sept 2001 I applied for a F/O’s job on the B747.

I turned 60 a few months later.

I heard nothing from Air New Zealand until two weeks after my last flight as PIC.

I was sitting at home on leave (until late April 2002),when a letter arrived, dated 14th Dec 2001 and signed by Mark Simich giving me 3 months notice of termination, on the grounds of “retirement”.

So after 37 years I was fired even before allocated leave had finished!!

Several Employment Court hearings eventually ended up with an ‘Out of Court settlement’.

The Chief Employment Court judge’s scathing findings led to a settlement conference where the issue was settled.

To say that a sour taste remains is understating my emotions hugely…. Thirty seven years with the company, now piss off!

Regards

Sid Rush

********************************

Hi Guys

Interestingly, there has been a lot of inter-government discussion (mainly USA/FAA, UK/CAA, Australia/CASA and the French/Airbus) about the philosophical difference between Boeing /Douglas, UK BAC and French Airbus.

The Boeing/Douglas and UK BAC have a basic logic that automatics are there to assist the crew.

For some reason the Airbus folk have tried to design out the “human factor”.

This has meant that whilst the American and British manufacturers allow the automatics to make between three to five moves without human/crew intervention, that is the crew must make an input that agrees with the automatics or the crew make a changed input.

The Airbus removal of the “human factor” has meant that the crew can very quickly become “out of the loop” of what the automatics are doing.

Numerous avoidable accidents reflect this. As an example, Air France (Flight AF447) flying from Argentina to France.

Jet upset, crew lost control as two pilots fail to realise control inputs through autopilot not same as manual input through side sticks. (Nothing quite like a good old control column that BOTH pilots can see) Airbus A330 crashes into Atlantic.