Institutionalized discrimination
Just a couple of examples which come to mind immediately.
1.
Pilot health. AA and its subsidiaries used to demand a health history of your ancestors. You had to disclose the ages at which they died and the causes of death. It's been several years since I completed the form, so I don't remember all, but I do recall that you had to disclose health histories of your parents, and your health history. Compare that with FAA First Class Medical disclosure requirements, where all you have to do is disclose your health history. In many cases one's health history might not be perfect but sufficient to let one hold a First, but not sufficient to be employed at AA. Therefore, AA has discriminated against scores of perfectly healthy and productive pilots.
Once more, I understand that AA has done away with the health history disclosure.
2.
Vision requirements. Many excellent pilots have horrendous uncorrected vision. However, their vision can be corrected to 20/20 or better with glasses, etc., and they can hold a First, with or without a SODA. However, many airlines have established vision requirements which are far greater than Uncle Sam, our
government, has established. Therefore, although your vision may be good enough for our government and/or the ICAO, it's not good enough for the airlines. So, another class of individuals is suffering discrimination.
It has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. Delta required 20/20 or better uncorrected vision on
date of hire. After that, a Delta pilot's vision could go to hell but would not affect his/her employment. Documentation of that is apparent. I've seen many Delta pilots who wear glasses. I understand that Delta has relaxed that requirement. Welcome to the twenty-first century.
3.
Age 60. I do not intend to ignite an Age-60 debate. But this is institutionalized age discrimination. I believe that it was the first FAA Administrator, Pete Quesada, who pushed through the Age 60 rule in 1959.
Age 60 has been challenged several times in court, e.g.,
Coupi v. Federal Express Corporation. Here's a
link to
Coupi. Read the case for background on the Age-60 rule and its discrimination implications. Also see
Murnane v. American Airlines, Inc., 667 F.2d 98 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("we find the maximization of safety to be reasonably necessary to the normal operation' of [the defendant airline]").
Coupi cites to
Murnane.
Murnane is an example of how airlines always use "safety" as a shield and excuse to discriminate against certain classes of pilots. Sorry, I cannot find a link to
Murnane.
I did not mean to post a memorandum of law. But I was asked to elaborate on my belief that many forms of institutionalized discrimination exist in airline hiring and the difficulty faced in overcoming it. Once more, this is not a "perfect world."
