Have to leave ATP only a week in...

[Clocks]

Meh you can hire a lawyer, but ATP has one either in house or on retainer anyways. Saw him a few times when I was on the phones. In other words it will cost them zero additional dollars, while it will cost you a lot more.

Take your $60k and go do your training somewhere else. Use the $20k you save to hire a kick ass hot asian personal trainer (in all seriousness I know personally that losing weight sucks hardcore, but the benefits of an airline career don't come in your 20s, they come much later in your career. So you damn well want to still be flying then).

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

In the end the reason you are out is based on weight. Last time I checked that is illegal to do.

You need to check again.

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by Berkut

You need to check again.

A C172 is perfectly capable of carrying that weight. A C172sp is especially able to. Both of which ATP have. ATP's policy about fuel and not taking off with reduced loans is BS for this situation. In the end last time I checked weight is a form of discrimination. And discrimination was and is indeed illegal? no?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

In the end last time I checked weight is a form of discrimination. And discrimination was and is indeed illegal? no?

Discrimination against a protected class is illegal. Obese people are not a federally protected class.

[Kristie]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

Things happen for a reason. You can look back in 10 years when you are flying at the airlines and say, "the hell with atp and JIM you can kiss my rear end." (i'd put it another way but i got a warning from steve earlier for something like that). Regardless ATP isnt all its cracked up to be. Jim has no clue how the airlines are run right now. Hell if he did he'd notice a lot of pilots are over weight, most carrying a good beer belly at the very least. Hell no offense but I would beg to say I find a hard time seeing him telling anyone how things are now since they've changed so much since he was in them. With that being said ATP has no right to tell you this. Seriously dude I'd hire a lawyer and look into this. It really sound like ATP is doing a fine tippy toe dance and almost crossing the line. The fact of the matter is everything you've wrote so far ATP is wrong in. With saying that I can see the whole not transferring the aircraft to locations. I'm fine with that. However the rest of it is BS. We do need to get Van in here to talk to you. He made it, larger guy and did just fine at Colgan. I know of two in my class that I would say were rather bigger and guess what they are regional pilots right now.

ATP does not traing Airline pilots. They train pilots to meet ratings. In the end they train pilots and that's it. The fact that Jim wants to sit back and tell you whom they will train and wont is just wrong. Heck we are going back to discrimination at its finest. Really you do have a STRONG STRONG case of discrimination. Discrimination isnt what it use to be and you really have a very STRONG case against them. They have to meet their end of the contract and thus this is a business. They did not. In the end the reason you are out is based on weight. Last time I checked that is illegal to do. Just 2 cents.

And incase Jim is reading this like the slime ball he is. I'll be looking for a good attorney or two that you could speak with about this. Because there is nothing more I'd like to see then Jim and his group up there be taken into jail and given some bad publicity. It'd serve them right. If this isnt the lowest move I've viewed in a while its damn close to it. This is just insane to me. Anyone here saying other wise needs to check themselves out of this site because this is complete and utter hog wash.

do you really think the personal attacks make you more credible in what you have to say?

and really...everyone has a valid opinion..just as you have yours. anyone else saying otherwise is considered a valid opinion that may differ from yours and they are more than welcome to stay *on* the site. you don't have the authority to say as to whether people can come or go (just want to make that clear).

[Clocks]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

A C172 is perfectly capable of carrying that weight. A C172sp is especially able to. Both of which ATP have. ATP's policy about fuel and not taking off with reduced loans is BS for this situation. In the end last time I checked weight is a form of discrimination. And discrimination was and is indeed illegal? no?

Please be honest with everyone and admit you don't give a flying **** about the OP or his issue. The only thing you want to do is enjoy an opportunity to bash ATP. Even if it is discrimination, the OP's problem is just a way for you to get off.

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by Clocks

Please be honest with everyone and admit you don't give a flying **** about the OP or his issue. The only thing you want to do is enjoy an opportunity to bash ATP. Even if it is discrimination, the OP's problem is just a way for you to get off.

My moms side of her family suffers from OBESITY. My mom and sister and aunt all had surgery in order to address the issue. Its a very sensitive issue. Thus this just pisses me off even more. If you want to go back and work for ATP have at it. This is very questionable at the least. If ATPs policy about fuel is really one perhaps when their students go and do xcs they should refuel at every stop. That is if they truely are so concern about the fuel issue. Plus any CFI should be fine going out with a plane with less then filled tanks and do a good lesson without a problem. Perhaps they are affraid to do that because most their CFI's just learned to fly 90 days prior to instructing. I dont know what their reason is. Not many places have such a retarded policy. And most places would also accomidate for this situation.

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by Kristie

do you really think the personal attacks make you more credible in what you have to say?

and really...everyone has a valid opinion..just as you have yours. anyone else saying otherwise is considered a valid opinion that may differ from yours and they are more than welcome to stay *on* the site. you don't have the authority to say as to whether people can come or go (just want to make that clear).

Honestly DCA and ATP are a lot alike..... Where'd DCA go? Some of us have strong dislikes for certain places. The operations and how things are run. If I can help someone save money and go through their training in and at a better place I will do so. ATP really has the money and thus money does a lot of talking. Guess that's why in the end they are so protected on here.

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Discrimination against a protected class is illegal. Obese people are not a federally protected class.

A protected CLASS? What are they animals now?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

A protected CLASS? What are they animals now?

You don't know what the term "protected class" means as it relates to discrimination?

[Clocks]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

My moms side of her family suffers from OBESITY. My mom and sister and aunt all had surgery in order to address the issue. Its a very sensitive issue. Thus this just pisses me off even more. If you want to go back and work for ATP have at it. This is very questionable at the least. If ATPs policy about fuel is really one perhaps when their students go and do xcs they should refuel at every stop. That is if they truely are so concern about the fuel issue. Plus any CFI should be fine going out with a plane with less then filled tanks and do a good lesson without a problem. Perhaps they are affraid to do that because most their CFI's just learned to fly 90 days prior to instructing. I dont know what their reason is. Not many places have such a retarded policy. And most places would also accomidate for this situation.

Just because I critique the way you address your bias against ATP doesn't mean I support ATP. I wouldn't send a friend there. I just think more energy should be focused on the "real" issues, rather than your approach of spinning EVERY issue to look as anti-ATP as possible. You're like the guy standing on the street corner screaming about the end of the world. Maybe he's right...but not many people are going to listen.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

[BillH]

I see fat pilots all over, For Jet Blue, Regionals, and even on Lear jets.
Truth to the matter, everyone is very judgmental and for the person that is obese, life is much less fair in that regard. Maybe you can win some battles in court but your never going to win over 10,000 years of genetic programming of people to be judgmental about weight. I've seen the worst of it, you need to do what you need to do for your self, no one else.
After losing my 260lbs with diet and exercise, I am saddened by how much better I am treated by others and the automatic respect I gained for simply not being fat. If you've never been there, you would never understand it. ATP is very judgmental. I don't want to name names but I've seen a certain old white shirt crack jokes to people in JAX, a new class of new hires about being sumo wrestlers because of their weight, a certain white shirt made comments to me as he sat next to me in the DA40 about being too damn big for it, and comments everyone made about one person in JAX who rode a moped to the school. Heck, first day of standardization for me, I wore shorts, that was enough to get some white shirt making comments to an ATP employee about me. You would really think they would have more important things to discuss or work on than to eat their own young for sport? No, ATP is a dog eat dog world unless you go to a small location like Stuart. You will still end up in JAX though one way or another.
You know though, it probably is part of the formula, maybe they are that way on purpose, to get all their students used to the corporate side of the airlines, to realize that you ARE just a number and something to be judged fairly or not.
And with all the comments about Jim, from my own personal experience, he is one of the few at ATP who will tell you the honest to goodness truth as to "WHY". He told you the truth, he didn't make up an excuse. I respect him for that. And when you ever talk to Jim, don't ever make up excuses, he nor the airlines respect that, he wants to hear you accept responsibilities for your own actions. Thankfully I never had to contend with that during my ACPP training.
Ok, back to the origial topic. People are people, you can not change the world, the world is not fair, only thing you can control is yourself. Take this experience as motivation if you so choose. My reasons to lose the weight had nothing to do with Aviation. I simply realized, "Hey I can be a pilot now, screw being an Air Traffic Controller!"

[SpiraMirabilis]

Originally Posted by Berkut

You don't know what the term "protected class" means as it relates to discrimination?

Obesity is not a protected class but disability as defined by the American's With Disabilities Act is a protected class.

The EEOC handbook has expounded on the issue of the ADA and obesity:

being overweight, in and of itself, generally is not an impairment. On the other hand, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm is clearly an impairment. In addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment.

The major metric applied is whether or not it constitutes a substantial limitation of a major life activity. Additionally another metric is discrimination based on a perceived disability, so while the OP may or may not fall inside the definition of a disabled person based on his weight alone -- if ATP believes he does then it is also a tort. Additionally I think Jim's phone call implies that he also thinks airlines would discriminate against him based on a perception of disability? I don't think they would because they actually have HR departments which understand this type of law.
The burden for the company/organization accused of discrimination is "the reasonable modification of rules, policies or practices." I think it would be reasonable to modify their policy on full fuel, I also think it would be reasonable to modify their practices by swapping a 150 for a 180 hp aircraft at that location, or to allow the OP to do training at a location that has a permenant 180hp aircraft. Jim's statement that such would require "administrative oversight" is not a very compelling argument IMHO. Every flight that ATP has operational control over requires "administrative oversight."

[meyers9163]

Torts and burden.... aww words I love! Gosh I miss business Law and especially the partnerships and corperation part of it. Well put man! No one could have put it better!

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by SpiraMirabilis

Obesity is not a protected class but disability as defined by the American's With Disabilities Act is a protected class. The major metric applied is whether or not it constitutes a substantial limitation of a major life activity.

If Vladi34 were disabled due to weight, he would know it and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He refers to himself as "out of shape ... working to get the weight down," not disabled. Major life activities are things like walking, eating, sleeping, breathing, caring for oneself, and so on. Being unable to fly in a 172 with full fuel does not mean he's disabled; by that standard, given the numbers in vladi34's original post, everyone over 230 pounds would qualify, including me.

At any rate, forget the above; we don't have to debate his disability. Vladi34 is probably reading this and we can simply ask him and settle the "discrimination" issue right off the bat: Vladi34, are you considered disabled due to your weight?

edited to add: He's not disabled. He already posted about his weight condition here: http://forums.jetcareers.com/ask-a-f...t-medical.html No mention of a disability.

Additionally another metric is discrimination based on a perceived disability, so while the OP may or may not fall inside the definition of a disabled person based on his weight alone -- if ATP believes he does then it is also a tort.

I've seen nothing to indicate that ATP believes he actually has a disability; only that he's too heavy for some of their aircraft.

Additionally I think Jim's phone call implies that he also thinks airlines would discriminate against him based on a perception of disability?

Too many assumptions. Why not interpret it as "I know you're not disabled, but the airlines are really picky about appearance" or some other legitimate reason? Which do you think is more likely?

The burden for the company/organization accused of discrimination is "the reasonable modification of rules, policies or practices." I think it would be reasonable to modify their policy on full fuel, I also think it would be reasonable to modify their practices by swapping a 150 for a 180 hp aircraft at that location, or to allow the OP to do training at a location that has a permenant 180hp aircraft. Jim's statement that such would require "administrative oversight" is not a very compelling argument IMHO. Every flight that ATP has operational control over requires "administrative oversight."

None of the above is relevant if he doesn't have a disability. They don't have to accommodate him.


Now, putting the whole discrimination thing aside for the moment (and hopefully for good), my personal opinion is that you are right to be upset, Vladi34. I think they should have told you up front if they thought your weight was a problem, and they should have been willing to let you fly with reduced fuel. If they don't want to take your $79,000 then I suggest you vote with your money and go fly someplace else. Don't let this discourage you from flying! There are plenty of other schools that will work with you.

[BillH]

You know... Something doesn't seam right... With the weight and balance.

[Asta]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Discrimination against a protected class is illegal. Obese people are not a federally protected class.

The Equal Protection clause prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender and a few other "suspect classes" of which fat guys are not included. And yes I am a lawyer, but I'm working hard to overcome it.

I don't get why they booted you. I flew around with a big guy in the PA44 and we would have been out of CG if we didn't load the baggage compartment up with those big water cooler bottles!

[SpiraMirabilis]

Berkut -- it doesn't matter if he is disabled or not if ATP perceives that he is and discriminates based on that perception. ATP perceives that he won't be able to get a job based on his weight. Working is considered a major life activity based on the supreme court decision in Bragdon v Abbot. So even though he is not actually disabled if ATP thinks that his weight would prevent him from being hired anywhere and based on that discriminates against him then any competent attorney could at least bring it to trial with a somewhat compelling case.

I've seen nothing to indicate that ATP believes he actually has a disability; only that he's too heavy for some of their aircraft.

Remember this quote:

Then he went on to say "We also need to look at the bigger picture and in your current condition you are going to be unhierable by the airlines. We train airline pilots here and I would not think it would be good if we trained you and you could not get hired by anyone."

[SIUav8er]

I couldnt imagine someone that weighs 400 lbs in a seminole, let alone a 172! I think the guy at ATP was out of line saying they could do that, but imagine the trouble they would be in if they DID have a published weight limit for students! I dont understand why you guys think the school is wrong for canceling a flight for obvious safety reasons.

They gave the guy his money back, Im sure appologized because they dont have the proper aircraft to train him in, and sent him on his way! I guess Im just missing the problem here.

I doubt ATP ever said he wouldnt be able to get an airline job. They require a 1st class medical to begin the program... Maybe the FAA should be sued for discrimination? Or... maybe we should sue Cessna for putting weight an balance limitations on 172. While were at it, lets also sue ATP for requiring their aircraft take off with full fuel!

[Berkut]

Berkut -- it doesn't matter if he is disabled or not if ATP perceives that he is and discriminates based on that perception.

I don't believe that ATP perceives he's disabled. I believe that ATP perceives (perhaps wrongly) that Vladi simply isn't who the airlines are looking for. You could say that's effed up and and untrue, and I'd be inclined to agree with you. But I don't think they are perceiving a disability.

Originally Posted by SpiraMirabilis

ATP perceives that he won't be able to get a job based on his weight. Working is considered a major life activity

ATP perceives that he won't get a job as an airline pilot because of his weight, not that he is unable to work because of his weight. There's a significant difference. Remember, airlines are within their rights to say, "We like you, but appearance is very important to us. Sorry." An airline not hiring you because you're overweight doesn't mean that you are disabled*; therefore, it follows that someone saying an airline won't hire you because you're overweight doesn't mean that person perceives you as being disabled. That particular someone is commenting on what he believes to be the airlines' hiring preference, not on any perceived impairment of the student.

The key point is this: If ATP believes for some reason that the airlines won't hire an overweight person for reasons of appearance rather than impairment (which the airlines can do, even if they choose not to), then ATP is free to tell overweight students that they are unhireable. Since it has nothing to do with impairment, it's not because of any perceived disability. And if there's no actual disability or perceived disability, then ATP is not required to accommodate them.





* "No airlines will hire me because I'm fat" vs. "I'm unable to work because I'm fat"

[desertdog71]

Yeah,

I heard that Desertdog guy actually got hired flying tours at Grand Canyon in 207's where the planes are always at max gross and the density altitude is high, and he is a fat bastard.

I heard he was hired by a regional turboprop operator as well, and he weighs 300lbs. I also hear that he is instructing at White Air and they fly Cherokee 140's, Cessna 172K models and Twin Comanches and manage to be within CG and weight limits.

I don't know what else to say, but apparently there are exceptions to these situations. I wouldn't let your weight stop you but at the same time you could work on it. I have lost about 30 lbs since I started out so I am down to 270 now, but I never let it stop me.

Of course I couldn't do dual in a C-150 or Diamond or something small like that, so there are a few limits to what you can do, but not being able to make very small adjustments to accommodate you is beyond my comprehension.

I have taken checkrides with DPE's that weigh 275lbs, so we just filled to the tabs instead and put a couple bags of books in the back. No big deal really.

Anyways, you can PM me if you wanna talk more about it.

[meyers9163]

Van thanks for replying! Its been a while bro! Holla at me man!

[vladi34]

Thanks for all of the response, it's truly appreciated. Here is what I got to add to all of this. I don't think that I have ever considered myself a disabled person, there are people that are in far worse condition then me (wounded soldiers, accidents victims, persons with birth defects, persons with uncontrollable medical conditions, and many more) that deserve the help that they get for being disabled. I on the other hand like to eat good food and unfortunately over the last few years lost the activity level that I used to have, simple as that. It is my fault for being this way and it's something that I can and will definitely do something about. The problem that I have with ATP simply lies in the fact that these people saw me before when I toured the facility and I asked them questions about my weight and no one told me that it was going to be a problem, just the opposite as a matter of fact. On top of all that I was there for ground school for a week and no one said that it would be a problem for me to fly. I also have a problem with them making the call that I will not be able to get a job, they don't know me...
SIUav8er if they would return all of my money that would be a good gesture on their part, but from what I heard from the facility manager they are going to charge me $750 for materials... I don't need their materials, and 750 is 750 in my eyes that is still a considerable chunk of money. Now I don't yet know what I'm going to get back, that is Jim's call and I am still waiting for him to make that decision (while Sallie Mae continues to charge me interest). All of this is not even mentioning that I quit my job and spent money actually getting down to and back from ATP. If they would have told me right of the bat, or if it was on their website that my weight would be an issue I would have stayed at my job a while longer and worked on getting my weight down BEFORE going out there... Instead I was planning on taking that 5 to 6 months while at ATP and working on getting my weight down a little (or a lot). I know appearance is a lot when it comes to getting flying jobs, but I also know that weight is not everything...
Basically I consider what they did to me is a slimeball move on their part and they could have easily let me stay and get my ratings at their school or warned me ahead of time. But life is full of speed bumps, if there were none we would all be millionears and flying our own jets I do not intend to let this get me down, and I WILL get all my ratings and be flying for a living, it's as simple as that. But I do not like someone stealing from my family, and if ATP takes a dime from me that is what I will consider it. If on the other hand Jim does the right thing and sends every last penny back to me, I will acnowledge that and part with ATP on neutral terms. As far as I can see that would tell me that he realized that they effed up on letting me in and they are doing the best that they can to remedy the situation, and if that means for them to take a small loss on the materials that they sent me so be it, it won't bankrupt them. After all I am taking a loss to, $300 in gas to get there $300 to get back, loss of a job, and being away from my kids and wife... We'll see how this turns out.

[SpiraMirabilis]

ATP perceives that he won't get a job as an airline pilot because of his weight, not that he is unable to work because of his weight. There's a significant difference. Remember, airlines are within their rights to say, "We like you, but appearance is very important to us. Sorry." An airline not hiring you because you're overweight doesn't mean that you are disabled*

There is no difference. The law doesn't make the distinction between working one job or working any job. ATP doesn't have to say 'You can't work any job because of your weight' because saying 'You can't work job X' is good enough. HOWEVER Even if you accept the proposition that it is only based on appearance then it very well still be a tort. Image related lawsuits are reaching an all-time high for employeers especially. It is only acceptable to discriminate based on appearance if the appearance constitutes a "bona fide occupational qualification." It obviously does not in this case due to the number of chunky pilots I've seen in the airlines.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by SpiraMirabilis

There is no difference. The law doesn't make the distinction between working one job or working any job. ATP doesn't have to say 'You can't work any job because of your weight' because saying 'You can't work job X' is good enough.

It's not good enough, because the law does make that distinction in 29 CFR 1630.2: "The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working." There was a case a few years back in which someone claimed to be disabled because their poor eyesight prevented them from being an airline pilot. The court rejected that allegation, citing 29 CFR 1630.2, since according to them airline pilot is a single job and not "a class of jobs or broad range of jobs." Are you asserting that someone who can't get a medical due to some relatively trivial issue, like kidney stones or 20/40 corrected vision, be considered disabled just because they can't work as an airline pilot? Even if they are perfectly healthy otherwise?

Consider this scenario: Let's say that vladi34 decides to become a bridge inspector instead. It turns out that he's physically unable to do it because he can't fit inside the structures. He is unable to do this one job due to a physical impairment. Can he claim to be disabled now? And here's the kicker: If so, now that he's officially disabled due to his weight, can he force ATP to accommodate him as a student? I suspect if that were the case, we'd have hundreds of thousands of unemployed "bridge inspectors" and the like on disability.

"I can't work job X." doesn't mean I'm disabled; Someone saying that I can't work job X doesn't mean they perceive me as disabled.

HOWEVER Even if you accept the proposition that it is only based on appearance then it very well still be a tort. Image related lawsuits are reaching an all-time high for employeers especially. It is only acceptable to discriminate based on appearance if the appearance constitutes a "bona fide occupational qualification." It obviously does not in this case due to the number of chunky pilots I've seen in the airlines.

I have no doubt that someone might sue an airline for doing that. Fortunately for ATP though, it's not prohibited to refuse to accommodate a non-disabled student based on their weight, while at the same time advising that student that someone else will discriminate based on his or her appearance. They are just saying what they think the airlines would do, not practicing it themselves. "Perceived" doesn't come into play in this scenario since disability is out of the picture.

At any rate, I'm running out of energy on this topic, so if this post doesn't sway you then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's not much point in debating potential lawsuit outcomes anyway, and we do seem to be headed that direction. I do appreciate your reasoned arguments instead of the other ATP bashing, though.