EasyJet launches cabin crew recruitment drive targeting young people
New research commissioned by easyJet of 2,000 16 to 24-year-olds showed there were still misconceptions around the role of cabin crew which prevented them from pursuing it as a career.
More than nine in 10 of those surveyed were unaware there are no minimum educational qualifications required to apply for the job, with two in three believing they would be under-qualified for cabin crew training.
As a result, almost nine in 10 said they had never considered a career working for an airline.
Michael Brown, director of cabin services at easyJet, said: 'We want to show young people that being cabin crew is more than just a job – it's a career filled with variety, teamwork and opportunity, which has so much to offer to so many people as well as offering a pathway to progress in working within our wider industry too.
'If you have enthusiasm, people skills and a willingness to learn something new, our taster sessions could be the perfect first step towards a new opportunity.'
Aviation minister Mike Kane said: 'It's fantastic to see British firm easyJet investing in our young people, encouraging and inspiring them into careers in aviation.
'We are determined to break down barriers to opportunity in the UK to deliver our Plan for Change so everyone can pursue and progress in rewarding careers.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
It's time to explode the Establishment myths against a wealth tax
This rebuttal largely goes unchallenged by the national media, yet it has at its heart a number of misleading premises. The first is that wealth creation ceases when the wealthy leave. This stems from the myth that the ruling class create wealth through their ingenuity and risk-taking, as opposed to all financial wealth originating from human labour. It would therefore take a mass exodus or nationwide risk to life for wealth creation in a country to cease – we need only look at the hit private profit would have taken during the pandemic had the state not stepped in to shore it up to see the primacy of human labour evidenced. Read more The second is that existing wealth itself is mobile and can "leave" with the wealthy. Some wealth is, of course, mobile, in the form of fine art, precious gems, other luxury items and the king of capital; cash, which is exactly why currency controls and export restrictions and limits exist. However, a significant proportion of wealth is in immobile assets like land, property and British-based businesses whose wealth is generated by, you guessed it, human labour. This wealth cannot up sticks and leave with an individual. The resources remain in the country and are subject to taxation. The third is the Laffer Curve itself which purports to visualise the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue, the idea being that there is an optimum rate of tax which raises the maximum revenue, above which revenue starts to decrease as taxpayers are deterred from remaining in the tax system. This theory, though influential, is unfounded. The concept of trickle-down economics, that tax cuts raise more revenue by encouraging investment and thus benefit society, has not been borne out in data. Tax cuts have not been found to reduce inequality. UK taxes are considerably lower than in most other western European countries, yet we face significant and persistent income and wealth inequalities. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that in the UK the top 10% own a staggering 57% of the wealth, while 2 in every 10 adults and 3 in every 10 children, are in poverty. So, if wealth creation doesn't stop when the already wealthy leave, if the super-rich can't take their British resource-dependent wealth with them, and if tax cuts have not been found to reduce inequality, why is the Establishment so opposed to taxing wealth? The other half of their argument is on what may happen in future. Their fear, they say, is that if we make the country less profitable for wealthy individuals, even slightly so through a modest wealth tax, they will leave, and private interest as a whole will be less likely to invest in our economy. How likely this is has been contested by organisations like Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires UK, so it seems likely that at least some of the millionaires will stay, but regardless the important question is: what do the rest of us stand to gain from any potential risk of flight? We know that waiting for wealth to trickle down has not worked, that inequality has remained high while the rich get richer. We know we won't lose wealth creation as long as we have a fit and able population to do the work. We know we won't lose all existing wealth as long as we have natural resources, built heritage and, yes, a fit and able population to do the work. In fact, the greatest risk to wealth is workforce shortages caused by a public health service on its knees, an undervalued public education system and a cost-of-living crisis deterring new parents. In short, the greatest risk to wealth is continuing to let it go untaxed. Inequality has remained high while the rich get richer (Image: Getty) Yes, we may lose some wealthy individuals who don't want to pay their fair share, we may see fewer corporate lobbyists on their payroll and fewer freebies for the politicians in their pockets – I'll shed no tears for them – but what we stand to gain is a fairer system. A system that addresses inequality and says clearly and proudly, if your private interest has benefitted from our public services: our health, our education, our labour (in every sense!), you will contribute a proportion of that benefit back into the system. There would be no wealth without us, all we are asking is that we all receive our fair share. A wealth tax is a modest policy whose time has well since come. So let there be no shame in calling for one and in doing so declaring that we will not reward greed and excess, we will build a society in which we all have enough. This Labour Government has an opportunity like no other: a mandate, a majority, and a moral imperative. It must embrace it. Mercedes Villalba is a Scottish Labour MSP for the North East Scotland Region.
Economist
2 hours ago
- Economist
How thieves could break into your car
Britain | Manufacturers v thieves Photograph: Getty Images I MAGINE MEETING a seasoned British car thief in 2013. They would probably have cut a sorry figure. Every year of their career, the grind had got harder. The tools of their trade, such as a coat hanger or 'slim jim' (a flat metal strip) for bypassing locks and strippers for manipulating ignition wires, had, slowly but surely, been rendered obsolete, thanks to improved security technology. Business had dried up. Cars, phones, tractors: how high-end products are increasingly stolen to serve distant markets The truth will catch up with you, but will readers want to hear it? Football is becoming nerdier The rise of the revolutionary retiree Blame declining confidence, a lack of convenience and rising complacency
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Labour MSP defies Scottish Secretary in call for wealth tax
A wealth tax is a form of taxation which is designed to collect money from an individual's total assets as opposed to specific levies on income or property. Proposed wealth taxes have included a levy on cumulative wealth - including everything from property, to investments, to art. The idea of the policy is that it could make the tax system fairer by directly targeting accumulated assets. The policy has recently emerged as a key dividing line in the parliamentary Labour Party in both Westminster and Holyrood. READ MORE: Last week, Scottish Secretary Ian Murray dismissed the idea of the UK Government implementing a wealth tax, saying that there was 'no silver bullet' to the country's economic woes. Speaking to the Comedian Matt Forde at the Edinburgh Fringe, Mr Murray said '[A wealth tax] doesn't work. The Laffer curve [an economic theory which explains the correlation between taxation and government revenue] is there for everyone to see. 'So, yes, you can bring in a wealth tax, because it might make you feel principally better. You might bring in £200 million but the cost of doing that would be huge because there is just flight, whether we like that or not.' Scottish Secretary Ian Murray last week publicly denounced the idea of a wealth tax (Image: PA)Contradicting Mr Murray, Ms Villalba said of the Laffer curve: 'this theory, though influential, is unfounded.' She went on to say that she believes that 'all financial wealth originates from human labour'. 'It would therefore take a mass exodus or nationwide risk to life for wealth creation in a country to cease.' 'We need only look at the hit private profit would have taken during the pandemic had the state not stepped in to shore it up to see the primacy of human labour evidenced. 'A significant proportion of wealth is in immobile assets like land, property and British-based businesses…This wealth cannot up sticks and leave with an individual. The resources remain in the country and are subject to taxation. 'We know we won't lose wealth creation as long as we have a fit and able population to do the work. 'In fact, the greatest risk to wealth is workforce shortages caused by a public health service on its knees, an undervalued public education system and a cost-of-living crisis deterring new parents. In short, the greatest risk to wealth is continuing to let it go untaxed.' The Scottish Greens have also recently made fresh calls for a wealth tax in response to 'soaring' CEO pay. Discussing new figures which showed that some British Executives' pay had reached over 100 times that of the average worker, MSP Maggie Chapman said: 'A wealth tax is now a necessity, to make sure that those who have enriched themselves the most pay their fair share.' Rachel Reeves refused to be drawn on a wealth tax when quizzed by journalists earlier this month. She said the UK Government had to 'get the balance right on taxation' but stressed the 'number one priority' was growing the economy.
