P2F -- Legality

[CaptainCriticalAngle]

For many years, rich kids did 'work experience' in media jobs for months without getting paid, hoping they would eventually land a job by becoming part of the furniture.

It often worked.

They were at least paid their lunch and travel expenses. P2F doesn't even offer this.

Then the law changed as the children of families whose parents wouldn't or couldn't support them -- couldn't spend 6 months or a year doing work experience for nothing. All interns now must be paid.

Why is P2F legal then?

[too_much]

Pretty much the same reason paying for your flight training really...

To spend hours in an aircraft building time costs money, someone has to pay...

[Officer Kite]

I haven't yet heard of this p2f disease having spread to the UK or Ireland, I suspect/hope that if some smart guy tries it, it will generate sufficient media outrage for it to become banned by government, or am I being ambitious ??

[peekay4]

First of all, unpaid internships are not always illegal. Most jurisdictions allow exemptions when the internship provides vocational training, where the skills learned are transferable to other companies, etc.

Secondly, P2F is usually legally structured in such a way that the pilot does NOT pay the airline. Rather, the pilot pays a vocational "training school", and then this "school" places the pilot at an airline.

Moreover, even if P2F is deemed illegal, it would be trivial for companies to skirt the rules by simply paying the pilot minimum wage during flight hours. E.g., say the pilot wanting to fly 500 hrs pays $20,000 to a "placement" company (which is legal) and then the airline pays the pilot $7.25/hr ($2,875) during the 500 hr flight time during a "probationary period". The net effect is the pilot paying $17,125 for 500 hrs.

Lastly, P2F is happening all over the world in many jurisdictions, with labor laws which are not always in line with those in the US / Canada / Europe.

I'm not one condoning P2F, just saying that the legal situation is not straightforward.

[magicmick]

P2F has indeed been in the UK in the recent past, BMI, EZY and Astreus have all had P2F schemes. At the moment there are no P2F schemes in the UK as far as I know but there are no legal barriers to them re-appearing.

[Officer Kite]

Mick I believe that easyjet have only ever charged for the TR.

[too_much]

Flybe are selling LT
Flybe Training Academy :: Pilot Training (http://www.flybetraining.com/pilot-training)

[pilot4eva]

Flybe are doing Line training only for experienced pilots mostly to get used to new type.The airline operator is going to pay for it.Not P2F.
"Please note: This training is available to qualified, professional pilots with JAA (or equivalent) ATPL including MCC and JOC, flying on behalf of airline operators only."

[pfvspnf]

Even if the money goes to the airline from an agency?

What are the companies obligations of the airline contractually. ? How does HR get away without paying you ?

The efforts are paying off, pay to fly is on it's way out ! There are hardly any pay to fly schemes anymore. , most of which are scams! Operations want less hassle, it's not as lucrative as previously thought.

[magicmick]

Going back a few years, 2008/ 2009 I think, a company run by an EZY Captain had a deal to sell A320 TR and 150hrs line flying with EZY and BMI. Some of the people who completed the course (including those that did their flying with BMI) were recruited by EZY. The scheme has stopped now.

[Officer Kite]

Oh ok I see what you mean now Mick !

I think I actually remember something about some captain scamming people by offering some training and promises were made but not delivered etc etc.
I'm glad to see ezy have stopped it now.

The flybe thing isn't pay2fly too_much, it's only to be carried out on behalf of other airlines who pay flybe, not the cadet.

[magicmick]

I think everyone that applied and paid for the EZY and BMI P2F schemes got the training and hours that they paid for, and for many the scheme worked as ultimately they ended up employed by EZY.

However after the BMI and EZY deal dried up, the P2F company concerned continued to advertise schemes and accept money from students but struggled to place students with airlines.

Ultimately I remember seeing a post on PPRuNe which contained a link to a website which held a scanned copy of a court order telling the P2F company to refund a student over £50k. After that the information dried up so I'm not sure if the P2F company paid up or just folded and scarpered with the money.

[Jwscud]

There was also a few years back a post by a chap who had been through it at I believe BMI and was failed on his final line check and left with nothing. He felt he had been set up to fail by the LTC and it made hard reading.

Also, there was the A320 in Kos bent by an FO on linetraining, which I think put a lot of airlines off the idea.

[Officer Kite]

Personally I hate the idea of p2f and it would obviously be a very sad day in aviation if it were to ever start up and become the norm in the UK. I would contact a few media outlets, they would have a field day. I can only imagine headlines such as "Pilots told pay to work !" popping up everywhere.

[peekay4]

In the UK, paying for "internships" of any kind (not just in aviation) has been a reality for quite some time. Here's an article from 2009:

Graduates 'paying £8,000 for internships' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6840634/Graduates-paying-8000-for-internships.html)

Even if a particular P2F scheme is deemed illegal, there will always be methods to skirt the rules "just enough" to make it legal. So it becomes a question of "ethics" and "morality".

But "ethics" and "morality" are subjective.

Just look at what's happening in Asia. Just a generation ago -- before open skies & deregulation and the likes of Lyon Air -- Asian airlines were heavily regulated and were dominated by State-sponsored carriers (Garuda, Malaysian, Thai, SIA, etc.)

For the most part, there were only two routes to becoming a pilot for these state carriers: 1. be a top pilot leaving the Air Force / military; 2. get accepted to one of the government-run, highly selective cadet schools.

The competition for either route was intense. You have to maintain high academic standards, discipline, and the washout rate was quite high. You had to be at the top of the class vs. your cohorts to become a pilot.

But then, there were "rich kids" from upper / upper-middle class families who could afford to send their kids to flight schools in Australia, etc., to get their qualifications.

How unfair!! Now anyone with money can get a CPL, and "bypass" the highly selective cadet schools. Not because they are skilled, but because mommy & daddy have the money to send Jr. to Australia. Outrageous! Flight standards will surely fall. "This should not be allowed!"

The states used to pay for ab-initio training. Now even the cadet schools are allowing those who weren't selected to "self-sponsor". Imagine that, pay for your own pilot training!

What happened to fairness? What happened to "equal access"?

Sound familiar??

[Officer Kite]

peekay4 paying for flight training has been around quite some time. Your post is quite confusing in that it is difficult to differentiate between whether you were being sarcastic or not, which side are you on ??
Two wrongs don't make a right, whether it happened in asia or not !! How can you possibly pay to work ??

An intern in most cases is when someone carries out a job that isn't really a necessity within a company , it's more the company doing the intern a favour by letting them gain the experience, the company would survive perfectly fine without them in most cases. In airlines, first officers are completely different in that they are vital for the operation to get off the ground (in more ways than one !). How can people possibly justify that the fo should pay in order to carry out the role ?? It's one thing paying for flight training/university etc, it's a completely different kettle of fish to have to pay to use said qualifications. Many doctors also pay for their own training, would people also justify they start paying the government to work for them ??MADNESS !! :ugh:

[peekay4]

Officer Kite:

I'm only pointing out the "we" collectively on this forum have a "western" point of view.

Paying for flight training has been "around for quite some time" only in the "western" world. In most parts of Asia, that wasn't the norm until relatively recently. And it is a practice that is looked down by some even today.

E.g., some pilots in Asia are resentful of "self-sponsored" students at traditional cadet schools.

And yes, in many parts of the world, doctors must indeed PAY to get initial work experience in hospitals. I.e., they have to pay to attend residency programs, instead of the being paid. This is actually the norm in some countries (e.g., Colombia).

Even in the US, some Registered Nurses pay for their own residencies, and many (if not most) are unpaid during their initial work experience (meaning, they are self-funded).

[pilotchute]

Peekay,

The reason that nobody in Asia paid for flight training until recently was because nobody could afford it! Up until about 20 years ago only the children of top government or business people could afford flight training and none of them wanted to be pilots. Only the middle class kids wanted too. Thanks to easy credit now they can.

Which airline are you talking about when you say the traditional cadets look down on the self sponsored? I do not know of any Asian airline that used to have a fully sponsored cadet programme for locals that has now gone to a pay up front model.

[peekay4]

@pilotchute

Singapore Airlines immediately comes to mind. Until 2006, their training subsidiary Singapore Flying College only accepted ab-initio cadets, with training costs paid for by the airline in exchange for a work-service commitment.

In 2006, SFC started to accept a limited number of "self sponsored" cadets. The tuition cost is very high -- about $150,000 USD -- so only those from relatively wealthy backgrounds will be able to afford this ("easy credit" or not). As with the ab-initio cadets, there is no guarantee for employment, but self sponsored cadets have the same opportunities to interview with Singapore Airlines, etc., upon graduation.

However, right or wrong, there is a sentiment there that the "best" pilots will come from the Air Force, followed by the ab-initio cadets. Many see pilots who must pay for their own CPLs as second best, most perhaps "not good enough" to compete for the SIA mainline positions but suited for the regionals (Jetstar, Tigerair, Dragonair, Air Asia, etc.)

SIA now has too many pilots, so the SFC will get increasing pressure to accept more and more "self sponsored" cadets destined for other airlines.

[pilotchute]

So what your saying is people who failed to get a place on the fully sponsored SIA ab initio programme could go to SFC, pay for a licence then get another shot at SIA? I find that hard to beleive.

[pfvspnf]

How does an airline benefit from pay to fly ? Don't they have to pay the TRI on every sector and a safety FO on most of the sectors ?

All of this plus the added risk of training flights with usually incompetent pilots and might I add a terrible reputation for the company.

[peekay4]

@pilotchute

Believe what you want. From SFC's own website:

"Since its inception, the College has trained more than 1,900 cadets for the Singapore Airlines Group and since it began enrolling self-sponsored candidates in 2006, had inducted more than 30 self-sponsored candidates, many of whom have become airline pilots."

You can search many forums (including this forum) to see that at least a few of these self-sponsored candidates were accepted into the SIA group of airlines.

The acceptance standards for the self-sponsored students are still quite high (they don't take just any Joe off the street) but obviously these are students who for whatever reason were NOT accepted into the regular ab-initio program and had to pay their own way.

[peekay4]

@pfvspnf

From a regulatory perspective there is no difference between a P2F pilot and a regular pilot. Both must be qualified by whatever flight authority to serve as FO / SIC for the flight. It's just one is willing to pay and the other wants to be paid.

Some P2Fs are non-scheduled cargo ops (i.e., FAA Part 135 in the US) -- these flights don't even require an FO as they may be operated with a single pilot with an approved autopilot in place.

So they can let anyone who under regulations can legally log SIC to sit on the right seat and charge for that "privilege".

Note that in this case the P2F pilot isn't strictly "taking away a job" from anyone else, since an SIC isn't required anyway.

As I said before this is a moral / ethical issue, not really about rules or regulation or even "safety". But morals and ethics are subjective, and what is considered "acceptable practice" changes over time.