Airlines that have its pilots pay to fly
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about airlines who pay for the TR, isn't it a competitive disadvantage with those who hire P2F?
P2F can only be dragging down the industry to the bottom.
Obtaining a license gives you a privilege, airlines hire you so that A/C can fly. The system is all gone
They day airlines will admit P2F is hurting the business model as a whole, they will stop hiring P2F and places like eaglejet will disappear I hope.
How can a P2F eat and sleep adequately before flights without decent money?
P2F can only be dragging down the industry to the bottom.
Obtaining a license gives you a privilege, airlines hire you so that A/C can fly. The system is all gone
They day airlines will admit P2F is hurting the business model as a whole, they will stop hiring P2F and places like eaglejet will disappear I hope.
How can a P2F eat and sleep adequately before flights without decent money?
Last edited by Can737; 29th Jan 2015 at 14:20.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down, Superfly, this isn't all about you,! No doubt many of those who have chosen/been forced down the p2F route are perfectly able. That doesn't make it a great idea, either for the travelling public or for the piloting profession. Aside from anything else, it's simple human nature to place little value on something that was free -whether it's a pilot or a disposable plastic bag!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's talk about "The Rest"
Originally Posted by truckdriver
The P2F has simply made you bypass the rest.
After obtaining my multi-twin IFR, I worked for a number of different companies on Cessnas 206, 207, 210, 310, 337 and 404, on Piper Aztecs and Navajos, on Beechcraft 18, 23, and 55, on AeroCommander 500 and 685, on C-46, on Embraer 110, and on Metroliner. Then I was hired on jets and flew Boeing 737, 757, and also flew Airbus 310 and 330.
In the course of my career I had 5 in flight engine failures, I lost a prop blade in flight, had several electrical failures, one electric fire, had a scary flap asymmetry incident on approach, a communications failures where I used the light instructions from the tower. I lost airspeed indication in flight, lost vacuum pumps, magnetos, generators, got caught several times in IMC at night in thunderstorms without airborne RADAR. I did several manual gear extensions. I had a cabin heater failure at night at -35 and landed nearly frozen. I began flying before GPS was available using mapping, dead reckoning, Radar Mapping,and old fashioned ground-based radio navigation. I flew hundreds of Instrument approaches, including ILS, BC, VOR, and NDB, often in non radar environment, much of it in single pilot IFR flying. I had a frightening out of stab trim experience at night, followed by a out of trim manually flown BC approach that I will never forget. I had days where I performed several full non precision approaches down to minimums in a single day and I also had days where I did two or three missed approaches in a single day. I was sometimes frightened by captains I had little confidence in.
All of this occurred before I ever laid a hand on my first jet, during my first 6500 hours of flight.
What I have just described is "the Rest" that I would have bypassed had I gone the P2F route that some pilots feel is necessary to their career. "The rest" in question made me the pilot that I became and I do not think that it would have served me, my employer, my crew-members or my passengers had I skipped that part of my career and gone straight from flight school to large jets.
The French gentleman who was at the controls of Air Asia was at his first ever job. He was hired with zero experience, although I read he had 850 hours of flight at the time he was hired. It however was 850 hours of flying lessons and private flying, all paid out of pocket. No commercial flying at all.
When a person with such little experience is put in the right seat of a fully automated fly-by-wire aircraft with all sorts of pilot-proof protections in his first job, his flying skills go flying out the window, just like the flying skills of the AF447 SIC went out the window when he too was put in the right seat of a A320 as a low time AF Cadet. He was certainly a master of A320/330 autopilot operation, but had lost his stick and rudder skills.
Look at the last RyanAir accident preliminary report
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...FB%2012-14.pdf
Commander’s Age: 26 years
Commander’s Flying Experience: 4,905 hours (of which 4,754 were on type)
Commander’s Flying Experience: 4,905 hours (of which 4,754 were on type)
As a passenger or as a SIC, is this the kind of experience you want your captain to have ?
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 29th Jan 2015 at 16:59.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4,905 hours TT - 4754 hours on Type = 151 hours on other types. As a passenger or as a SIC, ss this the kind of experience you want your captain to have ?
In the UK (and most of Europe), we don't have much GA. We are a tiny island where fuel costs over 3 x as much as it costs you over in Canada. GA is therefore not economically viable here. Also, being a relatively small land mass our cities and towns are much closer together and not massively separated like the municipalities of remote regions in the US and Canada. We have a bigger need for transporting 100-200 people 500+ miles away then we do for transporting 10-25 people over the same distance or less. Our farm and food stock is transported by road as is most mail. We are surrounded by sea and sea ports all of which serve the country in one way or another! For these reasons and many more, smaller aircraft and turboprops don’t work as well for us as they do in other parts of the world. By my rough guess there are probably less than 50 Edit: 50 registered was wrong, I stand corrected but the essense of the message remains, at any one time there are over 10 times more jets flying than turboprops! UK registered turbo-prop or commercial 'light' aircraft flying with UK airlines today. Compare that to the number of jet aircraft of which there are over 500!
Therefore it is quite normal for a 200 hour pilot to come out of flight school and straight onto flying a large commercial aircraft because realistically that is the only place he will find a job. There are far more jet jobs available than there are instructing, air-taxi, banner towing, crop-dusting and dropping jobs put together. We just don’t have the aviation diversity to support the kind of “career progression” you guys look forward to and are so used to. It’s a different ball game over here. Also, the JAA fATPL course is a much tougher and more regimented pilot training course compared to the US FAA or ICAO/Canada one.
Last edited by Superpilot; 12th Feb 2015 at 13:13.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Superpilot, Flybe, alone has 45-50 Q400's. Then you've got Loganair, Stobart, Aurigny, Blue Islands, Atlantic and Eastern, probably others I've missed too. That must be 150+ turboprops and they used to be a great way to enter the airlines, get hands on flying and progress to bigger planes that provide bigger pay cheques.
Now things have changed and thanks to cadet schemes, these turboprop jobs are not as good a stepping stone as they used to be. Why take on on an experienced TP pilot (or regional jet for that matter) and pay them well, when you can take on somebody with no experience but willing to pay insane amounts of money for "tagged" training? P2f and its derivatives have killed it as a progressive career in the UK.
Now things have changed and thanks to cadet schemes, these turboprop jobs are not as good a stepping stone as they used to be. Why take on on an experienced TP pilot (or regional jet for that matter) and pay them well, when you can take on somebody with no experience but willing to pay insane amounts of money for "tagged" training? P2f and its derivatives have killed it as a progressive career in the UK.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Crawley
Age: 55
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are different dynamics in different countries.
P2F in itself doesnt necessarily weaken safety (although there are further arguements about the effects stresses and strains due reduced wages and high debt over a number of years)
P2F in its purest most transparent form hasnt been present in the UK for 5 years + (someone quoted 2008 on here)
P2F in its untransparent form (over paying for training and starting on lower salary for a number of years to secure a link to a "partner airline") is alive and well and has flourished in the UK in an extensive manner for a number of years
P2f doesnt create higher risk to flight safety, if a suitable training regime exists and rigid adherence to SOPs can mitigate all but the most unusual risks - which before anyone tries to counter the point could equally catch out experienced crew. As is historically proven and oft quoted on here
All that said. P2F doesnt inherently make the operation stronger nor weaker safety wise as can be seen in a number of examples whereby some british isles locos have recruited extensively in the less clear version of p2f.
And to counter that arguement nor does the more conventional route possibly via military flightcrew service and operating turbo props,
Safety couldnt and isnt It isnt the arguement or challenge for or against p2f
The damage it is doing to the industry as a whole however is a different kettle of fish. This is the only arguement available with regard to p2f. Put the safety issue to bed. It doesnt factually deserve inclusion on the merits and disadvantages of p2f
For clarity, I include all mentioned forms of p2f in my own posts the purest form and the more hidden version
FWF is on the money with one negative that p2f has brought to the party, and remains to do so.
P2F in itself doesnt necessarily weaken safety (although there are further arguements about the effects stresses and strains due reduced wages and high debt over a number of years)
P2F in its purest most transparent form hasnt been present in the UK for 5 years + (someone quoted 2008 on here)
P2F in its untransparent form (over paying for training and starting on lower salary for a number of years to secure a link to a "partner airline") is alive and well and has flourished in the UK in an extensive manner for a number of years
P2f doesnt create higher risk to flight safety, if a suitable training regime exists and rigid adherence to SOPs can mitigate all but the most unusual risks - which before anyone tries to counter the point could equally catch out experienced crew. As is historically proven and oft quoted on here
All that said. P2F doesnt inherently make the operation stronger nor weaker safety wise as can be seen in a number of examples whereby some british isles locos have recruited extensively in the less clear version of p2f.
And to counter that arguement nor does the more conventional route possibly via military flightcrew service and operating turbo props,
Safety couldnt and isnt It isnt the arguement or challenge for or against p2f
The damage it is doing to the industry as a whole however is a different kettle of fish. This is the only arguement available with regard to p2f. Put the safety issue to bed. It doesnt factually deserve inclusion on the merits and disadvantages of p2f
For clarity, I include all mentioned forms of p2f in my own posts the purest form and the more hidden version
FWF is on the money with one negative that p2f has brought to the party, and remains to do so.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore it is quite normal for a 200 hour pilot to come out of flight school and straight onto flying a large commercial aircraft
We just don’t have the aviation diversity to support the kind of “career progression” you guys look forward to
Why take on on an experienced TP pilot (or regional jet for that matter) and pay them well, when you can take on somebody with no experience but willing to pay insane amounts of money for "tagged" training? P2f and its derivatives have killed it as a progressive career in the UK.
Also, the JAA fATPL course is a much tougher and more regimented pilot training course compared to the US FAA or ICAO/Canada one.
Safety couldnt and isnt It isnt the arguement or challenge for or against p2f[sic]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By my rough guess there are probably less than 50 UK registered turbo-prop or commercial 'light' aircraft flying with UK airlines today. Compare that to the number of jet aircraft of which there are over 500!
BA ATP = 17
ATR 42/72 = 8
Twin Otter = 6
Q400 = 45
Beech 1900 = 3
Saab 340/2000 = 30
Dornier 228 = 3
Dornier 328 = 5
JetStream 31/41 = 30
Metroliner = 1
Short 360 = 1
PC-12 = 1
Lockheed Electra = 2
Total Commuter type or large turboprops = 152
Then there are 40 Islanders, 38 Piper Navajos, 77 Cessna Citation, 8 BAE-125s, 16 Bombardier Exec jet, 10 Lear jets, 24 Beech 200/300, 12 GulfStream jets.....
In a few minutes of searching the UK civil aircraft register, I have listed over 350 UK registered aircraft that are flown by professional pilots.
There are also about 150 lighter commuter jets such as the Emb 135/145/175/195 and the CRJs.
That comes up to over 500 professionally flown aircraft without counting a Boeing or an Airbus. There are probably many others.
Not to mention that this is just the UK. All of the EU is open to UK pilot as far as I know.....
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Crawley
Age: 55
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask yourself this. Will there come a point where rich and able candidates for p2f start to run dry, especially as the airline industry continues to lose its status? And the airlines are left to choose from the rich, but less able candidates. Will they abandon p2f because the standards of applicant have decreased? Or will they choose to lower their selection standards. After all, it is a very cheap way of getting pilots, and modern jets are really really safe and are difficult to crash...aren't they????
Paul Frank, good spot on my inherent rambling....
To answer your question relating to my own post.
I guess one option could be to expect the new low salary captains, who exercised their option to "buy a training role " via the "tagged trainer scheme" with the "preferred fto" could be expected to take up the slack.
Maybe I shouldnt have put that into print. Anyone know if I can patent that idea?
In fact on reflection wheres the delete button, forget I mentioned it.
Paul Frank, good spot on my inherent rambling....
To answer your question relating to my own post.
I guess one option could be to expect the new low salary captains, who exercised their option to "buy a training role " via the "tagged trainer scheme" with the "preferred fto" could be expected to take up the slack.
Maybe I shouldnt have put that into print. Anyone know if I can patent that idea?
In fact on reflection wheres the delete button, forget I mentioned it.
Last edited by Three Lions; 29th Jan 2015 at 18:29.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gilles Hudicourt - First I agree your experience and career progression is as it should be.
If you think P2F is bad and lacking experience, then you should review some of the new cadets coming trough integrated flight schools!
As some mentioned the market in Euro-Land is very different then other countries, GA is expensive, and there is no gentle progression trough various levels of jobs!
It's to expensive for the Lo-Co's to have experienced FO's working for them, only when they lacking Captains they discover this.
I talked few weeks ago with a line trainer who had a cadet with total time of 90 hours, from MPL course. Never one hours of Solo flight, and in few months he will be FO on the line with a major EU airline.
So in that context the whole discussion of the P2F's experience becomes irrelevant, as the P2F pilots will most likely have more experience and more diverse experience, as the entry level is normally higher.
Again I do not agree with P2F, however to say that these pilots are less able then a Cadet gone trough a big FTO and put direct into an airline without any outside experience is wrong.
The training in many of these companies are geared towards these Cadets, and I guess the accident history within EU does not really show any increase in incidents or accidents, that supports that this is dangerous.
Europe is probably the safest airspace in the world.
If you think P2F is bad and lacking experience, then you should review some of the new cadets coming trough integrated flight schools!
As some mentioned the market in Euro-Land is very different then other countries, GA is expensive, and there is no gentle progression trough various levels of jobs!
It's to expensive for the Lo-Co's to have experienced FO's working for them, only when they lacking Captains they discover this.
I talked few weeks ago with a line trainer who had a cadet with total time of 90 hours, from MPL course. Never one hours of Solo flight, and in few months he will be FO on the line with a major EU airline.
So in that context the whole discussion of the P2F's experience becomes irrelevant, as the P2F pilots will most likely have more experience and more diverse experience, as the entry level is normally higher.
Again I do not agree with P2F, however to say that these pilots are less able then a Cadet gone trough a big FTO and put direct into an airline without any outside experience is wrong.
The training in many of these companies are geared towards these Cadets, and I guess the accident history within EU does not really show any increase in incidents or accidents, that supports that this is dangerous.
Europe is probably the safest airspace in the world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by trackdriver
The training in many of these companies are geared towards these Cadets, and I guess the accident history within EU does not really show any increase in incidents or accidents, that supports that this is dangerous.
Europe is probably the safest airspace in the world.
Europe is probably the safest airspace in the world.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test Panel says"
Perhaps you should start your career in the same manner rather than bitching and moaning about those who are more qualified... Don't you think?
If they need the money, make it somewhere else, if it is because they "love to fly", start flying doctors and food around in Africa!
Perhaps you should start your career in the same manner rather than bitching and moaning about those who are more qualified... Don't you think?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trade Winds in under the impression that
I have to disagree with this statement... It's the pilot willing to pay to sit in the right seat that's responsible for the P2F programs. Imagine... if pilots with a sense of self respect... refused to pay for such schemes? Then there's a true level paying ground.
At the end of the day, however, the P2Fer is part of the problem and not part of the solution as far as raising the bar on terms and conditions and most of all respect that pilots deserve for the hard work they preformed in order to earn their positions with the airlines.
With regards to the likes of Eaglejet etc it is them whom chase airlines or whomever they can get to agree to take line training on.
They then market these schemes to the pilot community
They are without doubt the root cause of P2F
They then market these schemes to the pilot community
They are without doubt the root cause of P2F
At the end of the day, however, the P2Fer is part of the problem and not part of the solution as far as raising the bar on terms and conditions and most of all respect that pilots deserve for the hard work they preformed in order to earn their positions with the airlines.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That is, with the greatest of respect, . All MPL courses include an element of solo flying. However, even if they didn't, I wouldn't be concerned. Bumbling around in a Cessna doing VFR navigation has precisely zero relevance to airline flying"
Agreed to a certain extent but the most valuable lessons about my personal limitations occurred by "pushing" it whilst solo. These lessons have given me a healthy respect for the environment we work in (terrain, weather and aircraft).
I don't believe these aviation lessons can be replicated in an airline environment where the captain "carries the can".
. All MPL courses include an element of solo flying. However, even if they didn't, I wouldn't be concerned. Bumbling around in a Cessna doing VFR navigation has precisely zero relevance to airline flying"Agreed to a certain extent but the most valuable lessons about my personal limitations occurred by "pushing" it whilst solo. These lessons have given me a healthy respect for the environment we work in (terrain, weather and aircraft).
I don't believe these aviation lessons can be replicated in an airline environment where the captain "carries the can".
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Crawley
Age: 55
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Smith is correct in his post above. P2F is not more or less unsafe than any other career stream when comparing similar quality Ops and training depts.
The only relevant point for discussion is the effect that p2f (and again this includes the latter day version of the "over priced course under paid initial salary" pairing) - has had and is having on the industry as a whole
For sure in the British Isles the recruitment on jet fleets in the last decade has been unprecedented. There has been a huge recruitment onto huge expanding jet fleets. Yet using a wider view, the industry shows evidence of "career stagnation" and lowering terms and conditions whilst requiring a general increase in duty.
Jump onto a jet fleet at one of the locos. It is hard work, lifestyle affecting hard work. 4 sector days on one of the loco enhanced rosters, once the novelty has been sated and the feel for a move on to somewhere better with more of a work life balance, where are you going to jump to and how?
The need for cadets is essential for any industry, however the current high percentage cadet recruitment in the bulk of the industry, certainly the British Isles, is damaging the industry as a whole. Not from a safety perspective. But from just about every other employment and career perspective
There are winners. Unfortunately its not those at the pointy end.
in addition to that, some of the figures bandied about for the "linked courses" are a huge investment for a short term career
The only relevant point for discussion is the effect that p2f (and again this includes the latter day version of the "over priced course under paid initial salary" pairing) - has had and is having on the industry as a whole
For sure in the British Isles the recruitment on jet fleets in the last decade has been unprecedented. There has been a huge recruitment onto huge expanding jet fleets. Yet using a wider view, the industry shows evidence of "career stagnation" and lowering terms and conditions whilst requiring a general increase in duty.
Jump onto a jet fleet at one of the locos. It is hard work, lifestyle affecting hard work. 4 sector days on one of the loco enhanced rosters, once the novelty has been sated and the feel for a move on to somewhere better with more of a work life balance, where are you going to jump to and how?
The need for cadets is essential for any industry, however the current high percentage cadet recruitment in the bulk of the industry, certainly the British Isles, is damaging the industry as a whole. Not from a safety perspective. But from just about every other employment and career perspective
There are winners. Unfortunately its not those at the pointy end.
in addition to that, some of the figures bandied about for the "linked courses" are a huge investment for a short term career
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Bumbling around in a Cessna doing VFR navigation has precisely zero relevance to airline flying."
I do not agree with this point, it's not necessary the flying skills, it's the experience you are faced when flying around X amount of hours in GA, real life experience when you don't have instructor in the right hand seat to guide you or take over when things go bad.
Your decision making becomes reality, not just a model that you practise and repeat again and again, until you know it by heart inside out.
There is a big difference from being alone with various factors such as weather changes, fuel, diversions etc - where not all is planned for you by Ops - where you actually have to make the decisions that might have a real impact on your life, not just you have failed a sim/training session.
90 hours total real flight time + XXX amount of hours in the sim of course. That for me can give you a good pilot on a nice day, when everything goes after plan. However I am sceptical how they will be in a real life emergency.
I can't imagine in those 90 hours, they have many hours without an instructor, have few hours solo is not going to give you much experience with real life decision making.
One of the misconceptions that some here have about P2F, is that there is no quality control of the pilots just because they have "paid their way in" - however that is not correct. Even though they P2F, they are normally put trough same training program as cadets are, and need to go trough the same hoops as everbody else has too.
For those who have done the P2F that I know about, there have many traps and dangers with this, it simple has not been easy going without any issues. And great risk is involved in it financially and the uncertainty before, during and after.
Some of them have lost much money, training has been hard they had delays for many months before completing sims, training etc.
A few I know managed to get proper jobs after this 300 - 500 hours experience. It varied a lot from what they managed to achieve, but it simply was not easy, and for some they have gained valuable life experience trough this.
For me this life experience helps develop future decision making, and is a useful for the future.
Much more then some spoiled child who gets paid everything by mummy/daddy to attend overpriced integrated flight school, who produces the next machine part for an airline!
All the ones I know from P2F, funded it themselves, in other words they did not have somebody giving them the money to do it, but worked hard and decided this is how they wanted to use their own money.
It is massively wrong for the industry, however if you want to look in these details, you must take look at many more aspects of the industry.
I do not agree with this point, it's not necessary the flying skills, it's the experience you are faced when flying around X amount of hours in GA, real life experience when you don't have instructor in the right hand seat to guide you or take over when things go bad.
Your decision making becomes reality, not just a model that you practise and repeat again and again, until you know it by heart inside out.
There is a big difference from being alone with various factors such as weather changes, fuel, diversions etc - where not all is planned for you by Ops - where you actually have to make the decisions that might have a real impact on your life, not just you have failed a sim/training session.
90 hours total real flight time + XXX amount of hours in the sim of course. That for me can give you a good pilot on a nice day, when everything goes after plan. However I am sceptical how they will be in a real life emergency.
I can't imagine in those 90 hours, they have many hours without an instructor, have few hours solo is not going to give you much experience with real life decision making.
One of the misconceptions that some here have about P2F, is that there is no quality control of the pilots just because they have "paid their way in" - however that is not correct. Even though they P2F, they are normally put trough same training program as cadets are, and need to go trough the same hoops as everbody else has too.
For those who have done the P2F that I know about, there have many traps and dangers with this, it simple has not been easy going without any issues. And great risk is involved in it financially and the uncertainty before, during and after.
Some of them have lost much money, training has been hard they had delays for many months before completing sims, training etc.
A few I know managed to get proper jobs after this 300 - 500 hours experience. It varied a lot from what they managed to achieve, but it simply was not easy, and for some they have gained valuable life experience trough this.
For me this life experience helps develop future decision making, and is a useful for the future.
Much more then some spoiled child who gets paid everything by mummy/daddy to attend overpriced integrated flight school, who produces the next machine part for an airline!
All the ones I know from P2F, funded it themselves, in other words they did not have somebody giving them the money to do it, but worked hard and decided this is how they wanted to use their own money.
It is massively wrong for the industry, however if you want to look in these details, you must take look at many more aspects of the industry.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
90 hours total real flight time + XXX amount of hours in the sim of course. That for me can give you a good pilot on a nice day, when everything goes after plan. However I am sceptical how they will be in a real life emergency.
I can't imagine in those 90 hours, they have many hours without an instructor, have few hours solo is not going to give you much experience with real life decision making
I can't imagine in those 90 hours, they have many hours without an instructor, have few hours solo is not going to give you much experience with real life decision making
I have been doing this job for a very long time now. I have flown with cadets for a long time as well. Recently I spent 50 hours in a simulator alongside a 500 hour cadet pilot. I have to say I was extremely impressed with the attitude, aptitude, learning curve, and decision making ability that I witnessed from the other seat.
Contrast that with the "it's everybody's fault but mine" whining, that is such a trademark of "one or two" people on this site.
The airline wants a high level of surety. What it doesn't want is captains (like me) complaining about the standard of the lady or gentleman sat in the other seat.
For me this life experience helps develop future decision making, and is a useful for the future.
Much more then some spoiled child who gets paid everything by mummy/daddy to attend overpriced integrated flight school, who produces the next machine part for an airline!
All the ones I know from P2F, funded it themselves, in other words they did not have somebody giving them the money to do it, but worked hard and decided this is how they wanted to use their own money.
Much more then some spoiled child who gets paid everything by mummy/daddy to attend overpriced integrated flight school, who produces the next machine part for an airline!
All the ones I know from P2F, funded it themselves, in other words they did not have somebody giving them the money to do it, but worked hard and decided this is how they wanted to use their own money.
Over the last Twenty plus years, the airline industry has had a metamorphosis from being a difficult entry career with a limited supply of eligible aspirants, to being a relatively easier career with a tidal wave of eligible aspirants. The changes have resulted in a massive oversupply of "wannabes" Even if nothing else changed (and a lot has) that simple equation imbalance would drive both reward and opportunity levels through the floor. Indeed it has done, yet people still seem shocked by this, and believe that the world should facilitate their passage and then revert back to the realities of the last Three decades of the Twentieth century.
The stark reality is that most airlines survive in a "low cost" world. Passengers wont pay the fares they did in the Seventies and Eighties. Deregulation, free trade and competition, have revolutionized the landscape in many industries, but certainly in this one.
For an airline quality is cheap. Unlike the situation Twenty or Thirty years ago. You can still demand the best candidates from the best training backgrounds. You can demand they paid for every penny of their training. You can demand they pay or guarantee their type ratings and associated training costs. Even then, the crowds of qualified aspirants stretch over the hills and far away.
Is it unfair? Sure it is!
Is it expensive? You bet!
Is it high risk? For the applicant it certainly is!
Is it going to change anytime soon? Only if those crowds evaporate, and there is no sign of that happening!