Originally Posted by
Newhairdo
The role of the regulator, be it the UKCAA, FAA, EASA, CASA, GCAA etc is to regulate those who hold an AOC, with respect to the regulations and safety.
It is not the role of a regulator, or any government department, to get involved in industrial aspects of the AOC holder.
Similarly, the regulator must not get involved in the running of a business. It is not their area of expertise.
Ts & Cs are agreed, or set, by the operator, sometimes with union consultation. And sometimes not.
Ultimately, it is up to the individual to accept, or otherwise, an employment offer from an airline, depending on their view of the Ts & Cs. If not enough people accept the Ts & Cs, then market forces will drive an increase. This is something that we have seen several times since the 60s.
Regardless of your view of pay to fly (something I personally find offensive), if pilots accept this, then you can’t blame the airlines.
Similarly, airlines that make pilots pay for type ratings is, in my view, distasteful. But pilots continue to sign up for these.
Luckily, most airlines no longer require a pilot to,pay for their type ratings, which is good. And we are seeing more airlines fully sponsoring cadet pilot training, another positive step.
But these are business decisions, and it isn’t for the regulator to get involved. The regulator is there to ensure safety & compliance with the regulations.
I take your point — the regulator isn’t there to negotiate pay or interfere with industrial relations.
But when an operator is breaking employment law to maintain a structure that’s non-compliant, that surely does fall within the regulator’s remit — even outside of safety. Once illegality becomes part of how the business operates, it’s no longer a “terms and conditions” issue, it’s a compliance one.
And let’s not forget — the regulator already regulates crewing. Crew planning, fatigue management, and minimum rest requirements all sit squarely within the scope of oversight. The crew themselves are indistinguishable from employees in practice, so turning a blind eye to unlawful employment structures undermines that entire system.
So while I agree they shouldn’t set Ts & Cs, ensuring operators comply with all applicable law — including employment law — is still part of the job. Otherwise, you end up regulating aircraft, not airlines.
I think that’s what he’s getting at — not that regulators should be setting pay, but that they should be stopping hidden pay-to-fly schemes that only exist because no one’s enforcing the boundaries of the law.