Originally Posted by Thrush
Self-Selection by chequebook is what this is all about.
I'm not so sure it is 'self-selection'. It is the airlines who are driving it by saving money, indirectly, by reducing the risk of a pilot not making the grade.
Sure, the more experienced pilot attempting to join jet airline 'x' may pass selection and complete all the conversion training successfully. But the odd one does fail, and that costs the airline a fair bit of money, especially if the pilot has undergone type rating training at the airline's expense.
What the training industry has done is recognize this area of cost, and the associated risk to the employer. They have come up with various schemes for taking lower houred pilots through a rigorous selection process and then offered them to a prospective employer. The employer likes this because they don't have to take the risk of the pilot failing to complete line training and having to stomach the associated financial loss.
The selection establishment 'guarantees' their product (the low houred pilot), they train them through to line training, then the airline gets them for the period of line training, paying the training establishment for their cadet (usually by way of paying the salary to the training establishment) and then pay the individual duty pay and expenses. Sometimes with a reduced salary for 'x' number of years. So if said individual doesn't make the grade, all it has cost the airline are the employment costs for the time period they have been on line training. During this whole period they are not employed by the airline, so it is only expenses and duty pay, plus salary to the training establishment. If successful the airline can have first refusal on the individual for employment.
So you see, the scheme works for the benefit of the employer (reduced training risk and possibly reduced costs once taken on), the training establishment which makes money out of the individual and airline, and the individual pilot because they get a type rating and 'jet job', leap-frogging the 'traditional' route where they would gain the valuable experience that we all know would benefit them.
I don't think you can blame the individuals for applying, they are just trying to do what they have paid for their licence to do. Most of these schemes take modular as well as integrated cadets (Ab Initio and Self Improvers to you and me!), but they are usually all
quite young.
So I think it is all about money, but the airlines' money, not necessarily the individuals'. If you are talking purely Modular vs Integrated and the Integrated individual paying more and getting a jet job, then yet again it is down to the airlines which take these individuals perceiving that they get someone that represents 'less risk' due to their 'structured' course to licence issue. All the airlines that I have flown for take a cross section and not just one type however....
This still leaves the question originally posed, which is 'should these individuals be placed in big jets without having built any other experience?'
Reasons For;
1. They are cheap(er).
2. They are (usually) very sharp and quick to learn.
3. They have met the minimum requirements laid down by the CAA.
4. They are (usually) 'mouldable' by the airline.
5. They are less likely to bring bad habits and other operators SOPs onto your line. (obviously, as they haven't experienced any other airline's SOPs!!)
6. They are more likely to sit for a number of years quite happily and not be constantly asking when will they get a shot at command.
7. They are more likely to be happy with their 'package'.
8. Subsequent to point (7.) they
could (inadvertently) assist the company in lowering existing terms and conditions, and those for future new joiners.
Reasons Against;
1. They have NO experience.
2. Big jets are very complex and things happen VERY quickly when they are diverging from the desired flight path. The lack of experience can lead to not recognising/ being able to cope with 'non-normals'.
3. Some lack the ability to accept training input due to a perceived ability greater than their actual ability. Some of this is down to attitude and they are not the only group that can be affected by this, but some of this is perpetuated by the system they are a victim of; having minimal hours, passing a tough selection where many fail, being put on a big aeroplane with minimal hours; they have been extremely successful up to this point and can be thought of as 'the best' in their peer group.
4. Some (many) lack capacity when anything non-normal occurs. Not their fault, mainly down to a lack of experience.
5. Normal line captains have to adjust to allow for this lack of experience. This is a sign of a good captain that they can do this, but the argument really is 'should they have to?' They always have to adjust to the individual in the other seat, but where should the 'adjustment line' be drawn?
6. They DO reduce safety. Fact, like it or not. As do new captains as opposed to experienced captains. Again the question is, just where should the acceptable level of safety be? Sure you can argue that they have passed all the tests, but reality is not about 'passing tests', it's about dealing with testing situations in a finite time and possibly under considerable pressure. Once you've done a few sim refreshers and then dealt with things going wrong for real you'll appreciate what I am saying. The sim is the sim...
7. More experienced pilots can be getting passed over by the recruitment policy, but like I said, all the airlines I have flown for do recruit a cross-section and not just 250hr pilots - the CAA won't allow ALL your F/Os to be so inexperienced.
So it's down to market forces and opinions won't change anything. Only rule changes brought about through accidents where the evidence points to this being an unsafe practice will change anything, and I for one hope we never get rule changes due to them.
PP