Is protectionism partly to blame
OSOP
Thank you for paying attention to the very minor diversion that I was trying to create, to what has been a very intense and emotive debate so far.
I admire greatly what you are trying to achieve sir, even if I only agree with half of what you are saying or what you believe. However, if you will permit me, I would like to avoid expanding upon the details of what we agree and disagree on. I cannot help but feel that whatever I will say has already been said before, by both sides of the argument. Even if I do harbour a niggling belief that I could add something to that particular debate, I resist the temptation to indulge myself as it is very unlikely that you (and your followers, and to some degree I am one of them) or your adversaries are unlikely to see things differently. We are humans after all and it is a very rare man or woman indeed who will try to see things from other points of view. In fact it could be argued that it is our single minded resolve that makes us, as human beings, the master species. However I will say that Darwin once said that it is not the fittest or the most intelligent that survive, but those most willing to change and adapt (I have not quoted him verbatim – but from memory). You sir no doubt, somewhere along the line, had to adapt or you would not be where you are now. You also mentioned that you were not sponsored either – so am I right to assume that you did pay for at least some of your training? So now you expose yourself to the question as to just how much of our own training must we take on board.
I am getting to the point, even if I am taking the scenic route here. I could, contentiously, say that YOUR actions, in the past, have ruined younger generations chances (or those as yet without jobs – I also note that you are not too long in the tooth). Where did the rot start, so to speak? Should the earlier generations of pilots started paying for their own CPLs or ME/IRs or for that matter their ATPLs or MCCs. If earlier generations had held fast, perhaps then the fashion for passing the burden of training costs would have slowed somewhat. Maybe it never would have become what it has now. Like I said, I can only assume that you are also guilty of paying for your training to some degree. Why has that not had an effect on terms and conditions?
The question then is one of what should be paid for. You will probably say that anything after an MCC is wrong, but this is all debatable. I could cynically, say that pilots should only pay for a PPL and a small amount of hours building. The many sides of the argument could sit at their computers and fire accusations at each other and still not resolve this issue or find a meeting of minds. However, I digress.
However, it is my contention that that is not what we should be doing. Oldest trick in the book……Divide and Rule…and perhaps the airline owners are truly loving all this. I would prefer that we all stop fighting each other, achieve some real solidarity and start trying to gain some real obtainable results. All is not what it seems I fear or suspect. As always it is far more complicated than that. We are never ever ever going to stop, nor should we expect them to, (nor should we ostracise them for doing so) paying for type ratings.
Firstly I believe that this is happening because of a surplus of wannabe pilots (no great revelation there). There is a large backlog of pilots who have come through training who have been put on hold because of 911. Secondly, I believe because of the advent of budget airlines, exploiting this issue, by cherry picking pilots and investing as little as they have to, the situation has been exacerbated. That said, I believe that it will not go on for long, nor do I believe that many airlines are succumbing to such tactics – it is because there are so many wannabes out there owing to the downturn in recruitment after 911. Lastly, I believe that the British, Irish and American pilots are particularly susceptible to falling victim to such prevailing conditions. Why? Because airlines from countries other than these, are more likely to adopt protectionist recruitment policies (in a very surreptitious way). As a result it is fuelling this fashion amongst airlines which will eventually seep through to other nations, if it hasn't already.
That said, I suspect, but do not know for certain, that it is easier for young wannabes in other countries to get their first jobs as the airlines in their countries are losing pilots to British, Irish and US airlines which are happy to cherry pick. Pilots in other countries are not having to pay for type ratings (although no doubt there are some – but on a lesser scale) because the demand still exceeds the supply.
My suggestion would be for BALPA to perhaps commission a study on this; after all they would be in a good position to do so. Then perhaps (although, granted it would be difficult to legally do it – free movement of workers and all that) we could force BALPA to petition the European parliament to stop airlines (in England) from recruiting pilots from outside the UK in order to protect our industry/profession. Or maybe we could investigate why so few of the continents airlines are refusing to take on pilots from nations other than their own and in reparation apply pressure to them in order to rectify the situation. I feel that this cross pollination, this free market policy is what is causing trouble in the short term. Free market policies are good but do not suit every need. There are some industries that need protecting from the ravages of its effects. The piloting profession is one of them (particularly susceptible to it I would say) and I truly suspect that if the two major budget airlines had been initially based on the European continent, it may have been a little different.
This is just one of my suggestions. If there is an interest, I have a few others, but I have gone on long enough and have probably bored enough of you already. That said, when I return in a few days and if there is an interest, I would be happy to espouse a few more. However, like I said before, this policy is not based on a racist stand point – nor a protectionist one (as contradictory as that may sound) – you have my word on it. Nor do I not want to see pilots in other countries suffer. I just feel that allowing a free movement of pilots has not served us as pilots on the whole. I feel that we would all be in a better position if it was harder for airlines to steal experienced pilots from other sources. In the railway industry where this went on a great deal unions forced train companies to come to gentlemens agreement not to do so. This could be another alternative to bonding. Otherwise where is the incentive to train then? It is left to the smaller airlines that find it hard to handle the costs and as a result have started to look at wannabes pockets and bank accounts.
But please, let us stop picking on the wannabes. They are only doing what they can to secure their future dreams. You yourself have paid for your training, and did so in a climate when it was easier….yes it was…. to get a job. It is not their fault that the economic climate is ruining pilots Ts & Cs any more than it is that BA pilots’ privileged position, with regards to pensions, is not their fault either. I know you feel passionately about this and I admire you immensely because of it, but you will never achieve your aims by making them pariahs. They need your support, not your disparaging remarks. And I also find it hard to believe that we have so many saints on this forum. Am I truly to believe that you would act in a different manner if you were in their circumstances? Tackle the bigger picture please, if you truly care about your Ts & Cs.
Kindest Regards to you all
EliRich
(although I would like to be known as ‘tugging pilot’ – but it would appear that I am not allowed to change my name…… oh well maybe I will set up a thread on that gripe)