On speed on profile
I do fall into the latter category since I am fortunate to have a commercial flying job. However I was not handed my first job on a plate and had to fight for it just as much as anyone would today. I was fortunate to have a traditional bond when I joined for my first job. My second job which I am in now, resulted in the cost of the rating being docked off the salary over the bond period. Not a practice I agree with but I couldn't turn down a jet job at my home base when the 'reduced' salary was obviously still better than what I was on when I was on props! Anyway this penny-pinching technique backfires since no matter if you stay or go then you still pay for the rating! The bond then becomes less significant!!!
Deep down I am sure that we all support you lot and I didn't say I agreed with the practice of paying for your rating. However, no matter how many people stand up and object to management in any airline - the end result is never noticeable and we are often still stuck in square one with the penpushers ignoring any comments. I know some Loganair guys and they have told me that they personally disagree with the new scheme - however if any issues were presented to Loganair management, I am sure they would fall on deaf ears. The upper echelons of airline management are essentially all the same - they sit in what could be sound proofed offices since they never seem to hear what goes on outside!!! Airlines seem to be very good at tight penny pinching which makes no sense whilst allowing other areas of the business to bleed money!!!
BALPA seem to have a struggle keeping their members happy with airline issues so trying to talk airlines out of getting candidates for paying would be low on their priorities. The CAA don't care since it is nothing to do with them anyway since training standards should be the same no matter who pays for the training! Perhaps the IPA would be the most likely organisation that would be willing to listen but then again they can do nothing?
elevengflyer
You made a reference to investing in training which is a valid point. However for a regional turboprop carrier such as Loganair then training costs could easily be looked upon as unnecessary high expenditure as opposed to an investment. If you invest in something then you expect to get a return over time but it would be interesting to see how long a F/O stays at Loganair - at least half at a guess won't see out the 3 year bond that was previously used. At Virgin for example where most people stay for a long time then the company will get a return for their money since that person will stay and serve the company for a number of years! Different perspective when you look at it from that point of view!
Interesting that you point out that 'synergies' could be made between Loganair and BA with regards to how the company operates. A lesser well known BA franchise operator has been charging for type ratings for years!!! Sun Air in Denmark which has the Union Flag draped on its tails makes future pilots work on the ground as baggage handlers and work their way up the ranks on the ground before still having to shell out for the course despite being employed!
Airlines are gradually eroding the terms and conditions and final salary pensions have been killed off to albeit a few and now it is the turn for airlines paying for type ratings!