Dreamshiner. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your comments however they are food for thought for the UK based aviation industry, it's future and the future of those who work within it.
A point that was raised was the situation of languages and employment within the EU.
I have noticed many, many, I may be even so bold as to say the majority of, crew positions throughout non-English speaking Europe stipulate fluency in the local language. Conversely, with English being the language of aviation, now to a specific standard UK nationals are at a distinct disadvantage on the European job scene for flight desk positions.
While there are effectively no restriction on EU working rights a stipulation for an Austrian, French, Spanish, German, Italian etc etc employers to require a fluency in local language skills limits the application base from alternative EU countries.
While it may not be unusual for a degree of competency in a second language, can competency be classed as fluency?
However, with English as a industry standard any UK operator could without doubt receive an application base from all EU nationalities, while a Greek, French, Spanish, German etc etc operator who requires "fluency" in a local language will be limiting the application base to local pilots, bar a fractional amount that have fluency in that language.
This is not a reflection on EU nationals who are employed by UK operators, nor is it open season for a barrage of UK nationals with fluency in a foreign language (
I am passable in two).
In order for a level playing field it would necessitate a UK national with English as a first language to have fluency in all EU languages. Likewise, every EU national to be fluent in every other EU language in order for the application process to be non discriminatory.
This is a failing of UK government itself.
Another point which I noticed: Say for example one goes from ab-intio to a 250 hour CPL through an integrated FTO and is makes an application to an operation that has agreement with said FTO for a flight deck position, yes said operation requires those who apply directly to have say 1,000 hour total time, is that not again a discriminatory situation.
We all train to a specific standard, are examined by the same authority, sit the same examinations under the same conditions, yet if you went to "x" FTO as integrated student your application is processed, whereas if you went to "x" FTO as a modular, or "Y" FTO it is summarily rejected as not meeting posted minimum requirements, whereas the integrated student from "x" FTO has 25% of the posted minimum requirements.
The industry in this country has suffered from poor policy and support from all angles for too long, to be honest I am surprised at what we do have.
Potkettleblack
The only person holding you back from getting a job is yourself.
I disagree, and that is very sanctimonious.
There needs to be an objective view of the failings of the industry and careful consideration, both in the sort term and long term, of how the failings can be resolved as it benefits the industry as whole.
With that kind of attitude we would never have had the Chicago Convention of 1944:
The Convention on International Civil Aviation set forth the purpose of ICAO:
"WHEREAS the future development of international civil aviation can greatly help to create and preserve friendship and understanding among the nations and peoples of the world, yet its abuse can become a threat to the general security; and
WHEREAS it is desirable to avoid friction and to promote that co-operation between nations and peoples upon which the peace of the world depends; THEREFORE, the undersigned governments having agreed on certain principles and arrangements in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically;