There is alas, some serious misinformation on this thread. The comments of the ill-informed, such as Global Warrior, do not help. Added to that, there are people writing to MPs who have failed to check their facts fully. When their letters are checked it will do not favours to the cause of those wishing to end this type of employment practice. There are many people reading this debate who are not airline pilots and they are being falsely led to the view that UK airlines apart from the blessed British Airways are crazily eroding safety standards in the pursuit of saving money.
An unfortunate issue of safety pilots has been mentioned on this thread. For those who do not understand what is happening it may be worth explaining. Safety pilots are used by ALL companies (including Global Warrior's blessed BA) and are there, surprisingly enough, to ensure safety! They are carried in the early sectors of a trainee's Line Training and would be there to ensure that the Training Captain does not miss something critical and to take over in the event of his demise. As the trainee proves himself capable, the safety pilot can be removed, but only after he has successfully demonstrated his ability to land the aircraft unassisted and without danger to the occupants. The idea that BA does not use safety pilots because it is intrinsically more safe is just rubbish and totally removed from reality. We at easyJet are currently training ex-737 pilots, some of whom have in excess of 10,000 hours time on the Boeing, onto the Airbus - they too have to have a safety pilot for the first few sectors. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of current captains at BA all began their career as 200 hour cadets on BA aircraft. The doubters would do well to listen to the excellent comments of Wingswinger, who is ex-RAF fast jet instructor, ex-BA captain and current easyJet TRE. I completely concur with his views.
In this debate, it is important to understand that the term 'p2f' is not strictly accurate. The schemes associated with this term have actually been evolving over the last 2 or 3 years and it is really not accurate to call them all 'pay-to-fly'. The pure 'p2f' schemes, like JC's original one initially mentioned here were not good. A way appeared by which meaningful selection could be avoided and young lads (and in some cases old lads!) with a few bob to spare could fulfil their ambtion and effectively pay for 150 hours of line training on a Boeing or an Airbus. The Thomas Cook accident referred to previously on this thread by Global Warrior involved one of those individuals who lacked the basic apptitude to fly a jet airliner. EasyJet also, in my view unwisely, 'employed' 32 of these guys 2 years ago. Only about half got to the end of their 150 hour line training and the Head of Training kicked the scheme into touch. I would have to say that that period represented the lowest point we have had in terms of the standard of pilot employed. We still had the same safety standards, but it was hard to credibly say the selection process was fully intact. However, the world has moved on - it is vital that people do not think that easyJet is filling its cockpits full of the wrong people because that is absolutely not the case. It is, of course, true to say that a 200-hour pilot is more vulnerable to making signficant mistakes than a pilot with 5000 hours+ on type. Clearly that is true, but that has been the case since the dawn of time. BA are no different and have a long history employing properly selected cadets. They offset the initial risk by the presence of experienced Captains and embracing the advantage of grabbing a pilot at an early stage to indoctrinate him/her with the best of BA thinking. The current 'p2f' schemes as they are known, are totally different beasts than their predecessors. The paying element is forcing someone to buy a type rating. There are, however, 2 key differences - the first being that the pilot is paid once they start flying. The pay is not great but they are paid nonetheless. The second key difference is that the selection process to allow these candidates to reach an easyJet cockpit has been substantially tightened up. I am not justifying the current terms and conditions being applied to our newest FOs, but I am saying that they are not pure pay-to-fly schemes in the way that some here understand them to be. We have talented and capable pilots being given the best possible training and being closely supervised during the line training process. That is exactly how a responsible airiline should work and we at easyJet have one of the best TRTOs in Europe. I am not asking anyone to support the terms and conditions, but I am strongly suggesting that the safety card being played here is neither appropriate nor accurate.