Thanks, I did! Very nice lazy Sunday morning it was too. Now to business...
GW I think you misunderstand my point. For a start, I don't know what you're alluding to with your the first two quotes in your post (quoting me then you.) I've been following the thread since the beginning, since the issues that were first being discussed stand to affect people like me a great deal.
And for clarity's sake.... P2F.... P4T......semi SSTR.........BBC.....ITV.......whatever...... I use P2F because its easy
Easy, or lazy? This is the big problem I have. It might seem like a technicality or an easy abbreviation to you, but in reality it leads confuses one group of pilots with another and leads to misunderstanding and hostility where it is unwarranted and unnecessary. Paying to fly - i.e. a scheme such as the J Curd one which has appeared in more than one guise - where the candidate is paying money to be there, is completely different from the CTC Cadet scheme where training has been paid for and the cadet receives payment for their services once flying for the airline. And people still see the low-houred pilot and lump them all together as "P2F cadets", despite the obvious differences.
The reason the easyJet TCs want to call it something else is because it IS different. As I have said before, those coming through from the CTC Cadet course are the same people who, before things were changed drastically by management, would have come out, done their 6 months' apprenticeship and then been given a full-time contract of employment, on the same T&Cs as everyone else, like those before them. By the time the changes were made, and they had to accept employment on a contractor basis, it was too late for them to pull out of the course. The alternative was to go bankrupt. As I said, the contractor pay is awful, but they are still being paid, they are not paying to be there. Can you see the difference?
Or maybe I should put it this way, as a question. GW, when you hear/use the term "P2F cadet", what is your understanding of their terms and conditions, and the route they took into the airline? What exactly are you referring to using that term?
P2F, P4T, semi-SSTR results in TWO things.......... INCREASE RISK TO THE TRAVELLING PUBLIC...
You're (again) lumping together three or four different groups of pilots, and in some cases I would agree with you where as in others I would disagree.
I would be more concerned, as an F/O, about flying with short-term contractors in the left seat, who won't be company-minded, won't bother to learn the OMs properly, and will fly "their way". The very people this thread was about in the first place. If you ask me, this is a much bigger risk to the travelling public than a low-hour F/O flying with an experienced captain.
... AND AN EROSION OF YOUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS and you have actively promoted the former and been totally apathetic to the latter...... an now its affecting individuals, (the me me's) they want BALPAS help.
On the latter point, I agree with you. I've been trying to ram home the cadets' situation to people for ages because I could see what was coming (i.e. it eventually affecting people up the chain) but the general level of apathy has been astounding. Finally, now it's affecting others, eyes are slowly beginning to open.
For what it's worth, as a BALPA member, I tried to seek their help when I was affected as a low-hour cadet F/O a few years back, and BALPA wasn't really interested (in fact I found the eventual response from one of the reps insulting.)
The sooner you take your orange tinted glasses off you will see that there is a whole world out there....... and just maybe, its there on your side, but it wants a solution which is much bigger than just a solution for you.
Please don't patronise me. Do you think I don't know this already?! I can assure you my glasses are not in the slightest bit 'orange-tinted'. I'd love to explain in more detail, but to do so might give clues as to my identity and I'd rather stay anonymous. The point you made before signing off, I wholly agree with. One day I'll hopefully be a 5000hr pilot and I'd be horrified if I was sitting around unemployed while the only route in was as a 250hr "cadet".
I repeat, my only problem is with the fact you demonise the CTC Cadets, erroneously labelling them "P2F", when in reality there is a world of difference between paying for training and paying to actually fly 'on the line'.
Originally Posted by go around flap15
I would'nt say it's the same deal money wise?
Would you agree?
Yes, absolutely. I deplore the pay rate the CTC ex-cadet FlexiCrew F/Os are having to accept. I was referring to the route they took - i.e. fATPL course, contribute to type rating, join as a contractor rather than a full-time employee.