Fishing....my "rant" is as valid as your "rant".
I disagree completely with your defeatist attitude that we should just blindly accept lower terms, conditions, training standards, applicant requirements, and safety. Just because it happens, does't make it right. If as you say you do have the credentials and experience - and I trust you do if you say - then to defend this is just incredibly wrong in any professional airman's eyes.
In aviation we seek to always find higher standards, and promote higher levels of safety. You claim to accept and almost welcome the lowering of them. I cannot for the life of me comprehend how an experienced pilot could say such a thing.
All the rights and standards you had and have were once fought for by another. And what ever happened to leaving the profession in a better place then when you entered it?
Please then by all means place your nearest and dearest on the next flight with the cheapest option at the helm.
It seems to me that alot of people on here living in the past, hoping to hold onto some grasp of "good ole days". Terms and conditions are reducing across the board for pretty much everyone involved in aviation. Thats a fact. It sucks, however its true. No new pilots will ever fly for the 1980's CX, the 1990's Qantas or for the european legacy's of the same era. These companies don't exist.
You're right. And why? Because the opinion you have offered allows it. Pilots are and always will be their own worst enemy. So why cower down to the lowest common denominator? Why not fight for the raising of the bar??!! Call it market rates, call it a sign of the times, call it anything else.... Terms and conditions ARE NOT lowering across the board. How did Slosar's terms and conditions get lowered? No - he just received a 70% pay increase as he seeks to make some 400 pilots redundant. And how has CX's DFO or GM, etc suffered? Have their terms and conditions lowered? Hell no. Their salaries have grown far in excess of the CPI while the pilots had to threaten CC just for a pay rise due for over a decade just in line with inflation! (From memory of an AOA update the DFO received over a 72% [????] pay increase over the same period the pilots had received nothing, and he fought to withhold any increase in pilot salaries) So, no. This is not an "across the board" issue at all, and far from it. It is greed. Shear greed. And it comes at the expense of standards and safety as the trade off. And the target is squarely aimed at those naive enough to go for it. Do you not ask yourself why so many experienced pilots do not apply to CX anymore? They know what they and the job are worth and refuse it.
CX recently reduced the SO FFS training by 50%. It was once 12 sims for DESO who came with ATPL's and 1000's of hours experience, but now 6 sims for a fresh CPL holder yet to fly a commercial aircraft. So please don't say there is no safety or training being compromised.
What I would ask to the main contributors on here is this, what else would you have these "wannabees" do? Stay in GA? Fly regional for crap money in the hope of one day getting on the ever increasing number of low cost carriers? In my opinion this program, especially for someone without the money to fund their own training, seems to be one of the better options available. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Yes. They would build "experience" and "knowledge" and "credentials" before being let loose on potentially 400+ pax. After 6 years, where would they go? They have no recognisable hours outside of the CX / CAD umbrella. The P2X rating or therefore hours are not recognised. So, when they become JFO they start their ICAO "loggable" hours from where they last left their Dutchess or C152. So, add at least 4 years to that 6 before even hoping to be completive just for a light twin job back in Oz. Too bad if there is an unforeseen need to leave CX and HK... They are screwed. LONG TERM affects of
living in HK on a housing allowance not factored to inflationary affects.... A house/apartment to save for and buy? A wife? A family? Education? Single income with wife pregnant? And so on.... These guys by and large have zero appreciation or care for these things. They just see "big shiny jet quick".
In GA or a RHS job on a turboprop or even RHS in a 737 / A320 at least builds credible and recognisable hours that they can use. They OWN those hours, as opposed to the shackles CX places on them.
And lastly, what of the pressure on the present day CX pilots contacts? If one group of hopefuls will do it for approx 60% less, hell, why not create another 49ers on a larger scale and sack even more and fill those spots with the cheapest option??!! (Exaggerated example, of course). Who cares of safety and standards when cheap is all that is sought after??
And then we have young not even wet behind the ears Truss here who has done so very little research about the job. He is pinning his financial security on making millions from the stock market and moving back to Oz after 5 years. He knows nothing of the real job and of course less than nothing about the basing fiasco presently going on at CX. And this is the future of the industry. What an insult.
So, does this CEP contribute to aviation in general or detract from it?
Fishing, I'm happy to have an educated discussion about this if you wish. We can agree to disagree but maybe best via PM's.