Go back Twenty years, Thirty years, Forty years..... You will find accidents in their droves. In the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies etc. These accidents were happening to usually very experienced crews. That is because the flight decks of airliners of those eras only had very experienced crews for the most part. As an evolving transport science, a lot was learned through this era. Most of the common failures have been incorporated into modern methodology, even though (sadly) they are still often misunderstood and very often misquoted particularly here on these type of threads.
When I was growing up through this era is often seemed that not a Sunday (always seemed to be a Sunday for some reason?) went by without the TV news headlining the burnt out wreck of an airliner somewhere around the world. Even though air transport has grown Tenfold, the absolute rate of accidents has shrunk markedly. Improvements in our understanding of many things, not least our own behaviour, has been vital to that advancement. It continues and likely will for a long time, to be something we tweak, modify and overhaul as we progress.
In the first two decades of the Twenty First century there has been a much greater focus of looking at what is being trained into airline pilots at the basic level. The regulatory authorities, the training industry, professional pilots, and "the airlines," are looking at what is happening at the most basic level, and better adapting that training to what is relevant today rather than what seemed relevant 50 years ago.
What I see is a much better
ab-initio pilot. When I first flew with new cadets some 15+ years ago, the very first thing I noticed (and I was very sceptical at the time) was the complete sea change in CRM (non-technical attributes) that these new trainees brought with them. These were pilots whose selection, training and attitude meant they listened, learned (quickly,) weren't afraid to challenge when necessary, and progressed far more rapidly than had generally been the case historically. Nothing that has happened in the last 15+ years has caused me to change that observation, other than it is now taken as normal.
The people who trot out "life experience" as some sort of alternative for selective and improved training are frankly deluding themselves. In fairness there aren't many, and they can usually be defined as the "late starters" who resent the situation they find themselves in. At my age I think I have "life experience" in abundance, although quite what that will bring to the table on tomorrow's Tenerife I have no idea.
"Pay 2 Fly" has also become one of those terms, perhaps not like "beauty," but certainly in the eye of the beholder. I used to assume it applied to some dodgy company in Miami that was flogging a few hours experience in a jet to the "vanity publishing" brigade. These days it seems to be applied to anything and everything connected with an individual putting their hand in their pocket. To that end it is almost meaningless.
My career path, rather like
Gilles Hudicourt's, has never involved paying an employer for a type rating or indeed anything else, but times are changing. I have little doubt that a change of company now, would very likely involve facing those type of costs, simply because that is the way this business has evolved. If cadets (apprentice airline pilots) are not being paid a full senior F/O's salary, or indeed any salary is that P2F? I guess so, but there are very few apprenticeship programmes in any industry where this isn't the case.
It is human nature (and we all do it) to want a situation that favours ourselves. Often that is buried in a cloak of mutual altruism, but is a cloak that tears easily. Nevertheless, survival is usually about adapting to your environment rather than fighting an inevitable losing battle against it. The nature of the business has changed and evolved. The nature of the training has changed and evolved. The financial realities have changed and evolved. The survivors are likely to be those individuals who can also change and evolve. The successful are likely to be the ones who stay one jump ahead of those changes.
In the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties and perhaps the Nineties the job of airline pilot was often well paid, certainly well respected, had a certain cachet and romance in the mind of the general public, and very often had its own intrinsic perks and rewards. It was a difficult and busy career path and there was a lot of intense competition to climb the ladders that were available. Apart from a very, very, few "approved" courses, the entry requirements to climb onto these ladders were such that attrition was progressive. In the last two decades it has simply become " generation x-factor" where everybody thinks it is their right to join a big queue and become a star. The entry requirements have become cheap and easy. As a result, there are tens of thousands of hopefuls who believe that simply meeting the entry requirements should be enough for their big break. Worse still, they believe that if they get to the top of the ladder they will find a world of respect, kudos, adventure and high remuneration
a la nineteen sixties.
Inevitably they won't!
Given the change in the requirements of airlines for the reasons given, and given the need for potential aspirants to generally find the best remuneration in the shortest possible time, it is very difficult to advance the idea to a
serious wannabe that they should work there way up through a series of third and second tier jobs, as indeed many of us did in days long gone. Those jobs are simply not there in sufficient or even relative quantity, to provide a meaningful and workable career path for most people.
I think listing every airline with "P2F" is fine once you have defined what "P2F" means. However, I fear it will be an ever growing list that will even extend to Canada one day, if it hasn't already.
It seems some people here rely heavily on the Cadets to assure their retirement package deal!
Do they? I have read the thread again and haven't seen any evidence of that. I can tell you that cadets have done nothing to enhance my retirement package. In fact, rather the opposite, but that isn't their fault. Perhaps my "life experience" has been deprived of the "joy" of somebody like yourself sat at my right hand side for the last 27 years? I guess we will never know.
