Are the airlines heading for a training crunch?

[TWOTBAGS]

This subject came up over a group discussion about the short sighted view by some in the aviation management world about the investment in training programs by the far majority of aviation operators here in Europe (sains the few “legacy” carriers), we are talking about type training not zero-to-hero type ab-initio training.

Back before any of us could afford a type rating we generally accepted a bonding period and knew that were going to be FO’s until the old bugger in the LHS ran out of round engine stories and croaked. Scratch one off the seniority list and we had what is called progression, these airlines we joined with a long term view and it was generally a retirement job.

To elaborate we need to look at the current trends.

It is plainly clear that any “loyalty” a company held with its crew is dead as the dodo, now we see that the minimum entry requirements are a type-rating. Preferably that someone else has paid for.

If pilots move from one job to the other the are seen as a long term risk because they are not “stable” and entrenched (read as “bonded to the hilt”), third house, second wife, kids at school, you know the story. If management jump ships its called a “career move” do they have performance bonds or 6 month checks? No but they get performance bonus’s. Ever hear of a pilot that got a bonus for consistently making block time or better… No, nor have we.

So now to save a buck the airlines training departments have been cut back so far that the only way to get some one on line relatively quickly is to poach someone else, the circle begins. No type rating no job, or bonded up the kazoo and treated like dirt. Having said that there are also quite a few “type rated” but no time on type guys out there that have been deemed unsuitable, we know of several individuals who have been to just about every interview and not got the nod…. “but I paid for my rating I deserve a job”…. Sound familiar.

There’s also the case that happened in a well know operator a few years back when FO’s were being passed over for DEC’s, the FO’s basically got together and marched into the DFO’s office.
FO’s: “hey we’ve been here a few years, we’ve got 2200 hrs why aren’t we being made Captain?? DFO: How much time on type?
FO’s: 2000
DFO: Command time?
FO’s: Does ICUS count?
DFO: No
FO’s: 110
DFO: On type?
FO’s: errr…. no total.

What happens next, well people get where they thought they wanted to go and sudden realize that its not all as advertised, (see the thread in wannabes) never ending nights, long haul advanced aging, what ever the problem is people finally get jack of it and do something else. We (the discussion group) could easily put together 20 names of guys who simply got jack of it and left the industry as a whole. We are not talking about BA 55’s either, were talking about those 30-45 who’ve had a gut full.

Then here is the crunch, if you are Captain/TRE/TRI with a rating you are in demand, airlines are having lots of trouble finding suitable applicants. At the other end, some airlines are now training limited, management proposed increased utilisation can’t happen because the crews are at max already and the training departments simply don’t have capacity. Also some of those coming out of the sausage factories even with self-funded ratings are lest say short on aptitude and long on attitude.

Are we soon to face this problem? Every training department we know of has been cut to the bone, and are running at max already. There is the signs of movement in the UK, Germany is still consolidating (GEXX & DBA), LH group are starting to suck up the 300 odd Bremen Babies that have been in waiting not to mention LX. The shake out has happened in Austria, France, Switzerland, Holland & Spain, Italy is on the precipice. We can’t really comment on the Scandic countries.

Have we reached the point where the lo-co’s, big regional’s etc are going to have to invest in their own people & training departments, and maybe just maybe start to invest in keeping people?

Your comments.

[TWOTBAGS]

Not wanting this to get off subject. Nothing to do with ex-RAF, We did not say that nor imply it (Shags did, where'd his post go???) we didn’t even think in that direction.

Looking for some serious answers.

Is the training monster going to raise its head?

We seriously think so.


The management style we were referring to is not necessarily the DFO type, more the outside cut and burner, take the bonus and run, leaving a smouldering heap think of what Swiss did to LTU, from a fleet of owned machines to big leases for bus’s.

Most of the ex-pilot DFO’s are actually pretty good at heart and would love to give ratings to those with a bit of promise. But like Anakin they have generally been seduced by the dark side. (that analogy came from a 9yo).

[Lolo737]

Twotbags,

Im afraid I cant contribute much of value to this discussion as Im just a newborn fATPL.

Interesting to know though that we're not the only ones who cant quite fathom the attitudes of the airlines to people like us who just want to give them the value of the investment we have made in ourselves. I know, I know, supply and demand.

Fingers crossed for a big shortage! ;)

[unwiseowl]

I suspect you're not getting many replies because you've said it all and no one disagrees!

[Waspy]

Fantastic! I could not find a better description of what's happening in our company (which I like besides that). There must be an end to this situation. Let's start with MOL in jail???:ok:

[silverhawk]

All you've said, bang on

Interested to hear if your ex-raf guy is part time or P-T

[411A]

Then here is the crunch, if you are Captain/TRE/TRI with a rating you are in demand, airlines are having lots of trouble finding suitable applicants>>>

Indeed they are, which is why all us good 'ole TriStar (ahhh, Lockheed) guys still find the welcome mat out.

Good for a few more years, me thinks.

Sadly, many of the older hands have retired from line/sim training, leaving a few companies/younger guys in the doggie do-do.

Money talks, BS walks...true as it's ever been.:E

[Left Wing]

What is amazing is that even with this kind of pilot shortage, in ME, Asia & EU the airlines are still hoping that the newbees will pay for the type rating. Its scary that the newbees have a thought process that its the only way to get a real job.

The LCCs will just not invest in any thing and smaller airlines are just poacing from bigger players.

Really! why do airlines think an X air force chappie can run a business when he has done is job all his life without a so called budget or answering to share holders.

[acbus1]

I can only give my opinion based experience of the "organisations" I've worked for, but the solution to any shortage, be it trainers, trainees, whatever, is simple............

...........lower the standards.

That's been going on, gradually, for decades. It'll continue until the accident rate starts turning punters away.

[FougaMagister]

Are the airlines heading for a training crunch?

I wish... :E

[His dudeness]

is there a pilot shortage ? I wish..
However, I never payed a rating, and never will. Period. Therefore I´ll most likely will have to stay where I am.

[Firestorm]

If as the airlines tell us, there is no problem, why are about 10 flights a week from 3 airlines (that I know of) being cancelled because of crew shortages?

Why are a significant number of guys being offered jobs by BA turning them down, and why are a significant number of those accepting jobs not turning up to start their conversion courses?

Something is wrong in the world at the moment.

Towtbags, you have got it all pretty much spot on, and well done for that. I would be interested to know more about what you suggest we (the Pilots) do about it. Hopefully market forces will come to play their part, but maybe we can help them to expedite their participation!

All for one, and one for all!

[Left Wing]

I wish the worlds pilots were all for one !

[Frozen Turtle]

Since last year GF finds it difficult to find type rated pilots. Thus, since last September GF hires non- type rated FO's and provides training on A320/330 and B767.
Pilots are being bonded for 3 years after completion of line- check.

EK, Etihad and of course Qatar are forced to go the same way....

Furthermore the training center in Doha has no capacity left and the pilots fly out to Cairo for training and checks....

Time for management to cuddle with its pilot force in order to keep us.....:p

[TWOTBAGS]

I have received a few pm’s and we would like to add a few things to better explain things to some of the FNG’s.

Myth 1: Jet are harder to fly than turboprops

No, the only thing jets don’t like to do is go down and slow down, either is possible not both at the same time, generally Mr Boeing & Mr Bus have added every gizmo possible to enhance flight safety so the lowest common denominator does not ruin their reputation.
Turboprop’s fly in the weather not above it, generally from lesser capable airports, with lesser capable clock-work cockpits, with lesser trained staff and less experienced crew.

Myth 2: Well trained cadet pilots are as good a more experienced pilot when it comes to Jet conversions.

No, again. Certainly it is true that the new guys are keen, essentially young, dumb and full…ly not ready to be father’s. Single living the life, eating, sleeping, walking, talking, aviation mad and they will do anything to get into a kero burner. And yes we do mean anything.
Now look at the demographic of the other candidate a couple thousand hours turbo-prop. Self-funded and paid off the loan, only to be replaced by the new loan for the house that is accompanied by the new wife and the screaming 3 month old on 3 hourly feeds.

So put these two together on course, one willing to do anything to get a life, the other with a life/wife/baby/bills, they will both complete the course to the required standard, however the older one will be exhausted and may need a little coaxing. Give the guy a break.

He has already jumped through the hoops, has a bit of commercial experience and has flown approaches down to minima’s time and time again in an aircraft not some microsoft based overgrown arcade game.

The airline recruiters however have a different view, as they also rely on the poaching game they will pick the FNG and bond him to the hilt, and overwork the line trainers in order to get a return on investment (comical term, we know). Rather than the other guy who knows the lay of the land and will be even more disillusioned when he discovers the true calibre of the management.

Which leads us to the…….

Reality 1: No man’s land.

No man’s land is a place in aviation for those turboprop and light jet jockeys with between 2000 & 5000 hours. Be it a Texas Stovepipe, King Air, Bandit, Doorknob, Shed, Dash, Fokker, ATR or Slowtation. If you have this experience and this time you will find it harder to progress for exactly the same reason as above.

Management see you as a short term risk, not a long term bond. It will only get better when there are more jobs like in 99-00.

Reality 2: Ex- Military pilots are different to Civilian trained guys.

True. Military pilot get the best of training for few occasions and civil guys get minimal training for every occasion.

Mission.
Military: Fly from A to A, drop ordinance, don’t get shot at.
Civil: Fly from A to B to C back to B then D and maybe A, drop passengers, don’t get yelled at.

Planning.
Military: Two days, best intel, sim session. 1 hour flight, 1 landing.
Civil: 15 mins, on the net, 6 hours flight time, 4-6 landings.

Training.
Military: In the sim as much as the real thing, training for every contingency possible for each mission.
Civil: Twice a year for a few hours, doing thing that you will never do in reality (hopefully).

Maintenance:
Military: Whatever part you need we got, if not, we have several spare aircraft, your tax dollar at work.
Civil: Whatever you want we don’t got, no spare aircraft, maintained by the lowest bidder.

So yes there is a difference, a cultural difference, between that of the bureaucratic government world and the commercial reality world.

We are not having a dig at the military, we (several of us were guests at a military function over the weekend in fact) are having a go at the attitude that some (not all) bring with them to the commercial world.

Truth 1: Simulators are training devices.

The sim is a training device, some sim instructors (that’s all they do some of them) are not on the line. You fly 900 hours per annum from A to the rest of the alphabet. No simulated problems with the aircraft, just real problems with passengers/handlers/operations/slot times/fuelers/Duty times/ MELs. They fly the lurching cave all year, thinking up ways to scare the bejesus out of you and try and prove that they are better than you.

Truth 2:
Jets are NOT harder to fly than turboprops. Experience in the real world, beats X-box any day. No man’s land is badge of honour not a burden, every captain we know would take a NML candidate over a FNG any day…..its only management who don’t realise this, because they only want their performance bonus based on revenue from the training department.

Is there an answer, yes. Unfortunately united we stand and divided we fall, as long as those new to the industry are willing to self fund type ratings, airline will take a few, just to give the masses a glimmer of hope and keep the myth alive.

The cost of aviation in Europe has turned it into an elitist sport, money is becoming the lowest common denominator.

You reap what you sow.

Let the games begin.
:E

[G-LOST]

This has to be one of the best posts of the year! I have no doubt that most of us have witnessed most, if not all, of the issues you mention since things picked up in recruitment post the 911 glitch. Yes, the airlines will reap what they sow, but I suspect that the only people to really lose out will be the piloting fraternity.

[flying scotsman]

twotbags,

just interested. are you a low / medium time prop fo who did the self improver route ??

while much of what you say is valid I'd probably correct the following (my opinion only) based on what I've seen as the guy who hired pilots for a jet airline in a previous life.

1: jets are more demanding than t-props when you consider the whole package. a/c , pax, equippment, coms, nav routes airspace management etc. but there is no difficulty converting most T-prop pilots on to them. anyone might be able to be trained to fly them but it's hard to get the entire package right.

2: from what I've seen your arguement about the self-improvers (i'm one of those) compared to the selected and sponsored students is wrong. like for like the approved course guys tend to fly better than most in the sim. they do however fall behind in the management and the flight experience side but they are areas that they improve in quickly. go through a full year with any jet operator and you'll have a good grounding.
at its most basic you said that a self improver with a family is more motivated during a type rating. well you don't have to be married to be highly motivated and to be very blunt they have been screened and selected, usually have better aptitude and possibly smarter than the average (certainly than me) and thus can cope with the Ground school better. the sim even favours them as it's basic flying and that is where they excel. they are a clean sheet and very eager. there is nothing worse than getting a guy in the sim on a type rating course who starts telling you how they 'did it' in xxx airlines and that worked better etc.....

3: Mil pilots (I'm not one) are far better trained. reducing them to people who were trained to fly to drop ordinance and go back to base is a little simplistic. To get to do that they have to be very very good and very highly trained. Like the sponsored cadet they generally are far better in the sim, have a fast learning curve and are easier for management to deal with when they're new as they're used to a command structure. If they have one failing (and it's limited to a very small proportion of them) they may show more signs of CRM type issues on their first command based on the way they have been trained.

everybody holds the training / selection process employed by the majors as a professional system. ask yourself why they go for very high cost ab-initio guy who they can screen from the get-go. or why mil guy can get fast-tracked straight onto jets. it's generally not because t-prop drivers with 2000 hours are any better or worse, it just that they might be a higher risk.

and lastly and probably least favourable in the popularity stakes every pilot underestimates the cost of training in a airline. the blunt truth is that it is easier to squeeze what you can out of the guys you have, use a mix of DEC's and upgrades. If guys are willing to pay for a TR it may be an avenue (IMHO bonding is still paying for a TR). there will always be a supply of pilots because it is a vocational career and amongst the legion of applicants you will always find some good people.

where any pinch may be felt is with rapidly growing airlines who are looking for experienced pilot who can adapt. these attract a premium and rightly so if they are good enough. some times it's safer to us DECs than a raft of new upgrades to maintain the experience base - especailly on challenging routes / aircraft.

sorry to go on a bit. all my opinion only. etc etc

[TWOTBAGS]

Myself. By the listed profile… sort of but its not everything!

Self improver - yes
Ex turboprop – yes
Ex TRI – yes
Ex Chief Pilot – yes

To say anymore would be revealing.

As to the “discussion group” members include pilots present & past from DP, BY, BA, U2, QY, FR, AB, LH, HF, SQ, CX, SA, QF, DJ, VQ, KD, BR, CI, EK, GF & QR and probably a few more as well, obviously not everyone is involved in this discussion so as you can gather multiple languages, multiple inputs but we all see the same picture.

As you can imagine the wealth of experience in the group is substantial, most read these pages however rarely post. Sometimes the silence is deafening, yet sometimes things need to be said.

We are not “voices of reason” nor “uncommon sense” yet these guys are on the similar tac.

I will add one thing though if someone may be able to help a comrade who is in no mans land pm me and message will be passed.

Back to topic,

Is there a training crunch, economies are picking up, investment in airport infrastructure is at an all time high, (sains the early 70’s).

Predictions of massive increases in the numbers of travellers particularly from east asia.

Is it time to by shares in CAE & Atheon? (if you could) Because the crunch is coming

Your comments.
.

[epsilonmiuraised]

Have you noticed in the ryanair ad in last flight international that type rated pilots can now send their CV via email without having to pay 50£? I think this is a very positive sign! may be in a few months self funding type rating will stop?

[click]

Perhaps the free market is showing our wonder boy that you can screw pilots only so much until they stop coming in. MOL will never do anything that is positive for the pilots. Keep in mind that to him, an FO is NOT a pilot.


TWOTBAGS, awesome post!

[Left Wing]

Some airlines will still not learn from this. They will still stick to poaching, ask to pay for type and get away with it. Finally world wide a/c are begining to get grounded due to pilot shortage, Air Asia has been forced to jump start a cadet program.

Changes are showing ? For how long ?

[His dudeness]

No mans land....you summed it all up, twotbags.

Excellent post.

[Meeb]

and lastly and probably least favourable in the popularity stakes every pilot underestimates the cost of training in a airline.

A very sweeping statement and of dubious credibility...


TWOTBAGS... you have it spot on mate.

[flying scotsman]

MEEB.

why dubious credibility ? :rolleyes: if you're a flight examiner on the 73 you should know what it costs.

while I would like to see what twotbags says play out, i don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

it doesn't mean I don't want things to change, of course I do but I just don't see it. mind you, I hope to be proved wrong.:ok:

[wondering]

TWOTBAGS,

can only agree. Excellent post. Should be read not only by wannabes.

Buying jobs through self funded type ratings is sickening. Not a single new job will be created by buying a type rating. Or look at those so called hour building programs :yuk:

Guys and gals think about it. Most of us payed a fortune for our licence. And now top it with another 20-40k to get a rating? Where do you draw the line? I know where mine is.

And yes I hope at least some of those slave-drivers will pay the price.

[unwiseowl]

I'd say that the CTC/ATP scheme is the worst thing to happen to UK aviation in the last 20 years.

Some people complained at the time it started, most of us just ignored it. Maybe BALPA should have taken a stand?

[FougaMagister]

I'd second that re. CTC/ATP.

TWOTBAGS, spot on! Having worked in the airline industry for a while now (albeit not in a flying capacity :{ ), I can say that apart from frontline/operational staff, i.e. Flight Crew, Cabin Crew and Engineers, most people in the airlines (and especially the bean counters that seem to run the show to the exclusion of everybody else these days) don't have a clue about the airline industry or what they're doing! It can actually be quite frightening at times...

[airmen]

TWOTBAGS,

You are taking the words out of my mouth, could not have said it better than you did and with humor too, excellent!

The wheel is turning, will see very soon...

Keep faith

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

__________________________________________________
Reality 2: Ex- Military pilots are different to Civilian trained guys.

True. Military pilot get the best of training for few occasions and civil guys get minimal training for every occasion.

Mission.
Military: Fly from A to A, drop ordinance, don’t get shot at.
Civil: Fly from A to B to C back to B then D and maybe A, drop passengers, don’t get yelled at.

Planning.
Military: Two days, best intel, sim session. 1 hour flight, 1 landing.
Civil: 15 mins, on the net, 6 hours flight time, 4-6 landings.

Training.
Military: In the sim as much as the real thing, training for every contingency possible for each mission.
Civil: Twice a year for a few hours, doing thing that you will never do in reality (hopefully).

Maintenance:
Military: Whatever part you need we got, if not, we have several spare aircraft, your tax dollar at work.
Civil: Whatever you want we don’t got, no spare aircraft, maintained by the lowest bidder.

So yes there is a difference, a cultural difference, between that of the bureaucratic government world and the commercial reality world.

We are not having a dig at the military, we (several of us were guests at a military function over the weekend in fact) are having a go at the attitude that some (not all) bring with them to the commercial world.
____________________________________________________


Twotbags

This stereotype of mil pilots is a little off the mark. It may be relevant to some fast jet squadrons, but I wouldn't know about that.

The majority of pilots in the RAF are ME guys, and I think this is a little closer:

1. Pilots complete 12 sims per year, covering all aspects of aviation in great depth. Bear in mind they already have ~250 hrs of high quality flying training behind them.

2. Mil ME pilots fly to all the same places as the airlines, as well as trying not to get shot at, and avoiding getting shouted at by our passengers.

3. We plan the same way as you guys, without a decent dispatch service. We also fly to non-scheduled destinations, requiring extra planning and procedures.

4. Yes, we do train for every contingency in the sim. This hones our decision making and CRM in the worst possible scenario.

5. The RAF has a far greater lack of spares than any airline on earth. No company could operate on the unservicabilty rate of the RAF and expect to stay in business. We are not the cash cow we used to be. The RAF has been stripped to the bare bones, and we have no flex left. Tasks are cancelled daily due to lack of aircraft.


I'm not really sure what your point was about the military pilots, but you need to be aware that there is a broad spectrum of military pilots out there.

All mil pilots accept that they will have to "Do their time" as an FO when transferring to an airline, but please realise that most of the mil pilots out there do a very similar job to their airline contempories.

There are a lot of very experienced mil ME pilots leaving at the moment, and most will be looking for airline employment. I guess they will look quite attractive to an airline, as they have a good base level of knowledge and ability. I don't know how this will affect the job chances for cadets and TP pilots looking for advancement, but I estimate about 50 experienced mil ME captains will hit the market in 2005.

As for how many are willing to pay for a TR, hopefully a big fat Zero!

[TWOTBAGS]

Very fair point P-T-Gamekeeper,

The generalisation is aimed more that the knucklehead than the trashie.

As to the operational tempo of the RAF and the issues faced there now, back a few ….. (ok plenty) of years ago the RAF was different…. Cold war days.

Our referral was pretty much summed up by a present and serving fast jet crew from somewhere here on the continent! They got more spares and sim time than they know what to do with. As said some of us are ex mil and still have very close contact.

12 sims per year is a hell of a lot more than any civi line driver gets. One of our compatriots, basically sims a mission then flys the mission, not talking A to A BVR, how about low level night moving mud!

As to suitability speak to any NON ex mil AB driver about the quality of some (say again SOME) of their ex mil drivers. The last mohecian will testify.

Trashies are a different bread, and we love’em.


A case in point was a while back when some of us were flying with a lot of ex-mil guys, several questions were raised and it turns out that upon completion of service these guys fronted to their local DGAC/LBA/CAA/ Insert acronym… and the friendly ex Mil office staffer was able to issue National Civil licences over the counter.

No exams, no tests, just a simple paperwork exercise.

Now we are now all part of the same happy JAR family, and these guys are still ploughing along at .8 in the same airspace as you.

Not everything that happens makes the news, (E170 FRA- ring bells) and there are many cover ups, by companies and authorities.

Now back to topic.

It seems to us that the majority of you agree that there is a problem coming. What do we do proactively, we already know that it takes a decent amount of intestinal fortitude. However this attribute is generally lacking in a 20 yo fresh from the sausage factor with daddys money to burn.
:E

[Air Mail]

Airlines and training schools should have a closer relationship and only train the number of forecast pilots required plus a contigency.

Rather than be allowed to train hundreds who then have to wait months if not years for a job and will pay more to get type ratings.

Of course, this could never happen as most airlines cannot plan to end of the day, never mind to the end of next year.

Airlines should not be allowed to use future employees to fund its own expansion.

[TWOTBAGS]

No we beg to differ Airline & schools should NOT be closer.

It will only lead to elitism and social casting, these are things we definately dont need from the guy you will be sitting next to time and again. There are many dedicated self improvers who have demonstrated not only the ability to pass exams/flight test/aptitude tests etc all the while self funding their passion.

Most of us got into this business because of passion, my first flight was with the air cadets at 14 yo and I was hook, my passion began earlier.

Too many of the current crop are dazzled by the lights and the BS that the schools spin only to get student through the door.

There is a place for cadet scholarship programs, as there is for self improvers, and those funded by the taxpayer.

However their needs to be a level playing field for all, and this should be determined by experience, not the ability to subsidise a prospective employer.
It will only lead to elitism and social casting

[PIGDOG]

I'w with you twotbags.

But what do you propose we do? I'm learning, and I certainly do NOT agree with paying for a type rating. But, after I'll have spent all my monies, and the only people to offer me a job are the ones who say "here you go, a shiny new boeingbus 73-20, now just hand over £20,000 for TR, otherwise get out" what am I to do? Do I say no and hope the next person along does the same, therefore forcing a pilot shortage to priotise the TR and the company pays. Or yes and get a job (heavily in debt, mind) doing what I want to do.

Of course if everyone agreed not to pay for a type rating, a sort of union, then the airlines would have to change.

Anyone want to start a group of Pilots Against Self-funded Type ratings (PAST)

I'm in!!

[TWOTBAGS]

I got an email from one of the group and it basically translates to this:

This may be a way forward:

In association with all the various Pilot Representative Bodies (ECA, BALPA, IAPA, Vereinigung Cockpit, etc) we petition the European Airline Association and similar organizations to adopt a code of practice in line with the current practice in nearly all airlines, seniority and aptitude.

That is a tried and tested method, based upon the following parameters:

Date of professional licence issue.
Experience to date. Flight Time and actual qualifications, Not just possession of a type rating (remembering they have to line train you anyway)

Also to keep the airlines happy they have their own hiring order like such:

Company Sponsored Cadet
Experienced Professional Licence Holders
Inexperienced Professional Licence Holders

Pilots wishing to join this system will have a seniority number based upon licence date. The EC Human rights and EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES commission can fund it, (they fund just about anything else).

Administered by the European Cockpit Association and open to pilots NOT currently employed. Open European wide for all JAR licence holders, one caveat may be language, where an airline may select a candidate that speaks the local language in preference to one that does not.

[This may be a point of contention as generally English has been adopted by the majority of operators as a common cockpit language, yet a grasp of the local language may be a prerequisite]

It works like this:

Airlines do this;

When a job vacancy exists they will contact the ECA, who will provide basic details of say the first 100 people on the list of those that meet the parameters as chosen by the airline.

The airline vets the candidates fine tuning the selection, this may include restrictions on age (just as may airlines currently do eg HF if over 29yo must have >500 hr (or similar)) and invites those interested to attend an interview. (Many may not want to move to XYZ to fly and ABC, so the net will be cast wide)

Preference will be given to AIRLINE FUNDED CADETS, that is those pilots that have attended a sponsorship scheme, like in the old days.

Next will be self funded applicants with a hierarchy based upon, Licence Date of Issue, Fight time experience and lastly type rating.

Next will be self funded applicants with a basic licence and no experience type rating or not.


Pilots do this;

Upon being un-employed the pilot applies to the ECA and completes and application (online) where they will be given a seniority number first based on licence issue date, secondly on total time, thirdly on experience.

The candidate will not receive the number this is only for the ECA to use to track those job seekers.

When your numbers up your numbers up.

Pros & Cons.

AIRLINE FUNDED CADETS. Not many of them about these days, LH makes a killing on those who past muster, ditto those who use the Intercockpit scheme. So all those guys who pay for the training will eventually be hired by the Legacy carriers and in this case I do see reason.
The legacy airline (LH,BA, AF, KL whom ever) has vetted these guys already, and trained them in the manner they want for direct entry, be it SO/FO.

The benefit of this is that it removes this bunch from the pool of unemployed.

Flight crews are chosen on experience, having said this think of this scenario, how many 45+ jet jockeys and going to apply for job on a rockhopper, and move the family and all the rest of it…. Very few me thinks

Pilots in NML will have more progression based upon the experience issue, this will free up other positions and there will be movement.

OTHER ISSUES

Will this lead to more jobs?

Yes, there will be more movement, more movement means more requirements for training, more requirement means more trainers, and that means demand for those who like the TRE/TRI game.

What will it do to the industry?

Don’t shoot at this, It will push the industry more to what the rest of the world is, although GA is small in the EU it does mean that pilots will cut their teeth on a bug smasher, move to a turbine and then the airlines. NOT the current EU practice of Zero-to-hero by subsidising the airline.

What about those who are actively employed but also want to move to bigger stuff?

There will also be room for these guys, you think the likes of BA who are searching for DE bus drivers are going to take a wannabe before experienced & typed guy.

Remember this, We are dealing with the lower end here, primarily those unemployed or un-rated with out experience. If you do have experience but no type, then the same hiring requirement will apply to you.

Maybe the code of practice can include a hiring formula that will take the experienced guys and then the inexperienced will progress to the jobs vacated??

AIRLINE ISSUES

They are go to hate this. But just like the way that they would like you to do 25hr consecutive duty days, 1500 hrs per annum stick time and not pay you a cent for the privilege of flying for them.

Things will change, if a program like this is adopted by the ECA and has the backing of the EC & equal opportunities commission then there is the chance that it could happen.

Only pressure by the pilot body will bring this kind of change.


POINTS OF INTEREST.

This will happen only if the following things happen.
Existing pilot bodies stop feathering their short term nests for the long term gain of the industry. If they put the petty bickering that exists in all representative bodies aside and remember where they came from or in some cases take a moment to think that not everyone was as privileged as they were to have their training funded by someone else, be that private or public purse.

Public Knowledge.

Joe Citizen does not give a rats, as to who is flying their plane. They generally look up the front and if they see someone their age or older their happy. Little do they know the guy in the front with grey hair, has prostate/wife/house/previous wife/kid/financial/paternity and sleeping problems and the guy next to him has more spots than a leopard and before strapping into this shinny new megajet 880, only other thing he ad flown was a fibreglass or aluminium contraption probably older than the operator that weighs less than a family car.

If it was generally known that the sky’s were populated by low hour, minimal EXPERIENCE, guys paying for the privilege and not earning a salary, pre-occupied with how on earth they are going to pay off this loan……

Do you think patronage would be as high as it is?

Thank heavens Mr Boeing & Mr Bus install all those gizmos.

Would this knowledge change the attitude of the public? Probably not! These people will still complain if they get a €1 fare and no service.


Your comments.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

A great concept, but I don't think it will pass muster in the eyes of the law. Employment law is firmly embedded in the EU, and at first glance, I think this has no chance, as it restricts the right of an individual.

[redsnail]

How about changing the current practice of logging P1 US from the right hand seat?
P1 time should be just that. P1 in the left seat.

For the ATPL issue you need eg 250 hours P1. Not P1 US or however it's dressed up now.

This is different to trainee captains sitting in the left seat with training/check captains occupying the right seat.

I think a mind set change would need to happen too. After getting the CPL/IR (not fATPL....) pilots should view their subsequent hours as "working" not "hour building". I realise that in the end it's the same thing but the attitude would be different. Working implies a job with remuneration.

[cargo boy]

Wannabe pilot utopia! :rolleyes: Keep taking the drugs and it'll be alright.

Seriously though, I think you'll find that it will be market forces that dictate what will happen, just as the "zero to hero" market has boomed. Unless there is an accident and it is found that one of the main causes was due to the method by which one of the pilots got their relevant seat there isn't going to be any effort by the relevant authorities to stop jet type ratings being flogged to enthusiastic fATPL holders. We live in a free market economy and unless you advocate a Soviet style mother/father state where government dictates how you should run your life then it ain't gonna happen.

As long as the market is in an upswing, as it is now, there are going to be problems for the airlines. As we know, there is no shortage of fATPL holders who have succumbed to the flight schools visions of "zero to hero" in just over a year. The real shortage is of experienced pilots who can move up the food chain. Yes, anyone with an ounce of ability and enthusiasm can be trained to fly a jet. The problem for the airlines is the amount of time and training required to get the candidate to the required standard.

Maybe in this utopian world we should allow fATPL holders to pay for just a small turboprop type rating. Enough to get them a chance to work doing air taxi work or similar? Then you would expect the commuter airlines to absorb them after a few years onto larger turboprops. Several years later they can be absorbed further up the food chain to regional jet operations and so on and so forth until they reach the hallowed halls of large jet operations. Oh hang on... isn't that how it still operates in many parts of the industry?

Perhaps we should just have all wannabes surgically operated on at fATPL issue to remove the 'impatience' gene that causes so many of them to become potential "zero to hero" candidates with no real experience of what 'learning a trade or skill' is really all about. Feathering nests is a human trait and you can't expect those that have achieved their positions through hard work, perseverance and basically 'moving up the food chain' to expect to make it too easy for the airlines, especially since they have had such a feeding frenzy on our terms and conditions for the last few years.

The real solution would be for the airlines to have to bite the bullet, pay the going market rate for experienced pilots and fork out enough money to plan their training requirements properly in the first place. Unfortunately, the Harvard School of Management is only now beginning to reap the harvest of its flawed doctrine of teaching all their managers and accountants understand the price of everything and the value of nothing. Even the legacy carriers are suffering at the moment, not with enough experienced pilot applicants but with poorly planned and under budgeted training departments struggling to get enough pilots trained on to their current types.

It's all good news for the enthusiastic, realistic and persevering wannabes who have faith that they will acquire the necessary experience by working their way up the food chain. The impatient ones who have gone from "zero to hero" are probably working their proverbials off for one of the LoCo's and now that the shine has gone off are wondering how they are ever going to move up the chain to a legacy carrier. Unfortunately, the perfect, utopian world is like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You know it's there but you can never reach it. Perhaps it's time to knuckle down to the realisation where exactly you are in the food chain and making the most of it until your time eventually comes. It does for most of us.

[PIGDOG]

I like that Cargo boy

"feathering nests is a human trait."

Made me smile.:D :D

Some good points though.

[Firestorm]

Unwiseowl: BALPA make a stand? Not going to happen. Ever! But I'm sure that you know that. But I agree about the CTC scheme. It has shor circuited those of us who have done self-sponsored, self-improver type training followed by turbo-prop 'apprenticeship', and consigned the 'traditional' career structure to history, and with it alot of experience. in my opinion the CTC scheme is akin to taking a medical student from the first year of a medical degree to being a senior registrar surgeon in one easy leap, and the general public wouldn't like that, and neither would the BMA. So why did BALPA let it go? I have no idea.

[pjdj777]

I'm sorry, comparing medical careers is like comparing apples with pears, they are two different things with different drivers and consequences. I really do think we should not go down that road. After all flagship carriers have, until recently, successfully trained their own guys from "zero to hero" through sponsorships, which most people on the site seem to lament the demise of.

[TWOTBAGS]

Ok
A couple issues, Redsnail has got it in one.
1) Frozen BS
A big issue is this whole “frozen” ATPL, what is frozen anyway? Does it mean it was issued in Finland? Does this mean a Spanish licence is “Baked”…(well half baked at least).
Lets face fact, the only place on the plane this is referred to is in Europe. Whoever coined the term really f’ed things up.
All it really is, is a CPL with ME IR and passes in the subjects required to be issued with an ATPL. It denotes that the candidate does NOT have the required EXPERIENCE to be issued with a ATPL, be it actual command time, night time, IF “actual” time or whatever.
P1 means your where the buck stops,
P2 means that you are not the PIC of this aircraft
P1US / ICUS, means that you are undergoing the training to be P1
P1 in the right seat is pure BS, Do you hold the stipulated experience to hold an ATPL? Do you hold the stipulated experience to meet the company insurance requirements for P1?

The sooner inexperienced crewmembers, management and others stop deluding themselves the better.

2) ATPL BS
I (ttbs) hold multiple licences from my career to date, all are based upon EXPERIENCE, the JAA in their infinite wisdom have stipulated that you can only have an ATPL with a type above 5.7t. What a load of BS. Do they understand the problems this is causing some industries?
Quiet a few client companies that audit their aviation transport suppliers are literally pulling their hair out, why you ask?
Essentially insurance companies required the P1 to be the holder of a valid ATPL, this limitation ensured that the P1 had the MINIMUM EXPERIENCE required for the operation. Now there are plenty of guys in the industry that have multiple thousands of hours on type and could probably fly the box the thing came in, but now they don’t have valid ATPL’s simply because their type is not above 5.7t
3) Utopia.
Ok granted some of what was said is utopian and I will admit some was lost in translation, but although I agree, these are also utopian point
Quote;
The real solution would be for the airlines to have to bite the bullet, pay the going market rate for experienced pilots and fork out enough money to plan their training requirements properly in the first place
Could not agree more.

Definition of present airline management?

Quote; Unfortunately, the Harvard School of Management is only now beginning to reap the harvest of its flawed doctrine of teaching all their managers and accountants understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Absolutely correct.


4) Legacy carriers.

First paragraph, first post, sorry legacy carriers don’t count.


Quote; After all flagship carriers have, until recently, successfully trained their own guys from "zero to hero" through sponsorships, which most people on the site seem to lament the demise of.

Totally understand your point, same theme but a different track.

Ever hear of a “Legacy” carrier take a type rated guy with nil experience…. No nor have we. Their preference is bay far the following, Type rated but with experience and plenty of hours on type, not type rated but with experience… if they foresee a shortage the will require quick upgrades. OR, un-typed minimal experience that they can mould into good little worker bees that believe the myth and toe the company line.

This is why they do invest heavily in screening of potential candidates and using LH as an example they train their people the way they want them from day one. Not just meeting the requirements to pass the flight test for licence issue, but they are basically practising 2 crew from day 1.

This is what is forcing the hand of the regulators to “Invent” a new licence that may be issued for pilots that will no be a CPL/ATPL but a TYPE LICENCE ONLY, for the OPERATION WITH TWO CREW ONLY. Meaning these guys will never fly single pilot and will always have group decision making, and always have someone else to rely on. Talk about 7 of 9, more like 3759 of 5000!


5) Experience

Quote; What better experience than a few thousand hours driving a turboprop through the weather? How sad that these people aren’t valued by the bean counters?

Welcome to no man’s land.


6) Results

Quote; -a few smoking holes in the ground would make management take safety seriously. But we're not allowed to say that, are we?

LX, 28 Zurich. The sanitised report alluded to the fact that if the FO had of been more EXPERIENCED maybe they would not have been below MDA. (Yes we know that there were other factor’s..don’t shoot)
GF, BAH, The A320 STUKA, If the FO had more EXPERIENCE and the intestinal fortitude to say something to the LHS then this accident would not have happened and should never have. Cultural differences my ass, nobody wants to die.
The RJ in France not too long back, cant remember who, but if the FO had more EXPERIENCE he probably would have caught the captains incapacitation and taken over. Steep cockpit gradient? Maybe.
In each of these EXPERIENCE level was a contributing factor, along with other factors combined.

Quote; But we're not allowed to say that, are we?

No it certainly makes some in the upper echelons look stupid.


Your Comments

[JW411]

My company have been hiring young men/ladies with around 400 hrs and a fATPL for the last 6 years.

None of them had one single hour of jet time but they have all turned out well and the first batch are now moving into the left seat with no problem.

We never used to look at anyone with less than 3000 hours and what a huge mistake that was.

"We used to do it this way in DanAir/BA/PanAm/SABENA etc etc." What a pain in the arse that was!

These new boys and girls are very, very bright and an absolute pleasure to teach.

[Craggenmore]

TWOTBAGS,

Were you my IR instructor?

[TWOTBAGS]

No, it's not my bag baby:ok: :E :E

JW,

I'M glad that you have had so much success, with your CPL/IR's.

Couple Q's;

Was 6 years to command normal before the use of 400hr guys?

In the past 6 years did your company also take 3000hr+ guys?

In the past 6 years did they take DEC's (rated or not)?

Is the retention rate of the 400 hr guys any better than others?

[JW411]

TWOTBAGS:

1. These guys are making it to command in 4 years (not six years).

2. Yes - but very few and they have not exactly done fantasticallywell as compared to the others!

3. Yes - but very, very, very few DECs.

4. Yes - not one single one has left.

[TWOTBAGS]

Well JW I would have to say then that once again there is an exception to the rule.

It just shows that your screening process, and companies investment in training has paid off and or the package is so good that there is no incentive or need to move.

I only wish that this would be the case everywhere.

Its either that or the newbies are completely brainwashed they have no idea whats beyond the boarders...... (not suggesting that this is the case but i have seen it!).

[Empty Cruise]

Twotbags,

Absolutely right on most counts - but beg to differ on the quality of z-t-h candidates. Yes, most of them obviously lack experience - which is very much one their qualities!

Experience comes in several forms, but for our purposes we can cut it down to 2 types: a) Relevant experience and b) Irrelevant experience. B) may be further sub-divided into two categories: b)1 Irrelvant but harmless/neutral experience and b)2 Irrelevant but undesireable/hard-to-correct experience.

Now, with the present training system (where you learn to fly using bugsmashers), a disproportionate amount of time is used practising stuff that will have absolutely no relevance for professional airline transport (carburattor ice/eingine failure in SEPs/stall recovery in SEPs/VFR com procedures/grass field operations etc.) but is necessary to get more or less safely throgh training, i.e. the form training takes necessitates these skills to be learnt. This clearly falls into the "useless but harmless" category.

Next, our self improvers (of which I'm one) go off to gain experience as 2P in a light turbo-prop, flying in a small company. SOPs? Command gradient? CRM? Get the dictionary, please! Of course, there are some really great, professional small-scale operators, but they are the exception, and even in the orther sort of companies, you find a lot of professionally minded pilots and trainers alike - but how often do you fly with them? In other words - 2000 hrs. on a B200 with an operator that may or may not provide the best background to a professional flying career - that may or may not leave you with either "relevant" experience or "irrelevant, undesireable" experience. And they may (or may not) for that very reason constitute a training risk.

Last bunch I worked for, I had the pleasure of line training both varieties - with the noticeable exception that the guys with experience were all type rated & had about 500 hrs. on type. When line training was completed - we tried to compare training files :uhoh: And without exception - the guys with experience on type had more trouble and the less steep learning curve. Obviously, they flew the aircraft better - but they operated it to a lower standard (e.g. I'd rather see a z-t-h type do a nice stabilised approach at 160-to-4 instead of people trying to do 170-to-3 and demonstrate interesting ways of slowing down the aircraft "because it saves airborne time") I'm sure that this picture is now much more equal for the group in question - after another 500 hrs. Yet - the point remains: the first 500 hrs. the experienced guys had flown don't not show today. After 7 months - they're on an equal footing with the z-t-h guys&gals.

Experience needs to be quantified & weighed against what role the new hiree is intended to fill. If you fly charter ops on a relatively simple aircarft (73X?) into many different, difficult & limiting airports - I'll go for the t-prop hand any old time (because they handle the aircraft very well). If you fly scheduled ops into cat A airports only on highly automated equipment (A32X etc.) - I'd say the z-t-h candidate offers the best risk/benefit ratio - horses for courses, 'spose.

How about setting up some sort of evaluation agency/bureau where you can pay up, register & take psycometric & simulator tests & get scored on a comprehensive matrix that would show your strong & not-so-strong areas? Then airlines can easily see how their personality matrix fits with individual candidates & use that to decide who they want to call for an interview & do their own evaluation on - instead of just saying "Oh, you got 2000 hours of Kingair time - we are not interested, sorry"! It comes down to the fact that it depends on individual abilities & psycological profiles weather you will fit into a given airline job or not. Some people will shine through, no matter how much BS they have been fed by various captains/companies/instructors - others need exactly the right growth & stimulation environment to develop their abilities.

Both kinds of people make excellent pilots - and both types deserve a decent chance ;)

Brgds fm
Empty

[TWOTBAGS]

You said:

Experience needs to be quantified & weighed against what role the new hiree is intended to fill. If you fly charter ops on a relatively simple aircarft (73X?) into many different, difficult & limiting airports - I'll go for the t-prop hand any old time (because they handle the aircraft very well).
If you fly scheduled ops into cat A airports only on highly automated equipment (A32X etc.) - I'd say the z-t-h candidate offers the best risk/benefit ratio - horses for courses, 'spose.

Very True.
How then do we get the prospective employers to realise this and get some of those experienced candidated in NML on track?? :ugh:

[Empty Cruise]

Twotbags,

Yeah - it's a dying shame about many good guys&gals stuck in NML :( But there are exceptions to the rule :)

A well known charter airline based at a London airport (an airline known for its willingness to offer e.g. aspiring pruners a shot at a B73 rating & a job :ok: ) just pulled 2 of us out of NML - and I am forever grateful they took the chance on me (now one of our mods might have guessed who I am - so be it, Hamra :D ).

On the other hand - that unfortunately means that I'm now working for a carrier that does not need convincing that it's worth giving some NML'ers a break - not a lot I can do, therefore... BUT - we gotta work the other players in the industry.

A guy I know is busy on the typerating right now - but when he's done & back to normal, he might be interested in working on an idea along the lines suggested earlier :suspect:

Up for it, Twots? :D - let's wreck some havoc :cool:

Brgds
Empty