P2F Cancer of Aviation (merged)/ petitions. [Archive]

Beavis and Butthead

27th Mar 2010, 19:48

I admire the desire to do something about this dreadful exploitation that most seem to turn a blind eye to but I can't help but have this gut feeling that no MP will give a toss about this.

Firestorm makes a good point. I have also just been made redundant and have many hours on both 737 and A320 with excellent training records yet I was rejected at the application stage earlier this year by Thomas Cook for a summer contract. I have since found myself a summer contract that will just about pay the bills for now but I was told that P2F cadets had been accepted at TCX on the A320. Now this is not a hard done by whinge and it's not personal as I think that we all do what we can to make the grade and get on that ladder. However, I merely tell this as I believe it illustrates perfectly what is happening right in front of our eyes and the threat this presents to all of us (including those shelling vast sums of money out for line training). I'd graciously accept failing at interview but to be rejected at the application stage in favour of a CV that shows 150 hours paid for tells a sorry story of our 'profession'. We turn a blind eye at our peril. Sadly, when even our main union ignores the issue, I cannot see an end to it.

For he record I would happily send one of these letters to do my bit.

flyerdad

27th Mar 2010, 20:02

Id be more than happy to send a copy of the letter too.

After being made redundant along with all my colleagues, I found myself being offered a very derisory summer contract or a work the summer and get the winter off for peanuts. Myself and a lot of colleagues have now had to go to the sandpit to receive a decent level of salary while the P2F lot fill the vacuum.

About time the Press made a safety issue on this one and BALPA took a stand to stop it.

:}

joaocaracol

27th Mar 2010, 20:21

Look guys, the only way to stop P2F schemes is to go to the media and expose this situation to the public opinion. If I read in the newspaper that bmi was selecting pilots not by their skills, but by the size of their wallets, probably I would choose another Airline to travel, because probably I would think that security was more in danger with big wallet pilots than with best skilled pilots := If I was the bmi management and realise that I was starting to loose passengers because they refuse to go with P2F pilots, probably I would stop the scheme inside my company := If I was the bmi owner and realise that a P2F scheme was going on inside my company, and that the only purpose of that scheme was to some TRI/TRE/Line Capt earn more money, at the price of the company loosing business, probably I would terminate with it immediately :=

I think the fight needs to go that way.

Yesterday I wrote that I was suspecting that Easyjet was giving priority to P2F pilots from bmi on their flexicrew assessment. Somewhere in Easy web page, there is information regarding Equal Opportunities, and it goes like this:

"Equal Opportunity and Fair Treatment
easyJet is committed to being an equal opportunities employer as we wish to encourage all our employees to make the best use of their skills and experience. Our policy aims to ensure that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment. We will treat staff, potential staff and the public that we serve fairly and with dignity.
Any actions by any of our employees which contravene either the Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations or the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations will be taken very seriously and will be dealt with under easyJet's disciplinary procedure. Such actions may amount to gross misconduct and result in dismissal."

If I write a letter to Mr. Mike Campbell (People Director) inquiring about the bmi P2F pilots priority issue, and explain to him the negative result that a issue like this can produce to the Easy image, if it goes to the media and public opinion, what do you think he is going to do? :eek:

So any more ideas?

Bruce Wayne

27th Mar 2010, 20:29

I'm fed up with this. I'm going to write to BALPA and tell them I am going to cancel my membership until such time as they take a serious stance against PTF. If every other member did then I'm sure they'd wake up. Don't get me wrong they've done some good work at my airline but in the context of our plummeting t's and c's due to the PTF lemmings, a phrase involving deckchairs and large Irish-built ocean craft comes to mind.

Obviously asking the airlines nicely to stop it is a waste of time, so how about using some of that BALPA PR budget on a press campaign and lobbying to get the law changed so it is illegal?

six-sixty,

BALPA's own periodical carried adverts for OAT's First officer Plus program.. full page inside cover placing.

Superpilot

27th Mar 2010, 21:56

john smith, thanks for the correction.

All, please, I urge you to write in to the above persons.

angelorange

29th Mar 2010, 19:23

I have written similar things to the EU

Please post a letter / email the new (since Feb 2010) Vice President of EU Transport Commision Mr Siim Kallas

CONTACT THE COMMISSIONER

BY TELEPHONE

Tel: +32.2.298.87.62 (direct)
Tel: +32.2.299.11.11 (switchboard)
Fax: +32.2.298.84.92
BY E-MAIL

[email protected]
ADDRESS

European Commission
200 Rue de la Loi
Berlaymont
B-1049 BRUSSELS

piemaster

29th Mar 2010, 20:16

Please see slightly amended version taking on some of the suggestions.

Also, here are the addresses is sequence so you can copy and paste straight onto your e-mail:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Anybody have any contacts in the media?? I could see the Sun/News of the World etc. loving some of this......

Dear Sir / Madam,

Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP, Minister of State for Transport
Rt Hon Lord Andrew Adonis, Secretary of State for Transport
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Vice President EU Transport Commission

I write to you regarding a morally disturbing trend within the world of aviation. This specifically affects Airline Pilots and more specifically those who have recently graduated and carry a mountain of debt (frequently upwards of £70,000). An increasingly number of airlines through their agencies, instead of employing graduates, are charging vast sums of money for new pilots to build up their flying experience. Ordinarily a pilot would be building time on a small single engine aircraft. However it has gone unnoticed in the world of politics and regulation that airlines are literally selling off the right hand seats of flight decks! Yes, pilots can now build up their experience by flying a 150 passenger carrying jet. This phenomena is known as Pay2Fly or (P2F) and costs individual pilots in the region of £25,000 per 150 hours.

Lets remind us, under the rules and regulations of the UK CAA, in order for a UK registered airliner to fly from A to B it must be crewed by two fully qualified pilots. Ordinarily, as the employees of a large UK organisation, they both have to be paid a minimum wage according to British Employment Laws.

However, in the P2F scenario, the inexperienced pilot is not paid at all. Instead he is charged vast sums with the airline claiming that they are providing "training" at a cost and that too to another company (the Training Organisation) who decide to send their own "trainees". This assures that the outsider and accountants sees the whole affair as a wholly commercial transaction.

Here's where they have managed to delude the public, who might have otherwise spotted the illegality of it all... Most people would assume that if it is training then the airline is within right to receive payment. However what they fail to see is that "training" is for the unqualified.

In order to be a co-pilot of a passenger jet such as the Airbus A320, a pilot must under go further training after his graduation. This to gain what is known as a ‘Type Rating’. As a type rated pilot one is fully qualified (but inexperienced) to fly a specific type of aircraft and requires no further training according to the regulatory body's (UK CAA) rules and regulations in order to do so. Sure they require supervision for the first hundred hours but that's not the same thing.

Clearly then, line "training" cannot be used as an excuse for an airline to say that they are providing training services. Especially when they have no desire to employ the person. It is not a form of "training", it is the airline selling right hand seat time for the individual pilot to build experience and therefore avoiding the need to hire a fully paid employee who they would have to otherwise pay a minimum wage. This is happening at the British Carrier BMI who continues this practice despite announcing pilot redundancies. This practice also exists at several UK airlines.

If the airline claims they are truly providing "training" then the new pilot is not qualified and should not be operating a large aircraft with fare paying passengers. There are lots of wrongs with this practice. In my opinion it is wrong from an employment law perspective and also a safety risk. Pilots carry a huge responsibility. Yet airlines and their shareholders seem not to care less if their employees are on a daily basis making their debt situation worse by not earning money whilst entrusted with lives. The industry suffers from poor regulation at the Personnel Licensing level with regulators not having the desire or funds to pursue this great wrong. Experienced pilots are being furloughed whilst inexperienced ones are being offered “work” if they pay. This cannot be right.

The Air Accident Investigation Branch has cited poor aircraft handling skills of such a pay-to-fly cadet as a partial cause of the 5th July 2007 accident to airliner Airbus A320 G-DHJZ at Kos. From his training records released in the accident report, it would appear unlikely that this pay to fly cadet would be occupying a pilot’s seat were he not paying to be there.

I urge you to comment and act on this situation in order to protect jobs and in the interest of safety.

Kind regards,

Pizzaro

30th Mar 2010, 11:04

Great letters chaps, has anyone actually sent one though? I have to say I am disappointed by BALPA's lack of action on this issue.

Regards P.

Prophead

30th Mar 2010, 11:16

I agree with an earlier poster that the way to stop this is to make the general fare paying public aware of the P2F schemes.

BALPA, Ministers etc. Already know about it and choose to do nothing. What it needs is for people to actually stop using certain airlines because they are crewed by someone who has paid to be there. Im really suprised one of the big newspapers hasn't picked it up already. I only hope it doesnt take an accident to happen before this comes out.:(

What really suprises me though is the fact that none of the airlines that choose not to use P2F pilots isn't using it as a marketing tool to discredit the airlines that are.

piemaster

30th Mar 2010, 14:59

Please find a list of media contacts:

Superpilot, why not send your letter to them all!

Newspapers:
Editorial Photographers UK | Newspaper email addresses (http://www.epuk.org/Resources/206/newspaper-email-addresses)

If you dont mind me (us) using your letter then I'll send it........

angelorange

30th Mar 2010, 18:22

Yes the ministers are away over Easter but we can do this in a week or so:

Create a new petition | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/steps)

Superpilot

30th Mar 2010, 21:05

Go ahead, the more the merrier.

Pilot Positive

30th Mar 2010, 21:36

The combination of press and political lobbying will be very powerful. Where do i sign the petition? May i suggest that any approach be based on the safety aspect with supportable evidence/experiences of incidents?

And whilst I see BALPA are indirectly supporting the PTF line then perhaps their opposite number, the IPA/IPF, might be a little more inclined to highlight our cause. They have an AGM on the 21st May 2010, 1830 @ Ditchling Golf Club. If you cant make it then write to them.

And if they do feel inclined to help, which as an organisation of integrity I am sure they will, then vote with your feet. BALPA might just stop and appraise the situation a little differently. :}

Happy to get together (virtually or otherwise) and form some kind of committee. This thing just needs some momentum to fly... :cool:

Flypuppy

30th Mar 2010, 21:48

I wrote to BALPA abut this subject in 2002, then spoke to Chris Darke personally about it. Sadly, my concerns were not taken seriously, as were my warnings on PPRuNe that if a stand were not taken then, this practice would be the norm and ingrained in the aviation industry. The IPA magazine actually ran an article asking for members to recommend the best P2F suppliers.

Pilots only have themselves to blame for this situation.

VKwannabe

30th Mar 2010, 23:20

FlyPuppy,

Youre absolutely on the money when you said 'pilots are to blame for this' I find that as a group with a common interest in aviation, the new low of P2F just goes to show/prove how low individuals will go just to enter a profession they profess to love. Its what Capt Sully said to the house in USA regarding this profession, that were no longer attracting the best to the industry with the degrading of T and Cs, it might be my two cents but dont you think no self respecting individual would P2F ? it takes the whole cookie jar! I hope it gets addressed before we desend below DH without Visual.

Cheers

VK

flyhelico

31st Mar 2010, 02:57

I only hope it doesnt take an accident to happen before this comes outit's not when it will happen, but where? where the plane will crash? maybe over london!, then it will be worldwide in the news...and politicians will have to blame them selves!

look at these P2F guys who can not even take off a cessna 172 in cross wind, you can expect the worst! (I don't talk about the landing...)

stay away from easyjet! (with BA at least I feel safe!)

Wingswinger

31st Mar 2010, 06:38

stay away from easyjet! (with BA at least I feel safe!)

I'm sorry, flyhelico but that is a crass, ill-informed remark. I'm an easyJet TRE, an ex BA captain (retired just before the retirement age went up) and further back an ex-RAF instructor. Let me assure you and anyone else that doubts it that easyJet training standards are at least as good as BA's and are held up by the CAA as a standard that other companies should aim for. None, I repeat, NONE of these P2F trainees will fly without a safety pilot or be cleared for line operations if he/she does not meet the standard expected. I trust myself and I trust my TC colleagues at EZY to see to that.

Global Warrior

31st Mar 2010, 08:27

I'm sorry, flyhelico but that is a crass, ill-informed remark. I'm an easyJet TRE, an ex BA captain (retired just before the retirement age went up) and further back an ex-RAF instructor. Let me assure you and anyone else that doubts it that easyJet training standards are at least as good as BA's and are held up by the CAA as a standard that other companies should aim for. None, I repeat, NONE of these P2F trainees will fly without a safety pilot or be cleared for line operations if he/she does not meet the standard expected. I trust myself and I trust my TC colleagues at EZY to see to that.

Well then i'm sorry but i aint flying easyjet ever again!!!!!

None, I repeat, NONE of these P2F trainees will fly without a safety pilot

I think you will find a BMI Pilot on the other thread about this said words to the effect that a full time employee has the right to a day off OR he may turn up, ride the jump seat and be paid his allowances for the day.

If Easyjet has such a bloody wonderful training department.......... why dont they stick to training full time employees? If you sir are training these wannabees with a fat wallet or a credit rating...... you are directy contributing to this cancer. Maybe when they have 120 hours they can go somewhere, get a 320TRE rating and come back and replace you for minimum wage!!!!!

Global Warrior

31st Mar 2010, 08:42

With regards to the letter, the first 2 lines, although pertinent, do make this sound like whinge.

I think the very first lines should shout about lack of safety and the increased danger the travelling public are exposed to by any airline operating these schemes............The papers will pick up on that for sure.

As i stated on the other thread, theres a statistic that i think came out of the current log magazine and it goes something like

The Regionals in the USA are responsible for 75% of the flying and 100% of the fatal accidents in the USA last year.

Now, due to the mountain of debt that some pilots have incurred, they are having to work 2 jobs..... obviously safety standards are being eroded due to the lack of experience of the people in the flight deck.

Whilst wanting to write a letter to the above mentioned is a great idea and i think we should send it to the press, regularly and often........

i think we should all boycott those airlines that we know participate in the scheme. After all, what is the point of conducting a media campaign if your argument then collapses in a pile of s**t by paying good money to travel on the airlines you are deriding.

If you are not prepared to do this, there is no point in even beginning to bang on about it. I would much prefer to pay £250 to go to Paris (for example) on BA than £50 on an airline that is an extension of a second rate training organisation!!!!!!

pilot999

31st Mar 2010, 09:00

I am a great believer in P2F, any time I go on holiday I do it. have tried sneaking in via the U/c bay but I am allways caught. Tried hiding in the toilets , every time I just seem to get caught. So guys cough up and pay your money.:ok:

Prophead

31st Mar 2010, 09:06

And you can choose where you sit depending on your budget. Starting with economy at the back, then moving forwards through business class up to first class near the front.

Oh wait a minute there is a new one now, its expensive but you actually get to sit in the cockpit and operate the aircraft, they call that being an FO.:ugh:

Wingswinger

31st Mar 2010, 09:08

GW,

If Easyjet has such a bloody wonderful training department.......... why dont they stick to training full time employees? If you sir are training these wannabees with a fat wallet or a credit rating...... you are directy contributing to this cancer. Maybe when they have 120 hours they can go somewhere, get a 320TRE rating and come back and replace you for minimum wage!!!!!

Because, my friend, it does what it is told to do by the board of directors. If any training manager or training captain refused to do the work he/she would be out of a job. There are plenty of potential replacements. You wish us to make that sacrifice? Don't be silly.

I am not directly contributing to the cancer and I resent your remark. I deplore it but I am powerless to stop it as is everyone in the industry apart from the directors and the regulators.

I think you will find a BMI Pilot on the other thread about this said words to the effect that a full time employee has the right to a day off OR he may turn up, ride the jump seat and be paid his allowances for the day

I did read it. It is not the same as requiring a safety pilot to be on the flight deck. No-one has the right to absent themselves from a rostered safety pilot duty unless released by the TC concerned or replaced by the company. Without a safety pilot (if one is required) the flight cannot take place. I would have thought you would have understood that.

Global Warrior

31st Mar 2010, 09:22

When i fly on BA.......... they DONT NEED A SAFETY PILOT :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Eazy

31st Mar 2010, 10:03

Yes, of course the BA cadets go straight from the simcheck to fly on the line. Because they get paid a better wage they must be better and don't need a safety pilot on linetraining. Maybe don't need linetraining at all.

P2F can only be stopped from within the companies.

Jonty

31st Mar 2010, 10:15

They are better because they have passed the relevant selection process, not because they are paid better.

I have no problem with cadets flying jet aircraft. But it should be based on their ability to fly not on their ability to pay.

Callsign Kilo

31st Mar 2010, 10:28

P2F can only be stopped from within the companies

It would require pilots to stand side by side and refuse to fly with PTF cadets. To make it work every LTC would have to refuse to train, whether it be a PTF cadet, a CU, a line check - whatever. This type of action will cause management to stand up and take note. However would every LTC in EZY, BMI, TCX etc be willing to do that? Will BALPA stand up and say we will support you in doing so? It is all very well in balloting action where a decision to act is formed. However like the BA CC strike, how many that said 'yes' to a walk out turned up for duties on the first day of the strike? When it comes down to it, the environment that we are currently faced with, people who may have appeared to be coerced in to action will simply come to a conclusion on the eleventh hour. They will not risk their status or position within the airline for fear of reprisal. For action to work you require strength in numbers and thats something that the pilot group historically has been pretty poor at.

For PTF to stop it needs to be stopped by the regulators. The CAA, DofT etc. And for these guys to act it has to be on the grounds of safety. I think the battle against PTF would be won or lost by directing our concerns to these authorities. BALPA should be at the forefront of this campaign, however for some reason or other they prefer to hide from it.

AppleMacster

31st Mar 2010, 10:53

Some of the last few posts are demonstrating how some have no idea about how the industry and training system works post type rating. I think its best these people not posting anything.

Absolutely! The Safety Pilot issue is separate from the problem of P2F. Having a Safety Pilot is part of the prescribed process for flying a new aeroplane. For example, the CAA recommends that even TREs returning to the aircraft type after a twelve month break initially fly with a safety pilot, having "refreshed" their skills in the sim. (Standards Document 43, 26.2).

Can we please move on to a proper debate about P2F?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Global Warrior

31st Mar 2010, 11:35

Some of the last few posts are demonstrating how some have no idea about how the industry and training system works post type rating. I think its best these people not posting anything.

Only if you choose to believe that is the case. Please do not take anything in this post as personal or as individual criticism as its not meant to read that way. I want to help in what ever way i can to rid the industry of this practice and my reasons are based on safety.

P2F affects safety. The airlines that are involved in P2F are exposing themselves to more risk and our profession is all about reducing risk, to as close to zero as we can.

Now, OBVIOUSLY BA and other airlines will use whatever crew compliment they need to, including 3rd/safety pilots for those moving from the sim to the line for line training etc.

HOWEVER, these are guys whose training has been monitored from their selection. They are PAID employees and they can be chopped at anytime.

They do not have to sell their souls to a training organisation or an airline that will give them a couple of hundred hours and then put them back on the dole. They are not people that will need to go and get a second job to make ends meet. They are not people that will have to live in as cheap accommodation as they can find in order to keep their expenses down. They are not people who have to worry about increasing levels of debt.

Having P2F people sitting in a flight deck diminishes safety more than having a cadet / new hire full time employees training in the same flight deck.

Castigate me if you want for that comment but the time when it will be proven will be when theres an accident and in my opinion, thats not the right time to find out and act.

Terms and conditions aside, this is a safety issue. It needs to be addressed as such and it needs to be dealt with as such and if the people on here who train these guys, do it against their will for fear of recrimination and reprisals, then that reduces safety even further and i would therefore urge the trainers to back the reduced safety angle as that is the only way this will ever be eradicated because it will be picked up by the press and that will force the airlines that engage in this process to cease.

There are some very good and qualified drivers on the dole. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THE AIRLINES SHOULD BE CREWING THEIR FLIGHT DECKS WITH not P2F candidates.

There are P2F wannabees on the dole also, because they have ben put there by the next P2F candidate. Will they ever learn..........probably not.

So i have voted with both feet, i wont be flying EasyJet again as long as they continue this practice. Its no disrespect at all to the trainers in EasyJet, its just how can i expect the travelling public to get p****d off at this if im prepared to travel myself with the airlines that engage in this practice. If a professional body exposes its own practices as being unsafe, trust me, people will listen and companies will have to act.

And hopefully the insurance industry will pick up on this too and significantly raise the premiums of the airlines in question. In an economic climate when everyone wants to increase margins, im sure insurance companies are just looking for a reason to raise premiums, so letters and protest emails should also be sent to insurance brokers and underwriters.

GW

Right Way Up

31st Mar 2010, 12:11

Global Warrior of course its your choice which airline you fly on.

However your posts show hints of naivety with regard to the airline industry. For trainers to take unilateral action against this would be ridiculous & ill-advised. You might not be aware but TREs would also have to answer to the CAA for their actions as they directly represent the authority.

I can assure you that the standards for each stage of training are not compromised for any trainees. If they don't reach the standard then they will not progress. I can also assure you that the CAA have the highest regard for Easyjet training which is much to do with training management as well as the trainers.

Global Warrior

31st Mar 2010, 13:39

However your posts show hints of naivety with regard to the airline industry

Im not so sure that it does. This thread is about how to get rid of P2F within the industry. My comment about ill go BA because they dont need safety pilots was meant to be in strict comparison to the airlines that are training P2F people constantly. I didnt literally mean BA Pilots are so good they dont need safety pilots!!!!! But the airlines operating these schemes will continue to do so unless they can be given a clear reason as to why they shouldn't.

Secondly, any training department, be they and airline or a TRTO can speak up about their concerns on safety, either to the company or directly to the CAA. If any P2F airline training department doesnt want to speak out (assuming they have reasons to of course)...... thats a choice, not one that i agree with, but its a choice. It does not make me naive at all. If a whole training department, one that commands respect, declares that the P2F practice compromises safety, either to the company or the CAA, they would be listened to.

i am certainly not advocating some kind of militant action at all. Far from it, but one other contributor has drafted a letter which is a start in the right direction but.......... i fear, after reading the first 2 lines......... some may perceive it as being £120,000 a year pilots whinging and as such, it will not get nearly the same impact as people who start pushing the safety angle, even if done anonymously and thats what i would really like to promote........ the erosion of safety.

One of the problems with the way this P2F business has been dealt with on this web site, is it comes across too much as, ......"the airline is using a cheaper pilot than me"........ ie market forces........ "and so im whinging and whining about it". It comes across like a CSD saying "sod off, im not pushing a trolley"...... prima donna ish.

I, however, believe that there is a very real safety impact associated with P2F. Naivety may actually end up being on behalf of the people that could have spoken out about this and didn't because they thought no one would listen.

By the sounds of it, none of the companies operating these schemes have ever been given a reason not to. The one department that could give clear reasons as to why this practice should be done away with is the training department. Safety culture is so important. Preventing its erosion even more so.

Of course, its also possible that i am a lone voice in the wilderness and every airline that promotes the P2F model believes that there is absolutely no compromise to safety what so ever.

I just dont believe it.

GW

Pilot Positive

31st Mar 2010, 14:03

The nub of this thread, before it gets derailed, is the old Bottom Line v Safety debate. And whilst the EZY TRE's comments are encouraging who wouldnt say their company has the best safety culture?

You only have to look at earlier posts on this thread and the the other thread http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/409970-self-sponsored-a320-type-rating-line-training-j-curd.html to see, what appears to be, experienced pilots questioning the safety culture which is emerging.

No-one doubts the training quality at EZY. Its very high. As is BA. As is BMI. The problem is, is that industry leaders are setting a very dangerous precedent. Other companies are not as well resourced as the above airlines and the Bottom Line consideration is a higher priority than safety, although clearly they would never admit it.

And it doesnt stop there either. Some companies have exploited this trend, blatantly deceiving young wannabess with nothing to show for it. http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/408838-varsity-express-gone-bust-within-1-week-merged.html

Its got to stop - we are destroying the integrity of our own industry.

Callsign Kilo

31st Mar 2010, 14:10

If you are talking about BALPA then BALPA members must make it clear to the union that they want them to act upon this. This has to come from a broad spectrum of members.

BALPA are keen to use the slogan 'You are BALPA.' If enough members contact BALPA and request action then BALPA must move. However it needs to be pushed and continually followed up. There has to be some form of petition or balloting of its members to show the degree of support that this has. This would take a great deal of time and effort on behalf of those wishing to push BALPA to publicly denounce PTF and drive a campaign to the airlines, the DofT and the CAA.

So an external group of members must manage an action plan which will lobby the support of current members who wish to see the end of PTF. It is then taken to BALPA who would have no alternative but to act - surely?? If not the words 'hammer, nail and coffin' come to mind - for BALPA and its inaction at the behest of its members

Guttn

31st Mar 2010, 14:17

It sounds something like this "Ladies and gents, this is your trainee speaking. I, as you, have paid for the privilege to be onboard this aircraft. I pay lots more than you guys, thus I get to sit way up front with all the buttons. Oh, and I also get to talk on the radio. It`s pretty neat! There are always other people talking on the radio. They tell me where to go and where everybody else should go. By some miracle it all seems to work out. Oh well, only 50 more hours of my training contract and I`ll be replaced by another trainee who also will put more gray hairs on the head of this guy on my left hand side with 3 more stripes than myself. He`s pretty tired, so I said I`ll keep a lookout while he takes a powernap. Y`all have a nice flight now, and let`s hope these voices on the radio tell us t go somewhere pleasant." :yuk:

Global Warrior

31st Mar 2010, 15:10

Maybe someone should come up with a campaign name.....then write a letter that leaves no one in any doubt as to the serious safety issues, quote directly from the AAIB report, which the Flight International Mag article below does and scare the c**p out of those reading and then mail it to all balpa reps, the media, etc etc and keep pushing it. It MUST be factually correct also. The other letters suggested IMHO dont go on about the safety issues enough and as there has already been an incident that is attributable to this scheme, i think its only right this should form the body of the letter.

Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard
By David Kaminski-Morrow

Inquiries into a serious hard-landing accident by a MyTravel Airways Airbus A320 in Greece have revealed that instructors had repeatedly expressed concerns over a trainee co-pilot's landing techniques in the weeks before.
In the wake of last year's incident at Kos, the operator - now Thomas Cook Airlines - introduced additional specific simulator training, focusing on landing techniques, and a tighter review process for assessing students' progress. It also requires training captains to undertake specific landing handling training before instructing relatively-inexperienced student pilots.
During a VOR/DME approach to Kos on 5 July 2007, the aircraft flared late and struck the runway hard, with a deceleration that registered 3.15g. After the initial contact, the captain immediately took over but the aircraft bounced another three times before settling. Both main-gear assemblies were damaged and subsequently replaced.
While sloping terrain before the runway can make the Kos approach deceptive, the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) points out that the trainee pilot - who had 381hr, with 147hr on type - had previously come under scrutiny for poor landing technique.
The pilot had started commercial jet training, under a scheme affiliated with the carrier, six months before the incident. During extensive A320 simulator work his landing abilities became "recurring theme of concern", but the AAIB adds: "Although instructors identified that more time needed to be spent training the co-pilot to land, this time was not found and the training was repeatedly deferred."
Doubts persisted through base training and then line training, and relevant landing technique notes were made a "number of times" with many earlier comments being repeated.
"The aircraft demands a relatively high level of 'assured' skill from the trainee their ability to land the aircraft correctly, consistently, should not be in doubt before base training commences and certainly not in doubt during line training where passengers are carried," says the AAIB's inquiry.
Flight-data monitoring in May and June 2007 showed that the co-pilot was involved in further firm landings, and he underwent additional training. After the Kos accident, the airline's flight safety department found that, during line training, the captain had intervened in a third of the co-pilot's 28 landings.
The AAIB's inquiry, while acknowledging issues with the Kos approach, concentrates heavily on the co-pilot's training, pointing out that detailed analysis of his landing technique was not recorded until after several sessions of formal simulator training, long after instructors were aware of a strong need for improvement.
It also states that his line training deviated from guidelines in the carrier's operations manual, with respect to the consistency of instructor and aircraft type, and the proportion of daylight landings.
"Many of the factors relevant to this serious incident were discussed at an operator's training meeting, slightly more than a week before the accident," says the AAIB. "It is very possible that, had the accident not occurred so soon after this meeting, the operator would have had time to put measures into place addressing many of the factors associated with this event."
Links posted in this story:

Pilot Positive

31st Mar 2010, 16:18

Good example GW.

Is anyone else aware either through personal experience, company bulletins or press articles incidents which, specifically, involve low houred P2F? Company and individual names may need to be witheld....

I, personally, am aware of low houred pilots (i.e. straight out of school) attempting to fly into the wrong airport, staying below the glide path, speed degradation, even problems of rudder use during LPC/OPC EFATO drills - incidents which contradict basic flying skill (despite the person originating from a well known flying school) and where the TC/Captain, after PACE protocol, has had to take control.

At the very least it will attempt to build a picture of how prevalent the danger is and at the best will provide some evidence which can formulate support for any arguement.

PP

Callsign Kilo

31st Mar 2010, 16:49

WingoWango

Sorry my experience level with this sort of matter is as limited as yours I'm afraid. I have only been a fully fledged BALPA member for little over a year and a half and have had very little dealings with them. My earlier post relating to your question of how the pilot fraternity moves to abolish PTF was merely my own opinion on how to get BALPA to act. I have no idea how many members BALPA has and therefore couldn't tell you what proportion would be needed in order to ensure a BALPA led campaign is perused. Approach company councils is an idea, however BALPA holds many members who's company may not have formal representation (Ryanair, Jet2) or who work for airlines outside the UK. However PTF could eventually effect each and every member at some stage in their career. So it needs to be a universal effort from across the spectrum of the BALPA membership in my opinion. I agree that this sort of thing will be difficult to organise and administrate, however a battle against something like PTF needs to be staged by something with a certain degree of clout. The only clout that we have in the UK (as a group of individuals) is, unfortunately or not, BALPA.

Global Warrior

Believe me, your letter addressing the very real safety concerns of PTF has already been attempted. A colleague of mine showed me the response received from the DofT (Paul Clark - Under Sec of State for Transport). He ignored references to the AAIB report of the Kos incident and the associated safety concerns of PTF - such as crew rest (citing Colgan Air where the flight crew couldn't afford accomadation) and psychological issues associated with the high levels of debt and job uncertainty related to PTF. Instead Mr Clarke detracted from these points and focused on the fact self sponsored flight training has been alive and well in the UK for quite some time (no sh1t sherlock) and that cadet pilots have been placed in airlines up and down the country. He went on to say that airline training programs are highly regulated (as we know) and the flight and duty limitations schemes are adopted and regulated within all airlines (again as we know). Talk about blatantly ignoring the point! But then what do you expect from a politician!?! :ugh:

Grendel

31st Mar 2010, 16:53

Dear PPRUNE members:

I have been following this thread and would like to draw some parallels to a case in the US. You may remember the case of the Continental Express Q-400 turboprop that crashed in Buffalo, NY last January. This crash occurred just weeks after the USAirways flight 1459 landed in the Hudson River.

The National Transportation Board faulted crew rest, training, and is also questioning the entire pay concept at the regional airline level. The low pay brings out things like pilots living in crash pads and commuting across the country because they cannot afford to live in base. While the NTSB and the FAA will not mandate wage scales, this accident has provided the impetus for raising the licensing standards and requiring both pilots to hold an ATP as a minimum. This bill is in the House now and a similar bill is being worked on in the Senate, although the ATP requirement may be watered down.

The FAA is charged with the safety of the traveling public, and our independent Union, USAPA, the US Airways Pilots Association, and CAPA, the coalition of Airline Pilots association, an industry trade group is having some success in pointing out the low pay poor training and minimal standards of these operations. We are stressing that allowing minimum standard pilots to operate aircraft under the paint scheme and marketing arrangement of the mainline carrier partner is fostering a fraud on the traveling public.

The public responds to safety issues and allowing training to go on during revenue flights by pilots who are not on the airline payroll, who are not employees of the airline and who may not meet the minimum standards for employment, but meet only the minimum standards for licensing, if there is such a distinction in the UK, is a safety travesty. The public is being duped and paying good money for tickets on Carriers that are regulated by the appropriate UK authorities. The public is buying tickets on an Airline, not an airline training school. The certification of an airline is something I would presume to be done in the public interest for the purpose of providing efficient and safe air transportation.

This is the equivalent of having discount brain surgery provided by first year med students on a pay for practice scheme. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where Mr. Gumby goes to the Brain Surgeon, Dr Gumby and says “My brain hurts.” Dr. Gumby says, “It will have to come out.”

Pay2fly or (PFT), pay for training, as we call it on this side of the pond needs to die a horrible death or at least in the words of Dr. Gumby, “It will have to come out.” One of the ways to get the public on your side is to focus on the safety aspects of this issue and point out that an accident may not have yet occurred in the UK due to this but accidents where minimal training was cited as causal factor have recently occurred in the US.

Pilot Positive

31st Mar 2010, 17:10

Forgive my ignorance Grendel (typical self-effacing Brit :)) but are you saying that PTF schemes are relatively embryonic in the US and even at this early stage safety issues/incidents are being highlighted?

Right Way Up

31st Mar 2010, 17:16

speed degradation, even problems of rudder use during LPC/OPC EFATO drills

I don't want to burst to your bubble PP, but this sort of argument will not wash with those concerned. They only have to review LPC/OPC forms from all companies to realise these are errors made by all experience levels.

For what it is worth this issue should be broached by Balpa head office/NEC, on a similar vein to their European FTL campaign.

Pilot Positive

31st Mar 2010, 17:33

Fair point Right Way Up. Perhaps referring to the LPC/OPC element would be a mistake: However all other incidents outside of standard training should be considered as an indication of a flight safety issue???

....this issue should be broached by Balpa head office/NEC, on a similar vein to their European FTL campaign.

BALPA - BALPA: FTL CHANGE NEEDED (http://www.balpa.org/News-and-campaigns/News/-FTL-CHANGE-NEEDED-.aspx)

Grendel

31st Mar 2010, 18:30

Dear PP,

The PFT or Pay2fly is not a relatively new concept but it has been limited somewhat by the realities of the US marketplace. The only PFT scheme I am currently aware of is an outfit in Florida, called Gulf Coast Airlines, or Gulf Coast aviation.

The have a PFT scheme and flight school for the BE-1900. They fly as a code share partner for several major carriers and fly to the islands from MIA and FLL. The are the only one i am aware of right now.

Because the Regional industry was in such a growth mode for the past decade in the US, so many low time pilots were hired to fly RJ's that no large aircraft carrier had to use PFT types for his operation. The woods were full of pilots with several thousand hours of jet time, even if it was in the right seat, they made good candidates. If they had some left seat time all the better.

PFT in the US to date has been only applied at the lowest level of the industry, like small turboprop operators. I am not aware of any larger air carrier using this method yet.

Cheers.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

31st Mar 2010, 18:40

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.

45989

31st Mar 2010, 19:19

Norm,
If I may be so familiar.
I have had the dubious "pleasure" of flying with some of the products of
the Sleasy "pay to fly" school.
It's not pretty
Flying is just that. FLYING

Not simply a button pusher with 200 hours and no practical experience

Callsign Kilo

31st Mar 2010, 19:56

I was under the assumption that a PTF scheme was being trialed between OAA/Parc and EZY. Involved Oxford Integrated students investing in a SSTR and then 75 line hours through EZY. There was no obligation on EZY to offer a contract and if so it would be via Parc on a fly when required basis at £50 per hour. Is this a dead duck?

Going with what NSF says, the selection at EZY is meaningful and the guys that they decide to take on have the ability - that i don't doubt. Whether they be OAA or CTC sourced. However the investment in line hours by OAA students appears to be PTF, even if it could eventually lead to some degree of employment with the partner airline.

747JJ

31st Mar 2010, 20:08

Me thinks it is about time to stop talking about "Pay to fly". Those paying for line training or hours in the seat and when program is finished taking a salary that hardly pays for food are actually paying to work, paying to do the same job I and most of the people I know, want to be paid a salary for.

I've seen salaries drop and conditions worsen in the last 10 years to the extent that my income today is roughly half what it was in 2000. I can only see this getting worse as there are more and more people around willing to pay to sit in the seat rather than get paid for it.
I cannot imagine a truck or a bus driver actually paying an employer thousands of euros to drive a vehicle? Or a Nurse or a Paramedic doing the same with a company providing rescue services or with a hospital.

Flying commercial jets for the purpose of air transport is a bloody job not a hobby. If people want hobbies they can rent a fartcart like a Cessna 150 and drill holes to the sky, well thats how I see it.

handflown

31st Mar 2010, 20:33

Ok Ladies and Gents,

I think we are all pretty much of the same opinion here. We need to get rid of this awful level of exposure of our profession.

How are we going to actually combat it.

Press?

Government?

Boycott BALPA?

We have to do something. Lets do something about this.

What do you all think is the best way to sort this out.

Handflown.

Pilot Positive

31st Mar 2010, 21:19

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.

A well articulated arguement NSF with some very encouraging insight.

I refer the honourable gentleman to post #50. The fact someone pays to get onto a flying program of sorts is an indication of Bottom Line over and above safety - surely you cant expect anyone to believe that if a candidate was that good but didnt have the funds you would still accept them? So where's the meritocracy?

For the most part the safety culture is strong at senior airline level...and I am sure PTF relationships/cadet programs will continue to evolve to ensure that that remains the case. However as senior players they do drive change in our industry and as such they are a beacon for future industry development - setting precedents as they go.

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

Clearly, from what you say (above) EZY has gone through a learning curve. However, the arguement for the safety record of one company is not neccessarily represenative of the industry as a whole. Its the cultural change and overall trend I'd be more concerned about rather than spotlighting a single operator just because they have a proven incident free and well-structured PTF. However as we have seen this trend:

- Is having an impact on safety in other parts of the industry
- Is degrading T&Cs, effecting job prospects
- Is being used to exploit young pilots

You may well flag up the efforts gone to make EZY safer - I dont doubt it, I graciously applaud you for it. But the overall nature of what is being done and the signal it sends will impact on a broader scale. Your present the reality of the PTF as seen from EZY, but sometimes the perception of what is happeining (over and above reality) is enough to facilitate a change we would all rather avoid.

Perhaps the answer here is to see more actual hands on involvement with candidate selection and training at FTO level? If its happening (Flybe?) then let the industry know, otherwise the safety card you are playing will never be vindicated - especially when it comes to senior airlines accepting money from pilots to train/fly with them.

Global Warrior

31st Mar 2010, 22:32

Inquiries into a serious hard-landing accident by a ********* Airways Airbus A320 in Greece have revealed that instructors had repeatedly expressed concerns over a trainee co-pilot's landing techniques in the weeks before.

After the initial contact, the captain immediately took over but the aircraft bounced another three times before settling. Both main-gear assemblies were damaged and subsequently replaced

the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) points out that the trainee pilot - who had 381hr, with 147hr on type - had previously come under scrutiny for poor landing technique.
The pilot had started commercial jet training, under a scheme affiliated with the carrier, six months before the incident. During extensive A320 simulator work his landing abilities became "recurring theme of concern", but the AAIB adds: "Although instructors identified that more time needed to be spent training the co-pilot to land, this time was not found and the training was repeatedly deferred.

Doubts persisted through base training and then line training, and relevant landing technique notes were made a "number of times" with many earlier comments being repeated.

"The aircraft demands a relatively high level of 'assured' skill from the trainee their ability to land the aircraft correctly, consistently, should not be in doubt before base training commences and certainly not in doubt during line training where passengers are carried," says the AAIB's inquiry.

Flight-data monitoring in May and June 2007 showed that the co-pilot was involved in further firm landings, and he underwent additional training. After the Kos accident, the airline's flight safety department found that, during line training, the captain had intervened in a third of the co-pilot's 28 landings.

What ever NSF and his colleagues say, this is why P2F airlines need to be avoided. This particular candidate could have been chopped, retrained or side lined, apparently, according to the AAIB at several points in his training. He wasn't, for whatever reason. I doubt that any full timer would have been given this number of opportunities but as has already been posted here, TRE's do as they are told.

With regards to one training department here, those that have identified themselves as belonging to one particular airline have without exception said that they train these guys but they dont like it!!!! They then have the audacity to criticise me when i say "well if you dont like it ....... do something about it" They then hide behind what a wonderful organisation they are and how well respected they are.

That is probably the case. They are probably well respected and why not. Im sure they do a bloody good job. Im sure its not always strait forward and im sure they have very good and very well respected guys and gals as part of their department....... just like any other UK airline

BUT

it doesnt make them always right.

The excerpts above come from an incident involving another highly respected UK airline, with no doubt a highly respected training department but the comments made by the AAIB (and yes its only a very small part of a very long report) seem to justify the thinking that P2F is bad for the industry. Why would any self respecting airline take a guy with 275 hours to fly in the right seat when there are guys with 3000+ hours on type on the dole.

NSF and his colleagues seem to want to turn this into a personal issue. Im not interested in that. Im interested in getting rid of P2F schemes. However, my belief is that in order to do that, we need to prove that safety is an issue because this story has no legs without it. BALPA are simply not interested for whatever reason. PPRune even takes advertising money from companies that advertise these schemes.

So to NSF and his colleagues, im sure you have a world class training organisation (albeit staffed with people who only read half of whats posted here and then comment negatively) and im sorry if i offend you as that is most definately not my intention. And i totally understand why you are defensive about your product. I think you are a class outfit. I admire the company you work for and the job that gets done.

BUT

I want to see the end of this P2F debacle. You have all agreed that you dont like it either. Im sure its a very bitter sweet pill to swallow but the only way we are going to educate the world about this is through the (lack of) safety issue. No one is going to give a stuff about the erosion of Terms and Conditions. Our Union doesnt so why would anyone else?

The P2F issue has absolutely NO AFFECT what so ever on my Terms and Conditions so i could just wind my neck in as im sure some here would want, which is fine. But i happen to want to lend my experience; 12,000 PIC JET hours to the debate and help scrap P2F. I have no reason to join in being personal but i do fully appreciate the position that those that criticise me are in. If they admit that safety is an issue, its like admitting they are bad at what they do. But i KNOW that that is not the case.

To an extent their hands are tied. But if an airline is going to put 250 Hour pay to fly guys in the right seat, will they then put 1500 hour guys in the left. Will they then populate their training department with 2000 hour pilots. All of the above would save costs. It would be bloody daft but it would save money.

So to continue the theme of the thread, "P2F the cancer of Aviation" needs to be eradicated and the quickest way to do that is to promote (if its actually the case) the erosion of safety as its the only thing that will eventually get all sides on board.

Good Night. Good Luck. God Bless

GW:ok:

Dreamshiner

31st Mar 2010, 22:38

Right so from reading this thread and the Curd one I think its safe to say that we all universally hate this.

From LTC's who feel exasperated at the constant stream based on bank balance and not always ability,

to time served captains who look back at those starting and see the crap, hoops and costs associated compared to how they got into the business,

to senior first officers who may be thinking that the erosion of T&C's means they are likely not get the same contracts their predecessors did,

to junior F/O's concerned that they be next out the door to allow P2F'ers in,

to unemployed pilots looking to get the first foot on the ladder giving these schemes serious thought,

and to those starting out on this careers to be pilots who may have to add another £35k to the £40k-80k for their initial training due to current precedents being set.

We all hate this, both BALPA and the IPA are aware of the strength of feeling and should feel free to act without a petition from any one of us or an action group forming. Based on the criticism voiced on here and 99% thinking it stinks, the unions running with this could really gain them some serious kudos. They should also look at picking their advertisers more carefully.

I see this argument has moved to covering the safety aspects when it initially seemed to highlight the T&C's and their perceived erosion over time. I know the press will react better to safety than a group that is perceived by the majority of the general public as already well paid and lead a glamorous lifestyle.

The letter is definitely a start however it has to be armed with cast-iron facts and a compelling argument. At present it needs some tweeking, but its mostly there.

Global Warrior ...... excellent post.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

1st Apr 2010, 00:33

There are two separate issues here. The first is safety. My contention is that because the clear safety implications of the earlier p2f schemes which involved people paying for line training, these schemes have now ceased at easyJet and in many other airlines. It was clearly unacceptable that people with money buy their way into the right seat of a commercial jet without proper selection or receipt of salary. That was an enormously unsuccessful experiment that has quite rightly stopped. The current schemes are different from a safety perspective and should not be compared to the one which led to the accident at Thomas Cook. It is also worth saying that the fact that one of you had a duff day with a 200 hour p2f pilot is hardly a scientific examination of the scheme's success. If it is any consolation, I have had some shocking days out with some FOs with way more hours than that! As I have said previously, a low-houred pilot is vulnerable to making big errors. That is a stage which every one of us went through and we should not be too high and mighty about remembering that. The overwhelming majority of low-houred pilots I fly with are dedicated and keen to learn. I find them a pleasure to be with, and if treated with respect and decency are great colleagues to spend the day with.

The second issue is the continual degredation of terms and conditions to which 747JJ and others refer. That is an altogether different matter. What has become known as p2f (pay-to-fly) is simply a misnomer. It should be p4tr (pay-for-type-rating) as that is a much more accurate description of what is happening. My argument is that because you do not like the p4tr schemes, it does not mean they are intrinsicly unsafe. It does, however, mean that flying has become the pastime of the rich and is not available to people of talent regardless of background. I am not a socialist, but that strikes me as fundamentally unfair. It is also dire to see the truly awful financial offerings that easyJet and others have come up with. As I have said previously, I am not sure how our managers sleep in their beds at night - taking huge bonuses bought and paid for by starvation wages. Nonetheless, the flying rates being achieved are significantly better than those envisaged, and the tales of pilots eating live alley cats and road kills to survive have not yet materialised. And yet the same responses to these Ts&Cs keep appearing - 'the deal is rubbish and I shall leave BALPA in protest'! That folks is insanity and just exaccerbates the problem. If we had every pilot in BALPA, this issue would not have arisen. Every one of you who leaves BALPA in protest are just signing the death warrant of our industry. We are dealing with unscrupulous managers who gladly line their pockets with our money. The only answer is to stick together and fight it out. No doubt these comments will send some of you over the edge, but that is the way it is.

Global Warrior

1st Apr 2010, 08:20

Morning,

I have copied and pasted from an advertiser on this web site.

JAA B737 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

300 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €28,000 EUR / £24,800 GBP

JAA A320 Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

300 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €46,100 EUR / £40,800 GBP

JAA B737 NG type rating course including aircraft base training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

500 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €32,500 EUR / £28,800 GBP

JAA A320 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

500 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €55,800 EUR / £49,400 GBP

This looks a lot like a P2F scheme to me.

A Type Rating can be done at a TRTO and following base training, usually 3-6 take offs and landings in the aircraft, the Type can then be added to the licence.

I believe its schemes such as the one above that is being referred to as "the cancer of aviation"

NSF is 100% correct with

The only answer is to stick together and fight it out.

And i think that was what this thread was originally about. The question is what is the best way to stick together and fight it out?

It is also worth saying that the fact that one of you had a duff day with a 200 hour p2f pilot is hardly a scientific examination of the scheme's success

Whilst i concur 100% again, my personal feeling is that even 1 incident is 1 too many and if the passengers on that aircraft had had a choice, they may just have exercised their democratic right to either off load themselves or protest. And that is why my feeling is that we HAVE to look at this from an erosion of safety issue because once the press get hold of it, they will probably ask BALPA for their comments and unless BALPA wishes to marginalise itself even more, they will have to come out with an unfavourable comment.

NSF would you be kind enough to educate me as to how your employers scheme is different to the one that is being advertised above because if im going to lend my weight to this cause, its because i want to eradicate the industry of people paying to sit in the RHS of a commercial aircraft during commercial operations whilst receiving "training" in order to fill their log books with time on type. :ugh:

GW

Avenger

1st Apr 2010, 09:33

The only way this process will be banned is if the Authorities do so, and as they are all "independant" this simply will not happen,lobbying MPs, petitioning CAA is all a waste of time. The time and effort would be better placed in pushing for additional approvals for the companies that provide these schemes, perhaps the resultant costs, which would have to be passed on to the candidates, will eventually have the same effect. Many of the TREs that are tied up with these schemes are the same that tread the corridors of power at the CAA and they already have the " Ear of the authority", if they wanted to change things, they could have already done so, fact is that money talks and loyalty is pocket deep.

olster

1st Apr 2010, 11:24

If I may add my 2 pence worth.I was a base trainer -737 variety with the orange airline represented so eloquently on these pages by NSF.I moved on to an airline painted blue and was employed in the above capacity.We recruited some pilots who had bought type ratings through a well known agency.They had completed their base training in the minimum 6 landings and were holding 737 type ratings.I can vouch for the fact that they could not fly an accurate approach path nor land the aircraft correctly and proficiently as per the Boeing FCTM.In my experience the average cadet pilot with approx 200 hours takes a minimum of 10-14 landings to attain proficiency and safety prior to release for line training.

My point being? The training agencies are selling ratings/packages with a startling lack of scruples or morals.The individuals who bought these ratings appeared unaware of their deficiency yet had been led to believe that they were proficient but manifestly were not.A training captain had signed official paperwork confirming proficiency.The sooner the airline industry wakes up and realises that they have a responsibility to sponsor and develop pilots the better -this will have a financial impact.Also(sorry NSF -I agree with a lot that you sat generally) training pilots should reflect on their responsibilities and refuse to train or participate in pay to fly schemes where cash equates to selection.Personally,if still in the orange world it would have meant adios to training.

atb

captplaystation

1st Apr 2010, 11:27

I am mildly surprised, to put it lightly, at the defensive attitude being adopted by some here, which seems to centre on failure to accept one basic principle.

The basic requirement to crew your aircraft with the most suitable (generally speaking most experienced) crew available is being sacrificed at the altar of converting a cost into a revenue stream.

P2F P4TR ? ? Norm, it doesn't matter.

Ryanair would argue that it is easier to take a brand new guy and "educate" him in the ways of Ryanair than "uneducate" him out of his former ways, but they (and you & I ) know that this half fact is just so much BS to divert attention away from the plain fact that TR's are a nice little earner.

Is it safer to crew your aircraft with one of the many experienced F/O's on the market, or safer to have large swathes of the fleet running around with breathless line trainers accompanied by steely eyed youths several nautical miles behind the airframe ? It's a no brainer there, experienced TC's or not (and some of them in that "other" loco are anything BUT experienced, many of the LT's there are VERY new Capt's whilst many of the old hands can't be bothered with the aggro for the small amount of extra dosh on offer) the safer crew will be the one with the overall greater experience.

What makes Easy and some other companies actions so morally repugnant, is that they go one stage further than the Ryanair idea of turning a cost into a revenue stream. As far as I am aware all Ryanair cadets are offered a contract (albeit through an agency, and albeit with the distinct possibility to work less as they become more expensive with hours gained) after they complete, to the required standard, their training.

The easy system appears to thrive on flooding the market with 300/500 hr F/O'S to simply then replace them with another revenue generator.
Just as the guy actually gets some experience he is dumped, as he is no longer actually generating income (working for peanuts ain't enough these days :hmm: )

A useful by product of this morally bankrupt policy is that the market is becoming flooded with barely qualified guys, so they are certainly unlikely to be in a position to demand better terms anytime soon.

If it wasn't so disgusting on a human level you could almost admire the elegance of this "solution".

How anyone is able to even begin to see a defensible side to it is beyond me. It is totally and utterly immoral ,thieving from those who should (by virtue of their chosen career ) know better than to fall for it, and I include LTC's in this, because you, are being robbed of your experience and effort, not to build a better safer crew complement for your chosen employer, but to generate additional income.

And, most importantly, it puts revenue before safety, that is incontestable.

A hard working LTC constantly accompanied by some poor debt ridden sod, struggling to survive, unable to pay the rent , and unable to know when he will next be paid (or how much ) cannot in anyones mind be as safe as a properly rested complimentary (in experience) crew with a full time contract.
This other stuff sucks, and it is high time it was sensationalised (it doesn't need much mind you) and fed to the less scrupulous members of the press to regurgitate into something very damaging to the scumbag companies concerned. :}

favete linguis

1st Apr 2010, 15:20

For those that feel strongly enough to protest via official means about this cancer to aviation, why not add your vote here.

Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PAY2FLY/)

niksmathew24

1st Apr 2010, 18:27

Am not a brit, but I'd love to sign on that petition. Do you think you can get 500 signatures just by opening a petition and advertising it on the pprune site?
I think it would be a very good idea to bring it to the attention of the public who is using this service without knowing what's happening behind the doors.

Pilot Positive

1st Apr 2010, 19:02

NSF, the length of your responses show that you clearly feel passionate about this topic as does Global Warrior, 747JJ, captplaystation, myself included and others who have contributed to this thread.

Whilst your experiences of PTF or P4TR (package it as you like..) may have been progressive and recently more positive there clearly is gap between your experiences and others' ongoing experiences...resulting in a general voice of concern for future safety. You also highlight that it is the degradation of T&Cs resulting from such schemes which is deplorable - not to mention the lack of meritocracy. Well said. :D

Your arguement is good news because it shows that we are all agreed, for whatever reason/motive (safety, T&Cs, jobs, etc.. etc...), on one thing: These schemes need to be checked before it impacts on the industry on a wider basis.

Lets not argue our individual causes but lets take action together for the greater good. Sign the petition! :ok:

captplaystation

1st Apr 2010, 20:55

So far I am only # 13 to sign := cmon guys, you know , and I know, that politicians are all self serving w@nkers, but, at least sign this thing PDQ and at least put the wheels in motion.

Yours, tacitly optimistically (well not really :ugh: ) Capt PS.

cessnagirl

1st Apr 2010, 22:47

Any chance Uk licence holders non resident/non British could sign that petition?

Regards, CG

Doug the Head

1st Apr 2010, 23:18

What has become known as p2f (pay-to-fly) is simply a misnomer. It should be p4tr (pay-for-type-rating) as that is a much more accurate description of what is happening. In my honest opinion, the old Sleazy TRSS used to be a p4tr scheme: you paid for the type but got a JOB in the end. P2F is simply paying for a type and a number of hours on type, period! No job, no salary but instead a firm boot under your @ss to make room for the next sucker when your time (literally!) is up!

I'm, just like capt playstation, completely flabbergasted by your somewhat vague reply (waffling about p2f vs p4tr) and it almost reads like your defending these scams by simply raising the selection criteria.

Norm, are you seriously telling us that these EZY cadets are offered a probationary contract after finishing their type rating and a full time contract (with EZY, not some contract agency!) when they finish line training, just like in the old days of TRSS?

Big Pistons Forever

2nd Apr 2010, 01:14

JAA B737 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

300 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €28,000 EUR / £24,800 GBP

JAA A320 Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

300 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €46,100 EUR / £40,800 GBP

JAA B737 NG type rating course including aircraft base training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

500 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €32,500 EUR / £28,800 GBP

JAA A320 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

500 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €55,800 EUR / £49,400 GBP

Joe Wannebe is paying for a service namely a "jet transport type rating" and "First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger operations". No type rating or no line experience would be a breach of contract unless there is unequivical failure to meet training standards, thus there has to be strong pressure on the TRI's to get marginal pilots through. Furthermore since this is a purely profit making venture terminating anyones training will immediately and directly effect tha TRO's bottom line. Bottom line: it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain training standards in such an environment.

flyhelico

2nd Apr 2010, 06:48

considering 80% of crashes come from pilot errors, I am sure these P2F schemes increase risks.

in an conventional airline, the standards are above the minimum requirement, illimited simulator...when in P2F, it' s barly the minimum ( 2 hours every 6 months, what a joke!).
how many hours of technical ground school a P2F pilot, probably 0 hour...
How can a P2F pilot report a problem in "his" company without getting an answer like" if you are not happy here, you can leave, you won't get your money back, now go fly and shut it up".

don't forget the VTA., the government love it.
soon a terrible crash will happen! it s not when , but where!.

captplaystation

2nd Apr 2010, 08:45

cessnagirl.

unfortunately answer appears to be No, you need to be UK citizen or resident :uhoh: Can't see Gordie and his mates changing the rules vs petitions just for us "spoiled brats" :=

pilot999

2nd Apr 2010, 08:54

4runner

2nd Apr 2010, 09:57

This is simple. Stop paying for type ratings and training and companies will be forced to pay us. I'm 31, I have three types and everyone has been paid for by the company I worked for at the time. Actually, I've been paid while getting training. And as a matter of fact, this pay for experience and training is looked at quite unfavorably in many parts of the world. I know as a fact that a certain captain on the hiring board of a certain airline(the biggest in the world) has flat out told guys that paid for ME time that they're not welcome because they did this in a diplomatic way.

Global Warrior

2nd Apr 2010, 10:09

In One word or less do these guys have a valid Type rating or not? do they have a frozen ATPL? and are they being line trained?

How do they operate without a valid type rating.
They only have a PPL
and they are not being line trained ,

Im going to assume this is not a wind up.

The minimum requirements to apply for a course are a Frozen ATPL, which now can be obtained with around 230-250 hours. Multi Crew Course also needs to be completed BUT can be added to the TYPE RATING course itself.

So, once you have a frozen ATPL, you can PAY MORE MONEY to a TRTO that will then put you through the TYPE course. Remember, you are paying yourself, not an employer so the TRTO has some moral issues with whether they will actually tell you you are more likely to shag the pope than have a successful airline career........ besides, they know there is not and endless supply of P2F candidates so anyone with cash is better than no one.

Once you have finally completed the Sim and Ground School part of the course, you have to do the base training....... essentially 6 circuits in the aircraft. Once this is complete, you get the type stamped on your licence and then the airlines that wish to have a 250 Hour unknown in the flight deck, allow you to pay them for the privilege of their training until such time as you reach the magic number of hours that you have previously paid for 300-500 by the looks of some programmes. Then you go back on the dole because in the meantime, some other candidate has found a bank or rich uncle to allow them to go through the same process you have so you are replaced by one of your own.

In the old days.............late 1990's you got a PPL, built up your hours and experience, probably becoming a Flight Instructor on the way and dealing with newbies and the errors they would demonstrate on the way. During this time you have got multi engine qualified and possibly your multi IR on the way. When you had 700 hours, you could do your CPL exams. Once you had a CPL you could apply to the airlines but generally they wanted 1500-2000 hours experience.

In fact if you look at a recent advert for a Mid East airline, they want 3000+ hours, some of it on aircraft heavier than 40 Tonnes.

Now, you can just buy your way in the flight deck of an A320 with 260 hours and get 500 hours of training with trainers that have already admitted on this thread that they dont like training you.

A UK operator has already had serious incident with one of these candidates landing the aircraft. The AAIB notes several points in his training where his abilities were in question but still he was not chopped. Why? Possibly through the fact that as he had paid to be there, they were morally obliged to complete the training and hope that he would become someone else's problem later.

Have there been many more near incidents? We will never know.

One vicious cycle sees the money go from the candidates pocket to

The TRTO, which then divvies it up to the ground instructor and the TRE's that come in to do the sim training......... ive heard at rates of £900 a day but that might not be totally right

Then it goes to the company that provides the aircraft for the base training.............. and the TRE that conducts the base training

Then it goes to the company that you buy the hours from.......... and the TRE / LTC that conducts your line training

As a matter of interest, The TRTO's use a lot of the TRE's of the companies that the candidates eventually go to fly for

So Candidate is happy as he gets a Type and 300-500 hours RHS time in a Jet.
TRTO is happy as it is making money from the candidates dream of being a Real Jet Pilot.

TRE's are happy as they are making a lot of extra wonga

The company is happy as its now got a revenue stream in the Flight Deck rather than an expense.

Problem is........... the fare paying public are not asked if they like this practice and they are not given the choice to travel or not in an aircraft that statistically is more likely to have an incident. Even more likely to have an incident if it was the same aircraft training a full time employee that at any stage could/would be sent for retraining or chopped.

The AAIB accident report for the Kos incident alluded to the fact that the airline should have discontinued his training at several points but for what ever reason (MONEY?) didnt. All airlines if nothing else have a duty of care to their passengers and this one practice operated by the airlines involved are proving that they dont take this duty of care very seriously.

GW

wiggy

2nd Apr 2010, 10:49

Unfortunately only UK residents can sign
Not so, UK citizens can sign as ex-pats...:ok:

pilot999

2nd Apr 2010, 10:59

Arh. arwsome , all done and dusted. whats next on the agenda. maybe get it sorted after dinner.

remoak

2nd Apr 2010, 11:14

Yep this is really going to fix it... not. Do you seriously think the government is going to instruct the airlines in how to conduct their business? Nnnnnoooo... not really.

Anyway I signed it... FWIW...

Brenoch

2nd Apr 2010, 13:02

I noted earlier on someone asked for other incidents attributed/partially attributed to P2F schemes.

Here's one;

http://www.gpiaa.gov.pt/tempfiles/20060718165521moptc.pdf

Global Warrior

2nd Apr 2010, 13:25

I noted earlier on someone asked for other incidents attributed/partially attributed to P2F schemes.

Here's one;

Is this def a P2F scheme? Does this operator still use them?

Brenoch

2nd Apr 2010, 14:15

I honestly don't know if they still use it, but at the time it was a CTC-scheme which I always thought was some sort of P2F deal. I was only there for a limited time and never actually looked in to it in great detail but I know for a fact that the trainers, especially on the FBW-fleet weren't too impressed with the extra workload generated by this scheme. And it ended up costing the carrier big time with one of the A321's in the shop for some 8 weeks.

flyerdad

2nd Apr 2010, 15:48

Expat now happy to work in ME due to decent paid F/O positions in UK becoming like rocking horse S**t

Signed happily

flyerdad

beamer

2nd Apr 2010, 16:34

Sad fact is that most UK airlines would be delighted to pay First Officers no more than 20k a year and that people would be queueing up to accept contracts on those terms.

NorthSouth

2nd Apr 2010, 16:40

Apologies if this has already been raised since I haven't read through all 5 pages of this thread.

Pay to fly and all its insidious variants is one of the consequences of the deregulation of markets generally and the airline market in particular, compounded by the current government's enthusiasm for never-ending expansion of air transport. Ryanair is now so big that it has massive market power. It can bully airports into paying them to bring services in. It can bully aircraft manufacturers into selling aircraft at prices way below what others pay. It can dominate the pilot recruitment market. And it can set the terms for the rest of the airline market. The BA cabin crew dispute is one of many consequences of the power of the lo-cos.

I applaud the efforts of all of you who are engaging No.10, BALPA etc to try to stop the "cancer of P2F". But what's also required is a wider view - do we want a society where these kinds of employment terms and conditions spread to more and more sectors of the economy? I do hope all of you who are concerned about this will think this through when considering who to vote for at the coming election.

NS

jamestkirk

2nd Apr 2010, 17:01

Petition to number 10 to stop pay to fly. Yes, i know, before this starts a debate. sign it or dont.

Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PAY2FLY/sign)

sidtheesexist

2nd Apr 2010, 17:19

Signed. Can a copy be sent to BALPA HQ in the hope that it might encourage a bit more activity there? Good effort :ok::ok:

ZQA297/30

2nd Apr 2010, 19:10

When you boil the issue down it is an economic problem. Airlines do not really want to set up any more training than is necessary, it diverts focus from the main objective, flying airplanes for profit.

The fact of the matter is that economics drives the airline industry. In the cut-throat competition, the customer has become accustomed to fares that are very much cheaper, relative to incomes, than they were in the 1960s. Probably about 1/10th what they used to be.

This undoubtedly led to massive increases in air travel, and the unwashed masses began to travel in great numbers. This increased airline jobs, aircraft sales etc, etc,
But it came at a price, instability. Air travel has become very dependent on the disposable income of the masses. Boom and recession govern this.

When empty aircraft fly around, or sit on the ground, panic sets in, and down go the fares again. The masses become used to fire-sale fares, and refuse (or are unable) to pay the real fares needed to keep "proper" :E airlines alive.

There are not many cost inputs that airlines can control, except employee costs. So the employees are being asked to fund ever cheaper fares, so that their employers can afford to compete with the bottom feeders. This drives T&Cs down and leads to all manner of P2F type schemes.

Fix the basic economics and the P2F schemes are just unnecessary hassles.

Problem is, the free market will eventually drive costs (=T&Cs) down to where professional flying will end up going to the lowest bidders. The insurance industry will determine what the acceptable level of risk will be. Sad but true.:hmm:

Global Warrior

3rd Apr 2010, 08:50

CTC have never offered any pay to fly schemes

From the CTC website.........

When do I start earning a salary? How much will that be?

Once you have successfully completed your Foundation, Basic and Intermediate Training, the next stage is to complete Advanced Training which may be sponsored by an airline. This comprises ground and simulator training, followed by base training (when you will fly an airliner for the first time). Next you will commence flying with the airline on the line, completing your line training and a period of line experience. The terms of your placement will vary from airline to airline and depending on the current requirement. Normally you will first complete an 8 month line training and experience period during which you will normally be paid a subsistence allowance from CTC of about £1000p.m. It will only be on completion of that period, when you have proved to the airline that you are 'the right stuff' and that you have reached all the proficiency levels required, that you may be offered full time..............

but probably not because we have another muppet with £50k to burn to replace you

In the mean time all costs of training so far will be paid for by the candidate. And the really clever part........ they are paying you back £1,000 a month which is part of the money you have given them for the training costs in the first place allegedly.

There used to be a company in the USA which fortunately is now no longer. They used to offer an ab initio CPL/IR for $19,990. They used to advertise "guaranteed employment as a flight instructor Program" for $38,000. When you looked at their other courses, the CFI, CFII and MEI courses totalled $5,000 with $1,000 in exam fees. They then paid a salary of $1,000 per month for approximately 12 months. They used to take all your money from you upfront and then pay it back as a salary for being a flight instructor, unless they went bust first then you got cock all back!!!

Striking similarities........ but then again, it might only be pure coincidence and it might be that P2F doesnt really exist :ugh:

KingDingaling

3rd Apr 2010, 10:16

Hi all,

I think the petition is a great idea - would it be worth forwarding it to friends and family as well, explaining the flight safety issue? After all they are the fare paying public who are being exposed to this when they buy a ticket!

Shall we get some decent momentum behind this for a change instead of burying out heads in the sand and harping on about how lucky we are to be employed?! :ok: I agree the market has changed and I am all for low cost travel, but in my opinion these schemes are a step too far.

As a side point please don't forget that unions such as BALPA are only as good as the members in them - if things are to change drastically then members must be prepared to act drastically. The main problem here is that nobody wants the temporary pain for a long term gain. Typical UK short-termist attitude - which is exactly the attitude that has lead us to this point by airline management and the people paying to fly a shiny jet :mad:. Nothing will change if we don't get off our a$$es and dig our heels in. It is never too late to start!

Regards

KD

james1013

3rd Apr 2010, 12:14

Signed :ok::ok:

Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PAY2FLY/sign)

Gonna stick a link on my facebook, that's always good for spreading things like wild fire, which is what this petition needs......

deltahotel

3rd Apr 2010, 14:34

Signed.

Just a possibly silly question which I can't answer myself from the thread: In a P2F scheme which buys a TR and 300? hours, are all the 300? line hours flown as training with a LTC or is the guy released to the line after a predetermined number of sectors and final line ck?

punk666

3rd Apr 2010, 15:18

From some of the guys I know who done this scheme they flew about 100 hours with a LTC then got released on line.

beamer

3rd Apr 2010, 20:46

I always thought the 'right stuff' as quoted from CTC had more to do with the Mercury Astronauts and a bunch of low-hour airline pilots !

Aerofoil

4th Apr 2010, 00:45

Some of you may not know about this petition so i thought it would be a good idea to post a link on a devoted thread to the subject. Perhaps if enough of us sign the official petition below the government might act to stop this exploitation of pilots!

Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PAY2FLY/)

Brenoch

4th Apr 2010, 02:35

Aren't they the same?

screwballburling

4th Apr 2010, 02:40

Whilst I agree the pay to fly schemes (started in the main, by European LCC's) are a cancer in our midst I think it is wrong to try and have this stopped.

Where do you draw the line? At paying for your license? paying to hour you hours? I/R? What about a person working for low wages, albeit at or above the legal minimum, are you going to petition against that?

There is snobbery in the aviation world at least in the UK, where a self sponsored person, is viewed the same as a pedophile in a school yard, by individuals who were sponsored by BA, for E.G.

I will not sign this petition as I think if there was a ban put in place, that is just another rule for the office walla's to police. For goodness sake, haven't we got enough rules and regulations without another. This is a "free" society, is it not? Those of you that say it is, then let's try and keep it free. Maybe you guys want a total nanny state.

I'm Off!

4th Apr 2010, 02:44

I totally disagree with PTF schemes, however this petition is not that well worded, and makes some allegations about safety that I am not sure can be substantiated. As a result I'm afraid I don't feel I can put my name to it.

flyhelico

4th Apr 2010, 04:21

I agree we must be a free society.
in this case tell me why we can not fly an airliner with a private license only?
what's the need of a commercial license?

handflown

4th Apr 2010, 05:59

free society???

tell that to the 3000+ hr pilots on the dole at the moment.

This is about stopping airlines charging First Officers to work for them. Take your left wing softy views elsewhere and see what is important without trying to be "overly clever" about this.

I have signed it!!!!

Desk-pilot

4th Apr 2010, 06:13

I have signed it. You can argue the toss all you like but while I'm prepared to accept having to pay for my training up to the point I am employed, personally after that I feel it is incumbent upon my employer to show some faith and pay for my type rating and line training secured with a bond if required.

When you join a firm as a machine operator making widgets in a factory they pay to train you to operate their particular machinery, they also provide you with the protective clothing/uniform to do the job, I don't see why flying is any different.

For me there's a moral black and white here and the line in the sand is quite clear. Go over the line and you're a morally bankrupt organisation.

Desk-pilot

StressFree

4th Apr 2010, 08:23

I've signed it and was glad to do so :ok:

Its about time that we stopped the constant degredation of our profession, I've been flying commercially for over 20 years and can't believe how we've let things get SO bad..........:eek:

ford cortina

4th Apr 2010, 09:08

Aerofoil to quote your petition, In certain situations student pilots have less than 200 hours total time and are both incompetent and incapable of flying the aircraft in the event of incapacitation of the training pilot. I consider this a dangerous practise and ultimately an accident waiting to happen.

So if you just finish training and are offered a job with a paid type rating etc.... you are safer? Why, there is no difference in two low hour pilots?

When you undertake line training, you have a safety pilot, until the Training Captain feels the time is right for you to be released to fly with out one.

I think this is great, lets ban ALL pilots under 1500 hours total from getting a multi pilot type rating, then there will be more jobs. So where do I sign????:ok::ok::ok:

flyhelico

4th Apr 2010, 09:54

if airlines stops to ask for 500h or 1000h on jet before to be hired, maybe people will get a job?

if some airlines have problems now, it's their problems.

BA by example, it' s impossible to fly for them.Very hard to enter(psycho test,...)...where do you think guys go?

answer: they pay to fly for a LCC

Then BA claims they have some problems, they can not compete with the cheap flight tickets of Easyjet and Ryanair??

eh! BA , remember, you got your chance to hire fresh pilots. you told them " sorry, you are not been accepted, good luck to you "

these pilots now say " sorry BA, I will pay a LCC to fly, and my company will kick you a$# good luck to you to deal with your Onion :E"

BA? Guilty !!!

pilot999

4th Apr 2010, 10:22

Some interesting names on the list , EC in particular, the guitar God no way, just a namesake I guess. maybe Rod stewart next.

Dont worry I will not be wasting my time signing a useless peace of $hit. Tell a real cancer patient that p2f is a cancer and I would back up whatever he did to all of you on the list.:ok: or better still have a dose of real cancer, good luck with the treatment . survival rate of 1 week I guess:)

LEGAL TENDER

4th Apr 2010, 10:34

There would be a very easy and effective way to stop P2F I guess... that is wannabes not to sign up for any of the schemes.
But that would require common sense I guess, and perhaps that's not one of the qualities of the airline pilot of the future?

shaun ryder

4th Apr 2010, 10:38

Agreed, wannabes stop signing up for pay to fly, job done. The petition reads like it has been written by a buffoon.

Consequently, fare paying passengers are effectively being transported in a single pilot capacity, which is in contradiction of British aviation law.

Thats hor$hit.

eagerbeaver1

4th Apr 2010, 10:52

It has been written by a buffoon.

pilot999

4th Apr 2010, 11:08

I would be more worried if that buffon is flying rather than a p2f with a line trainer. i admit my writing is crap. and I dont bother reading what I have typed, but then I did not right that crap. even I can manage better than that, she was probaly a jour:Dno or failed cadet.:eek:

socrates

4th Apr 2010, 11:15

Personally, it doesn't matter how its been written. It is highlighting a problem and the person starting the petition obviously feels strong enough to do something about it and good for them. Furthermore, it seems it is achieving its aim - we are commenting and debating P2F.

I have no idea whether any of these government petitions ever work or whether they are an easy way of appeasing the masses. Assuming they do work I would imagine that if enough of a consensus is reached then something may be done about it. Only then it would be re-worded by those with more knowledge of how to present the argument and pass it into law or whatever is required.

I understand what is meant, I aim against P2F and have signed accordingly.

captplaystation

4th Apr 2010, 13:10

The only important thing, is not how well it has been written, but the fact that an individual was forced to highlight the problem, rather than this coming from BALPA.

If you want to winge about something, that is a more (de)pressing issue than the instigators grammatical competence. :=

4runner

4th Apr 2010, 13:23

Paying to fly...So what's the point of getting your commercial pilot license? The chief pilot of my flight school told us in ground school, "Boys, now you are commercial pilots, don't you EVER pay for another hour of flight time again!". I can't help but wonder if the people defending P2F schemes are the ones who have already coughed up the dough.
There was a P2F scheme that was popular in the United States a year or two ago. The outfit was called Gulfstream. These guys came to Sanford Airport in Florida and had a presentation complete with sodas, pizza and a shiny(kinda) Beech 1900. The Captain was very arrogant and told the prospective customers that flight instructing was a waste of time and that their instructors would be looking up at this turbine airliner while doing slow flight at 3000 ft. All those guys that signed up for the scheme are now jobless, $30,000 more in debt and don't have enough hours for their ATP's.
Additionally, 4 out of 5 of the last pilot error induced airline crashes in the US have been at the hands of graduates from the above program. I may have looked up at those Beech's for a few hundred hours but the experience I gained has been invaluable and I have more hours in my logbook and more money in my pocket. I did and still do look down on those individuals who took what I consider the easy way out by paying for their ME time at P2F schemes. And for the most part they were the people that couldn't hack CFI training or just generally lazy. Not saying that every country has the options that we do in the US but when there's a will, there's a way. If we stop paying to fly to get to heavy equipment more quickly, they'll start paying us TO fly which is why we signed up for this job in the first place, isn't it?

eagerbeaver1

4th Apr 2010, 14:42

Chaps, don't let you personal feelings cloud your judgement.

Fair enough you have created a petition, but give it a chance with a congruent explanation and good grammar.

It is all about credibility - in my opinion your petition sounds like a bunch of whining bitches and a knee-jerk reaction.

Besides you will not be able to change a thing let alone have the PM take notice.

Do what I am doing and get out.

EGCC4284

4th Apr 2010, 15:30

Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PAY2FLY/)

Cpt. Sunshine

4th Apr 2010, 15:34

Who's the joker who put Jonathan Curd's name on it, eh?

Pilot Positive

4th Apr 2010, 15:38

:hmm: I wondered that too....

Signed it.

Pilot Positive

4th Apr 2010, 15:44

Chaps, don't let you personal feelings cloud your judgement.

V

in my opinion your petition sounds like a bunch of whining bitches and a knee-jerk reaction.

All on the same post....impressive. :ugh:

Afinehelmet

4th Apr 2010, 16:13

It's 40 mins old and has over 100 signatures already.

Good idea and lets hope it get's the attention it deserves.

Pilot Positive

4th Apr 2010, 16:36

Any chance that it could also go to BALPA and IPA? Just to demosstrate solidarity about this topic?

Firestorm

4th Apr 2010, 17:21

192 already!

I am pretty sceptical about whether these petitions work or not, but I know if you don't sign then nothing will change...

You don't really expect BALPA to support it do you? They should have been on the case years ago but weren't...

Nick 1

4th Apr 2010, 17:24

What about to create one of this petition in each EU country ?

Nick 1

captjns

4th Apr 2010, 17:59

Hmmmm:suspect: Airlines have been doing this for how long:eek:??? some 20 years plus??? And now there's a petition to put a stop to this practice!?!?:eek: What a shock:ugh:!

johns7022

4th Apr 2010, 20:10

The standards are so low these days...what caused it? Apathy probably, and a lack of serious proffesional ethics..

It's about profits....hiring kids, marshmellows, hire on attitude, hire abinitio, hire peeps that pay for training...anything to pay less, profit more...P2F isnt the only problem.

I used to think the aviation insurance companies or even the FAA would step in...the underwriters just jack up the premiums, the FAA is asleep at the wheel...like SEC, FDIC and the other stock market regulators....

You can choose to be part of this circus or not, I chose not to.

BarbiesBoyfriend

4th Apr 2010, 20:15

Johns

You cant even spell 'professional'.

What hope is there?

Dreamshiner

4th Apr 2010, 21:29

PPRuNe - pilot news network and debating forum, not a spelling/grammar critique. There are greater priorities than if someone can spell correctly because not everyone using this website has English as a first language, it still surprises me how many get on their high horse over this issue.

Yes, the petition wasn't composed in the most compelling or erudite way, it would have maybe been better to post a first draft on here and invite amendments. However if we hone in on this we miss the greater picture and give unfair criticism towards Karl for starting it.

What is more important is why he felt he had to do it in the first place and why it takes a lowly pilot off his own back to organise it when there are others with greater resources to do so.

I've signed it regardless of the argument he gave to support it. For me, if it is recognised and investigated by the politicians/public then we as a group can re-write a better supporting statement, this is the first step to gain better and wider recognition outside our industry.

I'd asked my friends and family to sign it as it should be remembered its not limited to pilots or wanabee's, its for anyone affected and don't like the trend our industry is moving towards.

pilot999

4th Apr 2010, 22:30

All very well signing this crap, and moaning abouit p2f, well if you don't want p2f and want a superiour person instead than I would expect the english to be rather good.., and should their not be a selection process as well so we can decide whom shall use the english language, If you no inglish shut up.

some of you guys are much the same as white supremists, one whom rightly was hacked to pieces in South Africa, may more follow.

blueplume

4th Apr 2010, 23:20

I'm not sure what you mean.... I'm prpbably not the only one.

Brenoch

5th Apr 2010, 01:22

Ahh, I suspect the old "posting under the influence"...

I shall immediately retire to the drawing board devising a cunning alco-lock for desktops and laptops alike. I know such a thing would have saved me some embarrassment a couple of times. Would it be a huge financial success shall I, without delay, retire from the aviation industry.

PPRuNeUser0173

5th Apr 2010, 07:33

Just signed it. Come on guys and gals - stop bickering, no one else is going to do anything about it. Forget BALPA and the IPA - its down to us.

Micc25

5th Apr 2010, 08:10

What about to create one of this petition in each EU country? :ok:

-The European Parliament Petitions Committee has an active online petition submission website and the Lisbon Treaty introduces Citizens’ Initiatives, whereby citizens will be able to call on the Commission to bring forward new policy proposals.

We should try to get this pay2fly scheme banned in the EU! :E

ZQA297/30

5th Apr 2010, 09:17

I think it is supremely ironic that, as I write this, I am looking at a headline ad for 300 hour and 500 hour F/O line training, not more than 1 inch above the reply box.
Oh dear, this could be an uphill battle.

northern boy

5th Apr 2010, 10:08

" All very well signing this crap, and moaning abouit p2f, well if you don't want p2f and want a superiour person instead than I would expect the english to be rather good.., "

Unlike yours

"some of you guys are much the same as white supremists, one whom rightly was hacked to pieces in South Africa, may more follow"

BING! knob alert!

Did you happen on here by accident whilst trying to find the Guardian comments site?

Bravo for getting this petition going. About time something was done seeing as our union is determined to stick its fingers in its collective ears and shout "No I can't hear anything Na na na na ....."

The fastest way to stop this would have been a total, immediate and ongoing withdrawal of labour until the whole thing was abandoned. Instead it will take an accident or serious incident. We never learn.

Best of luck.

Bruce Wayne

5th Apr 2010, 10:10

captplaystation

5th Apr 2010, 10:46

Oh dear, it seems that chocolate IS toxic and some on here have been piggies with those Cadbury's cream eggs :yuk:

FFS, who gives a monkeys if anyone can reed or rite

Of much more relevance / concern

WHY was it left to this well meaning individual to get the ball rolling with a petition

WHY didn't BALPA (or perhaps I should start saying BLAPA like dear ol Leo HC - wherever he has gone, what did he mean :rolleyes: BLA BLA BLA Pilots Union perchance ? maybe he wasn't so far wrong :hmm: ) take some action many moons before this individual decided that he , and we, should stand up and be counted. If this isn't something that 1% of your salary shouldn't be spent eradicating what is ? ?

Or, he says only slightly cynically, is it the fact that it doesn't (directly) affect BA . . . . . Yet :ooh:

Nothing less than a total loss of credibility for BALPA on this one. I imagine NSF will remind us all what splendid hard working chaps the Easy CC are, and I don't doubt it for a moment. If however, the dead wood in head office are content to sit back and let this happen (nay accept advertising revenue no less) where is their credibility in their intention to be your industrial representation ? crashed & burned IMHO.

Happy Easter

Bruce Wayne

5th Apr 2010, 10:58

CaptPS..

:D

Aerofoil

5th Apr 2010, 13:17

Has anyone thought about creating a group on Facebook about this to draw attention to it? Possibly including the petition link also?

From previous problems/situations people have faced they have been able to reach a MASSIVE audience through the means of a group on Facebook, these groups can spread like wildfire and reach thousands of people in a matter of hours!
:ok:

Global Warrior

5th Apr 2010, 14:14

There's a website coming soon.........then if you can promote it via FB, tweeting and any other social net-workng site, that would be great.

pilot999

5th Apr 2010, 21:07

previuosly stated dont bother checking my grammar:ugh:

angelorange

9th Apr 2010, 06:14

At least 20 more signed since midweek.

pilot999

10th Apr 2010, 06:26

peaked yet?

Dreamshiner

10th Apr 2010, 08:50

Just to remind for a second time, you don't have to be a pilot or directly affected by P2F to sign the petition, anyone can sign it. My granny and girlfriends are proud card carrying rebels too now.

Anyway its closed until after the election.

UAV689

11th Apr 2010, 08:55

Wow - just sitting here Reading skyport paper and balpa aparently have pay to fly in it's manifesto that it is lobbying to mp's. There is a whole 4 lines on the matter on page 5!

Akro

11th Apr 2010, 09:59

Any one else spotted that a certain Mr J. C. has signed the petition as well!!!

captplaystation

11th Apr 2010, 10:27

Think that just might have been a "proxy vote" ;) :D

Pilot Positive

11th Apr 2010, 12:53

UAV689,

balpa aparently have pay to fly in it's manifesto that it is lobbying to mp's

In support of or in opposition to PTF? Dont have Skyport to hand....

UAV689

12th Apr 2010, 14:12

haha in opposition to it!

the wording was (off the top of my head I have binned it now) something along the lines off - we are opposed to the exploitation of newly qualified pilots, whereby some airlines are forcing them to pay up to £34000 to continue their training with an airline.

Was not really clear if they opposed paying for TR or P2F, I am guessing the latter as paying for TR has been going on a while now.

Looks like it could finally be on their radar.

Pilot Positive

12th Apr 2010, 15:57

Could be. If someone were to send the peitition to them then it would give them an additional little jolt as well as ammunition to support their case on a wider basis.

Kirks gusset

12th Apr 2010, 18:02

Do we know how many professional pilots are employed in the UK and what sort of percentage this petition is likely to represent? I'm not talking about pilots " qualified" but those actually working. If we have say 3000 and only 300 sign, could they argue only 10% are against PTF.. just a thought. Looking at the list of names, there are some strange ones, or very cruel parents!

cortilla

12th Apr 2010, 19:08

I've read the petition and I've read most of the posts on here about said petition. I am against pay to fly but I cannot sign. It's badly worded (no I'm not bothered about spelling and/or grammar) and it confuses two completely separate issues. Pay to fly is indeed a blight on the industry but you can't tar all low houred pilots with the same brush.

The petition implies all low houred pilots are pay to fly (which obviously they're not) and all low houred pilots need constant babysitting. Yes being a line trainer is hard work with a newbie (and no im not one just a lowly fo) but that's why you're a line trainer.

Everyone on my original course were low houred and all of us (eventually) went as low houred pilots into main airlines. Most were sponsored. However surely your financial abilities have nothing to do with your flying skills.

Yes pay to fly is bad for our industry. But being low houred (or being a p2f'er
for that matter) does not mean you're a bad pilot.

I am against pay to fly but I will not shun someone who's done it.

I am against pay to fly but not low hours pilots flying.

Remove this petition and rewrite one focussing solely on p2f. Confusing the 2 issues will give all airline managers who use p2f a chance to say 'well safety's never been compromised just look at our record etc etc.'

captplaystation

12th Apr 2010, 20:17

studi,

Thanks :ok: you have summed it up better than any of us native English speakers seem to have managed to do so far.

Pilot Positive

12th Apr 2010, 21:05

To use the second seat as a revenue generator is a perversion of the two crew concept.

Sums it all up nicely... :ok:

Microburst2002

13th Apr 2010, 10:26

Billiantly exposed :D:D:D

That is an effect of PTF that has a measurable impact of safety, isn't it?

With such programs, those airlines are effectively reducing the safety of their flights, and they are doing it to make money.

I am absolutely sure that this practice is simply illegal, only it will take good lawyers to stop it. Better that websites.

Doug the Head

13th Apr 2010, 10:55

Very well put Studi!

(NSF, did you read Studi's post?)

The big safety problem with P2F is, that once you have done your agreed amount of hours and gained your first experience, you are spit out of the system. The airline puts a new guy into the seat, which is zero experienced again.Spot on, and besides the obvious safety issue of P2F preventing to raise the level of experience in an airline, it also nullifies the value of this experience that a cadet was hoping to climb the career ladder with, as experience excludes one from getting an interview for any real (paying!) job. How ironic!

It's a zero sum game: designed to flood the market with even more pilots in order to drive down T&C's.

The combined impact on safety and T&C's should have the CAA and unions woken up by now, but as usual, the silence is deafening...

EpsilonVaz

13th Apr 2010, 20:35

Maybe we could launch a service like this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/seat_selection.png

favete linguis

14th Apr 2010, 08:36

EpsilonVaz...

Cant work out whether you are a critic of P2F or a supporter. I think possibly you are the latter, despite what your comic strip post suggests.

I wouldn't class ATP as the "take your money and hang you out to dry" type TRTO's. They have been open, and helpful to me, and to most of the people I know that have been through their scheme. I am very satisfied with the service ATP provided.

So, to answer a common question:
If I knew what I know now, would I do it again? Yes.

Reading your threads it seems you currently 'work' for ez, but is that as a parc contract FO or as an employee on full benefits and salary?

EpsilonVaz

14th Apr 2010, 11:46

Hey, I just posted the comic because I found it funny and thought it fit this thread!

I do currently work for EZY under the CTC Flexicrew contract.

flyhelico

14th Apr 2010, 15:47

you don't work for easy, neither for CTC. you pay them, ... why you say your work for easy.they will kick you out anyway in 2 seasons...

bye bye amigo...nobody will hire you with your little 500hours.

EpsilonVaz

14th Apr 2010, 16:02

I say I work for them because my payslip that arrived yesterday says I will get £3225 in my bank account tomorrow from CTC(ARL), and because my logbook has passed 1000 hours.

Pilot Positive

14th Apr 2010, 16:16

So what was the cartoon all about then EpsilonVaz?

Were you going to contribute to this forum positively or were you just looking for a cheap gag?

Your flippancy might have been funnier in a different forum, instead its probably rubbed a few more pilots up the wrong way.... :*

sprogg

14th Apr 2010, 16:25

Wow, £3225 this month. Thats good and works out to £38,707.73 annually. But hold on, aren't you employed/contracted for 6 months? In which case its more like £19,353. After tax I guess you're taking home just shy of £2,400, or £600.00 per week. Over 6 months that doesn't really add up to a hill of beans. Good old CTC/EZ - screwing 'wages' down below the national average.

You should show a little more integrity and maturity.

EpsilonVaz

14th Apr 2010, 16:35

Indeed, Pilot Positive, I do seem to have miscalculated. It was just something I saw online and thought "hehe, let's put it here". However, there is so much misinformation in this thread I seriously doubt it's possible for it to have a positive impact.

I'm contracted for 3 years, the figure I quoted was after tax. Gross was £4520. Take note that this was for a pretty full month. I'm not saying the arrangement is perfect, just stating the facts.

Pilot Positive

14th Apr 2010, 18:02

However, there is so much misinformation in this thread

The only misinformation on this thread is the information you're providing... :ugh:

MainDude

14th Apr 2010, 18:35

Economists would argue 'supply & demand' will correct the situation itself.

Demand is not something we can change. Thousands of desperate wannabes who would do anything to get to the front of a plane.

That leaves the supply side. At the moment it's a relatively easy decision for airlines to squeeze money from the front right seat too. Lower the selection criteria, and increase the 'entrance fee'. I get the impression that the newer aircraft are a lot easier to fly anyways.

Has anyone objectively proven that P2F is a *significant* safety risk? Subjectively we know that CRM is affected - but has it caused a problem that would call for regulators and/passengers to seriously care about this? If it was the case, the media would have been all over it.

At least there are still a significant number of airlines out there that still pay for training. Most of these are not in English speaking countries though, and pilot selection programs are tough. Just like the good old days :-)

Microburst2002

14th Apr 2010, 19:37

The fact that the media is not aware of that is not the proof that there is no risk in ptf "programs".

It is a fact that if in an airline you train pilots and then dump them and always keep low experienced pilots in the RHS, safety is reduced. You can say it is within limits, but the fact is that you are reducing safety in order to make more money, and not for operational reasons.

If an airline has a sudden expansion, the proportion of trainees will be high, and safety reduced, but this is inevitable. Pilots can't be born experienced. But after a while, those pilots become experienced ones, and then safety is again at is former level.

The safety decrease due to ptf schemes is not inevitable. Actually, it is very easy to eliminate by not doing those programs in the first place.

PTF is clearly a way of making revenue at the expense of safety. It should be illegal, for this reason among others. Well. It is illegal, only nobody has been able or willing to make judges to say so, so far.

Pilot Positive

14th Apr 2010, 21:00

It should be illegal, for this reason among others.

How's the petition doing??

EpsilonVaz

14th Apr 2010, 21:28

The figure I quoted was for a 96 hour month plus pay for standbys and nightstop allowences. Please note that we also accrue approx £5 holiday pay per flying hour which was not included in my figure (as we get paid this when on leave). I am not an SFO, as previously stated I have just passed 1000 hours total time.

Wingo, my entire training, from start to finished cost just under £70k, this is including any cost for acommodation. I did not borrow any money. I have no reason to lie to you folks, my real identity isn't exactly a secret and it's pretty easy for anyone who reads my posts to figure out who I am.

fullforward

15th Apr 2010, 03:50

It occurred to me, let's imagine if similar way of "trainning" would be applied to wannabe doctors?:confused:

flyhelico

15th Apr 2010, 12:37

I say I work for them because my payslip that arrived yesterday says I will get £3225 in my bank account tomorrow from CTC(ARL), and because my logbook has passed 1000 hours.wow, impressive, do you sleep with your logbook too?...you must rock your wings after each take off since you have passed the bar of 1000h...congrat to you.1000h in the bus worths no much since anyone can pay 500h on type ...it 's mainly 1000h of autopilot! anyway can you fly the bus without flight director, A/P and A/T off at least?

if you are lucky you will make 1500h, then bye bye amigo.

in 1 year minimum requirement will be 2000-3000 hours to warm a seat!
I believe the 0 to ATP captain scheme is on his way!

you don't work for CTC, you are a customer for CTC!!!.
who pay your holydays? you are a contractor, not an employee. Don't say to us you work for easyjet. you are not a easyjet employee, not a CTC neither.

you are a customer, a cheap LUCKY customer...just profit with your hours and your little cheques and keep your smile on your face, because in a few months they will replace you with lower pay.

don't forget to pay your tax...

mirkorak

15th Apr 2010, 14:53

Here is an idea.
On each airport put an information to passengers who is doing flight and that they need to pay less for a ticket or not to use that company.

mirkorak

15th Apr 2010, 14:55

Here is an idea.
On each airport put an information to passengers who is doing flight and that they need to pay less for a ticket or not to use that company.
Maybe BALPA can do something about it.

Bruce Wayne

15th Apr 2010, 15:01

Maybe BALPA can do something about it.

Don't hold your breath for that.

Global Warrior

15th Apr 2010, 15:06

Maybe BALPA can do something about it.
Don't hold your breath for that.

They might if you send them this........ and get everyone you know to do the same....... and yes i am the author from pap2f.com

The Chairman
BALPA
278 Bath Road
West Drayton
UB7 0DQ

Dear Sir,

INEXPERIENCED PILOTS PAYING TO FLY AIRLINERS

I’m writing to you because, as a member of the travelling public, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the “profits before safety” culture of the airline industry in this country, which is populated by your membership. Recently, several UK airlines have made many experienced Pilots redundant, yet you have stood back and done nothing about the airlines that are allowing 250 hour Pilots, who have paid to be there, occupy the Right Hand Seat of a commercial airliner during commercial operations; a result of what’s referred to by the industry as Pay to Fly Schemes. There have already been 2 incidents in which UK carriers, who have opted to use Pay to Fly candidates, have sustained damaged aircraft as a result, namely the A321 tail scrape at Faro and the A320 very heavy landing incident at Kos. These schemes should have been halted then and BALPA should have been leading the way. This is clearly an accident waiting to happen.

You are treating the travelling public with contempt by allowing us to be subjected to an erosion of safety culture in the airlines concerned. You are also showing similar contempt to your members that,

A)remain unemployed because you have taken no steps to stop the menace of these schemes, thereby directly contributing to experienced Pilots being out of work, which in turn has allowed the airlines concerned to populate their flight decks with inexperienced “pay to fly trainees”

B)are having their terms and conditions eroded as a result of such practices, which reduces morale. Hardly a great combination for crew compliment, demoralised Captain flying with an inexperienced “pay to fly trainee”

In an obvious attempt to eradicate the safety implications of this very shortsighted policy, due to an accident in the USA in which 50 people were KILLED, the US Senate has stepped in and has raised the bar with regards to the experience levels of Pilots allowed in the Flight Deck of an air carrier. Yet BALPA sits on the side lines, in what is a very obvious snub to its membership, and allows 250 Hour Pilots, who are probably NOT BALPA members, to buy their way into the flight deck, obtain 150 or so hours of “training” and then be dumped in the unemployed queue, with massive personal debt, where they become a “cadet” waiting to whore themselves to various airlines because they themselves have been replaced by another Pay to Fly candidate.

You maybe presiding over one of the biggest erosions of safety culture and employee terms and conditions the aviation Industry has ever known and yet you do nothing. Promoting the concept of, the less experience you have the more likely you are to find a job............. as long as you can pay for it, may be BALPA’s legacy.

I quote from one of your very own news letters, posted on a public forum regarding “pay to fly trainees” where the author even has the temerity to use the word risk but apparently the Union sits there, completely moribund with regards to any action;

“The concern is the financial situation many cadets are in may result in high levels of stress, which could affect their performance………………….. any impairment in their performance puts our passengers and ourselves at increased risk”

Performance is already impaired because there are 5,000 hour pilots sitting on the dole and 250 hour pilots sitting in the Flight Deck. I know of no other industry where this would be countenanced. How far will this go? Will inexperienced Pilots replace experienced Captains? What further reductions in safety will fare-paying passengers be subjected to?

Mr Chairman, I would say in light of the above, you should be working on behalf of the travelling public to mitigate ANY risk we face. By so doing, you will make flying on the airlines that bit safer; you will prevent the degradation of your members Terms and Conditions and you will prevent your future members from incurring up to £80,000 of personal debt with no way of paying it off.

Sincerely

A Concerned Member of the Travelling Public

EpsilonVaz

15th Apr 2010, 16:43

flyhelico, I'm unsure if you're trying to troll me or you genuinely have some misgivings about the CTC Flexicrew contract. I shall give you the benifit of the doubt of course.

My comment about flying hours was in response to my "puny 500 hours" which you stated will not allow me to find a job elsewhere. I was just stating that you do not fully have knowladge of my situation.

With regards to my flying ability, the details are between me and the Captains/Training Captains at my airline, of which Norman Stanley Fletcher is one. I have recently passed my recurrent LPC/OPC/LOE, take from that what you will, but no doubt you will find a way to turn what I just said into an attack.

It seems you have misunderstood, approx £5 per flying hour is accrued as holiday pay and is paid when on leave. I am an employee of CTC(ARL), I am not self employed. Same goes for all CTC Flexicrew.

I'm not going to get dragged into a childish argument, if anyone has any serious questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Pilot Positive

15th Apr 2010, 18:53

Global Warrior,

Very good letter and perhaps I can I suggest a slight amendment/addition?

Safety should never be a reactive measure, it should be anticipative and pro-active in nature. Balpa appear not to be the latter and therefore they are working neither in the interest of their paying members or in the public interest generally.

"But there's no problem with safety" Balpa cry! But thats the whole point...why do we need to wait for an accident to happen to prove the inherent erosion of safety? Isnt it a responsibility of the industry to safeguard safety in the first place?

Global Warrior

16th Apr 2010, 09:13

This volcanic ash must be great for potential P2F people. The loss of revenue the airlines have been subjected to means that they are going to be looking to cut costs again so P2F must be about to really kick off!!!!! J CRUD, get that order in for your new R-8

Microburst2002

16th Apr 2010, 14:08

If the airlines can sustain the lossess due to the ashes it means that a limited european pilot industrial action should not be out of the question.

It looks as if we were the weak part of this conflict, but in fact we are so much stronger than the airline managers, the industry and the policitians together.

If only we had the balls one day everybody would learn that, and things would improve promptly. But seemingly we prefer the role of defenseless wifes abused by their husbands. Inlcuding some Stockholm syndrome.

pilot999

17th Apr 2010, 17:58

their are some miserable Wa#kers on here. what do you think the money you give your wife /girlfriend each month is for . P2F :E {dont think flying}

Norman Stanley Fletcher

18th Apr 2010, 01:16

I have repeatedly stated that I am anti p2f schemes. The problem is that people like Global Warrior have simply not got their facts straight. I have no problems with people criticising easyJet. The difficulty is that the 'facts', as they are presented, are not really true. Yes, it is true that easyJet have taken some 250 hour pilots before the 5000hr+ pilots out there on the dole. They have done that since their first day of operation through CTC. That is nothing new. Incidentally so have British Airways since their first day of operation too. They have always taken a mix of experience and new blood - nothing has changed.

It is really important that people understand the true situation at easyJet rather than some obsessional rant from someone who has no idea. It is true we have taken new pilots on temporary contracts and paid them a pittance. The p2f schemes Global Warrior wrote about in his letter are yesterday's news - they do not exist any longer. What we have now is a pay for you own type-rating scheme. You may not like that, and nor do I, but that is not p2f in the form being claimed. The next thing to clarify is that easyJet are currently taking on very experienced pilots as temporary FOs through Parc - many of these have a lot of hours and are ex-BMI. Finally it is being suggested that the basic work practice at easyJet is to take on low-houred pilots, sack them just as they unfreeze their ATPLs and then replace them with more low-houred pilots. That is again not true. It is true we are in our third year of offering temporary contracts to CTC FOs and also to pay for type-rating people from Oxford. What is also true, however, is that the first permanent contracts in 3 years are being offered out (about 40 in all I am told) to the first FOs to go on this contract system. The final Ts&Cs have not been issued, but they will not be good - I think the contract starts in November from what I recall. The permanent jobs are being handed out in 'seniority' order - exactly as should be the case. It is not perfect, but is a huge step forward from where we were.

The essence of Global Warrior's letter is that 250 hour pilots are intrinsically unsafe. Were that the case then the same criticism would apply to BA and numerous other companies over the last 30 years as they all employ cadets. His upset is that somehow 5000 hour pilots have more right to a job than 250 hour ones - that is simply not a credible view, even though it has been the effective practice of airlines for many years.

I am not wanting to back easyJet here, as I am profoundly unhappy with what has occurred. However, if you are going to whine about what easyJet has done, at least get the facts straight first.

Global Warrior

18th Apr 2010, 10:18

NSF

You are the only one banging on about Easyjet. My letter does not mention Easyjet and neither do my most recent posts. And i am the first to admit that this is much much wider than your beloved Easyjet............ the company about which, according to your posts, you have much to dislike.

NSF SAID
The p2f schemes Global Warrior wrote about in his letter are yesterday's news - they do not exist any longer

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

How can you make a statement like that when there is an advert at the top of this page advertising exactly that!!!!!! Is it not time YOU changed your attitude and accept that actually, they do exist?

This thread in entitled P2F Cancer of Aviation. There have been references to your employer for sure, but do us all a favour and get over it. You actually have proven on this thread that you are part of another cancer that prevails in the industry and that is........"now it affects me lets all go out on strike" strike for me me me. SAVE ME...... sadly thats industry wide..... before you accuse me of insinuating its only prevalent at your employer.

My letter was not written to just get BALPA in on the act of P2F schemes that do, whether you want to admit it, exist but also accommodate the spineless that whinge about their terms and conditions but do nothing about it......... It could even help you.

Finally there is a HUGE HUGE difference between the P2F schemes, P4T schemes and cadets that have been sponsored from day 1 of their training to final type rating. WHY........ because as has been stated on this thread..... these guys are taken under the wing from day 1 and if they dont make any grade, they can be and frequently are......... chopped.

CTC and the other schemes candidates have come through a system when ability to pay EITHER for the type OR as previously, the type and the time, is the no.1 factor in recruiting them. Your colleague and your company are driven by money not by skills of the individual.

Cadets at BA and others are recruited because they are regarded as being the best of those available based on tests, interviews and performance in many areas. They are then indoctrinated in the ways and workings of an airline. They get jet transition courses. They get many sectors on the jump seat and they get a salary and benefits from day 1. They are monitored and assessed at every stage from interview, through initial training, to final line check So as far as the industry goes, they are far more experienced by the time they get to the RHS and they will be company people being as the company invested in them, paid for their training and have controlled their training and industry experiences from day 1.

TheOtherGuy

18th Apr 2010, 10:36

Is this about safety or really about protectionism? Every pilot at one point has only 250 hours otherwise how do they get their hours up? Why is an individual safer when someone else pays for the training than when they pay for it themselves? I don't understand. Is there a difference in the training quality or the training captain standard? If it is about protecting terms and conditions, be honest and say so, don't hide behind safety because all that does is make people immune to cries about safety and real safety issues get ignored. Someone help me understand, please.

flyhelico

19th Apr 2010, 09:04

Finally it is being suggested that the basic work practice at easyJet is to take on low-houred pilots, sack them just as they unfreeze their ATPLs and then replace them with more low-houred pilots. That is again not true.

if it 's not true, how do you think they cut costs?

you buy planes to create jobs?

easyjet employ pilot as long they have planes coming and need these guys to fill these seats.
in less one year, pilots will reach the 1500h mark, then we can already guess the future considering there is a waiting line of rich pilots ready for their 6 months ride!:yuk:.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

19th Apr 2010, 12:59

Global Warrior - The reason I am 'banging on' about easyJet is that this is the airline I can speak about with some accuracy. It is also one of the airlines you specifically have had an issue with regarding p2f. They once embraced p2f schemes but do so no longer. I believe the same is true for Thomas Cook but that is not so now. You refer to incidents that are yesterday's news. The legendary Jonathan Curd undoubtedly used BMI for these schemes and to that extent you are right. In the past he took on people who would never in a million years have been given a flying job and 'trained' them. That is no longer the case. It is also not correct that there is no way of chopping these guys - there is and it happens, just like it does to CTC cadets. Any researcher at BALPA will go away and research your claims with the airlines. They will then rightly be told that your concerns are no longer valid in most cases as the schemes you are so against no longer exist in the form you describe. You are right to be anti-p2f - so am I. The problem with this whole thread is that there are people out there still not seeing that the p2f schemes have evolved quite substantially. I am actually quite sympathetic to your concerns - I am, however, more concerned that the representations made to government and enforcing bodies are accurate and factual. The views of many on this forum are not, and it helps to be correctly informed before writing to key people.

angelorange

19th Apr 2010, 17:01

All these schemes have risks. How much risk depends upon quality of selection, who carries the financial weight of the training burden, how the trainee is looked after during and after line training, etc. Other concerns include Fatigue and low pay (Colgan).

Yes a low houred pilot can land a A320 and every time he/she does so, that experience is stored and applied to the next event. However, is that really the most appropriate place for a 250h (SEP) student to be?

How long is Line training (30 sectors or 6 months/500h as some P2F adverts claim)?

A low houred BA cadet (full sponsorship and payback £25k over 5 years) is a very different kettle of fish to todays £120k in debt CTC counterpart. The former were supported every step of the way, the latter were promised much and given the minimum by the likes of EZY.

Military pilots may start young but the hurdles are far harder than the Civilian FTOs - to get to a Harrier takes YEARS of training in a wide variety of A/C and Sims.

Most of the A320/A321 incidents cited resulted from overcontrolling the aeroplane near the ground. Modern computer games to which youngsters are accustomed and indeed some Approved Simulators do not always provide the best "training" for FBW or conventional Aircraft Control.

The Turkish 737 accident at Schipol last year shows the increased risks that otherwise manageable system failures have on crews overseeing low houred pilots:

"The first officer in the right seat, Olgay Ozgur, was in training.

A third pilot in the jump seat behind them, Murat Sezer, was there to monitor the pilot in training. His presence on the flight deck indicates that the first officer had less than 25 hours' experience in flying this size of jet, according to a pilot who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Trainee at controls?

The Web site of trade magazine Flight International, citing an unnamed source, reports the trainee was at the controls and that as the airplane lost height, the captain was talking him through the landing checklist. "

Pilot Positive

21st Apr 2010, 13:23

If it is about protecting terms and conditions, be honest and say so, don't hide behind safety because all that does is make people immune to cries about safety and real safety issues get ignored. Someone help me understand, please

Perhaps I can offer an attempt at being objective and a bigger picture perspective? For me, its about the overall general direction of the industry that is concerning. The 2 changing factors being safety and T&Cs.

The safety issue is and should be the top concern from a broader industry perspective. Encouragingly, NSF has outlined steps to support P2F within his company, perhaps not to the level others have done currently or historically, but it has moved in a positive direction to ensure safety is a core element addressed. The P2F issue for safety is that it is a dangerouns precedent to set....not all companies are as experienced or as well resourced to follow NSF's example and some operators will use this to justify P2F within their own cultures. See Varisty Express as an example.

Terms & Conditions are important and do need to be addressed. There was, is and always will be a conflict between employer and employee interests and when interests fundamentally go against the employee then one would hope that either economics or a union/3rd party will help to redress the balance. However, there is a recession on in the UK and operators will do what they can to ensure commercial survival...which may be the inclusion of P2F within their culture. The impact of that on T&Cs for the rest of us has been seen throughout this thread.

I appreciate and undertand the need for companies to make money and as pilots we attempt to support that in whatever capacity we can whilst executing our duties. However there is a need for balance. The need for the company to make money whilst adequately rewarding those for work done and without an insidous change to its top priority i.e. safety. Its a very difficult balance to strike at this time and P2F offers the industry a solution to the problem of making money but potentially affects the issue of safety in the longer term.

Global Warrior

21st Apr 2010, 14:14

If it is about protecting terms and conditions, be honest and say so, don't hide behind safety because all that does is make people immune to cries about safety and real safety issues get ignored. Someone help me understand, please.

PP has given you a great reply.

The following 2 statements on their own demonstrate the point i hope;

A) Its possible to affect safety without eroding T's & C's

B) Its possible to erode T's & C's without affecting safety

HOWEVER throw in a healthy dose of cash saving and

Safety will almost always be affected when T's & C's are eroded for financial reasons.

GW

Norman Stanley Fletcher

22nd Apr 2010, 00:36

angelorange - You said A low houred BA cadet (full sponsorship and payback £25k over 5 years) is a very different kettle of fish to todays £120k in debt CTC counterpart. The former were supported every step of the way, the latter were promised much and given the minimum by the likes of EZY.

I have to disagree with your analysis of the differences between the BA & CTC cadet. First of all, a significant number of BA cadets were never 'full sponsorship' - they were picked up at the end of their self-funded training at Jerez, Prestwick, Oxford or wherever was in vogue at the time. Those that were 'full sponsorship' were exactly the same sort of people who won their way onto CTC schemes. Indeed in better times they would have been on those courses at BA rather than CTC, but such options were not available to them when they started training. So even if a few, but by no means all, were 'supported all the way', I do not see how that makes the final product a 'very different kettle of fish'. They were low-houred pilots being given access to big money jets at a very young age. They were by definition 'high risk' and BA are no different from easyJet in accepting that risk. Once again, I need to emphasise that the reason I am questioning this line of argument is that to protest against p2f as it has been called, the argument must be cogent and clear. The awful truth is that there are great similarities between the 2 companies - what is not similar is the transfer of the burden of risk to the aspiring pilot rather than the company.

Dan Winterland

22nd Apr 2010, 03:51

Norman, once again you have hit the nail firmly on the head. In this litigation and blame obsessed world, it's all about risk. And balancing risk against money is a trick that the airlines are constantly trying to refine. What has changed with P2F schemes is that the airlines have now found that they can make money out of these pilots - so the risk has been willingly increased in the intrests of more profit.

The flying world is full of risk assessments in various guises and risk can be viewed either objectively or subjectively. Objective assesments will look at training standards and statistics, but there is always a huge amount of subjectivity as well. For example, a 21 year old RAF pilot newly qualified on a Typhoon racking round a 4g turn in a Welsh valley at 250' and 420 knots is taking a risk. His boss and authorising officer will be happy that he can do the job, so thier assessment the risk has been minimised in what is perceived to be a dangerous job. But the pilot's mother, standing at the bottom of the valley and watching her son scream overhead will have a very different view.

Another example is a 35 year old 350 hour pilot who had flown only ten hours a year for four years on light singles before starting a jet airliner trype rating. He has problems passing the assessment, so is re-tested on a different type. Throughout his training, there are repeated questions and comments about his ability to land the aircraft. Eventually, on a Non Precision Approach to a difficult airport, he dosen't flare, the instructor doesn't take over soon enough and the aircraft is badly damaged. The risk is subsequently assessed in retrospect by the accident investigating authority who highlight the shortcomings of his training and the system he was being trained in. This was the objective risk assessment here, albeit too late to have an impact and seemingly ignored. But how would you feel if you were one of the 180 passengers paying for that flight to your yearly holiday in the sun. All you knew is that the landing was very hard. But would you have been happy getting on the aircraft at Gatwick had you known that the handling pilot wasn't a company employee, was inexperienced, had a documented history of training problems, and was training in a system which was failing to address them.

Of course this last example, the Thomas Cook accident at Kos in 2007 actually happened and the series of events a classic example of a buildup of factors which eventually lead to an accident. I'm lucky. I work for a company which either trains their own cadets or takes pilots with a minimum of 3000 hours includng 1000 on jets. And the cadets are aptitude assessed, given the best training and have about three times the minimum sim time and training before being released to line. The stay current, are well paid well and motivated. And they are very safe. The situation in Europe with the P2F schemes and their subsequent terms and conditions staggers me. The risk assessment seems to have been almost completely ignored in the chase for more profit.

The Americans have had their wake-up with the Coglan incident in Buffalo and have changed their experience and training requirements to try to prevent another such incident. I think the change will eventually happen in Europe as well. I just hope it will occur as a result of common sense rather than people being killed, but I doubt it.

flyhelico

22nd Apr 2010, 04:01

it sounds like our government agencies agree with these P2F scheme and they don't give a toss...and I believe it' s not only in this sector that professionals now pay to work.

Tell me why do they complain about unemployment rates going up?
why do they complain about not having enough money to pay retirement programs?
why do they complain about health care costing so much ?

etc.

we are going to have a civil war soon!

it 's always the same, it' s safe before an accident then it' s prohibited.
(like the flight of colganair...)

P2F is prohibited with US airlines.

I am just waiting for the next accident over London, which will kill hundred of innocent people...would be too funny if a plane fall on the CAA house!:E
after they will say they have not be warned about the risk of these P2F schemes.

as a passenger, I am scandalized ...

Pilot Positive

22nd Apr 2010, 09:41

I am just waiting for the next accident over London, which will kill hundred of innocent people...would be too funny if a plane fall on the CAA house!

Whilst we are debating the credibiltiy of P2F in our safety culture and the erosion it might cause long term, safety is no laughing matter...therefore I find this remark extremely flippant.

superced

22nd Apr 2010, 09:55

interdiction de vente d'heures de vol aux pilotes de ligne. Petition (http://www.PetitionOnline.com/paytofly/petition.html)

Pilot Positive

22nd Apr 2010, 10:09

C'est bien! But was there a version in English for the rest of us...? :)

Doug the Head

22nd Apr 2010, 10:13

Ah, that's typically Norman: trowing more sand into the engine by endlessly debating the exact definitions of P2F vs P4T or BA vs CTC cadets etc.

Norman, as I've pointed out many times, your problem is that you don't look ahead and you don't see the big picture. Facts are now, but in order to try to look into the future you need to look beyond the facts. Although of course it's nice to have one's facts straight, Global Warrior also trusts his/her emotions that this whole deal stinks and that something needs to be done about this issue. Why don't you help him instead of dragging the debate into eternity about the exact definitions about this and that?

Many airlines (incl. your beloved orange outfit) have tested the water and are working hard on replacing a big part of their regular unionized (!) workforce by low time contractors through various deals. In case you haven't figured it out yet, yes Norman, that also eventually includes replacing or undermining YOU: the senior training captain! Weren't you ready for industrial action a few weeks ago? :rolleyes:

Just look at the recent ash cloud problems. Wouldn't it be any manager's wet dream if they wouldn't have to pay their contract (!) crews when the aircraft are parked due to a geological event? Couldn't that same advantage perhaps also be used during industrial action from the few remaining pilots who are not working for a contract agency? No more need for scabs/strikebreakers: airlines have their own scabs working for them through contract agencies. Or perhaps looking at the "low cost" benefit over the more established airlines and thus dragging down T&C's even further? "Low-cost" sounds nice when they offer you a job, but you realize that it eventually comes out of your pocket, don't you?

Again Norman, the writing is on the wall, the thin edge of the wedge in place and the dark (ash? ;)) cloud is clearly visible on the horizon, so you need to step on board in this all out effort to stop low time pilots from undermining T&C's, instead of moaning about details!

At the risk of repeating myself: the key issue is low timers undermining T&C's through various 'schemes' and this needs to be nipped in the bud a.s.a.p.! I recon all we need is a few more ash-clouds or another dip in the economy before we see the final push to get rid of the T&C's as we once knew them. :ugh:

The key solution IMHO is to have one contract for one job, with perhaps the only exception in having different contracts for different countries in order to keep a level playing field when competing with locally based airlines. Writing MP's is a useless waste of time IMHO, these folks are just too busy helping their friends in The City or thinking of new ways to increase taxes and extending their political clout. Furthermore, I agree with Studi that it's completely beyond me how any self respecting union can allow different employees to work under different contracts in the same company. By only being able to offer one contract per base, the leverage will also stop whilst still providing job opportunities to low time pilots in a safe and responsible way. Once again, BALPA has been firmly asleep at the switch (incompetence? kickbacks? both?) and needs to way up rather soonish... :zzz:

p.s. I see that you have very conveniently ignored Studi's excellent post! Bravo!
p.p.s. About being factually correct: sure, it's a noble effort, but again Norman, do you really think that airlines are always 100% factually correct when the scream doom and gloom when new regulation is introduced which affects their profit margins? Sadly, one needs to exaggerate to make one's voice heard in the media, or if you want to end up somewhere in the middle. Or do you always pay the asking price when you buy a different car or house? :ouch:

Global Warrior

22nd Apr 2010, 11:27

Hi Again

NSF and i have been having a ding dong here because of a few things but the most significant with regards to this thread is, i believe,

A) My use of the term P2F and

B) The (lack of) Safety culture associated with these schemes.

We do, however agree on the fact that we dont like them.

As well as the Kos and Faro incidents, there has been a Tail scrape of an Irish A321 at LHR and the 737 crash at AMS had a low houred pilot at the controls, albeit with a safety pilot on the jump seat.

Does this show a trend? In April 2010, it might not......... but if there is a more serious incident / accident, the great unwashed will be asking why this happened and to answer that with....... there were no clues is just pure negligence.

Companies........Ezy being one of them, in the past have had stricly P2F people in their cockpits......... the schemes have evolved, they have developed and they are no longer P2F schemes at Ezy (NSF:ok:) but my belief is that they do erode safety and whatever way they have evolved, they are still being advertied at the top of this page in a strict P2F form and i believe that in any guise, they are less safe than having a full time employee on the same T's and C's as his colleagues.

Removing my argument about safety, briefly, the P2F scheme brought with it an insidious change of T's & C's. Was it a trend back then....... probably not. Is it a trend now........ MOST DEFIANTLY and because it was not nipped in the bud back then, it has now grown to the extent that not only Contract Captains, but Contract Trainers also are being recruited by Ezy (NSF i think thats what you mentioned a few posts back).

Sooner or later there will be enough contract people available that those concerned about erosion of T's & C's in any airline, will have NO CHOICE but to accept it because there will be enough contract people available to fill the posts when and if there is a strike. Leave it too long, and you are well and truly F****d.......... It happened in Australia (not as a result of P2F i might add)

As was just shown with the BA CC strike...... running at 50%+ capacity is hardly a massive victory for those that choose to act but leave it too late!

angelorange

22nd Apr 2010, 22:58

NSF said "Those that were 'full sponsorship' were exactly the same sort of people who won their way onto CTC schemes."

Wouldn't all businesses love their paying "customers" to believe that they have won something!

Yes of course self sponsored cadets have joined all sorts of airlines and been trained by former BA TRI/TREs but the low houred pilot schemes set up by Airlines such as Britannia, BM, Lufthansa and BA themselves were a far cry from those marketed by certain schools.

The whole point of this thread is the cost burden being put upon youngsters (bank of mum and dad, loans etc) by P2F and other zero to hero schools claiming you too can be the same as that Flag carrier shiny jet pilot in their advertising. And having the gall to say that they are the best in the business when their own type rating exams have come under CAA scrutiny.

Knowing cadets who trained with CTC and others who did BA's own system, it is very clear the latter offered far greater job security. Even the later BA "part sponsored" routes did not demand payment for type ratings or Line Training up front. BA decided who they wanted and it was not based upon the ability to PAY huge sums up front.

I am not against low houred pilots I am against get rich quick schemes that leave them hung and dry in debt and bored of a to b auto pilot flying by the time they are 30.

767200ER

23rd Apr 2010, 00:44

So are you basically saying that the difference between an individual being a safe, competent pilot or being a safety risk, is determined by whether the individual covers the cost of being in the RHS, or the airline does?

Microburst2002

23rd Apr 2010, 11:00

If I recall correctly, any activity for which a company of any kind is getting revenue, must be specified. For instance, a shoe making company cannot just start selling hollidays in Cancun without first calling the lawyers to include that activity in the list.

I think that training for money is an activity that is not included in most airlines. And I think it could be just forbidden for any airline to do such activity, and considered incompatible.

If a pilot seats in the right seat of an airline airplane, to have training, then he or she must be a pilot hired to do a job, and paid as such, as any other pilot in the airline. Bonded, if you like, but getting paid. The training costs must be on the airline.
Of course, the airline could hire only type rated low houred pilots who got their TR in an associated TRTO (this is another story that should be banned, too). But the line training cannot (should not) be sold as a product. It can only be a cost.

767200ERThere is an inherent incompatibility between selection (of the best workers) and PTW (pay to work).
Two of the best captains I have ever flown with came from cadet programs (in major european airlines). They started flying boeings with only 200 hours in piston engines. They are very talented, have very good academic background, and are very skilfull, intelligent men. They had a very good training, and they are the kind of captains that any airline would like to have, those who have a good "pilot judgement", extremely safe and efficient. Any copilot flying with them becomes a better pilot, and is a part of a great crew.
They were selected among many candidates. They were the best raw materials their airlines could find to make good pilots.

Now, how can you compare that with the guy who just has the money, and the airline that justs wants to take that money?

If an airline wants to hire 3 pilots of whatever airplane, they would receive5,000 CVs. They can make selection and then make them pay for the TR in one way or another. There is really no need to make pilots pay for line training, too and then dump them to make room for the next pilot. This is clearly making money at the expense of safety. They can have the best pilots for very little cost! But they are soooooooo greedy! this situation is out of balance.

Pilot Positive

23rd Apr 2010, 11:14

I think that training for money is an activity that is not included in most airlines. And I think it could be just forbidden for any airline to do such activity, and considered incompatible.

Isnt training core to their operations making it perfectly justifiable for airlines to use it as a profit centre?

767200ER

23rd Apr 2010, 12:43

What if the person paying to fly is also an extremely talented and competent pilot? They way this sounds is if you pay, you're automatically not as good as someone who can't pay and you are a bad person because you are stopping them getting a chance to fly?

Are you then saying ALL p2f guys are bad pilots and the thorn in the side is that all the competent safe pilots can't afford to p2f and so every airline flying with p2f cadets is risking its safety?

I do agree that it leads to a shift in the way selection goes in the sense that it excludes those who can't afford it, but if you can't fly, you won't pass your type rating, and if you're THAT bad you probably would never have passed your IR, it is after all the hardest civilian flight test in the world, at least the UK one is anyway.

There is a great danger of blanketing an issue here, there is good and bad with every scheme. But no scheme is ALL bad, if it were, then every single time a p2f guy took off in an aeroplane there would be an accident/incident. However this isn't the case. And accidents in aviation come down normally as a chain of errors, it is unfair to say, the reason that airbus had a tailstrike is because the first officer paid to fly it.

A fully sponsored cadet could still make the same mistake.
It is unreasonable and unprofessional to pin the blame on one sole factor.

What about when airlines stopped sponsoring pilots and people had to pay for their ab initio training i.e PPL to CPL+IR + MCC, are you telling me that all those that could afford to pay took the chances away from those that couldn't?
Yes it meant that some potentially brilliant pilots couldn't ever realise their dream because of the financial barriers, and those that had the means would be able to succeed. That became a selection in itself.
But Aspiring pilots didn't kick up a stink and b*tch and moan about it and boycott flight training until the full sponsorship programmes were re-instated.
The fact that you had to pay for your training also did not mean that Safety in aviation was compromised because everyone was now p2f.

You can train people to be safe pilots, regardless of how they end up in the flight deck. It's a state of mind.

wobble2plank

23rd Apr 2010, 13:44

I think what is very important to remember during the, oft, heated debate that surrounds P2F is that, irrespective of the competency of the applicant, the precedent being set by those Airlines who wish to pursue this revenue stream is dangerous.

Not in any sense of flying dangerous but in the sense that train and bus drivers get tuition from the company on their equipment why should pilots have to pay to get the same training on an aircraft.

P2F never used to happen whilst airlines selected cadets based upon a broad spectrum of requirements as the training was considered to be a part of the overall package. Those requirements ranged from the ability to pass the flying training to holding the correct temperament for the job and everything in between. Rising fuel prices, increasing airport fees, unjust taxation, plummeting fares and the general state of the economy after 13 years of New Labour mis-management have put a big change to all of that.

It would be unjust to imply that ALL pilots who utilise P2F are unsuited to the airline role. Some are, some aren't, the problem comes that the filtering system being used is the ability to pay for the course. In a world bombarded with statistics one could say that the proportion of 'adequate to inadequate' pilots just got bigger based upon the selection criteria.

Worse still we have accountants who are looking at trainee pilots as a revenue stream, those pilots have little or no loyalty to the company they are paying to fly with and they are well aware that their tenure extends only to the end of their paid hours. The loading on the training Captains and the training department is huge. Airlines were never meant to be FTO's.

The only thing that can stop this horrendous 'slavery' by the airlines is a concerted effort from the authorities. The CAA needs to address the habit of RHS rotation for profit. The AOC was never meant to cover such things, perhaps they should all be re-written to include a clause which allows training for the purposes of company specific pilot retention only.

Wannabees will never stop paying to get that one step ahead of the competition, it's human nature and, lets be honest, who can blame them if they have the capital.

Lets attack the rot where it started, those companies who are exploiting these pilots for profit before casting them aside for the next one.

Good luck!

Doug the Head

23rd Apr 2010, 15:14

Contract agencies is where, IMHO, the real money will be made in the future of aviation. (and with real money being made, I mean that the people running the agency will be raking it in, not the pilots)

Before people start saying "but Doug, employing contractors is way too expensive for low-cost airlines," think again.

At the present rates, contractors offer an expensive form of flexibility, a luxury so to speak. However, with the advent of all sorts of pay to fly/pay for type rating/what-have-ya schemes, the market is already being flooded with rated and experienced pilots, especially A320 and B737 pilots, which will significantly lower rates.

It's my guess that in the near future, the total costs for a low-cost airline to employ a contractor will be very similar to the cost of employing this pilot on a regular contract because of this oversupply of pilots.

Benefits for these low-cost (!) airlines are obvious;

1) no more headaches/problems with unions
2) flexibility: no work/ash-clouds/recessions = no fixed costs for the airlines
3) outsourcing the HR department to contract agencies
4) allowing strict quality control with no financial risks to either the airlines or the contract agency. After a rigorous selection, the pilot pays for the training and should he/she under-perform during line training, the airlines get a free refund/substitute from the contract agency

Advantages for pilots: NONE whatsoever!

You'll be responsible for medicals, sim checks, medical coverage, loss of license insurance etc etc and when a bigger ash-cloud hits Europe it's up to you to figure out where you're going to get the money from in order to pay your next mortgage. That is, if you can still afford a mortgage from the measly and uncertain income you receive from the contract agencies...

With the exception of a higher salary, you'll have the same working conditions than that of a person employed by a temping agency who works on an assembly line or cleans toilets.

wobble2plank

23rd Apr 2010, 15:40

Rich, obstinate or just plain stupid P2F pilots who are sitting on the borderline of passing tests be they CPL, IR or LPC/OPC on a P2F course are an FTO's dream and don't let them tell you anything different. The FTO's will tell you about rigorous checks, non passing of incompatible pilots etc. But, in truth, they will keep taking the money or the pilot will just troll from one to the other. The FTO's do not share training data with anyone!

Sure many pilots going through the system are perfectly competent. They are also seen by the target industry as having sold their soul and thus are ripe for the culling as 'Doug the Head' has so eloquently described above.

FTO's who promise the world and then keep an average/ below average pilot trolling through a variety of type ratings (eg. The one who failed the 737 so got thrown onto the 'Bus) are just milking that character for cash.

When I did my multi/IR there was a chap from the Channel Islands who was on about his 7th or 8th attempt. He just kept throwing money at the problem. Eventually he passed. Good pilot? I honestly don't know but he certainly kept plugging away until either he passed or the money ran out. In a Cadet world or the world where the airline pays for the training he would have been out on his ear.

P2F is seen as an advantage by those who have invested in it but as a cancer by those who work in the industry today.

Regulation must be sought before it destroys the rather fragile terms and conditions we have at the moment.

Dan Winterland

23rd Apr 2010, 15:54

And the point constantly being made is that having the cash to bypass the previously well established safety net is not conducive to good flight safety. I hate to say it, but the industry has within it the seeds of it's own destruction with this flawed policy.

767200ER

23rd Apr 2010, 17:04

WingoWango
767200ER

Maybe you are defending the position of P2F and P4T as you have just spent 28K on a loan for a type rating? I appreciate your back may be to the wall and you have every right to do what you like. But in my honest opinion the whole pay for type rating, to then be a contractor was one of the reasons how the whole P2F thing started to become more and more popular. Airlines noticed they could get FO's into the right hand seat, make them pay for an interview, then offer them a job as a contractor etc etc and it started to evolve into some of the schemes you see today.

I agree that its not very correct to say all 250hr F/O's straight out of the factory are dangerous and a risk. But i certainly do think a case can be made that airlines that allow people to pay into the RHS do attract a lower caliber of newbie. Now before im jumped on, some i'm sure are very very capable and just as good as the next guy. But like i say, i trained with some of the guys/girls who did not do great in training and quite frankly lacked any desire!! They had interviews with airlines that do NOT require any payment and they failed, but they now sit in the RHS of airlines that DID require payment. Go figure

Maybe... not. The operator i have just got hired by asks that you pay for your own type rating, thats all, after that you are as secure in its present success as any other pilot you see flying the line, provided your flying is up to standard, you pass all flying tests and 6monthly checks, as it is with any other airline. My beef with this argument is where people make a direct link between p2f and safety. Its an unfounded claim, infact its just an assumption somebody made and it has snowballed into this collective chant of p2f "is bad for safety and erodes t's & c's." Also in this petition, you state most pilot flying these aeroplanes have "less than 200hours"... if you can name anyone who has ever been issued a frozen ATPL with less than 200 hours i will eat my own licence. integrated or not, even if you fly in the minimum time (which would mean you are a sh*t hot pilot anyway), by the time you add the hours you log during the type rating it is impossible to have less than 200 hours.
Another bit of wording that just screams "dramatisation" is the ending, are both incompetent and incapable of flying the aircraft in the event of incapacitation of the training pilot. I consider this a dangerous practise and ultimately an accident waiting to happen.
This practise needs to be stopped immediately.

If you go through your basic and professional training, an MCC course AND a type rating and you are still "incompetent & incapable" of flying the aircraft, you shouldn't be a pilot. In any case if you knew anything about how line training works, you would know that a safety pilot is on board, for this VERY reason.

You should find it as little surprise if this petition is bottom drawered or binned, it is presented emotionally rather than logically. Unless you're trying to scare or tug at heart strings, it will prove impotent.

There are a lot of factors that have resulted in "t's & c's" eroding in this and every other industry in the world, finance, manufacture, 9-5'ers, doctors, teachers, rocket scientists you name it,one of them being the recession... no industry is immune, or are you saying they are all facing these problems because the juniors in their field are paying to get a step up?

A bad pilot is a bad pilot, regardless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
A good pilot is a good pilot, regadless of the amount of money they have or don't have.

Just because someone paid for their type rating with operator 'X' does not mean their doing you out of pay at operator 'Y' so don't blame them for your terms and conditions.

Ryanair adopted a low cost model from southwest airlines, ryanair used to be a legacy carrier, it has had exponential growth and solid financial security since changing the way it does business. Other airlines then followed suite, to varying levels, be it charging for meals, charging for check in, charging for checked in baggage, or charging for a type rating. It may not have been done before, but this is a dynamic industry, and for you to even have a job to complain about, your management has to make decisions that keep your company competitive.
The fat man will never beat the trim athlete in a race. He may be more comfortable to hug and have an amazing personality, but he has to shed weight and get fit to remain competitive.

If you see things changing at your airline, it could be for a whole host of reasons. Don't just say "those newbie p2f guys have caused this" Aviation, as an industry is sensitive to a lot of variables, and any one or combination of them can cause a huge shift in your "t's & c's"

Wirbelsturm

23rd Apr 2010, 17:43

767200ER,

I see from another thread that you are 20. No doubt you still wear your rose tinted spectacles and are excited about landing a 'plum' job with Ryanair and can't wait to get your hands on one of those shiny new 737-800's.

Good luck, I am sure you will enjoy it.

Then cast a thought to those of us who have been in this industry for, in my case, 25 years. The shine wears off, believe me.

I have watched the conditions within my profession wither, slowly but surely. I was once in your position and I asked myself what the oldies were complaining about. Now I fully understand what it was.

Flying used to be a well paid, well respected profession. It has slowly died to the point it is today and I do not see the rot stopping. Where will it be when you have been at the controls of your 737 for 25 years? Personally I am glad I will not still be flying to see it. I have seen and flown with P2F pilots and they killed off the last company I worked for as a good, well paid company to fly for. Why? Because the company would constantly rotate the co-pilots as more of them wanted their 'jet time'. For those of us in the other seat it was both annoying and tiring.

We all need to protect our collective futures. P2F is a weapon of the Management and the accountants. When you have had the shine worn off you after years of long, hard days with the management coming at you for ever less money and bonuses you will understand. Until that point arguing against the system you chose is pointless.

beamer

23rd Apr 2010, 18:22

WW

I have to agree - the naivety is staggering !

Doug the Head

23rd Apr 2010, 18:32

One wonders how some people get through any selection...

A bad pilot is a bad pilot, regardless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
A good pilot is a good pilot, regadless of the amount of money they have or don't have....and a GREAT pilot is a good pilot willing to pay for a job. (and dumb enough not to realize how badly he's getting screwed.)

Keep on checking your emails 767300ER, airlines will soon be rolling out the red carpet for you! On the other hand, it's also a good possibility that 767300ER already has a job in management for some shady outfit, either an airline or a flight training school! I'm too lazy to do any research, I'm sure Darwin will sort this one out! ;)

767200ER

23rd Apr 2010, 18:47

Aviation is not the only industry that has seen this erosion, like i said before.
However you may say being 20 i have seen nothing of the world and whetever else you like, i am not naive, i am just a realist. I don't want to sit for 5 years cursing those who are in the very position i want to be in. Flexibility and adaptability in life will save you a lot of frustration. I have not lived a sheltered life by any stretch of the imagination, don't let my biological age formulate your oppinion and tempt you into patronising me, it would be foolhardy. I have studied a number of subjects in this industry at university level which is more than a lot of people joining an airline have be it LHS or RHS.

I will give you an example of industry shift, the bucket and spade holiday industry? the low cost airline market changed the way people booked holidays, instead of a complete package with one company, people separated: flights and accomodation to travel and stay cheaper. Hailing the end of XL airways. They didn't change to scheduled service and their market was drying up.

EOS, Silverjet, examples of two Business class only premium service airlines, the recession started, business budgets were clawed back. These airlines couldn't adapt their models, and so, sadly, went bust. Nothing to do with p2f eroding their conditions or crashing their aeroplanes.

There is a reason low cost airlines remain succesful even in the worst of times and its their low cost base, which means not forking out 28K+ for each new pilot they take on, not knowing whether they are actually capable of completing the course or not. So they forward the financial risk onto the applicant. It keeps their costs down and allows them a more secure financial position and thus the existance of the very airline is more certain.
That is what accountants are after, that is what management are after. Because at the end of the day, if the airline is out of business, so are they.
Look at Westjet, they don't ask for their FO's to pay for a type rating, because they want you to have experience on type, the end result is the same, they don't have to invest in you for training. Which means the financial risk is removed. The same is true for virgin blue, and the same is true of GOL, all LCC's all flying the 737-800.

Wingo Wango, i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.

Wirbelsturm

23rd Apr 2010, 18:59

Pilot Positive

23rd Apr 2010, 19:07

I have studied a number of subjects in this industry at university level which is more than a lot of people joining an airline have be it LHS or RHS.

Careful. You dont know how people are qualified on this forum. And I would suggest from your post that you are almost certainly not qualified to preach oppinion based economics about an industry you havent even spent 5 years in.

If you were smart you might just want to listen to the more experienced people in the industry such as Wirbelsturm who have been in it for 25 years+ and know that change can come not just from management & accountants.

Learning to formulate and write oppinion based on research is never a substitute for experience. Or didnt you learn that on your TR course? ;)

767200ER

23rd Apr 2010, 19:12

767200ER

Good try. You are making facts fit circumstance.

BA started a business class only service to New York, full service, high quality air travel, in the middle of the recession.

Have a close look at your Ryr low cost model and ask yourself, honestly, can RYR make a profit based upon what they charge for seats? The answer is no, they can't. The revenue streams that go to make up the Lo-Co business model you seem to be so proud of with your new employer has deep roots in making money on the side.

If I were looking to work for RYR I would be quite concerned about the cancellation of the Boeing order and the fact that neither aircraft manufacturer, in the middle of a deep recession, is willing to sign a 1.5 billion euro deal with RYR. The business model for that company necessitates that it expand and conquer new markets. The aircraft manufacturers won't play any more, the authorities won't play any more with regard to subsidies, the airports won't play anymore.

How bright is the future of RYR? Keep an eye out for O'Leary converting shares, then will be the time to jump!

As to:

Quote:
its their low cost base, which means not forking out 28K+ for each new pilot they take on,
That is the cost to you, the applicant, the actual cost for the simulator course (given the fact that 737 sims are two a penny) and the base training is way, way less than that. You will have a safety pilot for your first few sectors (yes, with passengers paying their E1.99 seats) then off you go for your training sectors. (Don't forget to clean the aircraft on the turn around!)

O'Leary will love you, until you stop paying of course then he will treat you with the contempt he treats everyone else.

Quote:
Wingo Wango, i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.
Sadly I have flown with co-pilots with this attitude before. I'm in debt to my eyeballs so I don't care what I have to do, I will prostitute myself to keep flying. I am glad to say that when the job is no longer worth doing because we will all be paying to fly those 6 sector days I will be sipping my beer somewhere sunny. Sad, it was a good job until this attitude played into the hands of the accountants and destroyed it.
Wirbelsturm is online now Report Post Reply

Ba's business only venture is under the umbrella of the larger airline, its not the ONLY thing they have to make money with, its just another branch, so succesful or not, it won't spell the end of the airline. That is the difference.

Ryanair's low cost model is well known as being heavily reliant on ancilliary revenue, the basis for that being, passengers pay for what they use. If you don't want a full meal, they won't add it to the price of your seat, if you don't want to check in a piece of luggage, they won't add it the cost of your seat, if you just want to sit down on the aeroplane, that will cost you E1.99, if you want more, it'll be extra. O'learys vision is to reverse the trend, and have passengers on the plane for free and charge advertisers premiums for access to the passengers. Its innovative and it turns the idea of air travel on its head. I have no qualms with the business model, its worked well for the past 20 years and passenger numbers reflect that thank you very much.

As for the airline manufacturers deal, MOL goes with an offer and walks away with it if its not accepted. Airbus have said themselves they won't deal with RYR until they offer more money, thats fine, but look at ryanairs efficiency, 200 aeroplanes 1200 routes, and as many flight cycles a day across the network over 40 something bases. EZY 200 odd aeroplanes and half the number of routes. Go figure.

Flying jobs are never going to be handed to people on a plate. But i shall now leave this pitty party of a thread and go and get on with my career.

I wish you all the best fortune in your futures :) beware the scaremongers, they just want to keep competition down :P

click

23rd Apr 2010, 19:22

Pilot Positive

23rd Apr 2010, 19:36

ooooooh. Get him. Storms out in a huff. "Dont forget your handbag mate." :ooh:

But i shall now leave this pitty party of a thread and go and get on with my career.

Why didnt you just do that in the first place if you werent happy to read the oppinions expressed on this forum? Yes, you are an accountants wet dream but you're also quite possibly a Training Captain's nightmare.

PS you can certainly tell from your post you're only 20 years old. Keep writing what you've written young man and we'll all think you're just a little bit younger than you've confessed to... :}

Finals19

23rd Apr 2010, 19:39

Look at Westjet, they don't ask for their FO's to pay for a type rating, because they want you to have experience on type, the end result is the same, they don't have to invest in you for training. Which means the financial risk is removed. The same is true for virgin blue, and the same is true of GOL, all LCC's all flying the 737-800.

767-200 - sorry mate but you are taking an example in isolation without painting the bigger picture with regards to the Canadian aviation industry. Pilot career progression in Canada is in many ways the antithesis of what its becoming in Europe. There ARE companies in Canada that will back your TR and training - admittedly many now bond (Sunwing for example) but they expect you to stay a min time before moving on. Like it USED to be here. Before that, guys start in small MEP Air Taxi ops, then onto TP's then onto the likes of Sunwing, Jazz etc. So your argument is unfortunately rather flawed. Yes WJ source experienced TR'd pilots, but good luck finding one that has "adapted to whatever situation" and paid for it.

You speak of "low cost bases" and "forwarding the financial risk on to the applicant" You can use whatever rhetoric you like, but at the end of the day it is YOU the applicant that is driving market conditions and allowing airlines like the LO CO's to achieve these low cost bases. Don't come across as being just a latent pawn on the chess board. You play a pivotal role.

I hate to say it but its an undeniable fact that you project yourself as being somewhat sanctimonious - where has all this wisdom come from for a 20yr old? Your biological age does formulate opinion - wisdom should tell you that at least.

1.6vs

23rd Apr 2010, 20:08

why not pay to fly, I cant see anything wrong with it. This is not a job its a joy ride. you are at the behest of numbsculls that have convinced poor people that they can fly. end of. sorry.

Global Warrior

23rd Apr 2010, 20:09

Errrrrr

you are only an accountants wet dream until someone comes along and offers to do your job for less, then you become the tissue he wipes his wet dreams on.

Microburst2002

23rd Apr 2010, 20:45

Dan Witerland has expressed it so perfectly and so briefly...

It should be ilegal.
Because there is no real control over who can and who cannot seat in an airliner cockpit.

I know very well what kind of totally borderline people can pass a very prestigious flight school exams, then ATPL exams, flight checks, MCC, And I have also witnessed how the same guys passed a TR with no one in the middle stopping them (schools, CAA, TRTOs... and now, airlines themselves), because they get money from them, and if they fail them, they don't get it. It is that simple. I have seen it from inside, I know what I am talking about.

If I am wrong... Can anyone tell me the rate of failure in the ATPL studies, compared to any universitary degree (easy ones, not Physics or Architects)?
Close to 0%?

Of course, there are also many talented people, too. But that does is not a merit anymore.

So we have passed from carefully selected pilots to non selected at all pilots.

This fact will have consecuences in safety.
It is already having consecuences in T&Cs, of course. That is why it has occurred, in the first place.

Wirbelsturm

23rd Apr 2010, 21:19

Ryanair's low cost model is well known as being heavily reliant on ancilliary revenue, the basis for that being, passengers pay for what they use. If you don't want a full meal, they won't add it to the price of your seat, if you don't want to check in a piece of luggage, they won't add it the cost of your seat, if you just want to sit down on the aeroplane, that will cost you E1.99, if you want more, it'll be extra. O'learys vision is to reverse the trend, and have passengers on the plane for free and charge advertisers premiums for access to the passengers. Its innovative and it turns the idea of air travel on its head. I have no qualms with the business model, its worked well for the past 20 years and passenger numbers reflect that thank you very much.

How about adding, purchase airplanes at knock down prices, sell them to an intermediate leasing company for twice what you paid for them, lease them back as tax deductable assets and sell them on when the next batch come off the production line.

Now do you see why the failure to deal with Boeing or Airbus puts a different light on the future of Ryanair?

Good luck, I'm sure you'll be a competent drone, you certainly have swallowed the corporate pill.

beamer

24th Apr 2010, 04:33

767

Couple of questions:

How much flying experience do you have ?

Have you ever undertaken any selection tests to assess your potential to be a professional pilot - ie RAF/RN/OATS etc. I ask this latter question simply because there are any number of organisations out there that will take an individuals money until the cows come home without ever telling them that they do not have the aptitude to continue with their aspirations.

Microburst's previous post summed up things pretty well. I have been flying for 35 years and for all but the first two have been paid to do so. It seems to me that the problem with career development in the UK at least, is that some, repeat some, young pilots are led to believe that a frozen ATPL gives an automatic right to the rhs of a medium size jet aircraft. Some new recruits show enormous potential which when added to experience, which cannot be brought off the shelf, evolve into very competent operators. Sadly, others would have gained much needed clarity regarding their capabilities by going down the air-taxi, freight turboprop route.

shaun ryder

24th Apr 2010, 09:26

i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.

That makes me chuckle because you are such a young fool. Reading some of this tripe that you have obviously spent to much time typing up makes me squirm. But what do I know?

I have studied a number of subjects in this industry at university level which is more than a lot of people joining an airline have be it LHS or RHS.

:D You are a little dark horse aren't you sweetheart? But I wonder if you have a trade for which to fall back on in case your 'wet' dream job flying the pikey jet doesn't materialize? Or will it be a quick march down the burger shop for you? Have you ever been out there and worked properly for a living? I suspect that you are still under the protective wing of mummy and daddy. Call it instinct.

Flexibility and adaptability in life will save you a lot of frustration.

Wise words from the boy, thanks for that.

I will give you an example of industry shift, the bucket and spade holiday industry? the low cost airline market changed the way people booked holidays, instead of a complete package with one company, people separated: flights and accomodation to travel and stay cheaper. Hailing the end of XL airways. They didn't change to scheduled service and their market was drying up.

With the strength of the euro and recent events in mind I beg to differ. Do you think someone who booked with Thomson is worried about chasing refunds for hotel bills etc after the latest event to hit our industry? Booking separate flights/hotels and transfers is just so last decade now. News from an industry insider maybe. Watch this space.

I would like to know how the lo cost model will be a able to deal with an aging fleet of aeroplanes one day soon. It just might be a case of bring your own lifejacket.

flyhelico

24th Apr 2010, 09:39

eh 767ER,

when you airline will kick you out, please contact me. I am selling special training for you.I can make you captain in less 3 months for the ridiculous sum of 130'000 euro.

tell daddy to PM me!

(captain burger , ahaha! but don't tell him)

767200ER

24th Apr 2010, 20:01

Hahaha i can't resist, for the grown, wise, experienced men and women you claim to be, you do certainly portray a childish playground argumentativeness about you.

I'll let you all wallow in your misery, you seem very comfortable in it, many of you are so wrapped up in your own minds that you probably think we're still in a recession. However, i'll stop shaking the cage, you seem a bit rattled and rather than discuss fact, you would rather make this personal.

Pathetic really :p

Bye bye kiddies!

FLYENG

24th Apr 2010, 23:55

I only browse this forum occasionally as its so desperate. The attitude of not only this individual but others entering aviation is staggering. You will reap what you sow(from a very experienced aviator and licensed engineer).

Pilot Positive

24th Apr 2010, 23:59

:D Hurray! He bit!!! Anyone want to help me reel this one in further?! I thought you said you werent going to come back in post #232 767200ER?!! :ok:

I'll let you all wallow in your misery, you seem very comfortable in it,

And what misery would that be? :confused: The only misery I'm having is with your arrogance and naivety:

many of you are so wrapped up in your own minds that you probably think we're still in a recession.

So you think we're in a boom time do you? Thanks for pointing that out to us uneducated: And there's me being all daft thinking the 0.2% UK growth in Q1, total debt equating to a silly little 60% of GDP and unemployment passing 2.5million are economic woes. Dont confuse your own circumstance with the rest of the world - its called reality.

Lets keep this on topic please....

Microburst2002

25th Apr 2010, 07:21

Wingowango

You are absolutelly right!!!

The FTOs are to blame for the actual nonsense situation.

This is where things should start changing.

Global Warrior

25th Apr 2010, 08:59

currently theres pap2f.com

im happy to amend, add or subtract but the attitude of 767ER is EXACTLY what is wrong with 250 hr "Paid for myself to be here so the world owes me a job" type people.......they are not professional, they have no experience and the arrogance to think that because they have a frozen ATPL they are some how qualified to sit in the RHS of an airliner beggars belief.

stansdead

25th Apr 2010, 09:29

I think we all sing from the same sheet here. At least us "oldies". We hate P2F. It's our aviation cancer.

However, as a point of note, a Frozen ATPL does qualify the holder to sit RHS in a passenger jet - after type training.

And there's the rub. The 2 are inextricably linked.:mad:

Global Warrior

25th Apr 2010, 11:50

Stansted

Exactly, a frozen ATPL is all thats needed to then go and get a TR, no matter who pays for it............... it seems that experience is NO longer a requirement. Thats why i started a thread in the SLF forum......... i wanted to know if SLF had any idea about experience levels but when you read the thread, the replies seem to centre on, "well if he is qualified"

As we all know, theres a HUGE difference between being qualified and being qualified with experience.

It used to be that you needed 750 hours to get a CPL in the UK. The major single reason the requirement was dropped was because instructing without a CPL went against the grain of what a CPL was all about. The CAA brought their requirements in line with ICAO but im sure they just did not see the avenues they were going open up for people to buy ratings and time in a Commercial Airliner. The CAA, i suspect, relied on the airlines to police their own requirements as far as experience goes but it opened the door to P2F....... those cheapo airlines that are prepared to compromise safety for the sake of a buck by allowing someone to pay to sit in the RHS.

And we have seen someone here demonstrate that he probably does not even have the maturity to hold a driving licence, yet he is going, allegedly, to work for Ryanair and fly the travelling public around.

Its not possible to get a driving licence one day and to then drive a bus the next. I fail to see why someone, who has 250 hours, should be allowed to pay for a TR.

And as a matter of interest, the F/O that was handling the Irish A321 at LHR that had its tail scrape, according to the accident report, had a total of 274 hours and 82 were on type.

pilotcop

25th Apr 2010, 17:11

I would like to point out that not all in Ryanair have the attitude that 767200er has unfortunately displayed.

I have some (at least in my own opinion!) decent life experience behind me, and am older than alot of cadets coming from the major flight schools at the moment, hence my attitude towards current situations my differ slightly from those a bit younger. I have personal reasons why I chose to go down the self sponsored type rating route, and not for the love or desire to immediatley sit in the RHS of a nice shiny jet, personal circumstance has led me down this path...I do not believe that I have any god given right to sit in any seat of any aircraft, whichever one I sit in I attempt to perform in the only way that I can, with 100% effort and focus.
As far as pure pay to fly schemes go (eg Eagle jet - type rating and line hrs paid for - not quite the same as Ryanair or the Easy options), I am not a supporter - it is not an option I would advise anyone to go down, I can see the reasons why one may choose that route and empathise with their situation, there is very little else out there at the moment. Each to there own I suppose, I am not going to personalise the situation by attacking any individuals....I just hope that everyone can behave like the professionals we are and discuss these issues in a mature manner.

SR71

25th Apr 2010, 22:41

I think he's been reading Rigas Doganis.

Did he ever think what he and his contemporaries might achieve if they didn't P2F?

:\

wobble2plank

26th Apr 2010, 08:07

Whilst the posts of 767200ER do make amusing reading and epitomises the attitude of a newly forged University student (Student Grant from Viz anyone?) coupled with the attitude of 'I've paid for my training therefore the industry needs me' I think it is unfair to attack him for his naievity.

The current FTO system positively encourages this sort of attitude and, from what I can gather from Co-Pilots who have been through it, portrays pilots who are against the system of P2F as either jealous (low houred self improvers) or 'Old school' (who should of retired years ago to allow the new generation a go).

Personally I have to give 767200ER his due for sticking up for the path he chose and for his future employer. Good on him and I would expect no less. Sadly quotes like:

I have studied a number of subjects in this industry at university level which is more than a lot of people joining an airline have be it LHS or RHS.

shoot him down quite badly. Universities are wonderful places to get a base grounding in a fast moving industry like aviation. Sadly they give you only that, a base grounding. Reading a book and doing a 'course' doesn't give you half the insight that actually doing the job will do and does. Reading up about the mechanics, finances and regulations behind the Low Cost business model doesn't give you the whole picture as to the dark, murky dealings of the airline business. Generally it means you understand the TLA's! But then what would I know, I have only been flying for 25 years and slummed my way into the cockpit with only two degrees. Bugger. :\

The problem the these P2F advocates fail to see is one of both finances and workload. The finances side come to light with a previous post from 767200ER where he quotes:

I waited 6 months from finishing my training, applied to ryanair as soon as i finished and have been accepted following their assesment, Bank loan 27500 euros, earn around 60K a year so it can easily be paid off. Consider it an investment rather than expenditure, just like your training has been so far. There are jobs there, not many anywhere else.

I wish you all the best with the rest of your training and hope to fly an NG with you someday soon

This shows some lack of research based purely upon an achievable amount of money paid to a fully fledged FO flying maximum sectors and hours per year. What do you think will happen to your flying rate when you reach the end of your 'Pay to Fly' training? Simple it will diminish as the next P2F cadet takes over your still warm NG seat. The Lo-Co sector with Ryan Air can be a bit of a lottery dependent upon base, sectors, the number of drones willing to pay for your seat and flying hours!

The next problem is one that the P2F brigade have little idea about nor any particular interest in as long as they get their seat.

The workload for the LHS goes up exponentially dependent upon who is in the RHS and what experience they have. A constant rotation of low houred, inexperienced cadets through the RHS is a nightmare for any Captain. Whilst they may be qualified they are inexperienced and thus need watching twice as closely as an experienced FO. This is ok once in a while during a recruiting phase but the constant rotation gets very wearing after a while and the old complaints of 'I thought I would get more flying' or 'But thats not how it was made to look in the contract?' get tiring as well.

Quite simply, irrespective of ability, the selection criteria for pilots should be set by the airline for the purposes of the airline with the aim of retention by the airline, not a revenue stream. The ability to fly an aircraft SHOULD be a given with the issue of the fATPL (not always true but you can't have everything!), the ability to exist within the close environs of the cockpit and react quickly, correctly and with relevance should not be left up to who can pay.

flyhelico

26th Apr 2010, 09:01

I have already offers where people ask me to pay 50'000$ for 500 hours on the 320.(these suckers want use my license and my rating, f...them!!!!!!!!!! flying for little money, ok! but pay to fly, nowayyyyy!)

I just have to sign up and make a cheque, and maybe I fly an airbus in 1-2 months.

I don't play the smartest guy here, because I know where I will be in 6 months. I will be kicked out with my 500 h and everybody will laugh at me.

I will have lost my 50'000$ and I will have to compete with guys who have 50'000 $ to pay a P2F scheme.

so I am stuck in a new catch 22. more experience you have, less chance you will get a job!
we can not really blame guys like 767ER. He is young, has no life experience with 20 yo, and a few hours. I understand his excitement to fly a big plane!

I just wish him good luck, I hope when he fall back with a resignation letter stick in his butt, someone will bring him a pillow:E.

in this job , you need a good backup, and a bullet-jacket against these money suckers of p2F!

angelorange

26th Apr 2010, 18:18

Has pretty good summary of the P2F issues see: April 2010 Issue 258. On front cover and p3-4

His dudeness

27th Apr 2010, 05:42

Some excellent posts in this thread.

P2F is indeed the cancer of the industry. I for one, being the 'chief pilot' of a one plane, two pilot ops have taken the only approach that I felt would make a difference: I don´t hire people that offer to pay, or even worse here in Germany, who get a typerating and a financial help by the job centres.
We already have at least one company that hires only unemployed pilots (which would be not bad in itself), pays them lousy and lay them off just before the 6 month financial help period is over. Then they get the next augmented one in.

This is a nightmare for all other companies and especially us pilots.

I'm 44 years old now, have financed my PPL, CPL, IFR and ATPL myself, but never paid a rating myself. Whilst I love flying, I´d never recommend anyone to join the profession cause of the T&C eroding quicker than ever.

On a side note:
Ryanair would make no profit at all if they wouldn´t be subsidized heavily by airports, counties, city councils, tourist boards etcetc. This won´t last forever, I´m sure.

Pilot Positive

27th Apr 2010, 16:53

I don´t hire people that offer to pay, or even worse here in Germany, who get a typerating and a financial help by the job centres.

Its encouraging to hear that there is still integrity left in the industry. I always thought getting a job was based on merit not cash and I think Your Dudeness's approach is very acceptable and praiseworthy. :ok: If only we could emulate this more often in the UK.... :hmm:

Pilot Positive

29th Apr 2010, 11:13

If hundreds of Captains all over Europe did that, all on the same day, the CEO's will have to take note.

United we stand, divided we fall. Unfortunately its the latter at the moment...a recession = every man for himself. Although there appears to be a glimmer of hope from some of the participants on this thread...:ok:

Global Warrior

29th Apr 2010, 11:58

VENTUS45

I have to say i agree with most of what you say. Sadly, however, you are directing your comments at VERY egotistical, spineless, eunuchs for that is the demographic that makes up the Pilot community.

You only have to go back a few posts in this thread to see that one guy here trains the candidates that are on a really s**t deal and doesnt really like it but as soon as the prospect of contract pilots affect him, is calling for the strike papers to be sent.

This is why its an absolute disgrace that Pilots blame CEO's and accountants for the demise of their terms and conditions. Its the Pilot community thats to blame. The only thing the CEO's and the number crunchers are guilty of is taking advantage of the naivety, selfishness and utter stupidity of the aforementioned demographic. Sadly its easier to Bitch about stuff like this than to grow a set of gonads and actually do something about it.

There also happens to be difference of opinion as to whether having these (P2f, P4T xyz, bbc, whatever) chumly-warners in the flight deck erodes safety or not. Im firmly of the opinion that it does. Those that are Training Captains training these guys have said that it isnt, but to be honest, a TC is NEVER going to admit that his product is unsafe. If you go to pap2f.com and read the accident reports, you will read that these accidents happened literally in the final seconds of the flight. Too late for the TC to do anything about it. Its generally accepted that an accident is a series of failings that manifest themselves at the same point in time, a chain of events if you will. My feeling is that having these guys in the RHS of airliners is a broken link in that chain. Training a 250 hour chap all day, day in day out, over 2,3,or 4 sectors is less safe than a flight where training isnt conducted. Yes an airline will always have to conduct airborne training sessions but the closer that candidate is to just having had his licence issued, the more dangerous the flight.

I know one guy who has just finished his MCC course and had his frozen ATPL issued and is now in the CTC holding pool, waiting for some one to give him an F/O's job on a shiny jet. When i asked him how much it had cost him already, he said "i dont want to think about that" When i asked him why he doesnt go sniffing around the air taxi operators, or to the turbo prop operators, or what about instructing, parachute dropping, crop spraying, Glider towing, aerial survey companies, what about enquiring into Pilots assistant vacancies on single pilot jets, what about working as a handling agent at an exec jet airport FBO etc etc, he looked at me like i was from mars and told me nothing short of a commercial airliner would do and that he would never consider "selling" himself to an air taxi operator. So when i asked him what he intentions were, he said to go on holiday and wait. He displayed an arrogance that i hope results in him waiting for a VERY long time.

I started a thread on the SLF forum, asking them what they thought of flying on an aircraft with HIGHLY inexperienced Co-Pilots and to be honest, i shouldnt have been surprised by the overall tone...... "if he's qualified, why not?" Ignorance i guess is bliss.

So Ventus45, there you have in a nutshell what the problem is........

P2F =

Egotistical, Spineless Eunuch's (ESE)
the Arrogance of the Inexperienced Newbies (AIN)
the Blissfully Ignorant (BI)

ESE + AIN
------------ = Happy CEO's and Number crunchers
BI

For the mathematically challenged, such as myself, thats;
Egotistical, spineless eunuch's + the arrogance of the inexperienced newbies flying around the blissfully ignorant = Happy CEO's and Number crunchers.

Safety is being eroded.

Companies are making money as a result of it
FTO's are making money as a result of it
Training Captains are making money as a result of it
Terms and conditions are being eroded as a result of it
The travelling public are being treated with contempt as a result of it
We have already had incidents as a result of it
The USA has now mandated minimum experience levels to try and combat it
Sadly we will wait till people are killed to stop it :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Until people admit they are part of the problem, they cannot play any part in the solution...... they just bitch about their terms and conditions being eroded instead!!!!

Pilot Positive

29th Apr 2010, 17:37

Its the Pilot community thats to blame.

Perhaps starting a new union with a contemporary sense of community might be the answer? However I think the answer really lies with the indiviudal...its a pity the FTO's dont introduce a sense of responsibility and community at the formulative stage rather than building up nonesense expectations. Clearly its not in their interests.

Global Warrior

29th Apr 2010, 18:50

I think people are forgetting what their current union is for....... its to represent them but currently there is no cause to fight for because you cant get people to agree on what the issues are because some issues affect some and other issues affect others.

What no one seems to want to look at is the profession as a whole. It seems that no one gives a stuff about the profession any longer. Of course the profession has to adapt to modern times, but who is going to define what the profession should be? Who makes the profession what it is? Who is shaping the profession? Who ultimately is taking any responsibility as to how the profession evolves?

Do you want that to be Mr J CRUD and others like him?

or do you want it to be you?

The real cancer here is not so much P2F and the evolution of it, its the total apathy of the people that can bring about change, but choose not to. Those who choose to whinge about it it rather than doing something about it.

Pilots have abdicated their responsibilities to the profession. People love causes and the cause should be to save the profession. To not allow the likes of CRUD to define it. Rather than whining on PPRuNe, write to your CC's. Tell your trusted colleagues you have done so and encourage them to do the same. Take some responsibility and you will feel good about it. People will begin to listen. Trust me..... its how humans work.

Dont waste your time answering me, use that time to articulate your concerns to YOUR union. Give BALPA something to do. Flood them with e-mails and letters if you have to. Its you who pay the subs.....use it. Dont throw it away. Your CC's are there as your local reps. Give them a reason to represent you. Wheels turn slowly but only if you give them a reason to turn.

A great Profession demands Great T's & C's. A S**t Profession equates to S**t T's & C's. Make the profession better and your lives will be better. Its up to you to decide if its something thats worth fighting for. Personally i think it is............ with or without you.

GW