New JAA ATPL Human Factors question...

[XX621]

In contemporary commercial aviation, which fATPL holder is most attractive to a typical lo-cost airline?

a. A graduate of an integrated ATPL course, with a first series IR, with no further funds available.
b. A modular ATPL holder also with a first series IR, who worked his a$$ off to get the license with no help from anyone else, worked as an FI, has some life experience and spent two years in a hold pool swimming hard to avoid the plug-hole.
c. Ex-military pilot with 1000s of hours on multi-engine transport a/c.
d. A spotty oik of whippet, who scraped through an integrated course with a second series IR and a purchased TR, happy to work for nothing and happy to pay for line experience...

I look forward to reading your answers....

[mcgoo]

Like most ATPL exam questions, a case of RTFQ.

The question asks "which fATPL holder", so that rules out B as that states he has an ATPL, I'd rule out C as they would probably qualify for an ATPL with that experience. We can rule out A as the question asked about low cost airlines, they usually require people to pay for their own TR and they have no funds available, so i'll go for answer D. :ok:

[MagicTiger]

Now not everyone who have paid for their own TR are muppets that can't fly, so that means they might have passed their first series IR, they might have worked their azzes of to be able to position themselves better in the future job hunt.

The question seems very bitter and biased, what about alternative E.

E.Work their azzes of, all first time passes, but clever enough to have not put themselves trough huge debts, by earning their own money to pay for all their training. Maybe even instructing for a few years, and seen there is limited of chances with 4000 hours PIC as an instructor on a C152!

When times are bad, beggars can not be choosers, but when the tide turns they will have the xxxx hours on type, and move on to better jobs first, before the instructors with mostly C152/172 or PA28 time, will still be behind in the line!

Please give it up, all this bashing of low cost BS., end of the day all these airlines serve their purpose, the ones who are not happy will move on, but from what I hear many of the ones who stay and make command, seem to be happy with these low cost airlines, and the fact that you make command in half the time of large carriers is one of the positives.

It is all about supply and demand!

[paco]

Disregarding RTFQ, Integrated course graduates are not necessarily popular because they have so few hours. Having said that, the airlines decided between themselves long ago that self-improvers were not desirable, as the core training was inconsistent and so many bad habits had to be ironed out, which costs time and money.

Ex military pilots are good with the emergencies, and have the hours, but need a certain commercial reorientation. However, some airlines like these, especially if they are "management graduates".

As a Chief Pilot, I would not hire anybody who offered to work for nothing, because it shows a certain lack of self-esteem. Not only that, training is tax deductible for a company, and none of the companies I ran would ever use a potential pilot that way. If it was a fresh type rating (i.e. less than 10-15 hours), unless it was from a known training source, I would do it all over again. Over 50 hours, I probably wouldn't bother. Granted, for a large aircraft, the source would no doubt be reputable, but where type ratings are required for everything (as they are in the helicopter world), it's a good policy.

Choice A.

phil

[XX621]

The question seems very bitter and biased, what about alternative E.



Yes, you are right it probably does come across a bit "bitter". Not the intention. I am not in a position to be bitter about this, but a few good friends of mine are in such a position. One, for example, has been in a hold pool for two years while the pay-to-fly fish are plucked out of the pool dripping wet straight into the RHS.

I am actually curious to learn if the airlines who are behaving this way would choose someone of lesser ability / worse track record, who is willing to pay, over someone with a demonstrable better aptitude who is not? or is there a healthy supply of "perfect" pay-to-fly fATPLs?