we should take an action

[aminzakhama]

:ugh::ugh:

my dear colleagues :we should take an action towards pilots unemployment and unreal very high recruitment standards of most airlines:we should cooperate with airline pilot associations all over the world and find a solution for those struggling airlines requirement:no one should pay to fly!!!
we should be realistic:why have i to pay 100 k for a TR+LINE TRAINING?
and from where:that's impossible what happens in nowadays!!!!!!:yuk:

[G-FATTY]

My Signature Goes Here
..........................................................

[Nimer767]

LOOOL my friend , you are DAAAM right :D BUT :* as long as there is people who is ABLE and interested to pay for TR and line training there will be no solution for this ! and regarding the high requirements each company is free to choose the requirements for their pilots as far as it will lower the training cost.

[Bealzebub]

we should take an action towards pilots unemployment and unreal very high recruitment standards of most airlines,

Are you being serious?

We should not only be applauding very high recruitment standards, but the national and supranational regulators should be enforcing them! Gone should be the nonsense of shovelling low hour licence holders into the right hand seat of a jet airliner, unless those licence holders have followed an affliated, monitored, full time and recognised course of training.

Standards should not only be tightened up, but they should be advanced. The professional flight deck of a modern airliner should represent the pinnacle of a career in aviation public transport. For the most part it should attract the best candidates from other civil transport flying, the military, and to a smaller degree the affliated training programmes I have already mentioned.

Those airlines that applaud their cost saving prowess, by turning the right hand seat into an unpaid training revenue centre, should be prevented from doing so until such time that the First Officers role is no longer a regulatory or certified requirement.

Once that happens the function will revert to being a proper job again, and the remuneration will reflect the supply and demand levels inherent with the skills base and experience required.

I have no problem with hopping here and there to find the cheapest training available, but I am afraid 250 hours of that shouldn't qualify you for the professional role of jet airline first officer. If you think otherwise, you already subscribe to the "pay to fly" system you are railing against.

[shaun ryder]

The problem is that they are very ill informed in believing all the hype. Anyone worth their sort would be a little more humble and perhaps 'know their station'.
How many of us can really say, that with conviction, that they would waltz straight into the flight deck of an airliner with the minimum requirements? I am not sure how many, but many for sure don't. They have a plan of action, perhaps they strive to be an instructor and maybe do some GA first as prelude, working towards the pinnacle. Basically one should consider these things before embarking on such an employment line, the path to which offers no guarantees.

[FlyingSerb]

You are very correct my friend, the problem is though the airlines don't agree with you.

Because 1 pilot a few years ago accepted this crap, we are stuck with it. We can only focuss on doing our best and hope for better economic times.

But all of us (low experienced just finished flight school pilots) should unite to have beers! ;) haha

[INNflight]

The above is not true. It wasn't just "one guy a few years ago".

Especially in small G/A companies it has been the way to do it for decades. You intially pay for the TR or at least part of it. Nothing new really. The new part is the thing on a scale shown by EagleJet, Ryanair, etc. That's just sad.

As for doing something against it..... it's actually more simple than most think.

If you get an interview tomorrow, your first one in 10 months maybe, and they only give you a shot saying you'll have to pay the TR.......TURN IT DOWN.

Sounds stupid, but it really isn't, and yes I have before.

Think of it this way:
Pay a TR for some 20-30,000 euros / dollars / pounds, or use said money to live while waiting for a fair offer to come around. I can tell you that 30k help you go a LONG TIME if you have no family and are young.

Don't be stupid.

[CY333]

Where do I sign?

Some pilots do actually believe is the right way to pay for your TR.:ugh:

These people, all have a TR btw and they paid for it but still without a job.:uhoh:

I then go on to ask: Would you pay McDonalds to send you on a course to learn how to use their oven?

The answer is always NO.:=

So why pay for the TR I ask and they get this blunt stupid look in their face.:D

[portsharbourflyer]

First thing first, I don't necessarily approve or disapprove of pay to fly, I can fully understand why several individuals opt for this route.

However the big problem with the industry is there is no minimum academic standard for entry into the industry bar passing the ATPL written exams; which with the availability of question banks is certainly not something that requires any thing exceeding GCSE capability.

The industry has plenty of competent pilots who do not possess high level academic qualifications, so by raising this level you are unfairly preventing a number competent individuals entry into the industry. The fact remains given enough money 60-70% of the population are capable of training as a commercial pilot. 60-70 % of the population even if given enough money would still not be able to attain the required standard to train as a doctor or an engineer. Oh remember surprise Doctors now have to pay tuition fees, so training as a Doctor can nearly be as expensive as a pilot.


Also we live in a free market capitalist society, thereby if the rich kids can't do pay to fly, then they will simply buy blocks of multi time to improve the CV, so the ones with money will always have the upper edge. The only way to stop this is you shift to a dictator ship where all everyone is aptitude tested at age of 16 for their perfect career, therefore the lucky select few deemed as most suitable to be pilots are then trained by some government backed scheme. Again how many of the pilots currently flying would fall into that category. So the current self sponsored trend has enabled alot of people to enter the flying industry that traditionally would never have had the chance.

I believe the biggest thing that has contributed to pay to fly is in fact the appalling pay that flying instructors receive and the fact that nearly every turbo prop job with the exception of flybe has training bonds varying from 20-40K over the space of 3 to 4 years. Effectively these bonds have you trapped in low paid employment for three years, to me far worse than a SSTR.


Spend 1 or 2 years intructing on low pay, then a further three years on a turbo prop only earning 18-24k a year and you can soon see how a Ryanair or Eaglejet type scheme can be the financially more vialble option.

Personally myself I was an instructor, this did lead to several interviews and eventually a short lived job on a turboprop, but when I consider the pay cut I took to become a full time instructor, I would have been far better off staying in my old job for another 12 months and applying to Ryanair or an Eaglejet scheme.

Every individual on a pay to fly scheme is one less chasing the other GA and Turboprop jobs that do exist, so the schemes do have some advantages.

For all newbies, discount pay to fly if you can't afford it, but don't discount it on moral grounds because morals will get you no where. In the past although I had considered sstr, I always took the moral high ground, all my colleagues that joined Ryanair when I becaome an instructor are now applying to Emirates or waiting for a command. Where as I am now stuck back in the design office, with memories of flying an aircraft that is only used by three operators in the Northern hemisphere.

I do plan to return to flying, but I have to say the pay to fly schemes look more financially viable than joining a turboprop job on low salary with a binding four year bond.

[CY333]

I for one wee your point and I have to say, I do agree to a point but not 60 to 70 % of the population have the money required for an ATPL training and also to pay another 30 to 50 000 Euros to buy hours.
It costs me 100 000 Euros to become a pilot (living expenses inc) and I am
in no mood to pay 30 more.

Lets also not forget that these schemes came up because some people have asked for them, so at the end of the day it's us the pilots that have put the market in the current situation.
It only took one to accept these airline schemes for others to follow.

I have a Masters in aviation related studies, have worked for a major
airline for 5 years in the engineering department, I speak 4 languages and
obtained my CPL and IR with minimum hours but I still cant get a job
because at every interview I have to put up with rich people that have spent
a fortune on buying hours, so YES there should be more higher academic
requirements and not based on: My daddy is rich so I buy hours....

[portsharbourflyer]

Cy33, you say at every interview you are getting passed over for those with hours paid for on type, well you wouldn't get interviewed in the first place if you didn't meet the airlines hiring requirements, so that argument holds no relevance.

Also those that bought hours on type may also have had money due to income acquired from a successful previous career (rather than rich parents); which is still indicative of ability and achievement. Or they may well have trained by the modular route and only spent 50000 on getting the CPL/IR, which means they could still do a type rating and line hours and still have spent less than yourself (indication of good decision making).

I am an aero eng graduate, with several years experience in industry; however I don't for one minute think that makes me more entitled to a flying job than anyone else. The tone of your posts suggests you think your masters in aviation entitles you to a flying job (maybe that attitude is why you are failing at interview).


As a general rule you won't get a flying job sat in an engineering department; if you don't want to go down the sstr/p2f route, then you need to get involved in GA, get networking. But as I said if you are working in an engineering role with your level of experience you will find the pay cut you would take to take a GA job (instructing, aerial photography etc) in the space of 12 months will be more than the price of a rating. Again only you know your situation and can decide the best route.

Again the unless you intend to have a communist revolution you will never stop the rich gaining the advantage. And remember no one forced any of you to train as a pilot, it was a free choice.

[CY333]

Haha you are funny.....I guess this guy is not signing up boys.I will not waste my time or energy on you as I see you did not clearly understand what I mean.yes no one made me study to be a pilot and yes I am not having more rights than other people due to my aviation experience,something i did not say but you clearly misread but it is attitudes like YOURS that brought the majority of pilots to accept these rediculus payscales and contracts.I never said I am working,I said I was working in the eng. World.please be more concentrated when you are reading as you are going of in vectors and making up your own assumptions.

[portsharbourflyer]

CY333,

My post has nothing to do with attitude, it is a reasoned argument. Anyway, I do have too much free time this weekend so I will explain how I interpreted your post

"I have a Masters in aviation related studies, have worked for a major
airline for 5 years in the engineering department, I speak 4 languages and
obtained my CPL and IR with minimum hours but I still cant get a job"

So I read this as look "I am a really high calibre candidate but still can't get a flying job". Your are obvioulsy trying to draw attention to what you consider are good credentials for gaining flying employment, why else would you mention them.

Sorry degree qualifications and minimum time passes does not necessarily mean a good candidate, one would assume that if you had any flying experience past the completion of your integrated course (the price you quote must be integrated especially if you completed in minimum hours), you would add this into your list of credentials. For the record if you had said I am a current instructor or air taxi pilot then your argument that the pay to fly brigade were preventing you form obtaining flying employment may hold more water.


"because at every interview I have to put up with rich people that have spent
a fortune on buying hours, so YES there should be more higher academic
requirements and not based on: My daddy is rich so I buy hours...."

This suggests you are getting interviews for flying jobs; you will not get interviewed unless you meet the hiring minimums of the operator; so for some reason you are failing to pass interviews; if the operator wasn't considering hiring non rated candidates you wouldn't have been interviewed in the first place, so this has nothing to do with someone buying hours on type.


"Rich kids buying hours on type" as said previoulsy the assumption that all pay to fly candidates are rich kids, some people have actually made their own money to do this.


"Worked in Engineering" you did use the past tense, so if you are not currently working in engineering, and you are not currently in flying employment this suggests you are unemployed sat at home, I merely assumed post training you may have returned to your previous career, which is quite a reasonable assumption. Now the statement in your previous post in confusing so please confirm which is correct. Either way no indication that you are involved in any GA activity at all. I will admit the engineering experience should be looked upon ina favourable mannerby flying employers, but it probably wont be and it can be quite demoralising how little credit you will receive for it.

For the record, I have as yet not paid for a rating or taken part in a pay to fly scheme, my previous employer (with regard to flying jobs) provided the rating via a bonding agreement.

All I was saying (and this is a matter of numbers, ie: maths doesn't lie) was that for anyone with a decent career prior to flying, a year back in the old career to fund a SSTR and may be a pay to fly scheme will be financially the better option than a year as an instructor on flight pay only, followed by years on low pay and a binding training bond at one of the turboprop operators. That isn't an attitude, that is pure simple facts. I am not discussing the morals of pay to fly, I have presented a reasoned rational of why pay to fly continues to exist.

If you want to protest about pay to fly and sstr, then may be you should also protest about excessive training bonds.

[Doors-to-manual]

CY333

I see your point, a job shouldn't be about who is the richest, it should be about who has the best aptitude for the job. That is the moralistic view, and I admire that, however the fact remains that you and I cannot pursuade thousands of people not to part with their money - that ship set sail long ago and it isn't coming back to port. Rather than targeting newbies with the mantra about not paying for SSTRs, people should be looking at those who are already in influential positions in the industry - the chief/management pilots of the world. The trouble is, like most pilots, once inside the industry they forget where they came from and they are supporting these SSTR schemes. Young wannabee pilots have been sold out by the senior guys and the unions.

Compare that to doctors - when the health service tried to slash the terms and conditions of junior doctors, everybody from top consultants down to house doctors were striking and protesting about it.

I finish with two points - it is easier to change an industry from the inside than the outside.
Secondly, what has BALPA done about this issue? Nothing! Why, because most of the members of BALPA already have jobs and don't care about the new guys and girls. This is short sighted though, because the erosion of terms and conditions starts at the junior positions and works up (not the other way around), so in the long term they will be a victim of their own selfishness.

I am fortunate in that I got a job with one of the few airlines that still pay for all the training, but I had to move thousands of miles away from home to achieve this. I really feel sorry for the guys and girls trying to get a flying job these days.

[CY333]

I agree with you 100%, this is life and I respect that you are standing correct on this.