Pay to fly,

[Greenlights]

A few months ago, a french broadcast lighted up the pay to fly.
Here the video with english subtitles :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOQYMDDz4k#t=127

a big thank you to all who investigate and did the work.

[Veren]

What a great initiative; If it only serves to warn a couple of young lads to shy away from P2F, or funding overpriced TR without any concessions, then it was worth the effort.

I almost wish these airlines would get caught up in a massive safety scandal, allowing these malpractices to come to light.. One can only hope for a better future...

:ok: from me, I'll share it with my friends!

[LTCTerry]

The world of flying has changed considerably over the last 30 years. Except for ticket price, perhaps not much for the better.

As an American who lived in Europe for several years, I enjoy reading here to compare/contrast life on both sides of the pond.

The American model of the route to the cockpit works here because there is a fairly large population interested in flying as a hobby: 0-250 commercial certificate/Flight instructor build time instructing, get a little right seat charter time, left seat charter time, 1000+ hours to FO on a regional. The US Congress has - in my opinion - stupidly increased regional right seat to ATP, and increased ATP to include some very expensive simulator time.

[Brief war story: I once worked with a US Navy lieutenant in the pre-regionals days who had 1800 of flight time. All of it was single- two- or four-engine turbine time (P-3 pilot). He applied for a job with Delta and was told to get 200 more hours, even if Cessna 152 time, so he could meet their 2000-hour minimum. I found it fascinating that 2000 hours of giving flight instruction in a C-172 was not weighted any different than almost 2000 hours of heavy, multi-crew, four-engine time. Back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...]

In this US model, by the time someone is carrying passengers who paid for a ticket on a scheduled flight, the copilot has several hundred hours or more and a few years experience.

The European/British model divides sport flying from the commercial pilot track almost from the beginning (yes, I know about modularity/etc.). There are very expensive courses, and graduates end up with 150,000 GBP debt. That used to be enough to get hired, then the world became more competetive. Someone thought "only one ouf of five of my classmates will get a job, I think I'll go get my own 318/320/etc type rating to be more competetive on my application..."

Next thing you know, the low cost airlines realize they can reduce training costs by only hiring people willing to fund their own type rating. Now the aspirants are even deeper in debt. Some airlines even make a profit on by charging for the training in their own equipment.

Drive wages down to save money. What's cheaper than a low wage? How about some schmuck willing to pay to be there instead of earning a salary?

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm describing how I see the two different models. Ignoring the TR and P2F parts, I do not believe that one model is better/worse than the other. Each is simply how the field has developed in its prespective environment. Military pilots do very complicated things, often with less flight time than required to get on with a major airline in the US. A small number in the log book doesn't mean an unsafe pilot.

How can you change things? If all the future pilots said "we won't pay for our own TR any more" eventually someone would do it anyway to get ahead. If the future pilots all said "we won't work for less than $40/hour" then someone would eventually quietly offer to work for $38.

As long as the fATPL-academy-industry trains many times more people than will ever find a job, there will be supply/demand issues that are not in favor of the pilots. As long as Ryan Air can pay less than BA and still turn away many applicants they will pay as little as they can. Read the Norwegian stuff here on PPRUNE. As long as people are willing to accept that "stuff" there's no hope. Even if P2F is outlawed by the ICAO, determined to be slavery by the UN, or whatever, there will still be people lined up for every job posted.

I would think you could shut down the flight schools and still meet the entry level jobs from existing graduates for several years. You know the schools are not going to say "your job prospects are much weaker than the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy one day..."

All of that to say, "I have no idea what the answers are, but it's a mess - not a lot different on this side of the pond except no type rating required for FO and flying is a lot cheaper."

(Very slow at work today, but I do disagree with the pay-to-fly model of doing business.)

[172_driver]

LTCTerry's got a good summary. The 1500 hrs rule, if not bringing about any safety improvement, at least could bring about a shortage which will drive pilot's collective bargaining power up. I hear they've problems filling courses at the regionals. An old friend of mine, working for a regional, got tasked to gather a group of Europeans fulfilling the ATP requirement. The company would provide relevant work visas. I think that's a first.

As to bringing about change, I still believe in a much more regulated flight school market. A few kid's dream may go bust, but we can also avoid dreams turning into nightmares when ppl find themselves in 150-200 000 Euro debt and still no prospects of a job. Would also bring forward suitable candidates, rather than the ones with the biggest wallet.

[bringbackthe80s]

guys sorry to say, but if the governments wanted to stop pay to fly it would take them half a second..unfortunately the system we created is not based on safety or people's well being, but on another thing called profit..so there you go

[despegue]

Nationalize the Flight Academies like the Maritime Academies , have proper acceptance test round again and create in the long term a shortage.

Only a shortage of crew will save this Profession.

[Greenlights]

guys sorry to say, but if the governments wanted to stop pay to fly it would take them half a second..unfortunately the system we created is not based on safety or people's well being, but on another thing called profit..so there you go

Maybe maybe not.
Maybe, politicians do not have a clue and do not care until some people bring the subject. After all they need experts on their side to take decision...
I remember, I've seen a broadcast about politicians signing some europeans rules brought by lobbies...(lobbies suggest regulations and politicians sign).
One of the politicians signed and simply said to the journalist that he does not have time to read and write the rules....as they received so many every day.

So we can guess that they are not even aware that P2F exist...

after all, if you were an owner of an airline and would practice pay 2 fly, would you tell the politicians ? I don't think so...simply because if you do something not forbidden by the law, then it means you can do it.

[bringbackthe80s]

Greenlights who do you think really is in charge in this world, lobbies or politicians?

Like I said, it sickens me but the truth is the only thing that counts is cash, period. Or are the politicians not aware of the Bangladeshi clothes factories working people 14 hours a day and paying them 20 dollars a month either?

The truth is, as human beings, we get what we deserve

[Sop_Monkey]

Well lets just hang on one minute with this P2F thing.

Where does it start and finish?

- In the US you need a degree to get a job flying. Well a decent one anyway.Why? Does a degree make you a better pilot? The time getting a degree is money out of your pocket.

- We pay for licences, medicals, etc., etc., all money out of pockets.

- some are paying for type ratings, with or without the guarantee of employment afterwards.

- Yes some I believe, are even paying to fly online.

Where do we draw the line? So, hands up who AREN'T paying to fly, or HAVEN'T paid to fly???

[Greenlights]

pay to fly, means to pay for working, while you fly passenger for a commercial purpose. Simple.

It is not the same to pay for a degree and education. After all you do it for yourself. Yes, money is out of your pocket, but it's for you.
You pay for CPL IR, it's normal, that is for a training purpose and you don't fly passenger.
About the Type rating, we could discuss about it...years ago airlines used to pay for it, even for the MCC.
Sorry but flying professionnally and paying for it it's nonsense. You lose money, plus your work for others (not really for yourself in that case).

Ok I admit it, we should call it : P2W for Pay To Work. That would be better.

[too_much]

The irony of all of this is the line experience is probably the most valuable flight time you could "purchase" out of the long shopping list to become a pilot....

[Three Lions]

Paying for any training for any job is wrong. I accept this is quite an amazing statement as almost no aviator has ever finally made it into the cockpit in their dream job without funding at least some of the road to utopia

Proper selection and screening for any particular job or career stream to help in the process of putting the most capable human beings into the most suitable job, supported by the government and the employer fully serves both safety, help ensure profit whilst also better providing the basic needs of the human being involved in the rigorous path through initial training - obviously training of sorts contuinues upto career end

The current set up in aviation in the UK and Europe is based solely on profit of both the airlines (to differing levels of efficiency) and a number of FTOs who seem to have ringfenced the market astonishingly well

You can class pay to fly as someone who pays for line training, however it could be argued that a sneakier way of doing this blatant pay to fly can be hidden beneath an over-inflated course cost that a percentage can then hypothetically could be passed onto the airline.

Even further arguement could cover that any training cost even down to the initial PPL at a small grass field could also be "pay to fly" as the student is actually funding their own path into the industry

The answer is out there somewhere, but it is very clear to see, even though there is movement at present at BA, Virgin, Thomson, Thomas Cook, Jet 2, Norwegian, Easyjet and RYR that the current model in place although maybe safe in operation and good for profit for airlines and FTOs falls short in so many other areas.

Employment law changes, ever increasing focus on profit to the point of absurdness, a lack of cohesion from all union members across the board and to a minor extent people willing to pay to try to jump the queue are all reasons why the industry continues to degrade the career of the airline pilot.

Lobbying may work, but it all depends upon who has which fingers in which pies.

[wiggy]

Three Lions

Employment law changes, ever increasing focus on profit to the point of absurdness, a lack of cohesion from all union members across the board and to a minor extent people willing to pay to try to jump the queue are all reasons why the industry continues to degrade the career of the airline pilot.

Agreed.

Lobbying may work, but it all depends upon who has which fingers in which pies.

Sadly I doubt it, the various associations lobbying against the EASA FTL changes seemed to achieve very little....the "industry" has too much fire power...and money :oh:

[Journey Man]

We bemoan an erosion in skill on the flight deck of automated aircraft. We bemoan an erosion in terms and conditions because of oversupply.

Where is the indignation at the laughably easy theoretical study? The multiple guess exams that aren't even negatively marked? Tens of thousands for type ratings that excessively summarise the requisite knowledge of the aircraft?

The knowledge requirements are clearly laid out and courses focus on passing exams. There's no in depth discussion on operational problems you'll face on a daily basis. There's no real impetus to impart lasting knowledge, just enough to pass the exams. An FTOs reputation is based purely on its ability to get bums on seats in a LoCo.

We cry foul that ATPL theoretical studies aren't treated as an equal to a degree; why should they be? Raise the bar. Inspect FTOs for quality. Ensure the FTOs set appropriate entry requirements to avoid fleecing those who will struggle, just as universities are required to do.

No one is perfect, we're all learning. Let's drive the knowledge base of the industry up and make the barriers to entry skill and knowledge based rather than financial.

[despegue]

John Smith,

Your post is valid for most if not all professions, theory is mostly not related to the actual practical performance.

The lack of understanding of young colleagues is stunning. And this is due to the astonishingly low requirements to pass the Theoretical ATPL nowadays.

we are reponsible for 400million$ aircraft, hundreds of lives and operating in a lethal environment near the speed of sound...for that YOU DO need to have in-depth knowledge of your environment, physics etc.

If you do not accept that, go drive a bus or train please, but stay out of our Profession where at least SOME want to see a better knowledge and professionality.:mad:

[Veren]

"We cry foul that ATPL theoretical studies aren't treated as an equal to a degree"

Wait, this baffles me; There are actually people out there that want to consider ATPL theory as a degree? As in, equal to 4 or 5 years of university level qualification? What a joke; high school graduate requirements are more stringent than the joke that is ATPL studies, and high school is just glorified daycare to keep our teens of the street while they figure out what they want out of life. ****'s sake, I'm still pissed off at having been forced to spend 3400€ and a mininum of 6 months (exl exam fees) on a sodding Distance Learning course, regardless of my background :mad:

@John_Smith

Why shouldn't we artificially raise the bar? Don't we have an oversupply? Is there anything wrong with being overqualified for the job? If anything, an educated pilot is worth more to the operator; They could potentially fulfill other roles in the company as well besides being the monkey in the cockpit. Pilots should be more qualified than the trolley dollies in the back, no offense. I do agree that airline flying is dull as dishwater and a monkey can do it, but that is a different topic.

So, you want to put FO's in the cockpit, unpaid for 4 to 8 years, however long it takes to upgrade, and then only pay them 35-45k€ (after taxes I hope). It is already almost unprofitable to become an airline pilot, considering the massive upfront investment pilots make on training and apparently some dimwits throw in another 30k for an overpriced TR. I agree we have a bit of a dichotomy between the previous generation, who didn't spend a fortune on training and is cashing in pretty well, and the current generation that starts with a debt (or at least out of money) and hopes to make it worthwhile in the end. I can't see anyone becoming a pilot if it becomes like any other job. Even if the airlines would sponsor your entire training, you have to be absolutely mental if you agree to go unpaid for 6 years (training + intern FO) for a pretty poor salary as a captain, and then take all the extra heartache for granted (ie hours, nights, schedules, bases). It simply isn't worth it; There is no future in that.

I flatout disagree that P2F or P2W or P4TR is not a safety issue. If you feel pressured to fly because you can't make ends meet, then that's an issue. If you have 0 authority and can get sacked for any reason, that's an issue. If you feel like can be replaced by literally thousands of other pilots that might be willing to do your job for less, then that is an issue. You need job security, fair remuneration, fair T&C. You will not find those with any employer engaged in any of the above.

@Redbull

Regarding the 150 000 - 200 0000€ debt; Let me give you an example. Back when I was first interested in flying I considered the KLM Flight Academy in Grongingen, the Netherlands. Back than (6 or 7 years ago) the full course fee was 117 500€. This did not include housing, exam fees, license fees, examiner fees, fuel surcharge (up to 9000€ by the time you were done) etc. The course takes approx 20 months on average. So, let's assume you spent about 140 000€ by the time you finished. The KLM FA had an agreement with ABN AMRO bank to provide students with a suitable loan up front, at 9.5% interest rate. If you had to borrow the full amount or close to, you would easily end up with 180 000€ or more in debt. The Netherlands are a pretty expensive country to do flight training in, other schools have similar prices or at least 90k€. It is not uncommon to have qualified 19 or 20 year olds with no prospects and a debt they can barely pay the interest for. It is quite sad and plenty of pilots and groups point the finger at FTO's that just pump out more and more students in a saturated market. In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't pass their selection process - I was a moron back then.

[kimono1950]

At 3:20 I heard 18 000 Eur/month. Very far away of all these slavery traders, like Volotea ,Ryanair,Wizzair,Enterair, Air Baltic,......etc.......etc.....:mad:

Now you know , why you have so many strikes in France.

[Sop_Monkey]

I'll tell you where the system is also wrong.

Apart from the military or cadet ships, unless you are from a relatively well off family, you wont get a look in for an EASA licence, simple. So we've "weeded out" probably a lot of very suitable people right there. In my day the pick of the bunch were the "hard sloggers", with the drive and determination to press on in the event of failure for e.g., Who went the extra mile to pass the examinations etc. Who were given a crack at getting into the "big time" via the self improver route or a 150 hour approved course CPL, in some countries. This would allow them to get useful aviation related employment allowing them to upgrade themselves. This now seems to be out the window. What percentage of wannabes can afford an upfront fee of at least £60K for an EASA licence?? This is where the system has gone wrong. This is the reason, a lot of the wrong people are getting in, albeit some areas are worse than others.

At the beginning of the JAA the Germans wanted anyone eligible for a JAA licence to have an appropriate degree at university. What utter tosh! Fortunately the dear old UKCAA put their foot down and said as much.

Test flying of course is another completely different story.

[Tourist]

Despegue

John smith is unfortunately right.

If he was wrong then the coffin imperative would force the employers to work harder finding better candidates. Simple fact is that the jobs is being done successfully and safely by frankly average people. That is all down to exceptional engineer building modern aircraft that go wrong so rarely that average is enough.

[Three Lions]

JS, a question in a courteous fashion... is there any chance you work for one of the lower echelon operators with huge fleets who employ a huge percentage of new hires directly from one of the "big ftos" highly in debt and immediately on the back foot operating brand spanking new jets to the the nth degree of "uber SOP" flying? Not stating you in any of this but your company direction...

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason, if my guess is anywhere near correct take a minute to try to work out why your workplace ended up as it did. And why the career didnt end up as you had hoped

I could be mistaken but from your post it doesnt seem you enjoy it much. Please accept it isnt like that at all airlines - well not "yet" anyway

[Greenlights]

At 3:20 I heard 18 000 Eur/month. Very far away of all these slavery traders, like Volotea ,Ryanair,Wizzair,Enterair, Air Baltic,......etc.......etc.....

Now you know , why you have so many strikes in France.

the salary is for Air FRance at the end of the career as a captain position, and only rare get it now because new contracts are lower anyway...

so we can not really compare AF with Ryanair or volotea etc...

[Journey Man]

Hi John,

You've already been replaced by automation. Hang up the stripes and shoot the breeze at the bar. Unfortunately I think you've been beaten to the punch by the MPL.

You seem to consider the sum total of your required knowledge as that which is used daily. I disagree and feel the value in having an in-depth foundation of knowledge is immeasurable. Whilst I quite agree that we need to know the limitations of our knowledge and also our sphere of responsibility.

Also, I'd urge you to consider the role of commercial pilot beyond the scope of schedule CAT flying. The operational variables met in other areas of CAT can, and regularly do, require more of the theoretical knowledge hopefully accrued during the theoretical studies. The backup afforded to flight crew is not as structured, and may be supplied by third parties. Purely and simply it isn't possible to write a Ground Ops Manual that would encompass the majority of operational variables encountered and the pilots will be involved in areas whereby the theoretical knowledge covered in the ATPL studies is often required. I'll grant you, Polar Stereographic Charts aren't something I frequently require, although I know guys flying for BAS, and the requirement for them was commercial licence.

[FANS]

Questions - are there too few suitable fatpl holders and wannabe cadets to meet the required airline standards?

Could the average 6th former meet the required standards, excluding upfront cash?

I don't see why rhs salaries should go up to provide further supply.

[Aluminium shuffler]

John Smith is not worth debating with- he turns every thread into an anti-pilot rant. I have doubts that he is a line pilot - he must be a manager, and comes across as embittered cabin crew management to me. To suggest pilots need know nothing more than what is in the SOP and the manuals is dangerous indeed - if airlines and authorities followed his logic and wishes, then MPL cadets would graduate straight into the command seat of heavy jets with no issues. That clearly isn't the case - experience and knowledge beyond the minimum standard to which he aims (and I assume fails to maintain) are far from enough for safe or efficient aviation.

[Um... lifting...]

There's an old story about an expert consultant who comes to a factory that is not operating. No one there can sort out why. Consultant gives the place a look and quotes to the factory manager:

"I can fix your problem for $50,000."

"Good Heavens, Man! We're losing that every two hours the factory sits idle! Do what you must!"

Consultant walks to a control panel, throws a switch and the factory comes to life, returns to the factory manager to say:

"That will be $50,000, please."

"My Dear Fellow, you merely threw a switch. Surely that can't be worth more than a dollar or two!"

"You're correct, of course. Allow me to present you with an itemized invoice."

Fee for actuating toggle switch: $1
Knowing which switch to throw: $49,999
Grand Total Services Rendered: $50,000

My employer doesn't pay me to throw switches, and I shudder at any aviation company that does. Any fool with a checklist can do that. My first employer (which was the government) trained me and compensated me to learn how to make decisions. In return, I provided them with a number of years of my professional life and learned to make (and later made) those decisions, returning every aircraft for which I signed in reusable condition.

When I chose to prepare myself for a career in the civil world, the less than $1000 that I spent for licensing up to ATP was not all I had invested (yes, the FAA system has its advantages). I had dozens of flight checks and thousands of hours over many years.

Every good (and bad) decision a pilot makes over a career influences that pilot as a captain. The bean-counters forget that at their peril. So do the flying public, fixated on cheap fares.

From a safety standpoint, in our view one of the things that we do in the basic design is the pilot always has the ultimate authority of control. There’s no computer on the airplane that he cannot override or turn off if the ultimate comes. In terms of any of our features, we don’t inhibit that totally. We make it difficult, but if something in the box should behave inappropriately, the pilot can say ‘This is wrong’ and he can override it. That’s a fundamental difference in philosophy that we have versus some of the competition.

-- John Cashman, Chief Test Pilot Boeing 777.

Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.

-- Ernest K. Gann

[FANS]

Thats great. What if someone suitably qualified will do it for $500?

[Sop_Monkey]

Someone will come along and be happy to cut you out for $400. Human nature I'm afraid.

Like business, stack'em high and sell'em cheap.

In my 40 plus years in the business the most eager to cut you out were the ones, lets say were with the "financial means" to do so. Whether it be to attempt to buy you out, or could sustain themselves on the peanuts they would be happy to work for. Or just attempt to cut you out, period. In the genes?

There is always someone who will do it cheaper.

[SR71]

Please do enlighten me as to when, in day to day operations, I am required to use my in-depth knowledge of the physics of flight, or meteorology, or general navigation?

Which category would you place the pilots of AF447 in John? What about the pilots on TK1951? More recently, what will you say about the pilots of QZ8501?

How many fatalities would it take to negate your thesis?

Commercial aviation today stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, made mistakes, and not been protected from them by the incredible machines we fly. There is so much latent safety in a modern commercial jet, the mind boggles. Much of which we don't even recognise or appreciate.

Your view of life in the flightdeck is a reductionist one, for sure. Sounds like you're giving yourself heart-burn.

:}

The industry has done it that way, because (and this is where I do agree with you - no need for a huge degree of self-importance here), we're actually pretty good monkeys.

However, my understanding is that, recently, it is Loss Of Control incidents that now form the major proportion of air transport accidents. Whilst many of us at the sharp end of the industry have been talking about the "de-skilling" going on in the flightdeck for a while, it is only now that the issue seems to have gained an appreciable degree of traction.

So why is this?

I'm hopeful that, in the past, knowledge I have tried to acquire outside the "core airline curriculum" as a result of what I'd call "professional pride" will now become more and more mandated. In addition, I believe it will be important for the industry to try and re-design the machines we fly so that they allow us to keep current the skills which become so important when we actually need to "fly" the aircraft.

[fwjc]

I hope to goodness that I never have to sit next to john_smith in a cockpit, anywhere, ever.

I left a former career in which I was earning £35,000. I didn't have to pay for £100,000 worth of training and neither did I, at any point, have to work for free or pay to work in my previous job. So this ridiculous idea that working for free is "normal" and acceptable is utterly ridiculous. I worked very hard and had line management responsibility and influence on services affecting thousands of people. But I didn't work silly hours and at no point was I directly responsible for the lives of individuals, unless you count occasionally driving the team to a conference.

As a CAT pilot I am expected to know exactly what's going on with the aircraft I'm flying, the current and potential environmental conditions, to carry out safe and efficient operations and to be able to work with the cockpit, cabin crew and extended team to fix it when things don't go to plan. All the while trying to ensure that the paying customers in the back are as happy as possible. This isn't the job of a monkey and I am proud of the knowledge and experience I have, as well as the much larger amount I am still to gain. If john_smith considers himself to be no better than a monkey, and the job to be at that level, then I would consider him to be a liability and he ought to be outed in all senses of the word.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Smith, if you genuinely feel that way, then donate your "excess" pay to some of the poorer members of society or perhaps the cabin crew, but stop whining about it on here. You clearly have an agenda and a wish to sell out your colleagues. Evidently I hit the nail on the head with my suspicion about you being a cadet with rich parents, or, you'd be needing that salary to repay training debts and a mortgage. Maybe you should consider that most of us have not had the good fortune, so to speak, of being born rich. As for your rapid promotion, perhaps it was your swooning ass kissing and will to work for less rather than your desire to limit your knowledge to the minimum that got you ahead. Regardless, I'd never want to fly with someone of your judgement or personality.

[FANS]

So do those that dislike js, think salaries will go up or down?

[Journey Man]

John, some do feel the qualification is more than it is. As a graduate in engineering, I know what a reasonably thorough degree entails hence why I find people trying to compare the qualification to something more in depth bemusing. I can empathise with you there, but not to the point of scorn.

Given the reduction in terms and conditions over the last decade it doesn't take a leap of imagination to suggest the scenarios you seem to eagerly await. But mocking people for not embracing this further depression in t&cs is akin to not understanding why the turkeys won't vote for Christmas.

What do you feel would be a fair pay for a new pilot over the course of their career up to the point where they've serviced the inevitable loan. Let's fix the cost at £90,000. Factor in loss of salary during training, loan repayments, a room share for three years, a two bedroom flat rent for the rest. Let's hypothesise that will cover a few years more bachelorhood and then the possibility of a partner.

Disregarding supply and demand, what would do you feel is reasonable recompense? Let's make the loan period fifteen years. Just to make it simpler.

[CockpitSeeker]

Hi everyone,
for information, for some weird reason, I was censored when I tried to relay the french TV when it show aired.
We were indeed showing our faces in it ;) and shared it via:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsQIqv1PfTM

I was also saying we had the French union's attention on P2F (we did a few unformal meeting with them) and now it's the whole ECA that supports the petition against it:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/p2f_must_stop/

Swiss folks also have their TV report exclusively on P2F:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tAFHdM6W2E

Press articles, wiki definition... it's a great thing Italy is in the boat, and we'll come up with meaningful initiatives as the ECA is set to launch the campaign against P2F after the holidays this month!
(Timeline events available on https://www.facebook.com/cockpitseeker)

[FANS]

The thing is people are still queuing up.

[A and C]

EASA is at the very heart of this problem, when the EU decided on a pan European aviation authority it started talking to the industry and the big flight schools sent representatives to to push for highly regulated pilot training courses all done at ( their) pilot sausage factory's, unfortunately the small schools did not have the recorces to lobby EASA and so as always with the EU this highly regulated system was adopted.

Having tied up the supply chain the big schools then pushed the airlines into recruting only students from the big schools using quality of training as the reason, this was a good way of hiding the money that must be changing hands between the schools and the airlines.

In the old days you could do the fATPL just by having flown 700 hours, passing the ground exams and the flight tests. In practice most people did 150 hours and then an instructor rating to be able to get an instructor job to get the rest of the flying hours.
Once the fATPL was issued airline job hunting would start and when you got a job you got bonded for the cost of the type rating........ The type rating cost you NO money but you had to stay with the airline for about two years.

The result of the system was that the unsuitable people fell by the wayside and those who did not had a very good basic flying skills.

The EASA system seems to be training pilots with a lack of basic skills who have been flying perfectly servisable aircraft into the ground.

Conclusion...... EASA = backward progress in flight safety and greater cost to achive this.

As a bi-product they have also blocked any social mobility by pricing flying training out of the reach of those with talent but modest income.

[Bealzebub]

The EASA system seems to be training pilots with a lack of basic skills who have been flying perfectly servisable aircraft into the ground.

An example being?

[Superpilot]

I'd like to ask as well. What experience do you have outside aviation (quantify it please) that gives you the ability to so confidently say you are doing a blue collar job for white collar money? How much skill and actual practice time do you have outside of aviation? Or are you comparing things to non-pilot friends, who because they do another line of work, give the impression they're really clever, skilled and professional?

When I'm not flying, I'm contracting in IT and invoicing an average of £10k per month. I have no degree and even my vocational qualifications are almost 15 years old (I'm in my early 30s). Granted, I'm good at what I do in the IT business but the job can be extremely unchallenging and boring with many months spent simply debating ideas and arguing with idiots in management. In practice I get to exercise very little skill on a daily basis and there's certainly no sense of accomplishment anymore as everything becomes a fudged compromise. What am I to conclude from this, that it's a blue collar job with white collar money? Blue collar workers are by definition unskilled. Piloting definitely requires some skill.

Be careful what you wish for mate, in the "real world" as an employee who is good at his/her field you will find yourself regularly working 60+ hours per week and taking your work home with you (one of the reasons why despite having some views very similar to yours, I'm still interested in flying for a living). Nirvana is putting up with life as it is and realising there is no such thing is perfection. You're a classic case of too much came too soon and now there's :mad: all left to be positive about within aviation.


As a bi-product they have also blocked any social mobility by pricing flying training out of the reach of those with talent but modest income.

...and those with a life to manage outside of flight training (not all of us can take 2 straight years out of life/work) to train to fly. Thus, directly shaping the age group and demographics of our pilot community (young, no strings, happy to service 10 years of debt because they know no better)

[FANS]

JS needs to be careful what he wishes for, but its difficult to argue with his downward trajectory predictions.

[A and C]

The evidence is at the bottom of the South Atlantic and with the number of pilots who sit next to me who have never taken an aircraft past 60 degrees of bank.

[FANS]

A and C s post is actually a very good summary of why ctc etc is the better way in , especially given demise of the many regional airlines.

Whether the quality is there or not, I couldn't comment but our very busy skies are safer than the 80s and before for the uk at least.

[flite idol]

"Fleas from New York," did they have accents?

[Sop_Monkey]

A and C

Very well put indeed. Sums up the EU in general.

[Bealzebub]

The evidence is at the bottom of the South Atlantic and with the number of pilots who sit next to me who have never taken an aircraft past 60 degrees of bank.

You believe that the pilots of AF447 (I assume this is what you are alluding to, although technically it was the North Atlantic,) did their basic training under EASA? Each of the Three pilots on board joined Air France prior to EASA's existence. The pilots that "sit next to (you)" are also flying perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground. Really?

A very tortured argument as I am sure you will agree. However, shall we list the very long history of examples of high time, highly experienced, and very "pre-EASA" crews who have indeed flown otherwise serviceable aircraft into the ground. That is much easier, but I guess doesn't add weight to your very light argument.

[Superpilot]

Pre EASA, post EASA. The eighties or the tensies. Lets not forget that the biggest contributors to safety are modern flightdecks and the dawn of CRM. Also not automatically rewarding ex military pilots with a civilian job has helped.

[SR71]

One man's paradise is another man's hell.

I went to University for 7 years and graduated onto a pay scale making 1/3 of what I do now.

I left it because some professions just aren't respected in this country. Why work my socks off in a far more intellectually challenging job (than flying) for peanuts? Does that make me "clever"?

One wonders when Stockbrokers pay is going to readjust when everyone realises the "unqualified cads" are merely gambling with other peoples money? <shock horror>

Recompense settles at the level it does for all kinds of reasons.

Personally I can't see an adjustment to the levels suggested taking place at EZY soon. Stock price ballistic, oil price bottomed out...the operation is a printing press at the moment isn't it? If the pilots can't resist that imperative at this point in time, though, I suppose we should be worried.

Do us a favour John, and let us know what LHS salaries have done at your mob over the last 10 years, including the inflation adjusted ones. I'm pretty sure VS and BA LHS salaries, although experiencing downward pressure, don't demonstrate a trend heading towards £40K any time soon....

[A and C]

While there is a lot of discussion within the industry about the erosion of basic flying skills you seem to be defending the very system that has has been overseeing the safety during this erosion of skills.

Fortunatly I fly for a company that encourages the practice of manual flying to prevent the erosion of these skills, at the same time I am told of a UK A320 operator that has prohibited the disconnection of the auto throttle system.

I can't see how the prohibition manual flight can be a positive way to maintain basic flying skils.

The social mobility issue is also part of the problem within the UK, as the Govenment refuses to help in any way whatsoever an aspiring pilot ( and tax at 20% flying training !) those with talent but little money can't afford to get into the industry.

The result of this is that you are being flown by some of those who only got into the cockpit because they had the money to do so. The system is starting to look a little like the British Army of the 1700's were rich family's paid for the commission of their sons.

[Bealzebub]

No I can't see how it does either, and I also fly for an operator than doesn't discourage the practice of manual flying skills. However, you were suggesting that EASA were seemingly responsible for training pilots with a history of flying skills, who were in turn flying aircraft into the ground.

I couldn't see the actual correlation and asked for an example. The example you suggested involved pilots who couldn't have basically trained under this regime since it didn't exist at the time.

The result of this is that you are being flown by some of those who only got into the cockpit because they had the money to do so. The system is starting to look a little like the British Army of the 1700's were rich family's paid for the commission of their sons.

Perhaps, and indeed life can be unfair in that respect. However given the gross oversupply of potential candidates, it is one natural way of reducing that imbalance. People often find a way around these hurdles as is the case in so many other aspects of life. The training that improves the safety doesn't usually suffer simply because you or your family could afford to pay for it.

[A and C]

EASA has presided over a change in the pilot training system that has gone from allowing those with talent and determination to get into the business to a system that is based entirely on how much money you can afford.

Some of the things seen in the French documentary are shocking, how on earth can the guy who did a full days flying and then had to travel for hours on a bus not going to suffer from long term fatigue ? And that is without the fact he is paying to do so!

How come the EASA operations inspectors are not picking up on the flight safety issues of this practice ?

It is no wonderthe basic flying skills are eroding , very highly reliable automated aircraft, pilots some of who have only a few hours of actual solo flight and those pilots so fatigued that the safest way to fly is with heavy reliance on the automatics.

IMO EASA has been found lacking in its oversight of both flight operations and aircraft maintenance, it is out of touch with reality, burocratic and expensive, all in all it mirrors perfectly its big brother the EU.

A few years back at a House of Commons transport committee meeting the late Glynith Dunwoody MP said EASA was not fit for perpouse and an accident waiting to happen, I have never before or since seen sutch clarity of thought from a Labour MP.

[Bealzebub]

EASA has presided over a change in the pilot training system that has gone from allowing those with talent and determination to get into the business to a system that is based entirely on how much money you can afford. Do you think so? In the 19 years or so that this website has been in existence I have seen the transition taking place under (here in the UK) the CAA, then JAA, and only recently EASA. Those with "talent and determination" always had the hurdle of affordability to contend with. The pinnacle level jobs were always keenly competed for. For many years now I have advised those seeking fasttrack entry into this profession to avail themselves of the integrated cadet programmes. Not because (as have some have erroneously suggested) I have any beneficial connection with that regime, but because for a long time now the writing has been clearly on the wall that this was the direction the industry was inevitably moving in.

Looking back over the last 30 years, the standard of entry level cadets in recent years, is significantly improved on where it was twenty or thirty years ago. There are many reasons for this, but not least amongst them is the consistency in ab-initio training, and the airlines ability to have input into that training as they deem fit. Today the attrition rate of new cadets is a tiny fraction of where it was 30 years ago, and that takes into account the fact that todays candidate arrives with maybe 200 hours, whereas those candidates from bygone eras often arrived with at least 4 times that level of quantitative experience, and usually anything up to ten times that level.

The training via these routes is without doubt expensive. However it is an expense that these days (and nearly always has) falls firmly at the feet of the prospective candidate. Despite this, there is no shortage whatsoever of potential candidates, and their ability (or lack of) to afford that training has no bearing on the standards that the airline sets for its requirements.

I am not sure how the regulatory authority can control how many hours a pilot chooses to travel on a bus (outside of his duty period). In the USA you frequently come across the relatively widespread practice of pilots making transcontinental commutes in order to work at their assigned bases. Most airlines will contractually stipulate the domicile requirements for pre-duty reporting, however in reality neither they nor the regulators can enforce whether a pilot elects to comply with those requirements. Indeed, if they could, it would presumably make the job even more slanted towards those with the ability to afford those costs.

The remuneration for the job is not, and cannot really be a regulated sum. Like everything in a market, it is governed by supply and demand. The supply is plentiful and that sets the benchmark. The affordability issue is undoubtably a significant factor in restricting supply. I can't see how removing that restriction would improve the situation.

[Superpilot]

The commercial prowess of the big schools sets benchmarks and artificially increases supply by organising extremely large loans for any teenager with desire and intention. Loans, which are simply not available to anyone seeking any other career path. The conditions for an oversupply have to be created, and it would seem it has been done meticulously well within aviation. Within other industries, professionals have managed to keep salary trends positive because they have either directly or indirectly influenced the supply situation. Or maybe it's because the senior members of those professions didn't sell out by helping set up training/recruitment organisations which would end up being run entirely for the benefit of their employers with terrible consequences for their individual careers? :hmm:

[Easy Glider]

SR71_ can you tell me the direction Monarch and TCX salaries have taken in the last couple of years?

[wiggy]

I am not sure how the regulatory authority can control how many hours a pilot chooses to travel on a bus (outside of his duty period).

B.

I was thinking the same until I sat through the programme. My French isn't the best but as I understood the dialogue the pilot seemed to be claiming he had no choice in the matter. The claim seemed to be that pilots were regularly operating "open jaw" trips, and were being positioned back by bus/taxi to the trip originating point, umpteen kilometers away, at the end of the day...and there was a hint that time spent on such positioning wasn't being factored into the calculations governing the start time for the next duty....

Of course it's a TV programme so who knows the reality......

[A and C]

Correct me if I am wrong but the French documentary seemed to suggest that the unfortunate pilot was dumped at a station four hours away from his base following 12 hours duty and expected to travel back to base by bus.

If this is the case then I think the EASA operations inspectors should be looking into the matter.

On the issue of the level of ecsesabilxty to the profession I feel it has become far harder because of the amount of money required " up front" rather than thirty years ago when things could be done part time while holding down a job. Add to this the availability of unsecured credit that vanished following a well known training provider that put their graduates with an airline that once the graduates had finished their ( paid for ) line training put them on zero hours contracts and did not give them enough flying to pay the rent...... Let alone the training debt.
Some of them had to file for personal bankruptcy, little wonder the banks are now cautious about lending money for flight training.
I doubt if thirty years back I was at today's prices more than £ 12k in debt during the whole fATPL prosess.
I also think that today's glass cockpits are far less demanding to fly than the clockwork cockpit of old so this may account for the higher failure rate at the type rating that you mention.... Or having spent £150K mummy & daddy are likely to cough up for more simulator training when an airline would have given up.

[SR71]

SR71_ can you tell me the direction Monarch and TCX salaries have taken in the last couple of years?

No idea. Has there been a general trend one way or the other or have drastic corrections been made in the light of their respective financial performance?

No one is arguing that a business must adjust their unit costs in the light of trading conditions, just that, I do not think that, in general, LHS salaries in our industry are about to fall off a precipice and hit ~£40K because of whats going on at entrant level.

Arguably, it is the level of subsequent recompense that keeps the Flight Training Schools in business as kids are still queuing up at the door. Potential career earnings still make the gamble worth it...

So you can have one or the other but not both. If salaries adjust to much lower levels, that ought to drive the flight schools out of business as prospective candidates turn away from the industry, it no longer being worth the gamble. Prices for training would have to adjust.

I wholeheartedly agree, though, running Commercial Flight Training Schools as businesses in their own right is industrial stupidity on a colossal scale for which we have only ourselves to blame.

[A and C]

It is not just the aviation business that takes money for traning young hopefuls knowing full well that most of them will be unlikely to find a job, one very large driving school in the UK does exactly the same......... Overpriced training followed by a placement in one of their driving schools that does not have enough work to pay the costs on the car they provide for you under contract !

Just like taking candy from a baby !

[lucille]

John Smith is right. I've read his post, nowhere do I see him advocating that his opinion is a fair or just outcome.

He is merely paraphrasing what the bean counters and HR have been saying for years. Everywhere I've worked, I have perceived a sense of envy and a latent desire to cut down the tall poppy by most of the back office staff.

Many decades later, it's become the unpalatable truth about the race to the T&C bottom.

We now fly almost crash proof aircraft, ATC has improved, systems have improved. De-skilling of the profession is happening before your very eyes.

Shortly after deskilling of the job comes appropriately unskilled staff working for far lower wages.

How far away do you think UAVs are? Other than the court of public opinion, what else is stopping them from being implemented?

Sorry guys. I'm not gloating, I was lucky and had a good run. I doubt the current crop of 20 year old airline aspirants will have it as good. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. You have to face the future with eyes wide open.

[bringbackthe80s]

You guys might be right, even though it's supply and demand that will decide eventually..but yes the point is absolutely correct.
The simple fact is don't forget most of the pay we get, especially as captains, relates to CRIMINAL responsibility you are accountable for in case anything happens, one instance in a 40 years career is enough. So while I agree completely that this is the way we are going, I see little point in comparing ourselves to Cambridge university graduates, because even though they are way smarter that the average pilot, I haven't seen a literature graduate imprisoned for a mistake on the job yet.

[AlexanderH]

Lol, this is one of the worst documentaries I have seen.

[Greenlights]

relates to CRIMINAL responsibility you are accountable for in case anything happens,

Yes and no...
depends on the personnality. I mean making a mistake (killing pax) is a big mistake but you don't go to prison like that...
But making a fault (voluntary) is different...(if you fly and you're drunk, for sure you are 100% criminal).
There is a difference between error and fault. One happens in any time and you will not be considered as criminal, the other means, you knew you were doing something wrong, so you'll be considered as a criminal.
As a pilot, as long as you do your job by following procedures, there is no problem. If an accident happens you are not alone...(airline, management etc are checked, pilots do not write procedures after all neither the laws...).

[ehwatezedoing]

Lol, this is one of the worst documentaries I have seen.

Do you care to explain why!?

It was not made for pilots, we all know about this issue but for "Joe Blow/Jane Doe the public" who need to be aware about it. And with that I think it's doing its job.

[seasexsun]

Pay to fly is not the main problem in this job. The big problem is salary.

In a couple of years you will see that standard captain salary on A320/B737 will be 4000€/month for 75 hours on avarage, this is the tendency on Vueling, Wizzair, Ryanair, Volotea and so on.

So many young FOs are willing to accept a captain job in those horrible T&Cs.

[Greenlights]

Pay to fly is not the main problem in this job. The big problem is salary.

As long as pay to fly exists, then low salary will exist...if some airlines offer P2F program and that some young people with shiny jet syndrome accept, then why would others airlines offer a high salary ?

[ANGRY Pilots]

There is also a petition against P2F. Can you sign it?
https://secure.avaaz.org/fr/petition/p2f_must_stop/

Thanks

[wheelbarrow]

Can someone with some knowledge of employment law comment on the legality of P2F in UK.
My understanding was that we had a minimum wage in UK. How then can a company charge for one of the crewmembers on an aircraft certified as minimum 2 crew? Surely they should be getting paid at least the minimum wage? I understand that some airlines may be certified to provide training to people not working for them, but does line-flying for payment come under this sort of training?
If an airline is charging for line "training", surely then the pilots in command flying with these trainees should all be certified Line Training Captains. Is this the case?

[pg wing tips]

Wish I had the knowledge Wheelbarrow... My guess it will be usual aviation fiddle to show that you are somehow, or it will be exempt, or some other such nonsense. I do know that self employed and volunteer workers in the UK are not entitled to the minimum wage, so who knows !

[Smokie]

When I sat the ATPL many moons ago it WAS considered to be the equivelant of a Degree. Gawd knows what the level of knowledge is required now.


I am quite sure that there would be some very unhappy "Un paid Interns" that would have to remain so for 10- 15 years, to get the Opportunity to move to the LHS to become a "Real Pilot"......... It just aint gonna happen. :ugh:

[Bealzebub]

When I sat the ATPL many moons ago it WAS considered to be the equivalent of a Degree.

Not in my lifetime it WASn't!

There has long been a circulating myth about this idea, but in reality that is all it every was. I recall that many years ago (possibly Hamble as I cannot find a modern day reference,) there was a specific integrated course whereby the Open University provided a couple of "credits" towards a degree course if you successfully completed the programme. I seem to recall that had as much to do with the peripheral study as it did with the ATPL content. It certainly didn't provide an academic degree of any sort.

Even today, similar quasi courses pop up from time to time whereby the ATPL training may provide an embedded element of a degree course, but I have never seen any correlation or suggestion of "equivalence" between the two, nor would I really expect to.

[Superpilot]

At least one major flight training organisation in the UK used to market the integrated ATPL as "Equivalent to a 2 year BEng course". Rightly or wrongly I don't know but it doesn't matter cos who needs a degree anyway?

[lanef300]

Well if you follow this link:
Equivalence des titres aéronautiques (ATPL,CPL/IR, CPL) - Ministère du Développement durable (http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Equivalence-des-titres,10335.html)

You will see that the french CAA issues a certificate for a degree in exchange for a full atpl licence....

[Bealzebub]

If you follow this link:
The Register of Regulated Qualifications - The Register (http://register.ofqual.gov.uk/)
You will see that neither the UK CAA nor anybody else in the UK does.

[lanef300]

Oh I have no doubt about that, nor the fact that it may well not be justified at all that the DGAC does it.

But it can still come in handy, especially for people looking at a professional reconversion, as it allows you to apply to a few more courses...

[Bealzebub]

yes, indeed.

[wiggy]

Oh I have no doubt about that, nor the fact that it may well not be justified at all that the DGAC does it.


I think that those who went through the likes of ENAC in days of old might perhaps be able to claim with some justification that their "ATPL" has some degree :p of equivalence with the French academic "licence" ( degree to us Anglo Saxons). I can't comment as to whether that is still the case.

[socrates]

There has long been a circulating myth about this idea, but in reality that is all it every was. I recall that many years ago (possibly Hamble as I cannot find a modern day reference,) there was a specific integrated course whereby the Open University provided a couple of "credits" towards a degree course if you successfully completed the programme. I seem to recall that had as much to do with the peripheral study as it did with the ATPL content. It certainly didn't provide an academic degree of any sort.


Times are changing then. Maybe offering a degree in partnership with Middlesex University (who?) will give CTC some credibility. Wonder why its not in partnership with Oxford, Cambridge, Southampton or Bath for example?


BSC DEGREE WITH HONOURS FOR AIRLINE PILOTS
A BSc Degree with Honours in Professional Aviation Pilot Practice is now available in association with Middlesex University, CTC Wings and our Partner Airlines. A new generation of airline pilots will now be eligible* to fund their studies through the grant of UK government loan support which significantly lessens the financial burden of becoming an airline pilot.

Completing your degree through the CTC Wings cadet route will provide you with the opportunity to complete a BSc Honours Degree whilst undergoing flying training. As you progress through the course you will be credited by Middlesex University for the work completed both academically and through your flying exercises and experience. The final part of the degree will be completed whilst working with one of our partner airlines.

You can now apply via the UCAS website or direct to CTC Aviation. The minimum criteria and the processes are shown overleaf.

*Terms and conditions apply - see Student Loans Company - Student Loans Company (http://www.slc.co.uk)

Course Tuition Fees (including loans, grants and other charges)

For cadets who undertake the BSc(Hons) Professional Aviation Pilot Practice degree course, tuition fees are payable directly to Middlesex University for each academic year of the programme. The tuition fees for the 2013/14 academic year are £9,000 equating to a total of £27,000 for the three full time years of the programme at current rates. In addition to the tuition fees charged by Middlesex University, CTC will make operational and equipment charges of £74,300 to include aircraft and simulator hire, airport and CAA fees and pilot equipment. More information can be found at Student Loans Company - Student Loans Company (http://www.slc.co.uk)

[despegue]

At least the French aknowledge the fact that Airline pilots with an ATPL should be given equivalent official degrees, in this case a degree between Bachelor and Master, or the equivalent of the former "'Licenciate" or 4 academic degree.

ATPL also is equivalent to Master in Spain by the way.
At the moment,min Belgium, a frozen ATPL is equivalent to Bachelor ('3 year degree), plans are to allow Full ATPL and Captain on Commercial aircraft a Master equivalent.

This is a fair comparison due to the constant studying, testing and improving required in the Profession.

And those "colleagues" that are against this...get a life and learn to support your profession:ugh::mad:

I have done 4 years of Maritime Academy ( Master in Nautical Sciences) but I can honestly say that I Have never had to study as much as for the 14 ATPL subjects and thereafter the ( paid by airline) Typerating...

[despegue]

No, it is not.

I did both, granted in a time where one did not just has to learn the questions and correct answers by heart:ugh:.

[tubby linton]

A typical degree in the UK (Geography at a London Uni)now only offers around four hours per week of tuition. This only amounts to around 120 hours per academic year.
My last type rating groundschool involved a similar amount of tuition over a three week period!

[despegue]

I had 1200 hours of ground school for the theory part only, plus around 500h. Total for briefings/debriefings and flying.

Plus Jet Conversion/MCC 40 hours sim plus 30 hours brief/debrief plus 50 hours classroom.

Typerating: 150 theory, 60 h. Sim, 45 h. Brief/debrief.

And this is without constant studying, upgrade courses etc etc...

At least 2000h. Of FORMAL TRAINING, MUCH MORE INTENSIVE THAN AT UNIVERSITY before your first job.

At university, you get MAXIMUM 800h. Of formal training per academic year, at a much slower intensity.

Those ridiculizing an ATPL have no idea and most probably are those who just studied the questions and answers without proper study of the content:=

[despegue]

BULL.

We are trained to execute a flight in a safe and economical way, and to counter any situation with the correct solution to ensure a safe result.

The "driving" part ( and will you British please stop comparing flying with driving:ugh:) is only a small part of the operation.
If you were a Captain on a Commercial Jet working for an Airline, you would know that by the way.

[JosuaNkomo]

I live to fly, it is my passion!!!. We are drivers nothing more nothing less.

[despegue]

Withmthat attitude, you have no place in Commercial aviation, let alone as a Pilot in Command.:rolleyes: live to fly or not, first mature and start realizing that being flightcrew involves more than handling a machine. Ever heard of Airmanship, Operation Management and Company Representative ?!
Bet not. You have never flown in your life.:rolleyes:

[Black belt]

Yes, the truth is a hard pill to swallow. But today's pilots are just glorified bus drivers. Long hours, low pay. You have the pay 2 work guys who are so desperate with mummy and daddy's money, pulling the industry down, to the levels of monkey intelligence. :D

[JosuaNkomo]

despegue ( Spanish for take off ) I am sorry but face facts with increased automation and a willing stream of pay to fly morons the supply and demand curve is not in our favour.


Too many drivers equals lower terms for those pilots on new contracts. Veuling and new easyjet,Ryanair,flybe contractors and employees etc can vouch for that. Anyone for the new reduced Porto contracts at easyjet....why only new entrants.


Change your moniker to Desperate ( English for extremely bad or intolerable )

[olster]

Despegue has a point. Very interesting to see how easy it is to disparage flying as a profession and then come up with the time honoured 'bus driver' cliches. Yet somehow thousands are apparently beating down ctc's door to become pilots. The industry is undoubtedly in a dreadful state but it is too easy to denigrate the application and yes, study required for a successful career. It would be unfair to compare an EASA ATPL course with a Cambridge University engineering degree but the ATPL is not negligible. The skills required of an airline pilot are not exclusively academic.

[gorter]

I did both a bsc and now hold a full ATPL. Yes you work hard for an ATPL but you are pretty much spoon fed everything from day 1. A degree maybe hold less direct contact, but you are expected (at least at my university) to go out after class and find out everything else. I'm sorry but an ATPL is nothing like the difficulty (and required self discipline) of a proper university degree.

[Shooting_Star]

despegue, where did you hear an ATPL course in worth a bachelor in Belgium ? As far as I know it's worth nothing :confused: Id love to change mine for a bachelor :}

[Three Lions]

Although having done both degree and ATPL courses, my experience of both is unfortunately from long ago.

I personally found the degree course much more difficult from a perspective of the level of mathematics (it was engineering based) but the ATPL although easier technically, and over more skillsets, plus the constant noise of reaching a particular standard to avoid the dreaded chop constantly humming in the background made the ATPL tougher mentally.

That said the degree just about edged ahead on overall difficulty

That was years ago.

In recent history, both have changed. Both have now moved away from a genuine educational and learning process into something with financial gain at the core.

Germany has recently started crowing from the rooftops about how they have every university without student fees. This is a country, im sure even the most homeland loving German will admit, isnt perfect, however there is no doubt it is a nation that puts its trust in its achievers, and rewards its talent . The UK is in desperate need to follow this direction, not only in the educational sector, but also in Aviation.

The current model in aviation has been, on the whole, sub contracted out to third part "service providers" Its clear for most people to see, that with the current set up, the negatives to the industry as a whole far outweigh the positives

The practice of using finance as an additional filter to any process, be it a university degree course or a path to a virtually ringfenced area of work in aviation isnt fair and doesnt reward talent.

Subsequently big gains and advancements can be made to ensure those with the right talents end up in the most suitable careers. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Aviation in the UK

Manipulation of a course breakdown summary can tell one story, however there is no doubt that over paying for training then commencing work on an under salary is in essence "PTF under the counter" and is very prevalent in the UK industry. This is definately helping to drive everything downwards

[TheBigD]

At least the French aknowledge the fact that Airline pilots with an ATPL should be given equivalent official degrees, in this case a degree between Bachelor and Master, or the equivalent of the former "'Licenciate" or 4 academic degree.
At least 2000h. Of FORMAL TRAINING, MUCH MORE INTENSIVE THAN AT UNIVERSITY before your first job.



Yeah , I'm pretty much willing to bet that I studied much harder for my bachelor's in mechanical engineering than you did for your 14 ATPL ground exams. But then again, I only went to Stanford University; so I'm sure the academic standards at Stanford weren't up to par with those of the fine flight training organization you attended....:ok:

[M33]

Tripe,

Having both an Aero MEng and ATPL, I would be inclined to suggest flying theory is akin to GCSE/AS level. Most certainly not in the same league as degree.

It's an absolute joke thinking that you could get awarded a degree for holding an ATPL. If you want a degree go and find out what real studying is!

[JosuaNkomo]

Agreed. The general dumbing down of education in the UK means everybody sees a degree as a bare minimum educational requirement.The ATPL theory has also been dumbed down over the last two decades.


Having no degree has not been something I regret, but if these youngsters need a piece of paper to boost their self esteem let them have it. It will mean nothing anyway.

[wheelbarrow]

John Smith

If the airlines are providing "training" then surely all the Captains with whom the "trainees" fly should be training captains. I do not believe this to be the case, therefore they cannot really be providing training. The newspaper the photographer was providing free photographs to was not required by legislation to have a qualified photographer providing it's photos, whereas all commercial aircraft are certified as minimum 2 crew. This seems to me to indicate that this requires someone doing a job, hence the need to be paid at least minimum wage.
Has there ever been a challenge along these lines on the legality of P2F?

[Deep and fast]

It it easy to dumb down the description of any career if you really feel bitter enough or just cruel, for example.

Accountants are calculator operators
Barristers are just good at arguements
Some company CEOs liars?, to both employees and even sometimes shareholders as I seem to remember one very large company in hot water over profit predictions recently

Maybe pilots were more "skygod" years ago with rubbish auto pilot systems, less reliable aircraft and non precision approaches, but equally, they were much better rested, considerably less concentration of traffic, much better paid so less financial stress and had the respect of their company and colleges. All leading to a work environment with less external stressors which can only enhance safety.

Now days, you have tiredness(you can't call it fatigue as the duty is legal so you must have not managed your rest :E) financial pressures ie they have just closed your base and your living in a B and B while trying to move your family till they close your new base etc, close to maximum hours per year all in some of the busiest airspace in the world!

So really we are "new skygod", one that can be treated like poop, doesn't seem to need sleep, can operate to a high standard day in day out while under huge external stress ie redundancy or financial ie pay to fly and still smile and bring the pax home safe day in day out.

If the definition of this is driver, then I guess I'm a driver.

Ps I don't always smile.....

[Gilles Hudicourt]

When pilots do line indoctrination at an airline, meaning the flights they do before obtaining their final line check, they have to fly with a pilot who is designated and qualified to provide line checks and who is normally is paid extra to do this.
Once the SIC is qualified on the aircraft and begins to fly with all line Captains, how can they still be considered "Second Officers" or "Junior First Officers" and get paid less then regular First Officers while they are performing the same tasks as First Officers ?

[Deep and fast]

A little out of date, but while the newbies were being comprehensibly bent over, this was going on.As stelios says"nice work if you can get it"


EasyJet profits trigger £6.4m payout for boss | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/article/1386300996/easyjet-profits-trigger-64m-payout-boss)

Oh, this ones better

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/business/boss-easyjet-paid-300-times-4755928

[CONF iture]

Hi Gilles,
It appears some (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pilot-pays-your-ticket-fabrizio-poli) like what you write to the point to extensively copy your text, but without stating it ... That is not so Poli.

Trop fort Tanguy !

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

Pay-to-fly schemes for young pilots must stop (https://www.eurocockpit.be/stories/20150428/pay-to-fly-schemes-for-young-pilots-must-stop)


Nice article on ECA website.

[slowjet]

Today's dumbed down ATPL is probably worth a dumbed down degree. My ATPL required an average pass mark of 70%. Let's say an "A" grade at "A" level in those days. Plotting, Met Practical & Flt Planning all required 80% to pass. So, around 10 "A" levels (in the old days) at "A" grade standard. Definitely Degree standard. I was offered a place at Oxford to read Law with just TWO "A" levels . Multi choice (?), what's that ???? All hand written responses required & no past papers to cheat with !Where do I apply for my degree ? Getting tired of writing UK ATPL, IR, Perf A after my name !

[beachbumflyer]

Rise in pay-to-fly pilot numbers raises ECA concerns - 4/30/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rise-in-pay-to-fly-pilot-numbers-raises-eca-concerns-411787/)

And now they are concerned? They should have been concerned long time ago.

[Dan Winterland]

My ATPL was accepted as an acceptable qualification for the entry requirements for a Masters Degree course without actually having one.

[FLCH]

The ATPL has to done with a practical application of your knowledge to finish your qualification ie your flight test.

A formal degree doesn't, so why the argument over the academic merits of either ?

[Wirbelsturm]

2 Degrees and ATPL in both Aeroplanes and Helicopters and I didn't particularly find any more onerous or difficult than the other.

Dull argument if you ask me.

[Cliff Secord]

Who gives a rats ass if an ATPL is harder/equatable to a BSC/pub quizz? Seriously? Did your balls ever drop? Get past playing who's conker is bigger or harder. Are you the same types who bragged about your school grades but cried when you got decked on a night out in the real world? Catch yourself on. I couldn't careless what anybody thinks of me, what anybody thinks of my professional qualification over their wine and cheese party. Screw those types. Shallow buggers as insecure as anybody.

What I care about is whether an employer values that enough to pay me right and give me a lifestyle that won't hurt my health, allowing me a fair slice of my own (I own it) life whilst I head to retirement. Right now, it doesn't matter what the qualification is worth. The supply is faultless. I could start the most impossible qualification known to man, with 30 years training tomorrow. Other than trying to impress your mates down the pub it's worthless for finding a job if no one values it as being in short supply. Think metals . Think 'tin' and think 'gold'. It's supply and demand. Who gives a **** how hard it is. Some in aviation will be eternally stuck in a middle class world. They need to wake up, get used to being a blue collar worker and realize flying aeroplanes is just another work place, the same as any industry subject to the same principles.

[hunterboy]

cliff
sadly, the 2 seem to be related. The airlines and authorities have successfully lowered the barriers to entry for the job by dumbing down the qualification, and in some cases inventing new ones. (MCC)
This has enables supply to exceed demand, lowering the rate for the job. It is interesting to see that where demand has exceeded supply in China for experienced Captains, the rate is soaring.