Pilot shortage
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can either fly, or you can’t.
I’ve flown with 300 hours pilots who’s skill is better than some 3,000 hour pilots I’ve flown with. There are good and bad operators in EVERY aspect of the industry, GA, military and the airlines.
A good indication is time taken to solo. I think anything from 10 to 15 hours to solo is on the mark and these pilots generally progress to become competent pilots.
The point I’m making, is the pilot shortage can be resolved by lowering the unreasonable minimums required for the right hand seat. Hours aside, if the applicant is a good pilot, why do they not deserve a shot?
Let’s not forget, you only need a CPL as a minimum to fly as the FO. Asking for 2,000 TT, 500 multi PIC , ATPL and all the other crap they ask for to be an FO is over the top and unnecessary and doesn’t necessarily make them an outstanding pilot.
Something more reasonable would be 500 PIC and 3 years to attain the ATPL exam credits.
Raptor
I’ve flown with 300 hours pilots who’s skill is better than some 3,000 hour pilots I’ve flown with. There are good and bad operators in EVERY aspect of the industry, GA, military and the airlines.
A good indication is time taken to solo. I think anything from 10 to 15 hours to solo is on the mark and these pilots generally progress to become competent pilots.
The point I’m making, is the pilot shortage can be resolved by lowering the unreasonable minimums required for the right hand seat. Hours aside, if the applicant is a good pilot, why do they not deserve a shot?
Let’s not forget, you only need a CPL as a minimum to fly as the FO. Asking for 2,000 TT, 500 multi PIC , ATPL and all the other crap they ask for to be an FO is over the top and unnecessary and doesn’t necessarily make them an outstanding pilot.
Something more reasonable would be 500 PIC and 3 years to attain the ATPL exam credits.
Raptor
Sounds kinda dumb, right? Yeah, exactly. Yes, I'm sure that if one looked hard enough, one could find an extraordinarily talented 300 hour pilot who was better than an extremely inept 3,000 hour pilot. But pretending that there's no difference between the average 3000 hour pilot and the average 300 hour pilot is a bit inane.
The reality is minimum requirements will be dictated by supply (as has been stated time and again). Whether a 300 hour pilot is as good or better than a 3000 hour pilot is irrelevant. Attitude and a willingness to learn from others is more important, particularly from the 3000 hour pilot ( I say that only cause the 3000 hour pilot has seen and done far more than the 300 hour pilot and may be of the belief that they know better)
There were plenty of jobs I would have liked to be a part of but with no ATPL, I wasn't considered. Now those jobs will look at you with a CPL (last I looked, it has been a while).
If Airlines really want to pick the best of the best advertise the minimums that are in accordance with the regulations. Pilots put their name in, when their name get's to the top they get a chance, If they're good enough they've got the job, if not, name goes to the bottom of the list and try again when their name is at the top again.
There were plenty of jobs I would have liked to be a part of but with no ATPL, I wasn't considered. Now those jobs will look at you with a CPL (last I looked, it has been a while).
If Airlines really want to pick the best of the best advertise the minimums that are in accordance with the regulations. Pilots put their name in, when their name get's to the top they get a chance, If they're good enough they've got the job, if not, name goes to the bottom of the list and try again when their name is at the top again.
Why does the cadet debate have to find its way into every second thread? Management decide what they want and that’s pretty much it.
Natural talent takes you nowhere without work. The one natural talent you do want in life, career and love is that of working at it and trying to improve no matter what your experience level. Naturally persistent.
Natural talent takes you nowhere without work. The one natural talent you do want in life, career and love is that of working at it and trying to improve no matter what your experience level. Naturally persistent.
If the Govt at the time hadn't let flying school schools access to Fee Help we would have a big short fall of pilots right now.
Wages would have increased and hiring mins decreased.
Wages would have increased and hiring mins decreased.
I think a point is being missed here. What if you had the opportunity to hire a good operator with 300 hours, or hire that same pilot 3000 hours later but at a higher salary due to that accrued experience. Cadets are good for the bottom line, regardless of ability.
In Australia, you can't pay the cadet less because they only have 300 hours. Same role, same pay.
The Airlines need to have Cadet schemes that are fully funded by the Airline , this way they will have a larger pool of people to choose from , instead of the wealthy family types .
The training could have a $200,000 5 year bond that is deducted pre tax for the first 5 years of employment , this way everybody wins !
The training could have a $200,000 5 year bond that is deducted pre tax for the first 5 years of employment , this way everybody wins !
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem #2 The operator will have to bear some or all of the financial risk for failures. Who is going to sign up to a deal where they owe $200,000 without a job? Chicken and the egg problem - you have to prove you can be a pilot before someone will help your to pay to become a pilot.
The training could have a $200,000 5 year bond that is deducted pre tax for the first 5 years of employment , this way everybody wins !
problem #4 Other operators have incentive to poach and pay out the bond as they don't have to take the expensive risk & liability, plus they are getting a proven performer.
I don't believe that Australian operators have yet come to the realisation that we will need to go down the path of creating a liability for themselves just to keep the planes flying. This will happen, but we need a major crisis before this happens. We are not there yet...
Virgin uses the government fee-help as their funding, so there is no risk to the operator if the cadet doesn't make the grade or pulls out.
I'm pretty sure Rex offer the loan themselves (80% of a ~$120k loan), but if the cadet fails to complete the program and their service period, they are liable for paying the full amount back to Rex.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I understand the VET/FEE-HELP system is in place. The cadet still ends up paying the total bill in after tax dollars. Failure to qualify still falls on the shoulders of the cadet backstopped by the Federal government as the loan is eventually recouped through via the tax system.
Doing it this way removes most ability for the operator to control the pilot. Just starting to hear experienced FO's are taking China contracts too, I presume for their upgrade potential.
Learning to fly is still financially highly risky. Operators may eventually need to assume some of that risk to keep the equipment flying.
Doing it this way removes most ability for the operator to control the pilot. Just starting to hear experienced FO's are taking China contracts too, I presume for their upgrade potential.
Learning to fly is still financially highly risky. Operators may eventually need to assume some of that risk to keep the equipment flying.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operators may eventually need to assume some of that risk to keep the equipment flying.
As the contractor assumed responsibility for costs usually borne by an employer (think retirement and sick leave) the push continued unabated.
For pilots the risk and expense is substantial and a serious impediment. It is this reality and a sober assessment of terms and conditions that likely is in part responsible for the lack of qualified applicant.
Eventually airlines in Australia will have to abandon their adversarial posture and perhaps even realise that all the fancy bolt on bits of the modern corporation need revenue; for an airline that remains flying. Flying needs pilots.
It will be amusing to see faux smiles and media releases as airline managers through gritted teeth say pilots are important and as a result our airline is investing...and actually incur the cost instead of outsourcing it to the pilot. It has been amusing watching Mr O'Leary have to back off
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Well I think with the latest comment from Andrew David re Jetconnect and Network the gloves are off, PIA will be the only way, bring on delayed EBAs!
Short story, an email to members today from AIPA indicates the company is unwilling to provide firm and binding assurances regarding its intentions for either Network or Jetconnect.
Mainline pilots now face pilots on far inferior contracts, flying the same aircraft, which are soon to be VH registered, doing flying they used to do.
Further, unbidden, the company has made reference to further 787 orders and the 747/ 380 replacement in its communications with AIPA. The subtext and intent is clear - play nice, cop the pineapple or the shiny new jets go elsewhere.
Pilots have been here before and simply don’t trust a company which has shown its willingness to ground the airline and use plenty of nasty tricks, including demotions, to accomplish its industrial agenda.
Mainline pilots now face pilots on far inferior contracts, flying the same aircraft, which are soon to be VH registered, doing flying they used to do.
Further, unbidden, the company has made reference to further 787 orders and the 747/ 380 replacement in its communications with AIPA. The subtext and intent is clear - play nice, cop the pineapple or the shiny new jets go elsewhere.
Pilots have been here before and simply don’t trust a company which has shown its willingness to ground the airline and use plenty of nasty tricks, including demotions, to accomplish its industrial agenda.
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 29th Jan 2018 at 10:31.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What firm and binding assurances were asked for??
My understanding is that they could have operated jetconnect within Australia (aka cabotage) under the CER's SAM rights for many years now - even as ZK registered jets - yet they have not. Why all the knickers in a knot now just because they are VH registered? What difference does the rego make?
My understanding is that they could have operated jetconnect within Australia (aka cabotage) under the CER's SAM rights for many years now - even as ZK registered jets - yet they have not. Why all the knickers in a knot now just because they are VH registered? What difference does the rego make?
Last edited by RealityCzech; 29th Jan 2018 at 11:02.
The issue was that Andrew David had told AIPA late last year that he had been given approval by Alan Joyce to provide assurances. The format and words were to be finalised over Christmas. At the meeting last week where AIPA was expecting to be told what form and words would be employed, Andrew David stated that there would be no assurances given.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And did he give any detail on what that assurance might be? Or was the wording more like he would go away and try to get some sort of assurance but couldn't really say what, because he didn't know? Why has the lack of assurance not been an issue until the rego change - which makes no practical difference to what they can/can't do? Did anyone really expect some written assurance scope clause? 2011????