The PPRuNe Fund discussion thread
When you live....
Sorry to be a spoilsport (and not denigrating the achievements of the Fund cadets) but surely an organisation such as PPRune should in no way shape or form be seen as encouraging wannabees from obtaining type ratings from comercial providers?
As well as making things harder for the rest of us, it is well established on many forums that this type of forcing even more of the burden of training onto pilots has achieved the global errosion of terms and conditions for all.
Good luck to those cadets for seizing the opportuninity but PPRune, what were you thinking?
UTR.
As well as making things harder for the rest of us, it is well established on many forums that this type of forcing even more of the burden of training onto pilots has achieved the global errosion of terms and conditions for all.
Good luck to those cadets for seizing the opportuninity but PPRune, what were you thinking?
UTR.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth are you on about? Are you seriously suggesting that Pprune's Astraeus cadets have reduced your chances of getting a job? In that case, surely anyone getting a job reduces your chances!
Pprune had the opportunity to offer several fATPL-qualified wannabes the chance to follow their dream. They are obliged to repay the Pprune fund's outlay with some interest, but only once they are earning a living from flying - which all the original cadets are now doing. Can you show me a scheme where training costs are not repaid, either directly, or through reduced initial salary? Even BA did it this way...
We are not 'forcing' anyone to pay for type ratings. If you believe that to be the case, you have a seriously skewed view of the world. I suggest you wind your neck in!
Scroggs
Pprune had the opportunity to offer several fATPL-qualified wannabes the chance to follow their dream. They are obliged to repay the Pprune fund's outlay with some interest, but only once they are earning a living from flying - which all the original cadets are now doing. Can you show me a scheme where training costs are not repaid, either directly, or through reduced initial salary? Even BA did it this way...
We are not 'forcing' anyone to pay for type ratings. If you believe that to be the case, you have a seriously skewed view of the world. I suggest you wind your neck in!
Scroggs
Last edited by scroggs; 14th May 2005 at 07:29.
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would appear to be to all intents and purposes a bonding scheme with but with a selection procedure involving the benelovence of people willing to give up their time in order to get involved with finding the right candidates. Personally I wish there were a few more schemes around like this. I am glad to here that my paltry donation to Pprune is helping someone somewhere find a job.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it's not a bonding scheme. Bonds are, if you like, a 'redemption penalty' which only becomes payable if you leave an employer before the bond period ends. There is nothing to pay if you stay.
The sums involved are considerably less than any of the commercial type rating schemes available, as the scheme cost Astraeus as well. Effectively, it is a part-sponsorship by Astraeus supplemented by a loan from the Pprune Fund.
Edit: my earlier explanation wasn't quite right, as Don has just pointed out to me. However, the reality is quite complex so, rather than try and explain it here, I'd recommend you go back and check the archives for the explanations at the time. The fact remains that Pprune is not encouraging people to go on speculative type-rating schemes, and nor does our involvement in any way reduce the job chances for anyone else.
The sums involved are considerably less than any of the commercial type rating schemes available, as the scheme cost Astraeus as well. Effectively, it is a part-sponsorship by Astraeus supplemented by a loan from the Pprune Fund.
Edit: my earlier explanation wasn't quite right, as Don has just pointed out to me. However, the reality is quite complex so, rather than try and explain it here, I'd recommend you go back and check the archives for the explanations at the time. The fact remains that Pprune is not encouraging people to go on speculative type-rating schemes, and nor does our involvement in any way reduce the job chances for anyone else.
Last edited by scroggs; 14th May 2005 at 07:27.
When you live....
scroggs,
no, i'm not suggesting at all that the scheme has reduced my chances of getting a job.
what it has done is increase the likelihood that I and all other wannabees will have to fork out for our initial type rating.
if in the position of being able to apply for a scheme of this type I'd jump at it as the terms and conditions are excellent and for once in favour of the pilot - my point is simply that there are now 5 (soon to be 9) more low hours type rated pilots in the job market which changes the percentages ever so slightly towards the position that the airlines want - no self sponsored type rating (or other scheme involving the pilot paying for the rating), no chance!
Just because "Even BA did it this way..." doesn't make it right!
The current scheme you propose of offering ground school is one I can support unconditionally as it is of benefit to the deserving cadets whilst not raising the bar in terms of what constitues the pre-requesites for training in this industry.
So yes, I still believe ppRune is making it harder for me to break into the industry - not technically but financially. I must confess that I was suprised that no-one else seems to feel this way - obviously there is now a resignedness amongst all that paying for a type rating is inevitable irrespective of the means by which it is achieved.
no, i'm not suggesting at all that the scheme has reduced my chances of getting a job.
what it has done is increase the likelihood that I and all other wannabees will have to fork out for our initial type rating.
if in the position of being able to apply for a scheme of this type I'd jump at it as the terms and conditions are excellent and for once in favour of the pilot - my point is simply that there are now 5 (soon to be 9) more low hours type rated pilots in the job market which changes the percentages ever so slightly towards the position that the airlines want - no self sponsored type rating (or other scheme involving the pilot paying for the rating), no chance!
Just because "Even BA did it this way..." doesn't make it right!
The current scheme you propose of offering ground school is one I can support unconditionally as it is of benefit to the deserving cadets whilst not raising the bar in terms of what constitues the pre-requesites for training in this industry.
So yes, I still believe ppRune is making it harder for me to break into the industry - not technically but financially. I must confess that I was suprised that no-one else seems to feel this way - obviously there is now a resignedness amongst all that paying for a type rating is inevitable irrespective of the means by which it is achieved.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure you don't get it do you!
If you think that 9 cadets working for Astraeus is going to affect your chances you are definitely exploring the wrong workplace.
Paying for type ratings is quite normal in some airlines, that's for sure. However, did you apply for one of the places when we put it up?
To say that PPRuNe is making it harder for you and anyone else to break into the industry - financially - is blatantly a stupid thing to say. Why? Because you have no idea of the figures involved. There was, and never will be, enough money in the fund to take anyone forward to a complete course costing around £54k. What we, the fund, has done is helped them a little.
Astraeus are the ones who gave the cadets the opportunity to fly. We just arranged it!
If you think that 9 cadets working for Astraeus is going to affect your chances you are definitely exploring the wrong workplace.
Paying for type ratings is quite normal in some airlines, that's for sure. However, did you apply for one of the places when we put it up?
To say that PPRuNe is making it harder for you and anyone else to break into the industry - financially - is blatantly a stupid thing to say. Why? Because you have no idea of the figures involved. There was, and never will be, enough money in the fund to take anyone forward to a complete course costing around £54k. What we, the fund, has done is helped them a little.
Astraeus are the ones who gave the cadets the opportunity to fly. We just arranged it!
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Pop
I think it's excellent what you, Hamrah and Danny have done for these guys with the PPRuNe Fund - huge congratulations. Getting onto that first step on the ladder is the hardest thing in the world and to give people the opportunity is fantastic. Long may it continue and become bigger and more successful.
With regards to people paying for that first step - well, if they want to and have the money, do it! I've had to pay for my first type rating, albeit it's paid back to me everymonth by the company but the debt is still mine! I couldn't afford to pay for a rating outright but if other people can, good luck to em! I spoke to a friend this morning who starts her A320 rating tomorrow, all paid for by herself! I thinks it's great....and it's happening more and more as a recognised way of getting a job and starting the career. If your not lucky enough to secure employment with a rating paid for you - if you can afford it and it increases your chances of employment (which is what's this is all about!) then so be it...
Personally, I don't think it has any effect on our Terms and Conditions, in the early days your always going to paid what your worth and with 250 hours TT, thats not alot! You accept your future steps on the ladder that suit your lifestyle etc etc....this is your choice.
As I said in another post:
The importance of luck, never underestimate it! You need talent, application and luck to get on - and finding luck is the most important factor in finding success!
Not my words, but a very wise and experienced pilot i've had the great pleasure of meeting.
Cheers
JB
I think it's excellent what you, Hamrah and Danny have done for these guys with the PPRuNe Fund - huge congratulations. Getting onto that first step on the ladder is the hardest thing in the world and to give people the opportunity is fantastic. Long may it continue and become bigger and more successful.
With regards to people paying for that first step - well, if they want to and have the money, do it! I've had to pay for my first type rating, albeit it's paid back to me everymonth by the company but the debt is still mine! I couldn't afford to pay for a rating outright but if other people can, good luck to em! I spoke to a friend this morning who starts her A320 rating tomorrow, all paid for by herself! I thinks it's great....and it's happening more and more as a recognised way of getting a job and starting the career. If your not lucky enough to secure employment with a rating paid for you - if you can afford it and it increases your chances of employment (which is what's this is all about!) then so be it...
Personally, I don't think it has any effect on our Terms and Conditions, in the early days your always going to paid what your worth and with 250 hours TT, thats not alot! You accept your future steps on the ladder that suit your lifestyle etc etc....this is your choice.
As I said in another post:
The importance of luck, never underestimate it! You need talent, application and luck to get on - and finding luck is the most important factor in finding success!
Not my words, but a very wise and experienced pilot i've had the great pleasure of meeting.
Cheers
JB
Last edited by JB007; 15th May 2005 at 13:14.
When you live....
pprune pop,
before going on a personal attack, please at least attempt to follow my line of reasoning.
no, I don't think 9 more astreaus cadets affects my employment chances - I'm aware of the high risk nature of the industry I've chosen
nor did I ever say that pprune had funded the entire training costs of their cadets
but - I have budgeted approx 37k for PPL to fATPL training and hope to find a job from there. That figure includes 3k for a MCC course which has only recently crept onto the list of things the pilot is expected to pay for rather than the employer.
So having spent my hard earned cash - what next?
- Best case scenario - find a job flying twins or even turbo props, gaining hours and moving on - employer pays any type rating training costs (unlikely I know)
- Next most preferred - get a job on a reduced salary until type rating is paid off.
- Next most - as above but bonded (so I pay the interest/take risk on the debt)
- Least preferred - speculative type rating.
The pprune scheme seems a cross between the speculative & the reduced salary options - the key difference being that pprune (the bank) has far more patience than a normal bank.
However you add it up or categorise it, the total training costs for those cadets has increased from the cost of their fATPL by the cost of a 757 endorsement.
My point (and it has been made many times on this forum by many people including WWW) is that fATPLs should not be expected to pay for a type rating. By offering cadetships of this type, ppRune adds momentum to the changing nature of the training/employment industry whereby a fATPL will only be an intermediate stage enroute to the completion of a trainee's self funded learing.
So, before any of the moderators have another pop, please preculde your attack with the answer to following questions: Do you (personally) think it is reasonable that fATPLs should have to pay for their first type rating? Does ppRune have a position on the issue?
To answer your question - no, I didn't apply for the cadetship - I'm not qualified yet. But if you'd read my post properly you'd see that I would have if I could have. It is a tough industry where getting that first step is difficult and requires luck as well as skill (as JB007 says) so if I have to I will. I just don't like that it's going to cost me an extra 15k or so to get the point where I'm at the bottom of the ladder looking for that first step. Don't forget that 99% of wannabees paying for their endorsement don't get such good conditions as the pprune cadets - if we fail or something goes wrong then we end up with the debt.
JB007 - two things. How is paying for an astreaus cadetship (via pprune or any other method) radically different from you paying your type rating? (If you were guaranteed a job regardless of passing or failing the rating then disregard that question (were you? didn't think so)).
Secondly, if you think it won't affect t&c's for everyone then imagine the scenario when a company announces that any form of training will require a bond (including fleet change, captains training etc). If you're bonded to a company then you're not leaving even if they do treat you poorly or there's much better money/conditions available down the road. Also, if you're bonded, standing up for yourself on a safety issue is going to be that little bit harder.
UTR
before going on a personal attack, please at least attempt to follow my line of reasoning.
no, I don't think 9 more astreaus cadets affects my employment chances - I'm aware of the high risk nature of the industry I've chosen
nor did I ever say that pprune had funded the entire training costs of their cadets
but - I have budgeted approx 37k for PPL to fATPL training and hope to find a job from there. That figure includes 3k for a MCC course which has only recently crept onto the list of things the pilot is expected to pay for rather than the employer.
So having spent my hard earned cash - what next?
- Best case scenario - find a job flying twins or even turbo props, gaining hours and moving on - employer pays any type rating training costs (unlikely I know)
- Next most preferred - get a job on a reduced salary until type rating is paid off.
- Next most - as above but bonded (so I pay the interest/take risk on the debt)
- Least preferred - speculative type rating.
The pprune scheme seems a cross between the speculative & the reduced salary options - the key difference being that pprune (the bank) has far more patience than a normal bank.
However you add it up or categorise it, the total training costs for those cadets has increased from the cost of their fATPL by the cost of a 757 endorsement.
My point (and it has been made many times on this forum by many people including WWW) is that fATPLs should not be expected to pay for a type rating. By offering cadetships of this type, ppRune adds momentum to the changing nature of the training/employment industry whereby a fATPL will only be an intermediate stage enroute to the completion of a trainee's self funded learing.
So, before any of the moderators have another pop, please preculde your attack with the answer to following questions: Do you (personally) think it is reasonable that fATPLs should have to pay for their first type rating? Does ppRune have a position on the issue?
To answer your question - no, I didn't apply for the cadetship - I'm not qualified yet. But if you'd read my post properly you'd see that I would have if I could have. It is a tough industry where getting that first step is difficult and requires luck as well as skill (as JB007 says) so if I have to I will. I just don't like that it's going to cost me an extra 15k or so to get the point where I'm at the bottom of the ladder looking for that first step. Don't forget that 99% of wannabees paying for their endorsement don't get such good conditions as the pprune cadets - if we fail or something goes wrong then we end up with the debt.
JB007 - two things. How is paying for an astreaus cadetship (via pprune or any other method) radically different from you paying your type rating? (If you were guaranteed a job regardless of passing or failing the rating then disregard that question (were you? didn't think so)).
Secondly, if you think it won't affect t&c's for everyone then imagine the scenario when a company announces that any form of training will require a bond (including fleet change, captains training etc). If you're bonded to a company then you're not leaving even if they do treat you poorly or there's much better money/conditions available down the road. Also, if you're bonded, standing up for yourself on a safety issue is going to be that little bit harder.
UTR
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh lordy lordy!!! This is all kinda throwing water on Infin's good news and thankyou posting.....Sorry Don!
I've just gotta say UnderneathTheRadar, your profile says PPL and you have written you've budgeted for PPL to fATPL etc etc, so i'm going to assume your studying for ATPL writtens? Sorry if i'm wrong with that assumption but I am so suprised at your stage of the fATPL mountain that you are having these kind of thoughts that is genuine anger for the system. You either want to REALLY REALLY do this for a living or not. If most people knew what was ahead of them when starting off on the route to being a professional pilot would they do it?! And i'm not just talking about the training and the cost, but the horrible, fierce, cut-throat competition of getting a job at the end of it and the potential of coughing up another £15-20,000 for the type rating you've described that not everyone, including me, can afford.
But it's easy to see, reading these forums, that this is how it is! Tough. Nothing me, you or Uncle Tom Cobbly can do about it. So if you are having these doubts then leave the system - because it is one very big financial gamble from start to finish. And at your stage, future Terms and Conditions should be in a galaxy far far away from what you should be thinking about!
To answer your questions:
No, I think it is very unreasonable. As i've stated, I couldn't afford to do it. End of story. It wasn't an option for me. But I got lucky as i'm sure others have done and whose to say you won't. Ok, so I had to find some more money but it's paid for with interest every month, i'm neither worse or better off because of it. I had no plan if something hadn't have come along so to this day i'm not sure what i'd have done, but I would have found a way because there is simply nothing else I want to do to earn my living. My friend who is buying her A320 rating has spent a fortune, but she's happy to do it and may have a 6 month contract with MYT this summer at the end of it - if she's happy, whats it matter what me or you think about what she's doing!
As I explained above, I am neither worse or better off because of my bonding. I just have some extra debt that will disappear as long as I sit out my period of bond at no cost to me! I think this is a perfectly fair system. You need to get very clear in your head that with 250 TT you still know nowt!!! And everyone in the interview room, the TRE's and the line trainers know this. And you should too! The company took a gamble on me by giving me the job with my tiny experience level and I took a gamble by signing my bond. I could, at any time, have failed my type-rating, my line training or my final linecheck - thankfully, I didn't - bugger me! The gamble paid off - I have a fantastic job and the airline has the crew numbers it needs! This is not going to be given to you on a plate, when you've finished your fATPL, the hard work really begins - finding a job and then keeping it!
Ok, i'm going to be harsh - you clearly know very little about any of the above issues! Command training and fleet change bonds, especially if requested, are alive and well in alot of airlines in the UK - life just ain't fair is it! The safety issue comment is just utter drivel mate, as I said before - the above paragraph shouldn't even be in your head unless you are either looking for a fleet change, coming up for a command or, based on that last comment, you shouldn't be working as part of a professional team on the flight deck using CRM!
Phew! Thank god for PPRuNe when doing standbys!!!!
Cheers
JB
I've just gotta say UnderneathTheRadar, your profile says PPL and you have written you've budgeted for PPL to fATPL etc etc, so i'm going to assume your studying for ATPL writtens? Sorry if i'm wrong with that assumption but I am so suprised at your stage of the fATPL mountain that you are having these kind of thoughts that is genuine anger for the system. You either want to REALLY REALLY do this for a living or not. If most people knew what was ahead of them when starting off on the route to being a professional pilot would they do it?! And i'm not just talking about the training and the cost, but the horrible, fierce, cut-throat competition of getting a job at the end of it and the potential of coughing up another £15-20,000 for the type rating you've described that not everyone, including me, can afford.
But it's easy to see, reading these forums, that this is how it is! Tough. Nothing me, you or Uncle Tom Cobbly can do about it. So if you are having these doubts then leave the system - because it is one very big financial gamble from start to finish. And at your stage, future Terms and Conditions should be in a galaxy far far away from what you should be thinking about!
To answer your questions:
Do you (personally) think it is reasonable that fATPLs should have to pay for their first type rating?
How is paying for an Astreaus cadetship (via pprune or any other method) radically different from you paying your type rating? (If you were guaranteed a job regardless of passing or failing the rating then disregard that question (were you? didn't think so).
Secondly, if you think it won't affect t&c's for everyone then imagine the scenario when a company announces that any form of training will require a bond (including fleet change, captains training etc). If you're bonded to a company then you're not leaving even if they do treat you poorly or there's much better money/conditions available down the road. Also, if you're bonded, standing up for yourself on a safety issue is going to be that little bit harder.
Phew! Thank god for PPRuNe when doing standbys!!!!
Cheers
JB
Last edited by JB007; 15th May 2005 at 16:39.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line with this scheme is that, between the Pprune fund and Astraeus, we have got 5 people into jobs, and another 4 in line training, for considerably less money than otherwise might have been the case. I do understand how you feel about paid-for speculative type ratings, but this scheme does not fit that description. All of the cadets who have been through this scheme so far have become salaried members of Astraeus (though I believe one has since moved on). We are optimistic that the current 4 will also.
Certainly this scheme involved some investment beyond the basic fATPL by the participants, but it was far, far less than the £20k or so demanded by most basic type rating schemes, and it involved full line training - and the very real chance of a job.
If you feel that we have increased the chance that you will have to pay for a type rating, you're wrong. We have shown that a sensible mix of funding can achieve both the airline's and the wannabe's needs, without costing either party ridiculous amounts of money. Of course, we'd love this training to be free, but that was never on offer. We are not going to turn down opportunities like this; they come round very rarely.
If, of course, you feel your principles (however inappropriately directed) are more important than your need to earn a living in aviation, you are free to take your labour elsewhere.
Scroggs
Certainly this scheme involved some investment beyond the basic fATPL by the participants, but it was far, far less than the £20k or so demanded by most basic type rating schemes, and it involved full line training - and the very real chance of a job.
If you feel that we have increased the chance that you will have to pay for a type rating, you're wrong. We have shown that a sensible mix of funding can achieve both the airline's and the wannabe's needs, without costing either party ridiculous amounts of money. Of course, we'd love this training to be free, but that was never on offer. We are not going to turn down opportunities like this; they come round very rarely.
If, of course, you feel your principles (however inappropriately directed) are more important than your need to earn a living in aviation, you are free to take your labour elsewhere.
Scroggs
When you live....
Hey scroogs,
I think we're starting to understand each other. I freely accept that the terms of the cadetships offered are generous and represent a very good deal for that type of training - I would certainly have applied if possible (although probably no point in the future after this thread!). I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of the deal but I am curious to know what would have happened if, for whatever reason, the cadets either a) failed the course or b) weren't offered employment and failed to get it elsewhere. Does the fund write off the investment?
Indeed - and with an element of risk on their part. Maybe I should have clarified my earlier question as "Do you believe that fATPLs should take on any further funding or financial risk of further training?".
What I'm trying to get across is (and I guess this is where we may have to agree to disagree) is that any form of scheme that involves a fATPL taking more financial risk represents a shifting of the goalposts on the levels of commitment required by both employers and trainees.
By taking more financial risk, I mean either paying for the next stage of training (via a cadetship scheme or a speculative type rating - the only difference I see between the two is the relative risk of doing your dosh being much higher with the second) or by being bonded (where the risk of failure is still yours).
By being involved in this process, albeit to the benefit of the 9 to date, I still believe that PpRune is adding momentum and respectability to the shift of responsibilities from the employer to the wanabee.
Maybe I am too cynical but I do wonder why Asraeus was suddenly able to make these opportunities available as they would seem likely to be making less money than on a normal line training cadet. Spare capacity/extra demand would seem the most likely option? Again, my cynical side says that by helping them through the their lean times, PpRune reduces the pressure on them reassess the t&c's of their cadetships to keep demand up as the employment market fluxes...... Anyway, I digress and merely provide JB007 with more ammumition.
You can question my motivation, sense of reality and experience (certainly I'm on shaky ground on the last two) but I will predict that before too long, a type rating will be an accepted standard part of fATPL training and will be a pre-requesite and applying for any jobs will be for line training positions only.
So scroogs, I certainly accept that the PpRune scheme allows those cadets the best opportunity to move forward in the areas where the biggest money is to be spent. Also accept that quite possibly I'm running this argument far too late and the critical mass has already been reached.
Can you accept that PpRune, by lending it's name to this transfer of responsibility and possibly increasing the number participants (maybe all 9 would have done it anyway), has ever so slightly helped to shift the starting line away from a fATPL? If not then fine, I'm not going to keep debating it and we'll have to agree then disagree.
JB007
Not really sure where to start here. How about:
Settle petal! The only people getting wound up here are you and the other PpRune people who quite happily attack me without reading my posts or trying to understand what I'm saying.
I agree entirely. I haven't taken this path lightly and am not spending my money lightly - but I am fully prepared for it to be much worse than I have imagined. I'm not sure how your point relates to this thread though. Should I just lie down and let everyone trample on me? Am I not allowed to express disapointment at the way the industry is going and ask if PpRune had considered such matters when awarding cadetships? You, on the other hand, seem to subscribe to the concept that anyone can do anything to you and you'll just keep smiling. Yes I have to adapt as things change to meet my dream - but I don't have to like it!
I'm also intrigued by your assertion that I should have no interest in terms & conditions at this stage. Interesting concept. Should I have no interest in how much fuel is in the tanks at takeoff because it's not relevant until I get to my destination? Like it or not (and I don't particularly), I'll need to earn a living at the end of this (unless the lotto comes good in the meantime). I'm also committing a lot of cash to the process as an investment and so have every right to see what kind of return I can expect. So on one hand, I shouldn't be looking ahead and on the other I should be looking ahead to see how tough it is?
Ok, I now expect you to deride me for not flying just for the love of it. Well, my motivations (as questioned by those on this thread) are never going to be the same as anyone elses nor are they any your business. But I do feel sorry for those who persue their dreams at ALL costs or with no idea of what it will actually cost.
I'm sorry - but you have risked all that money. I know it's may not seem the same now as actually paying it but did you think through the consequences of if something went wrong (or goes wrong)? That bonded money is the same as all of the money you forked out for your fATPL - it will eventually be repaid but if you'd failed a medical or lost your license right before your MCC course then what? Likewise, if you'd failed your type rating, the company had gone bust or there was another 9/11 then what? You'll have lost the money.
No they didn't. If you didn't make the grade whereby you could safely sit in the RHS then you only cost them a miniscule amount compared to what you would have lost. Do you really think you'd be sitting where you are if there was any risk to the company bottom line?
That's her decision to make however it does affect us all (including you) for the reasons I've listed before. Therefore it does matter to me.
As well as being a cynic, I was once an idealist who belived that it may be possible to arrest the decline of t&c's for low hours pilots. Unfortunately, attitidues like yours have convinced me it's not possible and I'm going to have be as ruthless as the next guy.
JB, I hadn't realised that fleet and captains bonding was alive and well - learn something new every day I guess - but it doesn't take away from my assertion that does nothing to improve safety. Your comment:
does you no justice at all - as a low hours FO are you certain that this is true everywhere you don't work? How many threads on this forum relate to people unwilling to report issues/take action for fear of their jobs - let alone with the fear of a 15k bond, a morgage AND their jobs on the line?
You are obviously lucky to work with a good airline at which such things never happen......or perhaps you've just not thought it through as your general attitude appears to be 'don't think ahead'
With all due respect, I think you should look at some of your attitudes and see how they affect your CRM skills. Hopefully I won't ever be RHS to your LHS and dare to have an opinion different to yours because I couldn't possibly know better because I'm not yet experienced enough to know what it's like to work standbys.......
Right 'nuff said - I'm late for that anger management class..........
UTR
PS Mods - please feel free to hive this thread off the original post but please leave it in Wannabees?!?! I'm not at all trying to denigrate the PpRune cadets - well done to you all and I'm sorry that this thread has gone the way it has.
I think we're starting to understand each other. I freely accept that the terms of the cadetships offered are generous and represent a very good deal for that type of training - I would certainly have applied if possible (although probably no point in the future after this thread!). I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of the deal but I am curious to know what would have happened if, for whatever reason, the cadets either a) failed the course or b) weren't offered employment and failed to get it elsewhere. Does the fund write off the investment?
Certainly this scheme involved some investment beyond the basic fATPL by the participants
I do understand how you feel about paid-for speculative type ratings, but this scheme does not fit that description
By taking more financial risk, I mean either paying for the next stage of training (via a cadetship scheme or a speculative type rating - the only difference I see between the two is the relative risk of doing your dosh being much higher with the second) or by being bonded (where the risk of failure is still yours).
By being involved in this process, albeit to the benefit of the 9 to date, I still believe that PpRune is adding momentum and respectability to the shift of responsibilities from the employer to the wanabee.
We have shown that a sensible mix of funding can achieve both the airline's and the wannabe's needs, without costing either party ridiculous amounts of money. Of course, we'd love this training to be free, but that was never on offer. We are not going to turn down opportunities like this; they come round very rarely.
You can question my motivation, sense of reality and experience (certainly I'm on shaky ground on the last two) but I will predict that before too long, a type rating will be an accepted standard part of fATPL training and will be a pre-requesite and applying for any jobs will be for line training positions only.
So scroogs, I certainly accept that the PpRune scheme allows those cadets the best opportunity to move forward in the areas where the biggest money is to be spent. Also accept that quite possibly I'm running this argument far too late and the critical mass has already been reached.
Can you accept that PpRune, by lending it's name to this transfer of responsibility and possibly increasing the number participants (maybe all 9 would have done it anyway), has ever so slightly helped to shift the starting line away from a fATPL? If not then fine, I'm not going to keep debating it and we'll have to agree then disagree.
JB007
Not really sure where to start here. How about:
genuine anger for the system
If most people knew what was ahead of them when starting off on the route to being a professional pilot would they do it?! And i'm not just talking about the training and the cost, but the horrible, fierce, cut-throat competition of getting a job at the end of it
I'm also intrigued by your assertion that I should have no interest in terms & conditions at this stage. Interesting concept. Should I have no interest in how much fuel is in the tanks at takeoff because it's not relevant until I get to my destination? Like it or not (and I don't particularly), I'll need to earn a living at the end of this (unless the lotto comes good in the meantime). I'm also committing a lot of cash to the process as an investment and so have every right to see what kind of return I can expect. So on one hand, I shouldn't be looking ahead and on the other I should be looking ahead to see how tough it is?
Ok, I now expect you to deride me for not flying just for the love of it. Well, my motivations (as questioned by those on this thread) are never going to be the same as anyone elses nor are they any your business. But I do feel sorry for those who persue their dreams at ALL costs or with no idea of what it will actually cost.
£15-20,000 for the type rating you've described that not everyone, including me, can afford
The company took a gamble on me by giving me the job with my tiny experience level
My friend who is buying her A320 rating has spent a fortune, but she's happy to do it and may have a 6 month contract with MYT this summer at the end of it - if she's happy, whats it matter what me or you think about what she's doing!
As well as being a cynic, I was once an idealist who belived that it may be possible to arrest the decline of t&c's for low hours pilots. Unfortunately, attitidues like yours have convinced me it's not possible and I'm going to have be as ruthless as the next guy.
JB, I hadn't realised that fleet and captains bonding was alive and well - learn something new every day I guess - but it doesn't take away from my assertion that does nothing to improve safety. Your comment:
The safety issue comment is just utter drivel mate
You are obviously lucky to work with a good airline at which such things never happen......or perhaps you've just not thought it through as your general attitude appears to be 'don't think ahead'
you shouldn't be working as part of a professional team on the flight deck using CRM!
Right 'nuff said - I'm late for that anger management class..........
UTR
PS Mods - please feel free to hive this thread off the original post but please leave it in Wannabees?!?! I'm not at all trying to denigrate the PpRune cadets - well done to you all and I'm sorry that this thread has gone the way it has.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed that this thread has moved from a news thread to one of angst because one person doesn't apparently approve of it - whilst not attempting to recognise the purpose of the fund at all.
Let me settle that. It was designed purely and simply to help ALL PPRuNe wannabes - ONLY wannabes - who showed their credentials to be worthy of using the money the fund was prepared to make available for them. There were three major factors that they had to accept. The first was to pay a large amount of THEIR OWN money into the fund to live on while they trained for six months without pay. The second was that they agreed to pay back a loan for sim training and the third was enter a payback scheme to include an element of reward to the fund for assisting them to reach their goal.
In other words we always intended that the funds would be re-usable funds - and that remains the case. The scheme was open to anyone with a fATPL and the number the applicants who applied reached over 300. Five were chosen from 25 who were given a sim check. In the unlikely case that one of the five failed the fund would have written the sum off.
As for this:
The whole question for an active fATPL is one of risk. It is very much up to the individual and not for discussion on how people choose their future or fate I would have thought. The Fund helped and any question of that not being the case would, I am sure, be met with derision.
And as far as a risk of further training is concerned! How can you get to where you 'wannabe' without it? The fail factors can be very high. It is true that you don't have to like the way things are but that's all there is, and it is take it or leave it.
Now I hope that the above is useful enough to stop the knocking. It is unsavoury and unnecessary. The fund is for the benefit of those who are able to demonstrate they are worthy to use it not a discussion on why PPRuNe should not be doing it.
Let me settle that. It was designed purely and simply to help ALL PPRuNe wannabes - ONLY wannabes - who showed their credentials to be worthy of using the money the fund was prepared to make available for them. There were three major factors that they had to accept. The first was to pay a large amount of THEIR OWN money into the fund to live on while they trained for six months without pay. The second was that they agreed to pay back a loan for sim training and the third was enter a payback scheme to include an element of reward to the fund for assisting them to reach their goal.
In other words we always intended that the funds would be re-usable funds - and that remains the case. The scheme was open to anyone with a fATPL and the number the applicants who applied reached over 300. Five were chosen from 25 who were given a sim check. In the unlikely case that one of the five failed the fund would have written the sum off.
As for this:
Do you believe that fATPLs should take on any further funding or financial risk of further training?
And as far as a risk of further training is concerned! How can you get to where you 'wannabe' without it? The fail factors can be very high. It is true that you don't have to like the way things are but that's all there is, and it is take it or leave it.
Now I hope that the above is useful enough to stop the knocking. It is unsavoury and unnecessary. The fund is for the benefit of those who are able to demonstrate they are worthy to use it not a discussion on why PPRuNe should not be doing it.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have split the discussion from IFR's Pprune fund sticky, as I think that is not the appropriate place to discuss the wider issues that have been raised.
Astraeus A number of Pprune's 'senior management' are Astraeus people. Pprune has always wanted to do something concrete to help wannabes, and when Astraeus saw a need for new people, some discussion resulted in the first Pprune/Astraeus cadet scheme. Of course Astraeus get a benefit out of it, they are not a charity! The fact was that they would have looked for new people anyway, and the scheme as finally devised allowed those people to be from the Pprune Wannabes community, at a cost to them of far less than the Astraeus/Bond type rating and line training would have been. This relationship between Pprune and Astraeus has been good for both partners, and I hope it continues.
UTR You seem to be under the misapprehension that, at some perfect time in the past, all a wannabe had to do was get a frozen ATPL and then wait for the airlines to come running to train them and put them on a vast salary. Sorry, it was never like that!
Airlines have always tried to recoup their training costs from ab-initio pilots. The obvious way is through a reduced salary, coupled with a bond that financially penalises a pilot if (and only if) they leave the company within a defind period. More recently, some airlines have begun charging for training more directly - to the extent that Ryanair now charge for every stage of the induction process, from reading your CV to line training - and any subsequent re-training. And they pay you sod all while you're doing it! That is extreme, and seems unlikely to be adopted by many airlines.
However, times are changing. There are now no fully-paid-for sponsorships. That's partly because the numbers of wannabes mean that the airlines don't need to offer a carrot, and partly because the tax and training advantages of that approach are no longer so compelling. Organisations like CTC are effectively levering a contracting-out of airline selection and training, and are using their influence to enable students to borrow the money for their training, essentially at the student's own risk. However, the student supposedly gets the comfort of having been through a full airline selection procedure, and the knowledge that the school's reputation depends on him doing well, so he may well have enhanced prospects of actually landing a job compared to the self-funded, modular fATPL. Whether that's the way it actually works out is arguable, and there are no statistics to prove anything either way.
The student who goes on to procure a speculative TR is doing the same thing: trying to make himself mor attractive to prospective employers. Whether it works or not is moot: for some it does, for others maybe not. Certainly far from all wannabes go this way, and plenty find jobs without it, so the jury's out on whether it's worthwhile.
As for Pprune, we will go on trying to maximise the chances of those who are part of our community. At the most blunt, if that reduces the chances of those who are not part of Pprune, tough! Though I doubt our efforts significantly affect anyone else's prospects, but I'm sure you get my drift.
Scroggs
Astraeus A number of Pprune's 'senior management' are Astraeus people. Pprune has always wanted to do something concrete to help wannabes, and when Astraeus saw a need for new people, some discussion resulted in the first Pprune/Astraeus cadet scheme. Of course Astraeus get a benefit out of it, they are not a charity! The fact was that they would have looked for new people anyway, and the scheme as finally devised allowed those people to be from the Pprune Wannabes community, at a cost to them of far less than the Astraeus/Bond type rating and line training would have been. This relationship between Pprune and Astraeus has been good for both partners, and I hope it continues.
UTR You seem to be under the misapprehension that, at some perfect time in the past, all a wannabe had to do was get a frozen ATPL and then wait for the airlines to come running to train them and put them on a vast salary. Sorry, it was never like that!
Airlines have always tried to recoup their training costs from ab-initio pilots. The obvious way is through a reduced salary, coupled with a bond that financially penalises a pilot if (and only if) they leave the company within a defind period. More recently, some airlines have begun charging for training more directly - to the extent that Ryanair now charge for every stage of the induction process, from reading your CV to line training - and any subsequent re-training. And they pay you sod all while you're doing it! That is extreme, and seems unlikely to be adopted by many airlines.
However, times are changing. There are now no fully-paid-for sponsorships. That's partly because the numbers of wannabes mean that the airlines don't need to offer a carrot, and partly because the tax and training advantages of that approach are no longer so compelling. Organisations like CTC are effectively levering a contracting-out of airline selection and training, and are using their influence to enable students to borrow the money for their training, essentially at the student's own risk. However, the student supposedly gets the comfort of having been through a full airline selection procedure, and the knowledge that the school's reputation depends on him doing well, so he may well have enhanced prospects of actually landing a job compared to the self-funded, modular fATPL. Whether that's the way it actually works out is arguable, and there are no statistics to prove anything either way.
The student who goes on to procure a speculative TR is doing the same thing: trying to make himself mor attractive to prospective employers. Whether it works or not is moot: for some it does, for others maybe not. Certainly far from all wannabes go this way, and plenty find jobs without it, so the jury's out on whether it's worthwhile.
As for Pprune, we will go on trying to maximise the chances of those who are part of our community. At the most blunt, if that reduces the chances of those who are not part of Pprune, tough! Though I doubt our efforts significantly affect anyone else's prospects, but I'm sure you get my drift.
Scroggs
A quick query, scroggs old bean, but are any future aspirant Astraeus cadets going to be required to take some form of aptitude testing before applying?
Well done to those who've been successful, by the way!
Well done to those who've been successful, by the way!
Moi?
No - it's just that with such proven success correlations between good aptitude results and success in training to jet co-pilot standard, it would seem a more sensible investment to include aptitude testing. And a success in preliminary aptitude testing might help with the bank loan manager as the individual would surely be less of a risk?
Plus it would mean that peeps with the right qualities would have a clear advantage over those with just money and mouth - if you gets me drift!
No - it's just that with such proven success correlations between good aptitude results and success in training to jet co-pilot standard, it would seem a more sensible investment to include aptitude testing. And a success in preliminary aptitude testing might help with the bank loan manager as the individual would surely be less of a risk?
Plus it would mean that peeps with the right qualities would have a clear advantage over those with just money and mouth - if you gets me drift!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed I do. However, IIRC, GAPAN's aptitude tests are optimised for those with less than 80 hours, whereas the Astraeus scheme is - or was - for those who already have their fATPL and therefore somewhere around 200 hours, so I assume they would be ineligible to take the tests?