Astraeus
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s a letter from the President of IFALPA in today’s Flight International (2-8th Sept 2003), commenting on the article written in Flight International issue 19-25th September 2003 re Astraeus/Bond Aviation solutions Boeing 737 type rating and line training.
Headlined Stop this troubling practice he raises the issue of inexperienced individuals occupying the Co-Pilots seat of a passenger carrying jet ‘under the guise of gaining experience, when in essence the goal of the operator is primarily financial gain.’
He comments on safety, which lets face it should be every operators main concern, ‘individuals are selected on their ability to pay rather than what might be considered to be the more important attribute of skill and ability. Clearly safety must be compromised by such schemes and IFALPA believes that they should be stopped forthwith.’
He then suggests that passengers may find this practice ‘extremely troubling’ and that many would ‘think twice about flying on an airline operating such a scheme.’
It's worth reading, unlike the jobs section.
Headlined Stop this troubling practice he raises the issue of inexperienced individuals occupying the Co-Pilots seat of a passenger carrying jet ‘under the guise of gaining experience, when in essence the goal of the operator is primarily financial gain.’
He comments on safety, which lets face it should be every operators main concern, ‘individuals are selected on their ability to pay rather than what might be considered to be the more important attribute of skill and ability. Clearly safety must be compromised by such schemes and IFALPA believes that they should be stopped forthwith.’
He then suggests that passengers may find this practice ‘extremely troubling’ and that many would ‘think twice about flying on an airline operating such a scheme.’
It's worth reading, unlike the jobs section.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, worzel, just why then do the JAA/CAA allow airlines and TRTO’s to provide such training ? - remembering that, ultimately, it is government agencies who license such training to take place – Just what is it they know which you, and IFALPA et al, don’t ?
Indeed one would suggest that it’s common knowledge that various airlines, e.g. BA and others, have, for years, recruited people with little or no experience, put them through a very expensive ‘approved / CAP509’ cadet training course, subsequently leading to these people being granted a jet aircraft type rating, so allowing them to occupy the right hand seat of even the largest wide body jet airliners – all of this being allowed, by the CAA/JAA, when these new pilots actually have very ( and I mean ‘very’ ) little real aeronautical experience behind them.
Indeed, do I correctly understand what IFALPA ( and you, through your post ) are saying, i.e. that the chap from IFALPA’s implied suggestion being that nobody who is short of several thousand hours of experience should be allowed to pilot a public transport jet aircraft – regardless of how they arrived at the type-rating, be it either airline or self sponsored ?
Or is it that the ‘troubling practice’, referred to above, is that if an airline pays for all of a ‘new’ pilots training then that makes it alright, but if an individual was to front-up the exact same amount of money, and go on to gain the exact same type-rating, through an exact same airline / TRTO – i.e. as an ‘non-airline sponsored’ pilot - then for some strange reason the self-sponsored person should not be seen as being of the same calibre as the person for whom an airline paid for it ?
Well, right oh then, I’ve got it – if it’s a level playing field we’re after we’ll follow the American airline employment version shall we ? I.e. there should be no more self-sponsored type ratings, and also no more airline sponsored type ratings ( unless you’ve got, say, 3000 factored hours total time ), and nobody should be allowed to co-pilot an airliner with less than, say, 3000 hours TT ?!
Personally, I think it’s a great idea – indeed the last person I want to go to work with on some dark and stormy night is some low hour Johnny Come Lately Ace of The Bloomin’ Base; Yep, from now on I’ll only accept folks with a few thousand hours under their belt !
Joking aside, one would imagine that any TRTO's reputation and business longevity, much depends upon them making sure that their training standards require and maintain the Zenith, rather than being linked to the size of a students bank balance.
Certainly w.r.t to the title of this thread, it strikes me, from the literature I've read regarding how the Bond Aviation course is structured, along with its associated pre-course assessments, that Bond have indeed thought through how to provide a qulity training product ( as indeed have the other TRTO's mentioned by Crashdive above ) and they do seem to be quite careful to ensure that only those people who 'have what it takes' to become airline pilots are allowed onto their type-rating course.
In closure, I would like to say that I'm with WWW on this and find it hard to support and promote self-funded type ratings - but for those people for whom it seems to work I must also say, good luck to them !
Indeed one would suggest that it’s common knowledge that various airlines, e.g. BA and others, have, for years, recruited people with little or no experience, put them through a very expensive ‘approved / CAP509’ cadet training course, subsequently leading to these people being granted a jet aircraft type rating, so allowing them to occupy the right hand seat of even the largest wide body jet airliners – all of this being allowed, by the CAA/JAA, when these new pilots actually have very ( and I mean ‘very’ ) little real aeronautical experience behind them.
Indeed, do I correctly understand what IFALPA ( and you, through your post ) are saying, i.e. that the chap from IFALPA’s implied suggestion being that nobody who is short of several thousand hours of experience should be allowed to pilot a public transport jet aircraft – regardless of how they arrived at the type-rating, be it either airline or self sponsored ?
Or is it that the ‘troubling practice’, referred to above, is that if an airline pays for all of a ‘new’ pilots training then that makes it alright, but if an individual was to front-up the exact same amount of money, and go on to gain the exact same type-rating, through an exact same airline / TRTO – i.e. as an ‘non-airline sponsored’ pilot - then for some strange reason the self-sponsored person should not be seen as being of the same calibre as the person for whom an airline paid for it ?
Well, right oh then, I’ve got it – if it’s a level playing field we’re after we’ll follow the American airline employment version shall we ? I.e. there should be no more self-sponsored type ratings, and also no more airline sponsored type ratings ( unless you’ve got, say, 3000 factored hours total time ), and nobody should be allowed to co-pilot an airliner with less than, say, 3000 hours TT ?!
Personally, I think it’s a great idea – indeed the last person I want to go to work with on some dark and stormy night is some low hour Johnny Come Lately Ace of The Bloomin’ Base; Yep, from now on I’ll only accept folks with a few thousand hours under their belt !
Joking aside, one would imagine that any TRTO's reputation and business longevity, much depends upon them making sure that their training standards require and maintain the Zenith, rather than being linked to the size of a students bank balance.
Certainly w.r.t to the title of this thread, it strikes me, from the literature I've read regarding how the Bond Aviation course is structured, along with its associated pre-course assessments, that Bond have indeed thought through how to provide a qulity training product ( as indeed have the other TRTO's mentioned by Crashdive above ) and they do seem to be quite careful to ensure that only those people who 'have what it takes' to become airline pilots are allowed onto their type-rating course.
In closure, I would like to say that I'm with WWW on this and find it hard to support and promote self-funded type ratings - but for those people for whom it seems to work I must also say, good luck to them !
Chieftan o'the Pudden Race
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: Scotland usually, and often other parts of Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering how long it would take before Devil's Advocate showed up. I was expecting you here sooner to be honest. 
<edited to remove the angry outburst I was writing>
<edited to remove the angry outburst I was writing>
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils Advocate
If you re-read my post, you will notice that I do not give an opinion, I have merely informed the readers of this post of a magazine article that they may find interesting.
I can however see why IFALPA find this troubling. There are major differences between the Astraeus/Bond Aviation scheme and the others you make reference to, the word recruited playing a big part. In the case of a typical sponsored cadet, they are taken through a long interview process to assess their ability and potential. Then they are trained, employed, type rated and line trained at the company’s expense. OK, for the first few hundred hours they are inexperienced, but they soon gain that experience and then progress to become skilled pilots for years to come.
In the case of the Astraeus/Bond Aviation scheme, the primary goal is profit. IFALPA’s concern appears to be that people will be in the RHS on their ability to pay up, not their ability to operate. Then after 100 hours they are let go, to be replaced by someone else without ability or experience and so on causing a rolling turnover of inexperience.
I’m not saying that I think the scheme is wrong, but I think IFALPA have some valid points that must be considered.
If you re-read my post, you will notice that I do not give an opinion, I have merely informed the readers of this post of a magazine article that they may find interesting.
I can however see why IFALPA find this troubling. There are major differences between the Astraeus/Bond Aviation scheme and the others you make reference to, the word recruited playing a big part. In the case of a typical sponsored cadet, they are taken through a long interview process to assess their ability and potential. Then they are trained, employed, type rated and line trained at the company’s expense. OK, for the first few hundred hours they are inexperienced, but they soon gain that experience and then progress to become skilled pilots for years to come.
In the case of the Astraeus/Bond Aviation scheme, the primary goal is profit. IFALPA’s concern appears to be that people will be in the RHS on their ability to pay up, not their ability to operate. Then after 100 hours they are let go, to be replaced by someone else without ability or experience and so on causing a rolling turnover of inexperience.
I’m not saying that I think the scheme is wrong, but I think IFALPA have some valid points that must be considered.
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of the Astraeus/Bond Aviation scheme, the primary goal is profit.
Devil's Advocate has already made the point that it is in no TRTO's long term interest to churn out sub-standard candidates. No self-sponsored training comes with a inherent guarantee of a job. Like so many other things in this world, it's simply a case of caveat emptor.
Terrier
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: moonbase alpha
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW
Glad to hear it then about the underpants.
As for the MON and JMC boys in easy.... well, ask yourself if you have ever been given £40,000 to leave an airline like the jmc boys were......
Glad to hear it then about the underpants.
As for the MON and JMC boys in easy.... well, ask yourself if you have ever been given £40,000 to leave an airline like the jmc boys were......
Got given £28,000 once for some share options... does that count?
WWW
WWW
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worzel I don't doubt that the main motivation for Bond/Astraeus' pre-course selection procedure is to avoid the problems that 'selection by available cash' could present! Essentially, the students on the Bond/Astraues scheme have been through a very similar selection procedure to those airline recruits you refer to.
All airlines train on the line. Once the academic type rating has been achieved, the student is quite legal to operate under the supervision of a training captain on revenue-earning flights. You, and IFALPA, are quite right to suggest that this process is potentially dangerous if adequate selection and assessment proedures are not in place or adhered to. I don't think there's any reason to suggest that is the case here, but it may well apply in other TRTOs or airlines.
As for making a profit - of course Bond/Astraeus are out to make money. But I think it's too simplistic to suggest that flying students on the line reduces Astraeus' costs - which I think is your implication. I imagine that the costs of maintaining a training organisation large enough to take on TRTO students far outweigh any small benefits to be gained from 'unpaid labour'. I haven't got access to Astraeus' books, but a training captain normally costs 25% or more than a regular line captain - who would otherwise fly the trip. That 25% represents a considerable amount of an FO's basic pay! There are, I'm sure, other costs incurred to offset against the savings made. I'm also aware that a TRTO scheme is a useful way of employing training capacity a company has but isn't using for its own needs; I have no way of knowing what the balance is in Astraeus' case, but I do believe that Hamrah has referred to it in a previous topic.
In short, I don't think there is a safety problem here - but the potential is there in less well-run schemes.
Scroggs
All airlines train on the line. Once the academic type rating has been achieved, the student is quite legal to operate under the supervision of a training captain on revenue-earning flights. You, and IFALPA, are quite right to suggest that this process is potentially dangerous if adequate selection and assessment proedures are not in place or adhered to. I don't think there's any reason to suggest that is the case here, but it may well apply in other TRTOs or airlines.
As for making a profit - of course Bond/Astraeus are out to make money. But I think it's too simplistic to suggest that flying students on the line reduces Astraeus' costs - which I think is your implication. I imagine that the costs of maintaining a training organisation large enough to take on TRTO students far outweigh any small benefits to be gained from 'unpaid labour'. I haven't got access to Astraeus' books, but a training captain normally costs 25% or more than a regular line captain - who would otherwise fly the trip. That 25% represents a considerable amount of an FO's basic pay! There are, I'm sure, other costs incurred to offset against the savings made. I'm also aware that a TRTO scheme is a useful way of employing training capacity a company has but isn't using for its own needs; I have no way of knowing what the balance is in Astraeus' case, but I do believe that Hamrah has referred to it in a previous topic.
In short, I don't think there is a safety problem here - but the potential is there in less well-run schemes.
Scroggs
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it's tough at present, surely, there are other airlines, and other aircraft to chose from, coming on stream. Steer clear of the ones asking you to pay and eventually their grubby money making TRTO schemes will disappear. (I would have thought that not many could afford the extra cash in the first place.)
Otherwise, you'll end up paying for a type rating for every different aircraft type that you move to.
Otherwise, you'll end up paying for a type rating for every different aircraft type that you move to.
Terrier
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: moonbase alpha
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scroggs
Those VS line trainers must do well! 25%? I think in most airlines the figure for a line training Captain ( which is what we are talking about....line training) get around a 10% emolument.
Full TRI/TRE Sim trainers with a base training ticket may earn around 25% extra. Except in www's place of employ according to their website..........
Anyhow, to suggest that it costs more for an airline to hold a TRTO than to let pilots fly "unpaid" is nonsense.
Every charter airline has thin profit margins. Astraeus exploit this in my view, by letting the individual take the burden. Just like cheap pensions. A load of boll0cks!
Those VS line trainers must do well! 25%? I think in most airlines the figure for a line training Captain ( which is what we are talking about....line training) get around a 10% emolument.
Full TRI/TRE Sim trainers with a base training ticket may earn around 25% extra. Except in www's place of employ according to their website..........
Anyhow, to suggest that it costs more for an airline to hold a TRTO than to let pilots fly "unpaid" is nonsense.
Every charter airline has thin profit margins. Astraeus exploit this in my view, by letting the individual take the burden. Just like cheap pensions. A load of boll0cks!
Chieftan o'the Pudden Race
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: Scotland usually, and often other parts of Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many posts do we have to read from moderators (and their alter egos) defending this scheme?
From what I remember Bond was set up as an integral part of Astreaus, specifically to sell type ratings. In this case I dont believe it is some lucky coincidence that there is spare training capacity. Maybe I am being too harsh but that is how it seems from the outside.
Like you Scroggs, I dont have access to the books, but, Bond has, at a guess, been quite successful and managed to maintain a cash flow for the company. This would have protected the AOC during the lean months in winter, when, as a charter airline business drops dramatically.
Students who are engaged in line training wont be doing this on empty aircraft. They will be flying on revenue earning flights. I havent done the arithmentic, but I would *guess* that the additional cost of paying for line training (on top of the cost of the type rating) would comfortably cover the cost of a training captain and any flight pay. This can only benefit the operating company by easing the stress on "full time" crews by allowing additional bods to fill the roster - especially during the busy summer schedule. All this at little cost to the operating company. It would also allow "full time" crews to avoid unpopular destinations like West Africa. Seems like a win-win situation for the airline. If the rules allow it I suppose it must be ok.
Somehow, though, the ethics of it dont seem quite right. I can understand the concerns voiced by IFALPA. It will only take one small incident caused by a paying line training pilot and they will be all over it like a rash demanding the practice be stopped.
The more I read the comments in support of this scheme, the more I feel like I am f@rting against thunder, and the more I feel like throwing in the towel. Since the inception of JAR, becoming a pilot has become much much more expensive than the olden days when WWW got his licence for 15k. If paying for a type rating become the way of the world then the cost of getting a job will be *at least* 70,000 pounds.
I cannot and will not pay that sort of money for the possibility of a job.
From what I remember Bond was set up as an integral part of Astreaus, specifically to sell type ratings. In this case I dont believe it is some lucky coincidence that there is spare training capacity. Maybe I am being too harsh but that is how it seems from the outside.
Like you Scroggs, I dont have access to the books, but, Bond has, at a guess, been quite successful and managed to maintain a cash flow for the company. This would have protected the AOC during the lean months in winter, when, as a charter airline business drops dramatically.
Students who are engaged in line training wont be doing this on empty aircraft. They will be flying on revenue earning flights. I havent done the arithmentic, but I would *guess* that the additional cost of paying for line training (on top of the cost of the type rating) would comfortably cover the cost of a training captain and any flight pay. This can only benefit the operating company by easing the stress on "full time" crews by allowing additional bods to fill the roster - especially during the busy summer schedule. All this at little cost to the operating company. It would also allow "full time" crews to avoid unpopular destinations like West Africa. Seems like a win-win situation for the airline. If the rules allow it I suppose it must be ok.
Somehow, though, the ethics of it dont seem quite right. I can understand the concerns voiced by IFALPA. It will only take one small incident caused by a paying line training pilot and they will be all over it like a rash demanding the practice be stopped.
The more I read the comments in support of this scheme, the more I feel like I am f@rting against thunder, and the more I feel like throwing in the towel. Since the inception of JAR, becoming a pilot has become much much more expensive than the olden days when WWW got his licence for 15k. If paying for a type rating become the way of the world then the cost of getting a job will be *at least* 70,000 pounds.
I cannot and will not pay that sort of money for the possibility of a job.
Last edited by Flypuppy; 4th Sep 2003 at 04:01.
Moderator
Join Date: May 1998
Location: .
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flypuppy,
W.r.t. 'I dont believe it is some lucky coincidence that there is spare training capacity' - Actually, there isn't any spare capacity.
Indeed both Astraeus and Bond have recently had to recruit extra trainers, e.g. ground school instructors, sim FI's, line training Captains, TRI's, and TRE's - and just why is this ?
You can be very certain that neither Astraeus or Bond recruited these people in advance of customers walking through the door. They recruited them due to the demand being made by an expanding airline, and ( I'm almost afraid to say it ) an expanding TRTO.
There is, quite obviously, a demand.
Indeed I often wonder if we've got more training people onboard than 'normal' pilots.
W.r.t. ‘This would have protected the AOC during the lean months in winter’ - Err, what has an AOC got to do with lean winter months ( the AOC is to do with safety of the airline ) ? What I suspect you mean is the Operating License ( OL ) which is to do with the fiscal fitness of an airline.
W.r.t. ‘This can only benefit the operating company by easing the stress on "full time" crews by allowing additional bods to fill the roster - especially during the busy summer schedule.’ - Actually it causes a rostering & crewing nightmare !
The reason being that nobody can say, for definite, that TRTO candidates will indeed have their licenses issued on or by any particular date, e.g. maybe they won’t be up to scratch, and / or there are delays along the way, etc… and also head-count planning is difficult, i.e. will Bond actually have enough people wanting line training, or not ( crystal ball time ) ?!
W.r.t. ‘It would also allow "full time" crews to avoid unpopular destinations like West Africa.’ – What are you on about ?
One of the great things about flying for Astraeus is precisely that you do get to go to the more ‘exotic’ locations.
W.r.t. ‘the ethics of it dont seem quite right’ - Basically some people have the money and are prepared to take a measured risk with their time and money in procuring a type-rating, it’s not like any of the TRTO’s are holding a shotgun to anybodies head and forcing them to sign up.
W.r.t. ‘It will only take one small incident caused by a paying line training pilot and they will be all over it like a rash demanding the practice be stopped.’ – Sorry, but I fail to see the connection.
What you have is a properly licensed and type-rated pilot being line trained by a properly licensed and highly experienced Training Captain ( along with the initial sectors also being covered by an experienced pilot riding shotgun on the jump seat ). This takes places under the auspices of a properly licensed TRTO, and all of which is conducted under the auspices and approval of the CAA.
In the event of an incident, I genuinely fail to see that whom is paying who for the training is of any relevance.
Wr.t. ‘If paying for a type rating become the way of the world then the cost of getting a job will be *at least* 70,000 pounds.’ - I once worked out that getting my own license ( under the old CAA system - anybody else remember 'penalty marking' ? ) cost me something in the region of £56,000 - and that was well over a decade ago, when £56k seemed like a lot of money !
W.r.t. ‘I cannot and will not pay that sort of money for the possibility of a job.’ – Then don’t !
However it won’t be lost on you that you have probably already invested a small fortune on exactly what you say, above, that you wouldn’t do, i.e. the possibility that by gaining a (f)ATPL somebody might give you a job.
Aviation has never been a cheap club to join, but it's a good club to be in, if you can get in ( and there’s the rub )
Do remember that I know what it feels like to be on the outside looking in, as I too, some years back, embarked on a huge and risky financial undertaking when I took to gaining my profession license - all in the desperate hope that one day I might get lucky when I said to an airline "gizza job, I can do that".
Indeed the very thought of it still makes me shudder ( and in many ways I'm still paying for it ) - but, at the eleventh hour, I got lucky ( thanks to Hamrah !
) which is just as well, or else it would of meant that I'd have blown £56,000 with only a nice little license and some log books to show for it !
Except for a very lucky few, trying to break into aviation has always been, and will continue to be, a big and very expensive risk - and, with hindsight, if a child of mine was to ask me if 'they too should be an airline pilot ?' I'd probably try and dissuad them from it.
W.r.t. 'I dont believe it is some lucky coincidence that there is spare training capacity' - Actually, there isn't any spare capacity.
Indeed both Astraeus and Bond have recently had to recruit extra trainers, e.g. ground school instructors, sim FI's, line training Captains, TRI's, and TRE's - and just why is this ?
You can be very certain that neither Astraeus or Bond recruited these people in advance of customers walking through the door. They recruited them due to the demand being made by an expanding airline, and ( I'm almost afraid to say it ) an expanding TRTO.
There is, quite obviously, a demand.
Indeed I often wonder if we've got more training people onboard than 'normal' pilots.
W.r.t. ‘This would have protected the AOC during the lean months in winter’ - Err, what has an AOC got to do with lean winter months ( the AOC is to do with safety of the airline ) ? What I suspect you mean is the Operating License ( OL ) which is to do with the fiscal fitness of an airline.
W.r.t. ‘This can only benefit the operating company by easing the stress on "full time" crews by allowing additional bods to fill the roster - especially during the busy summer schedule.’ - Actually it causes a rostering & crewing nightmare !
The reason being that nobody can say, for definite, that TRTO candidates will indeed have their licenses issued on or by any particular date, e.g. maybe they won’t be up to scratch, and / or there are delays along the way, etc… and also head-count planning is difficult, i.e. will Bond actually have enough people wanting line training, or not ( crystal ball time ) ?!
W.r.t. ‘It would also allow "full time" crews to avoid unpopular destinations like West Africa.’ – What are you on about ?
One of the great things about flying for Astraeus is precisely that you do get to go to the more ‘exotic’ locations.
W.r.t. ‘the ethics of it dont seem quite right’ - Basically some people have the money and are prepared to take a measured risk with their time and money in procuring a type-rating, it’s not like any of the TRTO’s are holding a shotgun to anybodies head and forcing them to sign up.
W.r.t. ‘It will only take one small incident caused by a paying line training pilot and they will be all over it like a rash demanding the practice be stopped.’ – Sorry, but I fail to see the connection.
What you have is a properly licensed and type-rated pilot being line trained by a properly licensed and highly experienced Training Captain ( along with the initial sectors also being covered by an experienced pilot riding shotgun on the jump seat ). This takes places under the auspices of a properly licensed TRTO, and all of which is conducted under the auspices and approval of the CAA.
In the event of an incident, I genuinely fail to see that whom is paying who for the training is of any relevance.
Wr.t. ‘If paying for a type rating become the way of the world then the cost of getting a job will be *at least* 70,000 pounds.’ - I once worked out that getting my own license ( under the old CAA system - anybody else remember 'penalty marking' ? ) cost me something in the region of £56,000 - and that was well over a decade ago, when £56k seemed like a lot of money !
W.r.t. ‘I cannot and will not pay that sort of money for the possibility of a job.’ – Then don’t !
However it won’t be lost on you that you have probably already invested a small fortune on exactly what you say, above, that you wouldn’t do, i.e. the possibility that by gaining a (f)ATPL somebody might give you a job.
Aviation has never been a cheap club to join, but it's a good club to be in, if you can get in ( and there’s the rub )
Do remember that I know what it feels like to be on the outside looking in, as I too, some years back, embarked on a huge and risky financial undertaking when I took to gaining my profession license - all in the desperate hope that one day I might get lucky when I said to an airline "gizza job, I can do that".
Indeed the very thought of it still makes me shudder ( and in many ways I'm still paying for it ) - but, at the eleventh hour, I got lucky ( thanks to Hamrah !
) which is just as well, or else it would of meant that I'd have blown £56,000 with only a nice little license and some log books to show for it !Except for a very lucky few, trying to break into aviation has always been, and will continue to be, a big and very expensive risk - and, with hindsight, if a child of mine was to ask me if 'they too should be an airline pilot ?' I'd probably try and dissuad them from it.
Last edited by CrashDive; 4th Sep 2003 at 16:12.
Chieftan o'the Pudden Race
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: Scotland usually, and often other parts of Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashy,
I am quite aware there is a demand. It is also quite possible that the demand is fuelled by quotes like
the implication being that this is the way it will be in the future in JAR-Land (difference is that in the US a 737 rating is about 6k).
Well, I have at least learnt something this morning.
Noone holds a shotgun to my head to force me to put fuel into my car, but if I want to make use of it I had better have some fuel in the tank. Maybe not the best analogy but can you see where I am coming from? MCC was initially intended to be provided by airlines, it is now a requirement on the cv before you are considered for interview. Maybe I am just a cynical old pessimist, but I can easily foresee a time where airlines will require low houred pilots to provided their own Type Rating.
IFALPA have shown at least a little more interest in this issue than BALPA. If they are against the concept then it will only require some form of safety related incident and they will be screaming "told you so".
OK, so maybe you will understand why I am so pissed at this new phenomenon. Imagine you had spent all that money, time and effort just in time for the goalposts to be moved yet again. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I daren't even try and add up how much exactly I have spent so far, it would only depress me, but a scratch calulation of completing the IR would bring me to about 65k. Adding the cost of a type rating and line training moves the financial burden from "just about able to justify the cost" to "stupid idea".
Your comments only spur me on to find the exit from this financial madness. At least it reduces the competition for the rest of the potential pilots out there by one. I have probably spoken out of turn and burnt some bridges anyway, so it saves me the effort of sending cv's out and getting sheafs of PFO's.
Instructing at the weekends in the local club seems much more appealing now.
There is, quite obviously, a demand.
In fact, I'll go as far as to say that you will find it difficult to find an airline anywhere that is recruiting AND type rating. It's a sad fact of the industry, something that has been the case in the United States for a very long time.
I suspect you mean is the Operating License ( OL ) which is to do with the fiscal fitness of an airline.
it’s not like any of the TRTO’s are holding a shotgun to anybodies head and forcing them to sign up.
Sorry, but I fail to see the connection.
cost me something in the region of £56,000
Your comments only spur me on to find the exit from this financial madness. At least it reduces the competition for the rest of the potential pilots out there by one. I have probably spoken out of turn and burnt some bridges anyway, so it saves me the effort of sending cv's out and getting sheafs of PFO's.
Instructing at the weekends in the local club seems much more appealing now.
Don't give up just as the market is turning the corner.
WWW
WWW
Moderator
Join Date: May 1998
Location: .
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it or not I have real empathy ( and sympathy ) with the position that many find themselves in, i.e. the goal posts moved during my own training.
E.g. one used to be able to get a job just(?) by having a CPL. So that's what I did ( not having the money for an approved course of study which would have given me a fATPL straight off ).
But then the CAA changed the rules ( before I'd got a job ) such that you then had to have at least a (f)ATPL, and without which there was no point in applying to the airlines.
So, having not long previously completed the CPL exams, I had to do all the ATPL exams ( no wonder I was always skint ! ).
Then, resplendent with my shiny new fATPL, I find myself in the middle of a recession, with airlines going bust all around me – their pilots being scattered to all four corners of the globe ( only to return when the going got better some years later )
And so the years go by and things gradually improve, like a booming economy and the introduction of ‘low-cost’ airlines.
Ah, but there's now a new hurdle in the way, care of MCC - anybody else do the OATS B737 generic LOFT course ? Which turned out not to qualify you as having done MCC, i.e. a complete waste of money ! - which, as correctly stated above, many airlines now ‘require’ you have before they'll even take a look at you ( e.g. I did mine in order to get an interview with CityFlyer, as was ).
And of course old father time continues to twist his cruel knife and you then find that you're too old and that airline's seemingly don't want you when you're body clock's in or beyond the 30's
Yep, one can indeed despair of the whole way that it's going ( i.e. some have described it as headed the way of the shipping industry ), but has it really ever been different ? - it's a very cyclic business.
Usually by the time that you cotton-on to the true state of affairs ( i.e. just how difficult it can be to get an airline job), you've now invested too much time and money to quit, and so you keep hanging on and dispair can start to set in.
At that point, and if you can find the funds, you might well indeed be tempted to do a self-funded type-rating, as a veritable last ditch attempt to get a toe on the aviation ladder - and I know people for whom this was the precise circumstance, albeit that they're now sitting at the front of B737's and A320's, which is something that, for them, would never have happened if they did not take the course of action which they did.
If the truth be told, if I'd had the money, I too would have done a self-funded type rating – as it would have probably got me in the airline door four or five years earlier than actually happened - but I didn't have the funds, and so I had to trust to luck ( and my dashing good looks
) and accordingly I ended up waiting a very long time from the point when I'd obtained my license until the point when I got my first flying job, i.e. it was something like eight years, with various opportunities along the way making it feel like an horrific emotional roller coaster ( to say nothing of the time & money spent in the interim period keeping some semblance currency ).
So, been there, done that - and no, it's not nice, but that's just how it is. Maybe ( hopefully ) it’ll change for the better someday, who knows ? But playing a waiting game is not without its own risks !
That said ( hence the edit ) Andy is right - don't quit, all the market projections are for a boom in air travel ( subject to no more 911's and / or oil supply or economic problems ) and airlines will need pilots - and then you might find yourself doing a jet type rating at a TRTO ( maybe even at Bond ? ) but with an airline paying for it !
E.g. one used to be able to get a job just(?) by having a CPL. So that's what I did ( not having the money for an approved course of study which would have given me a fATPL straight off ).
But then the CAA changed the rules ( before I'd got a job ) such that you then had to have at least a (f)ATPL, and without which there was no point in applying to the airlines.
So, having not long previously completed the CPL exams, I had to do all the ATPL exams ( no wonder I was always skint ! ).
Then, resplendent with my shiny new fATPL, I find myself in the middle of a recession, with airlines going bust all around me – their pilots being scattered to all four corners of the globe ( only to return when the going got better some years later )
And so the years go by and things gradually improve, like a booming economy and the introduction of ‘low-cost’ airlines.
Ah, but there's now a new hurdle in the way, care of MCC - anybody else do the OATS B737 generic LOFT course ? Which turned out not to qualify you as having done MCC, i.e. a complete waste of money ! - which, as correctly stated above, many airlines now ‘require’ you have before they'll even take a look at you ( e.g. I did mine in order to get an interview with CityFlyer, as was ).
And of course old father time continues to twist his cruel knife and you then find that you're too old and that airline's seemingly don't want you when you're body clock's in or beyond the 30's
Yep, one can indeed despair of the whole way that it's going ( i.e. some have described it as headed the way of the shipping industry ), but has it really ever been different ? - it's a very cyclic business.
Usually by the time that you cotton-on to the true state of affairs ( i.e. just how difficult it can be to get an airline job), you've now invested too much time and money to quit, and so you keep hanging on and dispair can start to set in.
At that point, and if you can find the funds, you might well indeed be tempted to do a self-funded type-rating, as a veritable last ditch attempt to get a toe on the aviation ladder - and I know people for whom this was the precise circumstance, albeit that they're now sitting at the front of B737's and A320's, which is something that, for them, would never have happened if they did not take the course of action which they did.
If the truth be told, if I'd had the money, I too would have done a self-funded type rating – as it would have probably got me in the airline door four or five years earlier than actually happened - but I didn't have the funds, and so I had to trust to luck ( and my dashing good looks
) and accordingly I ended up waiting a very long time from the point when I'd obtained my license until the point when I got my first flying job, i.e. it was something like eight years, with various opportunities along the way making it feel like an horrific emotional roller coaster ( to say nothing of the time & money spent in the interim period keeping some semblance currency ).So, been there, done that - and no, it's not nice, but that's just how it is. Maybe ( hopefully ) it’ll change for the better someday, who knows ? But playing a waiting game is not without its own risks !
That said ( hence the edit ) Andy is right - don't quit, all the market projections are for a boom in air travel ( subject to no more 911's and / or oil supply or economic problems ) and airlines will need pilots - and then you might find yourself doing a jet type rating at a TRTO ( maybe even at Bond ? ) but with an airline paying for it !
Last edited by CrashDive; 4th Sep 2003 at 18:41.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pups, I wasn't 'defending' the scheme! I was making two points: One, that IFALPA's concern may be valid in the wider world but that there was no reason to have any particular safety concern about the Bond/Astraeus scheme principally because it uses a full airline-quality selection procedure. Industry comment about the product of this scheme is generally complementary, and airline training in the UK is generally of very high quality indeed. My second point was that it's not as easy as it may appear to determine the effect on the airline's finances of running such a scheme; it may reduce costs, it may not - neither of us can tell from our situation.
Scroggs
Scroggs
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Location Location
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashdive - good post. I recognise my own situation in your last post. I am now able to afford to pay for a type rating on a B737 and that is what I intend to do. A pact with the devil? Possibly.
I think the cycle will carry on and in 5 years time there will good jobs and schemes for low-houred pilots, but not now.
I have to balance it all up. I am 35 and have 950 hours. In 5 years time I will be 40 and have 1200/1300/1400 hours. Who knows. I do know that employers will look past me to some 22 year old with a shiny new f ATPL. So to all you who don't/won't/can't pay for a type rating, just get behind me in the queue. Your time will come.
For those who are interested, paying for this type rating will take me to over £100 000 that I have spent on flying in the last 10 years. My next purchase will be a car that a) works, and b) costs more than £500.
I think the cycle will carry on and in 5 years time there will good jobs and schemes for low-houred pilots, but not now.
I have to balance it all up. I am 35 and have 950 hours. In 5 years time I will be 40 and have 1200/1300/1400 hours. Who knows. I do know that employers will look past me to some 22 year old with a shiny new f ATPL. So to all you who don't/won't/can't pay for a type rating, just get behind me in the queue. Your time will come.
For those who are interested, paying for this type rating will take me to over £100 000 that I have spent on flying in the last 10 years. My next purchase will be a car that a) works, and b) costs more than £500.