Cadets over Experience ? please explain

[PressTheTit]

I pose this genuine question to hopefully gain an understanding of the reasons why airlines allegedly prefer CAE/CTC/FTE cadets over Modular/FI's/MEP operators etc etc...

From my point of view which is totally bias as im of the latter stable, I can't understand the rational behind this trend. If indeed this is the case.

Is there an argument that more experienced modulars/FI's etc have higher pay expectations initially ? This is certainly not the case for me or other like candidates I know.

Do the airlines not recognise potentially 1000's hrs of flight time over many years with empty bags of luck and full bags of experience as relevant ?

I'm not nieve enough to realise there are some ££££££ to be made by favouring cadets, but how ?

IMHO 200hrs ish is not enough of a grounding before moving exclusively to a benign IFR environment for the rest of your career. Slightly militant but no wonder when things go wrong there seems to be a lack of ideas on the flight deck.

Is there a percieved issue of molding an experienced pilot into company sop's ethos ?

If retention of captains is an issue in some airlines then why do they not employ more aviation experienced FOs that could achieve captaincy quicker ?

I could go on but you get the idea,

I'm new to the market and again this is a genuine question not designed to target anyone but simply to understand what the reasoning is.

Replies welcome from all

[stn]

From my point of view which is totally bias as im of the latter stable, I can't understand the rational behind this trend. If indeed this is the case.

This is the case and in a way has always been - each airline has set their own rules how to get the best people to work for their company. For example lufthansa has their own flight school, as well as KLM. They can select the applicants they want and follow their progress since the first day of ground school. They know what they get.

I've been looking for (any flying) work for better part of a year now, but so far I haven't landed even a single interview so I can kind of understand your frustration. However one has to remember that the airlines do not own anything to you or me, it's entirely up to them. Even more so in the current climate as for an example Qatar had 2000 applications in two days for a SO position.

Is there an argument that more experienced modulars/FI's etc have higher pay expectations initially ? This is certainly not the case for me or other like candidates I know.

No, I don't think this has anything to do with salary or T&C's.

IMHO 200hrs ish is not enough of a grounding before moving exclusively to a benign IFR environment for the rest of your career. Slightly militant but no wonder when things go wrong there seems to be a lack of ideas on the flight deck.

This has happened with legacy carriers for decades when they had their own cadets and no issues have arisen from this.

[PressTheTit]

Stn, thanks for the reply. Attached below the US standpoint. They have obviously identified an issue. Are things that different over here ?

The Final Rule

Directed by Congress, the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010 called for increased minimum requirements for airline first officers. The new rule mandates that airline first officers hold an air transport pilot (ATP) certificate or the new “restricted ATP.”

An ATP certificate requires, among many other qualifications, that the pilot be at least 23 years old and have logged at least 1,500 hours of flight time.

The “restricted ATP” requires pilots to be at least 21 years old with

750 flight hours if they are military-trained and qualified,
1,000 flight hours if trained in a four-year college or university-accredited aviation training program leading to a bachelor’s degree, or
1,250 flight hours if trained in a two-year college aviation program leading to an associate’s degree.
Pilots who obtain their certificates and ratings via non-structured general aviation flight training can qualify for the restricted ATP at age 21 with 1,500 hours of flight time.

The new rule also requires, per ALPA’s recommendation, that first officers be “type rated” in the aircraft they fly in airline service—i.e., receive special training and testing on operation of that specific aircraft type.

To upgrade to captain, an airline copilot must log at least 1,000 hours of flight time as an airline copilot, as pilot in command (PIC) in certain small and charter airline or commercial general aviation operations, or any combination of these situations. The flight experience does not have to be obtained at the pilot’s current airline.

Military PIC time (as much as 500 hours) in a multi-engine, turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane in an operation requiring more than one pilot may also be credited towards the 1,000 hours.

At ALPA’s urging, the FAA has not changed the type of medical certification required for airline first officers—they will still be required to hold at least a second class FAA airman

[RWY_31R]

Sadly, we as pilots have to swallow this bitter, sobering pill of reality.

No matter what school or under what system or what country you achieved your flight training and subsequent piston engine experience, it still comes down to this;

The airlines owe us nothing, the industry owes us nothing and it takes more than being perceived to be the better candidate (based on experience or training) that will land you a job.

It's down to being in the right place at the right time, saying the right things at the right time, meeting the right people and connecting with the airline that wants to take a chance on you. In other words, hard work, a determined attitude and LUCK! LOTS OF LUCK! All current airline pilots got lucky to one extent.

This career was a big gamble when we all started training, and it still is a big gamble when you're in the job hunt. Many CPL's will never make it to the airlines!

You just have to enjoy what ever flying you do in the mean time. So even if you never make it into a jetliner, atleast you can look back at your flying career and be proud you did something, millions around the world cant do! Fly an airplane.

Airline recruitment may seem very unfair (an arguably it is in some quarters), but being in such an over subscribed industry, its no surprise jobs are becoming harder and harder to come by.

If an airline's chief pilot/HR team like you, they'll hire you. But when they are dealing with thousands of applicants for just a handful of positions, some good people will get the chop. Is that fair?? well....is life fair?

Happy flying people, regardless of what you fly

[Groundloop]

That ruling by Congress was a knee-jerk reaction to the Colgan incident. And the irony is that both Colgan pilots had well over the minimum requirements of the new rule.

[OhNoCB]

I have limited experience but it seems a very rough rule is that the less strict the company SOPs are, the more they tend to value experience. Probably because their judgement is called on more often.

When I was looking for a job I ran into lots of smaller operators who really wanted lots of experience, but I also spoke with a few training bods in bigger operators (airlines etc) who preferred having the 'blank canvas' cadet to work with.

I was in the middle (sort of) with around 6-700 hours and no type rating, meaning I wasn't a blank canvas to work with but wasn't experienced either.

For what it's worth, I think the operators dismissing experience tends to break down when you have experience on type. That always seems to be quite a valuable thing to them.

[calculer]

Cadets are formatted, they are young, smart, they are not married and have no kids, they will be more concentrated on the flying and will follow all procedures when older folks will have a personal idea on how to do things, have wifes and kids, they will not be formatted as well and they will not follow the sometimes arbitrary procedures as well
The cadets will get some experience fast anyway and captains are here to help them learn the job, they will figure everything soon enough and end up being excellent pilots even if they are just cadets at first

[PressTheTit]

Calculer, a very interesting POV and very much highlights my point.

Well done

[Superpilot]

The popular thought amongst the expired old relics from that bygone era of “self-improvers” (what’s that I hear most of you ask?) who are still running the show is that 1.) Integrated flight training schools provide a flight training regime that is better suited to developing an Airline Pilot. 2.) Integrated flight training schools have a selection process that weeds out the undesirables.

It would appear that Modular schools apparently either deliberately or otherwise teach their students in a way that does not make them as good Airline Pilots and the airline industry really does not care if you’re not rich enough, stupid enough or desperate enough (delete as appropriate) to effectively pay a €50k premium to be “selected”. Anyway, lets ignore the fact that CTC is run mostly by ex-EasyJet management and that the old Hamble club plays a part in the cosy relationship between OAA and BA.

[PressTheTit]

Thanks all for your posts so far,

And Calculer, you do have a point. I can't tell you how many times I've disregarded procedures and just randomly started cutting my own detail, inadvertently entering inverted flat spins as soon as thought of my wife or kids enter my head.

Is it now a pre requisite to become a monk before undertaking integrated training to prevent the unthinkable senario of a family ?

I think blank canvas is a very appropriate term

[maxed-out]

Calculer,

What utter rubbish you speak. I have had the privilege of meeting older pilots who started flying pretty late in life. All self improver and some are skippers in UK airlines.

Yes, I nearly flipped the Caravan last week at FL130 when the jumpers were just about to get out due to me thinking of my wife and kid.

[INeedTheFull90]

It has nothing to do with experienced guys being more difficult to train or being used to another operators' SOP. The cadet-airline-FTO racket is all to do with back handlers, gentlmens agreements and commission.

[Holyjoe]

Cadet programs are run with the company SOPs underpinning everything from pretty much the start. Cadets have no bad habits to unlearn and all they will know is what their prospective employer wants/needs them to know. BA cadets are of varied ages/marital status/gender but the course they take will be common to all.

The MPL is the one we all need to watch. Airlines are watching with interest the success that airlines currently involved in this course are experiencing. It was not without its problems initially, but it is definitely a course that is currently making training departments very happy. Flying schools without ties to an airline could see themselves in big trouble if the MPL becomes more popular.

Its hard out there trying to get your first job and harder to move on from your first job if you don't have the right type rating. Trying to feed a family on a £1600 a month basic on a Regional carrier is not sustainable either.

The industry has evolved and training has moved on..us "self-improvers" are a dying breed. Good luck to all trying to get your first break. Hopefully the likes of Flybe will be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

[Bealzebub]

Airlines have never been particularly interested in 250 hour "self improvers". Never!

Why is that? The answer is simple, it is because 250 hour CPL "self improvers" never existed until the advent of JAA licence harmonisation.

There were always a small number of 250 hour cadet pilots that were recruited in to the handful of airlines with cadet programmes, but they were almost always from "approved" integrated training schools that by and large followed the same format as todays evolved "approved schools," those being the major players in supplying full time integrated graduates to those airlines with cadet programmes. Yesterdays Hamble (an in house BOAC/BEA/BA college) and Oxford, Perth etc. evolved into todays Oxford, FTE and CTC.

The old self improver route meant acquiring at least 700 hours (outside of one of these integrated "approved" programmes,) for the issue of a CPL/IR. Even then, that level of experience was unlikely to find an invitation to interview letter landing on your doormat. Most of the airlines looked for candidates with at least 2000 hours and for the jet operators usually around 500 hours of turbine experience. The successful "self improvers" often amassed this through a variety of "stepping stone" jobs, such as flight instruction (which could be remunerated in those days with a PPL!), Air taxi, Aerial work, Third and Second tier turboprop operators, etc. In that respect the airlines requirements have generally changed little.

The reduction in experience levels to 250 hours was done to bring the UK and a few other countries into line with other ICAO signatory nations and other supranational authorities. Indeed the UK became a signatory to one such supranational authority (the then JAA now EASA), and hence the need for change. Previous sources of remunerated employment such as flight instruction were now subject to a CPL requirement, and hence the experience level for the issue of the CPL was reduced to 250 hours to bring the requirements into line with those existing in the USA and most of the rest of the world.

The rapid expansion of at least one lo-co airline in Europe also coincided broadly with these changes. That airline sought co-pilot applications within the strict letter of the law to anybody with a CPL/IR and the necessary application fee. This seemed to generate a popular perception (that persists to this day) that 250 hours and a CPL/IR was the golden ticket to the right seat of jet airliner. Unfortunately it wasn't! It never had been, and the fact that the new requirements slashed the basic flying hour requirements by two thirds, only served to open the floodgates to what was nearly always an overflowing reservoir.

This relative explosion of new hopefuls clutching a CPL/IR, and the general industry wide reduction of turboprop opportunities, as well as an increasing lack of general aviation openings, resulted in the situation you see now. When you then add on the global economic cycles, the changes in industry requirements, and the deluge of swimmers looking for any employment rock to cling on to, the normal progression avenues for the self improver simply became hopelessly constricted.

Those schools that evolved from the old "approved" schools expanded their cadet programmes in association with more and more airlines. Those airlines that continued to seek "experienced" (military and civil pilots) throughout a prolonged economic downturn continued to expect experience levels at pretty much the same benchmark that they had always done.

The one sector of the marketplace that was squeezed out was the new and vastly expanded low hour "self improver." The first tier airlines always (albeit in smaller numbers) took their cadets from the big Three "approved schools." They also recruited experienced civil pilots from the "stepping stone" operators, and they took experienced ex-military career changers.

Over the last 10-15 years, coupled with a very long and severe economic recession, there also occurred global regulatory changes that raised pilots retirement ages from 55 to 60 and then 65. This took pressure off airlines for an entire decade as they experienced far fewer retirements than they normally might, and allowed them to expand their cadet programmes to take up the shortfall. The result of this was an evolution of the industrial landscape, such that now the cadet programmes have also served to squeeze a good deal of the middle ground "experienced pilot" recruitment. That squeeze manifested itself as far less opportunity, and vastly reduced T&C's (in many cases) for those same experienced career movers.

The industry has seismically shifted over the last 20 years from a highly regulated and restricted one, to one where "low cost" is the name of the game. The secret is in the name. Low cost means low input costs wherever you can control those costs, right through to low prices for the end consumer. The writing has been on the wall for quite a long time now. You can explain the real time history on here until you are blue in the face, but for those adversely affected, or those who failed to appreciate the general realities, or continue to stick their head in the sand or their fingers in their ears, it simply won't make a jot of difference. To succeed in an evolving environment, it is usually necessary to evolve with it. That is more difficult when you have already rolled the dice!

[Groundloop]

The cadet-airline-FTO racket is all to do with back handlers, gentlmens agreements and commission.

A commonly trotted-out piece of rubbish. Have you the evidence to back up your claim, then?

[NVIS]

Until the flow of wet behind the ears cadets with deep pockets dries up there will be no end in sight! God forbid that a serious accident is attributed to the current employment MO.

[PressTheTit]

OK, thanks to all. I'm building a clearer picture of the situation.

So, pros of a cadet are youth, fresh faced, blank canvas ready to be moulded by the airline, rich, no undesirables, smart, trained specifically for the role etc ctc etc.

Cons, very limited hands on flying with 0 experience to fall back on even when they have 5000 hrs heavy IFR time, almost a total lack of charecter building life experience.

To be fair I invite a cadet to give the pros and cons of a modular/fi/ex mil

Again I have no issues with cadets or academies but its disturbing to learn of potentially unhealthy relationships between airlines and academies. eg latest orange airline recruitment for NTR. Is this even legal to specify schools ? I would hope the standardisation would be the licence and rating held not what school attended.

[G-F0RC3]

So, pros of a cadet are youth, fresh faced, blank canvas ready to be moulded by the airline, rich, no undesirables, smart, trained specifically for the role etc ctc etc.

Cons, very limited hands on flying with 0 experience to fall back on even when they have 5000 hrs heavy IFR time, almost a total lack of charecter building life experience.

I really don't think it's the dichotomy that you are suggesting. The airline training programmes I've seen all value life experience; all suggest flying experience is advantageous; and all take people from a variety of age groups and backgrounds - including parents with young kids.

Also, in what way does having 5000 hrs heavy IFR time constitute zero experience? Of course a lot of the flying is done by autopilot, but a lot of it is hand-flown too. On top of that there are regular simulator proficiency checks where real emergencies can be practised (ironically something you can't do to the same extent in a C152 or PA38).

[pilotchute]

The cadet "blank canvass" myth.

Blank they are but that isn't the reason. The big schools pump out a product of which the Locos have no input into training. If the Locos were so interested the schools would be tailoring the training to the airline they claim to be supplying.

The old "trained how we want them" went out the window when airlines closed their flying schools.

Cadets are preferred because they pay for everything and don't complain. They don't say anything when sent to the crappiest base in the network when there are vacancies in the base down the road from where they live.

All airlines in Europe are desperately cutting costs. If if was cheaper to hire experience they would. One Loco has started to reap what it sows though. There is such an exodus the cadet training machine can't cope so they opened the gates to non cadets. Problem is it's only open to guys with jet multi crew time already. Sorry FI's, nothing for you.

[rogerg]

Blank they are but that isn't the reason. The big schools pump out a product of which the Locos have no input into training. If the Locos were so interested the schools would be tailoring the training to the airline they claim to be supplying


Some do, its called MPL




Sorry cant get the quote button to work.