So what's the alternative to any P2F schemes for us EU low hour pilots?
You've asked the question: what are the options?
If you want to build the hours required to give you an edge at the CV and interview stage, instructing, banner towing, skydive drop piloting.... but even then, this is going to give you the edge to get a position where you will STILL have to pay for your TR + Line training on a jet, just more likely with deductions out of your salary than up-front, and for a similar amount to RYR. And those airline DO also actively hire guys with 200-300 hours, and have been doing it, so if you've not found success with them yet, I'd also recommend doing some things outside of just being in a plane to make your CV more competitive!
Then Ryanair's selling an extremely expensive Type Rating... Considering, as I said, I've seen TR's starting from 14K (with base training included), and up to 22K. Ryanair's 30K for the Type Rating sounds like a dreadful deal, if you're only paying for the TR.
So any other Line Training scheme paying out of pocket to fly whatever hours, with a chance of employment, while being paid a small amount, literally the same as Ryanair, is a no-no, but for some reason Ryanair's is ok?
I'm sorry but it's just grand that you're advocating and opposing the exact same thing,, depending on whether it has RYR plastered on it or not... I'm just here trying to scope what's the sentiment of the whole scheme like it is, considering that all the threads a few years ago literally condemned and had you lynched if you even suggested someone to go forward with them, or even worse, said you'd go through them yourself.
Because as I said before in the thread, I have no issue in paying RYR's or any other company for their scheme (TR+Base Training+Line Training),
I'm just wondering what's the alternative for those who really haven't the financial capacity to do the same.
As I said, I'm scoping the sentiment around people, as all threads I found had people lynching about this. Even Ryanair's program was at one point ridiculed, and whoever went through that program was called dumb.
So any other Line Training scheme paying out of pocket to fly whatever hours, with a chance of employment, while being paid a small amount, literally the same as Ryanair, is a no-no, but for some reason Ryanair's is ok?
I'm sorry but it's just grand that you're advocating and opposing the exact same thing,, depending on whether it has RYR plastered on it or not... I'm just here trying to scope what's the sentiment of the whole scheme like it is, considering that all the threads a few years ago literally condemned and had you lynched if you even suggested someone to go forward with them, or even worse, said you'd go through them yourself.
Because as I said before in the thread, I have no issue in paying RYR's or any other company for their scheme (TR+Base Training+Line Training),
I'm just wondering what's the alternative for those who really haven't the financial capacity to do the same.
As I said, I'm scoping the sentiment around people, as all threads I found had people lynching about this. Even Ryanair's program was at one point ridiculed, and whoever went through that program was called dumb.
It’s expensive, which sucks. But if you can drop 60K on a licence you can most likely get the final 30K. Especially given the first 60K gets you a bit of paper, the final 30K gets you a career.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes RYR is an expensive TR but if you see the training schedule compared to companies just churning out TR you spend more time in the SIM. You have access to a fixed base SIM which you can go to unlimited times at no extra cost.
Once base training done you start getting paid. You can leave when ever you want and no bond to pay.
Of course they have to say they don’t guarantee you a job but any airline can fire you for not being up to scratch. My previous company they fired a 2000hr SEP instructor after 3 attempts at final line check. Absolutely lovely guy, who they tried so hard with but just didn’t get it. I think they wavered his bond unsure though.
Everything is a risk in aviation and you should have known this before getting into it. I know half a dozen who lost medicals early on in careers. Will never fly again.
Join Date: May 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the impression some guys have jumped into this without doing due diligence. I've factored in the cost of a TR into my expected training costs. I'll be a 250 hour modular guy, I know it will by Ryanair I'm looking at. I am also very aware that there are many guys with their license and ratings who cannot get a job and the advice I was given by an old BA Captain was that having a CPL is one thing, being someone an airline wants to hire is another. I've also factored that risk in. I could end up at the end of my training and not get a job.
When you have thousands of guys applying to entry level roles and every CV is exactly the same, what do you want the companies to do? Start asking for 1500 hours?
When you have thousands of guys applying to entry level roles and every CV is exactly the same, what do you want the companies to do? Start asking for 1500 hours?
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Mars
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello guys.
I'm here just to express my opinion.
It's not my intention to judge in this thread if P2F is good / bad, ethical or unethical, nor to judge anyone decisions.
What I noticed nowaday is that P2F is basically "embedded" everywhere, including major airlines which are the most recruting for years.
For instance, what is the difference of a very expensive MPL (I still have somewhere the brochure of some airlines, including the very famous pink and orange one), where on the paper it looks legittim, and a "modular P2F" scheme, where the trainee "choose" to take the risk of not getting employeed but also choose where to do the courses and where to get the hours ?
On the paper it looks nice, because you have the possibility of securing a position in the airline, but you actually pay 20/30/40% more of the training costs, to secure a position (is this ethical ?).
If we take a random guy who choose to P2F, he will be "executed" by the folk for his choice, because he participated in ruining the job market (apparently).
But what about theese MPLs, or the famous low costs who ask 30/40K (when the actual TR costs around 20) to have a foot in the airline ?
Again, on the paper it looks like that you pay for training, and then you get a salary, but inside the wallet is the same outcome like a P2F.
Which Airlines are currently taking in cadets, with no experience, with no upfront payment for training, where you get paid from day 0 ?
If you can mention some, I will support them.
Otherwise I don't feel like to blame guys who chose P2F route.
I'm here just to express my opinion.
It's not my intention to judge in this thread if P2F is good / bad, ethical or unethical, nor to judge anyone decisions.
What I noticed nowaday is that P2F is basically "embedded" everywhere, including major airlines which are the most recruting for years.
For instance, what is the difference of a very expensive MPL (I still have somewhere the brochure of some airlines, including the very famous pink and orange one), where on the paper it looks legittim, and a "modular P2F" scheme, where the trainee "choose" to take the risk of not getting employeed but also choose where to do the courses and where to get the hours ?
On the paper it looks nice, because you have the possibility of securing a position in the airline, but you actually pay 20/30/40% more of the training costs, to secure a position (is this ethical ?).
If we take a random guy who choose to P2F, he will be "executed" by the folk for his choice, because he participated in ruining the job market (apparently).
But what about theese MPLs, or the famous low costs who ask 30/40K (when the actual TR costs around 20) to have a foot in the airline ?
Again, on the paper it looks like that you pay for training, and then you get a salary, but inside the wallet is the same outcome like a P2F.
Which Airlines are currently taking in cadets, with no experience, with no upfront payment for training, where you get paid from day 0 ?
If you can mention some, I will support them.
Otherwise I don't feel like to blame guys who chose P2F route.
Hello guys.
I'm here just to express my opinion.
It's not my intention to judge in this thread if P2F is good / bad, ethical or unethical, nor to judge anyone decisions.
What I noticed nowaday is that P2F is basically "embedded" everywhere, including major airlines which are the most recruting for years.
For instance, what is the difference of a very expensive MPL (I still have somewhere the brochure of some airlines, including the very famous pink and orange one), where on the paper it looks legittim, and a "modular P2F" scheme, where the trainee "choose" to take the risk of not getting employeed but also choose where to do the courses and where to get the hours ?
On the paper it looks nice, because you have the possibility of securing a position in the airline, but you actually pay 20/30/40% more of the training costs, to secure a position (is this ethical ?).
If we take a random guy who choose to P2F, he will be "executed" by the folk for his choice, because he participated in ruining the job market (apparently).
But what about theese MPLs, or the famous low costs who ask 30/40K (when the actual TR costs around 20) to have a foot in the airline ?
Again, on the paper it looks like that you pay for training, and then you get a salary, but inside the wallet is the same outcome like a P2F.
Which Airlines are currently taking in cadets, with no experience, with no upfront payment for training, where you get paid from day 0 ?
If you can mention some, I will support them.
Otherwise I don't feel like to blame guys who chose P2F route.
I'm here just to express my opinion.
It's not my intention to judge in this thread if P2F is good / bad, ethical or unethical, nor to judge anyone decisions.
What I noticed nowaday is that P2F is basically "embedded" everywhere, including major airlines which are the most recruting for years.
For instance, what is the difference of a very expensive MPL (I still have somewhere the brochure of some airlines, including the very famous pink and orange one), where on the paper it looks legittim, and a "modular P2F" scheme, where the trainee "choose" to take the risk of not getting employeed but also choose where to do the courses and where to get the hours ?
On the paper it looks nice, because you have the possibility of securing a position in the airline, but you actually pay 20/30/40% more of the training costs, to secure a position (is this ethical ?).
If we take a random guy who choose to P2F, he will be "executed" by the folk for his choice, because he participated in ruining the job market (apparently).
But what about theese MPLs, or the famous low costs who ask 30/40K (when the actual TR costs around 20) to have a foot in the airline ?
Again, on the paper it looks like that you pay for training, and then you get a salary, but inside the wallet is the same outcome like a P2F.
Which Airlines are currently taking in cadets, with no experience, with no upfront payment for training, where you get paid from day 0 ?
If you can mention some, I will support them.
Otherwise I don't feel like to blame guys who chose P2F route.
There can be no criticism attached to people who are doing what is becoming the industry norm of paying for their initial type rating with an airline (whether it's upfront or as part of a training bond.) I think what people are criticizing is the guys who are essentially working for free, and indeed paying for the pleasure of sitting in the cockpit, for an extended period of time when they should be forcing airlines into giving a salary for the same thing.
I think you're confusing what P2F is compared to "having to fund your type rating". Funding your own initial type rating in order to launch your airline career is now pretty standard almost everywhere. P2F is where, on top of paying for your type rating, you also pay for a specified amount of time as a second or first officer, usually without receiving a salary. So in one instance you can see paying, for example, 30k Euros to a certain Irish airline to secure your type rating and get your foot in the door as P2F if you really want to... but that is not what the industry (or most people) define it as. P2F would be paying 60 to 120k for being able to fly around as copilot for 500 to 1500 hours (or even more).
There can be no criticism attached to people who are doing what is becoming the industry norm of paying for their initial type rating with an airline (whether it's upfront or as part of a training bond.) I think what people are criticizing is the guys who are essentially working for free, and indeed paying for the pleasure of sitting in the cockpit, for an extended period of time when they should be forcing airlines into giving a salary for the same thing.
There can be no criticism attached to people who are doing what is becoming the industry norm of paying for their initial type rating with an airline (whether it's upfront or as part of a training bond.) I think what people are criticizing is the guys who are essentially working for free, and indeed paying for the pleasure of sitting in the cockpit, for an extended period of time when they should be forcing airlines into giving a salary for the same thing.
It isn't pretty standard? Its pretty much the standard path of entry and has been for a while for pilots starting their careers in Europe, unless I'm massively mistaken. And you don't live off fresh air and IOU's, you get a salary, often from the beginning of training. Hence the pretty huge difference between P2F schemes and how airlines hiring low hours cadet FOs operate in Europe.
It isn't pretty standard? Its pretty much the standard path of entry and has been for a while for pilots starting their careers in Europe, unless I'm massively mistaken. And you don't live off fresh air and IOU's, you get a salary, often from the beginning of training. Hence the pretty huge difference between P2F schemes and how airlines hiring low hours cadet FOs operate in Europe.
At present:
Ryanair: 30k euro up front
Wizz: 20k euro paid back in monthly installments over 4 years
TUI: MPL Cadet scheme (presumably including type rating) to be paid back over 4 years salary sacrifice. Non-type rated FO/SO's mentions 7k pounds salary deduction per year for 3 years for training costs.
And then you have cadet schemes like British Airways that don't mention any training/TR costs once you're at the airline, but do require that you self fund with their training partners to (f)ATPL level at the big name training academies that will set you back 100k pounds anyway.
So if you didn't have to pay at all in any way for your type rating, that's awesome for you... but I'd hazard a guess you didn't start your career in the last 5 years? Cos at the moment it really seems like one way or the other if you don't have some serious hours (and in some cases even if you're just NTR) you're going to be losing some money. Or is your advice to just not bother to start a career until the airlines are forced to provide TR completely free (as in the mythical old days)?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some guys so out of touch. Last 7 years from what mates have told me where they went to.
To add to others, some airlines not operating but:
Blue Air: £20k TR cost up front
Aegean: Can’t remember exact amounts but was up front cost plus reduced salary for TR.
Loganair: Again can’t remember but my mate said he had to pay something and they covered the rest. Rebonded when he changed types.
Flybe:Bonded £18.5k over 5 years for Q400. Upgrade to Captain bonded again for couple years.
Votea: I think it was £23k my mate paid for B717 TR.
These just from Europe. Head to Asia and it’s even more cowboy central.
To add to others, some airlines not operating but:
Blue Air: £20k TR cost up front
Aegean: Can’t remember exact amounts but was up front cost plus reduced salary for TR.
Loganair: Again can’t remember but my mate said he had to pay something and they covered the rest. Rebonded when he changed types.
Flybe:Bonded £18.5k over 5 years for Q400. Upgrade to Captain bonded again for couple years.
Votea: I think it was £23k my mate paid for B717 TR.
These just from Europe. Head to Asia and it’s even more cowboy central.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Unknown
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friend, the issue here is not the fact that I'll have to pay: I'm ready and willing to pay for it.
I've found a full Type Rating + Base Training for about 16K, 14K less than Ryanair.
As I said, going through the Ryanair program has as chief objective to do the 500 hours or so many sectors in those 6 months.
My issue here is that, if I didn't have any other alternatives, or if I'm just too broke to shell out another 30-40K, what do I do?
FI's are not needed at the moment since there's a huge influx of low hour pilots, plus the whole certification takes another half a year, if we're being optimistic.
And you know a bunch of 300hour pilots that were recruited, and that's great, but for every 2 or 3 pilots recruited, there are hundreds without a chance, as competent as the ones being recruited. Airlines are reporting record profits and constantly crying that there's a pilot shortage... But there's only an experienced pilot shortage.
Oh well.
I've found a full Type Rating + Base Training for about 16K, 14K less than Ryanair.
As I said, going through the Ryanair program has as chief objective to do the 500 hours or so many sectors in those 6 months.
My issue here is that, if I didn't have any other alternatives, or if I'm just too broke to shell out another 30-40K, what do I do?
FI's are not needed at the moment since there's a huge influx of low hour pilots, plus the whole certification takes another half a year, if we're being optimistic.
And you know a bunch of 300hour pilots that were recruited, and that's great, but for every 2 or 3 pilots recruited, there are hundreds without a chance, as competent as the ones being recruited. Airlines are reporting record profits and constantly crying that there's a pilot shortage... But there's only an experienced pilot shortage.
Oh well.
I believe tides are turning. Airlines aren’t getting the crew they require. This will only lead to opportunities free from upfront payments for TR / training. There’s simply not enough willing to fork out $$$$$$$ for a licence to then go work for a loco. It’s safe to say the bubble has burst.
Some guys so out of touch. Last 7 years from what mates have told me where they went to.
To add to others, some airlines not operating but:
Blue Air: £20k TR cost up front
Aegean: Can’t remember exact amounts but was up front cost plus reduced salary for TR.
Loganair: Again can’t remember but my mate said he had to pay something and they covered the rest. Rebonded when he changed types.
Flybe:Bonded £18.5k over 5 years for Q400. Upgrade to Captain bonded again for couple years.
Votea: I think it was £23k my mate paid for B717 TR.
These just from Europe. Head to Asia and it’s even more cowboy central.
To add to others, some airlines not operating but:
Blue Air: £20k TR cost up front
Aegean: Can’t remember exact amounts but was up front cost plus reduced salary for TR.
Loganair: Again can’t remember but my mate said he had to pay something and they covered the rest. Rebonded when he changed types.
Flybe:Bonded £18.5k over 5 years for Q400. Upgrade to Captain bonded again for couple years.
Votea: I think it was £23k my mate paid for B717 TR.
These just from Europe. Head to Asia and it’s even more cowboy central.
Given the OPs question, and not withstanding the confusion between genuine P2F schemes and TR funding models, the answer to the question AT THIS TIME is that you're almost certainly going to have to fund your initial TR in some way. We'll all cross our fingers and hope that in the not too distant future that changes.
The definition of what 'bond' means has also become a bit blurred. In some cases (Wizz) you pay off your bond over (not with) time. In others you have a reduced salary over the period of the bond in order to allow the airline to recoup training costs. Which makes Ryanair one of the most honest approaches in some ways.
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Portugal
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The definition of what 'bond' means has also become a bit blurred. In some cases (Wizz) you pay off your bond over (not with) time. In others you have a reduced salary over the period of the bond in order to allow the airline to recoup training costs. Which makes Ryanair one of the most honest approaches in some ways.
For sure, although a flip side is that if you're viewing that first position as a stepping stone to other airlines, you might value the ability to be free to take up a new position as and when?