-c206-

Ser ut som norwegian har endret sine krav for ansettelse av F/O. Før var det vel ett krav å ha minst 1500 tt og valid 737tr. Men nå ser det ut som om de har delt det inn i tre faser.

Jobb i Norwegian - Norwegian

Har noen mer info?

Guttn

Blir interessant å se inngangene på lønnstrinnene på de respektive 3 ansettelsesnivåene.

Don K

13thstage... What makes you say that MPL per definition are no good? How many do you know with a MPL?
And what is the big difference in your mind between a young punk MPL and a young punk CPL both with minimum hours? Besides that the MPL has more training in both multi crew environment and on the specific type?
Is it really so bad?

Cheers

aloha1985

Nytt år, nye muligheter! Heia NAS HR!

8ah

My two cent on the young punks with CPL or MPL ...

As far as I know there is still no possibilities for a MPL to get a ATPL without later doing the full CPL + PPL PIC time building. So for any companies with a good load of CPL and ATPL's go for MPL and one will have FO's with MPL stuck in the right seat for a loong time .... (And the thing on the MPL is that the punk is stuck to, Licence only valid with host airline so little or no chance the fu..er leaves for greener pastures ...

Don K

8ah lets get some facts on the table, because you seem to have misunderstood both things you are commenting.
First of all, look at JAR FCL 1, Subpart G, 1.280 (2). It is of course possible to obtain an ATPL.(why would anyone go for a license which would lock you to the right seat forever?) What it says is that if you do not have 70PIC then you would now need a total of 500PIC/US, not easy and expensive, but possible!
Secondly there are no restrictions that's forcing you to stay with the same company forever. The ONLY thing that you are restricted by is that your MEIR is for two pilot operations only. Another thing that is often misunderstood is that you are bound to fly the same type for the rest of your life, also not true.
Sadly enough a lot of the things that are wrong with the MPL comes back to lack of knowledge about it.

13thstage. I understand your concerns.
But consider this..
With the MPL program, DY has the opportunity to watch over the students for the entire duration of the training and sort out the ones that are simply not good enough.
You are saying that DY needs experience, and I agree, but what if experience is not available? Thats where I think that MPL comes in handy. Maybe put some restrictions on where they can fly for the first xxxx hours?

Having worked with MPL I absolutely don't think that it is an inferior education, it is different, not saying that it is better that CPL, in some situations it might be, in others not! I think it more or less comes down to the individual student.
The cancer in this industry? Wouldn't you more say that SSTR/LT is?

Hope this clarifies some things.

8ah

I have no intentions getting into a ****t contest here but as an ex HOT I know a little on he MPL topic. One thing to mention to is to obtain PICUS time is that the host airline needs a aproved program end aproved TRI/Line Cpat ti give PICUS to be legal (Costly) If a MPL looses his her jobb they are on their own as again you need a host airline. A MPL needs a specialiced type rating course. etc etc.... So... My two cents is that MPL is a rather costly course for a lowcost operator. and suites the Legazy carriers better. But again MPL is here to stay.... But know what you are getting into before you start that route is my advice...

Don K

All I can tell you is that from the original 15 Sterling MPL I know that 14 has found jobs in other airlines again.(last one stopped flying) This includes Viking(until they disappeared), Arik Air, Cimber-Sterling, Malaysian, Turkish, Jet Time, Primera, Norwegian and more.
Nothing I know of, limits (at least european) airlines usage of MPL pilots, as long as MPL is accepted as a license in their manuals just as well as CPL and ATPL has to be.
You are correct regarding the PICUS, but I believe that most respectable airlines does have such a program, correct me if I am wrong.
I agree with you in some regards when you say that MPL suites legacy carriers better, well at least the airlines needs a certain size in my opinion.

Guttn

Just out of curiosity... These 14 MPLers you mentioned, who landed jobs... Did they proceed with obatining a fATPL/CPL, or did they continue to fly with the MPL?

As Quag mentions, there are experienced pilots out there who are still looking.

Don K

Three of the 14 has a CPL, but all three got jobs before acquiring it.

I will not get into whether DY should go for MPL or not, but I am only trying to clarify some things that seems to have been misunderstood regarding MPL.
It should never be compared to experience, because you can't replace good experience. I my mind a fresh MPL is comparable to a fresh CPL, where neither of the license holders has any experience.
There are some advantages and some disadvantages with both licenses.

minimumunstick

Seriously, over 4500 applicants (confirmed from several reliable sources), and many many who actually meet their previous requirements who have never heard from them.

There are also many people with up to several recommendations and a lot of experience who still have not heard from them.

And then they lower the requirements to 100 hours PIC? Have they lost all common sense? Can they not call all those people who have been waiting for years to get a call from them first and then if they run out of people they can reconsider lowering the requirements?

If I am missing the logic here then please point me in the right direction.

polazarus

Like quagmire hints at, the new requirements might only apply to Tromsø-graduates.

minimumunstick

Perhaps, but it would not make sense to announce new lower requirements and encourage pilots with that minimum requirement of experience to apply when they already have their hands full with (over-)qualified pilots.

If they were to have some agreement for the students at Tromsø then that should not be posted on their website as an invitation for everyone else in the world to apply!

Crossunder

Hours flown does not automatically equal experience, skill or aptitude. I would much rather see DY implement some sort of selection process and hire MPL students, than continue to randomly hire "experienced" pilots based upon nothing but gossip, hearsay and a 15-20 min chat. I have flown with ex Sterling MPL and TFHS "low timers", and they are in no way inferior to the other "experienced" guys. Just because you have a CPL and a couple of thousand hours, does not mean that you have the abilities to become a good pilot. The RNoAF does not put randomly chosen individuals in their F-16s.

I suspect that DY will put their TRTO to good use this year, and that Tromsø graduates will (hopefully) fill the classes; hence the new requirements

As for the alleged 4.500 applicants, I'd say that's just plain BS. Probably loads of double and triple entries and a whole lotta non-qualified guys and gals...

minimumunstick

I have to disagree with you.

You are probably right that among those 4500 applicants there are a lot who do not really qualify, so the number cannot really be used in this matter.

But the fact is that there actually are a lot of people who meet their previous requirements who still have not been offered an interview. There are also a lot of people who do not meet the exact previous requirements, but that nevertheless have a lot of experience and internal recommendations that also exceeds or at least equals what previously employed first officers in Norwegian had when they were hired.

Personally I know many, and believe me I do not have many contacts in the aviation business! These people all speak Norwegian fluently as well. I believe these people also should be given a chance. Why shouldn't they? Why does someone with only 100 hours of PIC time deserve a chance instead of someone who has for example 1000 hours PIC and a lot of multi time, even some jet or turboprop time in some cases?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that low time pilots are not qualified for the job or that MPL pilots are not qualified. I am just saying that if they already have a lot of people to choose from with their previous entry requirements, there is really no reason to lower these requirements!

I also do agree that experience does not equal hours, but neither is there a reason to assume that a low-time pilot has more experience than a pilot with many hours, obviously. It's more the other way around, actually.

I also do not understand why you wish that the classes be filled by graduates from Tromsø. With all due respect to the graduates there (I have no doubt they are trained well and they are probably excellent pilots), there is no reason for them to deserve a job in Norwegian more than the other Scandinavians who have strived to complete their education elsewhere (even before Tromsø opened) and that have worked hard to acquire flight time and experience to get a job with e.g. Norwegian. To me that is very unfair to them.

In the end it's Norwegians company and they will do as they please. I just can't make sense out of it.

polazarus

I agree with you on this, but then you say:
So do you want DY to implement a real selection process or do you want them to just fill the spots with people from a specific school? This was a little unclear to me.

Crossunder

...that's because it WAS perhaps a bit unclear The Tromsø students have already been through a helluva selection process, and since DY does not have any real selection procedures, the only way to make sure they hire the right stuff is to hire those who have already been put through their paces. This would of course also mean ex-SAS/RNoAf/any other airline with a similar approach to aptitude testing. The only thing missing then would be a personality profile to find the typical "DY pilot". Today they do the exact opposite: No aptitude testing and no personality profile. Just a helter-skelter scramble for the door and they'll pick the first 20 to enter the room. "You other suckers who didn't make it are jinxed, and we do not want people suffering from bad luck to be working for us".

@minimumunstick: Since when did words like "deserve" and "worked hard" enter the equation? This business has never been about fair treatment, especially not at DY, where they could just as easily play musical chairs to select candidates...
But would it be fair to the Tromsø graduates to pick The Other Guys (great movie, by the way!) just because they happened to have started their career a few years earlier? That would be equally unfair, and since most of the "other guys" probably never bothered to take any aptitude tests, DY would stand a good chance of hiring the ones who simply are not able to fly and talk at the same time... Most of them are excellent pilots, but I do not want to risk suddeny discovering the few bad ones next to me in an emergency! I'm sure he/she would say the same about me

I think we all agree on the matter, and to sum it up: I personally am a strong proponent of aptitude testing. You need some basic skills and personality traits to become a decent pilot (multitasking, spatial orientation, logical thinking etc). A personality profile will ensure that the pilots are more or less a homogenous group who think and act alike; this is good for CRM and the working environment in general. Experience can be built up in-house, and in a "controlled environment". Imagine hiring 120 chinese pilots with 8.000 hours TT each. The words "china", "pilot" and "experience" in one sentence conjures up some very unpleasant mental images, at least in my primitive mind... A thorough and fair selection process would see every single qualified applicant invited to a couple of days' testing and interviewing at FBU. Those who score the highest and put up the best show wil be offered a job. Then it would not matter which school you went to or who you know (blow).

minimumunstick

Crossunder

I definitely agree that Norwegian's selection process is a poor way of recruiting pilots, and I would be happy to see them do aptitude tests etc.

However, my point remains. The way they are doing things now with that many applicants, I still do not understand why they are lowering their requirements. Because for THEIR way of doing things, there is no point. However if they were to lower the requirements and start mass invitations for aptitude tests / extensive selection process (like Lufthansa Italia) then it would make more sense, to be able to select pilots who fit a certain profile from a wider selection. In this case however there is no such selection process, and therefore allowing even more pilots apply when they already have their hands full with pilots who meet their current hiring requirements just does not make any sense.

You misunderstand me when you think I have said the selection process is about deserving the job or working hard. That is not necessarily the case, and it certainly is not the case when it comes to Norwegian's selection process. However in an ideal world those who deserve something the most should be the ones to get it first as long as they are qualified! I also believe that if there is an opportunity to make this become reality in some way then it should be done. (Too bad that's not how it is).

What I did try to make very clear though, is that you saying that you wish only pilots from Tromsø would be hired is an unfair thing to say. I backed up my argument very clearly and you did not reply with any reason why you think so. Your only reasoning seemed to be that "since when does fairness and deserving play a part", which to me proves the fact that there is no reason why Tromsø graduates should all of a sudden be the only ones who are hired. I do not understand how you cannot see that this is unfair to everyone else who has been trying to apply to Norwegian. If you would've left that remark out of your post then I would have agreed with the rest of your opinions, as I have pointed out earlier in this post.



I am not saying that the Tromsø pilots should be left out, and as we both agree everyone should be given a chance through testing and profiling. However, it would not be entirely unfair to leave them out either, because experience does play a role. And since we are talking about hypothetical fairness in this case, it is not unfair for pilots who have more time working ****ty pilot jobs raking up hours to get the "good jobs" first. To me that is common sense.

If two people have committed the same crimes and are in prison, who would you say deserves to be released first, the one who has served 10 years already or the one who just got in? It's the same principle, if you have struggled through something for a while to achieve something, I would say you deserve it more than another person who hasn't struggled for as long as you have!

That is of course based on the equality of the people involved. I know that a 200 hour pilot can be much better than a 1000 hour pilot, but sometimes also it is necessary to limit the number of applicants, and the best way to do that is to require a certain amount of experience. This is a matter of statistics and pure math / logic. If you have a group of people and you do not know their personalities / abilities then you will be better off picking the bunch with the most experience. Within that group you will then take the ones who fit the profile, and if you still need more to fit the profile then lower the requirements.

So bottom line is no, I do not believe it would be equally unfair to the Tromsø pilots, and there is no reason to hire them first over anyone else with equal or more experience than them, which is exactly what you were stating in your first post:
If you specifically like Tromsø pilots and that is what you want that is fine, it would be your opinion, but no, it is still not fair

minimumunstick

Helt enig. Man skulle jo tro at de ville hatt en litt mer organisert form for rekruttering når de vet at de er et voksende selskap og vil trenge flere piloter.

Men på den andre siden så er det jo forståelig at de har gjort det slik som de har gjort. De har jo plenty av folk med mye erfaring å ta av, og når mange av dem i tillegg har interne anbefalinger som jeg vil tro sikrer en viss standard, så er det jo egentlig ingen grunn til å endre på systemet sett fra deres standpunkt.

Det skaper jo derfor mer forvirring når de plutselig senker kravene uten å ha noe mer konkret informasjon om endring i rekrutteringsprosessen. Man skulle jo tro at de fortsatte å ta inn de med erfaring og interne anbefalinger (som det finnes mange flere av enda), men det er tydeligvis ikke tilfellet. Så nå virker det jo som om det kanskje blir enda mer lotto enn det du beskriver!

bfisk

Som om ikke det var nok var jo de forrige kravene (1500TT+500MCC) også tydeligvis bare på papiret. Av de 7 jeg kjenner som har begynte der i fjor hadde 4 ingen operativ (MCC) erfaring, og et par av dem under eller rundt 1000 timer. Så anbefalinger og telefonmas ser ut til å være det eneste som fungerer for å være med - helt bingo med andre ord.

"Resten av oss" får vel smøre oss med tolmodighet til SAS en gang skal ha folk.