There has got to be a better way!
Thread Starter
There has got to be a better way!
Much wailing, hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth has been occuring of late on these hallowed BBs with regards to the steady erosion of Professional Pilot salary and conditions with the advent of LCCs in various forms (Skimpy, VB, PB, Impulse etc.) whose ability to ever lower pay and conditions for Aircrew stems from, I believe the chronic oversupply of Pilots (especially poorly paid/treated GA jockeys)
I admit basically the whole Commercial training paradigm (what a wanky word that is!) would have to shift. The plethora of commercial training schools, some of dubious quality, would be rationalized and put under the broad control of an umbrella body that covers all aspects of Aircrew training, ciriculum, licencing, testing, certification, industrial representation, professional issues etc.. Have this umbrella body control the numbers of Commercial licences issued thus preventing the endemic oversupply of trained Pilots.Say a dozen or so schools teaching commercial flying around the country with G1 & G2 instructors paid a good full-time salary being efficently put use by doing alot of flying in trainers doings 750-100 hrs pa. Umbrella organization ensures standards and standardization (up to a point of course) and candidates are screened by a selection commitee to determine basic aptitude. G3s cut their teeth at PPL only schools that are not affected.
The current lassez-faire free market approach, which has failed dismally to maintain consistent standards of training in addition to producing far too many Pilots, needs to be fundamentally changed.
This is just food for thought - you could pick holes in what I have proposed till the cows come home but my point is that the current system is poor. Does anyone have any thoughts about how it can be done better?
I admit basically the whole Commercial training paradigm (what a wanky word that is!) would have to shift. The plethora of commercial training schools, some of dubious quality, would be rationalized and put under the broad control of an umbrella body that covers all aspects of Aircrew training, ciriculum, licencing, testing, certification, industrial representation, professional issues etc.. Have this umbrella body control the numbers of Commercial licences issued thus preventing the endemic oversupply of trained Pilots.Say a dozen or so schools teaching commercial flying around the country with G1 & G2 instructors paid a good full-time salary being efficently put use by doing alot of flying in trainers doings 750-100 hrs pa. Umbrella organization ensures standards and standardization (up to a point of course) and candidates are screened by a selection commitee to determine basic aptitude. G3s cut their teeth at PPL only schools that are not affected.
The current lassez-faire free market approach, which has failed dismally to maintain consistent standards of training in addition to producing far too many Pilots, needs to be fundamentally changed.
This is just food for thought - you could pick holes in what I have proposed till the cows come home but my point is that the current system is poor. Does anyone have any thoughts about how it can be done better?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aviation industry is predicting a pilot shortage within four or five years following a Government cap on the number of students next year.
In response to the looming shortfall, the Aviation Industry Association (AIA) has suggested several strategies to reduce the impact of the move.
AIA chairwoman Irene King said that for the past decade about 300 new pilots a year had entered the market having received their commercial pilot's licence. With the cap - restricting total student numbers to 775 fulltime equivalents, including a new entrant limit of 350 - the number of people receiving their commercial licences in 2005 was predicted to drop to 130, she said.
On present predictions, by 2007 there could be problems finding enough experienced pilots for "lower end" services, such as scenic flights.
The AIA is predicting that pilot shortages will start to filter through to heavy commercial aviation by 2009/10.
It pointed out the problem had arisen at a time when demand for pilots was at an unprecedented high with major scheduled operators ramping up services, and a new entrant about to enter the market.
AIA president John Funnell said taxpayers had every right to ask why they should be lending more than $30 million to students and funding tertiary institutions only to see students disappearing overseas.
"It would be good in view of the upcoming demand to keep more of these people here in New Zealand."
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA
In response to the looming shortfall, the Aviation Industry Association (AIA) has suggested several strategies to reduce the impact of the move.
AIA chairwoman Irene King said that for the past decade about 300 new pilots a year had entered the market having received their commercial pilot's licence. With the cap - restricting total student numbers to 775 fulltime equivalents, including a new entrant limit of 350 - the number of people receiving their commercial licences in 2005 was predicted to drop to 130, she said.
On present predictions, by 2007 there could be problems finding enough experienced pilots for "lower end" services, such as scenic flights.
The AIA is predicting that pilot shortages will start to filter through to heavy commercial aviation by 2009/10.
It pointed out the problem had arisen at a time when demand for pilots was at an unprecedented high with major scheduled operators ramping up services, and a new entrant about to enter the market.
AIA president John Funnell said taxpayers had every right to ask why they should be lending more than $30 million to students and funding tertiary institutions only to see students disappearing overseas.
"It would be good in view of the upcoming demand to keep more of these people here in New Zealand."
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like it's turnin' into a friggin' communist regime... restricting pilot numbers, umbrella organisation, aptitude tests for applicants. It's nice to hear some outside-the-box ideas, but the less pilots that are trained the more the GA industry suffers obviously because the less money circulating through the idustry. Sure it sucks trying to find work, but I'd rather that than be told I can't even start flight training. You'd see a mass exodus of pilots to foreign countries for training, screwing the industry more. don't mean to pop your balloon, but I'm not sure that's the solution. At the end of the day we want airfares so cheap that the air travel is not only the fastest, but most affordable means of transport.
Thread Starter
QNIM - heavy regulation with regards to entry and training seems to provide a good living for most of the medical proffession (?)
druglord - restrictions akin to the ones I proposed are quite common in many European countries - yes it is more regulated and restrictive, but also provides more certainty and less of the desparate back-stab cut-throat screw-you-I'm-alright-jack nature that permiates much of Aus/NZ aviation (take a look at the Kunnunarra and Skimpy ready to hop threads). As for the more money flowing through the system, I have to say that flight training for commercial licences is a tiny fraction of 1% of the total and just leads to the current Pyramid type setup that we now have in Australia. An Instructor once told me that Instructing in Australia is the biggest legal Pyramid scheme he has ever seen !!
The cost of Airfares is not a direct function of how much the pilots are paid -Southwest proves that.
druglord - restrictions akin to the ones I proposed are quite common in many European countries - yes it is more regulated and restrictive, but also provides more certainty and less of the desparate back-stab cut-throat screw-you-I'm-alright-jack nature that permiates much of Aus/NZ aviation (take a look at the Kunnunarra and Skimpy ready to hop threads). As for the more money flowing through the system, I have to say that flight training for commercial licences is a tiny fraction of 1% of the total and just leads to the current Pyramid type setup that we now have in Australia. An Instructor once told me that Instructing in Australia is the biggest legal Pyramid scheme he has ever seen !!
The cost of Airfares is not a direct function of how much the pilots are paid -Southwest proves that.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey slice I don't wanna sound arguementative, just hoping to have a healthy debate hear with a compere. You're absolutely right in the 1% of instructing accounting for industry income, but I think the name of the game is to have as many airlines competing with each other as possible all with hopefully high load factors. This does mean that the pilots get screwed by management in pay/conditions but it also means a lot more jobs in the industry which filters right down to the GA pilot. In the US for example you have a number of airlines all with 1% profit margins, but this still means companies like jetblue can make 90m quarterly profits, and the pilots still make over 100k. Ansett I heard was operating at 5 times the operating costs of similar sized airlines in the US, due to lack of competition in the day. Australia obviously doesn't have the same population, so I guess the trick is to get more of the non-flying public flying. Cheap fares I'm guessing would be the answer.
Yet another example of making life for newbies infinitely more difficult to protect the conditions of those already where they want to be..Errosion of conditions is a justified concern but please dont begin to proportion some of that blame our way. You need only look among some of your peers for that one.
Let Market Forces Prevail
After every mining boom - there is an oversupply of geologists.
There are thousands of IT specialists looking for jobs since the 2001 bubble burst.
There are heaps of unemployed stockbrokers around these days
There is a looming oversupply of law graduates
When agriculture goes downhill - there are plenty of scientists taking jobs as salesmen. A few years back, I heard of 37 applicants for the job of laboratory technician - and these included PhD, Masters and BSc's. They gave the job to a non-graduate because he really needed it, and was prepared to stay on. Much applause!
Many very well trained people have to accept employment in fields other than their preferred, because of the dynamics of business. Sometimes, it can prove to be your foundation for a changed work, social and ethical attitude that will serve you well in later life.
(Have a look at all the jobs R.M.Williams tried during his illustrious life)
Why should aviation be any different?
cheers,
After every mining boom - there is an oversupply of geologists.
There are thousands of IT specialists looking for jobs since the 2001 bubble burst.
There are heaps of unemployed stockbrokers around these days
There is a looming oversupply of law graduates
When agriculture goes downhill - there are plenty of scientists taking jobs as salesmen. A few years back, I heard of 37 applicants for the job of laboratory technician - and these included PhD, Masters and BSc's. They gave the job to a non-graduate because he really needed it, and was prepared to stay on. Much applause!
Many very well trained people have to accept employment in fields other than their preferred, because of the dynamics of business. Sometimes, it can prove to be your foundation for a changed work, social and ethical attitude that will serve you well in later life.
(Have a look at all the jobs R.M.Williams tried during his illustrious life)
Why should aviation be any different?
cheers,
Thread Starter
34R - no exactly the opposite - life will infinitely easier for the newbies by restricting the number of them.
RV6-VNE market forces should determine how many pilots get employed not how many pilots get trained. The number trained should roughly equal the number employed as required by market forces over the longer term. As you point out Aviation isn't the only industry to have this backwards.I ask you what is a better outcome :-
Free market training/ free market employment 1000 pilots trained 200 employed = cut-throat comptetion for jobs = salary $25K + pay for endorsement ~ 800 lose $50K training
Restricted training/ free market employment 200 pilots trained 200 employed = cut throat competition for pilots= salary $50K + benefits
The second scenario seems to work for doctors and as far as I know no one complains too loudly about the restricted entry to medical school - why can it not be the same for pilots ?
druglord - agree the more airlines the better but I get the feeling that the number of Pilots trained in the US more closely matches the available jobs over the longer term. This certainly is not the case in Aus/NZ. Just out of interest do any of the LCCs in the States make you pay up front for your 737/A320 rating
RV6-VNE market forces should determine how many pilots get employed not how many pilots get trained. The number trained should roughly equal the number employed as required by market forces over the longer term. As you point out Aviation isn't the only industry to have this backwards.I ask you what is a better outcome :-
Free market training/ free market employment 1000 pilots trained 200 employed = cut-throat comptetion for jobs = salary $25K + pay for endorsement ~ 800 lose $50K training
Restricted training/ free market employment 200 pilots trained 200 employed = cut throat competition for pilots= salary $50K + benefits
The second scenario seems to work for doctors and as far as I know no one complains too loudly about the restricted entry to medical school - why can it not be the same for pilots ?
druglord - agree the more airlines the better but I get the feeling that the number of Pilots trained in the US more closely matches the available jobs over the longer term. This certainly is not the case in Aus/NZ. Just out of interest do any of the LCCs in the States make you pay up front for your 737/A320 rating
Last edited by slice; 18th Nov 2003 at 14:45.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey slice,
everyone in oz thinks the US is the promised land for pilots. Let me tell you now, it's tough. It's certainly not as tough as oz getting an airline gig, but here's how it is tough: Most mainline pilots are in their mid 30's before they land a job flying 737's. This means that for 10 years of their life they are making pittance wages while paying for huge college loans and flight training. I think if instructor wages were the proposed 50k that would jack these prices up exponentially. Yeah life sucks at the bottom of the food chain, but doctors do similar stuff with internships etc, so we're not on our own on this.
Most companies don't make you get a type. It usually depends on the state of the industry. At the moment it's bad so there are a few companies that make you get a type. Southwest has always required a 73-type, jetblue has a 2year employment contract to sign, the company i work for currently requires a type, (but not when i started) so it's not the norm, but it's not unusual either.
everyone in oz thinks the US is the promised land for pilots. Let me tell you now, it's tough. It's certainly not as tough as oz getting an airline gig, but here's how it is tough: Most mainline pilots are in their mid 30's before they land a job flying 737's. This means that for 10 years of their life they are making pittance wages while paying for huge college loans and flight training. I think if instructor wages were the proposed 50k that would jack these prices up exponentially. Yeah life sucks at the bottom of the food chain, but doctors do similar stuff with internships etc, so we're not on our own on this.
Most companies don't make you get a type. It usually depends on the state of the industry. At the moment it's bad so there are a few companies that make you get a type. Southwest has always required a 73-type, jetblue has a 2year employment contract to sign, the company i work for currently requires a type, (but not when i started) so it's not the norm, but it's not unusual either.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restrict training numbers?
It would never work. It would result in a gradual decline of G.A. as it would force up the costs supporting industries such as engineers etc. Private Flying and ownership would decline, airport revenue will decline etc etc.
An end result of such a fantasy policy could see airlines set up their own acadamies like the JAL & Lufthansa.
For starters, how about return the training syllabus for CPL to what it used to be;
180 hours & a Night Rating.
How about raising the bar for Instructors; say 300 hours command prior to starting an Instructor rating (I think Helo Instructors have a similar experiance req. - conf. from any Helo drivers?).
300 hours command would lower the number of Instructors out there. (and improve junior Instructor quality)
Less Instructors available = better pay.
Supply & demand.
It would never work. It would result in a gradual decline of G.A. as it would force up the costs supporting industries such as engineers etc. Private Flying and ownership would decline, airport revenue will decline etc etc.
An end result of such a fantasy policy could see airlines set up their own acadamies like the JAL & Lufthansa.
For starters, how about return the training syllabus for CPL to what it used to be;
180 hours & a Night Rating.
How about raising the bar for Instructors; say 300 hours command prior to starting an Instructor rating (I think Helo Instructors have a similar experiance req. - conf. from any Helo drivers?).
300 hours command would lower the number of Instructors out there. (and improve junior Instructor quality)
Less Instructors available = better pay.
Supply & demand.
Thread Starter
RFG - as I said before commercial level instructing forms a tiny fraction of 1 % of total aviation activity(not even particularly significant when only including GA). The drivers of GA health are Charter and Private flying, both closely linked to the fortunes of regional Australia. For a sustainable industry, training must only ever form a very small part of the total or it just becomes untenable. Most professions (if Piloting is indeed one) have some sort of restriction upon entry. Once again the number of Pilots trained does not affect the number of positions available in GA
The idea of increasing min hours for instructors is a start, but once again would require the force and clout of an umbrella group (ala AMA).
The idea of increasing min hours for instructors is a start, but once again would require the force and clout of an umbrella group (ala AMA).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slice:
1% - where did you get that c**p figure from?.
AUST. DOT stats for 2002.
"Flying training and charter continued to make up the two largest activity categories in the GA sector, representing 24.3 per cent and 26.4 per cent respectively of all GA flying hours during the year ended 31 December 2002. Flying training recorded a rise of 1.1 per cent, while charter hours
fell by 4.4 per cent."
Even counting ALL AVIATION; Training is still 14.4% of activity and I believe (unless you have DOT figures that I can not find) a significant proportion of that is Commercial type training.
Any restriction or forced regulation will have a huge impact on the rest of the industry.
BTW: Private Flying & Aerial Work is 9.5% & 11.5% of Aviation. Either sector is still not as much as Training nor do they contribute greatly to Pilot employment prospects.
1% - where did you get that c**p figure from?.
AUST. DOT stats for 2002.
"Flying training and charter continued to make up the two largest activity categories in the GA sector, representing 24.3 per cent and 26.4 per cent respectively of all GA flying hours during the year ended 31 December 2002. Flying training recorded a rise of 1.1 per cent, while charter hours
fell by 4.4 per cent."
Even counting ALL AVIATION; Training is still 14.4% of activity and I believe (unless you have DOT figures that I can not find) a significant proportion of that is Commercial type training.
Any restriction or forced regulation will have a huge impact on the rest of the industry.
BTW: Private Flying & Aerial Work is 9.5% & 11.5% of Aviation. Either sector is still not as much as Training nor do they contribute greatly to Pilot employment prospects.
Thread Starter
<1% REVENUE - far more acurate indication of the carrying capacity for employment (and that is the crux of the issue) than hours alone. Plus those training hours are skewed somewhat by the big Flying colleges training foreign students -Singapore, China Southern, BAe (mostly foreign) and a smattering of others. Students with no right of residence should be quarrantined from the restrictions as foreign fee-paying students at our universities are now.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slice I think the difficulty of flight training generally does most of the sorting out. As you probably know the smartest pilots aren't generally the best, and motivation and personality goes a lot further than smarts. So I'm not sure that any means of restricting would produce the best pilot group either.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not sure at the moment
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RFG,
Your idea of having 300 hours in command sounds good, but so many instructors use their rating as a means to obtain some hours so they can move on to charter or similar otherwise they will find it hard to land a charter job with a bare CPL.
It's a catch 22 situation, it's very difficult to get a charter job with a bare CPL so the easiest way to go is get the instructor rating and move on. If a requirement for 300 hours came in then it would be tough to get that initial job, or there is the option of paying for private flying but I don't think many of us can afford to pay for another 220 hours after finishing our CPL's. If they did secure some charter work then would they honestly want to change to instructing after having the experience of all that stick time?
Just my opinion.
Cheers
CC
Your idea of having 300 hours in command sounds good, but so many instructors use their rating as a means to obtain some hours so they can move on to charter or similar otherwise they will find it hard to land a charter job with a bare CPL.
It's a catch 22 situation, it's very difficult to get a charter job with a bare CPL so the easiest way to go is get the instructor rating and move on. If a requirement for 300 hours came in then it would be tough to get that initial job, or there is the option of paying for private flying but I don't think many of us can afford to pay for another 220 hours after finishing our CPL's. If they did secure some charter work then would they honestly want to change to instructing after having the experience of all that stick time?
Just my opinion.
Cheers
CC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt10;
Good point.
Instructing is a good way to start. However, I have seen more than a few get an Instructor Rating with the sole aim of hour building. They don't last long....
At the very least, I expect an Instructor to be focused on their student's best interest rather than just counting the hours. That's why I suggested a few extra command hours as per helo standards.
Thankfully, the vast majority of Instructors that I have worked with or employed have been dedicated, skillful Pilots and have been rewarded by their career advancement.
Regardless, I would still like to see the CPL include a NVFR and 180 hours.
A NVFR or IFR is still needed to get an Instructor Rating
Good point.
Instructing is a good way to start. However, I have seen more than a few get an Instructor Rating with the sole aim of hour building. They don't last long....
At the very least, I expect an Instructor to be focused on their student's best interest rather than just counting the hours. That's why I suggested a few extra command hours as per helo standards.
Thankfully, the vast majority of Instructors that I have worked with or employed have been dedicated, skillful Pilots and have been rewarded by their career advancement.
Regardless, I would still like to see the CPL include a NVFR and 180 hours.
A NVFR or IFR is still needed to get an Instructor Rating
Agree about the CPL. I'd go further and ensure that a CPL had in it:
NVMC on all navaids
TT-200
5-10 hrs heavy r/g single
low level course
In respect of the Instructor Rating, my first reaction was to raise the bar - but i think that's asking the near impossible from students.
What could be done to stretch out the instructing profession a bit, would be to raise the standards right accross the board.
Gr3 - 500 hrs instructing, not TT
Gr2 - 1000 hrs
Gr1 - 2000 hrs
Pay instructors accordingly. The current part time award rates have a 'spread' of less than $10/hr, I think. From about 38 to 47/hr. This just isn't payment on merit, or value to the employer.
It should be more in the order of a base rate for Gr3 of, say, $30/hr, rising to $35 after 250 hrs. Gr2 should get at least 150% of the Gr3 rate, eg $45/hr, and Gr1 should be looking at $60+/hr.
Full time wages could be similarly structured. This would inject some realistic goals into the industry, and make it worthwhile to become a Gr1, and by so doing, ensure that the really dedicated people continued on in GA
On another tack, why doesn't the industry insist on everyone who wishes to instruct - first doing a full and directed aptitude test to see whether they actually have a 'teaching' bone in their body? This is seperate to whether they can manipulate controls or no. With some form of 'gateway' into instructing, it would discourage the straight hourbuilders, but encourage those who have the communication attributes to enter GA instructing.
cheers,
NVMC on all navaids
TT-200
5-10 hrs heavy r/g single
low level course
In respect of the Instructor Rating, my first reaction was to raise the bar - but i think that's asking the near impossible from students.
What could be done to stretch out the instructing profession a bit, would be to raise the standards right accross the board.
Gr3 - 500 hrs instructing, not TT
Gr2 - 1000 hrs
Gr1 - 2000 hrs
Pay instructors accordingly. The current part time award rates have a 'spread' of less than $10/hr, I think. From about 38 to 47/hr. This just isn't payment on merit, or value to the employer.
It should be more in the order of a base rate for Gr3 of, say, $30/hr, rising to $35 after 250 hrs. Gr2 should get at least 150% of the Gr3 rate, eg $45/hr, and Gr1 should be looking at $60+/hr.
Full time wages could be similarly structured. This would inject some realistic goals into the industry, and make it worthwhile to become a Gr1, and by so doing, ensure that the really dedicated people continued on in GA
On another tack, why doesn't the industry insist on everyone who wishes to instruct - first doing a full and directed aptitude test to see whether they actually have a 'teaching' bone in their body? This is seperate to whether they can manipulate controls or no. With some form of 'gateway' into instructing, it would discourage the straight hourbuilders, but encourage those who have the communication attributes to enter GA instructing.
cheers,
