Ryanair Scam!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thumbs up on this topic go to pprune. This scheme is totally different to the one on offer at Ryanair.. .Pprune are offering a unique scheme to introduce guys into the cockpit of a 737, And you only pay once you have been selected, then you have a choice do i, or dont i..... .Where as Ryanair are charging for the initial application.. .I think this scheme is very similar to the one on offer at ATP or CTC which has put lots of guys in the right hand seat of a jets.. .Take it and run with it........ <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Before too many people jump to the wrong conclusions, the PPRuNe Career Development Scheme is just one way we are trying to help newly licenced but inexperienced pilots to get a foothold in the airline job market. This is not a recruitment ploy and Astraeus could have selected ALL their F/Os from the large pool of experienced jet rated pilots who are now looking for jobs. Instead they have decided that this is an opportunity to invest in the future.
PPRuNe has been invited to take part in this exercise and we have decided that it is a good use of the PPRuNe Fund to cover a small part of the costs. In the long term we expect a return on our investment. As mentioned above, there is a risk sharing element but we are confident that the final five applicants who are selected and accept the offer will be able to get through the course. They will gain valuable experience and will be flying with some of best training captains in the industry.
On the issue of Ryanair charging for their recruitment process, they are doing nothing illegal. If you bother to actually read what they say on their website you will see that everything is up front. You have a choice if you have read their web page to either apply or not to apply. They are being very shrewd by doing this because it cuts down on the number of applications and CVs they have to deal with and it is their interpretation of being 'low cost'. If you have a 737 type rating then you can make the decision to apply. If you don't then you know what it will cost if you do apply and are successful.
Once the business picks up again, and it will, and demand for pilots picks up then you will possibly find that their recruitment process changes. It's called market forces. In the meantime, if you have a new licence and no experience you are probably wasting your money if you apply but you have a choice. It is not a scam.
The five lucky people who are offered a B737 Type rating and 6 months line experience with Astraeus may be lucky enough to be offered a permanent contract if the business is there for the winter. If it isn't then at least they have the option of hawking their skills to other operators who may be able to give them work. They could even apply to Ryanair and save themselves £15K!!! Just remember that you have a choice even though you are not happy about all the options.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]</p>
PPRuNe has been invited to take part in this exercise and we have decided that it is a good use of the PPRuNe Fund to cover a small part of the costs. In the long term we expect a return on our investment. As mentioned above, there is a risk sharing element but we are confident that the final five applicants who are selected and accept the offer will be able to get through the course. They will gain valuable experience and will be flying with some of best training captains in the industry.
On the issue of Ryanair charging for their recruitment process, they are doing nothing illegal. If you bother to actually read what they say on their website you will see that everything is up front. You have a choice if you have read their web page to either apply or not to apply. They are being very shrewd by doing this because it cuts down on the number of applications and CVs they have to deal with and it is their interpretation of being 'low cost'. If you have a 737 type rating then you can make the decision to apply. If you don't then you know what it will cost if you do apply and are successful.
Once the business picks up again, and it will, and demand for pilots picks up then you will possibly find that their recruitment process changes. It's called market forces. In the meantime, if you have a new licence and no experience you are probably wasting your money if you apply but you have a choice. It is not a scam.
The five lucky people who are offered a B737 Type rating and 6 months line experience with Astraeus may be lucky enough to be offered a permanent contract if the business is there for the winter. If it isn't then at least they have the option of hawking their skills to other operators who may be able to give them work. They could even apply to Ryanair and save themselves £15K!!! Just remember that you have a choice even though you are not happy about all the options.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]</p>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scroggs . . . .Obviously, I do not suggest that Ryanair's ads should be censored. My point is simply that, in the interests of fairness, free discourse on either of the schemes should be encouraged. Such discourse may well be of some benefit to the administrators of the PPRuNe scheme which is, after all, new and innovative.
I note the comments above by the Skipper and I certainly take on board his clear support for the PPRuNe scheme (though I am a little concerned by comment such as “some of the best training captains in the industry” – surely a very subjective comment at best?).
As a moderator, your (tongue-in-cheek) threat to those who make comparisons between the Pprune and Ryanair schemes appears to be an attempt to stifle freedom of speech. Clearly, both schemes are already publicly available for Ppruners to scrutinise. And it seems there are certainly similarities (beyond 737 ratings) and comparisons to be made. What is wrong with letting us discuss them without threats to alter facial features? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I note the comments above by the Skipper and I certainly take on board his clear support for the PPRuNe scheme (though I am a little concerned by comment such as “some of the best training captains in the industry” – surely a very subjective comment at best?).
As a moderator, your (tongue-in-cheek) threat to those who make comparisons between the Pprune and Ryanair schemes appears to be an attempt to stifle freedom of speech. Clearly, both schemes are already publicly available for Ppruners to scrutinise. And it seems there are certainly similarities (beyond 737 ratings) and comparisons to be made. What is wrong with letting us discuss them without threats to alter facial features? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested,. .Lighten up, me old, eh? I have never suggested that we don't discuss anything. I do, however, object to the implication that the Ryanair and Pprune schemes are both of the same nature. They are not.. .For all those who attempt the Ryanair route, good luck to you. Just don't expect such a financially ruthless employer to be nice to you!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I think Ryanair have started a trend here that many other airlines will pick up. From an airline's point of view, it stops timewasters applying and they have the cadet's money in case things go wrong. It also prevents the cadets from getting free training and then wondering off somewhere else.
Wait and see which airline is to follow next, apparently this procedure is already customary in the USA.
Wait and see which airline is to follow next, apparently this procedure is already customary in the USA.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scroggs, me old china
Perhaps it is fair to say that the Ryanair and Pprune schemes have one or two things in common. Yes, they both seem to offer a 737 type rating; they both require a pilot applicant to put hands in pockets; and they both presumably require a training bond in some amount.
Acknowledging that the Pprune scheme seems the more equitable, there are one or two statements on the Astraeus site that seem contradictory and, perhaps, less than accurate.
For example, I find the claim that the scheme represents no cost saving to Astraeus somewhat difficult to swallow. Surely, it at least provides legal manning of a flightdeck at minimal cost for some six months without the airline being bound to the employee by a long-term contract? Of course, there is nowt wrong with that, of itself, but why suggest there is no financial benefit to Astraeus? Elsewhere on the site it makes the point that the scheme is in the interests of Astraeus, which seems to contradict the above claim.
The Skipper points to the fact that Astraeus is free to hire from the present, type rated, workforce. True again, of course, but, were it to do so, it would surely find the type rated F/O far more expensive to hire and perhaps unwilling to commit for only six months. In any event, even the type rated must be trained and tested to some degree, and this at an unrecoverable cost to the airline.
I was very keen to make an application, and found I was 'returned to Pprune' rather than directed to the application form merely because my IR has lapsed. I do not think Hamrah's assertion that this would make the sim assessment problematic is an equitable reason for complete exclusion from the scheme - surely a talented individual (and hopefully you would wish to find some such among the applicants) may well pass the assessment without a current IR.
All things considered, I think there are some rather rough edges to be knocked off at least the presentation of this scheme. Nonetheless, I wish anyone who does apply all the very best. It is clear, though, that the financially flush are more likely to be offered one of the initial five places than any talented, but impecunious, aspirant. Was that truly the intention of the scheme's creators? If not, then back to the drawing board. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Finally, I would point to the fact that Ryanair is probably no more and no less a 'financially ruthless employer' than any other in today's environment.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
Perhaps it is fair to say that the Ryanair and Pprune schemes have one or two things in common. Yes, they both seem to offer a 737 type rating; they both require a pilot applicant to put hands in pockets; and they both presumably require a training bond in some amount.
Acknowledging that the Pprune scheme seems the more equitable, there are one or two statements on the Astraeus site that seem contradictory and, perhaps, less than accurate.
For example, I find the claim that the scheme represents no cost saving to Astraeus somewhat difficult to swallow. Surely, it at least provides legal manning of a flightdeck at minimal cost for some six months without the airline being bound to the employee by a long-term contract? Of course, there is nowt wrong with that, of itself, but why suggest there is no financial benefit to Astraeus? Elsewhere on the site it makes the point that the scheme is in the interests of Astraeus, which seems to contradict the above claim.
The Skipper points to the fact that Astraeus is free to hire from the present, type rated, workforce. True again, of course, but, were it to do so, it would surely find the type rated F/O far more expensive to hire and perhaps unwilling to commit for only six months. In any event, even the type rated must be trained and tested to some degree, and this at an unrecoverable cost to the airline.
I was very keen to make an application, and found I was 'returned to Pprune' rather than directed to the application form merely because my IR has lapsed. I do not think Hamrah's assertion that this would make the sim assessment problematic is an equitable reason for complete exclusion from the scheme - surely a talented individual (and hopefully you would wish to find some such among the applicants) may well pass the assessment without a current IR.
All things considered, I think there are some rather rough edges to be knocked off at least the presentation of this scheme. Nonetheless, I wish anyone who does apply all the very best. It is clear, though, that the financially flush are more likely to be offered one of the initial five places than any talented, but impecunious, aspirant. Was that truly the intention of the scheme's creators? If not, then back to the drawing board. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Finally, I would point to the fact that Ryanair is probably no more and no less a 'financially ruthless employer' than any other in today's environment.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: England
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has one or two posts from this thread been deleted today, only I thought I saw (a puddy cat) no a question relating to the Astreaus application requirement with regard to the need for a current IR. The context of the question was that if your IR was current and you were exercising the privileges regularly (Oh err) then the sim ride would be less problematic that it would be if you had an IR but were not current in IFR flight. The questioner was simply asking if that were the case then the Pprune scheme is not assisting the wannabe looking for his first RHS but more the wantmorebe i.e. the person already established on the lower rungs of commercial avaiation. . .In my defence I have no problems either way and if I hade the remaining 6 exams the CPL and the IR I’d be applying too. Ho Hum back to the studies. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> . .I just thought that this was a valid question, and deserved and answer from Pprune or Astreaus. Good luck to all those that apply. DD
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DiverDriver, the posts you're thinking of are actually alive, well and in the other thread.
If you think already working in the 'lower rungs' of aviation is what helps try seeing how far you get with the initial application form. This really is for that first job in the industry.
Finally, is there some kind soul who can link us to the thread from some months ago where a wannabee, with extreme honesty, describes how a jet sim assessment went while not truly current.
I ask this as some of the readership seem unable to accept advice on currency from trainers who have genuinely assessed hundreds of candidates in recent years.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>
If you think already working in the 'lower rungs' of aviation is what helps try seeing how far you get with the initial application form. This really is for that first job in the industry.
Finally, is there some kind soul who can link us to the thread from some months ago where a wannabee, with extreme honesty, describes how a jet sim assessment went while not truly current.
I ask this as some of the readership seem unable to accept advice on currency from trainers who have genuinely assessed hundreds of candidates in recent years.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: England
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem Mr Towers I was just interested to know, as there hadn’t be a response to the question, but then again there still hasn’t been. Just how is a guy who isn’t flying hands on IFR regularly (i.e. 6 month qualified ATPL applicant with 200 hrs but not flown since) going to get on against someone currently working IFR (air taxi for example). Its just a question – I’m not looking to get flamed here. Regards DD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, let's be fair here. On the other thread, Hamrah said [quote]If, during the early phases of selection you could demonstrate that you have an IR, that you have been actively using the IR, and that you have booked a renewal, then it would be worth your time applying. However, if you have not been actively flying in Instrument conditions, the sim assessment would be a very difficult challenge indeed.<hr></blockquote>Hamrah, this suggests that you, at least, seem to be prepared to give someone who does not actually have a current IR, but is recent and has booked a renewal, the chance for assessment. But how does that person access the application form when his/her truthful answer to the question "do you have a current IR" is NO? Perhaps the question might be rephrased to read "Do you have recent IR currency" or some such? Then, an honest and positive answer would still facilitate an application. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Unfortunately for some pilots there will always be some criteria that will make them inelligible to apply the scheme. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled and if you do not meet them it's unfortunate but even if you do, there is still a review process, the interviews/group-exercises and then the sim assessment itself.
All the requirements are there on the website and the questions we ask are used to determine eligibility. I will repeat them here for clarification: [quote]To be eligible for consideration for acceptance to the first stage of the application process you must be able to answer yes to the following questions:
1. Do you hold a valid and current CAA or JAA frozen ATPL?. .2. Is your Instrument Rating current?. .3. Do you have the right to live and work in the EEC?. .4. Can you be available to start a type-rating course by April 2002?. .5. Do you speak and understand English fluently?. .6. Are you computer literate?. .7. Do you have a full drivers licence?
. .If you can honestly answer yes to all the above questions you may proceed to the first stage of the application where you will confirm your answers to the above questions and answer a few additional, simple questions that are not critical to the application process.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know which part of question #2 is not clear but if you then proceeded to the first stage and then found that you were returned to the PPRuNe page after you answer the questions then you should not be so suprised. [quote]If, when you press the 'apply' button, you get delivered to PPRuNe it's because you have not met our minim requirements to be eligible for our B737 type rating course - and in that event we wish you well for the future and thank you for your interest.<hr></blockquote>
I can appreciate how frustrating it must be for some of you. We have spent a lot of our time preparing for this and trying to get it right. We decided to set those minimum criteria and if you have let you IR lapse then you cannot blame us for that. Even some of those with a current IR may not be able to pass the sim assessment.
Plese stop trying to compare this to the Ryanair pilot application process. We are not charging anyone for filling in the application, being interviewed or being assessed in the sim. The nominal amount we ask the successful applicants to put into an account is purely a part of the risk shareing we expect. This costing the PPRuNe Fund a large chunk of its limited resources. All the money that the successful candidate puts up is returned to them as long as they complete the course and complete their contract. The £3,000 we ask them to pay back to the PPRuNe fund over 3 years after they gain permanent employment is the return on our investment. It is not a huge amount and will go to help funding other schemes that we plan to have.
For those of you who are eligible or are not sure and would like to chat to us we will be holding a live 'chat' session on Wednesday 30th between 2000 and 2200. There will be a seperate chat room set up and you can fire away. We will do what we can to help but make no promises. Everyone has to be able to complete the forms.
All the requirements are there on the website and the questions we ask are used to determine eligibility. I will repeat them here for clarification: [quote]To be eligible for consideration for acceptance to the first stage of the application process you must be able to answer yes to the following questions:
1. Do you hold a valid and current CAA or JAA frozen ATPL?. .2. Is your Instrument Rating current?. .3. Do you have the right to live and work in the EEC?. .4. Can you be available to start a type-rating course by April 2002?. .5. Do you speak and understand English fluently?. .6. Are you computer literate?. .7. Do you have a full drivers licence?
. .If you can honestly answer yes to all the above questions you may proceed to the first stage of the application where you will confirm your answers to the above questions and answer a few additional, simple questions that are not critical to the application process.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know which part of question #2 is not clear but if you then proceeded to the first stage and then found that you were returned to the PPRuNe page after you answer the questions then you should not be so suprised. [quote]If, when you press the 'apply' button, you get delivered to PPRuNe it's because you have not met our minim requirements to be eligible for our B737 type rating course - and in that event we wish you well for the future and thank you for your interest.<hr></blockquote>
I can appreciate how frustrating it must be for some of you. We have spent a lot of our time preparing for this and trying to get it right. We decided to set those minimum criteria and if you have let you IR lapse then you cannot blame us for that. Even some of those with a current IR may not be able to pass the sim assessment.
Plese stop trying to compare this to the Ryanair pilot application process. We are not charging anyone for filling in the application, being interviewed or being assessed in the sim. The nominal amount we ask the successful applicants to put into an account is purely a part of the risk shareing we expect. This costing the PPRuNe Fund a large chunk of its limited resources. All the money that the successful candidate puts up is returned to them as long as they complete the course and complete their contract. The £3,000 we ask them to pay back to the PPRuNe fund over 3 years after they gain permanent employment is the return on our investment. It is not a huge amount and will go to help funding other schemes that we plan to have.
For those of you who are eligible or are not sure and would like to chat to us we will be holding a live 'chat' session on Wednesday 30th between 2000 and 2200. There will be a seperate chat room set up and you can fire away. We will do what we can to help but make no promises. Everyone has to be able to complete the forms.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested. .some good points here, but I think you play Devil's advocate somewhat. I don't have a problem with that - I do it myself more than a little, but I don't want the enjoyment of the argument to take away from the real, tangible benefits of the Astraeus scheme. There may well be some points of presentation that could do with a revisit, but I have no influence over that.. .Please understand that the PPrune/Astraeus scheme is the nearest that we believe can be achieved, in the real commercial world, to an ideal that we've been chasing after for some time. That is, a professional pilot training and employment scheme that disadvantages neither the employer nor the trainee. Astraeus are not a charity, and have to see real commercial returns from those that they take on. However, those lucky 5 - each year - will be effectively be paid to train and get a 737 rating, in return for a contribution to the Pprune fund - which will be reinvested in further Wannabe training.. .I hope that Ryanair's system will not gain ground in Europe, and I suspect it won't in the medium and long term. It is an opportunistic (for the airline) scheme that relys on the short-term aims of 737-qualified potential employees. By nature, it suggests that the employer regards the employee as a necessary evil, rather than a team member. That'll work while times are tough, but it won't otherwise - and people will remember.. .Anyway, time will tell. My crystal ball's no better than yours, but I hope it's obvious which scheme I'd recommend you aim for!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guys, please, I am not trying to play the devil's advocate here, though I admit having no real need to access either of the schemes (Ryan's or Pprune's). Money is not a problem for me, I could probably buy my own 737 at today's prices. However, I am conscious of the fact that it is a very real issue for others.
To be honest, the real axe I have to grind is that, for too long in this country, a civil piloting career was the domain of the very privileged, other than a relative handful who went via the military to civil route. In my extremely humble opinion, this has often meant that British flightdecks were manned by those whose 'daddies' bought them a place irrespective of their inherent ability (or distinct lack thereof).
You all well know that to maintain an IR in circumstances outside of aviation employment is an expensive exercise, so much so that, for example, it may mean a choice for the young married man between feeding and clothing his family or selfishly diverting available funds to a personal, driving ambition.
The point I have been trying to press here is that I see no equitable reason to bar application to the less than wealthy. Will you not at least consider this as an appeal on their behalf to admit them to the process? Perhaps you might agree to their subsidising the sim assessment should they fail same.
If this scheme is truly intended to give a leg up to the worthy first timers, how about making it a leg up opportunity to all deemed worthy, irrespective of financial circumstances?
End of plea.
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
To be honest, the real axe I have to grind is that, for too long in this country, a civil piloting career was the domain of the very privileged, other than a relative handful who went via the military to civil route. In my extremely humble opinion, this has often meant that British flightdecks were manned by those whose 'daddies' bought them a place irrespective of their inherent ability (or distinct lack thereof).
You all well know that to maintain an IR in circumstances outside of aviation employment is an expensive exercise, so much so that, for example, it may mean a choice for the young married man between feeding and clothing his family or selfishly diverting available funds to a personal, driving ambition.
The point I have been trying to press here is that I see no equitable reason to bar application to the less than wealthy. Will you not at least consider this as an appeal on their behalf to admit them to the process? Perhaps you might agree to their subsidising the sim assessment should they fail same.
If this scheme is truly intended to give a leg up to the worthy first timers, how about making it a leg up opportunity to all deemed worthy, irrespective of financial circumstances?
End of plea.
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Interested, I find your statement quite astonishing. Where do you get your statistics from? I have been a pilot since 1978 when I did my PPL and over the 24 years since then I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of pilots, both private and professional, who had their licences funded by 'daddy'. I am and most of my colleagues would be offended at your suggestion that any of us who did not get our wings in the military are somehow 'priveleged'.
Even those who have been fortunate enough to not worry about where the money was coming from have had to take the same exams and tests and pass all those to exactly the same standards as the rest of us. To say "...irrespective of their inherent ability (or distinct lack thereof)..." is an accusation that you obviously make without any real knowledge of what is involved. The vast majority of us have had to sacrifice something to get where we are today and the actual cost of keeping an IR renewed is just an added cost that has to be factored into any planning if you seriously intend to become a professional pilot.
Your contention that we are restricting the application to only 'wealthy' candidates is insulting in the extreme. The 40+ applications received so far all point to individuals who are extremely determined, of very limited resources and prepared to what is necessary to make sure they remain eligible to apply in this very competitive market.
If you claim to be so concerned about making the scheme "...deemed worthy, irrespective of financial circumstances..." and you are able to "...probably buy my own 737 at today's prices..." then perhaps you would be prepared to fund all those applicants who don't quite fit into our criteria by lending them the money to renew their IR so that they become eligible to apply! Once you change one set of criteria then another will become the limit that causes concern.
There have to be limits or goalposts and everyone knows what they are. To accuse us of being elitist and placing a "...bar to application to the less than wealthy..." is an insult I will not stand for and one I believe you should retract.
Even those who have been fortunate enough to not worry about where the money was coming from have had to take the same exams and tests and pass all those to exactly the same standards as the rest of us. To say "...irrespective of their inherent ability (or distinct lack thereof)..." is an accusation that you obviously make without any real knowledge of what is involved. The vast majority of us have had to sacrifice something to get where we are today and the actual cost of keeping an IR renewed is just an added cost that has to be factored into any planning if you seriously intend to become a professional pilot.
Your contention that we are restricting the application to only 'wealthy' candidates is insulting in the extreme. The 40+ applications received so far all point to individuals who are extremely determined, of very limited resources and prepared to what is necessary to make sure they remain eligible to apply in this very competitive market.
If you claim to be so concerned about making the scheme "...deemed worthy, irrespective of financial circumstances..." and you are able to "...probably buy my own 737 at today's prices..." then perhaps you would be prepared to fund all those applicants who don't quite fit into our criteria by lending them the money to renew their IR so that they become eligible to apply! Once you change one set of criteria then another will become the limit that causes concern.
There have to be limits or goalposts and everyone knows what they are. To accuse us of being elitist and placing a "...bar to application to the less than wealthy..." is an insult I will not stand for and one I believe you should retract.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Captain Fyne, it seems I have caused you, personally, some insult here. That was not my intention, so I will immediately apologise for that, if it is what you would wish me to do. I extend that apology to anyone who feels that the cap does not fit.
However, I would wish to raise the following points with respect to your statement above:<ul type="square">1. In fact, I don't think I quoted any statistics in expressing my personally held beliefs as to the privileged versus the unprivileged. I guess the issue here is subjective in that privilege may be relative. What I said was: "for too long in this country, a civil piloting career was the domain of the very privileged, other than a relative handful who went via the military to civil route."; Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'frozen' UK ATPL costs some £50,000, net of all associated expenses. In other words, the average income earner must have saved this sum after paying tax, NI, and all other living costs and must then maintain him/herself for the period of obtaining the licence. And there are other essentials on top of the bare licence, aren't there, which we'll ignore here for the sake of expediency. This is a vast sum of money, equivalent in some instances to the purchase price of a modest house, and it is beyond the reach of the great majority of youngsters, or their parents. I do not believe it is stretching the truth at all to say that those who can find such sums of disposable income are ‘privileged’ to some degree.
2. To take your own stated case, I understand you have been flying for 24 years and I gather from your past posts that you took many long years to achieve your first real return as a professional pilot. You don’t here say, but you have in the past said that you joined Emerald not that long ago. Thus it took a very long time for you to advance from PPL to CPL/ATPL, did it not? Why was this? Perhaps because you were not privileged, which I would accept. You did it the hard way, which I would applaud. But you must have been free to do so. That is to say that your personal and family responsibilities did not entirely outweigh the cost of you funding your airline piloting aspirations. Some would say that this meant that you were, in fact, privileged.
3. That you are able to count on the fingers of one hand those you know to have been funded by ‘daddy’ may be quite meaningless, for example it may mean that you simply don’t know how the many pilots with whom you have had contact actually achieved their licences. I mean, how many do you think would actually own up to having been funded by ‘daddy’?
4. I did not suggest that ‘any’ of those who did not get their wings in the military are privileged. You said that. I expressed a general belief held personally, and I stand by that generalisation. There would certainly be exceptions, and you claim to be just one (but see 2 above).
5. The exams and tests of which you speak are, in reality, a piece of cake. And like a piece of cake, the ATPL subjects can be learned and passed in conveniently sliced parts. One does not need to be a mental giant in order to pass ATPL subjects (I am living proof of this assertion). One does not need to be a Michael Schumacher to fly the small machines used to achieve that licence. The primary requisite, it can be argued, is the money to pay for these things and to sustain oneself and ones dependants while doing so. Thus, when ‘seriously intending to become a professional pilot’, the primary pre-requisite is: MONEY, and lots of it. And I do not here argue that the professional airline pilot is stupid or inarticulate. Your own parameters for the Pprune scheme are proof that you yourselves hold that the ‘frozen ATPL’ and IR are not, of themselves, sufficient for candidacy as a professional airline pilot.
6. I would wish to understand how you claim that “The 40+ applications received so far all point to individuals who are extremely determined, of very limited resources and prepared to [do?] what is necessary to make sure they remain eligible to apply in this very competitive market.” You have determined this, have you, from their having completed the on-line application form?
7. The fact is that I am not a part of ‘making’ the Pprune scheme what it is. You, and others, are. If I wished to make myself a part of such a scheme I would certainly assess worthiness without regard to financial circumstances. And I would then consider personal funding of suitably capable applicants. I will certainly not commit personal funds to a scheme that bars the impecunious.
8. I have not accused you of being ‘elitist’ but I repeat my assertion that your scheme, as it stands, bars the impecunious and perpetuates a system that has long favoured the wealthy among our population. And I make no apologies or retractions for saying that.[/list]
Consider this: I have asked you and yours to consider a small refinement to requirements regarding IR currency. Notwithstanding your views on my personal beliefs and mores, do you really feel your statement above was a reasonable reaction to such a relatively small, and unselfish, request? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
However, I would wish to raise the following points with respect to your statement above:<ul type="square">1. In fact, I don't think I quoted any statistics in expressing my personally held beliefs as to the privileged versus the unprivileged. I guess the issue here is subjective in that privilege may be relative. What I said was: "for too long in this country, a civil piloting career was the domain of the very privileged, other than a relative handful who went via the military to civil route."; Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'frozen' UK ATPL costs some £50,000, net of all associated expenses. In other words, the average income earner must have saved this sum after paying tax, NI, and all other living costs and must then maintain him/herself for the period of obtaining the licence. And there are other essentials on top of the bare licence, aren't there, which we'll ignore here for the sake of expediency. This is a vast sum of money, equivalent in some instances to the purchase price of a modest house, and it is beyond the reach of the great majority of youngsters, or their parents. I do not believe it is stretching the truth at all to say that those who can find such sums of disposable income are ‘privileged’ to some degree.
2. To take your own stated case, I understand you have been flying for 24 years and I gather from your past posts that you took many long years to achieve your first real return as a professional pilot. You don’t here say, but you have in the past said that you joined Emerald not that long ago. Thus it took a very long time for you to advance from PPL to CPL/ATPL, did it not? Why was this? Perhaps because you were not privileged, which I would accept. You did it the hard way, which I would applaud. But you must have been free to do so. That is to say that your personal and family responsibilities did not entirely outweigh the cost of you funding your airline piloting aspirations. Some would say that this meant that you were, in fact, privileged.
3. That you are able to count on the fingers of one hand those you know to have been funded by ‘daddy’ may be quite meaningless, for example it may mean that you simply don’t know how the many pilots with whom you have had contact actually achieved their licences. I mean, how many do you think would actually own up to having been funded by ‘daddy’?
4. I did not suggest that ‘any’ of those who did not get their wings in the military are privileged. You said that. I expressed a general belief held personally, and I stand by that generalisation. There would certainly be exceptions, and you claim to be just one (but see 2 above).
5. The exams and tests of which you speak are, in reality, a piece of cake. And like a piece of cake, the ATPL subjects can be learned and passed in conveniently sliced parts. One does not need to be a mental giant in order to pass ATPL subjects (I am living proof of this assertion). One does not need to be a Michael Schumacher to fly the small machines used to achieve that licence. The primary requisite, it can be argued, is the money to pay for these things and to sustain oneself and ones dependants while doing so. Thus, when ‘seriously intending to become a professional pilot’, the primary pre-requisite is: MONEY, and lots of it. And I do not here argue that the professional airline pilot is stupid or inarticulate. Your own parameters for the Pprune scheme are proof that you yourselves hold that the ‘frozen ATPL’ and IR are not, of themselves, sufficient for candidacy as a professional airline pilot.
6. I would wish to understand how you claim that “The 40+ applications received so far all point to individuals who are extremely determined, of very limited resources and prepared to [do?] what is necessary to make sure they remain eligible to apply in this very competitive market.” You have determined this, have you, from their having completed the on-line application form?
7. The fact is that I am not a part of ‘making’ the Pprune scheme what it is. You, and others, are. If I wished to make myself a part of such a scheme I would certainly assess worthiness without regard to financial circumstances. And I would then consider personal funding of suitably capable applicants. I will certainly not commit personal funds to a scheme that bars the impecunious.
8. I have not accused you of being ‘elitist’ but I repeat my assertion that your scheme, as it stands, bars the impecunious and perpetuates a system that has long favoured the wealthy among our population. And I make no apologies or retractions for saying that.[/list]
Consider this: I have asked you and yours to consider a small refinement to requirements regarding IR currency. Notwithstanding your views on my personal beliefs and mores, do you really feel your statement above was a reasonable reaction to such a relatively small, and unselfish, request? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: interested ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Over here but sometimes over there.
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No scheme is perfect.Astraeus are not up and running properly yet,or making any money!BUT they are offering to help.MOL and Ryanair are you watching!!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Interested,. .I note you are a recreational pilot. So, why are you worrying about an opportunity for 5 wannabe's chance at a jet job? I am sure the interview process will weed out the not-so-keen. This is an opportunity for 5 pilots that may not get that opportunity for quite some time for minimal outlay. Astraeus and PPRuNe do not have to do a thing for the wannabes. They choose to help.
I have been through a sim endorsement programme and if you do not have a current IR AND have the instrument scan up to speed, you will struggle with the tasks. Sims aren't cheap and no one likes to fail. So, I think it is a fair and reasonable requirement.
I have been through a sim endorsement programme and if you do not have a current IR AND have the instrument scan up to speed, you will struggle with the tasks. Sims aren't cheap and no one likes to fail. So, I think it is a fair and reasonable requirement.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: bristol
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that only one person is putting this scheme down? Could it be that it is in fact an excellent chance to break into flying. I see no comparison at all with Ryanair. The only cost I can see is the £3000 to PPune over three years. As the scheme must include MCC in the type rating then it is actually an interest free loaned over 3 years because when compared to some other airlines that require MCC before you start. £3000 minus the cost of MCC equals not a lot for a type rating and 6 months flying with an airline. Yes I am in a position to apply and I am thankful for the opportunity, but I am also able to see that no one had to run the scheme. I thank it deserves nothing but a pat on the back and maybe some of the others who have applied can back me up.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: CWL
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towers, did you mean this thread?
<a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009050" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009050</a>
<a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009050" target="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009050</a>