Easyjet Cadet Sponsorship
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Belfast
A Level Grades
Everyone notice the requirement with easyJet to have 3 A Level Passes over grade C (incidentally , CTC only require 2 A Level passes over grade C)?
I wonder if the "or equivalent educational qualifications" means you can have greater than 3 C's in terms of UCAS points, but not actually have 3 C's, ie A, C & D?
Good to see easyJet setting a trend in the low cost airline recruitment, wonder if MOL will do the same in Ryanair?!
I wonder if the "or equivalent educational qualifications" means you can have greater than 3 C's in terms of UCAS points, but not actually have 3 C's, ie A, C & D?
Good to see easyJet setting a trend in the low cost airline recruitment, wonder if MOL will do the same in Ryanair?!
Moderator
Joined: Dec 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,929
Likes: 6
From: Suffolk UK
commercialdan
I think you'll find that easyJet's recruiting office (which is probably one person) is quite busy enough dealing with all the applications for direct entry positions. As you will no doubt have realised, having read both this thread and easyJet's website, the selection for this scheme is done by CTC McAlpine, not easyJet.
Stringfellow
Go back and read the 6 pages again. All the answers are contained within.
Airbus.de
Why should anyone be bothered to employ you if you can't be bothered to read the information presented here and on easyJet's and CTC McAlpine's websites? Be bothered, or do something else for a living.
Patsy
I doubt that easy's idea of equivalence coincides with yours! I think it's more likely that they are referring to Scottish Highers, International Baccalaureate or other similar educational qualifications.
I think you'll find that easyJet's recruiting office (which is probably one person) is quite busy enough dealing with all the applications for direct entry positions. As you will no doubt have realised, having read both this thread and easyJet's website, the selection for this scheme is done by CTC McAlpine, not easyJet.
Stringfellow
Go back and read the 6 pages again. All the answers are contained within.
Airbus.de
Why should anyone be bothered to employ you if you can't be bothered to read the information presented here and on easyJet's and CTC McAlpine's websites? Be bothered, or do something else for a living.
Patsy
I doubt that easy's idea of equivalence coincides with yours! I think it's more likely that they are referring to Scottish Highers, International Baccalaureate or other similar educational qualifications.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Ayr
Eazy sponsorship
Cheer up people
I am new to the site but have to admit that far too many of you are looking a gift horse in the mouth. I think that everyone should stand back and look at the up coming opportunities, I mean, look at this time last year, what hope did you all have about become a commercial pilot? Personally after graduating I took a job in Aero Eng, which if i be honest is a second option and I have been quite frustrated with the fact that I may be too old by the time sponsorships start up again, so to see Eazy Jet and Britannia start up then it gives me a lot more confidence and a goal to work towards.
All the best to all of you who apply.
I am new to the site but have to admit that far too many of you are looking a gift horse in the mouth. I think that everyone should stand back and look at the up coming opportunities, I mean, look at this time last year, what hope did you all have about become a commercial pilot? Personally after graduating I took a job in Aero Eng, which if i be honest is a second option and I have been quite frustrated with the fact that I may be too old by the time sponsorships start up again, so to see Eazy Jet and Britannia start up then it gives me a lot more confidence and a goal to work towards.
All the best to all of you who apply.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: West London
Well said Scroggs and WWW.
Just to add some more sanity, a few things to consider.
easy will only profit from this if you fly for them. In other words it is not to their advantage to have you go through the training and not get placed. We want you to pass and we want to give you a job. The only reason a clause is included to allow an opt out is if market conditions change significantly i.e. their are no jobs available. This I feel is unlikely given the following;
the reason this course exists in the first place is that it is predicted that their will not be sufficient candidates in the future to meet the recruitment needs of the company.
We have 120 airbuses on order, 65 737's at present and a further 14(or 15) 737-700's to arrive over next year.
As has been mentioned earlier, it is unlikely you could get this quality of training even if you were to pay for it yourself.
If you were lucky enough to get a command within the 7 years consider this.
Most captains on jet transport take significantly longer than seven years from start to finish to get there. I consider myslef extremly lucky, it took me just over 9 years and I was the first of my peers to do so. That includes all the friends I made in aviation on my way through in the early years including the instructor on my first flight (now A320 cap with Dragonair)
If I had this opportunity at any time during my early years I would most definately have applied.
Good luck to those who apply.
disclaimer: Whilst I do work for easyjet this is not an official statement on behalf of the company, just MHO!
Just to add some more sanity, a few things to consider.
easy will only profit from this if you fly for them. In other words it is not to their advantage to have you go through the training and not get placed. We want you to pass and we want to give you a job. The only reason a clause is included to allow an opt out is if market conditions change significantly i.e. their are no jobs available. This I feel is unlikely given the following;
the reason this course exists in the first place is that it is predicted that their will not be sufficient candidates in the future to meet the recruitment needs of the company.
We have 120 airbuses on order, 65 737's at present and a further 14(or 15) 737-700's to arrive over next year.
As has been mentioned earlier, it is unlikely you could get this quality of training even if you were to pay for it yourself.
If you were lucky enough to get a command within the 7 years consider this.
Most captains on jet transport take significantly longer than seven years from start to finish to get there. I consider myslef extremly lucky, it took me just over 9 years and I was the first of my peers to do so. That includes all the friends I made in aviation on my way through in the early years including the instructor on my first flight (now A320 cap with Dragonair)
If I had this opportunity at any time during my early years I would most definately have applied.
Good luck to those who apply.
disclaimer: Whilst I do work for easyjet this is not an official statement on behalf of the company, just MHO!
Moderator
Joined: Dec 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,929
Likes: 6
From: Suffolk UK
I've had some more clarification about who you can apply for and how it works:
An airline may choose to have a totally own-branded selection process and therefore their own application website, but neither easy nor JMC have gone for this. One of the early questions an applicant will be asked by CTC McAlpine is which schemes they would like to apply for. At the moment those available are JMC, easy and CTC McAlpine's own. The application will then be processed on the basis of the answer to that question.
The first 4 stages of selection are common to all 3 schemes. If CTC McAlpine believe a successful applicant is particularly suited to one of the sponsoring airlines and they have indicated that they are keen to apply to that airline, then they will refer the applicant to that airline. This does not mean that those not referred to an airline at the start are lower quality applicants – each airline has its own culture and are after subtly different kinds of people.
Although both easy and JMC have chosen to adopt cadets at the selection stage, it's probable that other airlines may decide to commit to an individual part-way through training. This may be partly because the airline may wish to have more information about an individual's progress, and partly because an airline's manpower requirements may only be finalised weeks before they need those people in service. An airline must select cadets before advanced training commences, as the type ratings are not generic and are flown with that airline’s SOPs (and, obviously, on the appropriate type).
In terms of numbers, JMC and easy may, if they wish, pick up more than the 4 and 24 rcadets espectively from the first 12 months’ 72 by committing to extra cadets during training. CTC McAlpine anticipate having airline places for all 72 by the end of intermediate training; in fact they’re deliberately aiming low to avoid a hold pool at that stage until the market's demand becomes more clear.
If someone has applied to an airline and not been selected, they can apply again for another airline (or direct to CTC McAlpine). However, there are no plans at the moment to allow second applications after any given period. Therefore, if someone has failed one of the first 4 stages of selection, there will not be a second opportunity via an application to another airline in the scheme. In other words, apply for the lot unless you really don’t want to work for a particular airline!
An airline may choose to have a totally own-branded selection process and therefore their own application website, but neither easy nor JMC have gone for this. One of the early questions an applicant will be asked by CTC McAlpine is which schemes they would like to apply for. At the moment those available are JMC, easy and CTC McAlpine's own. The application will then be processed on the basis of the answer to that question.
The first 4 stages of selection are common to all 3 schemes. If CTC McAlpine believe a successful applicant is particularly suited to one of the sponsoring airlines and they have indicated that they are keen to apply to that airline, then they will refer the applicant to that airline. This does not mean that those not referred to an airline at the start are lower quality applicants – each airline has its own culture and are after subtly different kinds of people.
Although both easy and JMC have chosen to adopt cadets at the selection stage, it's probable that other airlines may decide to commit to an individual part-way through training. This may be partly because the airline may wish to have more information about an individual's progress, and partly because an airline's manpower requirements may only be finalised weeks before they need those people in service. An airline must select cadets before advanced training commences, as the type ratings are not generic and are flown with that airline’s SOPs (and, obviously, on the appropriate type).
In terms of numbers, JMC and easy may, if they wish, pick up more than the 4 and 24 rcadets espectively from the first 12 months’ 72 by committing to extra cadets during training. CTC McAlpine anticipate having airline places for all 72 by the end of intermediate training; in fact they’re deliberately aiming low to avoid a hold pool at that stage until the market's demand becomes more clear.
If someone has applied to an airline and not been selected, they can apply again for another airline (or direct to CTC McAlpine). However, there are no plans at the moment to allow second applications after any given period. Therefore, if someone has failed one of the first 4 stages of selection, there will not be a second opportunity via an application to another airline in the scheme. In other words, apply for the lot unless you really don’t want to work for a particular airline!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: Brighton, UK
Scroggs
You mentioned earlier on in this thread that McAlpine may consider applications from older candidates, but from there website and their FAQ's I cant see that they will consider anyone over the age of 26.
You couldn't clarify that point could you?
No joy from e-mailing them either.
You mentioned earlier on in this thread that McAlpine may consider applications from older candidates, but from there website and their FAQ's I cant see that they will consider anyone over the age of 26.
You couldn't clarify that point could you?
No joy from e-mailing them either.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
viva la revolution
I can't believe you guys are all just accepting the age limit without question!
Sure, older people are generally more difficult to train, but we all age at different rates and have different aptitudes, motivations and interests. This notion from CTC/EasyJet that if you were born on 13th December 1976 you are trainable, but if you entered this world on the 12th December 1976 then, sorry, you must be untrainable, is utterly bizarre -- (an airline with an orange culture wanting to make the world black and white!) -- and draconian.
Well, this is all utter nonsense -- appropriate aptitude testing is the common sense way to weed out those who are a training risk, or, the cheapest way is to simply state "Applicants much older than 26 are extremely unlikely to meet our demanding criteria" on the adverts and put most applications from candidates in their late 20s onwards straight into the bin unless something stands out as being exceptional or unusual and worthy of consideration.
I think the age 26 rule is a mistake, it is arbitrary and discriminatory, and I hope CTC or their airline customers can be persauded to be sensible about it. Failing that, people should take note of it and consider what sort of employer you'll find yourself with a few years down the line... the words insensitive, arrogant, harsh and bureaucratic would spring to mind.
On the 'if you snooze you lose' point, I do agree that individuals are responsible for planning out their life - but there have been few sponsorship opportunities recently, and anyhow there is much merit in spending a bit of time grooming oneself; getting a proper higher education, doing some public service, travelling and growing up and so on. This can easily take you to a little over 26.
The bottom line is that some people in their mid-late twenties or older may be the finest aviators and leading managers in the industry that we never had, and I think that is a unnecessary shame. Airlines don't owe anyone a living - but they owe it to themselves to consider everyone justly and on merit.
Sure, older people are generally more difficult to train, but we all age at different rates and have different aptitudes, motivations and interests. This notion from CTC/EasyJet that if you were born on 13th December 1976 you are trainable, but if you entered this world on the 12th December 1976 then, sorry, you must be untrainable, is utterly bizarre -- (an airline with an orange culture wanting to make the world black and white!) -- and draconian.
Well, this is all utter nonsense -- appropriate aptitude testing is the common sense way to weed out those who are a training risk, or, the cheapest way is to simply state "Applicants much older than 26 are extremely unlikely to meet our demanding criteria" on the adverts and put most applications from candidates in their late 20s onwards straight into the bin unless something stands out as being exceptional or unusual and worthy of consideration.
I think the age 26 rule is a mistake, it is arbitrary and discriminatory, and I hope CTC or their airline customers can be persauded to be sensible about it. Failing that, people should take note of it and consider what sort of employer you'll find yourself with a few years down the line... the words insensitive, arrogant, harsh and bureaucratic would spring to mind.
On the 'if you snooze you lose' point, I do agree that individuals are responsible for planning out their life - but there have been few sponsorship opportunities recently, and anyhow there is much merit in spending a bit of time grooming oneself; getting a proper higher education, doing some public service, travelling and growing up and so on. This can easily take you to a little over 26.
The bottom line is that some people in their mid-late twenties or older may be the finest aviators and leading managers in the industry that we never had, and I think that is a unnecessary shame. Airlines don't owe anyone a living - but they owe it to themselves to consider everyone justly and on merit.
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 17,503
Likes: 1,846
From: England
There is nearly always an age limit both upper and lower on these sponsorship schemes. Having an arbitary line somewhere can always be seen as unfair. The RAF/RN/AAC do it, all British airlines do it and as far as I can recall all overseas airlines have done it as well.
Its just a fact of life I am afraid. Mind you 28 would seem a fairer age to me but, then, I know nothing.
WWW
Its just a fact of life I am afraid. Mind you 28 would seem a fairer age to me but, then, I know nothing.
WWW
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: The Land Downunder
On the fact of age with sponsorships, it simply comes down to one simple thing, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Sure it is unfair if you are 27 and there fore miss out on this opportunity, what age limit would you put on it then? Would you say that people who are 55 years old should be able to apply because they can complete the 5 year bond period before being retired. If this is the case then what about people who are 56? Why should they miss out.
O.K. this example is a little extreme but it does demonstrate the point. This age limit would be worked on a lot of factors. The airline will have all sorts of advice from all sorts of people as to the best age range for all sorts of factors. 26 is the limit that they have decided and as a limit is has to be fixed and not flexible. Otherwise where do you stop. Just because you are over the limit doesn't mean you won't make a great pilot or return the investment in your training to the employer it just means you are not what this specific employer wants as a sponsored cadet!
Lots of people are discounted from schemes like this for lots of different reasons, sure it sucks but what you will have to do is get on with the training your self and keep your ear to the ground as different sponsorships call for different things, it may be that you qualify for one in the future, if so great.
O.K. this example is a little extreme but it does demonstrate the point. This age limit would be worked on a lot of factors. The airline will have all sorts of advice from all sorts of people as to the best age range for all sorts of factors. 26 is the limit that they have decided and as a limit is has to be fixed and not flexible. Otherwise where do you stop. Just because you are over the limit doesn't mean you won't make a great pilot or return the investment in your training to the employer it just means you are not what this specific employer wants as a sponsored cadet!
Lots of people are discounted from schemes like this for lots of different reasons, sure it sucks but what you will have to do is get on with the training your self and keep your ear to the ground as different sponsorships call for different things, it may be that you qualify for one in the future, if so great.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
WWW - well I know it's nothing new, or unique, but this is the first one that has affected me -- and the facts of life are there to be challenged! Not that I consider an age cutoff to be a 'fact of life' - it's just a lousy decision by a committee or manager behind some desk someplace - I know how these things happen, and I know that if you make enough noise then they give in.
Artificial Horizon - true that there are other routes open to us, but there really doesn't need to be a strict line in the sand as far as upper age goes. A fuzzy line, maybe, but as I intimated, they simply need to use some common sense rather than a guilatine. Accept older applicants but instantly reject most of them. Have a preference for younger applicants, but consider each case on it's merits. Even if they really do want to specify "you must be under 26" there should still be no logical reason to enforce that right down to the very day.
Artificial Horizon - true that there are other routes open to us, but there really doesn't need to be a strict line in the sand as far as upper age goes. A fuzzy line, maybe, but as I intimated, they simply need to use some common sense rather than a guilatine. Accept older applicants but instantly reject most of them. Have a preference for younger applicants, but consider each case on it's merits. Even if they really do want to specify "you must be under 26" there should still be no logical reason to enforce that right down to the very day.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: london
Just a thought carb, but do you think these 72 places will
a) be undersubscribed or
b) oversubscribed?
If it is a), then you are right and they are missing out on some untapped talent. However, if it is b), then presumably they face the potential of having to discriminate between too many candidates to select the final 72. Setting a narrow age band is one way of reducing the number of applicants to a manageable size. Another is closing the door when you have the number you require; they obviously intend to do that as well: http://www.ctc-mcalpine.com/application.htm
Tough if you miss out, and we all feel for you. Gives you more chance in the JMC competition though.
a) be undersubscribed or
b) oversubscribed?
If it is a), then you are right and they are missing out on some untapped talent. However, if it is b), then presumably they face the potential of having to discriminate between too many candidates to select the final 72. Setting a narrow age band is one way of reducing the number of applicants to a manageable size. Another is closing the door when you have the number you require; they obviously intend to do that as well: http://www.ctc-mcalpine.com/application.htm
Tough if you miss out, and we all feel for you. Gives you more chance in the JMC competition though.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Beds
Amaizing to see the overwhelming response in favour of the sponsorship/cadeship.
Those in favour should stop and think for a minute what this will have on the future if everybody is keen to pay for their type ratings labeled 'sponsorship'.
This only helps the balance sheet of the companies and drives
working conditions on the rest into the ground.
Compare the salaries over the years for pilots and maybe you can conclude that they are not as they used to be.
It was unheard of until Ryanair decided to make extra income and now everybody is following.
I thought the scheme was approximatelly £6000 some time ago, and if successful you were placed on a 6 month probation with a participating airline. Why the £23.000 all of a sudden for somebody that already has 1500 hrs.
READ THE SMALL PRINT.(legal prostitution)
Good luck to everyone.
Those in favour should stop and think for a minute what this will have on the future if everybody is keen to pay for their type ratings labeled 'sponsorship'.
This only helps the balance sheet of the companies and drives
working conditions on the rest into the ground.
Compare the salaries over the years for pilots and maybe you can conclude that they are not as they used to be.
It was unheard of until Ryanair decided to make extra income and now everybody is following.
I thought the scheme was approximatelly £6000 some time ago, and if successful you were placed on a 6 month probation with a participating airline. Why the £23.000 all of a sudden for somebody that already has 1500 hrs.
READ THE SMALL PRINT.(legal prostitution)
Good luck to everyone.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
TB, it's all very well thinking up excuses, but to turn a flood into a more managable stream - not that it matters when they will be charging for the aptitude testing so can just hire some more staff - there are loads more innovative blocking criteria that would work and also make some more actual sense. Limiting the time window for applications is fair enough (though, it won't be if they don't give a few days' notice of the deadline and just suddenly close it down when inevitably some people will be in the middle of applying); requiring some minimum qualifications is reasonable; specifying the ideal age range they are looking for is also entirely proper. But inventing some kind of date-of-birth apartheit is getting a bit carried away. I know that in final selection, with so many candidates who are well up to standard to choose from, it becomes a bit of a lottery and probably actually unspeakable unfair, but you at least have had a chance.
Go with your instincts - if a strict age 26 rules seems questionable, then it is questionable, and merits sorting out. I remember saving a campus library by explaining to the library director the campaign I'd run; he went white and the idea was never heard of again. If senior CTC and EasyJet managers get a few strongly worded complaints from 26-28 year olds in their mailboxes, then honestly, just count to ten until they decide that actually, they'd rather have a slightly larger flood of applications and consider people marginally older than 25yrs 11mths 30days, than endure a flood of ill-will from disgruntled wannabes. They will discretely make it so for the sake of a quiet life. Roll-over for them now and down the line you'll be seeing your pay & conditions getting curtailed next, I guarantee it.
Anyway, enough ranting from me, I'll try to apply, and if not, more fool them in my opinion, but for me there are at least some other routes open...
Go with your instincts - if a strict age 26 rules seems questionable, then it is questionable, and merits sorting out. I remember saving a campus library by explaining to the library director the campaign I'd run; he went white and the idea was never heard of again. If senior CTC and EasyJet managers get a few strongly worded complaints from 26-28 year olds in their mailboxes, then honestly, just count to ten until they decide that actually, they'd rather have a slightly larger flood of applications and consider people marginally older than 25yrs 11mths 30days, than endure a flood of ill-will from disgruntled wannabes. They will discretely make it so for the sake of a quiet life. Roll-over for them now and down the line you'll be seeing your pay & conditions getting curtailed next, I guarantee it.
Anyway, enough ranting from me, I'll try to apply, and if not, more fool them in my opinion, but for me there are at least some other routes open...
Last edited by carb; 22nd November 2002 at 20:34.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: England
5th Pod,
I was under the impression that the 23K TR course was for 500 - 1500hr guys. All the same I'm totally against it!!
Picture this.....easyJet roadshow at EGNX, speaking to an EZY Training Capt....quote "paying for interviews and type ratings, thats not what were about.", at the time I nodded with satisfaction. easyjet were the LCC that I would choose, the investment towards training that the company makes is surely a reflection of how they feel towards their pilots.
Looking back...what a load of B*@%$$^^.
What's next people? Pay for own recurrent training? LPC/OPC....how much are those nowdays....mmmmm....bargain
Not happy
I was under the impression that the 23K TR course was for 500 - 1500hr guys. All the same I'm totally against it!!
Picture this.....easyJet roadshow at EGNX, speaking to an EZY Training Capt....quote "paying for interviews and type ratings, thats not what were about.", at the time I nodded with satisfaction. easyjet were the LCC that I would choose, the investment towards training that the company makes is surely a reflection of how they feel towards their pilots.
Looking back...what a load of B*@%$$^^.
What's next people? Pay for own recurrent training? LPC/OPC....how much are those nowdays....mmmmm....bargain
Not happy
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: london
confusion!!!
5th Pod, you've confused me. I think you have all their schemes mixed up, but I might be wrong:
- the 1500hrs + is direct entry
- 500 to 1500 hrs is the sponsored type rating
- 200 to 500 hrs is the CTC ATP Scheme where you contribute £6,000 but are sponsored for the rest, but delay employment for 6 months
- 0+ hrs is the sponsored cadet scheme
I'm pretty much out of my depth here, but it seems here to be generally accepted that if the company sponsor your ab-initio training and type rating then its reasonable to expect to enter the airline both bonded and on a lower salary than, say, a direct entrant. We’ve established that is no different than the BA/British Midland etc sponsorship schemes of the past.
So why is it outrageous for a low-experience person (<1500 hours so probably little or no airline experience) who's type rating is sponsored by the airline to enter bonded and on a lower salary than a more experienced direct entrant? Is it not exactly the same principal? The bonding is less (reflecting lower training costs?) and the salary greater than the cadet entrant's - seems fair enough. But why should someone who has only a few hundred hours expect the same treatment as a much more experienced person joining with 1000s of hours?
There is an alternative; work as a turbo-prop airline pilot on a much lower salary until you have the experience to get a direct entry contract. There are 1000s of pages on here telling people like me that is the normal route. Then along comes easyJet, lowers their minimum requirements from 1500 hrs to 500 hrs and provides an opportunity to people who would otherwise not be eligible to join them at that experience level and gets flamed on PPRuNe for their trouble.
Please don't flame me, I just want to understand what is winding everyone up so much, and at the moment I am honestly missing the point.
- the 1500hrs + is direct entry
- 500 to 1500 hrs is the sponsored type rating
- 200 to 500 hrs is the CTC ATP Scheme where you contribute £6,000 but are sponsored for the rest, but delay employment for 6 months
- 0+ hrs is the sponsored cadet scheme
I'm pretty much out of my depth here, but it seems here to be generally accepted that if the company sponsor your ab-initio training and type rating then its reasonable to expect to enter the airline both bonded and on a lower salary than, say, a direct entrant. We’ve established that is no different than the BA/British Midland etc sponsorship schemes of the past.
So why is it outrageous for a low-experience person (<1500 hours so probably little or no airline experience) who's type rating is sponsored by the airline to enter bonded and on a lower salary than a more experienced direct entrant? Is it not exactly the same principal? The bonding is less (reflecting lower training costs?) and the salary greater than the cadet entrant's - seems fair enough. But why should someone who has only a few hundred hours expect the same treatment as a much more experienced person joining with 1000s of hours?
There is an alternative; work as a turbo-prop airline pilot on a much lower salary until you have the experience to get a direct entry contract. There are 1000s of pages on here telling people like me that is the normal route. Then along comes easyJet, lowers their minimum requirements from 1500 hrs to 500 hrs and provides an opportunity to people who would otherwise not be eligible to join them at that experience level and gets flamed on PPRuNe for their trouble.
Please don't flame me, I just want to understand what is winding everyone up so much, and at the moment I am honestly missing the point.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,929
Likes: 6
From: Suffolk UK
carb
you may believe you have a future in Parliament, but you have a great deal to learn, son. EasyJet require 24 (that's twenty four) cadets on this scheme next year. JMC require 4 (that's four). CTC McAlpine reckon they can justify training a further 44 (that's forty four) cadets for adoption by airlines next year. At a conservative estimate, there are somewhere around 500 to 1000 Wannabes active, or at least lurking, on this forum. Inevitably, there are some arbitrary criteria used to discriminate between those who might succeed (on this scheme, at least) and those who won't.
You might feel it's unjustified, but tough. You're also too old to be a Boy Scout, too old to join the RAF as a pilot, too old go to university as anything other than a mature student, too old to worry about being 18 etc. etc. Mate, opportunities exist for those who fit the criteria. In this case, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't be a pilot, it just means you don't qualify for this scheme, along with many hundreds of other Wannabes.
Would you suggest that commercial companies should only offer an employment scheme if all those who want the job can have it, irrelevant of their suitability??
you may believe you have a future in Parliament, but you have a great deal to learn, son. EasyJet require 24 (that's twenty four) cadets on this scheme next year. JMC require 4 (that's four). CTC McAlpine reckon they can justify training a further 44 (that's forty four) cadets for adoption by airlines next year. At a conservative estimate, there are somewhere around 500 to 1000 Wannabes active, or at least lurking, on this forum. Inevitably, there are some arbitrary criteria used to discriminate between those who might succeed (on this scheme, at least) and those who won't.
You might feel it's unjustified, but tough. You're also too old to be a Boy Scout, too old to join the RAF as a pilot, too old go to university as anything other than a mature student, too old to worry about being 18 etc. etc. Mate, opportunities exist for those who fit the criteria. In this case, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't be a pilot, it just means you don't qualify for this scheme, along with many hundreds of other Wannabes.
Would you suggest that commercial companies should only offer an employment scheme if all those who want the job can have it, irrelevant of their suitability??
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: England
Tonyblair,
Who do you really think that easyJet will now employ? The guy with 1000hrs who will quite happily pay for his own type rating, or your 2000hrs guy who they employ and train the conventional/more expensive way?
easy have already stated on the web that they have the experience in house to promote right to left this year.
Thats me counted out.........
Who do you really think that easyJet will now employ? The guy with 1000hrs who will quite happily pay for his own type rating, or your 2000hrs guy who they employ and train the conventional/more expensive way?
easy have already stated on the web that they have the experience in house to promote right to left this year.
Thats me counted out.........
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Man-O-War Cay, Bahamas
It never ceases to amaze me how some people will knock any new ideas. Higher Quality training in modern aircraft. More Hours. No upfront costs. More emphasis on CRM and Instrument flying. The ability for those people to apply for whom a flying job would be a dream come true but had no way of affording it previously. It's not surprising that there is an age limit on it. It is there to stop the old moaners applying!
If it's right for you, go for it. If it's not, don't stop the others from getting to where you are today.
If it's right for you, go for it. If it's not, don't stop the others from getting to where you are today.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
scroggs, no, I mostly just don't believe that this particular line-in-the-sand, 26 years (that is twenty six), is being drawn in the right place. 27-28 wouldn't bother me - for now anyway!
People who say "tough" often have had everything in life on a silver plate, the perspective is very different when you're the one getting screwed at the first hurdle or indeed trying to explain 'tough' to your 26-year old son or daughter. My high school guidance teacher used to boast about a former 6ft 6' pupil who got accepted into the RAF, to fly Hercules with a modified seat to accomodate him. If arbitrary criteria are up for negotiation even with the RAF, it shows there's always ways and means, as well there should be.
People who say "tough" often have had everything in life on a silver plate, the perspective is very different when you're the one getting screwed at the first hurdle or indeed trying to explain 'tough' to your 26-year old son or daughter. My high school guidance teacher used to boast about a former 6ft 6' pupil who got accepted into the RAF, to fly Hercules with a modified seat to accomodate him. If arbitrary criteria are up for negotiation even with the RAF, it shows there's always ways and means, as well there should be.