A Worrying Trend ... Or is It?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW you use the argument that it's better to be in this Easy scheme than paying up front at BACX and being paid less.
BUT what's to stop BACX and friends introducing a similar scheme. You pay for a F27 rating up front and we'll pay you back over 5 years. But hey guess what? We'll actually pay you a lesser salary so that in effect we don't have to repay any of the type rating AND we've got you bonded for 5 years AND all of the training risk falls on you. BONDED WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!!!
Surely you must conceed that companies introducing these sort of schemes are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I find it difficult to believe that someone in an airline flight crew position would condone any behaviour by a company that lessens the conditions of new-hires in THEIR OWN COMPANY. Or is it a case of "I'm alright Jack"?
Would you continue to argue the virtues of such a scheme if every operator in the UK adopted such? It has also crossed my mind that as an employee of said company your motives may not always be as genuine as they appear. Command assessment coming up perhaps? Toeing the management line? I hope it isn't true.
BUT what's to stop BACX and friends introducing a similar scheme. You pay for a F27 rating up front and we'll pay you back over 5 years. But hey guess what? We'll actually pay you a lesser salary so that in effect we don't have to repay any of the type rating AND we've got you bonded for 5 years AND all of the training risk falls on you. BONDED WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!!!
Surely you must conceed that companies introducing these sort of schemes are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I find it difficult to believe that someone in an airline flight crew position would condone any behaviour by a company that lessens the conditions of new-hires in THEIR OWN COMPANY. Or is it a case of "I'm alright Jack"?
Would you continue to argue the virtues of such a scheme if every operator in the UK adopted such? It has also crossed my mind that as an employee of said company your motives may not always be as genuine as they appear. Command assessment coming up perhaps? Toeing the management line? I hope it isn't true.
Grivation - it already works this way. In the first few years with most airlines you are paid less. I am. I got 6 grand more after a year and 6 grand more after another year give or take.
Only the same thing as being on a reduced salary. The low costs don't have seniority as such remember. So coming in on day one with not an hour of jet time to your name and expecting the same money as a fellow FO with a couple of thousand hours just because there is no seniority increment isn't really fair is it.
You say you are bonded with your own money. Well its money you never saw, its money that the airline and CTC got a bank to lend them on your behalf. Which they then gave back to you.
Its only mildly different to being bonded for your training. If I left today I would have to pay my employer the balance of my remaining bond. I don't see how thats different to me being liable to pay a bank £5,000 a year whilst the company gave me an extra £5,000 a year to do so.
Surely you must conceed that companies introducing these sort of schemes are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Conceeded. Never contested.
I find it difficult to believe that someone in an airline flight crew position would condone any behaviour by a company that lessens the conditions of new-hires in THEIR OWN COMPANY. Or is it a case of "I'm alright Jack"?
I don't see how it does lessen the condition of new hires. Their take home pay will be remarkably similar to historical levels.
As Moderator hereabouts one might expect me to post on the hottest Wannabe topic this month would one not? Especially as there has been a wave of whinging about it which I see as a little melodramatic. If we have an informed debate here with me saying its good and you saying its bad then at least Joe Wannabe gets to here the arguments - huh? (Remember thats the whole point).
It has also crossed my mind that as an employee of said company your motives may not always be as genuine as they appear. Command assessment coming up perhaps? Toeing the management line? I hope it isn't true.
Yeah thats right, its all part of a cynical master plot for my own evil ends. Wouldn't suprise me if it was me that came up with this whole shameful exploitation of poor Wannabes. What better way to impress the Chief Pilot than to be seen pontificating about the company on a website, er, not.
I know a bit about training. I know a bit about airline hiring practices. I know a bit about this new scheme. I'm sharing what I know - you can disagree with me, argue with me, refute and challenge me.
But don't insult me please.
Cheers,
WWW
Only the same thing as being on a reduced salary. The low costs don't have seniority as such remember. So coming in on day one with not an hour of jet time to your name and expecting the same money as a fellow FO with a couple of thousand hours just because there is no seniority increment isn't really fair is it.
You say you are bonded with your own money. Well its money you never saw, its money that the airline and CTC got a bank to lend them on your behalf. Which they then gave back to you.
Its only mildly different to being bonded for your training. If I left today I would have to pay my employer the balance of my remaining bond. I don't see how thats different to me being liable to pay a bank £5,000 a year whilst the company gave me an extra £5,000 a year to do so.
Surely you must conceed that companies introducing these sort of schemes are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Conceeded. Never contested.
I find it difficult to believe that someone in an airline flight crew position would condone any behaviour by a company that lessens the conditions of new-hires in THEIR OWN COMPANY. Or is it a case of "I'm alright Jack"?
I don't see how it does lessen the condition of new hires. Their take home pay will be remarkably similar to historical levels.
As Moderator hereabouts one might expect me to post on the hottest Wannabe topic this month would one not? Especially as there has been a wave of whinging about it which I see as a little melodramatic. If we have an informed debate here with me saying its good and you saying its bad then at least Joe Wannabe gets to here the arguments - huh? (Remember thats the whole point).
It has also crossed my mind that as an employee of said company your motives may not always be as genuine as they appear. Command assessment coming up perhaps? Toeing the management line? I hope it isn't true.
Yeah thats right, its all part of a cynical master plot for my own evil ends. Wouldn't suprise me if it was me that came up with this whole shameful exploitation of poor Wannabes. What better way to impress the Chief Pilot than to be seen pontificating about the company on a website, er, not.
I know a bit about training. I know a bit about airline hiring practices. I know a bit about this new scheme. I'm sharing what I know - you can disagree with me, argue with me, refute and challenge me.
But don't insult me please.
Cheers,
WWW
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies - no insult intended.
If we have an informed debate here with me saying its good and you saying its bad then at least Joe Wannabe gets to here the arguments - huh? (Remember thats the whole point).
Agreed. As an ex-wannabe my only intention here is to ensure both sides of the argument get presented. Now back to it -
I don't see how it does lessen the condition of new hires. Their take home pay will be remarkably similar to historical levels.
Yes, but there is more to any employment package than just the money! Easy have in the past employed plenty of guys/girls in the 500-1500 hour bracket. They have given them a type rating and the full F/O's salary. This new scheme is asking for upfront payment, bond period and less (although not a lot less) take-home pay. In my mind that's a loss of conditions.
If we have an informed debate here with me saying its good and you saying its bad then at least Joe Wannabe gets to here the arguments - huh? (Remember thats the whole point).
Agreed. As an ex-wannabe my only intention here is to ensure both sides of the argument get presented. Now back to it -
I don't see how it does lessen the condition of new hires. Their take home pay will be remarkably similar to historical levels.
Yes, but there is more to any employment package than just the money! Easy have in the past employed plenty of guys/girls in the 500-1500 hour bracket. They have given them a type rating and the full F/O's salary. This new scheme is asking for upfront payment, bond period and less (although not a lot less) take-home pay. In my mind that's a loss of conditions.
Hmmm, yep. I would prefer to be taken in with my 600hrs an type rated by them and bonded. Rather than the new scheme.
But I would be more miffed if they were only going to accept either:
a) <50hrs full ab initio sponsored guys off to Kiwiland
OR
b) 1,500hr >9 tonnes or 737 rated
Which was a bit of a problem in the industry as I saw it. You either had to have no experience or loads. If this new system allows them to avoid that problem then I for one will be cheering from the sidelines.
Cheers
WWW
But I would be more miffed if they were only going to accept either:
a) <50hrs full ab initio sponsored guys off to Kiwiland
OR
b) 1,500hr >9 tonnes or 737 rated
Which was a bit of a problem in the industry as I saw it. You either had to have no experience or loads. If this new system allows them to avoid that problem then I for one will be cheering from the sidelines.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wirral
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're all over complicating what is a really simple issue.
Like most things in business, it all comes down to economics. Why should the airlines pay for type rating, or any other training, if employees are willing to pay for it themselves? There's really very little point in taking a moral standpoint on it, along the lines that they should pay because they will benefit. So will you!
I run a business and pay reasonable money each year to train my team - around 8% of our turnover. Some appreciate that, some don't. Some leave the day their training finishes. Some stay for years. If they offered to pay for it themselves, I'd let them.
As long as some are willing to pay for a type rating, and if that's all that stands between them and a job I wouldn't blame them one bit, then the rest of us will have to accept it or go and do something else.
The airlines have long been criticised for bad financial management. On this, I think they're actually operating quite sensibly.
Like most things in business, it all comes down to economics. Why should the airlines pay for type rating, or any other training, if employees are willing to pay for it themselves? There's really very little point in taking a moral standpoint on it, along the lines that they should pay because they will benefit. So will you!
I run a business and pay reasonable money each year to train my team - around 8% of our turnover. Some appreciate that, some don't. Some leave the day their training finishes. Some stay for years. If they offered to pay for it themselves, I'd let them.
As long as some are willing to pay for a type rating, and if that's all that stands between them and a job I wouldn't blame them one bit, then the rest of us will have to accept it or go and do something else.
The airlines have long been criticised for bad financial management. On this, I think they're actually operating quite sensibly.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: I wish I knew sometimes
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been waiting to jump in on this issue for a while so here it goes.
With the industry not being a pilots market over the past 24 months, airlines seem pretty much able to do whatever they wish in regards to employment. As an experienced pilot moving to the UK, some of what I am reading in regards to this is a little frightnening. Asking for someone to pay for a type rating is not right. Asking to bond someone to a type rating is. I think there is a big difference. Here in Canada it is against the law to charge for a type rating and bonding arrangements are quite common. In fact where they stop this nonsense is not allowing airlines to type train pilots unless they are going to be employed. With my former employer I was bound by an agreement which I signed upon employment to protect the company due to my being trained on 4 different aircraft. This makes sense as we all know that a type rating or a PPC is fully transferable to another company. After a specific period of time my obligation was erased. No money changed hands and no reduction in pay was incurred due to my lack of experience at the time.
Where I think people miss the boat on this issue is if you give your word to a compnay and sign a contract, you are making a promise. In keeping this promise you are obliged to serve out your term. If you break this you will not only be in breach of contract with the employer but in my mind possibly looked down upon by other operators. As big as the industry seems to you new folks, it really is a small world and people that P@#! other people off are not easily forgotten.
In my case I do not meet Easy or Ryan's terms as I can tell. Easy wants 500-1500 and I have more, and Ryan wants 1000 JAR 25 which I have none. Where I fit into this I do not know.
In my mind these jobs should be filled with experience and not money as the issue. Here in North America you do not fly a 737 etc. with 200 hours because there are people with more experience to do the job. They move up and you grab the job below. From an operational standpoint this makes sense to me, as a Boeing for someone with 200 hours is not the "Right" fit. I may ruffle a few feathers with that one but no matter how sharp you are, how quick you learn, no matter where you trained, it is a MASSIVE learning curve and simply takes time to overcome.
When the industry starts to roll again and from my guess it will in the next 12 months, airlines that are making certain requests at this time may be forced to move the goal posts again. This includes charging for a type. It would also be nice to see BALPA get involved in this and maybe try and protect young pilots from being taken advantage of. No need for alarm here, just a few thoughts.
I in no way am trying to take anything away from anyone or any orginization. Common sense must prevail here and hopefully the industry could one day come to a standard on this issue. The old saying you do what you have to do is always in effect, but there are limits, and it is my belief that some of these limits are really being stretched.
Good luck to all and lets not all forget to enjoy the easiest gig going!!!
With the industry not being a pilots market over the past 24 months, airlines seem pretty much able to do whatever they wish in regards to employment. As an experienced pilot moving to the UK, some of what I am reading in regards to this is a little frightnening. Asking for someone to pay for a type rating is not right. Asking to bond someone to a type rating is. I think there is a big difference. Here in Canada it is against the law to charge for a type rating and bonding arrangements are quite common. In fact where they stop this nonsense is not allowing airlines to type train pilots unless they are going to be employed. With my former employer I was bound by an agreement which I signed upon employment to protect the company due to my being trained on 4 different aircraft. This makes sense as we all know that a type rating or a PPC is fully transferable to another company. After a specific period of time my obligation was erased. No money changed hands and no reduction in pay was incurred due to my lack of experience at the time.
Where I think people miss the boat on this issue is if you give your word to a compnay and sign a contract, you are making a promise. In keeping this promise you are obliged to serve out your term. If you break this you will not only be in breach of contract with the employer but in my mind possibly looked down upon by other operators. As big as the industry seems to you new folks, it really is a small world and people that P@#! other people off are not easily forgotten.
In my case I do not meet Easy or Ryan's terms as I can tell. Easy wants 500-1500 and I have more, and Ryan wants 1000 JAR 25 which I have none. Where I fit into this I do not know.
In my mind these jobs should be filled with experience and not money as the issue. Here in North America you do not fly a 737 etc. with 200 hours because there are people with more experience to do the job. They move up and you grab the job below. From an operational standpoint this makes sense to me, as a Boeing for someone with 200 hours is not the "Right" fit. I may ruffle a few feathers with that one but no matter how sharp you are, how quick you learn, no matter where you trained, it is a MASSIVE learning curve and simply takes time to overcome.
When the industry starts to roll again and from my guess it will in the next 12 months, airlines that are making certain requests at this time may be forced to move the goal posts again. This includes charging for a type. It would also be nice to see BALPA get involved in this and maybe try and protect young pilots from being taken advantage of. No need for alarm here, just a few thoughts.
I in no way am trying to take anything away from anyone or any orginization. Common sense must prevail here and hopefully the industry could one day come to a standard on this issue. The old saying you do what you have to do is always in effect, but there are limits, and it is my belief that some of these limits are really being stretched.
Good luck to all and lets not all forget to enjoy the easiest gig going!!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its a positive change
You know, I think this and the cadet scheme are really big changes. Its right to debate it here and I can understand people's caution, becasue this is innovation.
The cadet scheme is a real innovation. I’ve been around a long time, long enough to remember Hamble. I think this has quite a few things in common.
The second innovation is easyJet’s recruitment policy. I’ve seen many discussions and criticism here about their policy of requiring 1500 hrs + an ATPL & preferring type rated people. This is a radical change – as WWW says, they now have something for everyone. Personally, I think it reasonable that the more you bring to the party, the more you get from eJ.
The sponsored type rating is just that. It’s quite reasonable that a low hours unrated person should receive less pay than a direct entrant.
I say hats off to easy, and CTC McAlpine who ever they are!
It’s about time for some change in our crappy training industry: there would be none if we waited for my employer to come up with some.
I think easy & JMC, and CTC & good old Sir Robert McAlpine have some real guts to do this now.
The cadet scheme is a real innovation. I’ve been around a long time, long enough to remember Hamble. I think this has quite a few things in common.
The second innovation is easyJet’s recruitment policy. I’ve seen many discussions and criticism here about their policy of requiring 1500 hrs + an ATPL & preferring type rated people. This is a radical change – as WWW says, they now have something for everyone. Personally, I think it reasonable that the more you bring to the party, the more you get from eJ.
The sponsored type rating is just that. It’s quite reasonable that a low hours unrated person should receive less pay than a direct entrant.
I say hats off to easy, and CTC McAlpine who ever they are!
It’s about time for some change in our crappy training industry: there would be none if we waited for my employer to come up with some.
I think easy & JMC, and CTC & good old Sir Robert McAlpine have some real guts to do this now.
