Free training in Denmark
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jamen, jeg snakke osse Danmark godt!!!!
Actually, there was a thread about the Danish government sponsoring and/or training pilots due to a shortage. I already got my hours and certificates in the states. Spent the last 12 years there, but feel I am not paying enough in taxes, so there for the inqury.
Actually, there was a thread about the Danish government sponsoring and/or training pilots due to a shortage. I already got my hours and certificates in the states. Spent the last 12 years there, but feel I am not paying enough in taxes, so there for the inqury.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Diesel 8.
I just started as a student pilot in EKSB, and I have not heard anything about the state sponsoring student pilots. Besides, does this sound like anything a Danish government would ever do?
What HAS been done, however, is to make anyone attending the state pilot program (Skolen for Luftfartsuddannelser??) eligible for Statens Uddannelsesstoette.
This doesn't apply for anyone not following this course, like myself. I use a private FTO.
Hope this helps.
Cox
I just started as a student pilot in EKSB, and I have not heard anything about the state sponsoring student pilots. Besides, does this sound like anything a Danish government would ever do?
What HAS been done, however, is to make anyone attending the state pilot program (Skolen for Luftfartsuddannelser??) eligible for Statens Uddannelsesstoette.
This doesn't apply for anyone not following this course, like myself. I use a private FTO.
Hope this helps.
Cox
Guest
Posts: n/a
THAT SOUND GOOD...
Is the Danish goverment really, paying for flight training for Airlines??
But, what I don't get is Diesel8's respond to CaptDane. Cause if you got the hours and obliously write danish, then what do you need goverment sponsership for?
What are the hour requirements for SAS?
Is the Danish goverment really, paying for flight training for Airlines??
But, what I don't get is Diesel8's respond to CaptDane. Cause if you got the hours and obliously write danish, then what do you need goverment sponsership for?
What are the hour requirements for SAS?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nite Flite,
That is easy enough to answer. I hold one of the "cereal box" licenses issued by the FAA. I keep getting differing opinions and numbers, but the cost of converting sounds pretty steep. Being fiscally responsible, it does not hurt to make someone else pay the bill. Believe me when I say, that I would soon have it paid back in taxes.
That is easy enough to answer. I hold one of the "cereal box" licenses issued by the FAA. I keep getting differing opinions and numbers, but the cost of converting sounds pretty steep. Being fiscally responsible, it does not hurt to make someone else pay the bill. Believe me when I say, that I would soon have it paid back in taxes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi everyone.
I watched a programme yesterday which might shed a light on the whole thing.
Seems the RDAF and Danish CAA have a hush-hush agreement about subsidizing pilot trainees at the state pilot school with about 100k DKK, meaning that the entire ATPL course would come to a measly 500k or so. About 50k sterling.
One of the reasons for this was apparently that the RDAF wants to prevent fast movers from leaving the service and getting a cushy job with SK.
(yeah, right. 12 yrs in the right hand seat before captains rating). Also, SK usually only hire entry-level pilots from the State school. Smacks of corruption and old boy's network.
Also, as mentioned before, this only applies to pilots training with the State School. The conclusion was that it tended to slant the competition in favour of the State school and put the private FTO's at an unfair disadvantage.
Would you believe: The head of training even tried to imply that pilots trained at the private schools couldn't possibly be as safety conscious as 'his' students.
All I can say is: Judge each school on its merits as they seem to you, and pay what it costs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I watched a programme yesterday which might shed a light on the whole thing.
Seems the RDAF and Danish CAA have a hush-hush agreement about subsidizing pilot trainees at the state pilot school with about 100k DKK, meaning that the entire ATPL course would come to a measly 500k or so. About 50k sterling.
One of the reasons for this was apparently that the RDAF wants to prevent fast movers from leaving the service and getting a cushy job with SK.
(yeah, right. 12 yrs in the right hand seat before captains rating). Also, SK usually only hire entry-level pilots from the State school. Smacks of corruption and old boy's network.Also, as mentioned before, this only applies to pilots training with the State School. The conclusion was that it tended to slant the competition in favour of the State school and put the private FTO's at an unfair disadvantage.
Would you believe: The head of training even tried to imply that pilots trained at the private schools couldn't possibly be as safety conscious as 'his' students.
All I can say is: Judge each school on its merits as they seem to you, and pay what it costs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To Nite_Flite
SAS hour req;
700 tt, 200 Multi, 100 command. Frozen scandinavian or JAR licenses. Check out www.sasflightops.com
SAS hour req;
700 tt, 200 Multi, 100 command. Frozen scandinavian or JAR licenses. Check out www.sasflightops.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, cereal box license is a term us euro guyes sometimes use, because it easier to optain an FAA license, than an european one.
The reason is that the US carriers pay for a lot of the training when a pilot starts with the company. In europe some of that training is done at the pilots expense. One is not better that the other.
I don't know about SAS, but I always heard that it is a excelent airline. Are you sure it not just sour grapes because you are not flying for them ? 12 years to upgrade sounds impossible, because all of europes airlines have recruited extensively during the past 4-5 years..are you sure. How about Marsk, is that the same?
Enjoy
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 26 August 2000).]
The reason is that the US carriers pay for a lot of the training when a pilot starts with the company. In europe some of that training is done at the pilots expense. One is not better that the other.
I don't know about SAS, but I always heard that it is a excelent airline. Are you sure it not just sour grapes because you are not flying for them ? 12 years to upgrade sounds impossible, because all of europes airlines have recruited extensively during the past 4-5 years..are you sure. How about Marsk, is that the same?
Enjoy
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 26 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Nite Flite,
please note that Cox mentions he is a student pilot, I don't think there's any bitter grapes involved in his posting.
As a matter off fact, he is right about the upgrading rate with SAS. The normal RHS time is about 10-12 years before upgrade - and YES, it is a excellent company!.
As far as I know, Maersk Air RHS time is a bit shorter, around 6-8 years.
However, there could be an improvement in the future as You correctly mention, because both companies have hired a lot of new guys over the past couple of years. Another thing is that First Officers from SAS Airline is "hired out" to SAS Commuter to Captains positions, and they are thereby upgraded a bit faster.
RGRDS
Moonbeam P.
please note that Cox mentions he is a student pilot, I don't think there's any bitter grapes involved in his posting.
As a matter off fact, he is right about the upgrading rate with SAS. The normal RHS time is about 10-12 years before upgrade - and YES, it is a excellent company!.
As far as I know, Maersk Air RHS time is a bit shorter, around 6-8 years.
However, there could be an improvement in the future as You correctly mention, because both companies have hired a lot of new guys over the past couple of years. Another thing is that First Officers from SAS Airline is "hired out" to SAS Commuter to Captains positions, and they are thereby upgraded a bit faster.
RGRDS
Moonbeam P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nite_Flite: My question about "cereal box" license was directed to Diesel8 as he made the statement.
Thanks for your answer anyway.
Never heard that label before despite having flown in the US and Europe and other places a few years.
As far as the US Airlines picking up the tab for your license: Not true.
You need the initial tickets before you can apply to any job in the US.
(No Cadet Programs over here.)
Usually an ATP is required. Sometimes with a type rating.
If you are already flying the line and in a position to upgrade, yes, the airline pay for your training and captains check-out.
Over the last 10 years some US Commuter Airlines and other shady companies have required "Pay For Training". To get the job you fork over 10 to 15 thousand dollars.
That resulted in situations where some rich "Daddy's Boy" with no time could buy the job, despite being less than competetive as far as aero nautical qualifications.
Also it resulted in "Scabs" who was black listed from real airlines could buy their way into a seat, "Value-Jet" comes to mind.
Again qualifications was not an issue, just a line of credit.
(Perhaps safety suffered a bit from that policy?)
Not taking the high moral ground here guys.
Everybody do whatever they choose:
I have been unemployed many times and would rather drive taxi cabs than pay some greedy Lorenzo Trainee for a seniority number with a company that is bound to be an un-happy place to work for.
(Had the choice a few times: Family Airlines, Arrow Air, and others. Already had the B-747 time and the DC-8 time, current and qualified for the jobs, yet they would try to milk an un-employed pilot for his savings.)
Screw 'em all.
As for SAS being a good place to work: Un-doubtly. A very good place indeed.
They do have a bunch of rigorous tests for candidates to pass. Many folks failed those tests and were not qualified to fly for SAS as they did not measure up.
Yet when SAS bought or merged with some other
company, the pilots from the other company got on SAS's seniority list as a result, despite half of them having failed SAS's test earlier. (Was LinjeFlyg one of them?)
Also many pilots for SAS Commuter never made the SAS screening a few years ago. Lately the Commuter guys can go into mainline SAS and keep their number.
All good pilots for sure, one just have to question the validity of the testing as SAS ignores it later. Seems bogus to this outsider.
(Never applied to SAS, no sour grapes here)
Fly Safe.
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
Thanks for your answer anyway.
Never heard that label before despite having flown in the US and Europe and other places a few years.
As far as the US Airlines picking up the tab for your license: Not true.
You need the initial tickets before you can apply to any job in the US.
(No Cadet Programs over here.)
Usually an ATP is required. Sometimes with a type rating.
If you are already flying the line and in a position to upgrade, yes, the airline pay for your training and captains check-out.
Over the last 10 years some US Commuter Airlines and other shady companies have required "Pay For Training". To get the job you fork over 10 to 15 thousand dollars.
That resulted in situations where some rich "Daddy's Boy" with no time could buy the job, despite being less than competetive as far as aero nautical qualifications.
Also it resulted in "Scabs" who was black listed from real airlines could buy their way into a seat, "Value-Jet" comes to mind.
Again qualifications was not an issue, just a line of credit.
(Perhaps safety suffered a bit from that policy?)
Not taking the high moral ground here guys.
Everybody do whatever they choose:
I have been unemployed many times and would rather drive taxi cabs than pay some greedy Lorenzo Trainee for a seniority number with a company that is bound to be an un-happy place to work for.
(Had the choice a few times: Family Airlines, Arrow Air, and others. Already had the B-747 time and the DC-8 time, current and qualified for the jobs, yet they would try to milk an un-employed pilot for his savings.)
Screw 'em all.
As for SAS being a good place to work: Un-doubtly. A very good place indeed.
They do have a bunch of rigorous tests for candidates to pass. Many folks failed those tests and were not qualified to fly for SAS as they did not measure up.
Yet when SAS bought or merged with some other
company, the pilots from the other company got on SAS's seniority list as a result, despite half of them having failed SAS's test earlier. (Was LinjeFlyg one of them?)
Also many pilots for SAS Commuter never made the SAS screening a few years ago. Lately the Commuter guys can go into mainline SAS and keep their number.
All good pilots for sure, one just have to question the validity of the testing as SAS ignores it later. Seems bogus to this outsider.
(Never applied to SAS, no sour grapes here)
Fly Safe.
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Moonbeam, you´re a bit off. Minimum time to upgrade has been 9 years. Average time now depends on your prior employer: If you worked for SC you slide right in in front of verybody else due that little thing they call the ¨kombi-list¨. Everybody else can look forward to sitting in the RHS for 15-20 years depending on expansion. Apparently at SAS 6 months in the right seat of a F50 counts for more than 15 years in the Air Force or similar.
So why isn´t the union doing anything about it? Funny you should ask: They are the ones who negotiated the list.
And now they wonder why they don´t atract qualified applicants anymore.
So why isn´t the union doing anything about it? Funny you should ask: They are the ones who negotiated the list.
And now they wonder why they don´t atract qualified applicants anymore.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi again,
Just for the record: I would love to work for SAS, Maersk or any other NW-European airline, it just seems to me that 9 yrs minimum to advance is a bit much, if you're qualified otherwise. No sour grapes there.
I have personal reasons for 'moaning' about the RHS minimum: I just turned 30. I would like to be A/C cdr before I retire, and I don't expect to get my ATPL for another 2˝ yrs or so.
I was considering the smaller airlines. Our local airline in EKSB, Cimber (QI) seems to be the best bet initially. My instructor got a job with them at age 38. and was cdr after 4 yrs. However, he had an instructor's rating and oodles of hrs. So, 6 yrs seems abt. right for the LHS in a smaller airline.
However, I digress.
The results, so far, of the TV programme I mentioned, was to require every FTO in DK to submit financial records for the last 10 yrs, to try and uncover any shady deals. Talk about changing the subject.
On a lighter note: Soloed on C152 friday (sorry, couldn't resist it)
regards
cox
Just for the record: I would love to work for SAS, Maersk or any other NW-European airline, it just seems to me that 9 yrs minimum to advance is a bit much, if you're qualified otherwise. No sour grapes there.
I have personal reasons for 'moaning' about the RHS minimum: I just turned 30. I would like to be A/C cdr before I retire, and I don't expect to get my ATPL for another 2˝ yrs or so.
I was considering the smaller airlines. Our local airline in EKSB, Cimber (QI) seems to be the best bet initially. My instructor got a job with them at age 38. and was cdr after 4 yrs. However, he had an instructor's rating and oodles of hrs. So, 6 yrs seems abt. right for the LHS in a smaller airline.
However, I digress.
The results, so far, of the TV programme I mentioned, was to require every FTO in DK to submit financial records for the last 10 yrs, to try and uncover any shady deals. Talk about changing the subject.
On a lighter note: Soloed on C152 friday (sorry, couldn't resist it)
regards
cox
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Guyes...I withdraw my sour grapes comment.
TowerDog...what I mean is that, when I got my FAA license, there were a lot of subjets that were not covered. FAA guyes told me that, subejcts such as high level met, astronav, longrange planning would be covered later by the majors.
When I returned to Europe and went for my ATPL, it was much more complicated and time consuming than the FAA license.
Well if the unions at SAS allow another company to be bought and then give the new pilots senority credit from their old company, I would probably never want to work at SAS. Does management put their people in the unions? I heard that not to far back cadetpilots sued the company for something..
I can understand you can't give someone credit for airforcetime or and other time. It HAS to be first in last out...
15-20, 9, 12 years. There are many opinons about the RHS time. Would it be fair to assume that the guyes who were hired 10 years ago, are still F/O because of the crisis between 1990 and 1995, and the guyes beeing picked up today will have a much shorter time in the right hand side.
I was also unemployed once...done that, didn't like it...so better RHS in an airline with 20 years upgrade time that LHS in a yellow cab..
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 28 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 28 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 28 August 2000).]
TowerDog...what I mean is that, when I got my FAA license, there were a lot of subjets that were not covered. FAA guyes told me that, subejcts such as high level met, astronav, longrange planning would be covered later by the majors.
When I returned to Europe and went for my ATPL, it was much more complicated and time consuming than the FAA license.
Well if the unions at SAS allow another company to be bought and then give the new pilots senority credit from their old company, I would probably never want to work at SAS. Does management put their people in the unions? I heard that not to far back cadetpilots sued the company for something..
I can understand you can't give someone credit for airforcetime or and other time. It HAS to be first in last out...
15-20, 9, 12 years. There are many opinons about the RHS time. Would it be fair to assume that the guyes who were hired 10 years ago, are still F/O because of the crisis between 1990 and 1995, and the guyes beeing picked up today will have a much shorter time in the right hand side.
I was also unemployed once...done that, didn't like it...so better RHS in an airline with 20 years upgrade time that LHS in a yellow cab..
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 28 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 28 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nite_Flite (edited 28 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nope, Nite_Flite, it´s the ones that were hired 10 years ago that have been moving up in 9 years.
And nobody should be getting credit for prior anything. But the point is the 15 year Air Force guy who gets hired at SAS airline today, ends up lower on the list than the 300 hr kid who got hired into the F50 at SC 6 months ago.
And nobody should be getting credit for prior anything. But the point is the 15 year Air Force guy who gets hired at SAS airline today, ends up lower on the list than the 300 hr kid who got hired into the F50 at SC 6 months ago.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flathatter, about the only correct statement you came up with was the minimum 9 years to a command. Thats about right at SK. 10-12 years is the norm. For most people this is a very long time, but this is partly due to almost nobody leaving the company, because it´s a good one to work for!
15-20 years; you´re way off. Some tried it in the early 80´s. but thats a while ago, and the upcoming expansion, leads most (insiders) to believe, that the time to command will not increase in the coming years.
With ref. to Airforce and SC pilots. Well Flathatter. What do you expect? SC is a sistercompany. Owned by the same people/states, with the same board,uniforms,flying the SK routes only. Airforce is another outfit, like QI,Maersk etc.
New SC pilots are required to stay at SC for 4 years, before going to mainline, but their name is on the list which I believe is the right thing. "An AF guy hired today will get behind a SC kid hired 6 months ago"! Well, what do you suggest instead! Isn´t this the way seniority works everywhere else, where Direct entry Capts. are not used??
Incidentally, in your example, the AF guy hired in the same yearas the SC pilot, is likely to find himself higher on the list, due to the fact, that people hired in the same year are sorted by ref. to their age.And the 30 some year old AF guy is likely to be older than the ab-initio pilots being hired.
The philosofy at SK has always been, that you are put on the list, together with the other new hires of that year and then sorted by age. Seems very fair to me.
The "kombilist" is a good thing, that judging from other threads on this site, a lot of other airlines/pilotgroups, could learn a great deal from, and would be very happy with if they implemented it!!
[This message has been edited by Hung start (edited 29 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hung start (edited 29 August 2000).]
15-20 years; you´re way off. Some tried it in the early 80´s. but thats a while ago, and the upcoming expansion, leads most (insiders) to believe, that the time to command will not increase in the coming years.
With ref. to Airforce and SC pilots. Well Flathatter. What do you expect? SC is a sistercompany. Owned by the same people/states, with the same board,uniforms,flying the SK routes only. Airforce is another outfit, like QI,Maersk etc.
New SC pilots are required to stay at SC for 4 years, before going to mainline, but their name is on the list which I believe is the right thing. "An AF guy hired today will get behind a SC kid hired 6 months ago"! Well, what do you suggest instead! Isn´t this the way seniority works everywhere else, where Direct entry Capts. are not used??
Incidentally, in your example, the AF guy hired in the same yearas the SC pilot, is likely to find himself higher on the list, due to the fact, that people hired in the same year are sorted by ref. to their age.And the 30 some year old AF guy is likely to be older than the ab-initio pilots being hired.
The philosofy at SK has always been, that you are put on the list, together with the other new hires of that year and then sorted by age. Seems very fair to me.
The "kombilist" is a good thing, that judging from other threads on this site, a lot of other airlines/pilotgroups, could learn a great deal from, and would be very happy with if they implemented it!!
[This message has been edited by Hung start (edited 29 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hung start (edited 29 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Keep sticking your head in the sand, Hung Start.
No other large, international airline has commuters and mainline on the same list. Some may have a flow-through program, but that´s an entirely different thing. So what if SC is a ¨sister company¨. And if you think anybody getting hired today will make left seat this side of 2015, you obviously haven´t looked very closely at the list. It´s simple math. You add up the retirements and figure in expansion (5% p.a. or what have you). The 15 year AF guy, or any other newhire, has not only all the mainline FO´s in front of him (as he should) but also every single SC pilot. Off course you think the list is a good thing, you got 250 extra guys behind you, just like that.
And if you have been paying attention, you´ll know that ALPA just recently resoundingly rejected a similar attempt at Delta. The only two votes for, were -not surprisingly- cast by the commuter guys.
As for the year-of-hire thing, it´s got nothing to do with this issue. You´re laying smoke screens, Hung Start. You can attempt to ridicule me and try to convince people that I don´t know what I´m talking about. Knock yourself out. A potential applicant doesn´t have to be very smart to figure out that SAS is giving him a hosejob when it comes to seniority, courtesy of the union. The guys at the recruiting office are allready noticing. Ask them.
I´m sure most of the employees think SAS is a terrific place to work. But if you´re anything other than a 300hr wonder, you´ll be an old man before you upgrade.
No other large, international airline has commuters and mainline on the same list. Some may have a flow-through program, but that´s an entirely different thing. So what if SC is a ¨sister company¨. And if you think anybody getting hired today will make left seat this side of 2015, you obviously haven´t looked very closely at the list. It´s simple math. You add up the retirements and figure in expansion (5% p.a. or what have you). The 15 year AF guy, or any other newhire, has not only all the mainline FO´s in front of him (as he should) but also every single SC pilot. Off course you think the list is a good thing, you got 250 extra guys behind you, just like that.
And if you have been paying attention, you´ll know that ALPA just recently resoundingly rejected a similar attempt at Delta. The only two votes for, were -not surprisingly- cast by the commuter guys.
As for the year-of-hire thing, it´s got nothing to do with this issue. You´re laying smoke screens, Hung Start. You can attempt to ridicule me and try to convince people that I don´t know what I´m talking about. Knock yourself out. A potential applicant doesn´t have to be very smart to figure out that SAS is giving him a hosejob when it comes to seniority, courtesy of the union. The guys at the recruiting office are allready noticing. Ask them.
I´m sure most of the employees think SAS is a terrific place to work. But if you´re anything other than a 300hr wonder, you´ll be an old man before you upgrade.