View Poll Results: Are you for or against the idea of SSTR's?
I have a fATPL but no airline jet experience and I am against SSTR's
111
20.07%
I have a fATPL but no airline jet experience and I am for SSTR's
34
6.15%
I am an experienced professional pilot with no jet airline experience and I am against SSTR's
73
13.20%
I am an experienced professional pilot with no airline jet experienced and I am for SSTR's
11
1.99%
I am a pilot with airline jet experience and I am against SSTR's
207
37.43%
I am a pilot with airline jet experience and I am for SSTR's
44
7.96%
I do not hold a professional pilot licence and I am against SSTR's
53
9.58%
I do not hold a professional pilot licence and I am for SSTR's
7
1.27%
I have no idea what an SSTR is and am just voting because I can
13
2.35%
Voters: 553. This poll is closed
Self Funded Type Ratings
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Uranus
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haughtney,
Yes thats good advice, however i've flown with and know a number of people that have gone down that route (1000hrs+, surely thats enough to get that interview) and still got zip. What are these poor ppl meant to do, theyve done the hard yards, trying to make ends meet on a ****e salary, but no one gives them a shot. They see Johnny 200hrs get the right seat coz he managed to secure some large amounts of cash. Eventually people get frustrated, and as the saying goes, if you cant beat 'em join 'em!
The sad thing is, accountants are running the airlines now, and simply they are trying save wherever they can. So now these poor chaps and lasses have to take the plunge and get them selves rated.......
Onthemove is correct 100%, not one SSTR guy is loyal to their company. That first company is viewed as a means to an end. IE - You screwed me so up yours, soon as my 500hrs comes and a nice job comes up im gone.
And who can blame them?
Personally, i admire people who've done the hard yards and have been left with no choice but to do this. They tried to do the right thing - no one gave them a shot. They made a decision, a very tough one, a huge risk, to get what they want out of life. Not many people have that kind of determination. Note i DONT include Mr and Miss Fresh outta Flight Training in this. They should get some experience before forkin out the dosh, as any experience is a good thing.
Yes thats good advice, however i've flown with and know a number of people that have gone down that route (1000hrs+, surely thats enough to get that interview) and still got zip. What are these poor ppl meant to do, theyve done the hard yards, trying to make ends meet on a ****e salary, but no one gives them a shot. They see Johnny 200hrs get the right seat coz he managed to secure some large amounts of cash. Eventually people get frustrated, and as the saying goes, if you cant beat 'em join 'em!
The sad thing is, accountants are running the airlines now, and simply they are trying save wherever they can. So now these poor chaps and lasses have to take the plunge and get them selves rated.......
Onthemove is correct 100%, not one SSTR guy is loyal to their company. That first company is viewed as a means to an end. IE - You screwed me so up yours, soon as my 500hrs comes and a nice job comes up im gone.
And who can blame them?
Personally, i admire people who've done the hard yards and have been left with no choice but to do this. They tried to do the right thing - no one gave them a shot. They made a decision, a very tough one, a huge risk, to get what they want out of life. Not many people have that kind of determination. Note i DONT include Mr and Miss Fresh outta Flight Training in this. They should get some experience before forkin out the dosh, as any experience is a good thing.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Pootang, yeah sure.....1000hrs eh? Try looking at other places around the world 2000-3000hrs before you even sniff the hint of kerosene. However having said that I know PLENTY of guys who have had the big call with under 1000 hrs...and better yet a few with around 750hrs, so it can and is being done.
Yes, personally I do blame them, they been sucked into the "zero to hero" dream by FTO's...but its a free country isnt it? they are free to ruin the T & C's of all those that have worked bloody hard to get to where we are.
From my perspective if I ever reach a position of responsibility Im going to positively descriminate in favour of the guys/gal's that have done it the traditional way...because it shows more about an individuals character that they can come through adversity, rather than how much the bank will lend them/daddy has in his holding accounts.
Yes, personally I do blame them, they been sucked into the "zero to hero" dream by FTO's...but its a free country isnt it? they are free to ruin the T & C's of all those that have worked bloody hard to get to where we are.
From my perspective if I ever reach a position of responsibility Im going to positively descriminate in favour of the guys/gal's that have done it the traditional way...because it shows more about an individuals character that they can come through adversity, rather than how much the bank will lend them/daddy has in his holding accounts.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Uranus
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah i know that in other parts of the world 2-3000hrs is normal, In Oz you can be flying crappy bug smashers with 5000hrs in hand and still get no where.
But i think the point of this thread is that it concerns the situation here in Europe, or even more specifically UK airlines. So 1000 hrs GA over here is a fair bit.
I too would probably favour a person that did it the hard way. But then your boss will say to you, we will take on X amount of non TR guys. The rest must be TR and focus on relatively low hrs on type so we can put them on a cadet (ie cheapo) salary. What will you do then. Your gonna have to do it. Nothing is black and white. Theres many shades of grey. And when you get into that position you seek, your gonna have to still satisfy those above you otherwise you wont be in that position long.
Regards
But i think the point of this thread is that it concerns the situation here in Europe, or even more specifically UK airlines. So 1000 hrs GA over here is a fair bit.
I too would probably favour a person that did it the hard way. But then your boss will say to you, we will take on X amount of non TR guys. The rest must be TR and focus on relatively low hrs on type so we can put them on a cadet (ie cheapo) salary. What will you do then. Your gonna have to do it. Nothing is black and white. Theres many shades of grey. And when you get into that position you seek, your gonna have to still satisfy those above you otherwise you wont be in that position long.
Regards
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: southeast
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Speed O P, great poll idea and an interesting thread. With regard to your qustion re BALPA's response to this growing 'problem' ( there arn't many of the pollsters who think SSTRs are a good thing!!!!) I thought you might be interested to know the following. It must be a yr ago now, but I wrote to Mr M Granshaw, the BALPA head honcho, to express my concern at the proliferation of SSTRs and was interested to ascertain BALPA's position, and what it intended to do to address the problem. He never replied (assuming that he recd the letter) and I am in process of drafting a further letter. You also might be interested to know that Mr Granshaw is not, and to the best of my knowledge, never has been, a professional pilot!!! This I find quite astounding!! How on earth can he be expected, let alone relied upon, to represent our interests?! I am a former instructor and regional tprop driver who recently got a lucky break into the big time - I always felt and still feel, that BALPA makes a bloody poor show of representing the interests of instructor members and the guys/gals in the smaller outfits. Instructor's terms and conditions are, with a few notable exceptions, quite disgraceful. What has BALPA ever done to improve their lot? Yes, all this and more is going into another letter and I'll be happy to pm you his response - if I get one. Rgds, Sid
Why is it, whenever I hear anything about BALPA it is negative, is it because they are a largely inept ineffective organization the butt of (UK) Line Pilot jokes? Shurely not!
As for SSTR, people who pay for these are the scum of the flying world. I am fully sure BALPA would be in full support of them.
As for SSTR, people who pay for these are the scum of the flying world. I am fully sure BALPA would be in full support of them.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To be against SSTRs is one, to insult the guys walking that road is another.
All this "get of one's arse" "zero to hero" "hard way" crap sounds good when having a beer, but is simply too naive. Every day without a job means loss of income. So you want to get it.. fast. Now nobody came yet with the idea that you have extra bargaining power if you paid yourself. Now the airlines have absolutely ZERO to bond you. If its no good at the airline, you leave.
All this "get of one's arse" "zero to hero" "hard way" crap sounds good when having a beer, but is simply too naive. Every day without a job means loss of income. So you want to get it.. fast. Now nobody came yet with the idea that you have extra bargaining power if you paid yourself. Now the airlines have absolutely ZERO to bond you. If its no good at the airline, you leave.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Onthemove...yep your spot on as far as my path to where I am at the moment....in this part of the world it took me 2 yrs from license conversion to the jet...in the interim I flew T/Props..and was bonded (which is not ideal but is a far more equitable path as it means you have a job..rather than speculating on a T/rating and hoping for a result)
But I ask this question again, where the hell has this expectation of straight out of flying college and straight into the RHS of a jet? (the majority of SSTR's are sourced from these candidates). Having been in those shoes a few years back my opinion remains unchanged...you progress according to your ability and experience, anything else is a pipedream! Why do you think it is now that airlines want crews now to be line trained?..there are 2 reasons.
1. Obviously the cost...the bean counters are looking at any option to reduce their tyraining overheads.
2. The training risk...ask some of the line trainers at Easy about far behind the curve the CTC guys coming through with minimal hours and no real experience other than 40hrs in the sim, half a dozen cross countries, and an IR test have been.
One the problem as I see it is the level of expectation, that starts at the FTO's..but also stops at the frontdoor of those who are prepared to invest thousands in training without doing any real research. PIlot Pete, Scroggs, Luke Sky Toddler, have all posted on here about the very same thing. I put it to you One that my son (if I ever have one
) will certainly have that goal of flying a big shiney jet, he wont however think that it is his god-given right to finish training hand over £25K and waltz into a RHS jet job, because he will understand that this is the exception rather than the rule, and like anything he will have to learn his trade.
Absolute tosh...this is a debate, no one is getting personal here, as the survey says most of us in the industry dont agree with current state of affairs
But I ask this question again, where the hell has this expectation of straight out of flying college and straight into the RHS of a jet? (the majority of SSTR's are sourced from these candidates). Having been in those shoes a few years back my opinion remains unchanged...you progress according to your ability and experience, anything else is a pipedream! Why do you think it is now that airlines want crews now to be line trained?..there are 2 reasons.
1. Obviously the cost...the bean counters are looking at any option to reduce their tyraining overheads.
2. The training risk...ask some of the line trainers at Easy about far behind the curve the CTC guys coming through with minimal hours and no real experience other than 40hrs in the sim, half a dozen cross countries, and an IR test have been.
One the problem as I see it is the level of expectation, that starts at the FTO's..but also stops at the frontdoor of those who are prepared to invest thousands in training without doing any real research. PIlot Pete, Scroggs, Luke Sky Toddler, have all posted on here about the very same thing. I put it to you One that my son (if I ever have one
) will certainly have that goal of flying a big shiney jet, he wont however think that it is his god-given right to finish training hand over £25K and waltz into a RHS jet job, because he will understand that this is the exception rather than the rule, and like anything he will have to learn his trade.
To be against SSTRs is one, to insult the guys walking that road is another.
All this "get of one's arse" "zero to hero" "hard way" crap sounds good when having a beer, but is simply too naive. Every day without a job means loss of income. So you want to get it.. fast. Now nobody came yet with the idea that you have extra bargaining power if you paid yourself. Now the airlines have absolutely ZERO to bond you. If its no good at the airline, you leave
All this "get of one's arse" "zero to hero" "hard way" crap sounds good when having a beer, but is simply too naive. Every day without a job means loss of income. So you want to get it.. fast. Now nobody came yet with the idea that you have extra bargaining power if you paid yourself. Now the airlines have absolutely ZERO to bond you. If its no good at the airline, you leave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Everyone, been away for a week on training so just catching up. Its good to see everyone debating and not insulting! It is even better to see that we actually have a common goal that is for the most part "being against SSTRs"
Pressman, my pathetic attitude, is to save the future Ts and Cs of airline pilots. I dont personally care if you have a problem with this. If you think I should spend my time on something more constructive, I would like to hear what you think that should be. That was the point of this thread and poll!!
Identing & Pressman, have you ever had to fly an aircraft when everything has gone wrong and you have no-one to back you up. I have, and I am glad it was not a 'big shiny jet', just after I got my FATPL and just after the safety pilot got the boot. This is a thread/debate on how we can protect our future Ts and Cs, not about the ability of cadet SSTRs. Surely you can see my opinion was inferred when I started this thread! Can either of you tell me why this is so personal to you? Why do you feel so threatened? I am only trying to save our terms and conditions, YOURS INCLUDED. We are after all, all pilots!! Surely you can see this!
sidtheesexist, Jolly good form! check your pms!
OSOP
Originally Posted by pressman
On speed , Haven't you anything better to do ? You automatically assume that SSTR pilots are somehow inferior to sponsored pilots, a pathetic attitude really, Low houred guys are not safety pilot released until they can at least land the aircraft alone .
You should spend your time on somthing more constructive .
You should spend your time on somthing more constructive .
Identing & Pressman, have you ever had to fly an aircraft when everything has gone wrong and you have no-one to back you up. I have, and I am glad it was not a 'big shiny jet', just after I got my FATPL and just after the safety pilot got the boot. This is a thread/debate on how we can protect our future Ts and Cs, not about the ability of cadet SSTRs. Surely you can see my opinion was inferred when I started this thread! Can either of you tell me why this is so personal to you? Why do you feel so threatened? I am only trying to save our terms and conditions, YOURS INCLUDED. We are after all, all pilots!! Surely you can see this!
sidtheesexist, Jolly good form! check your pms!
OSOP
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tugging Pilot
With regards to the hotly disputed topic of Self-funded Type Ratings, I would like to add another twist. This I hope to do by posing the following question. Is this a predominantly British/Irish and American phenomenon? Or are airlines from the European Continent, South Africa, Australasia, Canada and the like also employing such tactics? For my part I believe that this is something that originated from the USA (as do a lot of things, one could cynically argue, that happen to prove to be detrimental to working conditions).
I ask this for this reason........ however before I ask this I would like to state the following. My question is not based on, nor does it arise from, a racist or a protectionist point of view. I merely wish to explore this subject further as, I SUSPECT, there may be more to it than meets the eye and as a result, we MAY all be 'barking up the wrong tree' (tackling the issue from the wrong perspective).
I digress....The reason that I ask this is because I want to see if there is a correlation between the arrival of the prevalence of the Self Funded Type Rating Pilot that we all despise and the advent of JAA and budget airlines. In other words I would like to explore the suggestion that, if budget airlines were unable to ‘cherry pick’ pilots - and therefore, through market forces, forced to invest in training to a greater degree - would this fashion of self funding have become so popular?
I ask this for reasons. Firstly, to start what I hope will be an intellectual debate on this subject (am I asking too much). Secondly, to discover if other nations airlines are resorting to such tactics (not whether pilots from other nations are buy type ratings – that is another matter entirely). Lastly, to investigate whether we are unjustly blaming these, low hours/begging-for-that-first-job, pilots for something that may have come about because of other factors. If we manage to direct our energies to the root of the problem, we may be able to achieve our aims with more success.
I say this with hope and anticipation. Let the debate begin.
Tugging Pilot
I ask this for this reason........ however before I ask this I would like to state the following. My question is not based on, nor does it arise from, a racist or a protectionist point of view. I merely wish to explore this subject further as, I SUSPECT, there may be more to it than meets the eye and as a result, we MAY all be 'barking up the wrong tree' (tackling the issue from the wrong perspective).
I digress....The reason that I ask this is because I want to see if there is a correlation between the arrival of the prevalence of the Self Funded Type Rating Pilot that we all despise and the advent of JAA and budget airlines. In other words I would like to explore the suggestion that, if budget airlines were unable to ‘cherry pick’ pilots - and therefore, through market forces, forced to invest in training to a greater degree - would this fashion of self funding have become so popular?
I ask this for reasons. Firstly, to start what I hope will be an intellectual debate on this subject (am I asking too much). Secondly, to discover if other nations airlines are resorting to such tactics (not whether pilots from other nations are buy type ratings – that is another matter entirely). Lastly, to investigate whether we are unjustly blaming these, low hours/begging-for-that-first-job, pilots for something that may have come about because of other factors. If we manage to direct our energies to the root of the problem, we may be able to achieve our aims with more success.
I say this with hope and anticipation. Let the debate begin.
Tugging Pilot
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: southeast
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well OSOP, further to my PM I'll rant in public! My dodgy maths of 30 secs ago based on the then latest poll figures, suggested that 70.13 % of pollsters are against SSTRs - wow, that's a surprise. What really pees me off is the way people hijack these threads with their own agenda and wander off topic and often end up in slagging matches! So based on the premise that SSTRs are a BAD thing (backed up by the poll) what are BALPA (the organisation that many of us subscribe to in the vain HOPE that they will represent OUR best interests in a dilligent and professional manner) doing to combat their proliferation??? I'm not suggesting BALPA can, but it would be nice to be sure they were doing everything in their power to do so. Unless I'm mistaken, the point of this thread was not to justify one's own personal decision re SSTRs but to explore what might be done to end them (with/without BALPA's assistance).
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sidtheesexist
So based on the premise that SSTRs are a BAD thing (backed up by the poll)
297 have voted out of a total of 5464 views. Something tells me that most people are bored with this thread and don't bother to vote.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flopsie, if this thread is so boring, why are you reading it? People are voting at a rate of 19 per day, mostly against SSTR's. I fail to see your point!
elirich, This thread is to try and guage opinion on SSTRs and the question has been asked.... What can we do with regards to maintaining Ts and Cs.? I am trying to get some fodder, to present to BALPA to see if they will do something about it. Im not sure what you were trying to get across. Do you have any positive suggestions that I can put to them?
OSOP
elirich, This thread is to try and guage opinion on SSTRs and the question has been asked.... What can we do with regards to maintaining Ts and Cs.? I am trying to get some fodder, to present to BALPA to see if they will do something about it. Im not sure what you were trying to get across. Do you have any positive suggestions that I can put to them?
OSOP
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is protectionism partly to blame
OSOP
Thank you for paying attention to the very minor diversion that I was trying to create, to what has been a very intense and emotive debate so far.
I admire greatly what you are trying to achieve sir, even if I only agree with half of what you are saying or what you believe. However, if you will permit me, I would like to avoid expanding upon the details of what we agree and disagree on. I cannot help but feel that whatever I will say has already been said before, by both sides of the argument. Even if I do harbour a niggling belief that I could add something to that particular debate, I resist the temptation to indulge myself as it is very unlikely that you (and your followers, and to some degree I am one of them) or your adversaries are unlikely to see things differently. We are humans after all and it is a very rare man or woman indeed who will try to see things from other points of view. In fact it could be argued that it is our single minded resolve that makes us, as human beings, the master species. However I will say that Darwin once said that it is not the fittest or the most intelligent that survive, but those most willing to change and adapt (I have not quoted him verbatim – but from memory). You sir no doubt, somewhere along the line, had to adapt or you would not be where you are now. You also mentioned that you were not sponsored either – so am I right to assume that you did pay for at least some of your training? So now you expose yourself to the question as to just how much of our own training must we take on board.
I am getting to the point, even if I am taking the scenic route here. I could, contentiously, say that YOUR actions, in the past, have ruined younger generations chances (or those as yet without jobs – I also note that you are not too long in the tooth). Where did the rot start, so to speak? Should the earlier generations of pilots started paying for their own CPLs or ME/IRs or for that matter their ATPLs or MCCs. If earlier generations had held fast, perhaps then the fashion for passing the burden of training costs would have slowed somewhat. Maybe it never would have become what it has now. Like I said, I can only assume that you are also guilty of paying for your training to some degree. Why has that not had an effect on terms and conditions?
The question then is one of what should be paid for. You will probably say that anything after an MCC is wrong, but this is all debatable. I could cynically, say that pilots should only pay for a PPL and a small amount of hours building. The many sides of the argument could sit at their computers and fire accusations at each other and still not resolve this issue or find a meeting of minds. However, I digress.
However, it is my contention that that is not what we should be doing. Oldest trick in the book……Divide and Rule…and perhaps the airline owners are truly loving all this. I would prefer that we all stop fighting each other, achieve some real solidarity and start trying to gain some real obtainable results. All is not what it seems I fear or suspect. As always it is far more complicated than that. We are never ever ever going to stop, nor should we expect them to, (nor should we ostracise them for doing so) paying for type ratings.
Firstly I believe that this is happening because of a surplus of wannabe pilots (no great revelation there). There is a large backlog of pilots who have come through training who have been put on hold because of 911. Secondly, I believe because of the advent of budget airlines, exploiting this issue, by cherry picking pilots and investing as little as they have to, the situation has been exacerbated. That said, I believe that it will not go on for long, nor do I believe that many airlines are succumbing to such tactics – it is because there are so many wannabes out there owing to the downturn in recruitment after 911. Lastly, I believe that the British, Irish and American pilots are particularly susceptible to falling victim to such prevailing conditions. Why? Because airlines from countries other than these, are more likely to adopt protectionist recruitment policies (in a very surreptitious way). As a result it is fuelling this fashion amongst airlines which will eventually seep through to other nations, if it hasn't already.
That said, I suspect, but do not know for certain, that it is easier for young wannabes in other countries to get their first jobs as the airlines in their countries are losing pilots to British, Irish and US airlines which are happy to cherry pick. Pilots in other countries are not having to pay for type ratings (although no doubt there are some – but on a lesser scale) because the demand still exceeds the supply.
My suggestion would be for BALPA to perhaps commission a study on this; after all they would be in a good position to do so. Then perhaps (although, granted it would be difficult to legally do it – free movement of workers and all that) we could force BALPA to petition the European parliament to stop airlines (in England) from recruiting pilots from outside the UK in order to protect our industry/profession. Or maybe we could investigate why so few of the continents airlines are refusing to take on pilots from nations other than their own and in reparation apply pressure to them in order to rectify the situation. I feel that this cross pollination, this free market policy is what is causing trouble in the short term. Free market policies are good but do not suit every need. There are some industries that need protecting from the ravages of its effects. The piloting profession is one of them (particularly susceptible to it I would say) and I truly suspect that if the two major budget airlines had been initially based on the European continent, it may have been a little different.
This is just one of my suggestions. If there is an interest, I have a few others, but I have gone on long enough and have probably bored enough of you already. That said, when I return in a few days and if there is an interest, I would be happy to espouse a few more. However, like I said before, this policy is not based on a racist stand point – nor a protectionist one (as contradictory as that may sound) – you have my word on it. Nor do I not want to see pilots in other countries suffer. I just feel that allowing a free movement of pilots has not served us as pilots on the whole. I feel that we would all be in a better position if it was harder for airlines to steal experienced pilots from other sources. In the railway industry where this went on a great deal unions forced train companies to come to gentlemens agreement not to do so. This could be another alternative to bonding. Otherwise where is the incentive to train then? It is left to the smaller airlines that find it hard to handle the costs and as a result have started to look at wannabes pockets and bank accounts.
But please, let us stop picking on the wannabes. They are only doing what they can to secure their future dreams. You yourself have paid for your training, and did so in a climate when it was easier….yes it was…. to get a job. It is not their fault that the economic climate is ruining pilots Ts & Cs any more than it is that BA pilots’ privileged position, with regards to pensions, is not their fault either. I know you feel passionately about this and I admire you immensely because of it, but you will never achieve your aims by making them pariahs. They need your support, not your disparaging remarks. And I also find it hard to believe that we have so many saints on this forum. Am I truly to believe that you would act in a different manner if you were in their circumstances? Tackle the bigger picture please, if you truly care about your Ts & Cs.
Kindest Regards to you all
EliRich
(although I would like to be known as ‘tugging pilot’ – but it would appear that I am not allowed to change my name…… oh well maybe I will set up a thread on that gripe)
Thank you for paying attention to the very minor diversion that I was trying to create, to what has been a very intense and emotive debate so far.
I admire greatly what you are trying to achieve sir, even if I only agree with half of what you are saying or what you believe. However, if you will permit me, I would like to avoid expanding upon the details of what we agree and disagree on. I cannot help but feel that whatever I will say has already been said before, by both sides of the argument. Even if I do harbour a niggling belief that I could add something to that particular debate, I resist the temptation to indulge myself as it is very unlikely that you (and your followers, and to some degree I am one of them) or your adversaries are unlikely to see things differently. We are humans after all and it is a very rare man or woman indeed who will try to see things from other points of view. In fact it could be argued that it is our single minded resolve that makes us, as human beings, the master species. However I will say that Darwin once said that it is not the fittest or the most intelligent that survive, but those most willing to change and adapt (I have not quoted him verbatim – but from memory). You sir no doubt, somewhere along the line, had to adapt or you would not be where you are now. You also mentioned that you were not sponsored either – so am I right to assume that you did pay for at least some of your training? So now you expose yourself to the question as to just how much of our own training must we take on board.
I am getting to the point, even if I am taking the scenic route here. I could, contentiously, say that YOUR actions, in the past, have ruined younger generations chances (or those as yet without jobs – I also note that you are not too long in the tooth). Where did the rot start, so to speak? Should the earlier generations of pilots started paying for their own CPLs or ME/IRs or for that matter their ATPLs or MCCs. If earlier generations had held fast, perhaps then the fashion for passing the burden of training costs would have slowed somewhat. Maybe it never would have become what it has now. Like I said, I can only assume that you are also guilty of paying for your training to some degree. Why has that not had an effect on terms and conditions?
The question then is one of what should be paid for. You will probably say that anything after an MCC is wrong, but this is all debatable. I could cynically, say that pilots should only pay for a PPL and a small amount of hours building. The many sides of the argument could sit at their computers and fire accusations at each other and still not resolve this issue or find a meeting of minds. However, I digress.
However, it is my contention that that is not what we should be doing. Oldest trick in the book……Divide and Rule…and perhaps the airline owners are truly loving all this. I would prefer that we all stop fighting each other, achieve some real solidarity and start trying to gain some real obtainable results. All is not what it seems I fear or suspect. As always it is far more complicated than that. We are never ever ever going to stop, nor should we expect them to, (nor should we ostracise them for doing so) paying for type ratings.
Firstly I believe that this is happening because of a surplus of wannabe pilots (no great revelation there). There is a large backlog of pilots who have come through training who have been put on hold because of 911. Secondly, I believe because of the advent of budget airlines, exploiting this issue, by cherry picking pilots and investing as little as they have to, the situation has been exacerbated. That said, I believe that it will not go on for long, nor do I believe that many airlines are succumbing to such tactics – it is because there are so many wannabes out there owing to the downturn in recruitment after 911. Lastly, I believe that the British, Irish and American pilots are particularly susceptible to falling victim to such prevailing conditions. Why? Because airlines from countries other than these, are more likely to adopt protectionist recruitment policies (in a very surreptitious way). As a result it is fuelling this fashion amongst airlines which will eventually seep through to other nations, if it hasn't already.
That said, I suspect, but do not know for certain, that it is easier for young wannabes in other countries to get their first jobs as the airlines in their countries are losing pilots to British, Irish and US airlines which are happy to cherry pick. Pilots in other countries are not having to pay for type ratings (although no doubt there are some – but on a lesser scale) because the demand still exceeds the supply.
My suggestion would be for BALPA to perhaps commission a study on this; after all they would be in a good position to do so. Then perhaps (although, granted it would be difficult to legally do it – free movement of workers and all that) we could force BALPA to petition the European parliament to stop airlines (in England) from recruiting pilots from outside the UK in order to protect our industry/profession. Or maybe we could investigate why so few of the continents airlines are refusing to take on pilots from nations other than their own and in reparation apply pressure to them in order to rectify the situation. I feel that this cross pollination, this free market policy is what is causing trouble in the short term. Free market policies are good but do not suit every need. There are some industries that need protecting from the ravages of its effects. The piloting profession is one of them (particularly susceptible to it I would say) and I truly suspect that if the two major budget airlines had been initially based on the European continent, it may have been a little different.
This is just one of my suggestions. If there is an interest, I have a few others, but I have gone on long enough and have probably bored enough of you already. That said, when I return in a few days and if there is an interest, I would be happy to espouse a few more. However, like I said before, this policy is not based on a racist stand point – nor a protectionist one (as contradictory as that may sound) – you have my word on it. Nor do I not want to see pilots in other countries suffer. I just feel that allowing a free movement of pilots has not served us as pilots on the whole. I feel that we would all be in a better position if it was harder for airlines to steal experienced pilots from other sources. In the railway industry where this went on a great deal unions forced train companies to come to gentlemens agreement not to do so. This could be another alternative to bonding. Otherwise where is the incentive to train then? It is left to the smaller airlines that find it hard to handle the costs and as a result have started to look at wannabes pockets and bank accounts.
But please, let us stop picking on the wannabes. They are only doing what they can to secure their future dreams. You yourself have paid for your training, and did so in a climate when it was easier….yes it was…. to get a job. It is not their fault that the economic climate is ruining pilots Ts & Cs any more than it is that BA pilots’ privileged position, with regards to pensions, is not their fault either. I know you feel passionately about this and I admire you immensely because of it, but you will never achieve your aims by making them pariahs. They need your support, not your disparaging remarks. And I also find it hard to believe that we have so many saints on this forum. Am I truly to believe that you would act in a different manner if you were in their circumstances? Tackle the bigger picture please, if you truly care about your Ts & Cs.
Kindest Regards to you all
EliRich
(although I would like to be known as ‘tugging pilot’ – but it would appear that I am not allowed to change my name…… oh well maybe I will set up a thread on that gripe)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Well, this is cheaper than a Personal Title!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donning tin helmet.......................
I fail to understand the objection to SSTRs. If it is on some pseudo-serious basis such as safety and quality of training, the argument holds no water. No operator would be allowed to put someone on line without a comprehensive and validated assessment of their actual ability, and training to an accepted standard, followed by LPC/ Skills Test Etc., administered by a representative of the Authority.
An SSTR can, therefore, be seen only as a demonstration of commitment and, perhaps, of potential ability (and, therefore, minimiser of commercial risk) by a prospective employer.
If you don't have the money for one, I'm sorry personally but it's a tough old world out there.
As I say to my own children, usually a propos of table-manners, speaking style, etc. much though I might wish it were different (and I do): there's no such thing as an unfair advantage, just an advantage.
Good luck to aspirants, anyway.
Retires to bunker ..............................
I fail to understand the objection to SSTRs. If it is on some pseudo-serious basis such as safety and quality of training, the argument holds no water. No operator would be allowed to put someone on line without a comprehensive and validated assessment of their actual ability, and training to an accepted standard, followed by LPC/ Skills Test Etc., administered by a representative of the Authority.
An SSTR can, therefore, be seen only as a demonstration of commitment and, perhaps, of potential ability (and, therefore, minimiser of commercial risk) by a prospective employer.
If you don't have the money for one, I'm sorry personally but it's a tough old world out there.
As I say to my own children, usually a propos of table-manners, speaking style, etc. much though I might wish it were different (and I do): there's no such thing as an unfair advantage, just an advantage.
Good luck to aspirants, anyway.
Retires to bunker ..............................
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Well, this is cheaper than a Personal Title!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paddy,
I fail to see the point of your question. However, since you ask it, yes I did; there has been no other way to become a commercial pilot since Hamble closed, to my knowledge. Sponsorship deals are usually deferred loans at no-or-low interest. I paid for mine with 12 years' service to my Country, which gave me, among other things, some invaluable flying experience, followed by a significant 5-figure sum of my own money for exams, IR, etc.
But I still don't see the point of your question.
BTW, notice the lower-case 'f'; I'm just a little fokker, you see.
I fail to see the point of your question. However, since you ask it, yes I did; there has been no other way to become a commercial pilot since Hamble closed, to my knowledge. Sponsorship deals are usually deferred loans at no-or-low interest. I paid for mine with 12 years' service to my Country, which gave me, among other things, some invaluable flying experience, followed by a significant 5-figure sum of my own money for exams, IR, etc.
But I still don't see the point of your question.
BTW, notice the lower-case 'f'; I'm just a little fokker, you see.
Last edited by fokker; 28th Mar 2006 at 09:00.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Big Whiskey
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EI-RB
The answer will be when the City sees their multimillion pound investments sitting on the ground impersonating an advertising billboard and MOL's job on the line.
Blue Foot
The answer will be when the City sees their multimillion pound investments sitting on the ground impersonating an advertising billboard and MOL's job on the line.
Blue Foot
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Big Whiskey
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pressman,
Maybe so but how many take the job even if offered to them?
Once they look closely at the T&C's (exagerated in the interview) and speak to a few current FR pilots for a better view, not all turn up for the job. And how many are leaving?
Blue Foot
Maybe so but how many take the job even if offered to them?
Once they look closely at the T&C's (exagerated in the interview) and speak to a few current FR pilots for a better view, not all turn up for the job. And how many are leaving?
Blue Foot
Last edited by Blue-Footed Boobie; 29th Mar 2006 at 07:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a debate!
Hi everyone, while I was away, this thread has drifted into a bit of a debate as to whether banning SSTRs is a good or bad thing. This thread is not about that, it is about ways in which we can maintain our Ts and Cs. I personally think that if we can get rid of the SSTR's then that will help give the pilot body a stronger grip on determining their Ts and Cs.
Those of you who are for SSTRs or who still want to be able to pay for a rating, why dont you come up with a way of making the pilot body more secure without getting rid of them, instead of jumping in telling us what we are doing is wrong and then leaving again! That was what this thread was about! You can help yourself by coming up with a way we can get rid of 'the rot' (as some here see it) but I think the end conclusion is the one that I and others here have already come to.
Tuggin Pilot,
Yes, I did pay for my training, up to MCC but that is where I drew the line. I didnt think paying for my MCC was a good thing but unfortunately, there was no choice. I didnt start this thread to debate the actual pros and cons of this subject of SSTRs but I will say that it makes sense to draw the line in a sensible place. The MCC while not ideal, is probably the best place to stop paying for training. It is the best medium between company and pilot input. You make a very good point about the way to approach BALPA and I think it might be a good way to take the results of the poll to them. I am very interested in the other ideas you have. There are very few here that actually have valid points!
Everyone: This thread was designed so that I can take the information of the poll to BALPA with one very specific point!
I personally think SSTRs contribute to the continual reduction in Ts and Cs for pilots so that is why I and others want to get rid of them. Please post me suggestions on how to do this. If you want to try and drift this into the usual debate that these threads turn into, please do it somewhere else. This thread is not a debate, it is a tool to obtain some information and hopefully some solidarity amongst pilots!
Cheers,
OSOP
Those of you who are for SSTRs or who still want to be able to pay for a rating, why dont you come up with a way of making the pilot body more secure without getting rid of them, instead of jumping in telling us what we are doing is wrong and then leaving again! That was what this thread was about! You can help yourself by coming up with a way we can get rid of 'the rot' (as some here see it) but I think the end conclusion is the one that I and others here have already come to.
Tuggin Pilot,
Yes, I did pay for my training, up to MCC but that is where I drew the line. I didnt think paying for my MCC was a good thing but unfortunately, there was no choice. I didnt start this thread to debate the actual pros and cons of this subject of SSTRs but I will say that it makes sense to draw the line in a sensible place. The MCC while not ideal, is probably the best place to stop paying for training. It is the best medium between company and pilot input. You make a very good point about the way to approach BALPA and I think it might be a good way to take the results of the poll to them. I am very interested in the other ideas you have. There are very few here that actually have valid points!
Everyone: This thread was designed so that I can take the information of the poll to BALPA with one very specific point!
I personally think SSTRs contribute to the continual reduction in Ts and Cs for pilots so that is why I and others want to get rid of them. Please post me suggestions on how to do this. If you want to try and drift this into the usual debate that these threads turn into, please do it somewhere else. This thread is not a debate, it is a tool to obtain some information and hopefully some solidarity amongst pilots!
Cheers,
OSOP