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
if an airline offered me a position but first I had to work for 6 months for nothing and buy a type rating then I am going to do it, who wouldn't?
What I'd like to see is reverse catch-22 situation where anyone willing to work for free or even pay for privilege of working instead of geting paid is pronounced mentally unfit to work as a pilot. Slim chances, I know...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camelhair,
No matter how many times I say what you have said, no-one listens. You are aboslutely right my friend and that is what I am trying to prevent!
Carbheaton,
I dont wish to " see the old regime return " . I only wish to see the line drawn firmly in the sand, right before the point at which you have to buy a type rating. I have said clearly that bonding is the best option IMHO and bonding is nowhere near what you mention as the 'old regime'.
I can see your point about closing doors to those not able to get in on raw ability, yes if you pass a TR then you have met the grade but lets face it, those with the raw ability will get in regardless!. You fail however to see what CamlHair summed up so well. I draw the line before an SSTR, you draw the line after an SSTR, there are already people drawing the line way above that by buying 500 hours line training. Soon enough, if we dont do anything about it, people will start buying command courses and we are screwed then!
By getting rid of SSTRs, we are not closing doors to anyone (except maybe those who after passing their IR after the third attempt have no option!). If we keep SSTRs however, then we close doors to those who dont have the money but do have the ablility. Which as a pilot or even passenger would you prefer? When the industry needs pilots, pilots will be hired. It just happens that those that would have otherwise bought TRs and got straight onto jets, get to take the TP jobs and then when the industry hires again, they get their chance. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?? You get paid all the way, you dont have to outlay rediculous amounts of money and if you have the ability then you will get the chance. How fairer can it get??
People who buy SSTRs are shooting themselves in the foot as well as the rest of their colleagues. They have big loans to pay back early on in their career and quite often recieve highly reduced Ts and Cs in the first few years and management most definatley play on that for them and the more experienced pilots in the comapny who get threatened with replacement by cheaper labour. If they went via TPs, they wouldnt have to pay for a type rating, pay back the associated bond and they wouldnt be on any less pay!!! For the record, I was earning more as a single crew MEP/IR pilot than many UK entry level f/o's and I wasnt paying back a loan for a TR to the bank!! While I can see your point carbheaton, no offense intended but your logic doesnt quite add up!
No matter how many times I say what you have said, no-one listens. You are aboslutely right my friend and that is what I am trying to prevent!
Carbheaton,
I dont wish to " see the old regime return " . I only wish to see the line drawn firmly in the sand, right before the point at which you have to buy a type rating. I have said clearly that bonding is the best option IMHO and bonding is nowhere near what you mention as the 'old regime'.
I can see your point about closing doors to those not able to get in on raw ability, yes if you pass a TR then you have met the grade but lets face it, those with the raw ability will get in regardless!. You fail however to see what CamlHair summed up so well. I draw the line before an SSTR, you draw the line after an SSTR, there are already people drawing the line way above that by buying 500 hours line training. Soon enough, if we dont do anything about it, people will start buying command courses and we are screwed then!
By getting rid of SSTRs, we are not closing doors to anyone (except maybe those who after passing their IR after the third attempt have no option!). If we keep SSTRs however, then we close doors to those who dont have the money but do have the ablility. Which as a pilot or even passenger would you prefer? When the industry needs pilots, pilots will be hired. It just happens that those that would have otherwise bought TRs and got straight onto jets, get to take the TP jobs and then when the industry hires again, they get their chance. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?? You get paid all the way, you dont have to outlay rediculous amounts of money and if you have the ability then you will get the chance. How fairer can it get??
People who buy SSTRs are shooting themselves in the foot as well as the rest of their colleagues. They have big loans to pay back early on in their career and quite often recieve highly reduced Ts and Cs in the first few years and management most definatley play on that for them and the more experienced pilots in the comapny who get threatened with replacement by cheaper labour. If they went via TPs, they wouldnt have to pay for a type rating, pay back the associated bond and they wouldnt be on any less pay!!! For the record, I was earning more as a single crew MEP/IR pilot than many UK entry level f/o's and I wasnt paying back a loan for a TR to the bank!! While I can see your point carbheaton, no offense intended but your logic doesnt quite add up!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Essex
Age: 39
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm deffinately no expert on this issue. So I have complete respect for both sides of the coin.
I have a few questions though, that I hope all can answer.
This questions is for SSTR against.
Why get angry that the airlines don't pay for the final stages of your training when you pay for at least 0-(f)ATPL? If you're not prepared to get angry with the fact they don't pay for your basic training why get angry that you have to pay to be trained for the advanced part of your training? Why do you draw the line at a tyoe rating?
Can the airlines afford to pay for a type rating? Is this why we're paying?
9/11 didn't make the airline industry economically thriving!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro SSTRs
Once upon a time those who chose to be airline pilot's had the choice of trying for some excellent sponsorship schemes - they meant that anyone from any background had the chance achieving this dream with the right qualifications. By supporting TRs are we encouraging airlines nether to reconsider sponsorships again and subsequently creating like the very old days a 'public school' middle class elite who have the money to achieve the dream? What about the that young kid at school who's bright enough, but not rich enough?
Questions to think about.
planeshipcar
I have a few questions though, that I hope all can answer.
This questions is for SSTR against.
Why get angry that the airlines don't pay for the final stages of your training when you pay for at least 0-(f)ATPL? If you're not prepared to get angry with the fact they don't pay for your basic training why get angry that you have to pay to be trained for the advanced part of your training? Why do you draw the line at a tyoe rating?
Can the airlines afford to pay for a type rating? Is this why we're paying?
9/11 didn't make the airline industry economically thriving!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro SSTRs
Once upon a time those who chose to be airline pilot's had the choice of trying for some excellent sponsorship schemes - they meant that anyone from any background had the chance achieving this dream with the right qualifications. By supporting TRs are we encouraging airlines nether to reconsider sponsorships again and subsequently creating like the very old days a 'public school' middle class elite who have the money to achieve the dream? What about the that young kid at school who's bright enough, but not rich enough?
Questions to think about.
planeshipcar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: FL400
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CamelAir.
The only thing that I manifestly fail to understand is your argument. Lines that are drawn in the sand and never move get stuck in the past, a place I think you are quite comfortable inhabiting. Progress is brought about by the introduction of, amongst other things, change and restructuring.
Example.
Once upon a time, if you sat you’re a levels and got the results required to go to university, you got a grant. Everybody got the same amount which meant that those whose parents couldn’t subsidise them, simply couldn’t go. Then the line in the sand shifted and some bright spark brought out student loans. I remember world war three breaking out, led by those who wanted to keep the status quo. Its all blown over now with the result that those who achieve the standard required are accepted into university regardless of their parents financial status. The student now has the CHOICE to bear the extra financial burden if they wish to do so.
This introduces more competition which is what I think you are actually afraid of.
Your post is off topic but consistent with your previous rants directed at those who are happy to work for the LoCo’s. Total drivel
It’s a pity that you don’t use your crystal ball and your obvious gift to see into the future to your advantage instead of telling me what I will be wondering in years to come.
On Speed On Profile.
You still don’t get it do you?.
How can you say that you think that the way forward is Bonding and be against SSTR’s. There exactly the same thing. One is deferred to the detriment of your earning potential while the other makes financial sense as you start earning decent dosh much quicker.
I’m off to the constructive thread which warns folks of the dangers of rogue TRTO’s who, like AN2 Driver pointed out earlier, are happy to take your cash unscrupulously. It also highlights the TRTO’s that are reputable.
The only thing that I manifestly fail to understand is your argument. Lines that are drawn in the sand and never move get stuck in the past, a place I think you are quite comfortable inhabiting. Progress is brought about by the introduction of, amongst other things, change and restructuring.
Example.
Once upon a time, if you sat you’re a levels and got the results required to go to university, you got a grant. Everybody got the same amount which meant that those whose parents couldn’t subsidise them, simply couldn’t go. Then the line in the sand shifted and some bright spark brought out student loans. I remember world war three breaking out, led by those who wanted to keep the status quo. Its all blown over now with the result that those who achieve the standard required are accepted into university regardless of their parents financial status. The student now has the CHOICE to bear the extra financial burden if they wish to do so.
This introduces more competition which is what I think you are actually afraid of.
Your post is off topic but consistent with your previous rants directed at those who are happy to work for the LoCo’s. Total drivel
It’s a pity that you don’t use your crystal ball and your obvious gift to see into the future to your advantage instead of telling me what I will be wondering in years to come.
On Speed On Profile.
You still don’t get it do you?.
How can you say that you think that the way forward is Bonding and be against SSTR’s. There exactly the same thing. One is deferred to the detriment of your earning potential while the other makes financial sense as you start earning decent dosh much quicker.
I’m off to the constructive thread which warns folks of the dangers of rogue TRTO’s who, like AN2 Driver pointed out earlier, are happy to take your cash unscrupulously. It also highlights the TRTO’s that are reputable.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by carbheaton
How can you say that you think that the way forward is Bonding and be against SSTR’s. There exactly the same thing. One is deferred to the detriment of your earning potential while the other makes financial sense as you start earning decent dosh much quicker.
I didn't have a reduced wage, didn't have to take out any loan, didn't have to stay at the company in those two years if I chose not to, but if I did leave I paid them back a proportion of the cost of my type training, which was fair.
So from where I am sitting I do not think a SSTR and a bond are the same thing. If I had needed to fund my type rating back then I would have had to borrow £12k and then pay it back out of the same starting salary. I suspect the cost of the type rating was actually significantly more than £12k, but that was the figure that pilots were bonded for.
You see the thing that people seem to fail to realise is that the company are making a profit out of using you to fly their aeroplanes. Never forget that. When it comes to SSTRs and the like everyone seems to negate that fact and just view it as the individual pilot who is 'getting something' out of the deal.
The whole reason bonds were introduced was to be fair to the employer who was investing significant sums in a pilots training. If they left after completeing the rating then it was right that they should pay back some of the cost to the airline, up to the point when it was deemed that they had repaid their 'debt' by way of productive work and revenue generation for the airline.
SSTRs are purely a way of reducing fixed costs, putting the burden on the individual to fund them. Nothing more, nothing less. Why? Because they can get away with it due to supply and demand. It is self perpetuating because individuals start to feel there is no alternative and airlines that don't charge start to see their competitors lowering their fixed costs and hence able to drop their prices more or make more profit, which then leads to them having to jump on the bandwaggon. Lowering starting wages even more is another way of clawing back some more fixed costs. Making people pay for type ratings AND putting them on a lower starting salary is fixed cost 'Nirvana' for the airlines concerned.
PP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
planeshipcar,
Q1) There has to be medium somewhere. I think it would be unreasonable to ask a company to pay for your complete training costs due to the huge risk and huge cost. I equally think that a pilot shouldnt have to carry the burden of the entire training cost. I think paying up to £30,000 for an FATPL represents a good amount for the pilot to carry (whoever pays more than that is not doing their homework on FTOs properly) while the cost of type rating represents a good amount for the company to carry. As the company carries the cost for the TR, it would seem reasonably fair to give them a reasonable return of service. It is all about being fair, you cant "have your cake and eat it too" just as the companies shouldnt be able to have "their cake...." Its not rocket science but some people here think it is!
Q2) "We" is not me! People pay for a type rating because they see no other way of entering the aviation game due to their lack of skills (which would be why they have not got a job in a smaller operator) or lack of patience and ultimately because they have made an error with regards to thinking that the industry will acutlaly employ people with below 300 hours. These people have just failed to read the market correctly. As for the company, of course they can pay. It is a business cost that is tax deductable. The company just has to plan to incorporate a pilots TR, adjusts their prices appropriately and make whatever profit they can. Many airlines are their own TRTOs so its not hard for others to do it.
Carbheaton,
You dont get it my friend! The SSTR I am talking about requires you to pay, upfront, for a TR. When I talk about bonding, a bond, as most people know it, is where you dont pay a cent, you get trained and employed by the company and you serve out a period of time which allows the company to get value for money. IT IS FAIR FOR BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED! Pilot Pete summed it up well.
OSOP
Q1) There has to be medium somewhere. I think it would be unreasonable to ask a company to pay for your complete training costs due to the huge risk and huge cost. I equally think that a pilot shouldnt have to carry the burden of the entire training cost. I think paying up to £30,000 for an FATPL represents a good amount for the pilot to carry (whoever pays more than that is not doing their homework on FTOs properly) while the cost of type rating represents a good amount for the company to carry. As the company carries the cost for the TR, it would seem reasonably fair to give them a reasonable return of service. It is all about being fair, you cant "have your cake and eat it too" just as the companies shouldnt be able to have "their cake...." Its not rocket science but some people here think it is!
Q2) "We" is not me! People pay for a type rating because they see no other way of entering the aviation game due to their lack of skills (which would be why they have not got a job in a smaller operator) or lack of patience and ultimately because they have made an error with regards to thinking that the industry will acutlaly employ people with below 300 hours. These people have just failed to read the market correctly. As for the company, of course they can pay. It is a business cost that is tax deductable. The company just has to plan to incorporate a pilots TR, adjusts their prices appropriately and make whatever profit they can. Many airlines are their own TRTOs so its not hard for others to do it.
Carbheaton,
You dont get it my friend! The SSTR I am talking about requires you to pay, upfront, for a TR. When I talk about bonding, a bond, as most people know it, is where you dont pay a cent, you get trained and employed by the company and you serve out a period of time which allows the company to get value for money. IT IS FAIR FOR BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED! Pilot Pete summed it up well.
OSOP
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am against SSTR's.
Unfortunately, as I am sure we are all aware, it is down to supply and demand.
It is a PERSONAL CHOICE issue (if you can afford it).
I believe the world doesn't owe us anything. We are all just trying to make the best of it for ourselves.
Unfortunately, as I am sure we are all aware, it is down to supply and demand.
It is a PERSONAL CHOICE issue (if you can afford it).
I believe the world doesn't owe us anything. We are all just trying to make the best of it for ourselves.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: in the mire
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folder.
With respect Sir, supply and demand only works in a free market.
Pilot shortage ? l would suggest captain shortage, and any change in salaries? Not on your life. Think the word is "cartel" but that maybe regarded as subversive. Spot on though.
Pilot shortage ? l would suggest captain shortage, and any change in salaries? Not on your life. Think the word is "cartel" but that maybe regarded as subversive. Spot on though.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wotsyours,
I didnt have a choice as to the options. If you have jet airline experience then I dont think it matters what your level is as your commercial experience is implied. You can vote for or against in whatever category you feel is most appropriate. I didnt intend on rigging anything, nor would I know how!
Those for SSTRs, I see there is a company advertising in a well known magazine (online job alerts) for an A320 JOB. From what I could work out, you by the TR and Linetraining for £26K + VAT and that is deemed a job. There was zero mention of pay! Please dont tell me this is what you want to keep!! IT IS NOT A JOB.
OSOP
I didnt have a choice as to the options. If you have jet airline experience then I dont think it matters what your level is as your commercial experience is implied. You can vote for or against in whatever category you feel is most appropriate. I didnt intend on rigging anything, nor would I know how!
Those for SSTRs, I see there is a company advertising in a well known magazine (online job alerts) for an A320 JOB. From what I could work out, you by the TR and Linetraining for £26K + VAT and that is deemed a job. There was zero mention of pay! Please dont tell me this is what you want to keep!! IT IS NOT A JOB.
OSOP
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noticed FR are advertising : "Bonded Type rating Training (for First Officers with 1,500 hours JAR 25 and 500 hours medium jet experience)"
If you then go to the website they still want £50 up front for the application and insist on SSTR with an approved company? So what does bonded TR mean to them?
If you then go to the website they still want £50 up front for the application and insist on SSTR with an approved company? So what does bonded TR mean to them?
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: NW USA
Age: 60
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If somebody wants a type rating, is willing to pay for it out of his own pocket, can actually afford to do so (or at least is willing to part with most or all of his life's savings), and has a training establishment available where he can pay to make this happen, then by all means let him do so.
That's simply the way capitalism works: a company invests in equipment, a prospective employee invests in his hireability. Seems the whining is coming from the bleating socialists who want everything handed to them instead of actually having to earn something at their own expense.
That's simply the way capitalism works: a company invests in equipment, a prospective employee invests in his hireability. Seems the whining is coming from the bleating socialists who want everything handed to them instead of actually having to earn something at their own expense.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spoken to one of the recruitment agencies for FR recently apparently this is what is happening, and its due to the market forces.
As FR like many are in desperate need of already type rated or command rated people they have been recently making the type rating for them bonded rather than self funded.
All those who are low houred like me dont jump up and down your not included. It is just a way to entice the apparently large number of people that have said well I would work for you, but you think I am paying for the priveledge now that I have 4000hrs (example) then forget it.
As such they have said in these cases we will pay for it and bond them.
Ok means if you have the hours to be a direct entry FO on type then its like joining a majority of other airlines, they pay but lock you down for a couple of years.
Maybe some people might like to say, you know well done FR actually doing something right for a change ?
As FR like many are in desperate need of already type rated or command rated people they have been recently making the type rating for them bonded rather than self funded.
All those who are low houred like me dont jump up and down your not included. It is just a way to entice the apparently large number of people that have said well I would work for you, but you think I am paying for the priveledge now that I have 4000hrs (example) then forget it.
As such they have said in these cases we will pay for it and bond them.
Ok means if you have the hours to be a direct entry FO on type then its like joining a majority of other airlines, they pay but lock you down for a couple of years.
Maybe some people might like to say, you know well done FR actually doing something right for a change ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for your ideas, I will post back with an update when I decide what to do with the information from the poll.
If you have any new ideas please let me know, or if you havent voted yet, pleae do so.
Cheers,
OSOP
If you have any new ideas please let me know, or if you havent voted yet, pleae do so.
Cheers,
OSOP
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When one thinks that things are bad, you hear stories that suggest things are getting worse than just having to pay for a rating (which is bad enough). Can anybody confirm the following from their own experience?
Ryanair are specialising in recruiting a large number of "Second Officers" with very low time and who are concerned about the validity and renewal of their licences, getting a job, etc. The successful candidates pay, in advance of course, for their B737-800 rating - but do so because their rating is believed to be the route to a job. This part of their "recruitment" is via an "independent" agency. (This is an independent money making part of the FR empire - this means that any subsequent argument about training is NOT with Ryanair who can claim it is not their problem).
O.K. says you, that's business. However.... the failure rate is currently very high (I am told it is between 40& & 60%, but I have no solid source). Which is interesting, since it is a source of profit for Ryanair and not a problem for them - but it can be a problem for the person left without a valid licence, 737 rating, etc, but with a substantial debt.
There is more. Ryanair, with their usual cleverness has done some kind of a deal with the IAA to allow them to delay line training for many months after the simulator training is over. Of course the significance of this is not immediately obvious, but you don't get paid as a S/O in Ryanair (until you have lost your "safety pilot" during line training, that is). What might this mean? Well, it can mean many, many months without ANY pay - even if the S/O or "cadet" was told at interview it would be the "usual" period of time. This latter bit of information came to me via a pilot who is in the middle of that very experience. He says that some people have gone without pay for periods as high as 10-14 months, though it is shorter for many.
He has been talking to some colleagues who have gone ahead and is alarmed to hear about other bits of bad news (like the 1 year to a promised pay increase from very low S/O pay that turns out to be 23 months, etc).
I am confident that what I have said above is an accurate picture, but confirmation from somebody with direct experience would be helpful in helping to identify just what else this particular "offer" involves. It kinda gives you a different take on "Self Funded Type ratings", does it not?
Ryanair are specialising in recruiting a large number of "Second Officers" with very low time and who are concerned about the validity and renewal of their licences, getting a job, etc. The successful candidates pay, in advance of course, for their B737-800 rating - but do so because their rating is believed to be the route to a job. This part of their "recruitment" is via an "independent" agency. (This is an independent money making part of the FR empire - this means that any subsequent argument about training is NOT with Ryanair who can claim it is not their problem).
O.K. says you, that's business. However.... the failure rate is currently very high (I am told it is between 40& & 60%, but I have no solid source). Which is interesting, since it is a source of profit for Ryanair and not a problem for them - but it can be a problem for the person left without a valid licence, 737 rating, etc, but with a substantial debt.
There is more. Ryanair, with their usual cleverness has done some kind of a deal with the IAA to allow them to delay line training for many months after the simulator training is over. Of course the significance of this is not immediately obvious, but you don't get paid as a S/O in Ryanair (until you have lost your "safety pilot" during line training, that is). What might this mean? Well, it can mean many, many months without ANY pay - even if the S/O or "cadet" was told at interview it would be the "usual" period of time. This latter bit of information came to me via a pilot who is in the middle of that very experience. He says that some people have gone without pay for periods as high as 10-14 months, though it is shorter for many.
He has been talking to some colleagues who have gone ahead and is alarmed to hear about other bits of bad news (like the 1 year to a promised pay increase from very low S/O pay that turns out to be 23 months, etc).
I am confident that what I have said above is an accurate picture, but confirmation from somebody with direct experience would be helpful in helping to identify just what else this particular "offer" involves. It kinda gives you a different take on "Self Funded Type ratings", does it not?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belgium
Age: 48
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notice to EI pilots from CEO
NOTICE TO PILOTS FROM CEO
Rehire of former Cadet Pilots
As you are aware we have committed to the purchase of two additional A330 aircraft, which are due for delivery in 2007. In addition we are in the process of sourcing two more A320 aircraft. In the past number of weeks a comprehensive plan has been developed to address the training and resource requirements, and pilot numbers will be increasing in line with the growing fleet.
I am pleased to announce that we are now in a position to honour the commitment made to the former cadets in 2001. It is hoped that many will take up their positions with Aer Lingus in the coming months.
The Company will be initiating contact with this group starting today and training is scheduled to commence from July.
I am sure you will agree that this is a very positive development for Aer Lingus and we can look forward to welcoming the former cadets on to the line, as we work together to meet the exciting opportunities that lie ahead.
Dermot Mannion
CEO
NOTICE TO PILOTS FROM CEO
Rehire of former Cadet Pilots
As you are aware we have committed to the purchase of two additional A330 aircraft, which are due for delivery in 2007. In addition we are in the process of sourcing two more A320 aircraft. In the past number of weeks a comprehensive plan has been developed to address the training and resource requirements, and pilot numbers will be increasing in line with the growing fleet.
I am pleased to announce that we are now in a position to honour the commitment made to the former cadets in 2001. It is hoped that many will take up their positions with Aer Lingus in the coming months.
The Company will be initiating contact with this group starting today and training is scheduled to commence from July.
I am sure you will agree that this is a very positive development for Aer Lingus and we can look forward to welcoming the former cadets on to the line, as we work together to meet the exciting opportunities that lie ahead.
Dermot Mannion
CEO
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zooflyer I think you are wrong when you say "I guess this says it all...". It does not look to me like it says what I think you are claiming, which I think is that the pilot shortage is changing the situation in relation to type ratings.
What the letter from the CEO of Aer Lingus says is that the airline (a) will honour its existing commitments to its former cadets, and less clearly, that (b) IALPA has been very clear about the fact that it expects Aer Lingus to honour those commitments. This does not mean that there are not a very large number of brand new, low hour CPL/IR pilots out there desperate for a job who will pay for a rating, for a job, work for free, etc. The wannabe market will not vanish and I don't know where you got the following notion from (because it is just plain wrong):
There are lots of pilot candidates out there, both for jobs and for JAR licence training.
What the letter from the CEO of Aer Lingus says is that the airline (a) will honour its existing commitments to its former cadets, and less clearly, that (b) IALPA has been very clear about the fact that it expects Aer Lingus to honour those commitments. This does not mean that there are not a very large number of brand new, low hour CPL/IR pilots out there desperate for a job who will pay for a rating, for a job, work for free, etc. The wannabe market will not vanish and I don't know where you got the following notion from (because it is just plain wrong):
0 candidates since JAA and privatisation made pilot training much too expensive
