airlines who ask pilots to pay to fly !
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low hour Pilots being responsible for the demise maybe Tosh but the philosophy of hiring cadets ahead of experienced Pilots certainly results in a decline in safety standards and in Pay.
I am a safer Pilot than I was 10 years ago but I cost less 10 years ago.
I am a safer Pilot than I was 10 years ago but I cost less 10 years ago.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Age: 61
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
low hours "pilots"
The vast majority of pilots hired by the major low cost operators (hired by the hundred if not thousand) over the last 8 years are lowhoured (or cadet by another name?) yes or no ?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flieng- Yes.
Low cost airlines say that their Priority is safety. We as professionals believe in a Safety culture.
I am a safer Pilot now with 12,000 hours than I was 10 years ago with 4,000 Hours.
In a true culture of safety you would hire the most experienced Pilots.
I am not saying that you will not find 5,000 hour guys that are better than 12,000 hour guys, of course you will, but when making the selection you have to know that at personal level the 12,000 hour guy will be close to his best.
Let me also say that as you go through your Career as a Pilot you do become a better and safer Pilot, you are not the best that you will be from a safety point of view when you are 25. I would suggest (although it's personal) you reach your highest safety standards in your 50's, when you really realise "it can happen to you".
Low cost airlines say that their Priority is safety. We as professionals believe in a Safety culture.
I am a safer Pilot now with 12,000 hours than I was 10 years ago with 4,000 Hours.
In a true culture of safety you would hire the most experienced Pilots.
I am not saying that you will not find 5,000 hour guys that are better than 12,000 hour guys, of course you will, but when making the selection you have to know that at personal level the 12,000 hour guy will be close to his best.
Let me also say that as you go through your Career as a Pilot you do become a better and safer Pilot, you are not the best that you will be from a safety point of view when you are 25. I would suggest (although it's personal) you reach your highest safety standards in your 50's, when you really realise "it can happen to you".
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Age: 61
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tosh?
Kungfu Panda. I ask the question because john smith referred to my quote "as tosh". Low hour pilots have been hired extensively ahead of experienced pilots because they have been and are,far more easily exploited and have been and continue to be complicit in these "pay to fly" schemes, that is without question. Therefore they (low houred"pilots" or "cadets" or any other name you can think) have been a major part of the demise of the professional pilot, so my previous post is not "tosh". Kung fu panda , you raise a very good point that experience does promote greater safety that is why there are minimum hours set to Captain a multi crew aircraft. Logically safety must reduced by flooding an airline with inexperienced pilots in the right seat.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: florida
Age: 78
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
worth
The bottom line is simply decide what YOU are worth and work for no less. obviously if you are a 250 hour pilot just out of flight school you are worth less than a pilot with 10,000 hours. However no pilot should pay to fly. Once upon a time in India, I know a co. that was not paying young inexperienced co-pilots a "salary" however they put them up and fed them and gave them a small allowance, and they could build up their time on A320`S.
Once upon a time in India, I know a co. that was not paying young inexperienced co-pilots a "salary" however they put them up and fed them and gave them a small allowance, and they could build up their time on A320`S
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cadets responsible?
flieng,
I think you've missed the objection. Your post isn't tosh, it's your statement that cadets or low hour'd guys straight out of flight school are responsible for the exploitative industry we find ourselves in that is tosh!
Seriously, what bearing do these low hour pilots have on airlines recruiting policies? What changes do they submit to the CEOs in a vain attempt said CEOs will actually action? Do these CEOs even give a
about a 200 hour cadet straight out of flight school? Of course they don't!
Also if cadets are so responsible for the current exploitative industry why wasn't the industry like this 30-40 years ago when Hamble was popping out cadets every month? Supply and demand maybe?
If you just graduated CTC or Oxford with >£100,000 debt and the only job offer was with a LoCo but you had to fork out money for a type rating what would you do? Especially if there is no other opportunities. Do you seriously expect us to believe you'd rather work in Tesco as that's the morally correct choice?
You almost hit the nail on the head when you say low hour pilots have been a major part of the demise. Yes they may have been, but I again reiterate they are not responsible. They are simply profit centres for the likes of CTC and Oxford and now the airlines.
It is these schools and airlines whom are responsible. The cadets I'm afraid, have very little options or choice nowadays.
I'm afraid sir, you're using cadets as a scapegoat. Until demand far exceeds supply, which might never happen in euro land we'll simply have to fight the issue with the suppliers (training schools) and airlines directly.
I think you've missed the objection. Your post isn't tosh, it's your statement that cadets or low hour'd guys straight out of flight school are responsible for the exploitative industry we find ourselves in that is tosh!
Seriously, what bearing do these low hour pilots have on airlines recruiting policies? What changes do they submit to the CEOs in a vain attempt said CEOs will actually action? Do these CEOs even give a
about a 200 hour cadet straight out of flight school? Of course they don't! Also if cadets are so responsible for the current exploitative industry why wasn't the industry like this 30-40 years ago when Hamble was popping out cadets every month? Supply and demand maybe?
If you just graduated CTC or Oxford with >£100,000 debt and the only job offer was with a LoCo but you had to fork out money for a type rating what would you do? Especially if there is no other opportunities. Do you seriously expect us to believe you'd rather work in Tesco as that's the morally correct choice?
You almost hit the nail on the head when you say low hour pilots have been a major part of the demise. Yes they may have been, but I again reiterate they are not responsible. They are simply profit centres for the likes of CTC and Oxford and now the airlines.
It is these schools and airlines whom are responsible. The cadets I'm afraid, have very little options or choice nowadays.
I'm afraid sir, you're using cadets as a scapegoat. Until demand far exceeds supply, which might never happen in euro land we'll simply have to fight the issue with the suppliers (training schools) and airlines directly.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the 90's as CTC was being set up there was a view amongst the big airlines (in the UK) such as Britannia, that the supply of Pilots coming from the self improver route (those guys who'd got 700 hours instructing, converted to CPL then built 1000 hours multi-engine in general aviation and then done 1500 hours turbo-prop in the likes of Channel Express) was not what they needed. They believed that these experienced self improvers had not received the structured training including Airline style SOP's and Procedures which were offered by Oxford and Perth during their abbreviated CPL course (200 hours).
CTC was a band of Airline trainers who chose to exploit and propogate this myth to make themselves significant profit, they have been very successful.
Since the 90's though the grounds on which this myth was based no longer exists. Pilots generally, including those experienced in General Aviation and in Smaller Airlines have all received the required structured Airline training.
If it was not for the profits generated by recruiting the inexperienced youth through Pay to fly schemes or CTC's exploitative branding then the correct People would be hired into the likes of Easyjet or Ryanair, those F/O's with appropriate experience.
As the Law has changed in the U.S. to raise experience required in the right seat as a result, I believe, of the Colgan Air disaster no lesson has been learn't in Europe because of the powerful Lobbies of the training organisations and the LOCO's. Unfortunately it will take a disaster of our own to give the administrators the leverage which they need to change the Law in Europe.
CTC was a band of Airline trainers who chose to exploit and propogate this myth to make themselves significant profit, they have been very successful.
Since the 90's though the grounds on which this myth was based no longer exists. Pilots generally, including those experienced in General Aviation and in Smaller Airlines have all received the required structured Airline training.
If it was not for the profits generated by recruiting the inexperienced youth through Pay to fly schemes or CTC's exploitative branding then the correct People would be hired into the likes of Easyjet or Ryanair, those F/O's with appropriate experience.
As the Law has changed in the U.S. to raise experience required in the right seat as a result, I believe, of the Colgan Air disaster no lesson has been learn't in Europe because of the powerful Lobbies of the training organisations and the LOCO's. Unfortunately it will take a disaster of our own to give the administrators the leverage which they need to change the Law in Europe.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of Colgan there was no lesson to learn in terms of experience because the crew involved were not inexperienced whatsoever. On that occasion they were purely incompetent. Quite how raising the minima for commercial pilots to 1500 hours relates to Colgan in any way escapes me.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RexBanner- Maybe I'm wrong about the Colgan, I was writing from memory but the FAA have increased minimum experience to 1500 hours for First Officers and I believe that it is the result of recommendations made after a particular incident. Please enlighten me rather than just pointing out my ignorance. Thanks...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kungfu Panda I meant no offence it's just I am genuinely curious about how whenever people talk about the FAA increasing the minimum time requirement Colgan always gets cited as the reason why. But Colgan was not caused by a lack of experience at all. It was borne more out of fatigue and other stressors (the FO for one was regularly commuting hundreds of miles to work because she couldn't afford to live near her base - something that is still widespread in the industry) but inexperience was not a factor in the crash.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looked at the wikipedia on the Colgan:
Capt: 3200 hours
F/O: 2200 Hours
Total crew experience: 5400 Hours
I agree the F/O had more than 1500 Hours, but considering that the Capt. was 47 (age not commensurate with experience) and total flight deck time only 5400 hours, I would say this is an inexperienced flight deck. I would guess that an average Captain in his 40's would have 7-10,000 hours i.e. 50% more than this crew in total.
I know this is highly debatable but I believe experience is a significant factor in safety. I know their are many other factors!
European LOCO's totally disregard the experience factor.... totally..
Capt: 3200 hours
F/O: 2200 Hours
Total crew experience: 5400 Hours
I agree the F/O had more than 1500 Hours, but considering that the Capt. was 47 (age not commensurate with experience) and total flight deck time only 5400 hours, I would say this is an inexperienced flight deck. I would guess that an average Captain in his 40's would have 7-10,000 hours i.e. 50% more than this crew in total.
I know this is highly debatable but I believe experience is a significant factor in safety. I know their are many other factors!
European LOCO's totally disregard the experience factor.... totally..
Originally Posted by Sprinkles
If you just graduated CTC or Oxford with >£100,000 debt and the only job offer was with a LoCo but you had to fork out money for a type rating what would you do? Especially if there is no other opportunities. Do you seriously expect us to believe you'd rather work in Tesco as that's the morally correct choice?
You almost hit the nail on the head when you say low hour pilots have been a major part of the demise. Yes they may have been, but I again reiterate they are not responsible. They are simply profit centres for the likes of CTC and Oxford and now the airlines.
It is these schools and airlines whom are responsible. The cadets I'm afraid, have very little options or choice nowadays.
You almost hit the nail on the head when you say low hour pilots have been a major part of the demise. Yes they may have been, but I again reiterate they are not responsible. They are simply profit centres for the likes of CTC and Oxford and now the airlines.
It is these schools and airlines whom are responsible. The cadets I'm afraid, have very little options or choice nowadays.
The decision to undertake flight training was a calculated risk. There are no guarantees and each pay-to-fly pilot made the choice to fund flight training based on this premise. To claim that there was then no 'choice' but to pay to work and that cadets are entirely blameless is puerile. Whilst pay-to-fly pilots may not be the only party who shoulder the blame, they do shoulder some of the blame.
How much blame should the pilots who didn't pay-to-fly shoulder? The ones who followed the advice of those already in the industry and didn't pay-to-fly. Those who got relegated to flying piston twins and light turboprops on crap salaries with no advancement to the jets despite accruing many thousand hours of commercial experience, because the only recruitment is of pay-to-fly pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Journey man I think you need to be a bit more thorough in what you read. I said very little choice, not no choice. There's a subtle, but big difference.
When I started training the likes of eJ "employed" cadets and bonded them. AFAIK, no up front cost for the type rating was required. Half way through training things changed. Do you blame me personally for "choosing" to pay a portion of my type rating and be bonded with CTC for the remainder? Even though I've since departed.
Here were the other two choices:
Tell em to stick it and wait for another airline to come along and pay for everything. I wanted to believe me! Unfortunately I left my crystal ball with the locals in Matamata!
Go work at Tescos and live off minimum wage.
Now things have changed since I started and cadets starting now should be well versed in the current employment tactics. This should be a huge factor in their decision to pursue this career. Certainly when it comes to budgeting the cost of training. If they do choose to pursue this as a career, who are we to blame them or make them feel guilty by wanting to actually do something they enjoy? Everybody has the right to enjoy their chosen career.
Pilots who did not pay-to-fly are no more responsible than anyone else. After all we're all trying to achieve a common objective. To get the A/C from A-to-B safely, efficiently and be remunerated accordingly. That's why we do this is it not?
I also find your choice of words inappropriate. Current pilots in the turbo prop world have never been "relegated". To say they are implies they were once flying big shiny turbo fan counter parts and they have since been made redundant in place of cheaper, less experienced cadets. Some UK airlines still employ guys from this sector so pay-to-fly is not the only way in. Granted in lesser numbers and perhaps this needs to be evened out. But it is still unfair the blame any new CPL/IR holders for this mess. Irrespective of whether they knew the "risks" prior to them starting. The airlines and training schools are the unscrupulous guilty parties.
Alas I believe we may have slightly gone off at a tangent. New pilots and the terms and conditions of their first job, or how they get it is not the only issue here. Maybe we should start refocusing some of this angst towards the companies selling hours at airlines, and the experienced pilots whom entertain such schemes. These experienced pilots should know better.
Many may disagree with my interpretation of the state of play, but I strongly believe the only way to stop pay-to-fly schemes is to stop it at the source. This will probably involve government and regulatory intervention.
When I started training the likes of eJ "employed" cadets and bonded them. AFAIK, no up front cost for the type rating was required. Half way through training things changed. Do you blame me personally for "choosing" to pay a portion of my type rating and be bonded with CTC for the remainder? Even though I've since departed.
Here were the other two choices:
Tell em to stick it and wait for another airline to come along and pay for everything. I wanted to believe me! Unfortunately I left my crystal ball with the locals in Matamata!
Go work at Tescos and live off minimum wage.
Now things have changed since I started and cadets starting now should be well versed in the current employment tactics. This should be a huge factor in their decision to pursue this career. Certainly when it comes to budgeting the cost of training. If they do choose to pursue this as a career, who are we to blame them or make them feel guilty by wanting to actually do something they enjoy? Everybody has the right to enjoy their chosen career.
Pilots who did not pay-to-fly are no more responsible than anyone else. After all we're all trying to achieve a common objective. To get the A/C from A-to-B safely, efficiently and be remunerated accordingly. That's why we do this is it not?
I also find your choice of words inappropriate. Current pilots in the turbo prop world have never been "relegated". To say they are implies they were once flying big shiny turbo fan counter parts and they have since been made redundant in place of cheaper, less experienced cadets. Some UK airlines still employ guys from this sector so pay-to-fly is not the only way in. Granted in lesser numbers and perhaps this needs to be evened out. But it is still unfair the blame any new CPL/IR holders for this mess. Irrespective of whether they knew the "risks" prior to them starting. The airlines and training schools are the unscrupulous guilty parties.
Alas I believe we may have slightly gone off at a tangent. New pilots and the terms and conditions of their first job, or how they get it is not the only issue here. Maybe we should start refocusing some of this angst towards the companies selling hours at airlines, and the experienced pilots whom entertain such schemes. These experienced pilots should know better.
Many may disagree with my interpretation of the state of play, but I strongly believe the only way to stop pay-to-fly schemes is to stop it at the source. This will probably involve government and regulatory intervention.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sprinkles I agree with you. Unfortunately because it is now such big business it will only stop post an accident, when the public understand the need for law changes. At that point we will probably go down the same route as the U.S. requiring 1500 hours before being right seat qualified. The pay to fly will still continue even then with the 1500 hour guys wanting to gain advantage.
My view though is much more that I would like to see the benefit of experience appreciated and respected by all Airlines with respect to safety. I think that a 200 hour Pilot is a long, long way from being as safe as he will one day become. To put him in the right seat as a backstop to an overworked Captain is, in my opinion, unsafe. This is a "culture of risk", a short sighted gamble designed to benefit the shareholders of the various outfits.
My view though is much more that I would like to see the benefit of experience appreciated and respected by all Airlines with respect to safety. I think that a 200 hour Pilot is a long, long way from being as safe as he will one day become. To put him in the right seat as a backstop to an overworked Captain is, in my opinion, unsafe. This is a "culture of risk", a short sighted gamble designed to benefit the shareholders of the various outfits.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Age: 61
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responsibility (moral accountability)
Sprinkles, any pilot who agrees to these type of pay to fly, training with no salary whether they be inexperienced or not is partly responsible(having the moral decisions and therefore accountable) for the demise of the t and c,s of professional pilots. I specifically mention low houred pilots because that group account for the vast majority if not all of the individuals that agree to same. It is obviously unpalatable , but it is true. I am not trying" to use cadets as a scapegoat" but some blame logically must apportioned to them. I understand and vehemently object to the fact some Airlines and Training organisations put a lot of pilots in an almost impossible position, but it is not all down to them as without the foolishness of pilots concerned the situation could not happen.
You ask a number of questions . 30-40 years ago I would think supply and demand was much the same as now, but employers were more honourable and reputable. The main course of the decline started after 911 when a certain loco CEO saw an opportunity to save costs and I believe settle personal scores and affluent young people saw a chance to que jump as it were and so the vicious circle continued. God knows where it will end!
What would i do with "£100k debt and the choice of forking for a type rating or tescos"? I could not/would not get £100k of unsecured debt for a job and certainly my parents/relatives could not provide that sum of money, neither would I ask.
You ask a number of questions . 30-40 years ago I would think supply and demand was much the same as now, but employers were more honourable and reputable. The main course of the decline started after 911 when a certain loco CEO saw an opportunity to save costs and I believe settle personal scores and affluent young people saw a chance to que jump as it were and so the vicious circle continued. God knows where it will end!
What would i do with "£100k debt and the choice of forking for a type rating or tescos"? I could not/would not get £100k of unsecured debt for a job and certainly my parents/relatives could not provide that sum of money, neither would I ask.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flieng, if you're going to proportion blame you really need to do it based on contribution.
As cadets contribute nothing to the T&Cs they are offered, I cannot see how they can be blamed any more than 1% for what gets put in front of them. As you say:
You may argue that as they accept such conditions they should be 100% accountable. It's a fair point but consider your opinion I've quoted above.
In response to my original question regarding "what would you do?"
I proposed a hypothetical situation for you in which it gave you the opportunity to play devils advocate. I wasn't interested in your personal finances or how good your relationships with your family were. Unsurprisingly you avoided to answer what I was trying to get at. I presume your are either too proud to admit on a public forum you would follow the same training path so many are currently doing, or you simply missed my point. After all you did say...... See quote above! (Again)
Imagine you're 30 years younger and just finished training with a fresh licence in your hand.
In reply to your foolish comment I'm think that is rather offensive. I started training and things changed mid course. As I've said before nothing would have given me greater pleasure to tell CTC to stick it when told I'd have to pay if I wanted to go to eJ! But I took a calculated gamble. If my decision was so foolish why is it now that I'm on a very competitive salary with another airline, living a very enviable lifestyle? A little over two years after I started flying the big stuff. I was lucky but it proves my choice didn't turn out to be foolish at all, far from it in fact. I'm not the only one either.
eJ have also introduced a New Entrant Contract. It may not be as good as it what it used to be but it's an improvement. It provides a structured career path that is very attractive to some. I'm sure many cadets starting their training will be happy with what's on offer. I wasn't, which is why I left. But that's irrelevant to the topic in hand.
Unfortunately expectations have changed and it is now less frowned upon to self fund the type rating. In fact your job opportunities in some airlines may not be great if you don't. I don't agree with this personally but until you change expectations, you will not change behaviour.
We agree changing cadets mentality will be a fruitless exercise. Thus the only way to bring this to an end is to stop the practice altogether or make it illegal.
Here lies the true problem. They (LoCos predominately) are not anymore. And who can blame them as there's no restriction to what they can do. They're a business and will do what they can within their powers to compete.
Again only governments and the regulatory authority will have the power to forbid self funded type ratings. I think I'll be retired before that happens.
Good night!
As cadets contribute nothing to the T&Cs they are offered, I cannot see how they can be blamed any more than 1% for what gets put in front of them. As you say:
Airlines and Training organisations put a lot of pilots in an almost impossible position
In response to my original question regarding "what would you do?"
I proposed a hypothetical situation for you in which it gave you the opportunity to play devils advocate. I wasn't interested in your personal finances or how good your relationships with your family were. Unsurprisingly you avoided to answer what I was trying to get at. I presume your are either too proud to admit on a public forum you would follow the same training path so many are currently doing, or you simply missed my point. After all you did say...... See quote above! (Again)
Imagine you're 30 years younger and just finished training with a fresh licence in your hand.
In reply to your foolish comment I'm think that is rather offensive. I started training and things changed mid course. As I've said before nothing would have given me greater pleasure to tell CTC to stick it when told I'd have to pay if I wanted to go to eJ! But I took a calculated gamble. If my decision was so foolish why is it now that I'm on a very competitive salary with another airline, living a very enviable lifestyle? A little over two years after I started flying the big stuff. I was lucky but it proves my choice didn't turn out to be foolish at all, far from it in fact. I'm not the only one either.
eJ have also introduced a New Entrant Contract. It may not be as good as it what it used to be but it's an improvement. It provides a structured career path that is very attractive to some. I'm sure many cadets starting their training will be happy with what's on offer. I wasn't, which is why I left. But that's irrelevant to the topic in hand.
Unfortunately expectations have changed and it is now less frowned upon to self fund the type rating. In fact your job opportunities in some airlines may not be great if you don't. I don't agree with this personally but until you change expectations, you will not change behaviour.
We agree changing cadets mentality will be a fruitless exercise. Thus the only way to bring this to an end is to stop the practice altogether or make it illegal.
employers were more honourable and reputable.
Again only governments and the regulatory authority will have the power to forbid self funded type ratings. I think I'll be retired before that happens.
Good night!
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope you don't feel I'm quoting out of context here...
You say this as if it's a terrible fate to be stuck in a job flying a piston twin or light turboprop....something like a Navajo or King Air I presume? Maybe flying packages around at night on short haul in bad weather with many stops.
In my experience, pilots who have spent a few years in this type of job are among the most skilled and professional aviators I've ever worked with.
I think it's a major fallacy in airline hiring that they seem to prefer time in type or experience in automated cockpits when hiring. It's easier to teach a skilled pilot to work in an automated cockpit flying a jet transport than it is to teach good airmanship to a non skilled pilot while flying an in an automated cockpit.
The ones who followed the advice of those already in the industry and didn't pay-to-fly. Those who got relegated to flying piston twins and light turboprops on crap salaries with no advancement to the jets despite accruing many thousand hours of commercial experience...
In my experience, pilots who have spent a few years in this type of job are among the most skilled and professional aviators I've ever worked with.
I think it's a major fallacy in airline hiring that they seem to prefer time in type or experience in automated cockpits when hiring. It's easier to teach a skilled pilot to work in an automated cockpit flying a jet transport than it is to teach good airmanship to a non skilled pilot while flying an in an automated cockpit.
