RYANAIR thoughts
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely overall responsibility for delivering a product to the customer is the owner of that product. If they farm it out to an agency they can not relinquish final responsibility. Consider all the contract pilots who fly for RYR. It is RYR who control directly the quality of how those pilots operate and the number the agency provides. Same here. It is RYR's responsibility to ensure that its agents have the tools to do the job. Howvere, if RYR only pay them enough to open too few desks they have not been given the resources to do the job. Swissport can only provide the resources they have been paid for. Hence RYR's campaign to eliminate check-in desls and hold baggage; cost saving.
Question still remains; you turn up at the instructed time; are not able to check-in due lack of staff; miss your flight; who do you claim against and what is your compensation. Seems like it would be no different, at least, to being bumped off due over-booking.
Question still remains; you turn up at the instructed time; are not able to check-in due lack of staff; miss your flight; who do you claim against and what is your compensation. Seems like it would be no different, at least, to being bumped off due over-booking.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT5
What a load of twaddle.
If ATC give a diversion, or a hold to an aircraft do you hold the operator responsible if that diversion or hold leads to a discrepancy in schedule times, which can and often do cause effect further across the schedules?
Is it then by your assertion, a failure of the operator by it's lack of control over NATS to deliver its product, in that the operator has failed in its responsibility to ensure that it's 'agent' doesn't have the tools to do its job.
Or that an operator that operates out 'x' or 'y' airport has failed by it's lack of control to deliver its product because the airport operator doesn't have the appropriate security staff, scanning equipment, facilities that cause a huge backlog through security processing that causes passenger to miss flights or aircraft to be delayed off block.
Or that an operator cannot process its passengers within a given period due to the lack of available desks, which the airline rents from the airport operator if/when available.
Or that an operator fails to have its aircraft off blocks due to the fuelling facility having an issue with their equipment that prevents the aircraft being fuelled within the time of the turn around.
What a load of twaddle.
If ATC give a diversion, or a hold to an aircraft do you hold the operator responsible if that diversion or hold leads to a discrepancy in schedule times, which can and often do cause effect further across the schedules?
Is it then by your assertion, a failure of the operator by it's lack of control over NATS to deliver its product, in that the operator has failed in its responsibility to ensure that it's 'agent' doesn't have the tools to do its job.
Or that an operator that operates out 'x' or 'y' airport has failed by it's lack of control to deliver its product because the airport operator doesn't have the appropriate security staff, scanning equipment, facilities that cause a huge backlog through security processing that causes passenger to miss flights or aircraft to be delayed off block.
Or that an operator cannot process its passengers within a given period due to the lack of available desks, which the airline rents from the airport operator if/when available.
Or that an operator fails to have its aircraft off blocks due to the fuelling facility having an issue with their equipment that prevents the aircraft being fuelled within the time of the turn around.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not take too much imagination, or knowledge of how Ryanair "negotiate" contracts with suppliers and airports, to be aware that there is probably little if any provision for "fat" (for the times when there are a surfeit of customers vs agents) allowed for in the amount paid by Ryanair to contracting agencies. Like everything in life, you get (hopefully) what you pay for (and probably not an ounce more)
A bit like trying to call crewing at awful o'clock to report the non-appearance of a colleague for his report , and being faced with an engaged phone for 20 mins. Or having to wait your turn to get a serviceable computer, as no-one seems to have put an IT contract in place to keep them serviceable.
If you cut things to the bone this is the sort of stuff that will happen.
A bit like trying to call crewing at awful o'clock to report the non-appearance of a colleague for his report , and being faced with an engaged phone for 20 mins. Or having to wait your turn to get a serviceable computer, as no-one seems to have put an IT contract in place to keep them serviceable.
If you cut things to the bone this is the sort of stuff that will happen.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captplaystation,
I have to agree with you on that point.
If I may borrow an analogy, passengers view airlines as 'utilities' they want the best/most legroom, the best in flight catering, the best IFE, but want to pay practically nothing for it.
They will and do search for the lowest price between point 'a' and 'b' and beyond, that is their prerogative, it's their money and they are entitled to spend it how they wish. If they want to fly a legacy carrier, FR or charter a Global Express to travel between point A and B that is their call.
Conversely, a large sector of the travelling public don't give a stuff and will pay the lowest price available.
This is where low cost carriers fit into the market place.
The fat is trimmed away, completely. There is little room for manoeuvre within contractual terms, thats why the costs are low.
You simply cannot have it both ways. If you want full fare scheduled carrier service on lift between two points and beyond then there is a cost that comes with it. If you want to pay the lowest fare available between between two points, then it comes with the fat trimmed out.
It's cutting to the bone that enables low cost carriers to operate within their market place, if you want the fat, then it has to be paid for.
I have to agree with you on that point.
If I may borrow an analogy, passengers view airlines as 'utilities' they want the best/most legroom, the best in flight catering, the best IFE, but want to pay practically nothing for it.
They will and do search for the lowest price between point 'a' and 'b' and beyond, that is their prerogative, it's their money and they are entitled to spend it how they wish. If they want to fly a legacy carrier, FR or charter a Global Express to travel between point A and B that is their call.
Conversely, a large sector of the travelling public don't give a stuff and will pay the lowest price available.
This is where low cost carriers fit into the market place.
The fat is trimmed away, completely. There is little room for manoeuvre within contractual terms, thats why the costs are low.
You simply cannot have it both ways. If you want full fare scheduled carrier service on lift between two points and beyond then there is a cost that comes with it. If you want to pay the lowest fare available between between two points, then it comes with the fat trimmed out.
It's cutting to the bone that enables low cost carriers to operate within their market place, if you want the fat, then it has to be paid for.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not UK
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce, to some extent your right, but every customer has the right to expect a minimum level of service regardless of what they have paid.
Afler all, we`re not talking canapes and champagne here but the reasonable expectation of being able to check in for the flight you have paid for and arrived at the allocated time for.
Unfortunately it is this attitude to basic rights and expectations towards passengers / employees / service providers, that seems to set Ryanair management on a level of its own.
Afler all, we`re not talking canapes and champagne here but the reasonable expectation of being able to check in for the flight you have paid for and arrived at the allocated time for.
Unfortunately it is this attitude to basic rights and expectations towards passengers / employees / service providers, that seems to set Ryanair management on a level of its own.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: monaco
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's cutting to the bone that enables low cost carriers to operate within their market place, if you want the fat, then it has to be paid for.
But the race for the cheapest option is re-defining our concept of civilization and there you are with self sponsored and underpaid eastern european cabin attendants, self employed Russians & Brasilians, pay to fly cadets and so on.
Some say the likes of FR are driving the market out of recession, me thinks they are totally changing it instead.....the cheap way.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingstig,
to a degree, yep, however, the minimum level of service provided to a customer is directly proportional to the level of price they are willing to pay.
I am not party to the contractual terms that FR have with the ground service providers, it is not my concern, nor my business. However, having put into place several operations in the past, it has proved frustrating in negotiating the terms and price effectiveness of desks, even if they are made available.
It would be surprising to many people the cost implications of desks at PoE's more so the amount of traffic that PoE sees.
Again, this has to be paid for somewhere. The likes of Dannyangina expect to see increased T&C's in an economy that is close to being worse than anything since the wright brothers got airborne at kitty hawk, yet expect a high level of customer service, from a situation where the services provided are provided by dictum from the airport owners.
In short, the more flexibility you want the more it is going to have to be paid for.
As much FR can be 'blamed' for low service levels in the industry, or lower T&C's for staff across the board, it is the way the LoCo business is run.
Passengers want low prices, the costs have to be cut to provide that low cost, the government is not going to subsidise low cost carriers, they are not the utilities they are viewed as.
Dannyangina wants a pension, his uniform, his health care, his rent, his loss of license insurance, his shoes, his sustenance paid for, he's not going to get that in a LoCo environment. Right now he's not going to get that in a legacy carrier either.
Aircraft operation as we all know is a complex and involved processed, which involves the implementation of other services which cannot be provided by the operator, they have to be provided by third parties and that costs. Those third parties are, like air carriers in business for one thing only.. to turn a profit. So if you want a higher level of service they expect it to be paid for. And there will be times when what is coverable in the costs, will have a fall off.
And so it turns back to the point of:
" If you want full fare scheduled carrier service on lift between two points and beyond then there is a cost that comes with it. If you want to pay the lowest fare available between between two points, then it comes with the fat trimmed out.
It's cutting to the bone that enables low cost carriers to operate within their market place, if you want the fat, then it has to be paid for. "
Dannyangina, you keep professing that FR is the root of evil in the aviation industry, yet you wont leave to seek a flight deck position that will be everything you have ever dreamt of.
Low Cost Carriers fulfil a market segment that the customer demands, hence FR's continued growth.
Did MOL knock you over the head in Le Jazz or Sabor Di Vino and you woke up manacled to Ryanair 737 flight deck?
No ! you applied yourself, you went through the process yourself. you were well aware that FR is a LoCo carrier and that involves an operator that *has* to keep costs to a minimum to maintain its viability in its market segment.
Again, "it's a commercial environment. that is, customers have the choice to fly FR, they are not forced by any government dictum, nor is MOL standing over anyone, whip in hand, as they surf the internet looking for lift between x and y.
They are free to choose FR, EZ, BA, KLM, Air France, Big Bertha's Air Taxi and Flying school, whoever. "
To be honest Dannyangina, your consistent wailing is becoming like a stuck record, and it's getting boring.
If you are so disheartened in FR... LEAVE. Flyingstig, for one will be glad to take your position, as will many, many others.
Just don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
to a degree, yep, however, the minimum level of service provided to a customer is directly proportional to the level of price they are willing to pay.
I am not party to the contractual terms that FR have with the ground service providers, it is not my concern, nor my business. However, having put into place several operations in the past, it has proved frustrating in negotiating the terms and price effectiveness of desks, even if they are made available.
It would be surprising to many people the cost implications of desks at PoE's more so the amount of traffic that PoE sees.
Again, this has to be paid for somewhere. The likes of Dannyangina expect to see increased T&C's in an economy that is close to being worse than anything since the wright brothers got airborne at kitty hawk, yet expect a high level of customer service, from a situation where the services provided are provided by dictum from the airport owners.
In short, the more flexibility you want the more it is going to have to be paid for.
As much FR can be 'blamed' for low service levels in the industry, or lower T&C's for staff across the board, it is the way the LoCo business is run.
Passengers want low prices, the costs have to be cut to provide that low cost, the government is not going to subsidise low cost carriers, they are not the utilities they are viewed as.
Dannyangina wants a pension, his uniform, his health care, his rent, his loss of license insurance, his shoes, his sustenance paid for, he's not going to get that in a LoCo environment. Right now he's not going to get that in a legacy carrier either.
Aircraft operation as we all know is a complex and involved processed, which involves the implementation of other services which cannot be provided by the operator, they have to be provided by third parties and that costs. Those third parties are, like air carriers in business for one thing only.. to turn a profit. So if you want a higher level of service they expect it to be paid for. And there will be times when what is coverable in the costs, will have a fall off.
And so it turns back to the point of:
" If you want full fare scheduled carrier service on lift between two points and beyond then there is a cost that comes with it. If you want to pay the lowest fare available between between two points, then it comes with the fat trimmed out.
It's cutting to the bone that enables low cost carriers to operate within their market place, if you want the fat, then it has to be paid for. "
Dannyangina, you keep professing that FR is the root of evil in the aviation industry, yet you wont leave to seek a flight deck position that will be everything you have ever dreamt of.
Low Cost Carriers fulfil a market segment that the customer demands, hence FR's continued growth.
Did MOL knock you over the head in Le Jazz or Sabor Di Vino and you woke up manacled to Ryanair 737 flight deck?
No ! you applied yourself, you went through the process yourself. you were well aware that FR is a LoCo carrier and that involves an operator that *has* to keep costs to a minimum to maintain its viability in its market segment.
Again, "it's a commercial environment. that is, customers have the choice to fly FR, they are not forced by any government dictum, nor is MOL standing over anyone, whip in hand, as they surf the internet looking for lift between x and y.
They are free to choose FR, EZ, BA, KLM, Air France, Big Bertha's Air Taxi and Flying school, whoever. "
To be honest Dannyangina, your consistent wailing is becoming like a stuck record, and it's getting boring.
If you are so disheartened in FR... LEAVE. Flyingstig, for one will be glad to take your position, as will many, many others.
Just don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of a moot point, what the actual terms and conditions might be (or interpreted to be by a court of law, as Ryanair usually prefer this course of action in the case of a dispute )
All it says in the website is - At airports with self service kiosks (STN ? ) you must have "deposited" your checked in luggage at a bag drop desk no later than 40 min before STD.-
In their place I may have been tempted to have barged to the front, thrown my bag over the counter with the booking paper attached and stomped off to pass the usual pleasanteries with the morons in security . . . but then that is just me. Methinks you "deposited" it, and you can argue the toss later about having it brought to you on a later flight, better perhaps to arrive and buy a shirt & a pair of skimpies ( Mnnn
) for the Missus than to be hit with ,and have to argue the toss over if you want to depart, a "missed flight fee" of whatever it is nowadays.
A bit cheap & nasty, but then, is anyone really surprised ?
All it says in the website is - At airports with self service kiosks (STN ? ) you must have "deposited" your checked in luggage at a bag drop desk no later than 40 min before STD.-
In their place I may have been tempted to have barged to the front, thrown my bag over the counter with the booking paper attached and stomped off to pass the usual pleasanteries with the morons in security . . . but then that is just me. Methinks you "deposited" it, and you can argue the toss later about having it brought to you on a later flight, better perhaps to arrive and buy a shirt & a pair of skimpies ( Mnnn
) for the Missus than to be hit with ,and have to argue the toss over if you want to depart, a "missed flight fee" of whatever it is nowadays.A bit cheap & nasty, but then, is anyone really surprised ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: monaco
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce (or shall i call you commandb,Leo & Co.?),
you often play the player and not the ball, why do you refer to ME as if I was the problem, try to concentrate on the facts and not on me.
If you like to have a company where employees don't complain then I suggest you put it in the next T&C's revision under some kind of "mandatory high morale, no complaints and leave if you don't like it" paragraph together with further pay cuts due to "the way the market is".
You are also pretty boring in your one sided view of the issue and strenuous defence at any cost of even the most obviously primitive behaviors of the company and I could also advise you to leave the discussion if you don't like what others say, I don't think you have a doctor's prescription that forces you to read and post here....
But someone obviously more intelligent and forward looking than you once said something along these lines: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
So feel free to keep posting all the nonsense they tell you to write, se we can all read and draw conclusions.
you often play the player and not the ball, why do you refer to ME as if I was the problem, try to concentrate on the facts and not on me.
If you like to have a company where employees don't complain then I suggest you put it in the next T&C's revision under some kind of "mandatory high morale, no complaints and leave if you don't like it" paragraph together with further pay cuts due to "the way the market is".
You are also pretty boring in your one sided view of the issue and strenuous defence at any cost of even the most obviously primitive behaviors of the company and I could also advise you to leave the discussion if you don't like what others say, I don't think you have a doctor's prescription that forces you to read and post here....
But someone obviously more intelligent and forward looking than you once said something along these lines: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
So feel free to keep posting all the nonsense they tell you to write, se we can all read and draw conclusions.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fiat Lux (tr. let there be light)
once said something along these lines: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
As much as I can only wonder at the confusion attendant upon coming into the world half English and half French, Monsieur Arouet famously distrusted democracy, which he saw as propagating the idiocy of the masses, something you're rather good at yourself, dannyalliga.
Voltaire's intended last words have something in them for us all.
"I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition."
Oscar's last words were rather more prosaic.
Either that wallpaper goes, or I do.
How about you let this poor old thread die in peace, or is it that you're so involved in seeing it drag on and on, devoid of new thinking, that you just can't let go...another thing evident in your endlessly disappointing expressions of third-rate sentiment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: monaco
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are your final words going to be, dannyalliga?
How about you let this poor old thread die in peace, or is it that you're so involved in seeing it drag on and on, devoid of new thinking, that you just can't let go..
How about you let this poor old thread die in peace, or is it that you're so involved in seeing it drag on and on, devoid of new thinking, that you just can't let go..
Why don't you set the good example and disappear?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce (or shall i call you commandb,Leo & Co.?),
you often play the player and not the ball, why do you refer to ME as if I was the problem, try to concentrate on the facts and not on me.
I have never referred to you as being *the problem*.
As for concentrating on facts, yet again you miss the point by a country mile. You simply cannot grasp market segments. Can you not understand not everything in this world exists to suit *you*.
If you like to have a company where employees don't complain then I suggest you put it in the next T&C's revision under some kind of "mandatory high morale, no complaints and leave if you don't like it" paragraph together with further pay cuts due to "the way the market is".
You really do fail to understand current economic circumstances.
Not only are people getting pay cuts, not just in the aviation industry, people are getting made redundant in every industry. Airlines are facing huge economic problems that threaten their existence.
Airlines are laying pilots off, not out of choice, just to spite *you* or drive down *your T&C's, but to bloody exist.
Frankly, no matter how many times the economic situation is presented or in how many different ways, you simply cannot grasp that and demand more pay and better T&C's.
If you simply cannot interpret and implement basic information then your competency as flight crew must therefore be questioned.
You are also pretty boring in your one sided view of the issue and strenuous defence at any cost of even the most obviously primitive behaviors of the company and I could also advise you to leave the discussion if you don't like what others say, I don't think you have a doctor's prescription that forces you to read and post here....
There is no strenuous defence at all. It is what lucid people refer to as 'reality'.
You expect a low cost carrier to provide all the benefits of a legacy carrier, when under the current economic situation, the legacy carriers are having to reduce flight crews and cut costs wherever they can; Yet, you demand more pay and better T&C's..
NO ONE forced you into your position, nor is anyone forcing you stay.
I have not advised you leave the discussion, quite the opposite. I take a rather perverse pleasure in your posts.. it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
What I have suggested to you that if you do not like the T&C's that you have, and your demands for increase are not being met, and again let me reiterate this point for you, are not likely to be in the current economic status, then you are free to depart and seek pastures new.
Frankly what you fail to understand, and it looks like i will have to spell this out for you too, is that it is the militant stance demanding better T&C's and pay increase during the biggest economic blight in the history of commercial aviation is what damages T&C's the most as all you do is get management's back up, present the understanding that you have no clue how an air carrier economics work, dont want to know, donant want to understand, just stamp your feet and demand creates a rift between management and crews.
you are the one that has an "Us and Them" attitude to management, yet fail to comprehend that you are on the same team, when the airline does well and managemnet and crews interface with each other and understand each other T&C's increase.
I wont wait for the 'pop' sound of your head coming out of your ass, I'm sure it will remain firmly in place.
But someone obviously more intelligent and forward looking than you once said something along these lines: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
So feel free to keep posting all the nonsense they tell you to write, se we can all read and draw conclusions.
*they* ?
It's all a big 'spiracy is it ?
Yes we are all drawing our own conclusions duckie !
Last edited by Bruce Wayne; 14th Aug 2009 at 15:59.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmondshire
Age: 66
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem goes far deeper than economics.
The pilot workforce throughout the industry seems to becoming more and more fractious, and is degenerating into a non-unionised rabble, who is content to work piecemeal and who's only aspiration is a fast buck at the end of the month. Witness the bickering about how many block hours such and such is likely to do. This conversation amongst seasoned professionals would be unthinkable 20 years ago, except amongst the oddest of specimen, the aspiring management pilot.
Previous aspirations such as professional self-respect, status within the wider population and benefits that are less tangible on a day to day basis, such as income protection in case of sickness or retirement benefits appear to be setting in the sun. Many of the new breed simply don't seem to place value on these things. You will rue the day, mark my words.
I'm sure carriers such as FR have provided opportunities to many, either through a RHS in a shiny jet or rapid advancement into the LHS. There is a downside to all this. We have been collectively debased and those who have got somewhere far quicker in their career than was previously possible will start see what you've sowed in a few years time, when they realise they're on the verge of burn out and have another 20 years to go before they can draw their meagre pension.
This industry has and always will be about making money. FR have proved themselves very adept at this. But they aren't the only ones making money. Speaking about my company, which is a middling size operator in the UK and part of a far larger group, we make solid profits and provide some very strong benefits to our pilot workforce. Incidentally we are heavily unionised and the management simply wouldn't dare to stoop to the intimidatory methods which FR's evidently does - this is because if you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us and collectively we won't be bowed.
Pilot pay and benefits are only a relatively modest part of the costs of running an airline and once you realise this, if you value your worth fully and get yourselves organised, you too can start respecting yourself again.
But witnessing the singular lack of gumption on this forum, I don't hold out too much hope. Since historical quotations seem to be en vogue, in the words of the Sun newspaper circa 1992, will the last one out turn out the lights.
Over to the Nazi and his Quisling cohorts...
The pilot workforce throughout the industry seems to becoming more and more fractious, and is degenerating into a non-unionised rabble, who is content to work piecemeal and who's only aspiration is a fast buck at the end of the month. Witness the bickering about how many block hours such and such is likely to do. This conversation amongst seasoned professionals would be unthinkable 20 years ago, except amongst the oddest of specimen, the aspiring management pilot.
Previous aspirations such as professional self-respect, status within the wider population and benefits that are less tangible on a day to day basis, such as income protection in case of sickness or retirement benefits appear to be setting in the sun. Many of the new breed simply don't seem to place value on these things. You will rue the day, mark my words.
I'm sure carriers such as FR have provided opportunities to many, either through a RHS in a shiny jet or rapid advancement into the LHS. There is a downside to all this. We have been collectively debased and those who have got somewhere far quicker in their career than was previously possible will start see what you've sowed in a few years time, when they realise they're on the verge of burn out and have another 20 years to go before they can draw their meagre pension.
This industry has and always will be about making money. FR have proved themselves very adept at this. But they aren't the only ones making money. Speaking about my company, which is a middling size operator in the UK and part of a far larger group, we make solid profits and provide some very strong benefits to our pilot workforce. Incidentally we are heavily unionised and the management simply wouldn't dare to stoop to the intimidatory methods which FR's evidently does - this is because if you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us and collectively we won't be bowed.
Pilot pay and benefits are only a relatively modest part of the costs of running an airline and once you realise this, if you value your worth fully and get yourselves organised, you too can start respecting yourself again.
But witnessing the singular lack of gumption on this forum, I don't hold out too much hope. Since historical quotations seem to be en vogue, in the words of the Sun newspaper circa 1992, will the last one out turn out the lights.
Over to the Nazi and his Quisling cohorts...
Last edited by Barden; 15th Aug 2009 at 17:09.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barden,
As nice a summary as I have seen of the situation the sorry wobegones that pass for pilots nowadays have collectively (the only damn thing they seem to be able to do collectively ) brought upon themselves.
Unfortunately, so many of the great unwashed can't see the wood for the trees, so it ain't going to improve any time soon.
As nice a summary as I have seen of the situation the sorry wobegones that pass for pilots nowadays have collectively (the only damn thing they seem to be able to do collectively ) brought upon themselves.
Unfortunately, so many of the great unwashed can't see the wood for the trees, so it ain't going to improve any time soon.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not UK
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barden, I think you make a good point.
At the risk of upsetting some, may I suggest that rapid ascent within the profession may be a contributory factor?
I cant tell you the number of times I have suggested to F/Os, in the rush to get their 3000 hours and thence, as if by devine right, their command. "Would you rather be a quick captain or a good captain" ? Time spent growing in this job is never wasted!
People now get their commands with a few thousand hours and at an age unthinkable a few years ago. I am not disparaging the many very bright and talented pilots around today. In fact, I like to draw a small amount of pleasure from the input I have made to help get them there. However, "what next"? Training Captain? Management?
By the age of 30 some of these guys and gals have got "there", and have run out of steam. There is nothing left to strive for other than more pay for less work/ better T&Cs / less distance to walk between crewroom and a/c / better car park etc etc etc!!
Hence the postings here?!
At the risk of upsetting some, may I suggest that rapid ascent within the profession may be a contributory factor?
I cant tell you the number of times I have suggested to F/Os, in the rush to get their 3000 hours and thence, as if by devine right, their command. "Would you rather be a quick captain or a good captain" ? Time spent growing in this job is never wasted!
People now get their commands with a few thousand hours and at an age unthinkable a few years ago. I am not disparaging the many very bright and talented pilots around today. In fact, I like to draw a small amount of pleasure from the input I have made to help get them there. However, "what next"? Training Captain? Management?
By the age of 30 some of these guys and gals have got "there", and have run out of steam. There is nothing left to strive for other than more pay for less work/ better T&Cs / less distance to walk between crewroom and a/c / better car park etc etc etc!!
Hence the postings here?!