BALPA benefits
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Rainboe.
I've been a member for 12years, although they haven't always got it right, the benefits have been vast, although not an exhaustive list
1. Better yearly pay increases compared to other groups within the airline (these alone pay for the monthly Balpa subscription)
2. Better scheduling agreement.
3. Prevented a forced pay cut after 9/11.
4. FTLC that keeps an eye on rostering, and flags up any rostering practices that are outside the agreement or not within the spirit of the agreement i.e.18-30 rest periods.
5. Prevented job cuts post merger.
6. Good CC that have forged a good working relationship with company management (this did not happen over night).
7. Legal cover etc.
and last but not least, free diary every year.
I've been a member for 12years, although they haven't always got it right, the benefits have been vast, although not an exhaustive list
1. Better yearly pay increases compared to other groups within the airline (these alone pay for the monthly Balpa subscription)
2. Better scheduling agreement.
3. Prevented a forced pay cut after 9/11.
4. FTLC that keeps an eye on rostering, and flags up any rostering practices that are outside the agreement or not within the spirit of the agreement i.e.18-30 rest periods.
5. Prevented job cuts post merger.
6. Good CC that have forged a good working relationship with company management (this did not happen over night).
7. Legal cover etc.
and last but not least, free diary every year.
Another benefit which hasn't been mentioned is that as a BALPA member you are part of IFALPA thats the INTERNATIONAL Federation of Airline Pilots Assoc.
Our job is international so if you have an incident in, shall we say, a less friendly environment you have some protection.
Many years ago when Swissair ran off the end of the runway in Athens the pilots were immediately placed in gaol by the authorities. It was IFALPA (not the employer) that lobbied to get them speedily released pending a full and proper investigation.
For my money this is well worth the small membership fee.
BALPA also have many technical and safety committees which lobby UK Government for change etc.
Our job is international so if you have an incident in, shall we say, a less friendly environment you have some protection.
Many years ago when Swissair ran off the end of the runway in Athens the pilots were immediately placed in gaol by the authorities. It was IFALPA (not the employer) that lobbied to get them speedily released pending a full and proper investigation.
For my money this is well worth the small membership fee.
BALPA also have many technical and safety committees which lobby UK Government for change etc.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a BALPA member, and for the following reasons.
The last 2 companies that I have worked for have paid less than token lip service to allowing BALPA to 'work with them' in respect of pay deals and so on. When it came to redundancies earlier this year BALPA were allowed to negotiate, but eventually the company went it's own way, and ignored BALPA. At the previous company always allowed negotiation, and always went their own way. The CC eventually resigned en masse because they had not received proper support from BALPA. It took BALPA 6 months to get a new CC, and during that time there was no communication from BALPA to the members.
There are larger issues where I think that BALPA have done pilots a disservice too. The biggest one I believe is that of pilots paying airlines for type ratings. As far as I know, and whilst I was a member I asked the questions often, BALPA did not oppose this policy at any stage. It is now nearly de rigeur for UK airlines.
BALPA also failed to negotiate rostering agreements in both companies, despite the regular lip service from the company that they wanted one, and the continual dithering, and non achievement of any such document which resulted in ultimate flexibility for the company, and none for the pilot.
SAS makes a very good point about pilots as a group. In the crew room, and on the flight deck we talk alot of bravado about not going into discretion, and not allowing rostering to take the p*ss in order to run an unworkable schedule. When the phone rings, and crewing ask you to work a day off there is always someone who is willing to take the £300 for an FO, and £500 for a captain. Everyone thinks that if they make some sort of stand they will put their career on the line. For those reasons I chose to withdraw my support of BALPA, and whenever I had any questions about what was being done I referred directly to the Base Captain, and the Chief Pilot.
I don't think BALPA had many teeth, at least at the companies that I worked for, so I don't really believe that I received much in the way of benefit that I hadn't paid for, and I certainly didn't lose sleep over any that I might have received.
There is a point about BALPA that is very relevant, and has been hinted at today. The CC are nothing without the membership. They cannot represent the views of the pilots if the pilots don't make their views known, and relay them to their CC. The membership too often expects the CC to read their minds, and then get up in arms when the CC don't do what they member wanted.
The last 2 companies that I have worked for have paid less than token lip service to allowing BALPA to 'work with them' in respect of pay deals and so on. When it came to redundancies earlier this year BALPA were allowed to negotiate, but eventually the company went it's own way, and ignored BALPA. At the previous company always allowed negotiation, and always went their own way. The CC eventually resigned en masse because they had not received proper support from BALPA. It took BALPA 6 months to get a new CC, and during that time there was no communication from BALPA to the members.
There are larger issues where I think that BALPA have done pilots a disservice too. The biggest one I believe is that of pilots paying airlines for type ratings. As far as I know, and whilst I was a member I asked the questions often, BALPA did not oppose this policy at any stage. It is now nearly de rigeur for UK airlines.
BALPA also failed to negotiate rostering agreements in both companies, despite the regular lip service from the company that they wanted one, and the continual dithering, and non achievement of any such document which resulted in ultimate flexibility for the company, and none for the pilot.
SAS makes a very good point about pilots as a group. In the crew room, and on the flight deck we talk alot of bravado about not going into discretion, and not allowing rostering to take the p*ss in order to run an unworkable schedule. When the phone rings, and crewing ask you to work a day off there is always someone who is willing to take the £300 for an FO, and £500 for a captain. Everyone thinks that if they make some sort of stand they will put their career on the line. For those reasons I chose to withdraw my support of BALPA, and whenever I had any questions about what was being done I referred directly to the Base Captain, and the Chief Pilot.
I don't think BALPA had many teeth, at least at the companies that I worked for, so I don't really believe that I received much in the way of benefit that I hadn't paid for, and I certainly didn't lose sleep over any that I might have received.
There is a point about BALPA that is very relevant, and has been hinted at today. The CC are nothing without the membership. They cannot represent the views of the pilots if the pilots don't make their views known, and relay them to their CC. The membership too often expects the CC to read their minds, and then get up in arms when the CC don't do what they member wanted.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
firestrom - would i be correct in summarising your post to say that.in place of company doing their own thing and ignoring balpa along with pilot inactivity.we should therefore blame balpa?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR.
You read part of my meaning correctly. I think that if pilots, individually, and collectively took a bit more responsibility for themselves via BALPA then it could be a more effective organistation. I think that companies find BALPA too difficult to accommodate, and that is why they ignore their negotiations, so in that respect I do blame BALPA. There is a gap between the union's expectations, and those of the companies, and the companies who have the final say will always win that tussle. I know of one of the BALPA advisors who was a complete militant 'up the workers: brothers unite' type, and unfortunately it was she who was attached to the 2 companies that I worked for. I think that her confrontational attitude lost credibility for BALPA with the airline managers, so on that particular issue I blame BALPA. I also blame BALPA for not having strategy for the pilot work force as a whole, such as opposing pilots paying for type ratings, and paying for line training. BALPA's business seems to be conducted on a company by company basis which has a definite place, but there never seemed to be an industry strategy. When I asked questions about such matters I was fobbed off completely with an attitude that suggested to me that they couldn't be bothered with those issues.
On the matter of pilots not taking responsibility for their own destiny I blame pilots, individually, and collectively. The pilots have to make their feelings known to the CC, and to BALPA as to what they think is important to them so that the order of work can be prioritised. If they don't the CC will do what it thinks is best, and no one can whinge thereafter which too often seemed to be the case.
In the case of one of the companies that I joined it had been set up pretty hastily as a sub company. Essentially all the pilots at one base were told to either rebase; accept a new contract (from full service scheduled airline to low cost) or lose their jobs. The new contract was particularly sketchy, and should never have been accepted by BALPA: it remains sketchy, and really fails to protect the pilots from very much at all whilst leaving the company as much flexibility as it wants in almost all areas. I am surprised that BALPA accepted it.
I know that BALPA did alot of work over Sub Part Q, and on European FTLs in order to preserve our more restrictive English limits in the face of much opposition by the low cost outfits, and I think that the low cost companies may now be thankful that the work was done: I believe it contributes very significantly to safety (that's a whole different thread), and I'm sure that BALPA does alot of other representative work.
I took the decision not to support BALPA because I felt that they were not prepared to represent points that I felt very strongly about, and I know from past discussions here, and elsewhere that other people did too. I made my feelings known when I was a member, and made my feelings very clear when I resigned my membership. The only reply was an extraordinarily arrogant letter signed by the Chairman telling me that his was the best organisation of it's kind, and what a grave error I was making by leaving: he had clearly not read my letters to him or his staff.
You read part of my meaning correctly. I think that if pilots, individually, and collectively took a bit more responsibility for themselves via BALPA then it could be a more effective organistation. I think that companies find BALPA too difficult to accommodate, and that is why they ignore their negotiations, so in that respect I do blame BALPA. There is a gap between the union's expectations, and those of the companies, and the companies who have the final say will always win that tussle. I know of one of the BALPA advisors who was a complete militant 'up the workers: brothers unite' type, and unfortunately it was she who was attached to the 2 companies that I worked for. I think that her confrontational attitude lost credibility for BALPA with the airline managers, so on that particular issue I blame BALPA. I also blame BALPA for not having strategy for the pilot work force as a whole, such as opposing pilots paying for type ratings, and paying for line training. BALPA's business seems to be conducted on a company by company basis which has a definite place, but there never seemed to be an industry strategy. When I asked questions about such matters I was fobbed off completely with an attitude that suggested to me that they couldn't be bothered with those issues.
On the matter of pilots not taking responsibility for their own destiny I blame pilots, individually, and collectively. The pilots have to make their feelings known to the CC, and to BALPA as to what they think is important to them so that the order of work can be prioritised. If they don't the CC will do what it thinks is best, and no one can whinge thereafter which too often seemed to be the case.
In the case of one of the companies that I joined it had been set up pretty hastily as a sub company. Essentially all the pilots at one base were told to either rebase; accept a new contract (from full service scheduled airline to low cost) or lose their jobs. The new contract was particularly sketchy, and should never have been accepted by BALPA: it remains sketchy, and really fails to protect the pilots from very much at all whilst leaving the company as much flexibility as it wants in almost all areas. I am surprised that BALPA accepted it.
I know that BALPA did alot of work over Sub Part Q, and on European FTLs in order to preserve our more restrictive English limits in the face of much opposition by the low cost outfits, and I think that the low cost companies may now be thankful that the work was done: I believe it contributes very significantly to safety (that's a whole different thread), and I'm sure that BALPA does alot of other representative work.
I took the decision not to support BALPA because I felt that they were not prepared to represent points that I felt very strongly about, and I know from past discussions here, and elsewhere that other people did too. I made my feelings known when I was a member, and made my feelings very clear when I resigned my membership. The only reply was an extraordinarily arrogant letter signed by the Chairman telling me that his was the best organisation of it's kind, and what a grave error I was making by leaving: he had clearly not read my letters to him or his staff.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA is by no means perfect. Firey makes some good points, especially in relation to the growth of self funded type ratings, even in companies with BALPA recognition.
However, I do feel that anything is better than nothing. So whilst BALPA as a whole could be better, if you have a good CC and decent collective bargaining agreement, you are whole heap better off than if you are all just individuals.
It's not rocket science to see this. There's no need for militancy or any stupid rabble rousing, but there is a need for respect from both the workforce and the company. Something that seems to be lacking hugely in the current Ryanair spat.
It's very sad really. Management teams and staff generally want the same thing. For a company to be sucessful as it's good for everyone.
Why there is a need for such violent infighting, I'll never understand. Frankly, it's just very, very stupid and both "sides" can take some blame in that.
Though some of the tactics I've seen used by the management team in Ryanair recently are nothing short of scandalous, despicable as well as being downright illegal.
However, I do feel that anything is better than nothing. So whilst BALPA as a whole could be better, if you have a good CC and decent collective bargaining agreement, you are whole heap better off than if you are all just individuals.
It's not rocket science to see this. There's no need for militancy or any stupid rabble rousing, but there is a need for respect from both the workforce and the company. Something that seems to be lacking hugely in the current Ryanair spat.
It's very sad really. Management teams and staff generally want the same thing. For a company to be sucessful as it's good for everyone.
Why there is a need for such violent infighting, I'll never understand. Frankly, it's just very, very stupid and both "sides" can take some blame in that.
Though some of the tactics I've seen used by the management team in Ryanair recently are nothing short of scandalous, despicable as well as being downright illegal.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: petr0grad
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost single-handedly fighting the compulsory biometric national ID card for airside workers alone was worth every penny I've paid to BALPA.
Congratulations to all that were involved.
Never had I felt prouder to be a member than watching the BBC/C4 breaking news story about how my union managed such a feat.
Congratulations to all that were involved.
Never had I felt prouder to be a member than watching the BBC/C4 breaking news story about how my union managed such a feat.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's get one thing straight about self funded type ratings. We live in a democracy. If someone has the resources, or is willing to indebt himself, to self fund a rating, then that is his democratic and free right. If this lifts him up the employment ladder a bit, then that is his paid-for benefit, and I´m afraid it is nobody else´s business. Why you expect BALPA to 'step in and do something about this ´problem´' I don´t know!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect a union to try and minimise this practice simply because it skews the recruitment process and invites further cost for people wishing to join our profession.
This is EXACTLY the sort of issue a union should be working on.
This is EXACTLY the sort of issue a union should be working on.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulations should be in place to protect the individual from indebtting themselves, especially if there are no guarentees of a job and you haven't actually seen the final on-the-line contract until your training is complete.
Stop wasting your effort chaps. Look after your own interests and stop trying to spoil others who go that much further.
Chieftan o'the Pudden Race
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: Scotland usually, and often other parts of Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a free society! Are you really saying my union subs should be spent on stopping people buying themselves a rating? Strewth! Talk about unreal. Define 'democracy' for me please! 'Freedom of the individual' and all that. Good luck to them. It is the jealous ones who get left behind through not being able to fund it that are carping. It's like saying we should all have the same cars, so stop people buying themselves really nice ones!
The wholesale buying of type ratings erodes t's and c's in real terms for the whole pilot community. In my view, type specific training is a legitimate company expense and airlines that rely on pilot charity to pay for that expense have a fundamental flaw in the business model and ought not to be in business. However, it usually some of the most profitable airlines that are cynically abusing the most vulnerable members of the profession - those at the bottom of the ladder.
Your last line really sums up the selfishness and total lack of cohesion of the pilot community to be able fight for anything, and will be key to the likes of Michael O'Leary being able to split any pilot workforce. It's lucky that the CAA mandate FTL's otherwise there would be those willing to fly extra hours so they can "get that much further".
Airline management love hearing this sort of "I'm all right Jack" sort of talk from pilots - it makes it so much easier to push through the next B, C or D scale pay reviews.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New pilots who buy their copilot time are buying a service. They can only fly with qualified training captains and are very much a liability until they are checked out, which takes a long time. They are then inexperienced, and without being rude, a liability to line captains because of their lack of knowledge, breadth and depth. It takes time to be an adequately contributing member of crew, particularly in a 2 member crew. You're buying that support and training.
As for people paying for their own rating, what is the problem with understanding it is a free country? People have the right, and if it makes them more employable, well, they have got something back for their investment in themselves, haven't they? It should be banned because you can't go that far? If you want to ban this, why not ban altogether paying for your own flying training? Airlines would recruit the most talented ab initios, not the ones who just put together 80k whether they have aptitude or not? The airlines would have to pay for training, but you would not decide whether you were to proceed in a career. So why is it OK for you lot to stop others paying one stage more when you've ALL paid for training anyway?
Stop being jealous and hysterical. You have no argument. Accept that you cannot afford the extra with grace and find a way around it. You may have to wait longer. But the kid with no assets can equally point a finger at you and say 'why should you be able to buy your training and put yourself at an advantage to me who can't afford any of it?'
As for people paying for their own rating, what is the problem with understanding it is a free country? People have the right, and if it makes them more employable, well, they have got something back for their investment in themselves, haven't they? It should be banned because you can't go that far? If you want to ban this, why not ban altogether paying for your own flying training? Airlines would recruit the most talented ab initios, not the ones who just put together 80k whether they have aptitude or not? The airlines would have to pay for training, but you would not decide whether you were to proceed in a career. So why is it OK for you lot to stop others paying one stage more when you've ALL paid for training anyway?
Stop being jealous and hysterical. You have no argument. Accept that you cannot afford the extra with grace and find a way around it. You may have to wait longer. But the kid with no assets can equally point a finger at you and say 'why should you be able to buy your training and put yourself at an advantage to me who can't afford any of it?'
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe. How many type ratings have you had to buy? Any? Are you still in the situation where you can see your T's and C's being reduced thanks to an influx of people willing to not only work for free, but actually pay for the privilege of going to work?
I have a feeling that you are just trolling here. I cannot imagine ANY professional pilot would think that this situation is good.
We may live in a "free society", however that doesn't mean that it is right to do something. It is a very short term view to think that buying a type rating is good for your career.
It might get you on the ladder, but that doesn't mean that you are necessarily the best candidate. In fact you might be an absolute muppet, but have the ability to buy your way into a job. Leaving someone who might be a far better candidate stuck on the shelf purely because of money.
What happens when it becomes the norm to buy a rating? What is the next differentiator? Working for less, working for free or paying to work? That is exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. Where do we go from here? The downward pressure on salaries has already started thanks to this.
So again, I can't believe that any rational and sensible professional would consider the growth of self funded type ratings to be a good thing. No matter how obnoxious they are trying to be.
It would be better if there were still proper cadet schemes, where there was decent screening and recruitment. That way we wouldn't get the awful situation where people who really aren't suited for the job being conned into parting with tens of thousands of pounds when they really aren't ever going to make it.
I have a feeling that you are just trolling here. I cannot imagine ANY professional pilot would think that this situation is good.
We may live in a "free society", however that doesn't mean that it is right to do something. It is a very short term view to think that buying a type rating is good for your career.
It might get you on the ladder, but that doesn't mean that you are necessarily the best candidate. In fact you might be an absolute muppet, but have the ability to buy your way into a job. Leaving someone who might be a far better candidate stuck on the shelf purely because of money.
What happens when it becomes the norm to buy a rating? What is the next differentiator? Working for less, working for free or paying to work? That is exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. Where do we go from here? The downward pressure on salaries has already started thanks to this.
So again, I can't believe that any rational and sensible professional would consider the growth of self funded type ratings to be a good thing. No matter how obnoxious they are trying to be.
It would be better if there were still proper cadet schemes, where there was decent screening and recruitment. That way we wouldn't get the awful situation where people who really aren't suited for the job being conned into parting with tens of thousands of pounds when they really aren't ever going to make it.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trolling. I'm simply trying to say it's a free market.
...can quite easily apply to anyone who has paid for their own flying training, not just those who go one step further and buy their ratings and route training.
It is indeed an unfortunate state of affairs, but ultimately, we live in a democracy and a free market. We cannot arbitrarily make regulations because there will be those who say it is unfair you even paid for your flying training when maybe a far more apt candidate with no assets is unable to contemplate it.
Frankly, hearing some of the people here who are playing an ipod into their headphones to 'while away the boring hours on cross country' makes me think that indeed the opposite of what you want is happening! We are having inept and unenthusiastic flyers buying their training over keen, but totally impecunious people who may have made far better candidates!
It might get you on the ladder, but that doesn't mean that you are necessarily the best candidate. In fact you might be an absolute muppet, but have the ability to buy your way into a job. Leaving someone who might be a far better candidate stuck on the shelf purely because of money.
It is indeed an unfortunate state of affairs, but ultimately, we live in a democracy and a free market. We cannot arbitrarily make regulations because there will be those who say it is unfair you even paid for your flying training when maybe a far more apt candidate with no assets is unable to contemplate it.
Frankly, hearing some of the people here who are playing an ipod into their headphones to 'while away the boring hours on cross country' makes me think that indeed the opposite of what you want is happening! We are having inept and unenthusiastic flyers buying their training over keen, but totally impecunious people who may have made far better candidates!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't about making regulations and banning it, but the unions putting pressure on the airlines to make it more hassle than it's worth.
You cannot and should not regulate everything, but you don't need to make laws about everything (something our Government might want to realise) to ensure that things don't happen.
People have always paid for their own training. There has never been a time when commercial pilots only came from airline funded cadet schemes. Type ratings and line training are very different things than just getting a basic licence.
You cannot and should not regulate everything, but you don't need to make laws about everything (something our Government might want to realise) to ensure that things don't happen.
People have always paid for their own training. There has never been a time when commercial pilots only came from airline funded cadet schemes. Type ratings and line training are very different things than just getting a basic licence.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? What is essentially being said is 'only disallow self-funded training for what I cannot, or will not, fund!'
Who said we can all pay for basic flying training (that's OK), but not further training? It just doesn't stand up I'm afraid, and regulation will never happen (how can it?).
I'm not justifying it, but that is how it is in a free country and a free economy. Rather than carping on about it and applying unreal pressure and criticism on a union to do something about it it really cannot do, you must learn to live with it.
Who said we can all pay for basic flying training (that's OK), but not further training? It just doesn't stand up I'm afraid, and regulation will never happen (how can it?).
I'm not justifying it, but that is how it is in a free country and a free economy. Rather than carping on about it and applying unreal pressure and criticism on a union to do something about it it really cannot do, you must learn to live with it.
Last edited by Rainboe; 15th Jul 2009 at 19:45.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is, that we don't know how much of an effect there would have been by any campaign, as nothing was done. So things might be very different, or they might be exactly the same.
The point is that we can have opposing view points on it, but our union should have at least been looking at it and trying to find out what could be done.
If they had put things out to the press and got the public against it, then that could have made airlines think twice about it, but only at an early stage.
Free market or not, not everything has to go down to the lowest bidder. Sometimes quality should count and the recruitment of pilots should have more to do with getting the right people, rather than the cheapest.
If a pilots union isn't going to fight on these issues, then who else is?
Like it or lump it just isn't good enough. A union should be proactive in protecting it's members and looking at all issues that might change their work conditions. Not just sitting there dumbly and trying to react to things that have already happened.
The point is that we can have opposing view points on it, but our union should have at least been looking at it and trying to find out what could be done.
If they had put things out to the press and got the public against it, then that could have made airlines think twice about it, but only at an early stage.
Free market or not, not everything has to go down to the lowest bidder. Sometimes quality should count and the recruitment of pilots should have more to do with getting the right people, rather than the cheapest.
If a pilots union isn't going to fight on these issues, then who else is?
Like it or lump it just isn't good enough. A union should be proactive in protecting it's members and looking at all issues that might change their work conditions. Not just sitting there dumbly and trying to react to things that have already happened.
Twenty-odd years ago, a very good friend of mine who was the Flight Ops Director for a large UK charter airline told me that he would never hire a pilot just because said pilot had a type rating. He was much more interested in finding a loyal employee.
Those were the days.
Then the accountants took over.
In came bonding because a small proportion of type-hunters had got the rating and then done a runner. The typical bond worked along the lines that your bond reduced every month by a fixed amount so that after three years the account was settled and the type rating was yours.
I had two such bonds and had no problem with them for I had every intention of staying where I was for the bonding period at the very least.
Then the accountants took over.
They came up with a scheme whereby the trainee took out a loan with an approved bank which had to pay the company for the balance if the trainee did a runner.
Whilst this period of UK aviation was going on, people were banging on and on about how iniquitous the practice of bonding was. One of my friends decided to duck his bond and, despite good legal representation (which he had to pay for himself as BALPA were less than interested) he got pursued relentlessly through the courts and had to pay the balance plus legal costs.
Then the accountants took over.
Why should we hire pilots who are not qualified to do the job? Why should we go to the expense of training them?
And so it was that organisations such as CTC got started. They got the costs of the training out of the trainee (and no doubt got a good kick-back from the airline that hired their product). The airlines and the accountants were delighted for they took no risks and it cost them nothing and they liked the product. Unless you went through CTC or Oxford etc, you couldn't even get past the dragon on the front desk with your CV.
Then the accountants took over.
So, we have cleverly got these bums on seats in the flight deck that have, so far, cost us no money. They could still fail to cut the mustard during line-training so why should we pay for that? What we need is a scheme whereby the trainee pays for everything until they have 500 hours on line.
That is where we are now ladies and gentlemen.
Don't blame the youngsters who want to get into our wonderful profession. They are no different to you and I when we were younger. A whole series of hurdles are raised in life that have to be crossed otherwise the goal cannot be reached.
If you cannot get into the RAF or afford to learn to fly and go down the CTC route then you need to look elsewhere in this modern climate. I had no money when I embarked upon my long and successful flying career and it was bloody hard work but I got there and had a hell of a lot of fun on the way.
I don't like the way that things have gone in my profession but it is still possible to succeed. I advised a young man a few years ago that sitting on your arse and complaining was simply not an option. He paid for his type rating on my advice and has now paid off the lot and is doing very well and making a profit. What is more, the type rating is his.
I regret to say that a lot of youngsters out there are going to have to take a reality check. I cannot think of one UK airline that is even likely to be hiring pilots for the foreseeable future far less offering a bond.
I was told recently by a young man on prune that BA do not bond their pilots. That is entirely true (at the moment) so all you have to do is get hired by BA (and don't forget, if you succeed, to join the pension scheme).
I think, for the moment at least, the accountants have won.
I hate that.
What might cheer you up is that when you finally get airborne in the morning on a really dank day and break out through the cloud tops and see the sun and the most beautiful sunrise in the world, the miserable bast*rd accountant will still be sat in his miserable bast*ard office.
That is why you are there and why he is there.
Those were the days.
Then the accountants took over.
In came bonding because a small proportion of type-hunters had got the rating and then done a runner. The typical bond worked along the lines that your bond reduced every month by a fixed amount so that after three years the account was settled and the type rating was yours.
I had two such bonds and had no problem with them for I had every intention of staying where I was for the bonding period at the very least.
Then the accountants took over.
They came up with a scheme whereby the trainee took out a loan with an approved bank which had to pay the company for the balance if the trainee did a runner.
Whilst this period of UK aviation was going on, people were banging on and on about how iniquitous the practice of bonding was. One of my friends decided to duck his bond and, despite good legal representation (which he had to pay for himself as BALPA were less than interested) he got pursued relentlessly through the courts and had to pay the balance plus legal costs.
Then the accountants took over.
Why should we hire pilots who are not qualified to do the job? Why should we go to the expense of training them?
And so it was that organisations such as CTC got started. They got the costs of the training out of the trainee (and no doubt got a good kick-back from the airline that hired their product). The airlines and the accountants were delighted for they took no risks and it cost them nothing and they liked the product. Unless you went through CTC or Oxford etc, you couldn't even get past the dragon on the front desk with your CV.
Then the accountants took over.
So, we have cleverly got these bums on seats in the flight deck that have, so far, cost us no money. They could still fail to cut the mustard during line-training so why should we pay for that? What we need is a scheme whereby the trainee pays for everything until they have 500 hours on line.
That is where we are now ladies and gentlemen.
Don't blame the youngsters who want to get into our wonderful profession. They are no different to you and I when we were younger. A whole series of hurdles are raised in life that have to be crossed otherwise the goal cannot be reached.
If you cannot get into the RAF or afford to learn to fly and go down the CTC route then you need to look elsewhere in this modern climate. I had no money when I embarked upon my long and successful flying career and it was bloody hard work but I got there and had a hell of a lot of fun on the way.
I don't like the way that things have gone in my profession but it is still possible to succeed. I advised a young man a few years ago that sitting on your arse and complaining was simply not an option. He paid for his type rating on my advice and has now paid off the lot and is doing very well and making a profit. What is more, the type rating is his.
I regret to say that a lot of youngsters out there are going to have to take a reality check. I cannot think of one UK airline that is even likely to be hiring pilots for the foreseeable future far less offering a bond.
I was told recently by a young man on prune that BA do not bond their pilots. That is entirely true (at the moment) so all you have to do is get hired by BA (and don't forget, if you succeed, to join the pension scheme).
I think, for the moment at least, the accountants have won.
I hate that.
What might cheer you up is that when you finally get airborne in the morning on a really dank day and break out through the cloud tops and see the sun and the most beautiful sunrise in the world, the miserable bast*rd accountant will still be sat in his miserable bast*ard office.
That is why you are there and why he is there.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe,
Can't argue with that but would it also be OK to get an earlier command by offering to pay for the upgrade and jump the seniority list? Would it be OK to buy a position with an airline and displace another pilot? I would also like to point out that BALPA may be helpful if you're with BA but they're totally useless if you work for my company. I say that as an ex member who has been totally betrayed by them recently. Their lack of support was in stark contrast to the help they provided for a BA F/O who wanted to fly for a hobby.
Let's get one thing straight about self funded type ratings. We live in a democracy. If someone has the resources, or is willing to indebt himself, to self fund a rating, then that is his democratic and free right. If this lifts him up the employment ladder a bit, then that is his paid-for benefit, and I´m afraid it is nobody else´s business. Why you expect BALPA to 'step in and do something about this ´problem´' I don´t know!
