Easy worse than Ryanair
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Save your effort guys since there is no point trying to convert the unwashed. Whilst there are empty seats being offered on modern Airbus and Boeing aircraft, the seats will get filled.
Take a look at Royal Air Maroc and the struggle that they have had with eroding Ts & Cs, poorer rostering and the 'Eaglejet' pay to fly scheme. In fact I think there was even a IFALPA recruitment ban in place at RAM at one point. perhaps it is still active?
However recruitment bans and eroding conditions for their peers, are not going to deter the youngsters from strapping into the RHS. I am sure the queue for such vacancies will be just as long as well.
In the case of easyJet, don't BALPA understand that the introduction of flexi crew is potentially paving a path towards the company trying to bring in lower terms and conditions across the board? I am sure there is a line that will be crossed at some point and BALPA will indeed put their foot down, but they should have done it long ago in my view. The excuse of 'they (flexi crew cadets) are not employed by easyJet' is simply burying ones head in the sand... is it not? I am not employed by easyJet so I am merely passing comment from what I am seeing from the outside.
Take a look at Royal Air Maroc and the struggle that they have had with eroding Ts & Cs, poorer rostering and the 'Eaglejet' pay to fly scheme. In fact I think there was even a IFALPA recruitment ban in place at RAM at one point. perhaps it is still active?
However recruitment bans and eroding conditions for their peers, are not going to deter the youngsters from strapping into the RHS. I am sure the queue for such vacancies will be just as long as well.
In the case of easyJet, don't BALPA understand that the introduction of flexi crew is potentially paving a path towards the company trying to bring in lower terms and conditions across the board? I am sure there is a line that will be crossed at some point and BALPA will indeed put their foot down, but they should have done it long ago in my view. The excuse of 'they (flexi crew cadets) are not employed by easyJet' is simply burying ones head in the sand... is it not? I am not employed by easyJet so I am merely passing comment from what I am seeing from the outside.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: peoples republic of EU
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that easyjet BALPA totally understand the consequences of flexi crew and pay to fly schemes to the point where they initiated the campaign in BALPA HQ. Unfortunately in the harsh world of reality, if the easy CC can not get their membership to take interest in the current 'consultation' process ballot which will (with 100% certainty) come back and haunt every single base at some point (even darling LGW) then it is very unlikely they will be able to effect a response over a group of young contractors who are not officially employed by the company.
This is the reality we all face. The silent majority are feeling ok in there own back yard and don't want disturbed. Sad but true.
This is the reality we all face. The silent majority are feeling ok in there own back yard and don't want disturbed. Sad but true.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it was suggested that the pay for 150 hours line training scheme that easy suffered last summer was perhaps a bad idea and the start of the rot and that perhaps BALPA should investigate, I believe that the BALPA response at the time was that time could have been spent looking at more important issues and that in fact it was a useful revenue stream for the company, which we shouldn't really deny them. Indeed, I even remember one TC saying it was a good idea as it prevented his training skills from becoming rusty!!
That was the response in 2008. Perhaps in 2009 we can all see what is happening? I hope.
That was the response in 2008. Perhaps in 2009 we can all see what is happening? I hope.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: U.K
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very interesting statements!
I have said it before but but will again, the whole CTC, Eaglejet type schemes plus cut to the bone cost cutting by the airlines themselves will not end until somebody on such a scheme or an airline involved with rampant cost cutting is involved in either a major incident or a fatal accident.
Once this happens it will be placed in the hands of the AAIB, and as the AAIB seems to leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of these events things will eventually be brought to the public forum.
The media will have an absolute field day and it will be put down to a one off and the UK's excellent accident statistics will be quoted and it will all go away. It will then happen again and the above proccess will start all over again.
The insurers will then start to get involved and a minimum experience level for crews will be levied on aircraft type, weight etc. The airlines want to save costs but so do the insurers and It doesn't take a genius to work out who will win. It will take a few muti million pound insurance claims to start the ball rolling.
I haven't mentioned the CAA yet, there is no point as they are no longer an authority more an administration, there just to look after the paperwork and nothing more.
I have said it before but but will again, the whole CTC, Eaglejet type schemes plus cut to the bone cost cutting by the airlines themselves will not end until somebody on such a scheme or an airline involved with rampant cost cutting is involved in either a major incident or a fatal accident.
Once this happens it will be placed in the hands of the AAIB, and as the AAIB seems to leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of these events things will eventually be brought to the public forum.
The media will have an absolute field day and it will be put down to a one off and the UK's excellent accident statistics will be quoted and it will all go away. It will then happen again and the above proccess will start all over again.
The insurers will then start to get involved and a minimum experience level for crews will be levied on aircraft type, weight etc. The airlines want to save costs but so do the insurers and It doesn't take a genius to work out who will win. It will take a few muti million pound insurance claims to start the ball rolling.
I haven't mentioned the CAA yet, there is no point as they are no longer an authority more an administration, there just to look after the paperwork and nothing more.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear
I could not believe that comment about it being a good idea as it stopped the training skills from getting rusty ,or indeed the useful revenue nonsense.
Once again the old im all right jack , im a training capt nonsense.
Not so all right now that the company want to take 20 of you away and replace you with CTC trainers(we have a contract with them ,sorry there is nothing can be done about that !)
I could not believe that comment about it being a good idea as it stopped the training skills from getting rusty ,or indeed the useful revenue nonsense.
Once again the old im all right jack , im a training capt nonsense.
Not so all right now that the company want to take 20 of you away and replace you with CTC trainers(we have a contract with them ,sorry there is nothing can be done about that !)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ask crewing
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA are not interested in FOs terms and conditions..regardless of what airline it is. BALPA CC reps are mainly senior captains and hence it's not surprising to see most BALPA action biased toward senior pilots. Across the industry Ts & Cs have been butchered at entry level, often to pay for maintaining or improving the senior guys' conditions. It is hardly surprising therefore to see these schemes allowed without so much of a token bleat from the union.
I read with interest the cabin crew thread about potential strikes at BA. Lots of pilots are on there criticising BASSA reps, saying how they're all senior people looking after their own interests. Sounds VERY familiar.
I read with interest the cabin crew thread about potential strikes at BA. Lots of pilots are on there criticising BASSA reps, saying how they're all senior people looking after their own interests. Sounds VERY familiar.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverknapper what a very unproductive post. My post was intended to add to the discussion, which isn’t necessarily about CTC in particular but about the deteriorating terms and conditions. However in response.
The airlines have always had a need to take direct entry pilots in and the ethos of the CTC that I joined was that money wasn’t a factor but ability. I can see how this may have been blurred slightly now, however wasn’t when I joined. You have no idea of my background or flying experience.
The industry needs to be able to attract top candidates and by having the only route into the industry through other smaller airlines isn’t necessarily wrong however as you’ll find from the policy of most major airlines and history, this route doesn’t necessarily produce the best pilots all of time. Companies like CTC only exist because the industry allowed the airlines to find a cheaper way of providing their direct entry cadets. These schemes facilitate attracting people away from other top careers like medicine and law and in to flying, hence aiding the industry standards. Without them other method of recruitment would be unable to cope with the demand, but this is for another topic.
My understanding of this topic was to address and discuss the falling terms and conditions which effects all pilots and their careers in all airlines, highlighted most recently in easyjet. I am in the situation that I have to accept the terms and conditions for now but will soon be able to jump ship somewhere else very shortly. All this does is allow the conditions to get worse for the guys behind and allow the rot to grow further up the chain. This accepting and planning to jump ship attitude allowed this situation to develop in FR (not the pilots fault), but ignored by the industry. This is directly the reason it can now be seen in easyjet, I am sure this will soon be seen as a standard in all airlines if allowed to continue; and will move further up the chain. Having very poor entry terms and conditions eventually brings down the conditions higher up and achieves nothing but to reduce the standards of the pilots entering the career, a genuine concern for all.
Unfortunately your attitude and apparent jealousy does nothing but to distract from the post's topic. I regret posting however I am sure you can find a home for your CTC easy way out cadet bashing on a different forum.
To others with a genuine interest in the conversation I apologise for going a little bit off topic but felt it necessary to re inform some short sightedness.
The airlines have always had a need to take direct entry pilots in and the ethos of the CTC that I joined was that money wasn’t a factor but ability. I can see how this may have been blurred slightly now, however wasn’t when I joined. You have no idea of my background or flying experience.
The industry needs to be able to attract top candidates and by having the only route into the industry through other smaller airlines isn’t necessarily wrong however as you’ll find from the policy of most major airlines and history, this route doesn’t necessarily produce the best pilots all of time. Companies like CTC only exist because the industry allowed the airlines to find a cheaper way of providing their direct entry cadets. These schemes facilitate attracting people away from other top careers like medicine and law and in to flying, hence aiding the industry standards. Without them other method of recruitment would be unable to cope with the demand, but this is for another topic.
My understanding of this topic was to address and discuss the falling terms and conditions which effects all pilots and their careers in all airlines, highlighted most recently in easyjet. I am in the situation that I have to accept the terms and conditions for now but will soon be able to jump ship somewhere else very shortly. All this does is allow the conditions to get worse for the guys behind and allow the rot to grow further up the chain. This accepting and planning to jump ship attitude allowed this situation to develop in FR (not the pilots fault), but ignored by the industry. This is directly the reason it can now be seen in easyjet, I am sure this will soon be seen as a standard in all airlines if allowed to continue; and will move further up the chain. Having very poor entry terms and conditions eventually brings down the conditions higher up and achieves nothing but to reduce the standards of the pilots entering the career, a genuine concern for all.
Unfortunately your attitude and apparent jealousy does nothing but to distract from the post's topic. I regret posting however I am sure you can find a home for your CTC easy way out cadet bashing on a different forum.
To others with a genuine interest in the conversation I apologise for going a little bit off topic but felt it necessary to re inform some short sightedness.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industry needs to be able to attract top candidates and by having the only route into the industry through other smaller airlines isn’t necessarily wrong however as you’ll find from the policy of most major airlines and history, this route doesn’t necessarily produce the best pilots all of time. Companies like CTC only exist because the industry allowed the airlines to find a cheaper way of providing their direct entry cadets
My coining of the phrase Wannabe Zombie Army was never derogatory to CTC cadets with whom I have regularly enjoyed working for many years.
Rather the phrase was born out of the fact that no matter how bad, how futile, how bleak the pilot employment market becomes there never ceases to be a supply, topped up monthly, of people willing to spend Ł50,60,70,80,90,100,110,000 on flying training (think Ł75k Integrated course + accommodation + Ł33k SSTR with RYR). There has not been a day gone past over the last two years where the Wannabes forum has not had a new post on the various 'How Do I Apply To' threads.
All Wannabes and indeed all cadets carrying huge debt burdens have my complete sympathy and total support.
The root of the problem is not people. It is money. On the one hand the desire for airlines to make it and on the other the ability of Wannabes to get hold of it.
WWW
Rather the phrase was born out of the fact that no matter how bad, how futile, how bleak the pilot employment market becomes there never ceases to be a supply, topped up monthly, of people willing to spend Ł50,60,70,80,90,100,110,000 on flying training (think Ł75k Integrated course + accommodation + Ł33k SSTR with RYR). There has not been a day gone past over the last two years where the Wannabes forum has not had a new post on the various 'How Do I Apply To' threads.
All Wannabes and indeed all cadets carrying huge debt burdens have my complete sympathy and total support.
The root of the problem is not people. It is money. On the one hand the desire for airlines to make it and on the other the ability of Wannabes to get hold of it.
WWW
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies, was not my intention. Intention was just to counter act the insinuation that we some how we had this coming or that we are lesser pilots because we went through a scheme design to take us straight in to a jet type ratings. This doesn’t just include the CTC stream but also the other major flying schools. I m not sure blaming cadets coming out of training and saying that nothing will change until people aren’t prepared to take financial risk to get into the industry is flawed.
I believe the industry requires a mixed in take from all backgrounds and the decline in terms will eventually dry up the standard and quantity from all streams. Ideally the airlines would start their own schemes back up to compliment experienced pilots joining and this would mean no further need for schemes such as CTC. Currently this isn't a route into the industry though.
My intention wasn’t take the focus of the discussion on to me, but to refocus on what is a bigger issue for the industry. Far bigger than whether a few cadets deserve to be treated this way as they didn’t build their hours over years while working another job, which appears to be clouding the conversation. I initially only intended to provide the point of view from someone working under the new terms and conditions in order to aid the thread.
I believe the industry requires a mixed in take from all backgrounds and the decline in terms will eventually dry up the standard and quantity from all streams. Ideally the airlines would start their own schemes back up to compliment experienced pilots joining and this would mean no further need for schemes such as CTC. Currently this isn't a route into the industry though.
My intention wasn’t take the focus of the discussion on to me, but to refocus on what is a bigger issue for the industry. Far bigger than whether a few cadets deserve to be treated this way as they didn’t build their hours over years while working another job, which appears to be clouding the conversation. I initially only intended to provide the point of view from someone working under the new terms and conditions in order to aid the thread.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industry could learn from Logans Run, a 1970s film where your head was blown up at the age of 30 to make room for younger people.
2 years to train,5 years RHS, 3 LHS then BANG, next please. A well known training school would continue to be able to run their Falcon on the backs of the Cadets parents borrowed money, the airlines would never have to pay beyond paypoint 7 and save a fortune plus no pension to worry about, the crews would never get enough hours to get fed up with the job.........its win win all the way!
One potential problem my be getting enough nylon flares for all the applicants to this new program plus static discharge issues on the flight deck.
2 years to train,5 years RHS, 3 LHS then BANG, next please. A well known training school would continue to be able to run their Falcon on the backs of the Cadets parents borrowed money, the airlines would never have to pay beyond paypoint 7 and save a fortune plus no pension to worry about, the crews would never get enough hours to get fed up with the job.........its win win all the way!
One potential problem my be getting enough nylon flares for all the applicants to this new program plus static discharge issues on the flight deck.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: A laser guided drone
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ctc cadet
you said, referring to the ctc cadetships
These schemes facilitate attracting people away from other top careers like medicine and law and in to flying, hence aiding the industry standards
Would you care to elaborate?
I'm one of these mere mortals whose flew with a smaller carrier before ezy. I'm more than a little curious to know why the industry standards need raising and how you as a ctc cadet contribute to raising these standards?
you said, referring to the ctc cadetships
These schemes facilitate attracting people away from other top careers like medicine and law and in to flying, hence aiding the industry standards
Would you care to elaborate?
I'm one of these mere mortals whose flew with a smaller carrier before ezy. I'm more than a little curious to know why the industry standards need raising and how you as a ctc cadet contribute to raising these standards?
CTCCadet2006 you make some fair points, but then I'm afraid you go and negate them with some absolute rubbish.:
...indeed. That would seem to be their main purpose.
...Nonsense. How many people doing, for example, a law or medical degree, do you think were undecided about what career to follow and ended up on the CTC course on the basis of what the CTC course offered?
Those on my course back in the day were from a wide variety of backgrounds and had a range of qualifications - for some it was the start of a second career having already done something else completely different. But the one thing everyone had in common was the desire for a flying career more than any other; it wasn't a case of being attracted into it at the expense of whatever industry they might have ended up in, and of course it was before all this crap with 'flexible' contracts and part-time working and the general race-to-the-bottom started in earnest. If it wasn't for the schemes like CTC, most would have ended up somewhere in the flying industry having trained via one of the other routes were available. I don't know anyone on the course who was there simply because CTC convinced them it was a better career than medicine or law, to quote your examples.
What evidence is there to suggest - and what makes you think - that someone who makes a good doctor or lawyer is also going to make a good pilot; conversely, what evidence is there to suggest that people from the more traditional routes are of a lower standard, as your statement can be taken to imply? I can see that some contributors on this forum might well be offended by that comment, as blackred has already alluded to... I think I would be if I'd gone down the more traditional route rather than the CTC course.
By all means come on here and correct people's misconceptions about the CTC course, but at least re-read your posts before posting and think how they sound. There are a lot of people in and around the industry with an aloof and slightly negative attitude towards CTC and its 'product', and it doesn't help when people make statements which can be misconstrued!
As a footnote, I would urge anyone thinking of spending money on flight training at the moment with a view to getting a job in the airlines to find and read the Roland Berger report, which has been mentioned earlier in this thread. Some of it is actually very chilling. When you see what the management of one of the biggest takers of CTC cadets are trying to do to the airline on the back of that report, and consider the wider ramifications for the industry as a whole if (when) it happens, it might make you think twice about throwing money at a job which soon will never be the same as it was. If I wasn't already in the industry, would I even consider getting involved now? Not on your life.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
Companies like CTC only exist because the industry allowed the airlines to find a cheaper way of providing their direct entry cadets.
These schemes facilitate attracting people away from other top careers like medicine and law and in to flying...
Those on my course back in the day were from a wide variety of backgrounds and had a range of qualifications - for some it was the start of a second career having already done something else completely different. But the one thing everyone had in common was the desire for a flying career more than any other; it wasn't a case of being attracted into it at the expense of whatever industry they might have ended up in, and of course it was before all this crap with 'flexible' contracts and part-time working and the general race-to-the-bottom started in earnest. If it wasn't for the schemes like CTC, most would have ended up somewhere in the flying industry having trained via one of the other routes were available. I don't know anyone on the course who was there simply because CTC convinced them it was a better career than medicine or law, to quote your examples.
hence aiding the industry standards.
By all means come on here and correct people's misconceptions about the CTC course, but at least re-read your posts before posting and think how they sound. There are a lot of people in and around the industry with an aloof and slightly negative attitude towards CTC and its 'product', and it doesn't help when people make statements which can be misconstrued!
As a footnote, I would urge anyone thinking of spending money on flight training at the moment with a view to getting a job in the airlines to find and read the Roland Berger report, which has been mentioned earlier in this thread. Some of it is actually very chilling. When you see what the management of one of the biggest takers of CTC cadets are trying to do to the airline on the back of that report, and consider the wider ramifications for the industry as a whole if (when) it happens, it might make you think twice about throwing money at a job which soon will never be the same as it was. If I wasn't already in the industry, would I even consider getting involved now? Not on your life.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was not was I was saying, and I have well and truly learnt my lesson about why not to post on pprune. As every forum seems to turn into a slaging match between so called professionals.
The fact is as the terms and conditions across the whole industry decline so does the desirability of the career and the standard of applicant to the industry will follow. The point was not focused on CTC cadets but a need for the industry to have attractive routes in to it.
I was merely trying to defend the fact that there seems to be a feeling that the cadet schemes seem to be considered less legitimate to many and guys joining via this scheme are deserving of poor treatment. When in actual fact they are there to replace the previous direct entry pilots the airlines used to fund which are required.
There is a need to attract quality applicants to the profession competing with other very attractive careers and expecting all pilots to start with a ppl then work for next to nothing for a few years instructing, then move in to small twin job etc in order for the pilot to be consider legitimate does not make for an attractive career. This is compounded with the poor conditions on entering a jet job that the industry is working towards. I did not however state the path was any less legitimate or people taking that path have any less ability.
Zippy your signing off of the post "would I even consider getting involved now? Not on your life." just proves my point. I m sure your a very capable and switched on pilot and due to decline in conditions your saying you wouldn't join the industry, exactly the point i m making. The medical/law reference wasn't ment to be taken literally, but maybe these are the type of career you might have ended up in, had you decided against flying.
Your welcome to read as you will into it, however I won’t be posting again as this is a completely different discussion and I have no intentions to further distract from what started as a well reasoned discussed thread.
The fact is as the terms and conditions across the whole industry decline so does the desirability of the career and the standard of applicant to the industry will follow. The point was not focused on CTC cadets but a need for the industry to have attractive routes in to it.
I was merely trying to defend the fact that there seems to be a feeling that the cadet schemes seem to be considered less legitimate to many and guys joining via this scheme are deserving of poor treatment. When in actual fact they are there to replace the previous direct entry pilots the airlines used to fund which are required.
There is a need to attract quality applicants to the profession competing with other very attractive careers and expecting all pilots to start with a ppl then work for next to nothing for a few years instructing, then move in to small twin job etc in order for the pilot to be consider legitimate does not make for an attractive career. This is compounded with the poor conditions on entering a jet job that the industry is working towards. I did not however state the path was any less legitimate or people taking that path have any less ability.
Zippy your signing off of the post "would I even consider getting involved now? Not on your life." just proves my point. I m sure your a very capable and switched on pilot and due to decline in conditions your saying you wouldn't join the industry, exactly the point i m making. The medical/law reference wasn't ment to be taken literally, but maybe these are the type of career you might have ended up in, had you decided against flying.
Your welcome to read as you will into it, however I won’t be posting again as this is a completely different discussion and I have no intentions to further distract from what started as a well reasoned discussed thread.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weasel in Reverse.
There is an unstoppable Wannabe Zombie Army who are nourished (still) by the irrational bank of Mum&Dad who are in turn powered by unnatural house price inflation.
My coining of the phrase Wannabe Zombie Army was never derogatory to CTC cadets
All Wannabes and indeed all cadets carrying huge debt burdens have my complete sympathy and total support.
The root of the problem is not people. It is money.
Press on, youngsters. Not all of us old bastards of the air would seek to deny you your place in our industry. Do whatever you have to in order to succeed. Determination is the one constant among those who excel in life, no matter what. Wade through the convoluted argument and twisted logic on these vanity pages if you like, but remember your goal and you will succeed. Good luck to you.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cadet route to the RHS, regardless of whether it is via CTC or with FR, has stepped onto the front page because it is virtually the only route left open.
The people who have paid out for ATPL training, had until recently, the option of wading through a company holding pool for anything up to 2 years, or paying for a TR, and getting a job with easy or FR.
The folks who took the FR route shelled out 33K € for a 738 TR and at the end of line training were / are trousering around €3500 -€4000 a month: in 12 months while their peers earn minimum wage filling shelves at Tesco or handing out fries at Mickey D's the Zombie Army have earned enough to pay back the bulk of the TR.
Now if bmi or BA or FlyBe or Virgin or Thomson were hiring the folks would have a choice of whether to pay for a TR or accept a bond and join another company: the reality is that BA are not taking on cadets ( and when they do joined up writing skills are higher up the priority scale than flying ability ) nor are bmi and Virgin only take experienced FOs. With FlyBe you can cut your teeth on the Dash but how many people do they need and will it reduce your marketability in the future if you go down that route?
FR and easy want cadets not simply becasue in the short term they are cheaper but because they are a blank canvas: they don't have to "unlearn" another set of SOPs nor do they bring another culture to the company. Equally, hiring cadets spreads the demograph and facilitates career progression in an expanding organistion for SFOs to move to the LHS.
Finally, it is the choice of the airline management who they employ: it's their trainset.
The people who have paid out for ATPL training, had until recently, the option of wading through a company holding pool for anything up to 2 years, or paying for a TR, and getting a job with easy or FR.
The folks who took the FR route shelled out 33K € for a 738 TR and at the end of line training were / are trousering around €3500 -€4000 a month: in 12 months while their peers earn minimum wage filling shelves at Tesco or handing out fries at Mickey D's the Zombie Army have earned enough to pay back the bulk of the TR.
Now if bmi or BA or FlyBe or Virgin or Thomson were hiring the folks would have a choice of whether to pay for a TR or accept a bond and join another company: the reality is that BA are not taking on cadets ( and when they do joined up writing skills are higher up the priority scale than flying ability ) nor are bmi and Virgin only take experienced FOs. With FlyBe you can cut your teeth on the Dash but how many people do they need and will it reduce your marketability in the future if you go down that route?
FR and easy want cadets not simply becasue in the short term they are cheaper but because they are a blank canvas: they don't have to "unlearn" another set of SOPs nor do they bring another culture to the company. Equally, hiring cadets spreads the demograph and facilitates career progression in an expanding organistion for SFOs to move to the LHS.
Finally, it is the choice of the airline management who they employ: it's their trainset.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR and easy want cadets not simply becasue in the short term they are cheaper but...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel WWW has nearly hit the nail on the head:
The root problem is the management and their desire to make/save money... to the potential detriment of their existing and future employees.
There are wannabes that will always find the cash so that is a constant rather than a variable!
The Real Slim Shady
The bottom line here is cost and nothing else. If an airline is finding that they are having issues with the ability of direct entry pilots, then there are serious flaws in that airline's selection process. After all, a robust selection is purely there to weed out the weak individuals.
I think it is time to press the ignore button with Leo now. I don't come onto PPRuNe to be subjected to 'management spin'. The fact that it is linked to 'Harp Airways', just makes it even worse...
The root of the problem is not people. It is money. On the one hand the desire for airlines to make it and on the other the ability of Wannabes to get hold of it.
There are wannabes that will always find the cash so that is a constant rather than a variable!
The Real Slim Shady
FR and easy want cadets not simply becasue in the short term they are cheaper but because they are a blank canvas: they don't have to "unlearn" another set of SOPs nor do they bring another culture to the company.
I think it is time to press the ignore button with Leo now. I don't come onto PPRuNe to be subjected to 'management spin'. The fact that it is linked to 'Harp Airways', just makes it even worse...