Supply and Demand Vs Demand and Supply

[Microburst2002]

Hello

I often hear (or read) that the Supply and Demand Law is the natural explanation of the miserable situation aviation and pilots are living currently. I totally disagree with that.

According to the supply and demand law, terms and conditions will be reduced if the pilot supply is excessive in relation to the pilots demand by the airlines. Same as the price of oil or real state. More oil and houses available to the people means cheaper oil and houses. More pilots available to the airlines, lower terms and conditions for the pilots.
In the pilot demand case by the airlines, pilot used to mean a talented, qualified and experience pilot. It was very difficult that the pilot supply exceded demand, because it takes long for a pilot to achieve experience and there are not so many pilot positions where pilots can gain it. These pilots underwent tough selection processes to become pilots (Air force and Estate flight schools). Those with the best academic qualifications and results, best psychotechnical abilities, english language, etc had access to the profession)

Today, aparently, airlines seek workers with the legal licenses and ratings to cover the pilot positions, regardless of anything else. Why?

Because the system has been reversed from a Suppy and Demand to a Demand and Supply. Airlines used to demand pilots. Now pilots demand airline jobs. Why?

Because the way to access the pilot profession has been transformed into a system in which academic qualifications, talent and anything else is absolutely not required, not needed at all to succeed in obtaining the licenses.

I know this well because I studied in a good, modern JAR FTO and have been instructor and teacher in a very good, expensive one and in both FTOs I have seen an alarming proportion of under-qualified, under-talented people becoming licensed pilots. Actually, I can't remember a sigle case of someone who didn't make it, even the worst cases of antisocial, alcoholic, borderline guys I have dealt with got their licenses. They all had the question data bases, of course.
Hundreds of FTO have appeared, selling expensive integrated courses to people, good or bad, but all with money and have created a hugh amount of inexperienced pilots, which quality ranges from crap to excellence, the later not being the norm.

This umprecedented increase in the supply of inexperienced pilots has been used by the airlines. By requiring Type Ratings to apply for jobs instead of experience, not only they save a lot of training costs, but they have reversed the whole thing and it is the pilots who are demanding the first officer positions, instead of the arlines demanding first officers.

It is the official papers with licenses and ratings what the airlines need, and this is what pilots are supplying. And the supply is very buoyant! Thousands of young people are looking for FTOs, and those who finish are looking for TRTOs. Therefore, according the Supply and Demand Law, the price of the "good" that they are buying reaches amazing levels.

Nowadays, selection exist no more, because pilots are buying the product for money. This is what decides who seats on the right hand seat and nothing else.

The absence of proper selection in pilot recruiting is affecting safety and should be stopped at once.

The system should follow this principle:

"Selection first, hiring second, training third"

The cost of the training will be paid by the airlines or shared with the pilots depending on the real supply and demand of talented, experienced pilots. If there are few, airlines will pay. If there are many, airlines will hire rated pilots without needing to pay type ratings.

I think pilots should lobby to change things so the above principle is recovered and put an end to this perversion of the supply and demand law and of the pilot profession itself.

MB

[Afinehelmet]

Brilliant, but how do we go about doing it?

[fischerflyer]

We wait.

We wait for a big smoking hole in the ground, at the cost of many lives.

We then get to tell everyone "we told you so"

The insurance people then make it a requirement that passenger jets can only be flown by pilots with a 1000hrs etc (like it used to be).

Problem solved....

[DeltaT]

Hasn't there just been a law change in USA regarding pilot experience in the past couple of months because of a plane crash?

[Microburst2002]

Solution simple... But difficult

Things can be changed. In our case, it is simple. But it is difficult, however.
I mean, all we have to do is unite and then force the authorities to change a few things to stop the bleeding (banning self sposored TRs, paying for flying...) then fully re-do the crew licensing regulation.
But it is difficult to unite, right? Simple solution, but difficult.

United we would have such a power that you wouldn't believe. We are a slept giant. Nobody could stop us. United we could stop air transport in europe or in the USA or preferably in both one day at a given time and force them to hear us and to come to reasonable agreements.

Uniting is not impossible. I am writing and you guys from everywhere in the world are reading, and I read what you write. It is amazing, Isn't it? We should be able to associate. At least, until the goal of stopping the bleeding.

I think we (you, me and all the professional pilots who just fly and don't ever take part in unions or "politics") should initiate the motion. Upwards, to our country pilot unions and associations. Make them meet one day and set a common strategy. Country by country we are fuked. All together, they are.

I hope there is no need for a smoking hole. Anyway, they will manage to pervert anything, even a crash. They will claim that the human being is not trustworthy and that experience is not necessary anymore, but more and more "CRM", sim training, new avionics and the like, instead.

We have to be able to, together, make the authorities and the public that the actual system means substituting one of the "cheese slices" by another one with more and bigger holes in it. If safety is a matter of these chese slices... How can they allow one of the most important ones to deteriorate?

We have to act. You, me, all of us. We need first aid urgently, this bleeding is deadly.

Any ideas?
Any of you guys reading this who can make that meeting of pilot unions from many countries take place?

cheers

[Mikehotel152]

I completely agree with the argument that selection should take place at the onus of the Airlines prior to training ab-initio pilots. This would avoid heartache and bankruptcy for many aspiring pilots. Unfortunately today's society is dominated by the 'equal access for all' mentality regardless of ability or aptitude. We are all told you can achieve anything with a bit of effort, hence many unsuitable candidates use access to cheap credit to lubricate an otherwise sticky route through the training system. It is hard to argue against this paradigm without being labelled 'elitist'.

Nevertheless, a training Utopia where Airlines take the lead role, fund training and take only the brightest, isn't in their short-term interests. Frankly speaking, they are more than happy if there is a greater supply of girls and boys with the requisite piece of paper than there are available seats. It allows them to reduce terms and conditions of those in employment so the Board Members can buy more fancy houses or livestock. As a poster has already said, sadly it will take a spate of serious accidents before an upswelling of public concern forces the Board Members to make a change or risk losing their newly bought fancy houses when the Airline goes bust.

[Bona Fide]

I would like to make a few observations:

1) The whole system of self-sponsored 'zero to hero' flying training and type-rating training (sometimes to include even line training) actually only came about because of the huge growth in air travel over the past 10-20 years and subsequent growth in world airliner fleets, with the advent of LCC's, huge growth in the ME region, huge growth in business and private aviation, etc, etc. If the demand was not there from the airlines the whole concept never would have got of the ground to the extent that it has. Therefore, it is a function of the demand for air travel after all.

2) This situation (given the current economic climate) where jobs are far and few between is causing many pilots to be resentful of the current situation (and I do not blame them - it is a natural reaction to trying to support a family without a job).

But given the massive financial turmoil in the world and multiple airline failures it is hardly fair for everyone to blame self sponsored pilots for their personal circumstances. Two of my previous companies are bust and I also have talented friends lose jobs in non flying related industries so it is not just pilots who are suffering the consequences.

The flying training organisations that offer these types of arrangements have a vested interest in their success (business failure being the other result) so will use every conceivable marketing tool and method - not just to potential candidates but cash starved airlines as well - to sell the benefits of their wares.

Herein lies the problem for me. How can a profit maximising company that has a vested interest in passing as many candidates as possible maintain standards? Especially when the standards of some of the candidates are so poor? There seems to be a conflict of intertest here.

But on the other side of the coin I have been involved in recruitment projects for previous employers who have set high experience standards only to be criticised by the great deal of applicants who simply do not meet these criteria.

So where is the middle ground?

[INNflight]

Actually, I can't remember a sigle case of someone who didn't make it, even the worst cases of antisocial, alcoholic, borderline guys I have dealt with got their licenses.

I know ONE. A single one who trained with me, very reputable FAA flight school, family-run business, far away from all the "pilot mills".

This chap did some hour building, was totally untalented and barely spoke English. Only flew in uncontrolled airspace because he wouldn't understand ATCOs, turned the avionics master off and on in flight because he couldn't hear anything in his headphones (he plugged it out accidently ), etc.

Head of flight school told him he does not want his business and let him go because he should never be a commercial pilot (what he wanted to train for). Major props to him for not taking the money.

Then again, probably some other school picked him up and he's got a CPL by now

---

Unfortunately I agree on the smoking hole in the ground thing.

People ONLY EVER learn if things go wrong beforehand.

[Bona Fide]

Again what this shows is that it is all a question of standards. I don't think uniting unions worldwide to villify self sponsored pilots is the answer to this problem. It is not the unuions who hold ultimate responsibility to maintain standards. This is a job for the regulators and this is where the pressure should come from as they operate irrespective of economic pressures. As in any other profession if you put in place and police high enough professional standards then you should stop the less than marginal cases from making it through.

[stansdead]

Let's face it, as Pilots, we cannot even stand together in our own airlines. Let alone, trying to stand together as a group of "unified" Pilots.

The simple fact is: Airlines hold the whip hand currently. There are desperados who WILL add to already huge debts in order to reach their dream.

Stupid? Foolish? Selfish? I dunno, but the facts are that currently these people are very, very attractive to airlines. Cash today, risk tomorrow. Fair trade? The accountants will think so, because there's a safety net. It's called a Captain.

Until people realise there is no realistic future in paying out all that cash for a course at OAA/CTC etc, then things will just get worse.

If people stop training, the pool of ready victims wil be exhausted soon enough and then we'll see what happens.

My personal guess is that airlines will start type rating training again (with bonds), but that the entry salaries will remain very, very low for FO's.

It's a sh1t.

[flying headbutt]

The safety net is the Captain, but remember by definition a net is full off holes. Catch even the best/most experienced on a bad day, fatigued, under threat of redundancy, terrible weather etc... and you could be looking at things going bad very quickly. The First Officer is equally the safety net, he also needs to be able to recognise an impending situation, flawed decision making model and say "respectfully, what the f#$k are you doing Captain." That is where filling the RHS with inexperienced bods will fall down.....and fall down it will It's a two way street. The Captain is ultimately responsible but he needs to have confidence in/trust his oppo. (right hand man/woman).

[stansdead]

Flying Headbutt,

I agree with you entirely. I think if you read my post carefully, you will note it's from the ACCOUNTANT's point of view.

Not mine.

[Bona Fide]

A friend of mine who works as a line training Captain on the Airbus has had the experience of a very inexperienced self-sponsored F/O bursting into tears upon arrival at the gate after a shoddy hand flown approach. It seems none of the other trainers in this particular company expected much more from the person sat in the RHS other than to have somebody physically sitting there with the right bits of stamped paper to fulfill the legal requirements. If this is not bad enough I have also heard stories of wide body jets being flown transatlantic with not only said inexperienced F/O's but also very inexperienced P1's. This is when operators start to become truly reckless with their passenger's safety. Fortunatly this particular airline had it's AOC pulled and went bankrupt before they killed anybody. Somewhere in the chain somebody has to take responsibility for maintaining standards (and be held accountable for this) and most importantly they should not be allowed to be influenced by economic factors (airline management).

[clanger32]

For my tuppence worth, it's actually two fold. There isn't inherently anything wrong with the courses offered by OAA, CTC etc. "All" they are, are another FTO offering a slightly differently structured route to CPL/ME/IR.

One thing that bothers me very greatly is the number of threads where people coming out of flight training are generalised as being rubbish pilots. I don't think this is true - they are inexperienced. Inexperience is a label that even the most grizzled, experienced, veteran captains have also had to wear at some point....experience is ONLY gained through "doing it". It's the one thing in this industry that you can't actually buy.

So what's the answer? To my mind, one of the simplest methods (talking in an ideal world) would be to force regulation such that the route to airline RHS was defined. The major problem is that flight training now costs SO much money, regardless of which route one takes, that the RHS of a jet [theoretically anyway!] offers the best return on ones investment. This is what is driving newbies to seek the Jet jobs and in turn drives down conditions. Because there is a horde trying for the RHS and there is no regulation stopping a 200 hour newbie (this includes me, btw) going straight to the RHS, it allows - shall we be kind and term them - "enterprising" ventures, both FTOs and airlines, to generate revenue from them.

The biggest issue of all that continues to drive this ethos of self sponsoring is that all of us - every single one of us - newly qualified pilots know that if we DON'T take an opportunity that arises, then someone else will.

The debate over self sponsored type ratings has been going on for years and indeed things have only got worse...with self funding of line training becoming more and more normal - to the point, I'd suggest where "merely" paying for a TR with a guaranteed job at the end looks a positive bargain.

Therefore the experienced can say until they're blue in the face that "if only all the newbies would stop paying it would all go away" -which is true - but the sad truth is that will never happen. However, DEFINE the route to the RHS, rather than leaving it open to interpretation or financial capability and you remove the dog eat dogness of it and in turn things would calm down.

[RAFAT]

Let's face it, as Pilots, we cannot even stand together in our own airlines. Let alone, trying to stand together as a group of "unified" Pilots.

I'm afraid that stansdead hits the nail right on the head. One of the most prominent things I've learned in my 13 years of commercial flying is that pilots cannot or will not stand together when it matters most, looking after number 1 is all that is important. As someone who has in the past made personal sacrifices for the benefit of other colleagues, I've come to realise that the moral highground is a very lonely place in aviation. I've therefore been beaten into submission and like the majority of pilots I now think only of number 1.

[Dan Winterland]

Nice post Microburst. I particularly like:

"'Nowadays, selection exist no more, because pilots are buying the product for money. This is what decides who seats on the right hand seat and nothing else.

The absence of proper selection in pilot recruiting is affecting safety and should be stopped at once.

The system should follow this principle:"


"Selection first, hiring second, training third"



A very apt point regarding a tried and tested system which was common years ago, but has been releagted to history in most (but not all) companies by the accountants. You are of course referring to the cadet pilot scheme.


However, people are waking up to the fact that there are defficiencies in the system as it is now (Coglan at Buffalo and 1 to Go at Phuket imediately spring to mind) and in my opinion, we will see a return to these schemes. Unfortunately, I think it will only be as a result of a few more hull losses and public then political pressure.

[YYZ_Instructor]

Hi all,

I'm not going to comment on how moral it is to buy a type rating or pay for hours on type, but rather touch on past history. I started flying 14 yrs ago and back then there was only one way to getting into the RHS of a passenger jet....PPL, CPL, MULTI IR, INSTRUCTOR RATING, +1500 Instructor experience, +500 Multi Engine Piston and then maybe you were looking at flying a turbo prop for another +1000 or if you were lucky you got that RHS job. Back then all operators would laugh if you sent them a CV with less than 3000 TT, because time in your logbook was considered as experience, but not just experience....it meant you made sacrifices in your life to reach that experience as jobs were not at your local international airport.

You may ask why? or how did airlines cope?

Prices were high to fly at the time and the public trusted that the two super heroes in front were pilots with huge amounts of experience and that if anything went wrong both were equally qualified or experienced to handle a major emergency.

Think of who you would want in the RHS if you were flying as a PAX? 300hrs or +3000hrs? Who's seen more problems and emergencies?

Unfortunately things have changed. Most PAX believe that governments and overseeing bodies such as Unions would never allow low times pilots to fly such complex machines and play with their lives, yet they are mistaken.

My opinion now: Only three things can change this situation

1. CAA (example: must have ATPL to sit in RHS)
2. Union, Media, Government (via pax finding out who really is flying them)
3. Insurance Company (require specific requirements for RHS)

Good luck to everyone in these hard times.

[Bona Fide]

Most seem to miss the point. It’s all ‘accountants this’ and accountants that’ but the route to the RHS, pilot terms and conditions and declining standards are all a contemporary malaise in life as an airline pilot but are not necessarily linked to each other.


Clanger32 made a fair comment, just because a pilot has come the self-sponsored route does not mean he or she is rubbish. In fact given the choice between having a self-important Nigel who one day saw an advert in the Daily Telegraph for a pilot cadet scheme and decided it would be a good idea to become an airline pilot or somebody that has moved countries, slept on floors and done some of the crappiest jobs going to pay for their flying training, I would take the second option on most days. The point is some of the most anally retentive F/O’s I have flown with are the product of company cadet schemes and some of the most motivated and passionate F/O’s have come the self-sponsored route.

But irrespective of how they get to the RHS – they should all be off the same standard and it is the responsibility of the company and regulators to ensure this happens.

As for T’s & C’s everybody is quick to blame the airline ‘accountants’ and these cheeky Herberts who dare to want to join our ranks at any cost, but I’m afraid your barking up the wrong tree. Unless you are completely myopic or devoid of any contact with reality – you will realise that it is almost impossible for an airline to make money – and it is not because of said Herberts. In fact your time would be better spent writing letters of complaint to members OPEC about the cost of fuel, having a row with ATC over their charges followed by a rant over the P/A to your pax about their unwillingness to pay decent fares rather than trying to blame all your woes on the poor soul sat next to you.

[Bruce Wayne]

In fact your time would be better spent writing letters of complaint to members OPEC about the cost of fuel, having a row with ATC over their charges followed by a rant over the P/A to your pax about their unwillingness to pay decent fares rather than trying to blame all your woes on the poor soul sat next to you

more importantly, addressing the issues with policy makers that drive up operational costs and foist policies on the industry which are punitive to economic stability.