P2F Cancer of Aviation (merged)/ petitions.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

I have repeatedly stated that I am anti p2f schemes. The problem is that people like Global Warrior have simply not got their facts straight. I have no problems with people criticising easyJet. The difficulty is that the 'facts', as they are presented, are not really true. Yes, it is true that easyJet have taken some 250 hour pilots before the 5000hr+ pilots out there on the dole. They have done that since their first day of operation through CTC. That is nothing new. Incidentally so have British Airways since their first day of operation too. They have always taken a mix of experience and new blood - nothing has changed.

It is really important that people understand the true situation at easyJet rather than some obsessional rant from someone who has no idea. It is true we have taken new pilots on temporary contracts and paid them a pittance. The p2f schemes Global Warrior wrote about in his letter are yesterday's news - they do not exist any longer. What we have now is a pay for you own type-rating scheme. You may not like that, and nor do I, but that is not p2f in the form being claimed. The next thing to clarify is that easyJet are currently taking on very experienced pilots as temporary FOs through Parc - many of these have a lot of hours and are ex-BMI. Finally it is being suggested that the basic work practice at easyJet is to take on low-houred pilots, sack them just as they unfreeze their ATPLs and then replace them with more low-houred pilots. That is again not true. It is true we are in our third year of offering temporary contracts to CTC FOs and also to pay for type-rating people from Oxford. What is also true, however, is that the first permanent contracts in 3 years are being offered out (about 40 in all I am told) to the first FOs to go on this contract system. The final Ts&Cs have not been issued, but they will not be good - I think the contract starts in November from what I recall. The permanent jobs are being handed out in 'seniority' order - exactly as should be the case. It is not perfect, but is a huge step forward from where we were.

The essence of Global Warrior's letter is that 250 hour pilots are intrinsically unsafe. Were that the case then the same criticism would apply to BA and numerous other companies over the last 30 years as they all employ cadets. His upset is that somehow 5000 hour pilots have more right to a job than 250 hour ones - that is simply not a credible view, even though it has been the effective practice of airlines for many years.

I am not wanting to back easyJet here, as I am profoundly unhappy with what has occurred. However, if you are going to whine about what easyJet has done, at least get the facts straight first.

[Global Warrior]

NSF

You are the only one banging on about Easyjet. My letter does not mention Easyjet and neither do my most recent posts. And i am the first to admit that this is much much wider than your beloved Easyjet............ the company about which, according to your posts, you have much to dislike.

NSF SAID
The p2f schemes Global Warrior wrote about in his letter are yesterday's news - they do not exist any longer

How can you make a statement like that when there is an advert at the top of this page advertising exactly that!!!!!! Is it not time YOU changed your attitude and accept that actually, they do exist?

This thread in entitled P2F Cancer of Aviation. There have been references to your employer for sure, but do us all a favour and get over it. You actually have proven on this thread that you are part of another cancer that prevails in the industry and that is........"now it affects me lets all go out on strike" strike for me me me. SAVE ME...... sadly thats industry wide..... before you accuse me of insinuating its only prevalent at your employer.

My letter was not written to just get BALPA in on the act of P2F schemes that do, whether you want to admit it, exist but also accommodate the spineless that whinge about their terms and conditions but do nothing about it......... It could even help you.

Finally there is a HUGE HUGE difference between the P2F schemes, P4T schemes and cadets that have been sponsored from day 1 of their training to final type rating. WHY........ because as has been stated on this thread..... these guys are taken under the wing from day 1 and if they dont make any grade, they can be and frequently are......... chopped.

CTC and the other schemes candidates have come through a system when ability to pay EITHER for the type OR as previously, the type and the time, is the no.1 factor in recruiting them. Your colleague and your company are driven by money not by skills of the individual.

Cadets at BA and others are recruited because they are regarded as being the best of those available based on tests, interviews and performance in many areas. They are then indoctrinated in the ways and workings of an airline. They get jet transition courses. They get many sectors on the jump seat and they get a salary and benefits from day 1. They are monitored and assessed at every stage from interview, through initial training, to final line check So as far as the industry goes, they are far more experienced by the time they get to the RHS and they will be company people being as the company invested in them, paid for their training and have controlled their training and industry experiences from day 1.

[TheOtherGuy]

Is this about safety or really about protectionism? Every pilot at one point has only 250 hours otherwise how do they get their hours up? Why is an individual safer when someone else pays for the training than when they pay for it themselves? I don't understand. Is there a difference in the training quality or the training captain standard? If it is about protecting terms and conditions, be honest and say so, don't hide behind safety because all that does is make people immune to cries about safety and real safety issues get ignored. Someone help me understand, please.

[flyhelico]

Finally it is being suggested that the basic work practice at easyJet is to take on low-houred pilots, sack them just as they unfreeze their ATPLs and then replace them with more low-houred pilots. That is again not true.

if it 's not true, how do you think they cut costs?

you buy planes to create jobs?

easyjet employ pilot as long they have planes coming and need these guys to fill these seats.
in less one year, pilots will reach the 1500h mark, then we can already guess the future considering there is a waiting line of rich pilots ready for their 6 months ride!.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Global Warrior - The reason I am 'banging on' about easyJet is that this is the airline I can speak about with some accuracy. It is also one of the airlines you specifically have had an issue with regarding p2f. They once embraced p2f schemes but do so no longer. I believe the same is true for Thomas Cook but that is not so now. You refer to incidents that are yesterday's news. The legendary Jonathan Curd undoubtedly used BMI for these schemes and to that extent you are right. In the past he took on people who would never in a million years have been given a flying job and 'trained' them. That is no longer the case. It is also not correct that there is no way of chopping these guys - there is and it happens, just like it does to CTC cadets. Any researcher at BALPA will go away and research your claims with the airlines. They will then rightly be told that your concerns are no longer valid in most cases as the schemes you are so against no longer exist in the form you describe. You are right to be anti-p2f - so am I. The problem with this whole thread is that there are people out there still not seeing that the p2f schemes have evolved quite substantially. I am actually quite sympathetic to your concerns - I am, however, more concerned that the representations made to government and enforcing bodies are accurate and factual. The views of many on this forum are not, and it helps to be correctly informed before writing to key people.

[angelorange]

P2F, Cadetships, Low Hours...

All these schemes have risks. How much risk depends upon quality of selection, who carries the financial weight of the training burden, how the trainee is looked after during and after line training, etc. Other concerns include Fatigue and low pay (Colgan).

Yes a low houred pilot can land a A320 and every time he/she does so, that experience is stored and applied to the next event. However, is that really the most appropriate place for a 250h (SEP) student to be?

How long is Line training (30 sectors or 6 months/500h as some P2F adverts claim)?

A low houred BA cadet (full sponsorship and payback £25k over 5 years) is a very different kettle of fish to todays £120k in debt CTC counterpart. The former were supported every step of the way, the latter were promised much and given the minimum by the likes of EZY.

Military pilots may start young but the hurdles are far harder than the Civilian FTOs - to get to a Harrier takes YEARS of training in a wide variety of A/C and Sims.

Most of the A320/A321 incidents cited resulted from overcontrolling the aeroplane near the ground. Modern computer games to which youngsters are accustomed and indeed some Approved Simulators do not always provide the best "training" for FBW or conventional Aircraft Control.


The Turkish 737 accident at Schipol last year shows the increased risks that otherwise manageable system failures have on crews overseeing low houred pilots:

"The first officer in the right seat, Olgay Ozgur, was in training.

A third pilot in the jump seat behind them, Murat Sezer, was there to monitor the pilot in training. His presence on the flight deck indicates that the first officer had less than 25 hours' experience in flying this size of jet, according to a pilot who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Trainee at controls?

The Web site of trade magazine Flight International, citing an unnamed source, reports the trainee was at the controls and that as the airplane lost height, the captain was talking him through the landing checklist. "

[Pilot Positive]

TheOtherGuy

If it is about protecting terms and conditions, be honest and say so, don't hide behind safety because all that does is make people immune to cries about safety and real safety issues get ignored. Someone help me understand, please

Perhaps I can offer an attempt at being objective and a bigger picture perspective? For me, its about the overall general direction of the industry that is concerning. The 2 changing factors being safety and T&Cs.

The safety issue is and should be the top concern from a broader industry perspective. Encouragingly, NSF has outlined steps to support P2F within his company, perhaps not to the level others have done currently or historically, but it has moved in a positive direction to ensure safety is a core element addressed. The P2F issue for safety is that it is a dangerouns precedent to set....not all companies are as experienced or as well resourced to follow NSF's example and some operators will use this to justify P2F within their own cultures. See Varisty Express as an example.

Terms & Conditions are important and do need to be addressed. There was, is and always will be a conflict between employer and employee interests and when interests fundamentally go against the employee then one would hope that either economics or a union/3rd party will help to redress the balance. However, there is a recession on in the UK and operators will do what they can to ensure commercial survival...which may be the inclusion of P2F within their culture. The impact of that on T&Cs for the rest of us has been seen throughout this thread.

I appreciate and undertand the need for companies to make money and as pilots we attempt to support that in whatever capacity we can whilst executing our duties. However there is a need for balance. The need for the company to make money whilst adequately rewarding those for work done and without an insidous change to its top priority i.e. safety. Its a very difficult balance to strike at this time and P2F offers the industry a solution to the problem of making money but potentially affects the issue of safety in the longer term.

[Global Warrior]

If it is about protecting terms and conditions, be honest and say so, don't hide behind safety because all that does is make people immune to cries about safety and real safety issues get ignored. Someone help me understand, please.

PP has given you a great reply.

The following 2 statements on their own demonstrate the point i hope;

A) Its possible to affect safety without eroding T's & C's

B) Its possible to erode T's & C's without affecting safety

HOWEVER throw in a healthy dose of cash saving and

Safety will almost always be affected when T's & C's are eroded for financial reasons.

GW

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

angelorange - You said

Code:

A low houred BA cadet (full sponsorship and payback £25k over 5 years) is a very different kettle of fish to todays £120k in debt CTC counterpart. The former were supported every step of the way, the latter were promised much and given the minimum by the likes of EZY.

I have to disagree with your analysis of the differences between the BA & CTC cadet. First of all, a significant number of BA cadets were never 'full sponsorship' - they were picked up at the end of their self-funded training at Jerez, Prestwick, Oxford or wherever was in vogue at the time. Those that were 'full sponsorship' were exactly the same sort of people who won their way onto CTC schemes. Indeed in better times they would have been on those courses at BA rather than CTC, but such options were not available to them when they started training. So even if a few, but by no means all, were 'supported all the way', I do not see how that makes the final product a 'very different kettle of fish'. They were low-houred pilots being given access to big money jets at a very young age. They were by definition 'high risk' and BA are no different from easyJet in accepting that risk. Once again, I need to emphasise that the reason I am questioning this line of argument is that to protest against p2f as it has been called, the argument must be cogent and clear. The awful truth is that there are great similarities between the 2 companies - what is not similar is the transfer of the burden of risk to the aspiring pilot rather than the company.

[Dan Winterland]

Norman, once again you have hit the nail firmly on the head. In this litigation and blame obsessed world, it's all about risk. And balancing risk against money is a trick that the airlines are constantly trying to refine. What has changed with P2F schemes is that the airlines have now found that they can make money out of these pilots - so the risk has been willingly increased in the intrests of more profit.

The flying world is full of risk assessments in various guises and risk can be viewed either objectively or subjectively. Objective assesments will look at training standards and statistics, but there is always a huge amount of subjectivity as well. For example, a 21 year old RAF pilot newly qualified on a Typhoon racking round a 4g turn in a Welsh valley at 250' and 420 knots is taking a risk. His boss and authorising officer will be happy that he can do the job, so thier assessment the risk has been minimised in what is perceived to be a dangerous job. But the pilot's mother, standing at the bottom of the valley and watching her son scream overhead will have a very different view.

Another example is a 35 year old 350 hour pilot who had flown only ten hours a year for four years on light singles before starting a jet airliner trype rating. He has problems passing the assessment, so is re-tested on a different type. Throughout his training, there are repeated questions and comments about his ability to land the aircraft. Eventually, on a Non Precision Approach to a difficult airport, he dosen't flare, the instructor doesn't take over soon enough and the aircraft is badly damaged. The risk is subsequently assessed in retrospect by the accident investigating authority who highlight the shortcomings of his training and the system he was being trained in. This was the objective risk assessment here, albeit too late to have an impact and seemingly ignored. But how would you feel if you were one of the 180 passengers paying for that flight to your yearly holiday in the sun. All you knew is that the landing was very hard. But would you have been happy getting on the aircraft at Gatwick had you known that the handling pilot wasn't a company employee, was inexperienced, had a documented history of training problems, and was training in a system which was failing to address them.

Of course this last example, the Thomas Cook accident at Kos in 2007 actually happened and the series of events a classic example of a buildup of factors which eventually lead to an accident. I'm lucky. I work for a company which either trains their own cadets or takes pilots with a minimum of 3000 hours includng 1000 on jets. And the cadets are aptitude assessed, given the best training and have about three times the minimum sim time and training before being released to line. The stay current, are well paid well and motivated. And they are very safe. The situation in Europe with the P2F schemes and their subsequent terms and conditions staggers me. The risk assessment seems to have been almost completely ignored in the chase for more profit.

The Americans have had their wake-up with the Coglan incident in Buffalo and have changed their experience and training requirements to try to prevent another such incident. I think the change will eventually happen in Europe as well. I just hope it will occur as a result of common sense rather than people being killed, but I doubt it.

[flyhelico]

it sounds like our government agencies agree with these P2F scheme and they don't give a toss...and I believe it' s not only in this sector that professionals now pay to work.

Tell me why do they complain about unemployment rates going up?
why do they complain about not having enough money to pay retirement programs?
why do they complain about health care costing so much ?

etc.

we are going to have a civil war soon!

it 's always the same, it' s safe before an accident then it' s prohibited.
(like the flight of colganair...)

P2F is prohibited with US airlines.

I am just waiting for the next accident over London, which will kill hundred of innocent people...would be too funny if a plane fall on the CAA house!
after they will say they have not be warned about the risk of these P2F schemes.


as a passenger, I am scandalized ...

[Pilot Positive]

I am just waiting for the next accident over London, which will kill hundred of innocent people...would be too funny if a plane fall on the CAA house!

Whilst we are debating the credibiltiy of P2F in our safety culture and the erosion it might cause long term, safety is no laughing matter...therefore I find this remark extremely flippant.

[superced]

p2F

interdiction de vente d'heures de vol aux pilotes de ligne. Petition

[Pilot Positive]

superced

C'est bien! But was there a version in English for the rest of us...?

[Doug the Head]

Ah, that's typically Norman: trowing more sand into the engine by endlessly debating the exact definitions of P2F vs P4T or BA vs CTC cadets etc.

Norman, as I've pointed out many times, your problem is that you don't look ahead and you don't see the big picture. Facts are now, but in order to try to look into the future you need to look beyond the facts. Although of course it's nice to have one's facts straight, Global Warrior also trusts his/her emotions that this whole deal stinks and that something needs to be done about this issue. Why don't you help him instead of dragging the debate into eternity about the exact definitions about this and that?

Many airlines (incl. your beloved orange outfit) have tested the water and are working hard on replacing a big part of their regular unionized (!) workforce by low time contractors through various deals. In case you haven't figured it out yet, yes Norman, that also eventually includes replacing or undermining YOU: the senior training captain! Weren't you ready for industrial action a few weeks ago?

Just look at the recent ash cloud problems. Wouldn't it be any manager's wet dream if they wouldn't have to pay their contract (!) crews when the aircraft are parked due to a geological event? Couldn't that same advantage perhaps also be used during industrial action from the few remaining pilots who are not working for a contract agency? No more need for scabs/strikebreakers: airlines have their own scabs working for them through contract agencies. Or perhaps looking at the "low cost" benefit over the more established airlines and thus dragging down T&C's even further? "Low-cost" sounds nice when they offer you a job, but you realize that it eventually comes out of your pocket, don't you?

Again Norman, the writing is on the wall, the thin edge of the wedge in place and the dark (ash? ) cloud is clearly visible on the horizon, so you need to step on board in this all out effort to stop low time pilots from undermining T&C's, instead of moaning about details!

At the risk of repeating myself: the key issue is low timers undermining T&C's through various 'schemes' and this needs to be nipped in the bud a.s.a.p.! I recon all we need is a few more ash-clouds or another dip in the economy before we see the final push to get rid of the T&C's as we once knew them.

The key solution IMHO is to have one contract for one job, with perhaps the only exception in having different contracts for different countries in order to keep a level playing field when competing with locally based airlines. Writing MP's is a useless waste of time IMHO, these folks are just too busy helping their friends in The City or thinking of new ways to increase taxes and extending their political clout. Furthermore, I agree with Studi that it's completely beyond me how any self respecting union can allow different employees to work under different contracts in the same company. By only being able to offer one contract per base, the leverage will also stop whilst still providing job opportunities to low time pilots in a safe and responsible way. Once again, BALPA has been firmly asleep at the switch (incompetence? kickbacks? both?) and needs to way up rather soonish...

p.s. I see that you have very conveniently ignored Studi's excellent post! Bravo!
p.p.s. About being factually correct: sure, it's a noble effort, but again Norman, do you really think that airlines are always 100% factually correct when the scream doom and gloom when new regulation is introduced which affects their profit margins? Sadly, one needs to exaggerate to make one's voice heard in the media, or if you want to end up somewhere in the middle. Or do you always pay the asking price when you buy a different car or house?

[Global Warrior]

Hi Again

NSF and i have been having a ding dong here because of a few things but the most significant with regards to this thread is, i believe,

A) My use of the term P2F and

B) The (lack of) Safety culture associated with these schemes.

We do, however agree on the fact that we dont like them.

As well as the Kos and Faro incidents, there has been a Tail scrape of an Irish A321 at LHR and the 737 crash at AMS had a low houred pilot at the controls, albeit with a safety pilot on the jump seat.

Does this show a trend? In April 2010, it might not......... but if there is a more serious incident / accident, the great unwashed will be asking why this happened and to answer that with....... there were no clues is just pure negligence.

Companies........Ezy being one of them, in the past have had stricly P2F people in their cockpits......... the schemes have evolved, they have developed and they are no longer P2F schemes at Ezy (NSF) but my belief is that they do erode safety and whatever way they have evolved, they are still being advertied at the top of this page in a strict P2F form and i believe that in any guise, they are less safe than having a full time employee on the same T's and C's as his colleagues.

Removing my argument about safety, briefly, the P2F scheme brought with it an insidious change of T's & C's. Was it a trend back then....... probably not. Is it a trend now........ MOST DEFIANTLY and because it was not nipped in the bud back then, it has now grown to the extent that not only Contract Captains, but Contract Trainers also are being recruited by Ezy (NSF i think thats what you mentioned a few posts back).

Sooner or later there will be enough contract people available that those concerned about erosion of T's & C's in any airline, will have NO CHOICE but to accept it because there will be enough contract people available to fill the posts when and if there is a strike. Leave it too long, and you are well and truly F****d.......... It happened in Australia (not as a result of P2F i might add)

As was just shown with the BA CC strike...... running at 50%+ capacity is hardly a massive victory for those that choose to act but leave it too late!

[angelorange]

Schemes have changed!

NSF said "Those that were 'full sponsorship' were exactly the same sort of people who won their way onto CTC schemes."

Wouldn't all businesses love their paying "customers" to believe that they have won something!

Yes of course self sponsored cadets have joined all sorts of airlines and been trained by former BA TRI/TREs but the low houred pilot schemes set up by Airlines such as Britannia, BM, Lufthansa and BA themselves were a far cry from those marketed by certain schools.

The whole point of this thread is the cost burden being put upon youngsters (bank of mum and dad, loans etc) by P2F and other zero to hero schools claiming you too can be the same as that Flag carrier shiny jet pilot in their advertising. And having the gall to say that they are the best in the business when their own type rating exams have come under CAA scrutiny.

Knowing cadets who trained with CTC and others who did BA's own system, it is very clear the latter offered far greater job security. Even the later BA "part sponsored" routes did not demand payment for type ratings or Line Training up front. BA decided who they wanted and it was not based upon the ability to PAY huge sums up front.

I am not against low houred pilots I am against get rich quick schemes that leave them hung and dry in debt and bored of a to b auto pilot flying by the time they are 30.

[767200ER]

So are you basically saying that the difference between an individual being a safe, competent pilot or being a safety risk, is determined by whether the individual covers the cost of being in the RHS, or the airline does?

[Microburst2002]

If I recall correctly, any activity for which a company of any kind is getting revenue, must be specified. For instance, a shoe making company cannot just start selling hollidays in Cancun without first calling the lawyers to include that activity in the list.

I think that training for money is an activity that is not included in most airlines. And I think it could be just forbidden for any airline to do such activity, and considered incompatible.

If a pilot seats in the right seat of an airline airplane, to have training, then he or she must be a pilot hired to do a job, and paid as such, as any other pilot in the airline. Bonded, if you like, but getting paid. The training costs must be on the airline.
Of course, the airline could hire only type rated low houred pilots who got their TR in an associated TRTO (this is another story that should be banned, too). But the line training cannot (should not) be sold as a product. It can only be a cost.

767200ERThere is an inherent incompatibility between selection (of the best workers) and PTW (pay to work).
Two of the best captains I have ever flown with came from cadet programs (in major european airlines). They started flying boeings with only 200 hours in piston engines. They are very talented, have very good academic background, and are very skilfull, intelligent men. They had a very good training, and they are the kind of captains that any airline would like to have, those who have a good "pilot judgement", extremely safe and efficient. Any copilot flying with them becomes a better pilot, and is a part of a great crew.
They were selected among many candidates. They were the best raw materials their airlines could find to make good pilots.

Now, how can you compare that with the guy who just has the money, and the airline that justs wants to take that money?

If an airline wants to hire 3 pilots of whatever airplane, they would receive5,000 CVs. They can make selection and then make them pay for the TR in one way or another. There is really no need to make pilots pay for line training, too and then dump them to make room for the next pilot. This is clearly making money at the expense of safety. They can have the best pilots for very little cost! But they are soooooooo greedy! this situation is out of balance.

[Pilot Positive]

I think that training for money is an activity that is not included in most airlines. And I think it could be just forbidden for any airline to do such activity, and considered incompatible.

Isnt training core to their operations making it perfectly justifiable for airlines to use it as a profit centre?