P2F Cancer of Aviation (merged)/ petitions.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the person paying to fly is also an extremely talented and competent pilot? They way this sounds is if you pay, you're automatically not as good as someone who can't pay and you are a bad person because you are stopping them getting a chance to fly?
Are you then saying ALL p2f guys are bad pilots and the thorn in the side is that all the competent safe pilots can't afford to p2f and so every airline flying with p2f cadets is risking its safety?
I do agree that it leads to a shift in the way selection goes in the sense that it excludes those who can't afford it, but if you can't fly, you won't pass your type rating, and if you're THAT bad you probably would never have passed your IR, it is after all the hardest civilian flight test in the world, at least the UK one is anyway.
There is a great danger of blanketing an issue here, there is good and bad with every scheme. But no scheme is ALL bad, if it were, then every single time a p2f guy took off in an aeroplane there would be an accident/incident. However this isn't the case. And accidents in aviation come down normally as a chain of errors, it is unfair to say, the reason that airbus had a tailstrike is because the first officer paid to fly it.
A fully sponsored cadet could still make the same mistake.
It is unreasonable and unprofessional to pin the blame on one sole factor.
What about when airlines stopped sponsoring pilots and people had to pay for their ab initio training i.e PPL to CPL+IR + MCC, are you telling me that all those that could afford to pay took the chances away from those that couldn't?
Yes it meant that some potentially brilliant pilots couldn't ever realise their dream because of the financial barriers, and those that had the means would be able to succeed. That became a selection in itself.
But Aspiring pilots didn't kick up a stink and b*tch and moan about it and boycott flight training until the full sponsorship programmes were re-instated.
The fact that you had to pay for your training also did not mean that Safety in aviation was compromised because everyone was now p2f.
You can train people to be safe pilots, regardless of how they end up in the flight deck. It's a state of mind.
Are you then saying ALL p2f guys are bad pilots and the thorn in the side is that all the competent safe pilots can't afford to p2f and so every airline flying with p2f cadets is risking its safety?
I do agree that it leads to a shift in the way selection goes in the sense that it excludes those who can't afford it, but if you can't fly, you won't pass your type rating, and if you're THAT bad you probably would never have passed your IR, it is after all the hardest civilian flight test in the world, at least the UK one is anyway.
There is a great danger of blanketing an issue here, there is good and bad with every scheme. But no scheme is ALL bad, if it were, then every single time a p2f guy took off in an aeroplane there would be an accident/incident. However this isn't the case. And accidents in aviation come down normally as a chain of errors, it is unfair to say, the reason that airbus had a tailstrike is because the first officer paid to fly it.
A fully sponsored cadet could still make the same mistake.
It is unreasonable and unprofessional to pin the blame on one sole factor.
What about when airlines stopped sponsoring pilots and people had to pay for their ab initio training i.e PPL to CPL+IR + MCC, are you telling me that all those that could afford to pay took the chances away from those that couldn't?
Yes it meant that some potentially brilliant pilots couldn't ever realise their dream because of the financial barriers, and those that had the means would be able to succeed. That became a selection in itself.
But Aspiring pilots didn't kick up a stink and b*tch and moan about it and boycott flight training until the full sponsorship programmes were re-instated.
The fact that you had to pay for your training also did not mean that Safety in aviation was compromised because everyone was now p2f.
You can train people to be safe pilots, regardless of how they end up in the flight deck. It's a state of mind.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what is very important to remember during the, oft, heated debate that surrounds P2F is that, irrespective of the competency of the applicant, the precedent being set by those Airlines who wish to pursue this revenue stream is dangerous.
Not in any sense of flying dangerous but in the sense that train and bus drivers get tuition from the company on their equipment why should pilots have to pay to get the same training on an aircraft.
P2F never used to happen whilst airlines selected cadets based upon a broad spectrum of requirements as the training was considered to be a part of the overall package. Those requirements ranged from the ability to pass the flying training to holding the correct temperament for the job and everything in between. Rising fuel prices, increasing airport fees, unjust taxation, plummeting fares and the general state of the economy after 13 years of New Labour mis-management have put a big change to all of that.
It would be unjust to imply that ALL pilots who utilise P2F are unsuited to the airline role. Some are, some aren't, the problem comes that the filtering system being used is the ability to pay for the course. In a world bombarded with statistics one could say that the proportion of 'adequate to inadequate' pilots just got bigger based upon the selection criteria.
Worse still we have accountants who are looking at trainee pilots as a revenue stream, those pilots have little or no loyalty to the company they are paying to fly with and they are well aware that their tenure extends only to the end of their paid hours. The loading on the training Captains and the training department is huge. Airlines were never meant to be FTO's.
The only thing that can stop this horrendous 'slavery' by the airlines is a concerted effort from the authorities. The CAA needs to address the habit of RHS rotation for profit. The AOC was never meant to cover such things, perhaps they should all be re-written to include a clause which allows training for the purposes of company specific pilot retention only.
Wannabees will never stop paying to get that one step ahead of the competition, it's human nature and, lets be honest, who can blame them if they have the capital.
Lets attack the rot where it started, those companies who are exploiting these pilots for profit before casting them aside for the next one.
Good luck!
Not in any sense of flying dangerous but in the sense that train and bus drivers get tuition from the company on their equipment why should pilots have to pay to get the same training on an aircraft.
P2F never used to happen whilst airlines selected cadets based upon a broad spectrum of requirements as the training was considered to be a part of the overall package. Those requirements ranged from the ability to pass the flying training to holding the correct temperament for the job and everything in between. Rising fuel prices, increasing airport fees, unjust taxation, plummeting fares and the general state of the economy after 13 years of New Labour mis-management have put a big change to all of that.
It would be unjust to imply that ALL pilots who utilise P2F are unsuited to the airline role. Some are, some aren't, the problem comes that the filtering system being used is the ability to pay for the course. In a world bombarded with statistics one could say that the proportion of 'adequate to inadequate' pilots just got bigger based upon the selection criteria.
Worse still we have accountants who are looking at trainee pilots as a revenue stream, those pilots have little or no loyalty to the company they are paying to fly with and they are well aware that their tenure extends only to the end of their paid hours. The loading on the training Captains and the training department is huge. Airlines were never meant to be FTO's.
The only thing that can stop this horrendous 'slavery' by the airlines is a concerted effort from the authorities. The CAA needs to address the habit of RHS rotation for profit. The AOC was never meant to cover such things, perhaps they should all be re-written to include a clause which allows training for the purposes of company specific pilot retention only.
Wannabees will never stop paying to get that one step ahead of the competition, it's human nature and, lets be honest, who can blame them if they have the capital.
Lets attack the rot where it started, those companies who are exploiting these pilots for profit before casting them aside for the next one.
Good luck!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contract agencies
Contract agencies is where, IMHO, the real money will be made in the future of aviation. (and with real money being made, I mean that the people running the agency will be raking it in, not the pilots)
Before people start saying "but Doug, employing contractors is way too expensive for low-cost airlines," think again.
At the present rates, contractors offer an expensive form of flexibility, a luxury so to speak. However, with the advent of all sorts of pay to fly/pay for type rating/what-have-ya schemes, the market is already being flooded with rated and experienced pilots, especially A320 and B737 pilots, which will significantly lower rates.
It's my guess that in the near future, the total costs for a low-cost airline to employ a contractor will be very similar to the cost of employing this pilot on a regular contract because of this oversupply of pilots.
Benefits for these low-cost (!) airlines are obvious;
1) no more headaches/problems with unions
2) flexibility: no work/ash-clouds/recessions = no fixed costs for the airlines
3) outsourcing the HR department to contract agencies
4) allowing strict quality control with no financial risks to either the airlines or the contract agency. After a rigorous selection, the pilot pays for the training and should he/she under-perform during line training, the airlines get a free refund/substitute from the contract agency
Advantages for pilots: NONE whatsoever!
You'll be responsible for medicals, sim checks, medical coverage, loss of license insurance etc etc and when a bigger ash-cloud hits Europe it's up to you to figure out where you're going to get the money from in order to pay your next mortgage. That is, if you can still afford a mortgage from the measly and uncertain income you receive from the contract agencies...
With the exception of a higher salary, you'll have the same working conditions than that of a person employed by a temping agency who works on an assembly line or cleans toilets.
Before people start saying "but Doug, employing contractors is way too expensive for low-cost airlines," think again.
At the present rates, contractors offer an expensive form of flexibility, a luxury so to speak. However, with the advent of all sorts of pay to fly/pay for type rating/what-have-ya schemes, the market is already being flooded with rated and experienced pilots, especially A320 and B737 pilots, which will significantly lower rates.
It's my guess that in the near future, the total costs for a low-cost airline to employ a contractor will be very similar to the cost of employing this pilot on a regular contract because of this oversupply of pilots.
Benefits for these low-cost (!) airlines are obvious;
1) no more headaches/problems with unions
2) flexibility: no work/ash-clouds/recessions = no fixed costs for the airlines
3) outsourcing the HR department to contract agencies
4) allowing strict quality control with no financial risks to either the airlines or the contract agency. After a rigorous selection, the pilot pays for the training and should he/she under-perform during line training, the airlines get a free refund/substitute from the contract agency
Advantages for pilots: NONE whatsoever!
You'll be responsible for medicals, sim checks, medical coverage, loss of license insurance etc etc and when a bigger ash-cloud hits Europe it's up to you to figure out where you're going to get the money from in order to pay your next mortgage. That is, if you can still afford a mortgage from the measly and uncertain income you receive from the contract agencies...
With the exception of a higher salary, you'll have the same working conditions than that of a person employed by a temping agency who works on an assembly line or cleans toilets.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich, obstinate or just plain stupid P2F pilots who are sitting on the borderline of passing tests be they CPL, IR or LPC/OPC on a P2F course are an FTO's dream and don't let them tell you anything different. The FTO's will tell you about rigorous checks, non passing of incompatible pilots etc. But, in truth, they will keep taking the money or the pilot will just troll from one to the other. The FTO's do not share training data with anyone!
Sure many pilots going through the system are perfectly competent. They are also seen by the target industry as having sold their soul and thus are ripe for the culling as 'Doug the Head' has so eloquently described above.
FTO's who promise the world and then keep an average/ below average pilot trolling through a variety of type ratings (eg. The one who failed the 737 so got thrown onto the 'Bus) are just milking that character for cash.
When I did my multi/IR there was a chap from the Channel Islands who was on about his 7th or 8th attempt. He just kept throwing money at the problem. Eventually he passed. Good pilot? I honestly don't know but he certainly kept plugging away until either he passed or the money ran out. In a Cadet world or the world where the airline pays for the training he would have been out on his ear.
P2F is seen as an advantage by those who have invested in it but as a cancer by those who work in the industry today.
Regulation must be sought before it destroys the rather fragile terms and conditions we have at the moment.
Sure many pilots going through the system are perfectly competent. They are also seen by the target industry as having sold their soul and thus are ripe for the culling as 'Doug the Head' has so eloquently described above.
FTO's who promise the world and then keep an average/ below average pilot trolling through a variety of type ratings (eg. The one who failed the 737 so got thrown onto the 'Bus) are just milking that character for cash.
When I did my multi/IR there was a chap from the Channel Islands who was on about his 7th or 8th attempt. He just kept throwing money at the problem. Eventually he passed. Good pilot? I honestly don't know but he certainly kept plugging away until either he passed or the money ran out. In a Cadet world or the world where the airline pays for the training he would have been out on his ear.
P2F is seen as an advantage by those who have invested in it but as a cancer by those who work in the industry today.
Regulation must be sought before it destroys the rather fragile terms and conditions we have at the moment.
And the point constantly being made is that having the cash to bypass the previously well established safety net is not conducive to good flight safety. I hate to say it, but the industry has within it the seeds of it's own destruction with this flawed policy.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WingoWango
Maybe... not. The operator i have just got hired by asks that you pay for your own type rating, thats all, after that you are as secure in its present success as any other pilot you see flying the line, provided your flying is up to standard, you pass all flying tests and 6monthly checks, as it is with any other airline. My beef with this argument is where people make a direct link between p2f and safety. Its an unfounded claim, infact its just an assumption somebody made and it has snowballed into this collective chant of p2f "is bad for safety and erodes t's & c's." Also in this petition, you state most pilot flying these aeroplanes have "less than 200hours"... if you can name anyone who has ever been issued a frozen ATPL with less than 200 hours i will eat my own licence. integrated or not, even if you fly in the minimum time (which would mean you are a sh*t hot pilot anyway), by the time you add the hours you log during the type rating it is impossible to have less than 200 hours.
Another bit of wording that just screams "dramatisation" is the ending,
If you go through your basic and professional training, an MCC course AND a type rating and you are still "incompetent & incapable" of flying the aircraft, you shouldn't be a pilot. In any case if you knew anything about how line training works, you would know that a safety pilot is on board, for this VERY reason.
You should find it as little surprise if this petition is bottom drawered or binned, it is presented emotionally rather than logically. Unless you're trying to scare or tug at heart strings, it will prove impotent.
There are a lot of factors that have resulted in "t's & c's" eroding in this and every other industry in the world, finance, manufacture, 9-5'ers, doctors, teachers, rocket scientists you name it,one of them being the recession... no industry is immune, or are you saying they are all facing these problems because the juniors in their field are paying to get a step up?
A bad pilot is a bad pilot, regardless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
A good pilot is a good pilot, regadless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
Just because someone paid for their type rating with operator 'X' does not mean their doing you out of pay at operator 'Y' so don't blame them for your terms and conditions.
Ryanair adopted a low cost model from southwest airlines, ryanair used to be a legacy carrier, it has had exponential growth and solid financial security since changing the way it does business. Other airlines then followed suite, to varying levels, be it charging for meals, charging for check in, charging for checked in baggage, or charging for a type rating. It may not have been done before, but this is a dynamic industry, and for you to even have a job to complain about, your management has to make decisions that keep your company competitive.
The fat man will never beat the trim athlete in a race. He may be more comfortable to hug and have an amazing personality, but he has to shed weight and get fit to remain competitive.
If you see things changing at your airline, it could be for a whole host of reasons. Don't just say "those newbie p2f guys have caused this" Aviation, as an industry is sensitive to a lot of variables, and any one or combination of them can cause a huge shift in your "t's & c's"
767200ER
Maybe you are defending the position of P2F and P4T as you have just spent 28K on a loan for a type rating? I appreciate your back may be to the wall and you have every right to do what you like. But in my honest opinion the whole pay for type rating, to then be a contractor was one of the reasons how the whole P2F thing started to become more and more popular. Airlines noticed they could get FO's into the right hand seat, make them pay for an interview, then offer them a job as a contractor etc etc and it started to evolve into some of the schemes you see today.
I agree that its not very correct to say all 250hr F/O's straight out of the factory are dangerous and a risk. But i certainly do think a case can be made that airlines that allow people to pay into the RHS do attract a lower caliber of newbie. Now before im jumped on, some i'm sure are very very capable and just as good as the next guy. But like i say, i trained with some of the guys/girls who did not do great in training and quite frankly lacked any desire!! They had interviews with airlines that do NOT require any payment and they failed, but they now sit in the RHS of airlines that DID require payment. Go figure
Maybe you are defending the position of P2F and P4T as you have just spent 28K on a loan for a type rating? I appreciate your back may be to the wall and you have every right to do what you like. But in my honest opinion the whole pay for type rating, to then be a contractor was one of the reasons how the whole P2F thing started to become more and more popular. Airlines noticed they could get FO's into the right hand seat, make them pay for an interview, then offer them a job as a contractor etc etc and it started to evolve into some of the schemes you see today.
I agree that its not very correct to say all 250hr F/O's straight out of the factory are dangerous and a risk. But i certainly do think a case can be made that airlines that allow people to pay into the RHS do attract a lower caliber of newbie. Now before im jumped on, some i'm sure are very very capable and just as good as the next guy. But like i say, i trained with some of the guys/girls who did not do great in training and quite frankly lacked any desire!! They had interviews with airlines that do NOT require any payment and they failed, but they now sit in the RHS of airlines that DID require payment. Go figure
Another bit of wording that just screams "dramatisation" is the ending,
are both incompetent and incapable of flying the aircraft in the event of incapacitation of the training pilot. I consider this a dangerous practise and ultimately an accident waiting to happen.
This practise needs to be stopped immediately.
This practise needs to be stopped immediately.
You should find it as little surprise if this petition is bottom drawered or binned, it is presented emotionally rather than logically. Unless you're trying to scare or tug at heart strings, it will prove impotent.
There are a lot of factors that have resulted in "t's & c's" eroding in this and every other industry in the world, finance, manufacture, 9-5'ers, doctors, teachers, rocket scientists you name it,one of them being the recession... no industry is immune, or are you saying they are all facing these problems because the juniors in their field are paying to get a step up?
A bad pilot is a bad pilot, regardless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
A good pilot is a good pilot, regadless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
Just because someone paid for their type rating with operator 'X' does not mean their doing you out of pay at operator 'Y' so don't blame them for your terms and conditions.
Ryanair adopted a low cost model from southwest airlines, ryanair used to be a legacy carrier, it has had exponential growth and solid financial security since changing the way it does business. Other airlines then followed suite, to varying levels, be it charging for meals, charging for check in, charging for checked in baggage, or charging for a type rating. It may not have been done before, but this is a dynamic industry, and for you to even have a job to complain about, your management has to make decisions that keep your company competitive.
The fat man will never beat the trim athlete in a race. He may be more comfortable to hug and have an amazing personality, but he has to shed weight and get fit to remain competitive.
If you see things changing at your airline, it could be for a whole host of reasons. Don't just say "those newbie p2f guys have caused this" Aviation, as an industry is sensitive to a lot of variables, and any one or combination of them can cause a huge shift in your "t's & c's"
Last edited by 767200ER; 23rd Apr 2010 at 17:21.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767200ER,
I see from another thread that you are 20. No doubt you still wear your rose tinted spectacles and are excited about landing a 'plum' job with Ryanair and can't wait to get your hands on one of those shiny new 737-800's.
Good luck, I am sure you will enjoy it.
Then cast a thought to those of us who have been in this industry for, in my case, 25 years. The shine wears off, believe me.
I have watched the conditions within my profession wither, slowly but surely. I was once in your position and I asked myself what the oldies were complaining about. Now I fully understand what it was.
Flying used to be a well paid, well respected profession. It has slowly died to the point it is today and I do not see the rot stopping. Where will it be when you have been at the controls of your 737 for 25 years? Personally I am glad I will not still be flying to see it. I have seen and flown with P2F pilots and they killed off the last company I worked for as a good, well paid company to fly for. Why? Because the company would constantly rotate the co-pilots as more of them wanted their 'jet time'. For those of us in the other seat it was both annoying and tiring.
We all need to protect our collective futures. P2F is a weapon of the Management and the accountants. When you have had the shine worn off you after years of long, hard days with the management coming at you for ever less money and bonuses you will understand. Until that point arguing against the system you chose is pointless.
I see from another thread that you are 20. No doubt you still wear your rose tinted spectacles and are excited about landing a 'plum' job with Ryanair and can't wait to get your hands on one of those shiny new 737-800's.
Good luck, I am sure you will enjoy it.
Then cast a thought to those of us who have been in this industry for, in my case, 25 years. The shine wears off, believe me.
I have watched the conditions within my profession wither, slowly but surely. I was once in your position and I asked myself what the oldies were complaining about. Now I fully understand what it was.
Flying used to be a well paid, well respected profession. It has slowly died to the point it is today and I do not see the rot stopping. Where will it be when you have been at the controls of your 737 for 25 years? Personally I am glad I will not still be flying to see it. I have seen and flown with P2F pilots and they killed off the last company I worked for as a good, well paid company to fly for. Why? Because the company would constantly rotate the co-pilots as more of them wanted their 'jet time'. For those of us in the other seat it was both annoying and tiring.
We all need to protect our collective futures. P2F is a weapon of the Management and the accountants. When you have had the shine worn off you after years of long, hard days with the management coming at you for ever less money and bonuses you will understand. Until that point arguing against the system you chose is pointless.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders how some people get through any selection...
...and a GREAT pilot is a good pilot willing to pay for a job. (and dumb enough not to realize how badly he's getting screwed.)
Keep on checking your emails 767300ER, airlines will soon be rolling out the red carpet for you! On the other hand, it's also a good possibility that 767300ER already has a job in management for some shady outfit, either an airline or a flight training school! I'm too lazy to do any research, I'm sure Darwin will sort this one out!
A bad pilot is a bad pilot, regardless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
A good pilot is a good pilot, regadless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
A good pilot is a good pilot, regadless of the amount of money they have or don't have.
Keep on checking your emails 767300ER, airlines will soon be rolling out the red carpet for you! On the other hand, it's also a good possibility that 767300ER already has a job in management for some shady outfit, either an airline or a flight training school! I'm too lazy to do any research, I'm sure Darwin will sort this one out!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation is not the only industry that has seen this erosion, like i said before.
However you may say being 20 i have seen nothing of the world and whetever else you like, i am not naive, i am just a realist. I don't want to sit for 5 years cursing those who are in the very position i want to be in. Flexibility and adaptability in life will save you a lot of frustration. I have not lived a sheltered life by any stretch of the imagination, don't let my biological age formulate your oppinion and tempt you into patronising me, it would be foolhardy. I have studied a number of subjects in this industry at university level which is more than a lot of people joining an airline have be it LHS or RHS.
I will give you an example of industry shift, the bucket and spade holiday industry? the low cost airline market changed the way people booked holidays, instead of a complete package with one company, people separated: flights and accomodation to travel and stay cheaper. Hailing the end of XL airways. They didn't change to scheduled service and their market was drying up.
EOS, Silverjet, examples of two Business class only premium service airlines, the recession started, business budgets were clawed back. These airlines couldn't adapt their models, and so, sadly, went bust. Nothing to do with p2f eroding their conditions or crashing their aeroplanes.
There is a reason low cost airlines remain succesful even in the worst of times and its their low cost base, which means not forking out 28K+ for each new pilot they take on, not knowing whether they are actually capable of completing the course or not. So they forward the financial risk onto the applicant. It keeps their costs down and allows them a more secure financial position and thus the existance of the very airline is more certain.
That is what accountants are after, that is what management are after. Because at the end of the day, if the airline is out of business, so are they.
Look at Westjet, they don't ask for their FO's to pay for a type rating, because they want you to have experience on type, the end result is the same, they don't have to invest in you for training. Which means the financial risk is removed. The same is true for virgin blue, and the same is true of GOL, all LCC's all flying the 737-800.
Wingo Wango, i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.
However you may say being 20 i have seen nothing of the world and whetever else you like, i am not naive, i am just a realist. I don't want to sit for 5 years cursing those who are in the very position i want to be in. Flexibility and adaptability in life will save you a lot of frustration. I have not lived a sheltered life by any stretch of the imagination, don't let my biological age formulate your oppinion and tempt you into patronising me, it would be foolhardy. I have studied a number of subjects in this industry at university level which is more than a lot of people joining an airline have be it LHS or RHS.
I will give you an example of industry shift, the bucket and spade holiday industry? the low cost airline market changed the way people booked holidays, instead of a complete package with one company, people separated: flights and accomodation to travel and stay cheaper. Hailing the end of XL airways. They didn't change to scheduled service and their market was drying up.
EOS, Silverjet, examples of two Business class only premium service airlines, the recession started, business budgets were clawed back. These airlines couldn't adapt their models, and so, sadly, went bust. Nothing to do with p2f eroding their conditions or crashing their aeroplanes.
There is a reason low cost airlines remain succesful even in the worst of times and its their low cost base, which means not forking out 28K+ for each new pilot they take on, not knowing whether they are actually capable of completing the course or not. So they forward the financial risk onto the applicant. It keeps their costs down and allows them a more secure financial position and thus the existance of the very airline is more certain.
That is what accountants are after, that is what management are after. Because at the end of the day, if the airline is out of business, so are they.
Look at Westjet, they don't ask for their FO's to pay for a type rating, because they want you to have experience on type, the end result is the same, they don't have to invest in you for training. Which means the financial risk is removed. The same is true for virgin blue, and the same is true of GOL, all LCC's all flying the 737-800.
Wingo Wango, i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767200ER
Good try. You are making facts fit circumstance.
BA started a business class only service to New York, full service, high quality air travel, in the middle of the recession.
Have a close look at your Ryr low cost model and ask yourself, honestly, can RYR make a profit based upon what they charge for seats? The answer is no, they can't. The revenue streams that go to make up the Lo-Co business model you seem to be so proud of with your new employer has deep roots in making money on the side.
If I were looking to work for RYR I would be quite concerned about the cancellation of the Boeing order and the fact that neither aircraft manufacturer, in the middle of a deep recession, is willing to sign a 1.5 billion euro deal with RYR. The business model for that company necessitates that it expand and conquer new markets. The aircraft manufacturers won't play any more, the authorities won't play any more with regard to subsidies, the airports won't play anymore.
How bright is the future of RYR? Keep an eye out for O'Leary converting shares, then will be the time to jump!
As to:
That is the cost to you, the applicant, the actual cost for the simulator course (given the fact that 737 sims are two a penny) and the base training is way, way less than that. You will have a safety pilot for your first few sectors (yes, with passengers paying their E1.99 seats) then off you go for your training sectors. (Don't forget to clean the aircraft on the turn around!)
O'Leary will love you, until you stop paying of course then he will treat you with the contempt he treats everyone else.
Sadly I have flown with co-pilots with this attitude before. 'I'm in debt to my eyeballs so I don't care what I have to do, I will prostitute myself to keep flying'. I am glad to say that when the job is no longer worth doing because we will all be paying to fly those 6 sector days I will be sipping my beer somewhere sunny. Sad, it was a good job until this attitude played into the hands of the accountants and destroyed it.
Good try. You are making facts fit circumstance.
BA started a business class only service to New York, full service, high quality air travel, in the middle of the recession.
Have a close look at your Ryr low cost model and ask yourself, honestly, can RYR make a profit based upon what they charge for seats? The answer is no, they can't. The revenue streams that go to make up the Lo-Co business model you seem to be so proud of with your new employer has deep roots in making money on the side.
If I were looking to work for RYR I would be quite concerned about the cancellation of the Boeing order and the fact that neither aircraft manufacturer, in the middle of a deep recession, is willing to sign a 1.5 billion euro deal with RYR. The business model for that company necessitates that it expand and conquer new markets. The aircraft manufacturers won't play any more, the authorities won't play any more with regard to subsidies, the airports won't play anymore.
How bright is the future of RYR? Keep an eye out for O'Leary converting shares, then will be the time to jump!
As to:
its their low cost base, which means not forking out 28K+ for each new pilot they take on,
O'Leary will love you, until you stop paying of course then he will treat you with the contempt he treats everyone else.
Wingo Wango, i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have studied a number of subjects in this industry at university level which is more than a lot of people joining an airline have be it LHS or RHS.
If you were smart you might just want to listen to the more experienced people in the industry such as Wirbelsturm who have been in it for 25 years+ and know that change can come not just from management & accountants.
Learning to formulate and write oppinion based on research is never a substitute for experience. Or didnt you learn that on your TR course?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767200ER
Good try. You are making facts fit circumstance.
BA started a business class only service to New York, full service, high quality air travel, in the middle of the recession.
Have a close look at your Ryr low cost model and ask yourself, honestly, can RYR make a profit based upon what they charge for seats? The answer is no, they can't. The revenue streams that go to make up the Lo-Co business model you seem to be so proud of with your new employer has deep roots in making money on the side.
If I were looking to work for RYR I would be quite concerned about the cancellation of the Boeing order and the fact that neither aircraft manufacturer, in the middle of a deep recession, is willing to sign a 1.5 billion euro deal with RYR. The business model for that company necessitates that it expand and conquer new markets. The aircraft manufacturers won't play any more, the authorities won't play any more with regard to subsidies, the airports won't play anymore.
How bright is the future of RYR? Keep an eye out for O'Leary converting shares, then will be the time to jump!
As to:
Quote:
its their low cost base, which means not forking out 28K+ for each new pilot they take on,
That is the cost to you, the applicant, the actual cost for the simulator course (given the fact that 737 sims are two a penny) and the base training is way, way less than that. You will have a safety pilot for your first few sectors (yes, with passengers paying their E1.99 seats) then off you go for your training sectors. (Don't forget to clean the aircraft on the turn around!)
O'Leary will love you, until you stop paying of course then he will treat you with the contempt he treats everyone else.
Quote:
Wingo Wango, i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.
Sadly I have flown with co-pilots with this attitude before. I'm in debt to my eyeballs so I don't care what I have to do, I will prostitute myself to keep flying. I am glad to say that when the job is no longer worth doing because we will all be paying to fly those 6 sector days I will be sipping my beer somewhere sunny. Sad, it was a good job until this attitude played into the hands of the accountants and destroyed it.
Wirbelsturm is online now Report Post Reply
Good try. You are making facts fit circumstance.
BA started a business class only service to New York, full service, high quality air travel, in the middle of the recession.
Have a close look at your Ryr low cost model and ask yourself, honestly, can RYR make a profit based upon what they charge for seats? The answer is no, they can't. The revenue streams that go to make up the Lo-Co business model you seem to be so proud of with your new employer has deep roots in making money on the side.
If I were looking to work for RYR I would be quite concerned about the cancellation of the Boeing order and the fact that neither aircraft manufacturer, in the middle of a deep recession, is willing to sign a 1.5 billion euro deal with RYR. The business model for that company necessitates that it expand and conquer new markets. The aircraft manufacturers won't play any more, the authorities won't play any more with regard to subsidies, the airports won't play anymore.
How bright is the future of RYR? Keep an eye out for O'Leary converting shares, then will be the time to jump!
As to:
Quote:
its their low cost base, which means not forking out 28K+ for each new pilot they take on,
That is the cost to you, the applicant, the actual cost for the simulator course (given the fact that 737 sims are two a penny) and the base training is way, way less than that. You will have a safety pilot for your first few sectors (yes, with passengers paying their E1.99 seats) then off you go for your training sectors. (Don't forget to clean the aircraft on the turn around!)
O'Leary will love you, until you stop paying of course then he will treat you with the contempt he treats everyone else.
Quote:
Wingo Wango, i am, then, every airlines wet dream because i am willing to adapt to whatever the situation that means we can all wake up tomorrow knowing we will still have a job to go to.
Sadly I have flown with co-pilots with this attitude before. I'm in debt to my eyeballs so I don't care what I have to do, I will prostitute myself to keep flying. I am glad to say that when the job is no longer worth doing because we will all be paying to fly those 6 sector days I will be sipping my beer somewhere sunny. Sad, it was a good job until this attitude played into the hands of the accountants and destroyed it.
Wirbelsturm is online now Report Post Reply
Ryanair's low cost model is well known as being heavily reliant on ancilliary revenue, the basis for that being, passengers pay for what they use. If you don't want a full meal, they won't add it to the price of your seat, if you don't want to check in a piece of luggage, they won't add it the cost of your seat, if you just want to sit down on the aeroplane, that will cost you E1.99, if you want more, it'll be extra. O'learys vision is to reverse the trend, and have passengers on the plane for free and charge advertisers premiums for access to the passengers. Its innovative and it turns the idea of air travel on its head. I have no qualms with the business model, its worked well for the past 20 years and passenger numbers reflect that thank you very much.
As for the airline manufacturers deal, MOL goes with an offer and walks away with it if its not accepted. Airbus have said themselves they won't deal with RYR until they offer more money, thats fine, but look at ryanairs efficiency, 200 aeroplanes 1200 routes, and as many flight cycles a day across the network over 40 something bases. EZY 200 odd aeroplanes and half the number of routes. Go figure.
Flying jobs are never going to be handed to people on a plate. But i shall now leave this pitty party of a thread and go and get on with my career.
I wish you all the best fortune in your futures
beware the scaremongers, they just want to keep competition down :P
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: North of the 49th parallel, eh!
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at Westjet, they don't ask for their FO's to pay for a type rating, because they want you to have experience on type, the end result is the same, they don't have to invest in you for training. Which means the financial risk is removed. The same is true for virgin blue, and the same is true of GOL, all LCC's all flying the 737-800.
On another note...my brother in law is a cardiologist...I can't wait for the day when he comes to our house and says: "Hey, guess what, we just hired a pay to defibrillate guy..he fast tracked his career by going to the Eat your heart out institute, paid a fortune to learn how to slice a watermelon and now we'll teach him how to slice carbon units like you. "
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Showing you age and not your shoe size: 767200ER
ooooooh. Get him. Storms out in a huff. "Dont forget your handbag mate." 
Why didnt you just do that in the first place if you werent happy to read the oppinions expressed on this forum? Yes, you are an accountants wet dream but you're also quite possibly a Training Captain's nightmare.
PS you can certainly tell from your post you're only 20 years old. Keep writing what you've written young man and we'll all think you're just a little bit younger than you've confessed to...
But i shall now leave this pitty party of a thread and go and get on with my career.
PS you can certainly tell from your post you're only 20 years old. Keep writing what you've written young man and we'll all think you're just a little bit younger than you've confessed to...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at Westjet, they don't ask for their FO's to pay for a type rating, because they want you to have experience on type, the end result is the same, they don't have to invest in you for training. Which means the financial risk is removed. The same is true for virgin blue, and the same is true of GOL, all LCC's all flying the 737-800.
You speak of "low cost bases" and "forwarding the financial risk on to the applicant" You can use whatever rhetoric you like, but at the end of the day it is YOU the applicant that is driving market conditions and allowing airlines like the LO CO's to achieve these low cost bases. Don't come across as being just a latent pawn on the chess board. You play a pivotal role.
I hate to say it but its an undeniable fact that you project yourself as being somewhat sanctimonious - where has all this wisdom come from for a 20yr old? Your biological age does formulate opinion - wisdom should tell you that at least.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: south u.k
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pay to fly
why not pay to fly, I cant see anything wrong with it. This is not a job its a joy ride. you are at the behest of numbsculls that have convinced poor people that they can fly. end of. sorry.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan Witerland has expressed it so perfectly and so briefly...
It should be ilegal.
Because there is no real control over who can and who cannot seat in an airliner cockpit.
I know very well what kind of totally borderline people can pass a very prestigious flight school exams, then ATPL exams, flight checks, MCC, And I have also witnessed how the same guys passed a TR with no one in the middle stopping them (schools, CAA, TRTOs... and now, airlines themselves), because they get money from them, and if they fail them, they don't get it. It is that simple. I have seen it from inside, I know what I am talking about.
If I am wrong... Can anyone tell me the rate of failure in the ATPL studies, compared to any universitary degree (easy ones, not Physics or Architects)?
Close to 0%?
Of course, there are also many talented people, too. But that does is not a merit anymore.
So we have passed from carefully selected pilots to non selected at all pilots.
This fact will have consecuences in safety.
It is already having consecuences in T&Cs, of course. That is why it has occurred, in the first place.
It should be ilegal.
Because there is no real control over who can and who cannot seat in an airliner cockpit.
I know very well what kind of totally borderline people can pass a very prestigious flight school exams, then ATPL exams, flight checks, MCC, And I have also witnessed how the same guys passed a TR with no one in the middle stopping them (schools, CAA, TRTOs... and now, airlines themselves), because they get money from them, and if they fail them, they don't get it. It is that simple. I have seen it from inside, I know what I am talking about.
If I am wrong... Can anyone tell me the rate of failure in the ATPL studies, compared to any universitary degree (easy ones, not Physics or Architects)?
Close to 0%?
Of course, there are also many talented people, too. But that does is not a merit anymore.
So we have passed from carefully selected pilots to non selected at all pilots.
This fact will have consecuences in safety.
It is already having consecuences in T&Cs, of course. That is why it has occurred, in the first place.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair's low cost model is well known as being heavily reliant on ancilliary revenue, the basis for that being, passengers pay for what they use. If you don't want a full meal, they won't add it to the price of your seat, if you don't want to check in a piece of luggage, they won't add it the cost of your seat, if you just want to sit down on the aeroplane, that will cost you E1.99, if you want more, it'll be extra. O'learys vision is to reverse the trend, and have passengers on the plane for free and charge advertisers premiums for access to the passengers. Its innovative and it turns the idea of air travel on its head. I have no qualms with the business model, its worked well for the past 20 years and passenger numbers reflect that thank you very much.
Now do you see why the failure to deal with Boeing or Airbus puts a different light on the future of Ryanair?
Good luck, I'm sure you'll be a competent drone, you certainly have swallowed the corporate pill.