Line Training Is Destroying The Airline Pilot Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In a house
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Line Training Is Destroying The Airline Pilot Industry
I have noticed heaps of posts in these forums about the topic of line training. All us pilots who do fly big jets we all tell you wannabe airline pilots to not pay for line training. This message isn't getting accross at all. You wannabe pilots don't realise what you guys are doing. What you guys are doing is causing airlines to decide that "Hey, Airline X doesnt need to pay their f/o's all they do is suck desperate pilots in by getting them to pay to do the job, lets copy this cost saving idea". Have you wannabe pilots ever thought of what the airline pilot industry may be like in 10 years time, how it is going to be impossible to make a career of being a f/o at an airline.
This might sound stupid but we need to do something about banning line training to save the airline pilot industry. Is it possible to get FAA, JAA, CASA etc to help ban this? Could this issue go through parliament? Should they make it compulsory for airlines to worn passenger that they are getting flown by an inexperienced pilot who has paid to fly this plane?
Lets hear your thoughts.
This might sound stupid but we need to do something about banning line training to save the airline pilot industry. Is it possible to get FAA, JAA, CASA etc to help ban this? Could this issue go through parliament? Should they make it compulsory for airlines to worn passenger that they are getting flown by an inexperienced pilot who has paid to fly this plane?
Lets hear your thoughts.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Sussex
Age: 70
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting first post!
Non pilot so feel free to delete if appropriate.
Whilst I understand where you are coming from I'm really none too sure what can be done to prevent the downgrading of pilots/FO jobs. Its happening in virtually all industries as companies sole interest is making money they will seek any way they can to cut costs.
Remember your local bank manager 30 years ago? A person of some standing in the community, and a highly paid senior manager? Many branch managers today are clerical grade and even those on managerial grade are on the lowest tier.
Long standing wedding photographers are currently moaning like hell about amateurs encroaching on "their" world, the fact is there are fewer barriers to entry these days and most photographers have to work a damn site harder to earn their living.
As an outsider I have seen quoted on here wide ranging salary bands for Pilots and FOs (approx £55k up to £200k and more). From a harsh financial point of view, a pilot who has 5 minutes experience, is equally able to take an aircraft with passengers from one place to another, and why would a company in a fiercely competetive market want to pay the top end.?
What you are proposing is to artificially keep pilots pay above a market determined rate, and whilst that has merit, I am afraid its futile as market forces alone will determine what future pilots are paid. The simple fact is if there wernt enough FOs seeking training then companies would have to pay, as it is there are lots seeking the experience so we have them paying to fly.
As for telling passengers, a newly qualified pilot is still qualified......so no...
(I really dont like the business world we are in today, but that wont make it go away so we have to deal with it)
Non pilot so feel free to delete if appropriate.
Whilst I understand where you are coming from I'm really none too sure what can be done to prevent the downgrading of pilots/FO jobs. Its happening in virtually all industries as companies sole interest is making money they will seek any way they can to cut costs.
Remember your local bank manager 30 years ago? A person of some standing in the community, and a highly paid senior manager? Many branch managers today are clerical grade and even those on managerial grade are on the lowest tier.
Long standing wedding photographers are currently moaning like hell about amateurs encroaching on "their" world, the fact is there are fewer barriers to entry these days and most photographers have to work a damn site harder to earn their living.
As an outsider I have seen quoted on here wide ranging salary bands for Pilots and FOs (approx £55k up to £200k and more). From a harsh financial point of view, a pilot who has 5 minutes experience, is equally able to take an aircraft with passengers from one place to another, and why would a company in a fiercely competetive market want to pay the top end.?
What you are proposing is to artificially keep pilots pay above a market determined rate, and whilst that has merit, I am afraid its futile as market forces alone will determine what future pilots are paid. The simple fact is if there wernt enough FOs seeking training then companies would have to pay, as it is there are lots seeking the experience so we have them paying to fly.
As for telling passengers, a newly qualified pilot is still qualified......so no...
(I really dont like the business world we are in today, but that wont make it go away so we have to deal with it)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, let's differentiate between the good and the bad:
Line training is in itself absolutely nescessary. The structured move from out-of-the-sim-ready, to being line qualified, to being an experienced FO allowing pairing with fresh skippers should IMHO be a systematic process. Who are we kidding when we think that 50-odd hours of a flight simulator will prepare an FO for everyday operations?
Then there's "line training". I see an ad about 10cm above what I'm writing, where Eagle Jet offers "300 and 500 hour options avaliable". What the ****? What determines the length of the line training? If you're not ready to be released to any line captain in 300 hours, what difference will another 200 make? This to me has nothing to do with line training, and everything to do with exploitation of those willing to pay to "skip the queue".
We see that the common denominator in most (recent) accidents and incidents is pilot error, in some form or another. We're talking about a lack of proficiency is a lot of relatively basic flying skills - and I'm not surprised! 8 hours in the simulators every year? That's just barely enough to run through each required maneuver one or two times; as far as I can see not even close to enough required to practice and become proficient and confident. The harsh reality in a competitive market is that the regulations will be the lowest common denominator. No company can simply afford to surpass the standards to any great extent for a lengthy period of time. This didn't use to be the case pre-deregulation (from what I've heard from my superiors).
To me, the answer is simple: we need better regulation. And I'm not talking about minor adjustments; not tinkering with doing 3 V1-cuts instead of 2, not raising the min.required hours for CPL issue from 190 (or whatever it is for an integrated program) to 200. I'm talking about a major restructuring of the way we think about training. Sim twice a year? How about 4 times, 6 times a year? Or how about doing 2-3-4 training passes before every (O)PC? A combination? How about getting regulators with enough balls to tell shoddy companies with a large pilot turnover (read: paying for line training) that not keeping experience in the airline is a safety issue? Outlawing paying for flying?
Oh, but the airlines will cry and say it's not economically viable, and everyone will go bust. Well - as long as it applies to everyone, no one is unfairly disadvantaged, except the £10 holidaymakers which now will have to pay perhaps £12. Remember that the crew cost only makes up for about 20% of the airfare.
Oh, but the higher prices will deter the public from flying, and jobs will be lost, the pilots cry. Yes, basic economic theory says that when the price increase, the volume will reduce. Perhaps a slight overall price increase will stop "one or two" members of the public from flying. Remember however, two points: firstly, travel is not necessarily a luxury commodity. I agree it's not like food, water or energy, but air travel is necessary in today's society. Just like people won't stop driving their cars just because the gas price goes up (they say they will, but no one does), people won't stop flying alltogether. Secondly, if pilot jobs will be lost, this may be an acceptable price to pay. Having a pilot job is not a human right. Every organised pilot knows that it's not worth doing if the price isn't right. What the right price is is a whole different story, but it surely as hell isn't negative.
You can't really blame the airlines. It's a competitive market, and every sensible manager will do the best to balance employee interest with shareholder interest, while staying legal. While we pilots are quick to judge our superiors for being in the pockets of the shareholders, we need to remember that without shareholders there would be no airline -- go ahead and try to privately fund a startup and see how it goes. We are working for the shareholders, ultimately, but as I said -- we shouldn't do it if the price isn't right. It's the regulator we need to push, not the companies.
Line training is in itself absolutely nescessary. The structured move from out-of-the-sim-ready, to being line qualified, to being an experienced FO allowing pairing with fresh skippers should IMHO be a systematic process. Who are we kidding when we think that 50-odd hours of a flight simulator will prepare an FO for everyday operations?
Then there's "line training". I see an ad about 10cm above what I'm writing, where Eagle Jet offers "300 and 500 hour options avaliable". What the ****? What determines the length of the line training? If you're not ready to be released to any line captain in 300 hours, what difference will another 200 make? This to me has nothing to do with line training, and everything to do with exploitation of those willing to pay to "skip the queue".
We see that the common denominator in most (recent) accidents and incidents is pilot error, in some form or another. We're talking about a lack of proficiency is a lot of relatively basic flying skills - and I'm not surprised! 8 hours in the simulators every year? That's just barely enough to run through each required maneuver one or two times; as far as I can see not even close to enough required to practice and become proficient and confident. The harsh reality in a competitive market is that the regulations will be the lowest common denominator. No company can simply afford to surpass the standards to any great extent for a lengthy period of time. This didn't use to be the case pre-deregulation (from what I've heard from my superiors).
To me, the answer is simple: we need better regulation. And I'm not talking about minor adjustments; not tinkering with doing 3 V1-cuts instead of 2, not raising the min.required hours for CPL issue from 190 (or whatever it is for an integrated program) to 200. I'm talking about a major restructuring of the way we think about training. Sim twice a year? How about 4 times, 6 times a year? Or how about doing 2-3-4 training passes before every (O)PC? A combination? How about getting regulators with enough balls to tell shoddy companies with a large pilot turnover (read: paying for line training) that not keeping experience in the airline is a safety issue? Outlawing paying for flying?
Oh, but the airlines will cry and say it's not economically viable, and everyone will go bust. Well - as long as it applies to everyone, no one is unfairly disadvantaged, except the £10 holidaymakers which now will have to pay perhaps £12. Remember that the crew cost only makes up for about 20% of the airfare.
Oh, but the higher prices will deter the public from flying, and jobs will be lost, the pilots cry. Yes, basic economic theory says that when the price increase, the volume will reduce. Perhaps a slight overall price increase will stop "one or two" members of the public from flying. Remember however, two points: firstly, travel is not necessarily a luxury commodity. I agree it's not like food, water or energy, but air travel is necessary in today's society. Just like people won't stop driving their cars just because the gas price goes up (they say they will, but no one does), people won't stop flying alltogether. Secondly, if pilot jobs will be lost, this may be an acceptable price to pay. Having a pilot job is not a human right. Every organised pilot knows that it's not worth doing if the price isn't right. What the right price is is a whole different story, but it surely as hell isn't negative.
You can't really blame the airlines. It's a competitive market, and every sensible manager will do the best to balance employee interest with shareholder interest, while staying legal. While we pilots are quick to judge our superiors for being in the pockets of the shareholders, we need to remember that without shareholders there would be no airline -- go ahead and try to privately fund a startup and see how it goes. We are working for the shareholders, ultimately, but as I said -- we shouldn't do it if the price isn't right. It's the regulator we need to push, not the companies.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, get some perspective on this. It isn't NEARLY as widespread as made out on these forums. If you look a little deeper, you will notice it's the same two or three posters bringing up the subject again and again in different threads.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an accident waiting to happen, only then the public will start wondering what's going on just like in the ColganAir case.
20 years old 200hrs pilots pay their way into the right hand seat of a jet and are then trained like monkeys to deal with normal everyday operations on a fully functioning brand new aircraft with a fit and alert Captain.
One day one of these fully functional variables will change the result of the equation and if you throw in some weather, tiredness and other operational factors adding them up with the absolute lack of previous experience and the normal immaturity of a 20 years old youngster then the outcome can only turn out being tragic.
20 years old 200hrs pilots pay their way into the right hand seat of a jet and are then trained like monkeys to deal with normal everyday operations on a fully functioning brand new aircraft with a fit and alert Captain.
One day one of these fully functional variables will change the result of the equation and if you throw in some weather, tiredness and other operational factors adding them up with the absolute lack of previous experience and the normal immaturity of a 20 years old youngster then the outcome can only turn out being tragic.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P2F schemes allow pax to fly to Spain et al for £20 return or less, to be honest the passengers are paying less than the FO for the trip.
I do also believe that, legally, the pax should be informed at the booking stage that the FO is paying to fly the plane and they have a choice to not fly/book.
I do also believe that, legally, the pax should be informed at the booking stage that the FO is paying to fly the plane and they have a choice to not fly/book.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far back as 1962 Ansett Airlines gave preference to inexperienced general aviation pilots to go straight into the RH seat of a DC3 and F27. Some of these pilots had just a CPL and 160 hours on Tiger Moths or similar with no twin time. Certainly many did not hold instrument ratings.
RAAF pilots anxious to get an airline job were frowned upon by Ansett management for no good reason except they preferred inexperienced young pilots and placed the burden of training these pilots on the captains. But in those days the airlines paid for all training including type ratings.
Point being, inexperienced copilots sat in the RH seat. So things haven't changed really. The name of the captain and copilot were placed in a prominent position so passengers could see the names. Of course, like now, the passengers wouldn't have a clue of the experience level of the second in command. Maybe where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise..
RAAF pilots anxious to get an airline job were frowned upon by Ansett management for no good reason except they preferred inexperienced young pilots and placed the burden of training these pilots on the captains. But in those days the airlines paid for all training including type ratings.
Point being, inexperienced copilots sat in the RH seat. So things haven't changed really. The name of the captain and copilot were placed in a prominent position so passengers could see the names. Of course, like now, the passengers wouldn't have a clue of the experience level of the second in command. Maybe where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise..
PPRuNe Handmaiden
I think the OP is talking about people paying for line training, thus denying a pilot a paid job.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF pilots anxious to get an airline job were frowned upon by Ansett management for no good reason except ...
Always a bad idea, with some exceptions.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish you would define your terms. Line training...what does that mean?
In the US, we have something called: LOFT or Line Oriented Flight Training. 20 year veterans still take this training. Its just a regular flight in real time with a minor problem thrown in for good measure.
Do you refer to people paying to be a copilot, after passing some simulator check ride? Just to build time?
That sort of thing is not done at major airlines in the US. There are regional airlines that have hired very low time pilots to be copilots, but they are still being paid...albeit not much.
A few years ago I had heard that some of the cruise ship airlines had unpaid copilots.
The only way to stop something like this is to expose it to the light of day.
Dear Passenger, do you want your flight crew to have to have training wheels?
In the US, we have something called: LOFT or Line Oriented Flight Training. 20 year veterans still take this training. Its just a regular flight in real time with a minor problem thrown in for good measure.
Do you refer to people paying to be a copilot, after passing some simulator check ride? Just to build time?
That sort of thing is not done at major airlines in the US. There are regional airlines that have hired very low time pilots to be copilots, but they are still being paid...albeit not much.
A few years ago I had heard that some of the cruise ship airlines had unpaid copilots.
The only way to stop something like this is to expose it to the light of day.
Dear Passenger, do you want your flight crew to have to have training wheels?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FL 350
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a you are a moron. Can you back that statement up with any hard facts or are you just spouting off? In my past experience, I can tell a military guy from a civilian in about 2 minutes. Not saying military trained aviators are supreme or saying civil trained are inferior, just different.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem does not lie with the wannabes, it lies with us! the established guys in this industry. The wannabes have no voice as a collective... No point in telling them not to pay for a type rating as lets face it, this seems to be the only way to enter this industry only because the experienced guys let this practise continue because it didn't affect them. Now its erroding the terms and conditions from the ground up, guys are now starting to complain and blame the wannabes... If we want to stop this practise then its upto us, not them.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
line training= slavery,
nothing else.
who to blame?: gov, CAA,department of transport.
and who cares at the end?, we are all a bunch of stupid pilots who pay to fly for fun... this is what they think of us at the CAA at gatwick!!!!
nothing else.
who to blame?: gov, CAA,department of transport.
and who cares at the end?, we are all a bunch of stupid pilots who pay to fly for fun... this is what they think of us at the CAA at gatwick!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just ignore 411A. He thrives on controversy, but he's banging the same few drums every time. He has probably forgotten the gist of most of his 7,000+ posts.
Onset of Alzheimer's perhaps?
Onset of Alzheimer's perhaps?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who to blame?: gov, CAA,department of transport.
The real cancers of our industry are those willing to pay their way onto the flight deck as they lack the character and quality to get there through normal means.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Where the sun goes
Age: 40
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320,
It's even worth, slave don't pay anything! Now, people pay to work... Which world are we living in? It's like we are in a flying club, paying to fly.
Aie aie aie
Garba.
It's even worth, slave don't pay anything! Now, people pay to work... Which world are we living in? It's like we are in a flying club, paying to fly.
Aie aie aie
Garba.