Line Training Is Destroying The Airline Pilot Industry
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree with maybe pilot about the immaturity of a 20 yr old. That is absolute nonsense,i myself have seen many older first officers with the sense of a child, It has nothing to do with age its personality and ability that would be the issue when you take away your so called "variables"
one can be immature at any age but a 20 years old/200hrs pilot is obviously more likely to be one than someone who has the same amount of hours but has seen a little more of the world (traveled,done other jobs,got a mortgage,bought a car,paid his bills,had a couple of girlfriends) or someone who has the same age but a few more hours flown in other airlines, dealing with ops/pax/wx/FTL's/T&C's and so on.
I fly for an airline with a cadet scheme and sometimes find myself having to act more like a father than a Captain.....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahah when all these little micheymouses had pay for their 500h, they will look for a job when requirement will be higher. 1500h- 2000h TOTAL at least.
Then airlines will propose them to "upgrade" to 1500h TOTAL on their jet at a special rate of 29'000 euro.
during interviews, there will be 100 pilots for 3-4 jobs only. most pilots will have 500h jet, 800h TOTAL, begging and whining that the world is not right.
"bouhh I paid 500h, and nobody want me!!!
"
Then airlines will propose them to "upgrade" to 1500h TOTAL on their jet at a special rate of 29'000 euro.
during interviews, there will be 100 pilots for 3-4 jobs only. most pilots will have 500h jet, 800h TOTAL, begging and whining that the world is not right.
"bouhh I paid 500h, and nobody want me!!!
"
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this thread should be renamed to "P2F" is ruining the industry, rather than "line training". I don't know any airline that doesn't do line training? (The fully paid transition from just having a TR to your final release to the line).
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people with the loudest voices in the airline industry are the shareholders, and the passengers. If only the press would take an interest in the story then the shareholders could be made aware of what is going on, and critically the passengers. However whilst from a pilot's point of view it is a scandalous practice it will not get any press attention (thus causing public reaction) because it is legal. Don't expect any support from BALPA, or it would seem any of the other pilot's unions.
Unfortunately I think that it is here to stay, but if anyone can convince me that they have a decent campaign that stands half a chance of ending these schemes I will definitely support them.
Unfortunately I think that it is here to stay, but if anyone can convince me that they have a decent campaign that stands half a chance of ending these schemes I will definitely support them.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Firestorm; but further fear that 'Joe Public' cares little about the terms under which the grinning F/O appears. Safetly after all is the responsibility of the SRG. All companies are audited to this end.
I expect most of the 'GBP' are pleased to enjoy greatly subsidized air travel courtesy of our desperate little FATPL. How could you deny Rupert his rightful trip to the 'flightdeck' (via 'Wensums')?
P2F is absolutely here to stay. No hours means no job. "Rupert worked very hard at Oxford" - best Daddy gets his cheque book out.
I expect most of the 'GBP' are pleased to enjoy greatly subsidized air travel courtesy of our desperate little FATPL. How could you deny Rupert his rightful trip to the 'flightdeck' (via 'Wensums')?
P2F is absolutely here to stay. No hours means no job. "Rupert worked very hard at Oxford" - best Daddy gets his cheque book out.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could you deny Rupert his rightful trip to the 'flightdeck' (via 'Wensums')?
Rupert worked very hard at Oxford"
Last edited by rogerg; 28th Jun 2010 at 16:33.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loonies
I had a PM a week ago from a guy who wanted to know when to start training.
He is an intern on a trading desk at a large investment bank.
His "passion lies in aviation".
He wants to start training at the optimal moment, because he's not into flying a quote "poxy cessna". He only wants to fly a jet.
That's passion.
Where did it all go wrong?
He is an intern on a trading desk at a large investment bank.
His "passion lies in aviation".
He wants to start training at the optimal moment, because he's not into flying a quote "poxy cessna". He only wants to fly a jet.
That's passion.
Where did it all go wrong?
Last edited by stansdead; 28th Jun 2010 at 09:13. Reason: Spellcheck!!!!
I had a PM a week ago from a guy who wanted to know when to start training.
He is an intern on a trading desk at a large investment bank.
His "passion lies in aviation".
He wants to start training at the optimal moment, because he's not into flying a quote "poxy cessna". He only wants to fly a jet.
That's passion.
Where did it all go wrong?
He is an intern on a trading desk at a large investment bank.
His "passion lies in aviation".
He wants to start training at the optimal moment, because he's not into flying a quote "poxy cessna". He only wants to fly a jet.
That's passion.
Where did it all go wrong?
I think I might have replied a bit like this:
My passion lies in investment banking
I want to start my training at the optimal moment, I dont want to waste time on a poxy internship, I only want to be a partner in the bank. When should i start my investment banking career?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09
No, you are wrong!!!
To be a Partner normally assumes you take some financial risk with your OWN money. If losses are made, partners can be liable.
Best to be an overpaid employee. That way you can p1ss away other people's (yours & mine) money with no comeback.
At least that's how it happened.....
Anyone see a correlation between this and P2F?
To be a Partner normally assumes you take some financial risk with your OWN money. If losses are made, partners can be liable.
Best to be an overpaid employee. That way you can p1ss away other people's (yours & mine) money with no comeback.
At least that's how it happened.....
Anyone see a correlation between this and P2F?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: waiting in the sky
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McBruce’s post is the most sensible I’ve read on the subject in a long time – “The problem does not lie with the wannabes, it lies with us! the established guys in this industry.”
And I couldn’t agree more!
It’s YOUR Ts&Cs being eroded, it’s YOUR company eroding YOUR Ts&Cs, and it’s YOU who are letting them.
In the future, it will be the wannabe’s Ts&Cs, if and when wannabes get flying jobs. But until then, wannabes can only fall in line with what YOUR employers demand of them or offer them.
So quit blaming the wannabe, they do not have, and never will have, a collective voice in the industry, technically they are not even part of the industry yet! They have no influence over Airline recruitment or policy, and they can only take the opportunities which YOUR employers present to them….which at the moment includes SSTR and P2F.
However, you DO have a say. And your Unions DO have a say. But you choose to say all you have to say here on Pprune.
“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.”
Sorry, NO! It is the EMPLOYERS who accept P2F that are the issue here! Because P2F and SSTR are slowly becoming the NORMAL MEANS! And it is the EMPLOYEES who sit back and moan of diminishing Ts&Cs who are equally culpable. You cannot blame a company for trying to save money, even if it is at the expense of existing employee's if those employees let them. And you certainly can’t blame what is effectively a ‘graduate’ for taking an offer which YOUR airline is presenting to them.
Think what you like about Unite and BA, but there will never be pay-to-serve cabin crew at BA. The bottom line is that if you lot and your unions had any balls there would be no P2F/SSTR either.
All this P2F/SSTR/Flex-Contracts etc maybe short-termism, but right now it benefits the public because of cheaper tickets, it benefits the Airline because they can make more money, it benefits the government because the airlines are making more money, and it benefits wannabes because they can buy their way in. It’s a Win-Win scenario, so who’s complaining?….oh that’s right, you current Pilots.
So why do you expect someone other than YOU and YOUR union to stand up for YOUR terms and conditions !?
I don’t agree with P2F, I don’t agree with SSTR, but that’s where we are and it is YOUR airlines who are taking us there (our luggage is probably going elsewhere).
It is only the current pilots and their unions who can stop it, because EVERYBODY else, in some way shape or form, benefits from it.
And I couldn’t agree more!
It’s YOUR Ts&Cs being eroded, it’s YOUR company eroding YOUR Ts&Cs, and it’s YOU who are letting them.
In the future, it will be the wannabe’s Ts&Cs, if and when wannabes get flying jobs. But until then, wannabes can only fall in line with what YOUR employers demand of them or offer them.
So quit blaming the wannabe, they do not have, and never will have, a collective voice in the industry, technically they are not even part of the industry yet! They have no influence over Airline recruitment or policy, and they can only take the opportunities which YOUR employers present to them….which at the moment includes SSTR and P2F.
However, you DO have a say. And your Unions DO have a say. But you choose to say all you have to say here on Pprune.
“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.”
Sorry, NO! It is the EMPLOYERS who accept P2F that are the issue here! Because P2F and SSTR are slowly becoming the NORMAL MEANS! And it is the EMPLOYEES who sit back and moan of diminishing Ts&Cs who are equally culpable. You cannot blame a company for trying to save money, even if it is at the expense of existing employee's if those employees let them. And you certainly can’t blame what is effectively a ‘graduate’ for taking an offer which YOUR airline is presenting to them.
Think what you like about Unite and BA, but there will never be pay-to-serve cabin crew at BA. The bottom line is that if you lot and your unions had any balls there would be no P2F/SSTR either.
All this P2F/SSTR/Flex-Contracts etc maybe short-termism, but right now it benefits the public because of cheaper tickets, it benefits the Airline because they can make more money, it benefits the government because the airlines are making more money, and it benefits wannabes because they can buy their way in. It’s a Win-Win scenario, so who’s complaining?….oh that’s right, you current Pilots.
So why do you expect someone other than YOU and YOUR union to stand up for YOUR terms and conditions !?
I don’t agree with P2F, I don’t agree with SSTR, but that’s where we are and it is YOUR airlines who are taking us there (our luggage is probably going elsewhere).
It is only the current pilots and their unions who can stop it, because EVERYBODY else, in some way shape or form, benefits from it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a you are a moron.
Can you back that statement up with any hard facts ...
Whereas...those ex-mil guys who came from transport ops...were very well prepared.
Case in point, of an ex-mil fast jet type who could not follow reasonable company procedures...PABLO whatshisface...who was sacked for inviting pax to the FD in direct violation of company and CAA directives.
It is nearly always better (from the airlines perspective) to train junior civil guys into the RHS, because...they don't constantly argue and backtalk.
In short, they DO as they are told, not go off on some tangent with a wild hair up their backside.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, it is foolish to say that the line training that is offered to those that pay is to a lower standard. The CAA (or any other regulator) has no remit to get involved in abolishing or restricting the pay to train ethos that is being adopted nowadays. As long as the training standards are being upheld, then that is all that the regulator is responsible for.
The fact that those who opt to go down this route ending up as 'contractors' and not employees, does bring a degree of comfort to those employees and especially those who are well entrenched as employees with a period of service behind them. If you read a number of other forums, it is clear that a number of pilots genuinely do not feel that the 'pay to train' endemic is a direct threat to their own terms and conditions, especially when you are a Captain.
Many will still see this issue as a 'potential' or 'unseen' threat and that is why issues like rostering, annual leave or whatever, are seen as more pressing matters and this is what the unions will be getting approached with.
If crews start to face pay to train practices that affect them directly, such as paying for command courses and LPCs etc, then unions will get a earful and employees will stand up and fight. Of course by that time the rot will have set in and it will be too late.
In short, low cost airlines have been fantastic for the consumer and a disaster for pilots.
The fact that those who opt to go down this route ending up as 'contractors' and not employees, does bring a degree of comfort to those employees and especially those who are well entrenched as employees with a period of service behind them. If you read a number of other forums, it is clear that a number of pilots genuinely do not feel that the 'pay to train' endemic is a direct threat to their own terms and conditions, especially when you are a Captain.
Many will still see this issue as a 'potential' or 'unseen' threat and that is why issues like rostering, annual leave or whatever, are seen as more pressing matters and this is what the unions will be getting approached with.
If crews start to face pay to train practices that affect them directly, such as paying for command courses and LPCs etc, then unions will get a earful and employees will stand up and fight. Of course by that time the rot will have set in and it will be too late.
In short, low cost airlines have been fantastic for the consumer and a disaster for pilots.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ... on an island!
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Force ONE
Good Thread
... ask the Queen Of England or President Obama or whoever is running your beautiful Country if they want to be passenger of an Air Force One with a 50 hours total time co-pilot!
We all know the answer and the reason why they will come-out with that answer!
Now try to imagine to put the most important thing of your life on that plane with a 50 hours total time in the right seat! And correct me if I'm wrong but SOULS ON BOARD should be the most important 'things' for an airlines CEO!
... and we are in a kind of scenario that is better to fix problems when they come-out instead preventing unhappy ending!
Someone said that this problem is above their pay-check, but I prefer to remember that 'SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT!'
... ask the Queen Of England or President Obama or whoever is running your beautiful Country if they want to be passenger of an Air Force One with a 50 hours total time co-pilot!
We all know the answer and the reason why they will come-out with that answer!
Now try to imagine to put the most important thing of your life on that plane with a 50 hours total time in the right seat! And correct me if I'm wrong but SOULS ON BOARD should be the most important 'things' for an airlines CEO!
... and we are in a kind of scenario that is better to fix problems when they come-out instead preventing unhappy ending!
Someone said that this problem is above their pay-check, but I prefer to remember that 'SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT!'