Any recruitment likely at Easy?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty obvious, I'd have thought.
Hiring cadets does nothing to move the market as it doesn't affect anyone in the market. Neither does internal promotion. No FOs moving from turboprops to jets so no piston drivers moving onto the TPs, and no instructors moving into piston twins. No ex-military getting employed in civvy street either.
No movement anywhere. No cross-fertilization at all. And we know what effect that has on a closed-cycle gene pool, don't we?
Cadets only = market remains bogged down & static.
Ditto internal promotions only and no DECs.
Closed gene pool = ever increasing proportion of mongs.
Hmm!
Hiring cadets does nothing to move the market as it doesn't affect anyone in the market. Neither does internal promotion. No FOs moving from turboprops to jets so no piston drivers moving onto the TPs, and no instructors moving into piston twins. No ex-military getting employed in civvy street either.
No movement anywhere. No cross-fertilization at all. And we know what effect that has on a closed-cycle gene pool, don't we?
Cadets only = market remains bogged down & static.
Ditto internal promotions only and no DECs.
Closed gene pool = ever increasing proportion of mongs.
Hmm!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh but at least CTC makes shed loads of money as does Easyjet...All about ££££££ and greed!!
And nothing will change until a major accident happens as a result of inexperience on the flightdeck. Even then don't hold your breath.....!
Agree with the above comments, this news does nothing to help the job market at all!!!
And nothing will change until a major accident happens as a result of inexperience on the flightdeck. Even then don't hold your breath.....!
Agree with the above comments, this news does nothing to help the job market at all!!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus bisporus
"Closed gene pool = ever increasing proportion of mongs."
Don't get me wrong. I agree with what you say. But the use of that particular word is, in my opinion, offensive.
It is a word that was and is still a slur used against people unfortunate enough to have menatl disability or Down's syndrome.
We shouldn't use it here to describe Cadet pilots.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with what you say. But the use of that particular word is, in my opinion, offensive.
It is a word that was and is still a slur used against people unfortunate enough to have menatl disability or Down's syndrome.
We shouldn't use it here to describe Cadet pilots.
Rejoice for what though NSF? (yay, EasyJet are taking on 300 wannabes, yay) Those figures are doing nothing, absolutely nothing for this industry whatsoever. If it was a free for all then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Those figures are doing nothing to get the job market going again - period.
CC
CC
It is a really big change to the industry which many have not yet fully appreciated. The time honoured path, Air Work> small TurboProp> Larger T/P/Command/Small Jet> Large jet/Large Airline is pretty much dead because at the larger airline stage the only hiring is through cadet schemes/SSTR.
300 new jobs at one large UK airline used to mean 300 new jobs one rung down the ladder and one rung further down from that at other UK airlines or flying businesses. Lots of promotions, lots of happy people, lots of opportunities.
Not really the case any more
WWW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stansdead
Don't get me wrong. I agree with what you say. But the use of that particular word is, in my opinion, offensive.
It is a word that was and is still a slur used against people unfortunate enough to have menatl disability or Down's syndrome.
I don't think Agaricus bisporus meant it to be offensive. My eldest son has Downs and I didn't take his comment to be offensive as he wasn't using it in that context...
I think we all agree though that it isn't great news for the industry unless you have shares in CTC or are a cadet!!
Cheers
Don't get me wrong. I agree with what you say. But the use of that particular word is, in my opinion, offensive.
It is a word that was and is still a slur used against people unfortunate enough to have menatl disability or Down's syndrome.
I don't think Agaricus bisporus meant it to be offensive. My eldest son has Downs and I didn't take his comment to be offensive as he wasn't using it in that context...
I think we all agree though that it isn't great news for the industry unless you have shares in CTC or are a cadet!!
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grrrr
Age: 17
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, think you may have messed up the year there, NSF, or I am reading your post incorrectly. Doubt you applied in 1994 to easyJet as the company started up the following year 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF
I am not sure if you are being disengenuous but it is clear that if you join a company as a DEC you disadvantage anyone with a date of joining before yours (if you joined in 1994 well done!) who has to wait (for any period of time) for a command. Are you honestly telling me that not one pilot who joined before you ever had to wait for a command slot? If they did you disadvantaged them. Having taken a command, when there were no internal candidates and it was neccessary to allow expansion, did you stand down when the first F/O who joined berfore you became suitable? If not you diadvantaged him/her. Right now if any cadet who joined easy before 2004 is still waiting for a command they have a right to feel disadvantaged by you.
What you seem to want is that all airlines now have a strict seniority list (now that you are in a good position) and only promote internally (British Airways?). if this was strictly applied at ezy at some time you would have lost your command to someone more senior when they became suitable.
I see some similarities here between the BA Cabin Crew who want to tell BA how to run thed company and some of the posters who want to tell easy who they should employ and promote. The fact is that there is generally a free market in jobs and pilots. easyJet management feel the need to maximise profits and play the markets, individuals (incluing NSF) asume the right to play the market and take opportunities as they arise to better their position. The difference is?
The truth is that the free market has created more airlines an pilots jobs than ever BEA/BOAC ever did yet that is the model that you seem to aspire to. A heavily unionised closed shop now you are alright jack.
I am not sure if you are being disengenuous but it is clear that if you join a company as a DEC you disadvantage anyone with a date of joining before yours (if you joined in 1994 well done!) who has to wait (for any period of time) for a command. Are you honestly telling me that not one pilot who joined before you ever had to wait for a command slot? If they did you disadvantaged them. Having taken a command, when there were no internal candidates and it was neccessary to allow expansion, did you stand down when the first F/O who joined berfore you became suitable? If not you diadvantaged him/her. Right now if any cadet who joined easy before 2004 is still waiting for a command they have a right to feel disadvantaged by you.
What you seem to want is that all airlines now have a strict seniority list (now that you are in a good position) and only promote internally (British Airways?). if this was strictly applied at ezy at some time you would have lost your command to someone more senior when they became suitable.
I see some similarities here between the BA Cabin Crew who want to tell BA how to run thed company and some of the posters who want to tell easy who they should employ and promote. The fact is that there is generally a free market in jobs and pilots. easyJet management feel the need to maximise profits and play the markets, individuals (incluing NSF) asume the right to play the market and take opportunities as they arise to better their position. The difference is?
The truth is that the free market has created more airlines an pilots jobs than ever BEA/BOAC ever did yet that is the model that you seem to aspire to. A heavily unionised closed shop now you are alright jack.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kick the tires
You'll have to explain this one to me, easyjet promote 160+ internal SFO's, employ a further 300 new cadet pilots and promote 20 training captains - but this does nothing to 'get the job market going again'!
You must have some logic behind your statement - can you share it?
You must have some logic behind your statement - can you share it?
I would have loved to move across to EJ, and probably make a career there, but to be honest I don't think I want to work there now. They are starting to make Ryanair look attractive.
Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman
It is a really big change to the industry which many have not yet fully appreciated. The time honoured path, Air Work> small TurboProp> Larger T/P/Command/Small Jet> Large jet/Large Airline is pretty much dead because at the larger airline stage the only hiring is through cadet schemes/SSTR.
300 new jobs at one large UK airline used to mean 300 new jobs one rung down the ladder and one rung further down from that at other UK airlines or flying businesses. Lots of promotions, lots of happy people, lots of opportunities.
Not really the case any more
WW
300 new jobs at one large UK airline used to mean 300 new jobs one rung down the ladder and one rung further down from that at other UK airlines or flying businesses. Lots of promotions, lots of happy people, lots of opportunities.
Not really the case any more
WW
So are your views now changing from telling wannabes on the wannabe forum that it'll be years before they get a look in to a view that these very people are the only ones who are going to get on in the industry? Surely you must now get in there and tell them all to train as fast as they can, right now, because they have more chance of progressing than an experienced pilot, because lets face it, that is exactly what is happening.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A seniority based command system is a fair way to promote in a mature airline which easy now is and DEC when many F/Os are suitable is unfair. This is different from a few years ago when there were none available, I don't see a problem with DECs then. The excuse for not promoting onto the 737 is the cost of type rating bus F/Os, however a lot of us are still within 5 years of flying the 737 so would need only LPC/OPC, this is perhaps unkind.
It is bad that we no longer recruit from the traditional route, this is solely for cost reduction and a lucrative contract for CTC. Much as the cadets are all well trained and keen, they do lack experience and need more coaching from captains in many situations. having such a large percent of low experience pilots must degrade safety margins somewhat. There have been a few minor incidents over the last few months which probably would not have happened with an experienced F/O but cutting costs/next 1/4 profits rule until something serious happens.
It is bad that we no longer recruit from the traditional route, this is solely for cost reduction and a lucrative contract for CTC. Much as the cadets are all well trained and keen, they do lack experience and need more coaching from captains in many situations. having such a large percent of low experience pilots must degrade safety margins somewhat. There have been a few minor incidents over the last few months which probably would not have happened with an experienced F/O but cutting costs/next 1/4 profits rule until something serious happens.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points. Well, more rhetorical questions, that if anyone wants to respond to, I'd be interested in the answers.
1. WHY does ANYONE consider a seniority system a "fair" way of recruiting. It is absolutely UNfair. Why should someone with bare minimum competence to pass the upgrade course get this honour ahead of someone else who is a better/more experienced pilot? Ezy and Fr are great examples of companies where people got early commands [in the early years!] with comparitively little experience. Given the whinge about 'cadets' is always about low experience, this seems yet another example of "one rule for me, another for you". Promotion based on seniority seems to be only really prevalent in the airline industry, every other company on the planet decided long ago that competence based recruitment was a far better solution. In context of aviation, seniority is the one thing that traps people in a given company and therefore doesn't help, it restricts.
2. Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed by Superpilot, it does make me chuckle - the amount of smug self righteousness expressed by [some of] those who went modular at how much money they saved over "the poor dumb rich mummy/daddys boys who went integrated because they were too thick/lazy/ugly/ responsible for endangered species dying out to do it themselves", which is then promptly followed by wails and gnashing of teeth that they can't get a [jet] job because the only route in is via these schemes that are run by the integrated schools. No, it's not right, but next time, when you're just about to launch into a tirade about the poor dumb rich kids, stop and think about who is really the fool - the fool who spent £100k but got the job in the end [irrespective of whether 'the dream' turned out to be a dream or a nightmare], or the fool who spent £50k and got nothing to show for it.....
3. Cadets/inexperienced/accidents etc. Yes, undoubtedly cadets aren't as experienced as someone with 1000s of hours. That's just logical. However, show me the pilot who just woke up one day and found they had 5000 hours experience on the bus or boeing that they didn't have the night before. You ONLY get experience by 'experiencing' it. Would 1500 hours - as often suggested - in a Cessna 152 REALLY make you any better a pilot in the MRJTs [than, for the sake of comparing apples with apples, a cadet who went straight to an MRJT and now has 1500 tt, 1300 on type]? Personally I seriously doubt it. The two aircraft are totally different beasts and the airmanship applicable to a Cessna is probably only very loosely transferable to an MRJT. The reason Cadets are here to stay is because you can't find/imply/prove a link between their inexperience and safety. For every Kos accident, the airlines will show you 1000 flights operated safely with a low hourer in the cockpit. Then they'll show you another 10 accidents of a similar nature that were crewed by experienced crews only. And with each passing day, the number of flights safely operated by low experience crews goes up worldwide. I agree - really I do, that it's not right that these "screw the new guy" deals are the only way in for the moment. I agree that logically, a less experienced crew is likely to be less safe than a more experienced crew, but the only link you can make between inexperience and safety is the entirely logical assertion that if the experience levels are lower, then overall safety is likely to be lower than it could be....NOT that it's UNSAFE....because it manifestly ISN'T unsafe, is it.
1. WHY does ANYONE consider a seniority system a "fair" way of recruiting. It is absolutely UNfair. Why should someone with bare minimum competence to pass the upgrade course get this honour ahead of someone else who is a better/more experienced pilot? Ezy and Fr are great examples of companies where people got early commands [in the early years!] with comparitively little experience. Given the whinge about 'cadets' is always about low experience, this seems yet another example of "one rule for me, another for you". Promotion based on seniority seems to be only really prevalent in the airline industry, every other company on the planet decided long ago that competence based recruitment was a far better solution. In context of aviation, seniority is the one thing that traps people in a given company and therefore doesn't help, it restricts.
2. Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed by Superpilot, it does make me chuckle - the amount of smug self righteousness expressed by [some of] those who went modular at how much money they saved over "the poor dumb rich mummy/daddys boys who went integrated because they were too thick/lazy/ugly/ responsible for endangered species dying out to do it themselves", which is then promptly followed by wails and gnashing of teeth that they can't get a [jet] job because the only route in is via these schemes that are run by the integrated schools. No, it's not right, but next time, when you're just about to launch into a tirade about the poor dumb rich kids, stop and think about who is really the fool - the fool who spent £100k but got the job in the end [irrespective of whether 'the dream' turned out to be a dream or a nightmare], or the fool who spent £50k and got nothing to show for it.....
3. Cadets/inexperienced/accidents etc. Yes, undoubtedly cadets aren't as experienced as someone with 1000s of hours. That's just logical. However, show me the pilot who just woke up one day and found they had 5000 hours experience on the bus or boeing that they didn't have the night before. You ONLY get experience by 'experiencing' it. Would 1500 hours - as often suggested - in a Cessna 152 REALLY make you any better a pilot in the MRJTs [than, for the sake of comparing apples with apples, a cadet who went straight to an MRJT and now has 1500 tt, 1300 on type]? Personally I seriously doubt it. The two aircraft are totally different beasts and the airmanship applicable to a Cessna is probably only very loosely transferable to an MRJT. The reason Cadets are here to stay is because you can't find/imply/prove a link between their inexperience and safety. For every Kos accident, the airlines will show you 1000 flights operated safely with a low hourer in the cockpit. Then they'll show you another 10 accidents of a similar nature that were crewed by experienced crews only. And with each passing day, the number of flights safely operated by low experience crews goes up worldwide. I agree - really I do, that it's not right that these "screw the new guy" deals are the only way in for the moment. I agree that logically, a less experienced crew is likely to be less safe than a more experienced crew, but the only link you can make between inexperience and safety is the entirely logical assertion that if the experience levels are lower, then overall safety is likely to be lower than it could be....NOT that it's UNSAFE....because it manifestly ISN'T unsafe, is it.
Coffin Corner
Think of the airline industry as a complete entity, then think of EJ as a smaller entity.
Its a sad fact that this is the way airlines operate now. No consolation to those with a few thousand hours experience who are waiting to move up the ladder.
I had expected the demographic balance at EZY to be addressed by DEP's but they dont seem to think this is necessary.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Mad house in SPACE LAND
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clanger,
I suggest you reread your post later from your future position as a trainer -which I sincerely hope you can achieve- and then you may understand how wrong you are.
You clearly haven't got a clue about the real added value of experience.... how it actually increase safety margins, had it been acquired on a jet or on a turboprop... but only experience can teach you that.
And none of the contributors on here claim to be experienced on a cessna 152 only my friend. Many have jet/heavy turboprop experience. So your comments on the matter are a bit insulting or I would simply say loose their validity based on the lack of maturity they show
You are not conscious of what you don't know.
Aviation safety is a lot more than doggy statistics one individual may dream of...
it's also about what actually goes on in the cockpit that is not quantified or necessarily publicly said but very well felt by the trainer / capt who have to show extra vigilance towards the newbie he's got to coach. This affects general situaional awareness. While it is acceptable within reasonable proportions, it certainly should not become the rule because then safety is affected and accident occurence is just a matter of time.
Why do ya think major airlines don't exclusively take cadets but also broaden their recruitments to experienced drivers ?
I 'm sure you'll grow up.
As for the fool who should have paid 50k instead of 100k ....
I suggest you reread your post later from your future position as a trainer -which I sincerely hope you can achieve- and then you may understand how wrong you are.
You clearly haven't got a clue about the real added value of experience.... how it actually increase safety margins, had it been acquired on a jet or on a turboprop... but only experience can teach you that.
And none of the contributors on here claim to be experienced on a cessna 152 only my friend. Many have jet/heavy turboprop experience. So your comments on the matter are a bit insulting or I would simply say loose their validity based on the lack of maturity they show
You are not conscious of what you don't know.
Aviation safety is a lot more than doggy statistics one individual may dream of...
it's also about what actually goes on in the cockpit that is not quantified or necessarily publicly said but very well felt by the trainer / capt who have to show extra vigilance towards the newbie he's got to coach. This affects general situaional awareness. While it is acceptable within reasonable proportions, it certainly should not become the rule because then safety is affected and accident occurence is just a matter of time.
Why do ya think major airlines don't exclusively take cadets but also broaden their recruitments to experienced drivers ?
I 'm sure you'll grow up.
As for the fool who should have paid 50k instead of 100k ....
So are your views now changing from telling wannabes on the wannabe forum that it'll be years before they get a look in to a view that these very people are the only ones who are going to get on in the industry? Surely you must now get in there and tell them all to train as fast as they can, right now, because they have more chance of progressing than an experienced pilot, because lets face it, that is exactly what is happening.
Coffin - I will continue to share my opinion on the Wannabes forums that the chances and opportunities for airline employment are very poor, have been ruinous and are likely to remain poor next year. I will also continue to advise that the best way into an airline job is to first exhaust any opportunities to join CTC/Any Other SSTR and to expect to pay for everything including Type Rating therefore budget for £100,000.
Even 300 jobs isn't that much when you have just 2 schools outputting that many CPL/IR holders every year...
WWW
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clanger,
Re your second point, the fact is there are plenty of integrated route pilots who are in exactly the same position as the modular guys now too.
Sadly WWW has it right. The world is changed. When I qualified in 2003, I was sick of being told "come back when you've got some hours and experience". Then the rules changed and pilots started stumping up cash to buy ratings to get themselves ahead of the competition, but most airlines still wanted time on type, so at least with airline time and no rating, you stood a chance. Now its' become "your experience is irrelevant, how much cash have you got/how low a wage will you accept".
So in many ways, how you got your licence is irrelevant too, as long as you satisfy the entry requirements of the pimps who hawk cadets out to airlines.
Cost is king these days and despite the rhetoric the transient managers that most airlines employ don't care about workforce and it's experience as long as legal minimums/standards are met, and they hit their targets and get their bonuses. Chances are, if something serious happens, it won't be on their watch as they will have ticked the box on their CV to get another rung up the greasy pole somewhere else.
I like the majority of pilots paid a lot of cash (whatever route they took to get there) to qualify to operate commercial air transport. After 3000 hours of flying people around, learning along the way and enjoying doing so, it would be nice to progress both in terms of type and income and reduction of training debt. I never expected to become rich by becoming a pilot, but I never expected to be here solely to line the pockets of others either.
Luckily, I have a job at the moment, but I don't see much hope (or point) in progressing until something changes dramatically.
So Easy, like so many others has become a closed door to my generation of pilots.
Bitter? Frankly, yes.
Sadly WWW has it right. The world is changed. When I qualified in 2003, I was sick of being told "come back when you've got some hours and experience". Then the rules changed and pilots started stumping up cash to buy ratings to get themselves ahead of the competition, but most airlines still wanted time on type, so at least with airline time and no rating, you stood a chance. Now its' become "your experience is irrelevant, how much cash have you got/how low a wage will you accept".
So in many ways, how you got your licence is irrelevant too, as long as you satisfy the entry requirements of the pimps who hawk cadets out to airlines.
Cost is king these days and despite the rhetoric the transient managers that most airlines employ don't care about workforce and it's experience as long as legal minimums/standards are met, and they hit their targets and get their bonuses. Chances are, if something serious happens, it won't be on their watch as they will have ticked the box on their CV to get another rung up the greasy pole somewhere else.
I like the majority of pilots paid a lot of cash (whatever route they took to get there) to qualify to operate commercial air transport. After 3000 hours of flying people around, learning along the way and enjoying doing so, it would be nice to progress both in terms of type and income and reduction of training debt. I never expected to become rich by becoming a pilot, but I never expected to be here solely to line the pockets of others either.
Luckily, I have a job at the moment, but I don't see much hope (or point) in progressing until something changes dramatically.
So Easy, like so many others has become a closed door to my generation of pilots.
Bitter? Frankly, yes.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those pilots advocating promotion and strict seniority etc please consider that in todays volatile economic environment, if every airline only promoted on seniority / date of joining then, should you be unemployed you will have to start again as a junior F/O at a new company.
As a profession do we think it fair that someone with 20+ years in command possibly a TRI/TRE etc etc has to start again at the bottom of the pile.
Is this how other professions operate, surgeons in a new hospital start again as junior doctors? lawyers changing firms become articled clerks?
Strict seniority is great for those in companies 'too big to fail' and for the trade unions as a recruitment tool, but if captains have in effect the 'not so golden hand-cuff's on and cannot ever afford to walk / change jobs the easyJets of this world would know they have us over a barrel.
There seems to be a lot of criticism of CTC on these threads as if it is the evil empire. Why? They provide a service, for which there is a demand, which people and companies use of their own free will.
Maybe the real problem is the lack of third and second level operators in the UK operting piston or turboprops.
Low houred pilots converting onto a jet face a bigger challenge than those gaining experience on turboprops, so they have to start from a higher base line. All the major airlines have always used Hamble/Oxford/Perth now CTC for their cadet programmes, some foreign carriers still do.
Are we proposing we stop people from paying for their training to force the airlines to sponsor? In which case where do the airlines find the funds for cadet scemes, by limiting pay to fund these schemes of course. It will come out of the crewing budget as a crew cost, so we all pay in lower salaries. People have always had the freedom to pay if they choose. Nothing new there.
It is a big bad capitalist world out there NSF & co. thats life, stuff happens, no such thing as a free lunch, you cannot beat the market etc etc!!
As a profession do we think it fair that someone with 20+ years in command possibly a TRI/TRE etc etc has to start again at the bottom of the pile.
Is this how other professions operate, surgeons in a new hospital start again as junior doctors? lawyers changing firms become articled clerks?
Strict seniority is great for those in companies 'too big to fail' and for the trade unions as a recruitment tool, but if captains have in effect the 'not so golden hand-cuff's on and cannot ever afford to walk / change jobs the easyJets of this world would know they have us over a barrel.
There seems to be a lot of criticism of CTC on these threads as if it is the evil empire. Why? They provide a service, for which there is a demand, which people and companies use of their own free will.
Maybe the real problem is the lack of third and second level operators in the UK operting piston or turboprops.
Low houred pilots converting onto a jet face a bigger challenge than those gaining experience on turboprops, so they have to start from a higher base line. All the major airlines have always used Hamble/Oxford/Perth now CTC for their cadet programmes, some foreign carriers still do.
Are we proposing we stop people from paying for their training to force the airlines to sponsor? In which case where do the airlines find the funds for cadet scemes, by limiting pay to fund these schemes of course. It will come out of the crewing budget as a crew cost, so we all pay in lower salaries. People have always had the freedom to pay if they choose. Nothing new there.
It is a big bad capitalist world out there NSF & co. thats life, stuff happens, no such thing as a free lunch, you cannot beat the market etc etc!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grrrr
Age: 17
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In truth, this thread is entirely irrelevant until you get the recruitment team so sign up here, for we in BALPA have no say in what the company decides to hire. We can try to stop DEC, but we only succeed in that because the company seems to prefer upgrading internally as new commanders are known quantities and the company won't get stuck with some porker who got his command in a third world airline.
So, be bitter if you like, but you're banging on the wrong door.
So, be bitter if you like, but you're banging on the wrong door.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will continue to share my opinion on the Wannabes forums that the chances and opportunities for airline employment are very poor, have been ruinous and are likely to remain poor next year. I will also continue to advise that the best way into an airline job is to first exhaust any opportunities to join CTC/Any Other SSTR and to expect to pay for everything including Type Rating therefore budget for £100,000.
Even 300 jobs isn't that much when you have just 2 schools outputting that many CPL/IR holders every year...
Even 300 jobs isn't that much when you have just 2 schools outputting that many CPL/IR holders every year...
Airlines have no burning need for "two hundred and something hour" pilots. Never had, don't now, and probably never will. Airlines represent the top tier of the cake in this industry, and as such they attract a large number of aspirational career advancers. The traditional terms and conditions (to varying degrees) always reflected that reality.
Discounting the small proportion of genuine cadet / apprentice / low hour schemes that a few companies operated in times long gone, the growth in this business came about as a result of a number of legislative and economic factors.
Changes to licencing requirements as a result of the introduction of European "JAR" regulations meant that the hours requirement for a CPL/IR not acquired as a result of an integrated course was reduced from 700 hours to 250 hours. This brought it more into line with the FAA system whereby a CPL/IR was regarded in practice as more of an "aerial work" (instructing / air taxi/ etc.) licence, than an airline entry certificate.
The rapid expansion in the low cost sector of the industry coupled with the competitive threat to established operators that new leaner practices brought with them, meant that companies sought to eliminate or reduce input costs wherever they existed and where they could do so without unduly jeopardising their businesses, or running foul of the regulator.
One way they could achieve this was to tap into the enormous relative supply of aspirational trainee pilots who would fund their own training and pay for the all the type related costs associated with an induction into their businesses.
Bearing in mind the previous paragraph, many of them sought candidates from affiliated or single school programs where there was a large measure of verifiable quality and consistency that they could monitor. In some cases these candidates also could be "purchased" from the supplier on a sale or return basis, and often the candidates came with a self funded cash guarantee bond, that only had be refunded over a number of years. This enabled those airlines to introduce a whole new level of remuneration that reflected the experience level of these cadet programs, without much of the previous training cost or risk.
As is now being seen here, as any degree of new recruiting arises it seems very llikely that however modified, this is still going to be the best hope for low hour pilots looking to jump the experience gap into the right hand seat of an airliner. That jump is likely to require a recognised (by the airline concerned) course of training, and the necessary funds or guarantees to asssume the risk for the costs of training, tenure, and discretionary employment costs.
It is to be hoped that regulatory oversight and insurance risk related costs, will result in airlines continuing to require a significant proportion of experienced candidates for these right seat positions, but as this expansion is still evolving that remains to be seen.