Airlines that have its pilots pay to fly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 200 hr 20 year old up to his neck in dept is just happy to be earning something and fly the shiny metal.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despegue, regretfully I must completely disagree with your stance. We are not talking about erosion of basic flying skills and the need for occasional manual flying but normal day to day operations. Hand flying from LHR! Boeing FCTM section 1.34 777 deals with the advised use of automation whenever possible, I am unsure what books you are reading.. out of RVSM.. well, we often are below 290 for more than 25 minutes, not sure about hand flying a triple for this long... scary stuff.. keep it for the sim!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the 737NG Boeing FCTM
Automatic systems give excellent results in the vast majority of situations. Deviations from expected performance are normally due to an incomplete understanding of their operations by the flight crew. When the automatic systems do not perform as expected, the pilot should reduce the level of automation until proper control of path and performance is achieved. For example, if the pilot failed to select the exit holding feature when cleared for the approach, the airplane will turn outbound in the holding pattern instead of initiating the approach. At this point, the pilot may select HDG SEL and continue the approach while using other automated features. A second example, if the airplane levels off unexpectedly during climb or descent with VNAV engaged, LVL CHG may be selected to continue the climb or descent until the FMC can be programmed.
Early intervention prevents unsatisfactory airplane performance or a degraded flight path. Reducing the level of automation as far as manual flight may be necessary to ensure proper control of the airplane is maintained. The pilot should attempt to restore higher levels of automation only after airplane control is assured. For example, if an immediate level-off in climb or descent is required, it may not be possible to comply quickly enough using the AFDS. The PF should disengage the autopilot and level off the airplane manually at the desired altitude. After level off, set the desired altitude in the MCP, select an appropriate pitch mode and re-engage the autopilot.
Early intervention prevents unsatisfactory airplane performance or a degraded flight path. Reducing the level of automation as far as manual flight may be necessary to ensure proper control of the airplane is maintained. The pilot should attempt to restore higher levels of automation only after airplane control is assured. For example, if an immediate level-off in climb or descent is required, it may not be possible to comply quickly enough using the AFDS. The PF should disengage the autopilot and level off the airplane manually at the desired altitude. After level off, set the desired altitude in the MCP, select an appropriate pitch mode and re-engage the autopilot.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gilles, do you have any hard evidence, other than speculative, that the PTF incident rate is higher than non PTF guys with the same experience in the commercial airline environment. The last study by the Australian authority did not support your claims and as far as I can see, there is no evidence that PTF represents any greater danger, other than on the wallet..
I have been a commercial pilot for more than 21 years, well before PTF, this cockpit experience rule has always been there, I am not sure of the point, flight two crew decks have always had Captains and FOs??
Basic question.. why Name and Shame? what's the goal here?
Finally about the safety of low time pilots. If well trained low time candidates are just as safe as the others, why not put two low time guys together in the same flight deck? If that argument that they are safe was true, they would. But they don't. And never will.
Basic question.. why Name and Shame? what's the goal here?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct!! perfect.. Automatic systems give excellent results in the vast majority of situations. This is the whole point, the FCTM advises actions when the automation is not doing what you want it to..
Airbus:
X Recommendations for Optimum Use of Automation
IX.1 Using Automation - General
Correct use of automated systems reduces workload and significantly improves the flight crew time and resources for responding to:
An unanticipated change (e.g., ATC instruction, weather conditions, ...); or, An abnormal or emergency condition.
During line operations, AP and A/THR should be engaged throughout the flight, especially in marginal weather conditions or when operating into an unfamiliar airport.
When operating in fair environmental conditions and at low-density airports, flight crew can elect to fly the departure or arrival manually to maintain flying skills.
Using AP and A/THR also enables flight crew to pay more attention to ATC communications and to other aircraft, particularly in congested terminal areas and at high-density airports.
AP and A/THR should be used during a go-around and missed-approach to reduce workload.
Airbus:
X Recommendations for Optimum Use of Automation
IX.1 Using Automation - General
Correct use of automated systems reduces workload and significantly improves the flight crew time and resources for responding to:
An unanticipated change (e.g., ATC instruction, weather conditions, ...); or, An abnormal or emergency condition.
During line operations, AP and A/THR should be engaged throughout the flight, especially in marginal weather conditions or when operating into an unfamiliar airport.
When operating in fair environmental conditions and at low-density airports, flight crew can elect to fly the departure or arrival manually to maintain flying skills.
Using AP and A/THR also enables flight crew to pay more attention to ATC communications and to other aircraft, particularly in congested terminal areas and at high-density airports.
AP and A/THR should be used during a go-around and missed-approach to reduce workload.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I am stating is that a study should be done about all accidents in the last 20 years in which pilot error was a factor and look at what kind of experience those pilots had, and by "experience" I do not mean hours. Looking at recent random accidents and incidents (the last three LionAir, the AirAsia, the last RyanAir, AF447 and the Toronto AF crash, all involved pilot error (or so it seems so far for AirAsia) and all involved P2F or Cadets.
In light of this, I think a study should be done to look into the matter........
I just looked at your Australian study. This study compared lower time and higher time pilots in flight during the course of 287 flight sectors.
This study does not touch at all at what why I am stating. What I am stating is that a pilot who spent 4000 hours flying several smaller/medium types including some as PIC, will generally turn into a better B737 or A320 pilot and will generally be able to make captain before another 4000 pilot who got hired at 200 hours straight into an A320 or the B737.
Why name and shame P2F airlines ? Because except for maybe a person or two whose motives we can only guess, I haven't found anyone that thinks this system is good and ought to be pursued. This practice is a threat to the pilot profession as I see it and needs to be stopped before it spreads to other airlines.
In light of this, I think a study should be done to look into the matter........
I just looked at your Australian study. This study compared lower time and higher time pilots in flight during the course of 287 flight sectors.
First officers were grouped into those with more, or less, than 1500 hours. For captains the divide between experienced and less experienced was set at 5000 hours. The study resembled a line-oriented safety audit (LOSA), where trained observers in the jump seat record the actions of the flight crew.
The study assessed pilots in technical skills, involving stabilized approach criteria, and non-technical skills, such as communication, situational awareness, task management and decision making.
The study assessed pilots in technical skills, involving stabilized approach criteria, and non-technical skills, such as communication, situational awareness, task management and decision making.
Why name and shame P2F airlines ? Because except for maybe a person or two whose motives we can only guess, I haven't found anyone that thinks this system is good and ought to be pursued. This practice is a threat to the pilot profession as I see it and needs to be stopped before it spreads to other airlines.
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 31st Jan 2015 at 18:03.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go back Twenty years, Thirty years, Forty years..... You will find accidents in their droves. In the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies etc. These accidents were happening to usually very experienced crews. That is because the flight decks of airliners of those eras only had very experienced crews for the most part. As an evolving transport science, a lot was learned through this era. Most of the common failures have been incorporated into modern methodology, even though (sadly) they are still often misunderstood and very often misquoted particularly here on these type of threads.
When I was growing up through this era is often seemed that not a Sunday (always seemed to be a Sunday for some reason?) went by without the TV news headlining the burnt out wreck of an airliner somewhere around the world. Even though air transport has grown Tenfold, the absolute rate of accidents has shrunk markedly. Improvements in our understanding of many things, not least our own behaviour, has been vital to that advancement. It continues and likely will for a long time, to be something we tweak, modify and overhaul as we progress.
In the first two decades of the Twenty First century there has been a much greater focus of looking at what is being trained into airline pilots at the basic level. The regulatory authorities, the training industry, professional pilots, and "the airlines," are looking at what is happening at the most basic level, and better adapting that training to what is relevant today rather than what seemed relevant 50 years ago.
What I see is a much better ab-initio pilot. When I first flew with new cadets some 15+ years ago, the very first thing I noticed (and I was very sceptical at the time) was the complete sea change in CRM (non-technical attributes) that these new trainees brought with them. These were pilots whose selection, training and attitude meant they listened, learned (quickly,) weren't afraid to challenge when necessary, and progressed far more rapidly than had generally been the case historically. Nothing that has happened in the last 15+ years has caused me to change that observation, other than it is now taken as normal.
The people who trot out "life experience" as some sort of alternative for selective and improved training are frankly deluding themselves. In fairness there aren't many, and they can usually be defined as the "late starters" who resent the situation they find themselves in. At my age I think I have "life experience" in abundance, although quite what that will bring to the table on tomorrow's Tenerife I have no idea.
"Pay 2 Fly" has also become one of those terms, perhaps not like "beauty," but certainly in the eye of the beholder. I used to assume it applied to some dodgy company in Miami that was flogging a few hours experience in a jet to the "vanity publishing" brigade. These days it seems to be applied to anything and everything connected with an individual putting their hand in their pocket. To that end it is almost meaningless.
My career path, rather like Gilles Hudicourt's, has never involved paying an employer for a type rating or indeed anything else, but times are changing. I have little doubt that a change of company now, would very likely involve facing those type of costs, simply because that is the way this business has evolved. If cadets (apprentice airline pilots) are not being paid a full senior F/O's salary, or indeed any salary is that P2F? I guess so, but there are very few apprenticeship programmes in any industry where this isn't the case.
It is human nature (and we all do it) to want a situation that favours ourselves. Often that is buried in a cloak of mutual altruism, but is a cloak that tears easily. Nevertheless, survival is usually about adapting to your environment rather than fighting an inevitable losing battle against it. The nature of the business has changed and evolved. The nature of the training has changed and evolved. The financial realities have changed and evolved. The survivors are likely to be those individuals who can also change and evolve. The successful are likely to be the ones who stay one jump ahead of those changes.
In the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties and perhaps the Nineties the job of airline pilot was often well paid, certainly well respected, had a certain cachet and romance in the mind of the general public, and very often had its own intrinsic perks and rewards. It was a difficult and busy career path and there was a lot of intense competition to climb the ladders that were available. Apart from a very, very, few "approved" courses, the entry requirements to climb onto these ladders were such that attrition was progressive. In the last two decades it has simply become " generation x-factor" where everybody thinks it is their right to join a big queue and become a star. The entry requirements have become cheap and easy. As a result, there are tens of thousands of hopefuls who believe that simply meeting the entry requirements should be enough for their big break. Worse still, they believe that if they get to the top of the ladder they will find a world of respect, kudos, adventure and high remuneration a la nineteen sixties.
Inevitably they won't!
Given the change in the requirements of airlines for the reasons given, and given the need for potential aspirants to generally find the best remuneration in the shortest possible time, it is very difficult to advance the idea to a serious wannabe that they should work there way up through a series of third and second tier jobs, as indeed many of us did in days long gone. Those jobs are simply not there in sufficient or even relative quantity, to provide a meaningful and workable career path for most people.
I think listing every airline with "P2F" is fine once you have defined what "P2F" means. However, I fear it will be an ever growing list that will even extend to Canada one day, if it hasn't already.
Do they? I have read the thread again and haven't seen any evidence of that. I can tell you that cadets have done nothing to enhance my retirement package. In fact, rather the opposite, but that isn't their fault. Perhaps my "life experience" has been deprived of the "joy" of somebody like yourself sat at my right hand side for the last 27 years? I guess we will never know.
When I was growing up through this era is often seemed that not a Sunday (always seemed to be a Sunday for some reason?) went by without the TV news headlining the burnt out wreck of an airliner somewhere around the world. Even though air transport has grown Tenfold, the absolute rate of accidents has shrunk markedly. Improvements in our understanding of many things, not least our own behaviour, has been vital to that advancement. It continues and likely will for a long time, to be something we tweak, modify and overhaul as we progress.
In the first two decades of the Twenty First century there has been a much greater focus of looking at what is being trained into airline pilots at the basic level. The regulatory authorities, the training industry, professional pilots, and "the airlines," are looking at what is happening at the most basic level, and better adapting that training to what is relevant today rather than what seemed relevant 50 years ago.
What I see is a much better ab-initio pilot. When I first flew with new cadets some 15+ years ago, the very first thing I noticed (and I was very sceptical at the time) was the complete sea change in CRM (non-technical attributes) that these new trainees brought with them. These were pilots whose selection, training and attitude meant they listened, learned (quickly,) weren't afraid to challenge when necessary, and progressed far more rapidly than had generally been the case historically. Nothing that has happened in the last 15+ years has caused me to change that observation, other than it is now taken as normal.
The people who trot out "life experience" as some sort of alternative for selective and improved training are frankly deluding themselves. In fairness there aren't many, and they can usually be defined as the "late starters" who resent the situation they find themselves in. At my age I think I have "life experience" in abundance, although quite what that will bring to the table on tomorrow's Tenerife I have no idea.
"Pay 2 Fly" has also become one of those terms, perhaps not like "beauty," but certainly in the eye of the beholder. I used to assume it applied to some dodgy company in Miami that was flogging a few hours experience in a jet to the "vanity publishing" brigade. These days it seems to be applied to anything and everything connected with an individual putting their hand in their pocket. To that end it is almost meaningless.
My career path, rather like Gilles Hudicourt's, has never involved paying an employer for a type rating or indeed anything else, but times are changing. I have little doubt that a change of company now, would very likely involve facing those type of costs, simply because that is the way this business has evolved. If cadets (apprentice airline pilots) are not being paid a full senior F/O's salary, or indeed any salary is that P2F? I guess so, but there are very few apprenticeship programmes in any industry where this isn't the case.
It is human nature (and we all do it) to want a situation that favours ourselves. Often that is buried in a cloak of mutual altruism, but is a cloak that tears easily. Nevertheless, survival is usually about adapting to your environment rather than fighting an inevitable losing battle against it. The nature of the business has changed and evolved. The nature of the training has changed and evolved. The financial realities have changed and evolved. The survivors are likely to be those individuals who can also change and evolve. The successful are likely to be the ones who stay one jump ahead of those changes.
In the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties and perhaps the Nineties the job of airline pilot was often well paid, certainly well respected, had a certain cachet and romance in the mind of the general public, and very often had its own intrinsic perks and rewards. It was a difficult and busy career path and there was a lot of intense competition to climb the ladders that were available. Apart from a very, very, few "approved" courses, the entry requirements to climb onto these ladders were such that attrition was progressive. In the last two decades it has simply become " generation x-factor" where everybody thinks it is their right to join a big queue and become a star. The entry requirements have become cheap and easy. As a result, there are tens of thousands of hopefuls who believe that simply meeting the entry requirements should be enough for their big break. Worse still, they believe that if they get to the top of the ladder they will find a world of respect, kudos, adventure and high remuneration a la nineteen sixties.
Inevitably they won't!
Given the change in the requirements of airlines for the reasons given, and given the need for potential aspirants to generally find the best remuneration in the shortest possible time, it is very difficult to advance the idea to a serious wannabe that they should work there way up through a series of third and second tier jobs, as indeed many of us did in days long gone. Those jobs are simply not there in sufficient or even relative quantity, to provide a meaningful and workable career path for most people.
I think listing every airline with "P2F" is fine once you have defined what "P2F" means. However, I fear it will be an ever growing list that will even extend to Canada one day, if it hasn't already.
It seems some people here rely heavily on the Cadets to assure their retirement package deal!
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giles, I don't know how wide and varied your experience is, but over the last decade I must have flown with a couple of hundred different FOs, albeit some of them just a few times. What I can tell you is that there is no discernible pattern of who is good and who is bad based on experience. I have seen some very poor high experience guys and some excellent cadets, as well as vice versa. The one reliable factor is attitude - there is a specific demographic that has an arrogance issue associated with low experience (with exceptions of course), and they are the ones that can cause the most problems through distractions and frustration of other crew members. It's not that they're cadets that creates the problem, but a problem with their earlier training and also their culture and motivation in become a pilot in the first place (prestige and show boating rather than a love of flying).
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we include 50% salary during training as p2f?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very experienced friend of mine joined easy as a second officer on a reduced salary, no duty pay and having paid over the odds for a 320 rating to then be told after 6 months that he would become a first officer after 12 months as per contract but now only on 75%
These sharp employment practises place an unacceptable strain on PEOPLE!
We all have debts to service, be it the mortgage, car loan, ex wife etc and the flight deck of an aircraft can be an unforgiving place when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan(or fan blades) when exposed to personal issues. It should not be unreasonable to expect a level playing field in a company, we are not talking about a foot ware company with zero hour contracts, this is a huge and profitable organisation.
We are professional people who work hard at safety and if there are guys in the industry that don't cut the mustard then there are enough processes and checks in any company to weed them out. The shear number of low housed guys entering the system is purely to keep wages low and oppress any general decent amongst the ranks.
Employ the best available candidates based on experience and suitability. The student cadet with a big wallet may be the best but I have to say I doubt it.
As for me, I don't fancy 4 sector days with 900 hours a year. I may not have a big pension Pot when I retire but I still think I will have some life left in me to enjoy it. I was told of one company with 4000 crew that 100 are off with cancer of various forms. Connected? I don't know but sobering none the less!
These sharp employment practises place an unacceptable strain on PEOPLE!
We all have debts to service, be it the mortgage, car loan, ex wife etc and the flight deck of an aircraft can be an unforgiving place when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan(or fan blades) when exposed to personal issues. It should not be unreasonable to expect a level playing field in a company, we are not talking about a foot ware company with zero hour contracts, this is a huge and profitable organisation.
We are professional people who work hard at safety and if there are guys in the industry that don't cut the mustard then there are enough processes and checks in any company to weed them out. The shear number of low housed guys entering the system is purely to keep wages low and oppress any general decent amongst the ranks.
Employ the best available candidates based on experience and suitability. The student cadet with a big wallet may be the best but I have to say I doubt it.
As for me, I don't fancy 4 sector days with 900 hours a year. I may not have a big pension Pot when I retire but I still think I will have some life left in me to enjoy it. I was told of one company with 4000 crew that 100 are off with cancer of various forms. Connected? I don't know but sobering none the less!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gilles,
Although I do agree that your time on other types before getting on the airline jets is a very good experience you must also consider the most logical option in some of the non-aviation minded countries.
If you, for example, look at my home country Belgium. There is no air taxi, there is no turboprop job, instructor jobs are very limited. Corporate is possible if you know someone in the company... When you get out of school and you are offered an Avro or A320 job (TR paid by the company), would you say no? Would you say: "Thanks for the offer but I'll go abroad for some years first to have some experience on other types of aircraft?" I think the most logical thing for a person to do is to take the job.
Should a Dutch cadet refuse a job offer from KLM (one of the best paid jobs in Europe)?
Pay2work is a disease not just limited to aviation and should be prohibited.
Although I do agree that your time on other types before getting on the airline jets is a very good experience you must also consider the most logical option in some of the non-aviation minded countries.
If you, for example, look at my home country Belgium. There is no air taxi, there is no turboprop job, instructor jobs are very limited. Corporate is possible if you know someone in the company... When you get out of school and you are offered an Avro or A320 job (TR paid by the company), would you say no? Would you say: "Thanks for the offer but I'll go abroad for some years first to have some experience on other types of aircraft?" I think the most logical thing for a person to do is to take the job.
Should a Dutch cadet refuse a job offer from KLM (one of the best paid jobs in Europe)?
Pay2work is a disease not just limited to aviation and should be prohibited.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I do not think I would have turned down such an offer when I was a low type pilot if it fell on my lap. But I would have NEVER gone into debt with TR and Line flying in order to chase such a job.
I am not attacking any individuals pilots here, and I am ready to accept that cadets and certain P2F pilots are capable of doing a fine job.
Someone stated that the French pilot that was killed in Libya was a P2F. I Google him and found he was a 48 year old French Air Force pilot who had recently retired after more that 25 years in the Air Force. He had flown the Alpha Jet and the Mirage F1. If such pilots have to resort to paying their own type ratings and then going the P2F route to secure employment, something is very rotten in the system and it needs to be fixed.
I am not attacking any individuals pilots here, and I am ready to accept that cadets and certain P2F pilots are capable of doing a fine job.
Someone stated that the French pilot that was killed in Libya was a P2F. I Google him and found he was a 48 year old French Air Force pilot who had recently retired after more that 25 years in the Air Force. He had flown the Alpha Jet and the Mirage F1. If such pilots have to resort to paying their own type ratings and then going the P2F route to secure employment, something is very rotten in the system and it needs to be fixed.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D&F
I have a lot of sympathy with what you say, but unfortunately the reality is that when you say:
It would appear that is no longer the case more and more.The worlds most iconic and profitable foot ware company (tick) aren't putting those expensive trainers together in Oregon, they are using factories in South East Asia that don't appear to be given great prominence on their corporate website. Similarly, those expensive (fruit logoed) communicators of universal desire, don't appear to be assembled in the colourful corporate palaces depicted in California.
Companies these days are driven by "cost" and that is what we are. Their idea of a level playing field is to level that playing field with the cheapest "cost" base to be found in their competitive neighbourhood. Neither can they rest there. In order to find an advantage, the necessity is to undercut the competition. Obviously the laws of supply and demand won't permit that if there is a labour shortage, but of course the reality is that there is no shortage at all in all but a few highly selective markets.
The cadet pilot doesn't remain a cadet pilot. End of year 1 (1000 hours).....year 2 (1800 hours).....year 3 (2700 hours)..... year 4 (3500 hours)..... and now they are in command territory! Either that, or 12 months previously they packed their bags for the sandpit.
As for pensions? There is a pot of coffee few people have woken up to smell. For todays young cadet in their early twenties maximising their pension savings and life time allowances, they are looking a potential top tier (for them and their partner) of little more than £3000 per Month in todays money. For those people that think "well that doesn't sound too bad" start now! Because those figure fall sharply if you put off saving early and probably well in excess of 10 % of your net earnings, and on the assumption that your employer contributes at least as much.
Of course this isn't simply commercial aviation, it is nearly all businesses. When I look at my kids on zero hour contracts, falling wages, or on wages that will never buy a house anywhere South of Lincolnshire, or unemployed. It is ugly, and I worry that is only going to get uglier!
I have a lot of sympathy with what you say, but unfortunately the reality is that when you say:
It should not be unreasonable to expect a level playing field in a company, we are not talking about a foot ware company with zero hour contracts, this is a huge and profitable organisation.
Companies these days are driven by "cost" and that is what we are. Their idea of a level playing field is to level that playing field with the cheapest "cost" base to be found in their competitive neighbourhood. Neither can they rest there. In order to find an advantage, the necessity is to undercut the competition. Obviously the laws of supply and demand won't permit that if there is a labour shortage, but of course the reality is that there is no shortage at all in all but a few highly selective markets.
The cadet pilot doesn't remain a cadet pilot. End of year 1 (1000 hours).....year 2 (1800 hours).....year 3 (2700 hours)..... year 4 (3500 hours)..... and now they are in command territory! Either that, or 12 months previously they packed their bags for the sandpit.
As for pensions? There is a pot of coffee few people have woken up to smell. For todays young cadet in their early twenties maximising their pension savings and life time allowances, they are looking a potential top tier (for them and their partner) of little more than £3000 per Month in todays money. For those people that think "well that doesn't sound too bad" start now! Because those figure fall sharply if you put off saving early and probably well in excess of 10 % of your net earnings, and on the assumption that your employer contributes at least as much.
Of course this isn't simply commercial aviation, it is nearly all businesses. When I look at my kids on zero hour contracts, falling wages, or on wages that will never buy a house anywhere South of Lincolnshire, or unemployed. It is ugly, and I worry that is only going to get uglier!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beazebub, I do agree with you but my problem is that corporate management greed has become endemic. How much is Caroline mcwhatsherface earning, share and dividend payouts?
There is a new greed that has taken over and it's not about profitability in a difficult market place. It is a white collar/blouse greed based on
over the staff.
As I said on a previous post, victorian practices have returned and a union of almighty proportions is needed to swing the pendulum. I am not a union fan and found my Balpa subs to be a total waste of cash.
Maybe the answer is a totally new pilot Union with 100% of UK pilots as members for lobbing purposes and group action. Bonding pilots or even making them pay at cost only would seem a minimum but huge sums for the profit of a certain training provider, not on I think. Again it's all about a feast at the trough and the piggies remain hungry. And the stupid, rich or just desperate are easy pickings. Any one remember Fred the Shread?
Interesting program on BBC The super rich and us, about how we don't tax the mega rich too much as they are perceived to create drip down of cash into the bigger society. Well it seems the cash drips more sideways than down. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Middle class was the driver of society due to the large numbers of reasonably good earners paying a large amount of tax.
Low cos are making money, the profits are tangible and not wafer thin. This is accountancy. Find a cost and then find a way to cut it to the bone.
If you want a career in aviation, then the tide of fresh meat has to be stemmed. It's not about pay to fly it's about pay us and stop lying.
Jeez I've gone right off on one tonight!
There is a new greed that has taken over and it's not about profitability in a difficult market place. It is a white collar/blouse greed based on
over the staff. As I said on a previous post, victorian practices have returned and a union of almighty proportions is needed to swing the pendulum. I am not a union fan and found my Balpa subs to be a total waste of cash.
Maybe the answer is a totally new pilot Union with 100% of UK pilots as members for lobbing purposes and group action. Bonding pilots or even making them pay at cost only would seem a minimum but huge sums for the profit of a certain training provider, not on I think. Again it's all about a feast at the trough and the piggies remain hungry. And the stupid, rich or just desperate are easy pickings. Any one remember Fred the Shread?
Interesting program on BBC The super rich and us, about how we don't tax the mega rich too much as they are perceived to create drip down of cash into the bigger society. Well it seems the cash drips more sideways than down. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Middle class was the driver of society due to the large numbers of reasonably good earners paying a large amount of tax.
Low cos are making money, the profits are tangible and not wafer thin. This is accountancy. Find a cost and then find a way to cut it to the bone.
If you want a career in aviation, then the tide of fresh meat has to be stemmed. It's not about pay to fly it's about pay us and stop lying.
Jeez I've gone right off on one tonight!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sand free now
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst John-Smith is not wrong in that he describes it as it is, this does not take away from the fact the process is rotten to the core. Deep and fast identifies the issues well and it is difficult to argue, and we shouldn't. I referred to RBS in an earlier post in this thread and D and f does the same. This is a company that put profit as its sole agenda item and the way Fred did that was by buying his exec team with huge bonuses. He was protected from the realities of the world in the knowledge he had a layer or two of greedy bast**** to buffer him. That company paid no attention whatsoever to employment and consumer protection legislation and is now paying the price. It only exists because of you and me. They have moved all their IT work to India when the expertise is here. Why, because it is cheap. Result, regular service failure. Some/many airlines are following the same path. John-Smith is right when he says they are putting profit as their only driving force BUT is wrong when he says this is their only obligation. They have obligations to staff and customers that is enshrined in legislation and will one day pay the price if they take their contempt for it too far.
Last edited by JaxofMarlow; 1st Feb 2015 at 13:03.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company executives have one duty only: to maximise profit for the company (and by extension the shareholders). They can do this through any legal means available to them. Morality doesn't come into it. If I were an airline CEO, you can be damn sure I'd be paying pilots a hell of a lot less than we are currently paid. There'd still be a herd of 18-25 year olds queuing round the block for a shot at a job, so there'd certainly be absolutely no problem filling the seats.
Quote:
These sharp employment practises place an unacceptable strain on PEOPLE!
Why should the company care? It's simply not their problem. It is called free market capitalism. Everyone has the option to work hard, go off and get an MBA, and try to get a job making megabucks as a CEO, and join the gravy train.
Nobody is forcing anyone to be a pilot. If someone feels that the employment practices will place an unacceptable strain on them, they are quite within their rights to find another career which doesn't present such a problem.
Quote:
These sharp employment practises place an unacceptable strain on PEOPLE!
Why should the company care? It's simply not their problem. It is called free market capitalism. Everyone has the option to work hard, go off and get an MBA, and try to get a job making megabucks as a CEO, and join the gravy train.
Nobody is forcing anyone to be a pilot. If someone feels that the employment practices will place an unacceptable strain on them, they are quite within their rights to find another career which doesn't present such a problem.
Industrial action is the answer if john smith is correct Ian's the constant attack is to be stopped.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It always amaze me, many pilots have a university degree, some are engineers, lawyers, teachers, some have a business background and most can work in difficult conditions and adapt to the needs of industry.
But, when it come to all get along an find solutions to actual work conditions, we say it is capitalism, short term profits and we are the victims of the system.
Multiple internet groups have started lately, pilot organisations are growing in many countries, petitions/letters to the politicians, many resources are available to the pilots. Last time I checked we are still living in a democracy. (Excluding Asia).
Airlines that perform the best on long term, are those who accept that employees are part of business success.
But, when it come to all get along an find solutions to actual work conditions, we say it is capitalism, short term profits and we are the victims of the system.
Multiple internet groups have started lately, pilot organisations are growing in many countries, petitions/letters to the politicians, many resources are available to the pilots. Last time I checked we are still living in a democracy. (Excluding Asia).
Airlines that perform the best on long term, are those who accept that employees are part of business success.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-438 posts:
And there you have it folks... another individual who is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. -438 is OK with lowering the bar.
P2F or cadet program's are not a problem if well managed with proper systems in place...
And there you have it folks... another individual who is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. -438 is OK with lowering the bar.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Deep and Fast
Very experienced friend of mine joined easy as a second officer on a reduced salary, no duty pay and having paid over the odds for a 320 rating to then be told after 6 months that he would become a first officer after 12 months as per contract but now only on 75%
A second officer usually refers to the third in the line of command for a flight crew on a commercial or non-military aircraft. Usually the second officer is a flight engineer who is also a licensed pilot. A second officer on some airlines is part of a relief crew. Rarely, such relief pilots are called third officer. The title derives from the nautical title indicating a third in command officer.
In some airlines, the second officer is a junior officer, acting as first officer but still undergoing training and supervision from a training captain (Swiss, Lufthansa, among others use this denomination).
In some airlines, the second officer is a junior officer, acting as first officer but still undergoing training and supervision from a training captain (Swiss, Lufthansa, among others use this denomination).
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 1st Feb 2015 at 20:23.