Airlines that have its pilots pay to fly
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: asia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P26
Chinese if you are referring to China and asia are still mostly fully sponsored by the airline as of now. I was fully sponsored and being paid salary during CPL. However i do see that unfortunately P2F might be taking over in the near future as many are going P2F route having not being able to get entry to fully sponsored scheme because they think they can be n airline pilot having being rejected in the first place.
Chinese if you are referring to China and asia are still mostly fully sponsored by the airline as of now. I was fully sponsored and being paid salary during CPL. However i do see that unfortunately P2F might be taking over in the near future as many are going P2F route having not being able to get entry to fully sponsored scheme because they think they can be n airline pilot having being rejected in the first place.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulator only has the power to regulate what is already enshrined in statute. Avenger has already touched on the reality. The evolution of the training industry, and the transition of those trainees into limited high tier employment, has been visible and obvious for some considerable time now.
Over a period of twenty years, the changes that have facilitated that evolution have been glaringly obvious. Some of us have pointed out those reasons time and time again. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people that simply ignore or choose not to believe the blatant realities of the evolution of that marketplace, and what it is today. I am not sure why that should be a surprise.
The burden of "training costs" was one that Twenty years ago most airlines were happy to shoulder on the basis that it was an investment they themselves were going to benefit from. The problem came (and I worked through this era) when individuals decided to avail themselves of that investment and then jump ship for their own benefit. The response to this, was to contract those employees, "bond" them for that training. That didn't solve the problem as the airlines still had the expensive (and sometimes hopeless) task of enforcing those contracts when the employee defaulted by choice. The answer to that was to shift the upfront burden from the employer to the employee. In other words you pay for the costs that put you in a position to do this job. If the employee then chose to default, it was only a minor inconvenience to the employer. This proved sufficiently successful to see it spread back down through both the employment ladders and the training ladders.
Airlines, that had traditionally recruited from military career changers, self improvers, and to a very limited degree cadets, also found themselves evolving into an era of new realities. Economic cycles rotated as they always had, but deregulation in the latter two decades of the Twentieth century, took hold as new, determined, and very serious operators attacked the underbelly of a very entrenched and established cartel. This happened as statute also swept aside a large portion of the working age and working time regulations. Senior pilots (usually captains) found themselves able to work anything up to a decade longer than had previously been the case. Growth notwithstanding, this allowed a large margin of breathing space to bring about a revolution at the other end of the pilot career market.
That growth came in the form of a massive expansion of ab-initio cadet programmes. Both the established players in this previously limited market, and new entrants provided a cost effective, monitored, and tailored product for the right hand seat. The "experience gap" that might ordinarily have put a natural brake on this expansion, was negated by the fact that those who would once have retired at 55 could now go on to 60 and later 65, thereby providing a decade of growth at the other end of the career chain. That was all the industry needed to revolutionise this aspect of the marketplace.
The cadets themselves proved to be very able and very cost effective for the industry. The attrition rate was tiny compared to the attrition rate for self improvers. For an industry now driven by cost, the writing was not only on the wall, but it was there in very large and very bold letters!
The squeeze was always going to be in the middle of the market. The ex-military and the ex-civil career changers/improvers, found themselves in a marketplace being increasingly dominated by ab-initio cadets at one end, and by experienced pilots no longer forced into early retirement at the other.
As the supply realities changed, so indeed did the reward (remuneration) realities. Another regulatory change that broadly coincided with these industry evolutions was the change to licensing requirements in some countries (notably the UK). A massive reduction in the requirements for a basic CPL (to recognise its aerial work role rather than airline requirement) saw floodgates being opened to a world of people that believed (and still do) that a CPL was their golden ticket to the right seat of an airliner, no matter how they acquired it. It never had been, it wasn't, it isn't, and it is highly unlikely it ever will be! However that is a reality that is lost to many people who simply close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and simply refuse to believe it!
That is the potted history. The future is always by definition speculative. However, the current flow of the evolution (which has a huge mass of momentum,) shows no signs of changing course or slowing down. Airlines (employers) are increasingly driven by cost reductions. The transposition of training costs increasingly moves from the employer to the employee, particularly where those costs put the (potential) employee in a position to actually do the job. Employment opportunities (even at the upper tiers) are becoming significantly less well remunerated and increasingly seasonal in scope. The top tier airlines are finding themselves increasingly "at risk" and threatened by cost advantages available to their competitors. The supply of quality candidates from the airlines perceived quality sources of supply continues to grow year on year.
For a potential pilot coming into this extremely difficult industry today, the reality is finding an acceptable risk profile route that is likely to mitigate the huge costs involved with training. That is the reality for most, and the choices are fairly limited, extremely expensive, and not without significant risk.
However you elect to define "pay to fly," the reality is that you are almost certainly going to pay for your training one way or another. You are almost certainly going to find costs involved in your intermediate and advanced training. You are almost certainly (even if successful) going to find reduced rates of remuneration, reduced terms and conditions, and increased productivity requirements.
For the unsuccessful there is always likely to exist a "vanity publishing" market of "type rating" and "line training" programmes for sale, in order to satisfy that segment of the market. Pay to fly? certainly! But one created by a customer need as indeed most successful businesses are.
If you are lucky, and you have the resources and determination, there are still reasonably good career paths available. They are however few and far between, and usually expensive and not without significant levels of intrinsic risk.
If you are not lucky, made the wrong choices, or simply failed to research properly, you can always sign somebodies petition?
Over a period of twenty years, the changes that have facilitated that evolution have been glaringly obvious. Some of us have pointed out those reasons time and time again. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people that simply ignore or choose not to believe the blatant realities of the evolution of that marketplace, and what it is today. I am not sure why that should be a surprise.
The burden of "training costs" was one that Twenty years ago most airlines were happy to shoulder on the basis that it was an investment they themselves were going to benefit from. The problem came (and I worked through this era) when individuals decided to avail themselves of that investment and then jump ship for their own benefit. The response to this, was to contract those employees, "bond" them for that training. That didn't solve the problem as the airlines still had the expensive (and sometimes hopeless) task of enforcing those contracts when the employee defaulted by choice. The answer to that was to shift the upfront burden from the employer to the employee. In other words you pay for the costs that put you in a position to do this job. If the employee then chose to default, it was only a minor inconvenience to the employer. This proved sufficiently successful to see it spread back down through both the employment ladders and the training ladders.
Airlines, that had traditionally recruited from military career changers, self improvers, and to a very limited degree cadets, also found themselves evolving into an era of new realities. Economic cycles rotated as they always had, but deregulation in the latter two decades of the Twentieth century, took hold as new, determined, and very serious operators attacked the underbelly of a very entrenched and established cartel. This happened as statute also swept aside a large portion of the working age and working time regulations. Senior pilots (usually captains) found themselves able to work anything up to a decade longer than had previously been the case. Growth notwithstanding, this allowed a large margin of breathing space to bring about a revolution at the other end of the pilot career market.
That growth came in the form of a massive expansion of ab-initio cadet programmes. Both the established players in this previously limited market, and new entrants provided a cost effective, monitored, and tailored product for the right hand seat. The "experience gap" that might ordinarily have put a natural brake on this expansion, was negated by the fact that those who would once have retired at 55 could now go on to 60 and later 65, thereby providing a decade of growth at the other end of the career chain. That was all the industry needed to revolutionise this aspect of the marketplace.
The cadets themselves proved to be very able and very cost effective for the industry. The attrition rate was tiny compared to the attrition rate for self improvers. For an industry now driven by cost, the writing was not only on the wall, but it was there in very large and very bold letters!
The squeeze was always going to be in the middle of the market. The ex-military and the ex-civil career changers/improvers, found themselves in a marketplace being increasingly dominated by ab-initio cadets at one end, and by experienced pilots no longer forced into early retirement at the other.
As the supply realities changed, so indeed did the reward (remuneration) realities. Another regulatory change that broadly coincided with these industry evolutions was the change to licensing requirements in some countries (notably the UK). A massive reduction in the requirements for a basic CPL (to recognise its aerial work role rather than airline requirement) saw floodgates being opened to a world of people that believed (and still do) that a CPL was their golden ticket to the right seat of an airliner, no matter how they acquired it. It never had been, it wasn't, it isn't, and it is highly unlikely it ever will be! However that is a reality that is lost to many people who simply close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and simply refuse to believe it!
That is the potted history. The future is always by definition speculative. However, the current flow of the evolution (which has a huge mass of momentum,) shows no signs of changing course or slowing down. Airlines (employers) are increasingly driven by cost reductions. The transposition of training costs increasingly moves from the employer to the employee, particularly where those costs put the (potential) employee in a position to actually do the job. Employment opportunities (even at the upper tiers) are becoming significantly less well remunerated and increasingly seasonal in scope. The top tier airlines are finding themselves increasingly "at risk" and threatened by cost advantages available to their competitors. The supply of quality candidates from the airlines perceived quality sources of supply continues to grow year on year.
For a potential pilot coming into this extremely difficult industry today, the reality is finding an acceptable risk profile route that is likely to mitigate the huge costs involved with training. That is the reality for most, and the choices are fairly limited, extremely expensive, and not without significant risk.
However you elect to define "pay to fly," the reality is that you are almost certainly going to pay for your training one way or another. You are almost certainly going to find costs involved in your intermediate and advanced training. You are almost certainly (even if successful) going to find reduced rates of remuneration, reduced terms and conditions, and increased productivity requirements.
For the unsuccessful there is always likely to exist a "vanity publishing" market of "type rating" and "line training" programmes for sale, in order to satisfy that segment of the market. Pay to fly? certainly! But one created by a customer need as indeed most successful businesses are.
If you are lucky, and you have the resources and determination, there are still reasonably good career paths available. They are however few and far between, and usually expensive and not without significant levels of intrinsic risk.
If you are not lucky, made the wrong choices, or simply failed to research properly, you can always sign somebodies petition?
Bealzebub:
What an excellent post; that is exactly the way I remember it. In particular, I have bad memories of those who accepted the free training and then did a runner at the first available opportunity. A very good friend of mine was FOD in a large UK-airline. He would not hire anyone who had a dozen types on their licence for that usually meant that they could not even begin to spell the word loyalty. He would much rather hire someone of good character and spend money on training them. The type-hunters in the past have a lot to answer for.
What an excellent post; that is exactly the way I remember it. In particular, I have bad memories of those who accepted the free training and then did a runner at the first available opportunity. A very good friend of mine was FOD in a large UK-airline. He would not hire anyone who had a dozen types on their licence for that usually meant that they could not even begin to spell the word loyalty. He would much rather hire someone of good character and spend money on training them. The type-hunters in the past have a lot to answer for.
In reality, industry wide, I suspect that those walking away and not repaying bonds was in fact very small when compared to those happily staying in jobs but nonetheless used as an excellent excuse to end the practise of bonding.
In my last company, we lost just over 100 pilots in a 14 year period. I think that adds up to a hell of a lot of training costs that went down the drain.
I wonder how many of them would still have walked if they had had to pay for their rating?
I wonder how many of them would still have walked if they had had to pay for their rating?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, if you have paid for your training then you are more mobile as you have nothing further to pay.
We must remember that companies do earn a crust from us coming to work, we are not just a perpetual drain on financial reserves for no reason.
How about the poor excel folk who took a loan paid monthly by the company for ratings and then went bust leaving them with no job and a loan. It cuts both ways.
Pilots have to put up with a lot of hit also. Basing, redundancy, shift work patterns blah blah. Sucking thin air from the engine bleed for 900 hours a year isn't ideal either. Glad I don't even do half that a year!
Oh and ask a few ex bmi and monarch guys about pensions......
All in all, you'd have to be mad to stump up 130k or whatever it is now.
We must remember that companies do earn a crust from us coming to work, we are not just a perpetual drain on financial reserves for no reason.
How about the poor excel folk who took a loan paid monthly by the company for ratings and then went bust leaving them with no job and a loan. It cuts both ways.
Pilots have to put up with a lot of hit also. Basing, redundancy, shift work patterns blah blah. Sucking thin air from the engine bleed for 900 hours a year isn't ideal either. Glad I don't even do half that a year!
Oh and ask a few ex bmi and monarch guys about pensions......
All in all, you'd have to be mad to stump up 130k or whatever it is now.
I've enjoyed reading through this thread, reminiscent of the quality of discussion that used to prevail on prune 15 years ago.
There's little I can add to all that has been posted already, suffice to say that the singular root cause of all this is that there are simply too many fresh new professional license holders every year. Its like musical chairs, except they are adding bodies instead of removing seats! Until numbers are artificially restricted to match the positions available then nothing will ever change in terms of T&C's. But no organisation can do that, the regulators are only interested in operational safety and quite rightly so and all the others involved (airlines, FTO's etc) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Pandora's box was well and truly opened in the UK/Europe with the start of JAR (although I was no fan of the then antiquated mindset of the CAA) and the situation is now like toothpaste; its damn near impossible to get it back in the tube. It will be interesting to see what happens when MPL becomes the norm.
There's little I can add to all that has been posted already, suffice to say that the singular root cause of all this is that there are simply too many fresh new professional license holders every year. Its like musical chairs, except they are adding bodies instead of removing seats! Until numbers are artificially restricted to match the positions available then nothing will ever change in terms of T&C's. But no organisation can do that, the regulators are only interested in operational safety and quite rightly so and all the others involved (airlines, FTO's etc) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Pandora's box was well and truly opened in the UK/Europe with the start of JAR (although I was no fan of the then antiquated mindset of the CAA) and the situation is now like toothpaste; its damn near impossible to get it back in the tube. It will be interesting to see what happens when MPL becomes the norm.
Last edited by Private jet; 11th Feb 2015 at 17:02.
Deep and fast:
"Actually, if you have paid for your training then you are more mobile as you have nothing further to pay".
That is precisely my point. If you pay for your own rating and then get a job on the basis of that, then you owe the company absolutely nothing. It's your rating and you can go anywhere you like, when you like.
But that is not really what we are discussing here. We have a bunch of would be pilots who would like to have a career in aviation but they either cannot afford to pay for a type rating (P2F) but would like to have the opportunity to join an airline that would pay all the bills for them.
Now that was the system in the old days. The company hired them unrated and spent a lot of money training them for free. So how did that go?
100 of them in my company walked out of the door in 14 years with a type rating and with no obligation to repay a penny. That is a pretty good illustration of how some pilots see loyalty versus their own desire to do what they want regardless of the consequences.
So, we lost 100 pilots at (in those days) an average of £15,000 each in direct costs which (even a thick pilot will realise) was a waste of £1,500,000. How can you blame an accountant for hiring someone who already has the type rating?
From a personal point of view it was not really my problem. As a dedicated training captain throughout most of my flying career. I always wished them well and hoped that they would have a good future (most of them did). In fact, for 7 years I was the union guy but even then, I could not believe how selfish a lot of them were.
My favourite was a young man who was a DC-10 F/O. The company that we were flying for did not spend money training pilots to do new things. You either had the rating or you didn't get hired. We persuaded the management that this guy was worth the effort and were eventually given clearance to spend money and put him through a DC-10 command course. I put a lot of effort into him and did his final line check in the presence of the FAA. Two weeks later he did a runner and joined another airline and left a lot of us with severe egg on our faces. Are you going to tell me that he didn't know he was going to go elsewhere in 2 weeks time?
So, that is where Deep and Fast makes such a valid point. The pilot pays for his rating (just like an HGV driver) and he can bugger off whenever he likes. That way, he is happy and the accountants are happy. Is that not P2F?
It's a bit unfortunate if you can't afford the rating but if your predecessors hadn't screwed the system, you would have got the rating for nothing.
By the way, I don't know if you have ever heard of the collective noun for a bunch of pilots sitting in a crewroom? I was once told that the correct term is a "whinge of pilots".
"Actually, if you have paid for your training then you are more mobile as you have nothing further to pay".
That is precisely my point. If you pay for your own rating and then get a job on the basis of that, then you owe the company absolutely nothing. It's your rating and you can go anywhere you like, when you like.
But that is not really what we are discussing here. We have a bunch of would be pilots who would like to have a career in aviation but they either cannot afford to pay for a type rating (P2F) but would like to have the opportunity to join an airline that would pay all the bills for them.
Now that was the system in the old days. The company hired them unrated and spent a lot of money training them for free. So how did that go?
100 of them in my company walked out of the door in 14 years with a type rating and with no obligation to repay a penny. That is a pretty good illustration of how some pilots see loyalty versus their own desire to do what they want regardless of the consequences.
So, we lost 100 pilots at (in those days) an average of £15,000 each in direct costs which (even a thick pilot will realise) was a waste of £1,500,000. How can you blame an accountant for hiring someone who already has the type rating?
From a personal point of view it was not really my problem. As a dedicated training captain throughout most of my flying career. I always wished them well and hoped that they would have a good future (most of them did). In fact, for 7 years I was the union guy but even then, I could not believe how selfish a lot of them were.
My favourite was a young man who was a DC-10 F/O. The company that we were flying for did not spend money training pilots to do new things. You either had the rating or you didn't get hired. We persuaded the management that this guy was worth the effort and were eventually given clearance to spend money and put him through a DC-10 command course. I put a lot of effort into him and did his final line check in the presence of the FAA. Two weeks later he did a runner and joined another airline and left a lot of us with severe egg on our faces. Are you going to tell me that he didn't know he was going to go elsewhere in 2 weeks time?
So, that is where Deep and Fast makes such a valid point. The pilot pays for his rating (just like an HGV driver) and he can bugger off whenever he likes. That way, he is happy and the accountants are happy. Is that not P2F?
It's a bit unfortunate if you can't afford the rating but if your predecessors hadn't screwed the system, you would have got the rating for nothing.
By the way, I don't know if you have ever heard of the collective noun for a bunch of pilots sitting in a crewroom? I was once told that the correct term is a "whinge of pilots".
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must remember that companies do earn a crust from us coming to work, we are not just a perpetual drain on financial reserves for no reason.
Every other industry I can think of sets their prices according to their costs and expected reasonable profit. It's called a business model. Training costs are part of that model and are taken into account when setting prices. It is well understood, in the airlines I've been involved with, that a 10% per annum attrition rate is the norm. This is based on retirement, medical and 'moving on'. It is budgeted for in the training/recruitment model. What has happened is that the rapid vast expansion has been based on low prices. It could be discussed that it has been a price driven expansion not a demand driven one. It has become so cheap it is too good to miss. Rather than drive to the local beach let's go to a foreign one; or foreign mountains. To maintain this profit driven, rather than service driven industry, costs have had to be driven to the lowest. Think Tescos/Liddle/Aldi of the airline world. The start point is training costs. The next point is keep everything as basic as legally necessary and make it as safe as possible. (I still say this model would not have been possible in B727/737 days. SOP trained monkeys wouldn't have cut it.) Now the public are so used to cheap everything, they'd even load their own bags if they had to. I remember a time in 80's where charter pax picked up a lunch bag as they boarded the a/c instead of catered food. It was too expensive to serve hot on board. The genie/toothpaste can not be put back in the bottle. I still fly national carriers, often at cheaper prices than the local LoCo. The market has caused a response and the nationals have responded. They still make profits; might be cross-subsidised, I don't care. I get national carrier service (sandwich only) at LoCo prices. Salaries have not been slashed across the more realistic flexibly minded nationals. They are expanding and profiting. LoCo is not the only way to go. And I don't think the nationals have gone down the P2F route, yet. So there is another way. Let's not just assume there is only one working model. Tesco is no longer the only market leader.
Every other industry I can think of sets their prices according to their costs and expected reasonable profit. It's called a business model. Training costs are part of that model and are taken into account when setting prices. It is well understood, in the airlines I've been involved with, that a 10% per annum attrition rate is the norm. This is based on retirement, medical and 'moving on'. It is budgeted for in the training/recruitment model. What has happened is that the rapid vast expansion has been based on low prices. It could be discussed that it has been a price driven expansion not a demand driven one. It has become so cheap it is too good to miss. Rather than drive to the local beach let's go to a foreign one; or foreign mountains. To maintain this profit driven, rather than service driven industry, costs have had to be driven to the lowest. Think Tescos/Liddle/Aldi of the airline world. The start point is training costs. The next point is keep everything as basic as legally necessary and make it as safe as possible. (I still say this model would not have been possible in B727/737 days. SOP trained monkeys wouldn't have cut it.) Now the public are so used to cheap everything, they'd even load their own bags if they had to. I remember a time in 80's where charter pax picked up a lunch bag as they boarded the a/c instead of catered food. It was too expensive to serve hot on board. The genie/toothpaste can not be put back in the bottle. I still fly national carriers, often at cheaper prices than the local LoCo. The market has caused a response and the nationals have responded. They still make profits; might be cross-subsidised, I don't care. I get national carrier service (sandwich only) at LoCo prices. Salaries have not been slashed across the more realistic flexibly minded nationals. They are expanding and profiting. LoCo is not the only way to go. And I don't think the nationals have gone down the P2F route, yet. So there is another way. Let's not just assume there is only one working model. Tesco is no longer the only market leader.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW, my comment about mobility was in response to the comment about 100 pilots leaving. If company don't want em to leave then tie em in. Chinese airlines have lifetime bonds 
Got to laugh really.
Got to laugh really.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Companies only rid themselves of profitable practices if the PR is likely to make the practice unprofitable.
It's not what they do, it's what they are seen to be doing that counts.
It's not what they do, it's what they are seen to be doing that counts.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: here and there
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P2f
Here in India , paying for your type rating or the company asking candidates to pay bank guarantees after selection towards training ("type rating costs") has become the norm.Paying for Line training hasnt caught on yet but there's a startup FLYEASY advertising the same for their Embraers.
With the huge glut of unemployed CPL holders( around 5000+) with no viable GA or other options for employment , they have become the cash cow airlines within India and outside are looking at greedily. Lion Air did have an Indian rep to recruit P2F candidates specifically from India .Many of these pilots have now returned with 1000 hrs P2 experience on the B737 to be hired by airlines like ours (Jet Airways) as P2's.
I flew with one of these P2's recently , a cheerful guy and we were paired on a few layover flights together.The stories he had to say about the Lion Air experience was shocking to say the least. Abuse of employees by the middleman contractor from India ( Lion Air paid the contractor x and they got 50% x ) , training and safety standards were basic to say the least and they had to fight their way out of the middleman's clutches to return from the "contract".It's like slavery .
Although I'm totally against P2F , I can see how candidates get attracted to these outfits, this P2 would otherwise be twiddling his thumbs at home had he not taken this drastic route , of course he had the support of his parents as do most Indians
The way forward is for airline pilot's bodies like ALPA worldwide in co-ordination with airline unions take a united stand against P2F .They can make media campaigns on the same to educate the public too on the hazards of P2F for their safety and believe me , today passengers do care with the rash of incidents that have happened, not that every one of those can be attributed to this menace.
let's say no to P2F
With the huge glut of unemployed CPL holders( around 5000+) with no viable GA or other options for employment , they have become the cash cow airlines within India and outside are looking at greedily. Lion Air did have an Indian rep to recruit P2F candidates specifically from India .Many of these pilots have now returned with 1000 hrs P2 experience on the B737 to be hired by airlines like ours (Jet Airways) as P2's.
I flew with one of these P2's recently , a cheerful guy and we were paired on a few layover flights together.The stories he had to say about the Lion Air experience was shocking to say the least. Abuse of employees by the middleman contractor from India ( Lion Air paid the contractor x and they got 50% x ) , training and safety standards were basic to say the least and they had to fight their way out of the middleman's clutches to return from the "contract".It's like slavery .
Although I'm totally against P2F , I can see how candidates get attracted to these outfits, this P2 would otherwise be twiddling his thumbs at home had he not taken this drastic route , of course he had the support of his parents as do most Indians
The way forward is for airline pilot's bodies like ALPA worldwide in co-ordination with airline unions take a united stand against P2F .They can make media campaigns on the same to educate the public too on the hazards of P2F for their safety and believe me , today passengers do care with the rash of incidents that have happened, not that every one of those can be attributed to this menace.
let's say no to P2F
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is Canada, the practice of paying for your own type rating has not been imported yet, just certain companies have new pilots sign bonds.
There were cases where the pilots were made to take personal loans which were co-signed and re-paid by the airline, as long as the candidate remained employed.......
The practice of getting paid less does not exist. After the type rating, new pilots have to do 25 of line indoctrination if they have flown similar aircraft and 100 hours if the pilot is for example new on large jets. Sometimes he/she is paid less during that period because he/she has to fly with a check pilot who is paid extra do do that job, but once the pilots is released after his 25 or 100 hours, he/she goes on regular pay for he now flies with regular line captains on regular revenue flights. What justification would there be for him to be paid less ?
The concept of second officer on aircraft which have no first officer, or of junior first officer does not exist in this country.
There were cases where the pilots were made to take personal loans which were co-signed and re-paid by the airline, as long as the candidate remained employed.......
The practice of getting paid less does not exist. After the type rating, new pilots have to do 25 of line indoctrination if they have flown similar aircraft and 100 hours if the pilot is for example new on large jets. Sometimes he/she is paid less during that period because he/she has to fly with a check pilot who is paid extra do do that job, but once the pilots is released after his 25 or 100 hours, he/she goes on regular pay for he now flies with regular line captains on regular revenue flights. What justification would there be for him to be paid less ?
The concept of second officer on aircraft which have no first officer, or of junior first officer does not exist in this country.
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 13th Feb 2015 at 01:31.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: EU
Age: 46
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right said
Giles-hudicourt,
I Support any word you just said... I wish people like you are on management positions such as head of training or head of operations..chief pilots..
Usually these functions are given to top management marionettes, people who are on those positions for ther own gain.. Unfortunately not collective gain.
Luckily, they dont last that long, but anyway make a lot of damage in interpersonal relations within their sector that manage.
I Support any word you just said... I wish people like you are on management positions such as head of training or head of operations..chief pilots..
Usually these functions are given to top management marionettes, people who are on those positions for ther own gain.. Unfortunately not collective gain.
Luckily, they dont last that long, but anyway make a lot of damage in interpersonal relations within their sector that manage.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: EU
Age: 46
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa
I have talked to some pilots from Lufthansa. Please LH people correct me i i have misinterpreted what they have said to me.. Anyway, this is pretty much moddel in Lufthansa a.g.
They have opening for cca 200-300 hundred fos every few years.
Requrements is to pass all the test (dlr, general tech knowledge, medical...)
After that, if you succeed, they send you to LH interkokpit for integral flight training to gain ATPL (f) CPL ME IR, than you get MCC and JOC on CJ2 (sym and aircraft).
After you have finished all of it (cca 2 years or less) you wait for your type rating on A320 (before was either 320'or 737, but 737 is in phase out).
After you finish your type rating you start flying and getting your fo salary.. Withing 2/3 years you are on 330/340, later on 380, 747..
After maybe 8-12 years, you switch to left seat from 320 and climb all that leaders again from the left side.. By the late 30ies or early 40ies you are cpt in widebody in a magnificent company.
And now price tag of that? 180.000 euro.
After you are accepted, before atpl (f) cpl me ir mcc joc training, you have to pay 1/3 which is 60.000 euros. Lufthansa covers 60.000 euros. Rest of 60.000 is coverd by pilots after he or she gets release and starts geting his/her salary (through 5 years).
Any type change is of course coverd by the companie (there is bond of course).
Similar is in Swiss.
I beleive thats good story.
They have opening for cca 200-300 hundred fos every few years.
Requrements is to pass all the test (dlr, general tech knowledge, medical...)
After that, if you succeed, they send you to LH interkokpit for integral flight training to gain ATPL (f) CPL ME IR, than you get MCC and JOC on CJ2 (sym and aircraft).
After you have finished all of it (cca 2 years or less) you wait for your type rating on A320 (before was either 320'or 737, but 737 is in phase out).
After you finish your type rating you start flying and getting your fo salary.. Withing 2/3 years you are on 330/340, later on 380, 747..
After maybe 8-12 years, you switch to left seat from 320 and climb all that leaders again from the left side.. By the late 30ies or early 40ies you are cpt in widebody in a magnificent company.
And now price tag of that? 180.000 euro.
After you are accepted, before atpl (f) cpl me ir mcc joc training, you have to pay 1/3 which is 60.000 euros. Lufthansa covers 60.000 euros. Rest of 60.000 is coverd by pilots after he or she gets release and starts geting his/her salary (through 5 years).
Any type change is of course coverd by the companie (there is bond of course).
Similar is in Swiss.
I beleive thats good story.
The other point with LH is that a very large number of young pilots were hired into the group over the last ten years. If you combine that with hundreds on the waiting list and current management's strategy of moving flying to cheaper parts of the organisation or even outsourcing then career prospects look a little less optimistic.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But a career in Lufthansa offers various types of flying from short haul to long and aircraft types from 320 up to 380 etc. this gives options and the ability to create a change of working scenery. All a bit different to constant four sector days in a 320 or 737 to the same destinations till you either die of boredom or just die from fatigue aerotoxic syndrome brain tumour or any other one of the things that seem to kill off pilots!
The current low cost business model of companies is based on greed and funnelling the money to the top management and to a lesser degree shareholders. The legacy companies are having to cut costs to try and keep up. We shouldn't let these airline bloodsuckers champagne it up on our expense.
Watch the BBC program "The super rich and us" episode 2 just about sums it up!
The current low cost business model of companies is based on greed and funnelling the money to the top management and to a lesser degree shareholders. The legacy companies are having to cut costs to try and keep up. We shouldn't let these airline bloodsuckers champagne it up on our expense.
Watch the BBC program "The super rich and us" episode 2 just about sums it up!