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
Originally Posted by john smith
You seem to have some ingrained prejudice when it comes to low experience pilots flying jets. It just seems to me that you have a chip on your shoulder; perhaps because you were unable to get such a position when you were a low hours pilot, and think that everyone should have to suffer through the same hardships that you had to.
When did I ever mention anything about "hardships" ? I said I was PAID for every commercial flight I ever flew. Whenever someone paid me to fly an aircraft, any aircraft, I was in heaven. Those 6500 hours I did before joining an airline with large jets were the best years of my flying career. All my good stories are from that period. All my good souvenirs are from that period. Most of my flying experience was gained during that period.
I was not even thinking of flying heavy jets when I had 1500 hours, because I was following the normal path that everyone around me was following. At 1500 hours, I was looking up to become a Curtis C-46 pilot, a Douglas DC-4, a Douglas DC-6 or maybe an HS-748 pilot. My wet dreams were about flying a P-51, a Sea Fury, or maybe a PBY in the Caribbean. I knew the big jets would arrive later, naturally and in due time. And they did. Just like grey hair and baldness do.
Plus I never had huge flight school loans to pay back. I never had more than $10,000 USD in flight training debt in my whole life. And I paid all of my initial training myself. When I had 1500 hours, I read Flying, PlaneandPilot, Business and Commercial Aviation, and magazines about War-birds. Not about airliners. To me, transport category jets were boring buses in which one hauled people in a boring way when one got older. The pilot I admired most was my 30 year old Capt "Duke" who could three point our C-46 on Montserrat's 3300 foot runway (now buried under lava)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Bramble_Airport
So you see, there are two kinds of pilots. The kind that live their dream, and the other kind, your kind, that think that those other pilots living their dreams have a chip on their shoulder and went through "hardships".....
Our very reasons for flying are so different.
I now understand your point of view very well. That statement was so eloquent.......
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 31st Jan 2015 at 01:12.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gilles Hudicourt
I think you need to have it out with the senior pilots/training captains who are part of the problem (you do not have to look too far up) and the ones that set up the big training organisation in the first place and have pushed for the MPL schemes etc.
You may be surprised to find out a lot of them have climbed the same ladder you have and should really be more inclined to support your point of view. In the end however, this cannot be so, as it's not financially beneficial to take the moral high ground. Money talks, pockets need lining and palms need greasing.
At the risk of sounding cliché and repetitive, the fish rots from the head down!
I think you need to have it out with the senior pilots/training captains who are part of the problem (you do not have to look too far up) and the ones that set up the big training organisation in the first place and have pushed for the MPL schemes etc.
You may be surprised to find out a lot of them have climbed the same ladder you have and should really be more inclined to support your point of view. In the end however, this cannot be so, as it's not financially beneficial to take the moral high ground. Money talks, pockets need lining and palms need greasing.
At the risk of sounding cliché and repetitive, the fish rots from the head down!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and what they will tell you is that the attrition rates are a tiny fraction of what they were in those days (I was there!) That the ab-initio training is something that they have an intrinsic involvement with. That the real world costs of putting a pilot in the seat mean that has to be done at minimum cost and risk. That has to be balanced against all of the other risks, but given the candidate is assuming the financial risk profile, those risks are already mitigated from onset. In other words, pick the best, it won't cost any more.
During the evolution of the last Three decades, the process went from selecting high time self improvers and military career changers, whose introductory training (type, base and line etc.) the airline paid for, to initially bonding the recruit for their training costs. The problem (certainly in the UK) was that it was difficult, expensive, and time consuming to enforce those contracts. You only have to look back to the early days of this website to find pages and pages of people posting threads about how they could successfully escape their obligations. The airlines found an answer!
The legal system in the US and possibly Canada may well lend itself to making enforcement of such contracts a cheaper and far easier process? Certainly in the UK (and probably other countries as well,) the evolution was brought about by some of the candidates. I remember reams of threads 15 years ago screaming about the unfairness of "bonding." It was slavery, servitude, and all the same terms you see bandied about today concerning modern candidate loaded costs.
There are very few airlines (or other businesses) where survival isn't measured by the size of the accessible cash pile. Businesses are simply not going to dip into that pile where they don't have to. They are not going to waste money chasing after broken promises or commitments (from their potential employees,) even if they have few compunctions about doing it themselves.
By all means sound cliché and repetitive, but navigating a passage through the realities of a potential career today or in the next decade, means carefully researching the history, evolution and realities of todays market, as well as the forecasts of what lies on the horizon for at least the next decade. It is astonishing how few people do! The directions have been loud and clear for a long time now, but an awful lot of people seem to smudge their keyboards with the earwax they have accumulated on both forefingers! You don't have to look (too far up) to find them either!
During the evolution of the last Three decades, the process went from selecting high time self improvers and military career changers, whose introductory training (type, base and line etc.) the airline paid for, to initially bonding the recruit for their training costs. The problem (certainly in the UK) was that it was difficult, expensive, and time consuming to enforce those contracts. You only have to look back to the early days of this website to find pages and pages of people posting threads about how they could successfully escape their obligations. The airlines found an answer!
The legal system in the US and possibly Canada may well lend itself to making enforcement of such contracts a cheaper and far easier process? Certainly in the UK (and probably other countries as well,) the evolution was brought about by some of the candidates. I remember reams of threads 15 years ago screaming about the unfairness of "bonding." It was slavery, servitude, and all the same terms you see bandied about today concerning modern candidate loaded costs.
There are very few airlines (or other businesses) where survival isn't measured by the size of the accessible cash pile. Businesses are simply not going to dip into that pile where they don't have to. They are not going to waste money chasing after broken promises or commitments (from their potential employees,) even if they have few compunctions about doing it themselves.
By all means sound cliché and repetitive, but navigating a passage through the realities of a potential career today or in the next decade, means carefully researching the history, evolution and realities of todays market, as well as the forecasts of what lies on the horizon for at least the next decade. It is astonishing how few people do! The directions have been loud and clear for a long time now, but an awful lot of people seem to smudge their keyboards with the earwax they have accumulated on both forefingers! You don't have to look (too far up) to find them either!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P2F or cadet program's are not a problem if well managed with proper systems in place.
The problems arise when airlines cut corners in training for inexperienced pilots.
I would guess that the airlines that cut wages/employments costs are probably the same airlines that cut costs in other safety related areas.
I came through a general aviation background to end up in a major airline. The airline had cadet program's for many years & were able to select the best available candidates and give the best available training. The end product (cadet pilots) were generally excellent.
I have worked with other airlines that cut costs where ever possible & the end product (cadet pilots) are questionable at best. Fortunately, most of the Captains come from old school backgrounds & can keep the blue side up.
The problems arise when airlines cut corners in training for inexperienced pilots.
I would guess that the airlines that cut wages/employments costs are probably the same airlines that cut costs in other safety related areas.
I came through a general aviation background to end up in a major airline. The airline had cadet program's for many years & were able to select the best available candidates and give the best available training. The end product (cadet pilots) were generally excellent.
I have worked with other airlines that cut costs where ever possible & the end product (cadet pilots) are questionable at best. Fortunately, most of the Captains come from old school backgrounds & can keep the blue side up.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asia
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems a Pay-to-Work Pilot from France was killed this week during the Terrorist Attack on the Corinthia Hotel in Tripoli
many seem to forget one thing.
P2F is not only about flying skills (safety), but it is about allowing anybody to be in the right seat....you what I mean... anybody who has a really bad intention, can be in the right seat and have controls of a big jet.
The door is open, just pay.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C172
I had my first pitot failure when I was doing city tours with a 172, it was a fly in the pitot tube, right after takeoff and IAS went down to 0 mph.
Put it anyway you want, it was very instructive. Few years later when I lost altitude and airspeed indication right after takeoff, I knew what was going on.
Guess what, the 400 hrs FO froze and I was single pilot for a long minute....
Any experience is valuable.
Put it anyway you want, it was very instructive. Few years later when I lost altitude and airspeed indication right after takeoff, I knew what was going on.
Guess what, the 400 hrs FO froze and I was single pilot for a long minute....
Any experience is valuable.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by john_smith
You're aware, of course, that at least one of the FOs on AF447 (the one in the RHS) was a very active GA and glider pilot?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original thread was about airlines that allow pilots to pay to fly, perhaps an attempt to " name and shame", however,now it's drifted into the normal "safety compromised" by these guys paying to sit in the RHS or LHS (AKA Command programs).
Perhaps we should consider some facts:
1) Not all PTF are low hours, many are very high hours and have age related problems with getting mainstream jobs, these guys are usually financially sound and can afford without any pressure to try and lift their career.
2) As a trainer I can tell you many ex military guys take much longer to adapt and their ability to "step in" is often much much lower than the average guy straight from flying school with no hours..part culture of not wanting to criticise the Captain, part inability to forget old embedded procedures. Often highly technically competent and knowledgeable but lacking in basic procedures. Over 50% of our " events" arise from these guys and their instinct to revert to "basic modes" rather than use the automatics, VNAV etc etc.
3) Recent risk studies show clearly, pilots with less than 300 hrs fall into the same operational risk category as those with over 10,000hrs, one group no idea, the other group too complacent.
4) In our company, of the last 4 intakes, each of approx 50 pilots, 95% of the guys with less than 200 hrs completed the line training with no problems within the allotted 40 sectors, 50% of the guys with over 1000 hrs took an additional 10 sectors and 30% of the guys with more than 4000 hrs took an additional 20 sectors.
5) Our internal safety risk reporting system shows 80% of all events occur with high hours FOs close to command upgrade (overconfident) and less than 3% occur with new FOs within 2 years of joining.
Real airline experience always prevails over GA flying, all tho stick and rudder nonsense teaches nothing about high altitude manoeuvring or high energy management. There is a world of difference between " decision making" in a C172 that can land on a cabbage patch and a medium airliner.
PTF is a regrettable development extension from the SSTR, but to a degree forums like this promoted it by preaching a SSTR " without hours on type is useless" . The SSTR is here to stay and PTF is gradually dying a natural death due to line training capacity. A quick look at the jobs forums shows many many instructor positions advertised with airlines associated with this system, so who's the real villain?
Perhaps we should consider some facts:
1) Not all PTF are low hours, many are very high hours and have age related problems with getting mainstream jobs, these guys are usually financially sound and can afford without any pressure to try and lift their career.
2) As a trainer I can tell you many ex military guys take much longer to adapt and their ability to "step in" is often much much lower than the average guy straight from flying school with no hours..part culture of not wanting to criticise the Captain, part inability to forget old embedded procedures. Often highly technically competent and knowledgeable but lacking in basic procedures. Over 50% of our " events" arise from these guys and their instinct to revert to "basic modes" rather than use the automatics, VNAV etc etc.
3) Recent risk studies show clearly, pilots with less than 300 hrs fall into the same operational risk category as those with over 10,000hrs, one group no idea, the other group too complacent.
4) In our company, of the last 4 intakes, each of approx 50 pilots, 95% of the guys with less than 200 hrs completed the line training with no problems within the allotted 40 sectors, 50% of the guys with over 1000 hrs took an additional 10 sectors and 30% of the guys with more than 4000 hrs took an additional 20 sectors.
5) Our internal safety risk reporting system shows 80% of all events occur with high hours FOs close to command upgrade (overconfident) and less than 3% occur with new FOs within 2 years of joining.
Real airline experience always prevails over GA flying, all tho stick and rudder nonsense teaches nothing about high altitude manoeuvring or high energy management. There is a world of difference between " decision making" in a C172 that can land on a cabbage patch and a medium airliner.
PTF is a regrettable development extension from the SSTR, but to a degree forums like this promoted it by preaching a SSTR " without hours on type is useless" . The SSTR is here to stay and PTF is gradually dying a natural death due to line training capacity. A quick look at the jobs forums shows many many instructor positions advertised with airlines associated with this system, so who's the real villain?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kirks Gusset,
As a Trainer, I am amazed that you critisize ex Mil. For reverting to Basic flying.
Luckily, in my company, we have a VERY IMPORTANT rule: If in doubt: Go down a level in Automation, if needed, automatics OFF and fly the aircraft...LIKE A BASIC TRAINER. This works with ANY aircraft.
No bull like reverting to Vnav etc. You just complicate things that way.
And guess what, we minimize our events thanks to this, but of course, we actually teach our crews how to fly their aircraft without using flight directors and automatics...
and do this nearly every day.
As a Trainer, I am amazed that you critisize ex Mil. For reverting to Basic flying.
Luckily, in my company, we have a VERY IMPORTANT rule: If in doubt: Go down a level in Automation, if needed, automatics OFF and fly the aircraft...LIKE A BASIC TRAINER. This works with ANY aircraft.
No bull like reverting to Vnav etc. You just complicate things that way.
And guess what, we minimize our events thanks to this, but of course, we actually teach our crews how to fly their aircraft without using flight directors and automatics...
and do this nearly every day.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despegue, Surely you are not advocating disconnecting the automatics in a 777 and hand flying from 40000? VNAV is not a reversion mode, it is the normal mode. The types of events that catch these guys out are " direct to" without modifying VNAV path for MSA and the thing dives like a hawk, then they revert to VS, so we see VS-3000 with MCP 220 and the whole thing is a mess. Generally the ex military guys score well with raw data flying ILS and Visuals but just take longer to grasp the basic operating concepts. We do not teach anyone how to fly, we assume they can do that at the selection stage, we teach them how to operate the systems according to the manufacturers recommendations and company procedures. A quick review of both Boeing and Airbus FCTM will show that where possible leave the automatics engaged..the issue with these guys is always the same..they are not in their comfort zone..it takes time.. the debate on the thread extended to a reflection of hours versus safety, the point I am making is that they are not mutually exclusive
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As some have brought this up:
Having flown with MPL and straight from school sub 200hr fATPL pilots, in my experiance there is little too choose betwean them so long as the selection and training have been done to a high standard. The MPL pilots had been selected by the airline, who then kept a very close eye on the training.
When the training is not of a high enough standard then the end product suffers as a result. In both schemes the actual flying is so low and in particular the solo flying, that it is almost irrelevant. This is where the MPL scheme scores because the sim training is directly aimed at the next step ie line operations, decision making, failure management etc etc.
This is a completely different subject to p2f.
Giles has raised career progression and as a refute has shown us how many turboprop aircraft there are in the uk.
However until recently no one was moving from dash8 to uk jet employment. The airlines almost all preferred low hour cadets. Therefore as a career move, joining a turboprop airline was a dead end. The only way out for many was a move to the sandpit. It is cheaper and more cost effective for the airlines.
Is it any wonder that wannabees go p2f?
There used to be bonding, no cost to candidate so long as they met their commitments.
Then pay up front but reimbursed over time so after 3 years no cost if you stayed.
Now in many different disguises candidate pays for all training, including TR and either pays or has a reduced salary during line training, reduced cost for airline or in some cases profit.
Decision making ability is meant to be a pilot skill yet there are guys out there with over €130, 000 debt and no realistic employment opportunities! Good decision
So back to topic.
Do we include 50% salary during training as p2f?
Having flown with MPL and straight from school sub 200hr fATPL pilots, in my experiance there is little too choose betwean them so long as the selection and training have been done to a high standard. The MPL pilots had been selected by the airline, who then kept a very close eye on the training.
When the training is not of a high enough standard then the end product suffers as a result. In both schemes the actual flying is so low and in particular the solo flying, that it is almost irrelevant. This is where the MPL scheme scores because the sim training is directly aimed at the next step ie line operations, decision making, failure management etc etc.
This is a completely different subject to p2f.
Giles has raised career progression and as a refute has shown us how many turboprop aircraft there are in the uk.
However until recently no one was moving from dash8 to uk jet employment. The airlines almost all preferred low hour cadets. Therefore as a career move, joining a turboprop airline was a dead end. The only way out for many was a move to the sandpit. It is cheaper and more cost effective for the airlines.
Is it any wonder that wannabees go p2f?
There used to be bonding, no cost to candidate so long as they met their commitments.
Then pay up front but reimbursed over time so after 3 years no cost if you stayed.
Now in many different disguises candidate pays for all training, including TR and either pays or has a reduced salary during line training, reduced cost for airline or in some cases profit.
Decision making ability is meant to be a pilot skill yet there are guys out there with over €130, 000 debt and no realistic employment opportunities! Good decision
So back to topic.
Do we include 50% salary during training as p2f?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kirks Gusset
The original thread was about airlines that allow pilots to pay to fly, perhaps an attempt to " name and shame", however,now it's drifted into the normal "safety compromised" by these guys paying to sit in the RHS or LHS (AKA Command programs).
I think that making people pay for their type rating is P2F. Having a number of large airlines operating just one aircraft type is a fairly recent phenomenon, with most large airlines generally being made up of several types of aircraft. What about those airlines that operate several different types of aircraft, would they also expect the candidates to pay for their TR and have experience on type before coming on board? BA for example has six TRs. Thomson has 4 or 5. Air Canada has 6. What type rating should such candidate buy should they decide to join a multi type airline ? (assuming they also began this pay for your TR practice). Then what about changing types once you are in ? I have flown 4 different types of aircraft since I started at my present company. Not for fun but because the numbers of aircraft changed and the company's pilot's NEEDS of different aircraft changed. I had to change types to adapt to corporate decisions. Would RyanaAir and EasyJet have billed me for a TR every time I changed aircraft ?
I think TR should be paid by the employer and that having the pilot pay for his TR is "pay to fly". Imagine what will happen when RyanAir decides to purchase a fleet of 787s, or EasyJet a fleet of A350s?. Who will fly them ? Who will pay for the TR? Will the 787 and 350 positions be sold to the highest bidder ? They will probably start if off as a new company and make everyone pay to join.
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.
The accident and incident reports that have involved P2F pilots and pilots that had entered the airlines as low time Cadets never mention this fact. There are no statistics about P2F incidents. As an example, I have already cited that the last three consecutive LionAir Accidents and incidents involved crews whose SIC were P2F. These reports do not mention this fact. So there are no statistics about it. When I wrote this, someone advanced that P2F had nothing to do with these incidents and that LionAir had other problems, not related to P2F which were at the root of these accidents and stated as evidence, that Europe, despite P2F and Cadets, had a safe record. AirAsia most likely had a P2F pilot at the controls. AF447's SIC and PF had "flown" about 6000 of his 6500 hours as SIC on A320/340/330. The SIC and PF in the Air France A340 that overran the runway and burned in Toronto in Aug 2005 was a Cadet, hired at zero time. After his muti-IFR CPL he was hired as SIC on A320 before moving on to the 340. There are probably many others, should one take the time to look.......
I think that there are many P2F and Cadet related incidents in Europe that are just swept under the rug because they go against the trend and because big money is involved.
I reiterate that I think that low time P2F and Cadet type programs by-pass an important part of a pilots flight training when they go straight to flying highly automated aircraft in a RADAR controller IFR environment. Granted they become efficient at operating the aircraft in that environment when everything goes as planned or as practiced in the Simulator, but often real life emergencies are not straight and forward and were never practiced in the simulator.
While I was at my present company, one A330 ran out of fuel over the Atlantic at night and a A310 lost his whole rudder in cruise flight. Both of these aircraft landed intact with no injuries. These are not things that one practices in the simulator.
How many times in accident reports do you read that the pilots had never practiced a particular event in the simulator ? There are many malfunctions that occur and that are not in the non-normal checklist and for which we have never trained, and that is when experience kicks in and often saves the day.
People here keep stating that anything that is not related to flying jets concerns Cessna 172s but that is not true. There is whole world of aviation in between the 172s and the airline jets which used to be part of a pilots' experience. If that part is to be skipped, it must me replaced by something substantial and that something substantial cannot and should not be 500 hours of PNF at LionAir. It has to be real flying.
Why is an ATPL issued at 1500 hours and not at 200 ? Because the authorities in every country recognized the EXPERIENCE one gains during those extra 1300 hours as valuable and necessary. If 1250 of those extra 1300 hours are done flying straight and level on autopilot, with the PIC doing most take offs and approaches, what experience is gained ? They are just lines in a logbook.
Edit: I just saw this new thread:
http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...rated-dec.html
Why does a company like RyanAir need to resort to Direct Entry Captains? What about its thousands of experienced SIC ? Someone is going to write that this has nothing to do with P2F.
Yet if RyanAir had been in the habit of hiring experienced 4000 hour Q400 captains as B737 SIC instead of 200 hour pilots, would this be necessary ? No because such a pilot would be ready to go left seat when needed at RyanAir.
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 31st Jan 2015 at 15:39.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are numbers confirming that there has been increase of upgrade failures within some of the companies heavily relying on Cadet pilots.
We are talking substantial numbers, such that they now are getting experienced FO's and DEC's to fill the gaps.
I have heard about this happening with at least 3 major companies!
The failure is not on Tech or Flying skills, but rather No Tech issues!
So I guess maybe it would have helped them if they had some more "life experience" - even if that involved some C172 flying alone, personally I prefer the PA28 - and love taking it for a spin every once in a while!
It's an airplane, no matter if an airliner or C172, different size - but take away all the fancy bells and whistles, and they all fly the same!
It seems some people here rely heavily on the Cadets to assure their retirement package deal!
We are talking substantial numbers, such that they now are getting experienced FO's and DEC's to fill the gaps.
I have heard about this happening with at least 3 major companies!
The failure is not on Tech or Flying skills, but rather No Tech issues!
So I guess maybe it would have helped them if they had some more "life experience" - even if that involved some C172 flying alone, personally I prefer the PA28 - and love taking it for a spin every once in a while!
It's an airplane, no matter if an airliner or C172, different size - but take away all the fancy bells and whistles, and they all fly the same!
It seems some people here rely heavily on the Cadets to assure their retirement package deal!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kirks Gusset,
Nowhere in my books does it state that Boeing recommends to leave the automatics on whenever possible. Quite the opposite actually.
Furthermore, any Safe airline should have the following mentioned in their SOP: crews are encouraged to fly manually with or without flightdirector, both on departure and approach, whenever traffic and weather situation allows.
And yes, We often disconnect all below RVSM
Nowhere in my books does it state that Boeing recommends to leave the automatics on whenever possible. Quite the opposite actually.
Furthermore, any Safe airline should have the following mentioned in their SOP: crews are encouraged to fly manually with or without flightdirector, both on departure and approach, whenever traffic and weather situation allows.
And yes, We often disconnect all below RVSM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Smith
What's your point?
The KLM pilot that you mention is the unwilling and posthumous father of modern day CRM by the way. He didn't lack experience but did lack much else....... That was a case where a great lesson was learned from an accident from which we all benefited, although there was initially a reluctance at KLM, to accept the report's conclusions about their poster boy captain.
Aviation arrived where it is today by learning from mistakes. Many mistakes have been made in the past, more are being done today and more will be made in the future. We must be ready to identify the mistakes, analyse them and take corrective action.
I think P2F is one such mistake......
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 31st Jan 2015 at 17:04.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experienced pilots come with pre conceptions about how we should be treated and the terms and conditions we should work under. The 200 hr 20 year old up to his neck in dept is just happy to be earning something and fly the shiny metal.
We are moving back to Victorian times, except it's not the mill house owners wearing posh clothes and drinking port, it's the company CEO and shareholders skimming he cream at the expense of the staff.
Does Dave and shazza care about 5 euros on a ticket price to pay for good training, experienced and well rested crew? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't notice, In fact, if my 6 hour experience trucking back on a Lo Co mob from sharm yesterday is anything to go by, all the want is to buy cheap fags and get pissed and sunburnt!
Experienced pilots, even if not on the type have capacity in the air in that cannot be earnt anywhere else. It's just companies would rather pay less and take the insurance claim when it comes, and why should a ceo care? Well they have spent the bonuses, taken the share issues and have a fat pension fund contribution, so as long as they can distance themselves from corporate manslaughter charges (which is why there are many layers to the post holder corporate onion) then why should they care? Well you don't expect them to have a conscience do you?
We are moving back to Victorian times, except it's not the mill house owners wearing posh clothes and drinking port, it's the company CEO and shareholders skimming he cream at the expense of the staff.
Does Dave and shazza care about 5 euros on a ticket price to pay for good training, experienced and well rested crew? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't notice, In fact, if my 6 hour experience trucking back on a Lo Co mob from sharm yesterday is anything to go by, all the want is to buy cheap fags and get pissed and sunburnt!
Experienced pilots, even if not on the type have capacity in the air in that cannot be earnt anywhere else. It's just companies would rather pay less and take the insurance claim when it comes, and why should a ceo care? Well they have spent the bonuses, taken the share issues and have a fat pension fund contribution, so as long as they can distance themselves from corporate manslaughter charges (which is why there are many layers to the post holder corporate onion) then why should they care? Well you don't expect them to have a conscience do you?
