Growing Pilot Shortage
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: earth
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One friend who was in the management told me that Wizzair negotiated for free the training of their pilots when they ordered the huge number of aircrafts. So they have free slots of training from airbus for which they ask pilots to pay and for whom they are almost sure to stay 3 years. Well done, Wizz air is definitely not a charity company.
Just for info, what is the basic net salary as FO bonded when joining wizz air ?
Just for info, what is the basic net salary as FO bonded when joining wizz air ?
I'm not sure but isn't it usually the case with Airbus they are willing to offer the TR because of such a big order?
Speaking of charity, rumour has it the orange company in the UK is getting paid by L3CTS to take their cadets, and how does L3CTS get its money back? By charging crazy amounts for an Airbus typerating without any accommodation provided etc...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet, still barely an airline willing to give an option of lower pay for a great schedule that might tempt a certain percentage of pilots that would love to see a month on/month off schedule.
Almost always a crap schedule that won't allow someone to commute or commuting with significant days off in a row. I am lucky with my 5.5 weeks/3 weeks.
Almost always a crap schedule that won't allow someone to commute or commuting with significant days off in a row. I am lucky with my 5.5 weeks/3 weeks.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driverless trains came out donkeys ago, yet take a trip down to any major train station and how many driverless trains do you see? I counted 0 in Euston yesterday. Train drivers aren't exactly cheap either.
My simple question is if we have barely even rolled out driverless trains and they only exist on a very small fraction of services, then how on earth are we supposed to have pilotless planes anytime soon?
My simple question is if we have barely even rolled out driverless trains and they only exist on a very small fraction of services, then how on earth are we supposed to have pilotless planes anytime soon?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is talking about pilotless a/c. They claim the argument is proved by crewless other transport services. Unfortunately Mother-nature doesn't affect those other services in quite the same way. I grant you that on a perfect day a pilotless a/c might, just might succeed; even a drone ground controlled a/c might quote with some dodgy circumstances. Today the pressure is to depart with minimum fuel. Consider the scenario where things do not go ideally as planned and decisions need to be made; options considered and choices made, but fuel does not give you much spare time. What about the on-board emergency that throws a spanner in the works and an en-route diversion is needed. What about arriving at destination with a little spare fuel and the runway is blocked for an estimated delay that just might be manageable, but you'd end up below final reserve if you hold.
If all they are doing is trying to save pilot salary costs & training + recurrence costs, what about cabin crew costs? What about unnecessary diversion costs and the consequent costs of flight cancellations? Are they going to remove cabin crew? Are they going to cancel pax compensation payments?
It's all pie in the sky. There is more to the argument than technology. Conference calls can remove the need for much business travel. Virtual reality, home style, can remove the need for holiday breaks. I can sit at home with a viral tour of a city on my smat=phone and goggles, then go out to a local restaurant of the relevant cuisine. If necessary I can have an afternoon in Centre Parks as well. But we don't. Before we get pilotless a/c there will be driverless taxis. That will have to succeed first. Then perhaps crewless ferries and cruise ships. Self-ticketing ferris and bring your own food & booze on cruises. Don't think anytime soon.
If all they are doing is trying to save pilot salary costs & training + recurrence costs, what about cabin crew costs? What about unnecessary diversion costs and the consequent costs of flight cancellations? Are they going to remove cabin crew? Are they going to cancel pax compensation payments?
It's all pie in the sky. There is more to the argument than technology. Conference calls can remove the need for much business travel. Virtual reality, home style, can remove the need for holiday breaks. I can sit at home with a viral tour of a city on my smat=phone and goggles, then go out to a local restaurant of the relevant cuisine. If necessary I can have an afternoon in Centre Parks as well. But we don't. Before we get pilotless a/c there will be driverless taxis. That will have to succeed first. Then perhaps crewless ferries and cruise ships. Self-ticketing ferris and bring your own food & booze on cruises. Don't think anytime soon.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driverless trains came out donkeys ago, yet take a trip down to any major train station and how many driverless trains do you see? I counted 0 in Euston yesterday. Train drivers aren't exactly cheap either.
My simple question is if we have barely even rolled out driverless trains and they only exist on a very small fraction of services, then how on earth are we supposed to have pilotless planes anytime soon?
My simple question is if we have barely even rolled out driverless trains and they only exist on a very small fraction of services, then how on earth are we supposed to have pilotless planes anytime soon?
Driverless trains are often cited as "proof" that pilotless airplanes are just around the corner. This ignores that there is a huge difference between the two. A train moves in only one direction ..along the track and the controls on a train are pretty simple: speed up, slow down, or apply brake. That's it. apply power or apply brake. And in every forseeable emergency situation with a train, the correct action is "apply brake". There's really no comparison with something that maneuvers freely in all 3 dimensions and can not simply stop, right now, as can a train.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
indeed, but for now however it seems we'll just have to put up with the nonsense from many of those outside the flying game about how our jobs are all gonna be taken over by a computer 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No pilots
No pilots in the cockpit will not happen in the next 30 years or my guess even never.
Flying has so many variables:
-GPS ( flick of a button it can be switched off or jammed ...it happened to me)
-dogs crossing the runway. ( happened to me)
-birds (ask captain Sully)
-GS calling you 1500ft/min down and autopilot following.
-So many weather factors ....lightning/hail/turbulence etc etc
-I am not even talking about things breaking down.
-Passengers or cargo are also a huge variable they can do some strange stuff
Of course there are sufficient examples of pilot error but you don’t hear of all the times were we pilot needs to intervene due to system error. If we would simply not do our job then a lot more accidents would happen. The fact that flying is so safe is because we sit there to counteract (normally) any of these variables.
I read in a article that the US (only) loses on average about 25 Reapers a year of the 400 they have. That would mean we would lose around 2500 aircraft a year if there were 40.000 aircraft worldwide.
Connecting an aircraft to a ground station gives also another dozen problems.
Even Voyager in Star Wars flying at warp speed has a captain
As long as airlines keep buying aircraft there will be a shortage for qualified pilots. I do not foresee a change of the buying trend.
I don’t believe there will be a shortage for inexperienced pilots. Finding pilots to school is easy just open a funded program and the classes will be full but getting pilots experienced is a different story. That wil take much more time.
Also a continent which will require a huge amount of pilots in the future is Africa.
Flying has so many variables:
-GPS ( flick of a button it can be switched off or jammed ...it happened to me)
-dogs crossing the runway. ( happened to me)
-birds (ask captain Sully)
-GS calling you 1500ft/min down and autopilot following.
-So many weather factors ....lightning/hail/turbulence etc etc
-I am not even talking about things breaking down.
-Passengers or cargo are also a huge variable they can do some strange stuff
Of course there are sufficient examples of pilot error but you don’t hear of all the times were we pilot needs to intervene due to system error. If we would simply not do our job then a lot more accidents would happen. The fact that flying is so safe is because we sit there to counteract (normally) any of these variables.
I read in a article that the US (only) loses on average about 25 Reapers a year of the 400 they have. That would mean we would lose around 2500 aircraft a year if there were 40.000 aircraft worldwide.
Connecting an aircraft to a ground station gives also another dozen problems.
Even Voyager in Star Wars flying at warp speed has a captain
As long as airlines keep buying aircraft there will be a shortage for qualified pilots. I do not foresee a change of the buying trend.
I don’t believe there will be a shortage for inexperienced pilots. Finding pilots to school is easy just open a funded program and the classes will be full but getting pilots experienced is a different story. That wil take much more time.
Also a continent which will require a huge amount of pilots in the future is Africa.
Last edited by dervis; 30th Dec 2017 at 21:01.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: six micro tesla zone
Age: 33
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My uncle ran his own engineering firm and would from take his products from R&D, testing, manufacturing right through to sales. Something no engineering firm does these days. A bit of advice he gave me was to never be the first to try something, always be the second and learn from the first’s mistakes.
Thus, this is another point to consider concerning pilotless aircraft. That is why Boeing, Airbus or any major airline is not in a rush to try out unmanned aircraft. Whilst pilotless aircraft are a concept with some feasiblilty, actually making them a reality presents colossal challenges and many opportunities for massive failure.
Take MOL for example, who hates pilots and would love to get rid of them, if he thought there was even a hint of a chance of having pilotless aircraft successfully flying for Ryanair he would be breaking his neck to make it happen. However, he has already said to his share holders that he can’t see it happening in his lifetime. He knows rightly that pilotless airliners are a huge risk right now and he won’t be the first to take the risk.
I think it will ultimately be the bonus hungry CEOs and shareholders that push for pilotless aircraft working in conjunction with small entrepreneurial aviation research companies. It’ll start of a small experiment and maybe after many decades of trial and error we might finally fly on pilotless airliners.
Thus, this is another point to consider concerning pilotless aircraft. That is why Boeing, Airbus or any major airline is not in a rush to try out unmanned aircraft. Whilst pilotless aircraft are a concept with some feasiblilty, actually making them a reality presents colossal challenges and many opportunities for massive failure.
Take MOL for example, who hates pilots and would love to get rid of them, if he thought there was even a hint of a chance of having pilotless aircraft successfully flying for Ryanair he would be breaking his neck to make it happen. However, he has already said to his share holders that he can’t see it happening in his lifetime. He knows rightly that pilotless airliners are a huge risk right now and he won’t be the first to take the risk.
I think it will ultimately be the bonus hungry CEOs and shareholders that push for pilotless aircraft working in conjunction with small entrepreneurial aviation research companies. It’ll start of a small experiment and maybe after many decades of trial and error we might finally fly on pilotless airliners.
Radio Altiimeter failures that create EGPWS warnings ( had it )
Weather that creates EGPWS warnings through the rad alt ( had it)
AOA vanes being blown by a stiff breeze on the ground creating stick shaker while lining up ( had it)
Cabin temperature reading 22 degrees when in fact it was over 30 and climbing, no other indications apart from pax getting very upset ( had it)
You’d have to start from scratch with all these system designs because they all rely on the pilot intervening if they go wrong. Starting from scratch will be very expensive.
Can you imagine if the weather forecasters get it wrong and all jets for capitol city A divert to Alternate B because that’s the only place they have enough gas for? With no Captain who is going to say six hours earlier at the pre flight stage “ nah actually we’ll put on another tonne cause I’m not sure the forecasters have got this right”? Certainly not the earth bound ‘dispatcher’. I’ve seen that too and people were parking aircraft on grass to get jets off the runway for fuel critical airborne aircraft.
I would bet that it won’t happen in my children’s lifetime.
Weather that creates EGPWS warnings through the rad alt ( had it)
AOA vanes being blown by a stiff breeze on the ground creating stick shaker while lining up ( had it)
Cabin temperature reading 22 degrees when in fact it was over 30 and climbing, no other indications apart from pax getting very upset ( had it)
You’d have to start from scratch with all these system designs because they all rely on the pilot intervening if they go wrong. Starting from scratch will be very expensive.
Can you imagine if the weather forecasters get it wrong and all jets for capitol city A divert to Alternate B because that’s the only place they have enough gas for? With no Captain who is going to say six hours earlier at the pre flight stage “ nah actually we’ll put on another tonne cause I’m not sure the forecasters have got this right”? Certainly not the earth bound ‘dispatcher’. I’ve seen that too and people were parking aircraft on grass to get jets off the runway for fuel critical airborne aircraft.
I would bet that it won’t happen in my children’s lifetime.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you have all missed is how pilotless planes will occur. They will simply be operated like drones are today. They will be pilotless, but not automated like a trains. The ‘pilot’ will simply fly the plane from a remote location in Nevada and all of the problems/issues of not having a human interface to deal with circumstances as they arrive will be solved.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which leaves you still needing to pay for pilots so what’s the point of the aircraft being unmanned? They do it in the military for obvious reasons which don’t really apply to commercial aviation.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you have all missed is how pilotless planes will occur. They will simply be operated like drones are today. They will be pilotless, but not automated like a trains. The ‘pilot’ will simply fly the plane from a remote location in Nevada and all of the problems/issues of not having a human interface to deal with circumstances as they arrive will be solved.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g-code
100% spot on. Unfortunately trans-national unions and even a framework for trans-national collective agreements are something that the collective unions and umbrella unions of the EU totally failed to grasp.
My feeling is that unions preferred to keep their national fiefdoms and the influence that came with the ability to negotiate contracts, which they were not willing to share. They totally overlooked the "divide and rule" possibilities that came with increased "agility" of corporations moving parts of their production intra-EU-"offshore", especially after the opening of a substantially cheaper labor market with the eastward expansion.
While companies can basically operate anywhere within the EU with minimal fuss, most countries labor laws don't even allow you to sign a CLA that is valid outside your own countries borders. A scope clause signed for an Alpine airline is worth nil in the neighboring country.
You can't even blame pilot unions for this as they're way too small to introduce EU-wide contracts. That was botched by the big umbrella unions who form ETF and EGB and represent labor vis-a-vis the EU institutions.
You can blame pilot unions for taking veeery long to realize that we need a strong European representation. ECE is woefully small compared to what the employers muster in terms of BRU lobbying power and many large pilot unions prefer to spend money on their home organization rather than increase forces in BRU. They still bear the brunt of ECAs spending as there are smaller unions who claim that their pilots don't earn enough to pay the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes per month to ensure their representation.
If every pilot would join a union and pay union dues at ALPA levels we might not get European CLAs but we would be able to get way more leverage. Unfortunately there are too many cheap pilots and freeloaders who shirk union membership.
Direct recruitment of union members via ECA (and maybe a way of attributing some of their dues to the national union of their current workplace) might also help.
100% spot on. Unfortunately trans-national unions and even a framework for trans-national collective agreements are something that the collective unions and umbrella unions of the EU totally failed to grasp.
My feeling is that unions preferred to keep their national fiefdoms and the influence that came with the ability to negotiate contracts, which they were not willing to share. They totally overlooked the "divide and rule" possibilities that came with increased "agility" of corporations moving parts of their production intra-EU-"offshore", especially after the opening of a substantially cheaper labor market with the eastward expansion.
While companies can basically operate anywhere within the EU with minimal fuss, most countries labor laws don't even allow you to sign a CLA that is valid outside your own countries borders. A scope clause signed for an Alpine airline is worth nil in the neighboring country.
You can't even blame pilot unions for this as they're way too small to introduce EU-wide contracts. That was botched by the big umbrella unions who form ETF and EGB and represent labor vis-a-vis the EU institutions.
You can blame pilot unions for taking veeery long to realize that we need a strong European representation. ECE is woefully small compared to what the employers muster in terms of BRU lobbying power and many large pilot unions prefer to spend money on their home organization rather than increase forces in BRU. They still bear the brunt of ECAs spending as there are smaller unions who claim that their pilots don't earn enough to pay the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes per month to ensure their representation.
If every pilot would join a union and pay union dues at ALPA levels we might not get European CLAs but we would be able to get way more leverage. Unfortunately there are too many cheap pilots and freeloaders who shirk union membership.
Direct recruitment of union members via ECA (and maybe a way of attributing some of their dues to the national union of their current workplace) might also help.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Majority of the people advocating the case for pilotless aircraft have never been even remotely interested to become pilots. It is potential saving of 1m+ per annum per aircraft which drives it and therefore the winner is known already. Now it is just a matter of time.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who precisely is going to invest in the "capital bridge" required to transition to the pilotless future? The airlines may reap the saving, but will ATC & airports are simply saddled with the costs? Once the transition is complete ATC & airports are going to want a Return On Investment (ROI). Everyone wants to see their ROI, locked in at minimum risk and it is one hell of a capital expense to transition every single one of the multitude of components at every single airport.
The next issue is until every piece of the puzzle is completely solved at every airport, there will have to be a transition where everyones costs are increased costs as a hybrid system will be required, with both remote & manned operations. The flight deck will still be required to give aircraft the flexibility, so no weight saving there, but with the additional cost of certification & duplication for remote ops for the lifetime of the aircraft.
Aircraft without manned capability will become only be able to fly between certain ports until the end of the transition, and this will limit their valuation in the second hand market. This was exactly the case with very large cargo ships. In many cases they were designed for specific port pairs for maximum efficiency, but were too big for any other routes. If that port pair had competition or suffered economic decline, the capital value of the ship was smashed as it had limited economic value on the secondary market. Aviation has had it's own version of this, the A380. Have the airports that invested capital to support the A380 got their required ROI? I am sure many in hindsight would not have made the investment.
Once the transition is announced, almost every piece of equipment that cannot transition to the new system is devalued as it's operating life is reduced, thus it second hand value is reduced. Previous software investment that is incompatible goes to ZERO quickly. Will the savings for the airlines justify the capital write-downs elsewhere in the system?
If you want to see how costly a major structural transition like this occurs, The Box By Marc Levinson. He follows the transition from Break Bulk cargo to containerisation, and getting everyone in the system to agree and pay for the transition. In the case of break bulk there were literally enormous savings available as every piece of cargo had to be transferred and broken up, stowed at the origin and the reverse process at the destination. This was incredibly labour intensive & expensive, with high rates of damage & loss. Yet, the transition was a Herculean task.
So yes, you are correct, it might save the airlines money, but will everyone else in the system get the savings too? It might be possible, however the bean counters elsewhere will want to make sure they get a cut of the savings and a sufficient ROI to make the risk worth while. One thing that is almost certain, the bulk of any savings are unlikely to be passed on the passenger, rather it will be captured by some entity within the system, be it manufacturers, ATC, airlines or airports.
Read Levinson's book to see how difficult a transition is despite the overwhelming economic savings dwarfing those available to airlines as a percentage of controllable costs. There is much more to this than simply removing the cockpit crew cost. Everyone in the system must agree to transition to something new, with high financial risk, therefore requiring a high ROI before the transition can begin. There are huge risks to committing to some programme without certainty of success.
Is it ultimately inevitable? Probably, but technology will have to advance to the point that it is almost a dead certainty to work before the bean counters in every part of the system decide the risks are low enough. The technology is far too immature for that. Large IT project have a high failure rate and the financial risks are still far too high. However, once the technology has reached maturity, the transition will occur quickly, as it ultimately did for shipping and containerisation.
The next issue is until every piece of the puzzle is completely solved at every airport, there will have to be a transition where everyones costs are increased costs as a hybrid system will be required, with both remote & manned operations. The flight deck will still be required to give aircraft the flexibility, so no weight saving there, but with the additional cost of certification & duplication for remote ops for the lifetime of the aircraft.
Aircraft without manned capability will become only be able to fly between certain ports until the end of the transition, and this will limit their valuation in the second hand market. This was exactly the case with very large cargo ships. In many cases they were designed for specific port pairs for maximum efficiency, but were too big for any other routes. If that port pair had competition or suffered economic decline, the capital value of the ship was smashed as it had limited economic value on the secondary market. Aviation has had it's own version of this, the A380. Have the airports that invested capital to support the A380 got their required ROI? I am sure many in hindsight would not have made the investment.
Once the transition is announced, almost every piece of equipment that cannot transition to the new system is devalued as it's operating life is reduced, thus it second hand value is reduced. Previous software investment that is incompatible goes to ZERO quickly. Will the savings for the airlines justify the capital write-downs elsewhere in the system?
If you want to see how costly a major structural transition like this occurs, The Box By Marc Levinson. He follows the transition from Break Bulk cargo to containerisation, and getting everyone in the system to agree and pay for the transition. In the case of break bulk there were literally enormous savings available as every piece of cargo had to be transferred and broken up, stowed at the origin and the reverse process at the destination. This was incredibly labour intensive & expensive, with high rates of damage & loss. Yet, the transition was a Herculean task.
So yes, you are correct, it might save the airlines money, but will everyone else in the system get the savings too? It might be possible, however the bean counters elsewhere will want to make sure they get a cut of the savings and a sufficient ROI to make the risk worth while. One thing that is almost certain, the bulk of any savings are unlikely to be passed on the passenger, rather it will be captured by some entity within the system, be it manufacturers, ATC, airlines or airports.
Read Levinson's book to see how difficult a transition is despite the overwhelming economic savings dwarfing those available to airlines as a percentage of controllable costs. There is much more to this than simply removing the cockpit crew cost. Everyone in the system must agree to transition to something new, with high financial risk, therefore requiring a high ROI before the transition can begin. There are huge risks to committing to some programme without certainty of success.
Is it ultimately inevitable? Probably, but technology will have to advance to the point that it is almost a dead certainty to work before the bean counters in every part of the system decide the risks are low enough. The technology is far too immature for that. Large IT project have a high failure rate and the financial risks are still far too high. However, once the technology has reached maturity, the transition will occur quickly, as it ultimately did for shipping and containerisation.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up high
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admire peoples optimism about what technology can do but right now we are a long away from being able to build pilotless aircraft with anything like the reliability of current manned aircraft. For a start current AI systems work by feeding the computer millions of examples of what you what the computer to do and letting the system write its own code. From an aviation perspective a self written code with unknown failure points is just not going to pass any kind of certification. Only a couple of years ago Airbus issued an OEB that required pilots to manually turn off the Air Data Computers to force the aircraft into Alternate Law (direct control of the aircraft) in certain conditions to avoid an uncommanded dive. This is with a extremely mature design which is continuously updated and certified to current standards. Current aircraft have plenty of known and unknown bugs that require the pilot intervention. When Boeing and Airbus can fix those bugs and I don't have to do several manual computer resets in my working week, maybe they can begin to think about the other challenges of building a pilotless airliner.
Pilotless aircraft? I doubt it. People will always want a person to have “final say” - as others have pointed out, intercity trains still have drivers after all.
What will happen over the next (10+) years, is a transition to single pilot airliners. All the safety of “man-in-the-loop”, a halving of pilot salary costs (maybe more) and the punters will lap it up. Particularly when this gets approval.
https://news.sky.com/story/robot-co-...lator-10881082
www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/embraer-reveals-vision-for-single-pilot-airliners-343348/
What will happen over the next (10+) years, is a transition to single pilot airliners. All the safety of “man-in-the-loop”, a halving of pilot salary costs (maybe more) and the punters will lap it up. Particularly when this gets approval.
https://news.sky.com/story/robot-co-...lator-10881082
www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/embraer-reveals-vision-for-single-pilot-airliners-343348/