Flieng, if you're going to proportion blame you really need to do it based on contribution.

As cadets contribute nothing to the T&Cs they are offered, I cannot see how they can be blamed any more than 1% for what gets put in front of them. As you say:

You may argue that as they accept such conditions they should be 100% accountable. It's a fair point but consider your opinion I've quoted above.

In response to my original question regarding "what would you do?"
I proposed a hypothetical situation for you in which it gave you the opportunity to play devils advocate. I wasn't interested in your personal finances or how good your relationships with your family were. Unsurprisingly you avoided to answer what I was trying to get at. I presume your are either too proud to admit on a public forum you would follow the same training path so many are currently doing, or you simply missed my point. After all you did say...... See quote above! (Again)

Imagine you're 30 years younger and just finished training with a fresh licence in your hand.

In reply to your foolish comment I'm think that is rather offensive. I started training and things changed mid course. As I've said before nothing would have given me greater pleasure to tell CTC to stick it when told I'd have to pay if I wanted to go to eJ! But I took a calculated gamble. If my decision was so foolish why is it now that I'm on a very competitive salary with another airline, living a very enviable lifestyle? A little over two years after I started flying the big stuff. I was lucky but it proves my choice didn't turn out to be foolish at all, far from it in fact. I'm not the only one either.

eJ have also introduced a New Entrant Contract. It may not be as good as it what it used to be but it's an improvement. It provides a structured career path that is very attractive to some. I'm sure many cadets starting their training will be happy with what's on offer. I wasn't, which is why I left. But that's irrelevant to the topic in hand.

Unfortunately expectations have changed and it is now less frowned upon to self fund the type rating. In fact your job opportunities in some airlines may not be great if you don't. I don't agree with this personally but until you change expectations, you will not change behaviour.

We agree changing cadets mentality will be a fruitless exercise. Thus the only way to bring this to an end is to stop the practice altogether or make it illegal.

Here lies the true problem. They (LoCos predominately) are not anymore. And who can blame them as there's no restriction to what they can do. They're a business and will do what they can within their powers to compete.

Again only governments and the regulatory authority will have the power to forbid self funded type ratings. I think I'll be retired before that happens.

Good night! :ok:

I hope you don't feel I'm quoting out of context here...

You say this as if it's a terrible fate to be stuck in a job flying a piston twin or light turboprop....something like a Navajo or King Air I presume? Maybe flying packages around at night on short haul in bad weather with many stops.

In my experience, pilots who have spent a few years in this type of job are among the most skilled and professional aviators I've ever worked with.

I think it's a major fallacy in airline hiring that they seem to prefer time in type or experience in automated cockpits when hiring. It's easier to teach a skilled pilot to work in an automated cockpit flying a jet transport than it is to teach good airmanship to a non skilled pilot while flying an in an automated cockpit.

limited choices?
 

Disingenuous. If those were the only two other options you envisaged, I think that speaks volumes.

You don't accept that people who have paid to work have any culpability with respect to the almost total reshaping of the airline hiring market, which I cannot agree with. As I said, they must shoulder a portion of the blame for their part in this.

Yes, 'relegate' could imply having been moved down and as you point out, those pilots accruing relevant commercial experience have not had the opportunity to fly jets due to the floods of pilots paying to work. Try 'consigned' instead; see if the overall message of the paragraph magically becomes clear. I absolutely agree; it's better to focus on a word than the overall message.


Lifeafteraviation,

I agree. There's nothing wrong with flying Barons, Chieftains, King Airs. From personal experience, it doesn't pay enough to make a career out of and therefore isn't sustainable long term. At some point, you need to access the higher salaries commensurate with larger aircraft.

Disingenuous!!! :} :} :}

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week! Cheers for cheering me up at least. If you knew me, you'd know I'm anything but. In fact quite the opposite.

To be frank they weren't the only two options, but they were the two most people are familiar with.

If in your opinion, cadets must shoulder some portion of the blame, then what percentage do you think they're responsible for? I've given up my opinion. Don't just sit there pointing fingers! :=

Semantics are semantics. Your argument about turbo prop guys and multi engine piston guys are still moot as they do still get opportunities with the airlines. Your opinion that they are "consigned" to the scrap heap is simply uneducated and incorrect. I do agree they should be given more opportunity though if that's a common agreement?

In respect to cadets, is paying for a type rating up front even considered a pay-to-fly scheme? I'm genuinely interested to know peoples thoughts. When I paid for mine there were no hours connected to it. In fact had I spent the next 30 years at easyjet would people still be angry towards me? Even though that initial investment would have been paid for ten times over.

I think there needs to be a clearer distinction between true pay-to-fly schemes, whereby you're paying a fixed amount of hours at an airline, and cadets trying to help themselves get onto the ladder. I still don't agree with the latter even though I've done it myself!

Exactly, but it pays vastly more than any PTF job no matter how large the aircraft.

If I were on the other side of the desk doing the hiring...I would take the guy with time in the weeds over a lower time guy with jet time. Unfortunately, the airlines seem to disagree... probably because they don't let pilots make the staffing decisions anymore.

If it rains on the crest of a hill, the water flows downhill.

Blaming this generation of pilots for the decline in terms and conditions at all levels in the industry is akin to blaming the rivers for filing after the rains.

Had the older generation of pilots been born closer to the millennium than the end of WWII or during the Swinging Sixties, they too would have seen a job market collapse, traditional 'self-improvement' options die a death, and the advent of the locos. As with the current crop of cadets, the bold and the desperate would find a way of funding their 'dream' career while the others would give up. Many of the 'others' could be potential Chuck Yaegers, just as I should have played footie for Man United but never got my chance.

Responsibility for the state of the industry should lie at the feet of the Regulators and Capitalism - the combination of dark forces which have reduced red tape to allow increased profits for the elite; promoted incredibly cheap flights and holidays for the masses in the name of social fairness; and which have allowed a profession to be devalued by likening the piloting of highly complex airplanes at 35,000 feet to driving buses.

Sprinkles

I countered your argument that people paying to work are not to blame. I've stated that I disagree and in my opinion they share some of the blame.That's not finger pointing, it's disagreeing. Frankly, at this point we may as well leave the whole thing to the historians as the horse has well and truly bolted.

I don't understand your desire to assign 'percentages of blame'. Any attempt to weight such an assessment would be so heavily biased by personal experience. It's completely puerile.

As for my comment regarding turboprop pilots; what education do you deem suitable? Eight years flying piston twins and turboprops, plus the shared experience of pilots from three other turboprop airlines at my base? Whilst I freely admit this is neither an exhaustive or definitive sample, my opinion cannot be 'incorrect' as it's the everyday reality ofa vast number of my colleagues. Whilst I wish it were so easy to glibly dismiss this entire situation as 'uneducated and incorrect' it is reality for a great many of my colleagues. In the interest of transparency, how much experience of being a turboprop captain, trying to get your break, do you have Sprinkles?



Lifeafteraviation,

Again, I entirely agree with you. Regarding remuneration; initially it will pay more than a loan repayment although not much. In the long run, in my opinion it doesn't. But it's purely my opinion and I base it on my own experience from my piston/TP years in aviation: first three years averaged $11k net pa (free accommodation) as a piston twin skipper; next three years $16.5k net pa as a TP F/O; next two years £32k net pa as a multicrew TP skipper.

Journey man I beg to differ about finger pointing. But we'll go around in circles with that so let's just say we agree to disagree.

In reply to you being incorrect. Did you not say those flying light twins and turbo props get no advancement to jets despite accruing many thousands of hours and commercial experience? That sir, is undoubtably 100% incorrect. I know of a few ex turbo prop guys at our outfit. If you were not incorrect, how have these guys got to where they are?

I agree you guys are over looked and I know it's hard to believe but I am actually on your side. You turbo prop/light twin pilots need more opportunities in my opinion. Despite my experience I think it's great that my outfit gives everyone a fair shout should you be lucky to get an interview. They could, if they wanted to farm everyone from the likes of easy! In my opinion all airlines should take a mixture of ex Military, light twin and turbo prop and cadets.

To clarify I have no turbo prop experience. I was a "cadet" who went straight into the airlines. As you say attributing proportional blame is puerile because it is always a bias exercise. I don't blame cadets entirely because I was one. You on the other hand, probably proportion more blame because you understandably feel resentful towards people like me who bypassed you. I think that's a very fair emotion to display given the circumstances.

It is precisely this point that I believe blaming any group of pilots is a futile and pointless exercise. Yes some may have to shoulder some responsibility but that isn't constructive to the thread is it?

May I make bold suggestion that from this point forward none of us sit here blaming anyone retrospectively. And instead band together, look after one and all, including new cadets and suggest ways to stop these schemes from happening. Either it being lobbying, unions, letters to MPs to ASRs when someone turns up sick because they've paid for the pleasure to be there.

As a professional body we need to start looking for solutions. Ranting on this forum will get us, and future pilots nowhere.

I made reference only to those TP pilots who haven't had the opportunities they may well deserve to advance their career. This is different to saying that no TP pilots ever progress. Now I have my jet command, I can look back on the way I've done things and feel immensely proud of what I've achieved in an unfavourable market. Hence it would be incorrect of me to purely say that no TP pilots advance to jets, which wasn't the intention of the above quoted statement.

Bitter resentment is not really relevant here. It won't solve any of the issues. I agree that spirited back-and-forths on PPRuNe are not going to resolve the issue...! I do believe I can say that the pay to work pilots have contributed to the shift towards an almost exclusive pay to work hiring market. They are not alone. As you've already said, market forces and the airlines are also factors, as are those who've sat around and done nothing. I'm pleased that we're in agreement that deciding who's more to blame is preposterous at this stage. Likewise, for me it's personally important that I do all I can to help those pilots who're getting the traditional apprenticeship. The journeymen.

I fully agree with you that as a profession we should be contesting the pay to work model much more vociferously. However when one group of pilots can't see the damage they've caused through their actions, and another group of pilots can't see the damage they've caused through their inaction, I don't hold out much hope. As a skipper, I've always felt that the responsibility for your crew extends beyond the cockpit.

As a professional group there is a lot of merit in drawing a line in the sand, getting past the blame, and fighting for a fair package for pilots at the bottom of the rung would be a start and help build a solid foundation for the future.

As you say, there's a lot we agree on. Enjoy the weekend :ok: