airlines who ask pilots to pay to fly !
 

I can not believe that some airlines sell hours to their copilot.
How long pilots will accept this kind of treatment?

Is it legal from a company who turns their business into a flight School or Flightclub?
if it was legal, where is their TRTO certificate or something to prove they can train students(and no pilots, because real pilot don't pay to work)?

HOW LEGAL IS THAT ??????is the CAA corrupt or what? how much they( CAA administrators) receive "under the table" to keep their mouth shut?

Why the CAA accept hours flown from these students (pilots) when time building has been done illegally?

Who is guilty? airlines? the CAA or the Government?

Do you think passengers are willing and happy to pay money to a "type rated student" to fly a 40T Jet?knowing he will take 0 responsibility...(oh!, I am paying to fly, they can't do anything against me, so I don't care if I screw up).

At least Madhof didn't play with your soul, but with your money only!


Please, explain me in WHAT :mad: WORLD WE LIVE?

Where have you been for the past 20 + years:rolleyes::confused:??? where are you going to be for the next 20 years:rolleyes:?

Pilots are selfish and egotistical. They would sell their Grandmother if they thought it would give them an advantage.

It's a fact, airlines know it's a fact. They use it to their advantage. Pilots then bitch about it while dropping their trousers and bending over.

Egotistical and selfish?!?!? Sir I find your statement grossly outrageous stating the character of many within our industry!

A pilot’s choice to pay to play is his/her own. It’s not you or me to stand in judgment… that sir… would not only be egotistical… but arrogant to... as I find your statement to be!:=:=:=

As long as we have pilots buy their own TR's... :}

Well captjns, or Captjns as it really should be, where have you been the last 20+ years?

Stop living in times long gone. Character is no longer desired in this industry. It is now frowned upon

Screw or be screwed is the new motto.

One can just choose whether to be screwed with or without lubricants. With lowcosts you will be charged if you choose the latter option.

O O

Line training on the fluff acting as a TCE on the fluff with a US carrier... where were you?

I have one view on this matter. An airline who chooses their pilots on the only basis who will pay for their training, are in my opinion not a workplace with a bright future. On top of being not willing to invest in training, the T and C´s also are in the same manner. Companies will have difficulty in retaining their talent and experience if they have employees who paid for the job and do not think they owe the company sh..t.

Anyone who pays to WORK is a ****ing idiot!

If you want to pay to fly, go to your local flying club.:ok:

Well if you sancitmonious lot want to wind your necks in for just a minute and think before opening your mouth, how many professional level careers (career, not 'job') do you think you can get right now (not 20 years ago) without paying. Any guesses? I'd suggest, ooh, roughly zero.
Even a basic batchelors degree from a middling university is going to run you about 25 grand these days. Then what? Take a lawyer, Law school fees for example costs you alot - no salary and no job offer either at this point. Then a solicitor will do 2 years 'articles' on a salary that is pretty much minimum wage, Barristers will not earn at all (i,e work for free) and may have to pay some money to do their pupilage - oh my god - what horror - fancy demeaning yourself and paying to work :rolleyes: Anyone ever heard of 'internships' - much sought after training oportunities, often in the finance industry, in top companies - guess what - they don't get paid either
Accountants, doctors (OK - they are paid by the ever generous NHS in the UK), teachers will all do postgrad training on low or zero salaries with not inconsiderable risk. So perhaps you can all stop whinging and thinking the world owes us a living.

Granted paying for hours is probably taking it a little far (although as i've said is little different to a barrister), but paying for the 1st type rating - find me an airline that doesn't do that one way or another. Even BA put cadets on a low salary for the first few years - you end up paying for the first rating one way or another.
There are some airlines around that have incredibly dubious employment practices - getting the newbies to pay for the training is not really that high up on the list of worries- or shouldn't be.

Another point to bear in mind is that the experience levels some of these pilots present with, would never have found them a "proper jet job" historically. In the past most operators of jet aircraft would have sourced their first officers from both the military and those civilian pilots who had worked their way up through air taxis and later turbo prop operators, presenting themselves with at least 2 years experience and upwards of 1000 hours turbine experience.

This accelerating trend of "vanity publishing" jet co-pilot training is a great revenue set up, in that it not only substantially reduces the flightdeck cost element, but actually generates revenue from a non revenue seat. If companies could do away with 2 pilots they certainly would, but that is a complete non starter. This way is even better. The right hand seat is occupied by a revenue generator who actually subsidises the cost of the left hand seat.

I wonder how long it will be before a way is found to get the left seat to generate revenue in a similar way? I expect it is being seriously thought about. Only when an accident or serious incident occurs where (even though it may not be causal) this practice causes "Daily Mail/SKY News" type public outrage, will the regulators, operators and insurance industry run for the nearest rock, and restrictions to these practices will be brought in. However that will do nothing to provide "jet jobs" for these ridiculously low hour pilots, but will perhaps reverse a dangerous trend.

The advent of new generation jets with sophisticated autopilot/navigation and management/operating systems have made the real time role of a pilot much easier, to the point that the inherent skills and experience are no longer viewed as the pre-requisite they used to be. This is a mistake that will bite from time to time. The industry needs a more "Back to basics" philosophy and it needs to act quickly in my opinion.

Don't recall any accidents with tyros at the controls... Seen alot of accidents at the hands of the so-called experienced be it ex-military or ladder climbers. But incompetence is a subject for a different thread.

I don't really understand the revenue thing being subsidised by the F/O for the Skipper though.

Read it again, including that contained within the brackets.

To illustrate the "revenue thing" Captain £100,000. F/O £58,000 = £158,000.
Captain £100,000. F/O =£0 =£100,000.
Captain £100,000. F/O = Paying £25000 to sit there = £75,000.
In the latter case, F/O not only no net cost, but actually subsidises left hand seat cost.

I am going to get flamed, but... This is perhaps one of the only industries that depends on your own or your parents bank balance, rather than skill.
Before I get shot to bits by the better than thou police.. It's like driving anything, with the correct training ANYONE can do it.
I feel for the people with lots of natural ability but from the wrong background, and they find out too late. They can now afford lessons after years of dreaming and toil, but it's too late to advance past a PPL. Yes I consider my self the latter. How many who are now bitching about the way people are getting into right hand seats, have also paid one way or another??? it's all about money no matter who pays....

Not worth flaming.

PA38, I think it's unfair to say there is no skill involved. There is a basic level, and some people just have more of a knack than others I guess. What's all this about your own natural ability, and wrong background??

Guessing you're from the UK (as I am) that is just a fact of life, and you should already know this going by your age. It's the way things work there, and more so now, with these silly people who fall for all the bullsh*t told to them by the big name CPL/IR places, who feel they are better than everyone else as they will go to a great school, then get a jet job with 250hrs TT. Good for them. :ugh: Pilot's are seen as a higher class in the UK, flying an elite pursuit, and the old boys network and class system is still in force.

I had enough of that crap, so moved stateside, where flying isn't as elitist as in the UK, and with experience and time, any job is open to pretty much anyone. Sure they have airline academies, but they still have good old spit and sawdust flight schools which teach you the art of flying, as opposed to the UK way of saying FREDA,HASELL,BUMPFICH etc at every opportunity, instead of using your hands and feet and controlling your airplane to a good standard while knowing what your doing, and why you're doing it. GA is also doing well here, and you can still make a worthwhile career doing more of the hands-on (more skillful?!) flying you're familiar with from your PPL.

There is an apparent lack of skill in contemporary commercial aviation, what with perfectly serviceable Airbii ploughing into the sea, 737s stalling on final, MD83's flying towards hotels instead of runways, crews landing on taxiways, MD11's cart-wheeling down runways etc etc. There are also more than enough light 'plane "weekend fliers" with their "I'm a stick and rudder, not autopilot guy" who are still killing themselves turning base to final and in other "simple" flight regimes.

I see what you're saying PA38... I fly tailwheel and aerobatics, and am a proficient pilot regarded by my peers as "a good stick" having a good feel for the airplane. I always have, it comes easy to me. (I'm not blowing my own trumpet) :} I have numerous friends, two in particular are from the UK, who either trained with CTC or Oxford Aviation Academy, and 80 grand later are now flying an Easyjet A319, and 757 for Thomas Cook. So yes, bank balance is important, and it may be about money to get with the big boys, but that doesn't mean you can't be just as good a pilot flying a light twin around (at night in IMC :\), or flying precision aerobatics on a weekend. It's what you make of it. The grass is always greener, and it's not all about flying fighter jets with the RAF, or a 747 for BA.

My own view is that EVERYONE with a fATPL should simply say b*ll*cks, and don't pay for anything other than their licences. If nobody was willing to pay for a TR, what would the airlines do? Stop hiring..? I doubt it. As long as pilots are willing to accommodate them, the airlines will still have the upper hand and be able to call the shots.

"If nobody was willing to pay for a TR, what would the airlines do? Stop hiring..? I doubt it."

sapperkenno; lovely theory, but with everyone so desperate for a job out of training a union of 'no TR until YOU pay for it' seems a little distant. As you rightly say the airlines do have an upper hand.

However I've always believed that not enough is being done by the government regarding fATPL studies. I'm sure with the new tax system in uk (50% over 150,000 income), cutting VAT from the cost of an integrated ATPL zero to hero wouldn't really make a significant impact on the desk of Mr Darling? This would save thousands for the individual, probably enough to Include a TR at the end!

It seems Joe Bloggs, who has always dreamed of being a Pilot but hasn't been blessed with a financially sound family really has to pay through the nose to make his dream come true. Might be a little easier with a bit of help through the Tax office...

Just a theory....maybe a little distant too!!

Mercenary Pilot. I was just going to point Captjns to the Thomas Cook incident. There are quite a lot more occurances that have not resulted in an investigation but have been close calls. A friend of mine is flying mostly with so called "Cadet level pilots" he says that their performace or attitude apparently leaves a lot to be desired. Most of them would have never gotten a job flying a jet had they not paid for their own type rating.

JJ and Merc... what was the experience level of the guys about to land on the hotel roof in DUB? Uhh the KAL crew that flew a perfect approach to the Guam VOR??? and then there was the lastest and greatest into AMS??? and then there was.... and.... and....

Over the past 30 years, I given line training to the so called 250 hour wonder birds who were legends in their own minds. After some attitude some motivating speeches and adjustments all was good. Those who did not come to grips of the real world... lets say they went on to bigger and better.:rolleyes:

JJ and Merc... either you guys are too young or to old to remember that back in the '60s US carriers hired the same 250 hour wonder birds with a commercial ticket and in some cases no instrument ratings and are now the sky gods of today... and yes some of them drove their jets into the ground too.

Dear Captjns

I wont be drawn into a meaningless discussion about the experience levels of pilots in different accidents and incidents. Just to remind you, it was you Sir, who brought up the lack of accidents or rather that you don't recall any and you where corrected on the matter.

Further, you are somewhat mistaken on the subject or at the least interpreted my post wrong either by mistake or on purpose.

This thread is NOT about low time pilots but about those who pay their own ratings in order to get a job.

If you read my post again, you might find that my comments where about the latter group. You might also find that the low time pilots "Selected" by airlines where screened carefully for their aptitude (Not to say that HR garbage departments got it right all the time) and not for their financial ability or the size of wallet daddy has. These days, especially with the worsening economical situation, the financial ability seems to be much more important to some low cost operators than suitability of the candidate.

There are however situations that one could consider paying a rating. Lets take a 10000h pilot flying large commercial jets and wanting to move to VIP flying. He or she gets an offer saying that if you are rated on a G550, here's your job and you are on salary now. That could be a tempting proposition especially if the type rating cost is tax deductable partially or the salary covers the incurred cost in a short time. However for a low time pilot with 200 something hours, it is a huge gamble. Personally I could not recommend if there was no guarantee of a well paid job. These days it is unlikely to get a job such as that and more like it they will end up paying for sim assesments, line training and their own upkeep during and after release.

Edited to fit what I really wanted to say.

Well???:confused:

Since you insist. I have now corrected my post.

Sadly it doesn't come down to skill levels or ability to fly. It comes down to the bottom line of some faceless pencil pushing (read Excel bashing) accountant who can entice people to pay for a Type Rating or, even better, Line Training with a scant whiff of the promise of a job at the end of it.

Once there the whiff disappears into the morning mist and the next paying TR applicant sits in the still warm seat.

With the current state of affairs, coupled with FTO's seeming to continue to see the fabled 'pilot shortage' on the horizon and have the ability to sell that better than an East London car salesman in a sheepskin coat can sell a knackered car, there will always be applicants. They feel that paying will give them the 'edge'. Who can tell, maybe in a few years time it will.

This won't change. The airlines have got hold of the bone and it will take a lot to let them drop it. Airline flying is not the most demanding of flying. In fact, after many years flying various types, I have to say it can be downright dull. It does however, in the correct airline, pay the bills well. That will be enticement enough for lots of applicants.

Never insisted... just wanted to know you views.

Apples and oranges... new tryo paying for a type rating on a 737 or Airbus, versus a current qualified captain on the 737 or airbus.

Not going to happen JJ. Insurance companies and corporate flight departments won't permit it do to no time on type (check the job boards)... and the cost of the type rating won't permit it... and why would a B737 type rated pilot pay for a type rating on a Gulfstream, or any other jet whilst there are BBJ jobs available?

[quote] This is perhaps one of the only industries that depends on your own or your parents bank balance, rather than skill.[\quote]

rubbish, utter rubbish.

If you don't understand why then I can't be bothered to point it out.
Some of you obviously have a massive chip on your shoulder about low hour FO's and I must say many of the arguments in this thread are very inventive. Utter crap, but inventive nonetheless.

I suggest you all go and try your arm at another career, as you can obviously just walk into to everything else with no cost, no risk and no training.

If I wanted to move from the Airbus to a G550 with an established VIP company then, to be honest, if they wanted me to pay for a type rating, I wouldn't even contemplate the employer. Type rating costs are tax deductible to the employer. Add to that that an employer with 'in house' training facilities can offset training costs against aircraft operating costs as they can ensure the 'trainee' has been trained to specific company SOP's.

As captjns has already alluded to, a pilot in that position is not necessarily taking his piloting ability to the new company but his experience as an aircraft operator and, with that many hours, as a Captain. This experience will directly affect the operating costs of the aircraft via reduced insurance premiums based upon the aircraft commander experience. It doesn't have to mean experience on type at this stage in a career, unlike at the start of a pilots career.

There are an awful lot of factors that govern who may do what in the cockpit of large jets. The CAA govern many with regard to heavy crews, rest and who may be relief Captain. The bean counters through the insurance companies dictate what limits may be flown by whom in what aircraft to keep the insurance costs down. If an operator wishes to make money out of RHS ab-initio training then those costs have to be very carefully juggled against the increased insurance risk of conducting training for a pilot who may not then join the company. One prang lasts a lifetime in the memory of the company that has to pay for it.

Rest assured, if the insurance costs start to outweigh the monies paid by the trainees then either the system stops or the trainees pay more. Only time will tell.

Well I certainly moved from one type to another and had absolutely ZERO time in the type I moved to. No insurance hassle what so ever. Comparable experience in a larger type more than compensated for my lack of experience in the type I now fly. Mind you I did not pay for my rating though. It was paid for by the company.

JJFlyer,

Erm, that was exactly my point. If you have experience then zero time for another aircraft isn't a problem.

If you are ab-initio then it certainly is as the insurance policy for the aircraft often dictates the bottom line for experience.

Check PM Wobble. My last post was meant for captjns

here we go again,

Is it not about time this forum was restricted to professional pilots, not PPLs, not spotters etc...

Well of course you need money to get through the training - regardless of which way you go about getting the training.

You see, the "skill" element you're talking about here shouldn't just refer to the skill required to fly a plane. It should be extended to include the skill required in thinking ahead about your future aspirations - what you want to do and how you're going to do it. That's the skill. As you say, people like yourself get too many years down the line and can't past a PPL - wishing they'd only had the foresight to do it all a bit earlier (or had the finances earlier).

Too many people on this forum have a long and lengthy habit of shooting down those who've stumped up the cash to get into flight training.

I had to find the cash from somewhere - but my parents didn't have tens of thousands available for me to help myself to. But I also started out on this journey when I was 14 years old. I had to plan my education - whether I was going to go to university or not - thinking ahead - knowing the cost of flight training - weighted up against the cost of university.

I had to get a job after I left school - earn the cash - save it all up. Then ten years later I was able to afford to learn to fly.

Back to the original point - airlines are always going to find ways of cutting costs - paying to fly is just a natural extension of the already-in-existence system of joining an airline on a reduced salary or with a bond. It'll continue to develop and expand as long as it makes the airline money.

..but those who've been in the industry a long while and keep piping up that it's the "new" generation of qualified pilots that are reducing pilot salaries and diluting the industry are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. What do you expect new pilots to do exactly? Insist on NOT paying for their TR? I tried that - but even when I joined my airline, clearly it was evident that I was paying for my TR - albeit over a number of years with a reduced salary / bond. It's the world we live in - it's the nature of the industry - and rather than blame newly qualified pilots about dumbing down T'c & C's - take a long hard look at yourselves.

Try asking yourselves - how did we let it get to this stage...?

A few days ago I asked:
Not long it would seem.

I am a senior pilot at a large biz jet operator. I am and have always been vocally anti pilots paying type ratings. The problem is that we have so many people offering and more importantly many of our competitors do get pilots to pay. This makes it impossible to construct a case with our MD that we should operate in a highly competitive market £100,000 down on our competition.

If they knew (and they don't), I wonder how paying passengers would truly feel about an inexperienced and 'yet-to-be' professional flying them home on a stormy winter evening?

Perhaps the same way they may feel about a 'yet-to-be' professional dentist with the drill in his hand?

Imperator1300

"Perhaps the same way they may feel about a 'yet-to-be' professional dentist with the drill in his hand"

Go down to to the dental department at Guys St Thomas' in London and see 4th year dental students working on Joe public, who's looking to get free dental treatment- the booths are full to the brim.:}

..or 'yet-to-be' hairdressers (as we used to do whilst at Naval college many years ago). There were risks, but we knew and these were balanced against a free haircut (like your Dentists in London, but unlike the pax).

Imperator1300

P.S. There were also benefits to meeting 'yet-to-be' hairdressers ;)

Whilst I fully accept that Joe Public may not be entirely happy about someone who has offered to pay to be in the pointy end, there are two things that I think worthy of note here:

1/ A pilot who has paid for a type rating necessarily HAS the qualification to show that they are safe to fly commercially. The comparison with a trainee dentist, therefore falls apart, because one HAS the professional qualification, the other is working towards it. Further, as has been pointed out - and ignored - endlessly, there is no such thing as a truly "paid for" rating any more. Either you stump up the readies out of your own pocket up front (a la Ryanair) and get a reasonable wage, or the employer pays the TR, but you get a reduced wage for x many years, a la BA. In neither case is the TR "free" - you're paying for it, it's just how.

2/ There is a deeply unpleasant implication in these posts that anyone who has paid for a TR themselves is -defacto- an unsafe pilot, whereas anyone whose company has paid their initial TR is a safe pilot. The flaws in this logic are huge and obvious. If you can't see the elephant in the room of this argument, there is little hope for any of us. A 200 hour graduate is a 200 hour graduate and liable to make the same mistakes regardless of whether they can pay for a rating or not.

Granted, there is an argument that says perhaps those with the cash to pay a rating are able to steal a march on those who are more able, but less cash rich, but then it's equally true to say that the most competent of pilots may be able to afford a TR and the monkey who took 15 attempts to pass CPL can't afford it (especially if they had to pay for those extra 15 attempts!). All of this of course, is based on paying your TR to land a job. The world of line training schemes is a different beast altogether - and a loathsome one at that. But, then - who is to blame for the rise of these?

I think most of you have forgotten "bonding" whereby the airline type rates you and you're bonded a certain amount that degrades pro rata with the months until after a certain time you no longer owe the airline any money if you then resign.. No lower salary either!!

I've never paid for a type rating and I've collected a few now:}

White Knight - I quite agree. EXCEPT that newbies nowadays (if you can find an airline who will pay the TR at all) are expected to accept the bond AND the lower salary. BA being the obvious example I can think of - as a low hour (i.e. no previous type rating) pilot you can expect your starting salary to be £31k, whereas if you enter having already had a TR you start on £48,500. Figures from PPJN, here: British Airways jobs, payscales and entry requirements.

The story is roughly similar at other airlines....if the operator pays the TR at all, the newbie will summarily drop their pants on salary for a defined number of years in addition to the bond. Not necessarily UNfair - but you can see that for your first TR nowadays, you WILL pay for it - by hook or by crook. The only "choice" is whether you'd prefer the hit upfront, or over four/five years....

Admittedly, once you're past that illusive first job (and I say illusive, as I'm busy trying desperately hard to get that break) the bond is the way forward