no sponsor - just to remove any doubt from your mind, I have nothing to do with CTC. I did not enter aviation through them and agree that their stranglehold on new entrant flying is not good for the industry. The fact is, nonetheless, that they have become the primary way into airline flying. I am not agreeing with that, but recognise that if you want to become an Airbus pilot, that is what you must do. I actually agree with EZY, that we should be taking pilots from the turboprop community (that is how I came to fly an Airbus). It is also true to say, that taking people from such backgrounds does not guarantee success at all - we have had our strugglers from there too.

I do not buy into Robert G. Mugabe's argument. If you fly with people whose performance is unsatisfactory then you have a duty to report that to the Training Department so they can be retrained to proficiency. It is always difficult to judge people by their comments on PPRuNe - I know that myself due to the countless inane assumptions made about me at different times. Nonetheless, given your attitude, you may find you are one of the Captains that the cadets dread being with, and consequently their performance suffers accordingly. A Captain can go a long way to create an atmosphere as well as destroy it. You may indeed be a great guy who is expressing genuine concerns or a pain in the neck who people dread being with - only the people you fly with will know that. As we all know, the worst CRM catastrophes are the people least aware that there is anything wrong with the way they conduct themselves. Your beliefs about the cadets would be very insulting to most of them - I just consider them my colleagues who need a hand from time to time, in the same way I did at their stage.

Lies, Damn lies and
 

Maxedout :How much debt have you got? Would you like another £20k debt for a shiny jet TR? Oh and a mandatory JOC course first (Flight International said UK CAA was considering for all non MPL frozen ATPLs!). Ah yes CTC can do one of those for....how much!?!

Then you will be in the same position as now but with an extra £20k loan to repay. Nobody takes zero hour A320/B737 pilots in the UK at least.

Oh, I see then you pay £20k to 30k for 500h "Line training" with an airline banned by FAA and EU.

Come back home to no job as all the requirements are 1000h on type or sorry we don't understand your CV - where did you get those 500h?

Don't listen to Bzb or AdMeerkat! They are looking at the universe through a CTC straw and describing the one planet they can see as if no others exist! Yes EZY have 60% cadet FOs and maybe more at Gatwick. But that looks set to change:

1. With the latest revelations regarding piloting ability and fatigue issues of Flexi deals. Such issues grounded Tiger in Australia recently and now Jetstar cadet scheme is under investigation ( Jetstar cadet scheme under scrutiny )

2. Most of us know what the P2F Captain/Fatigued FO issues surrounding the Colgan crash of 2009 has done to US pilot recruitment and FAA pilot rest requirements.

3. LoCos such as Jet2 have shown you can have a broad spectrum of recruitment and even fund a pilot's TR with a 3 year bond + full pay on the line.

GA in EU is tough but even Alan Sugar thinks it will get better as those businesses that survive the financial drought start to pull through and get back to aviation.

Have you really tried all the TP operators in the UK? EU? In Africa? In Asia?

I know of several pilots who have just started with Loganair and Eastern. Yes, Flybe have their own MPL scheme which has reduced intake from Instructors and other CPLs but the jobs are out there if you are willing to travel and make connections. PPRUNE is not the likeliest place to make them but there are a few genuine pilots willing to assist out there.

Chin up!

Antonov re: Qatar
 

Qatar SO is actually an FO job - it is nothing like a Cathay SO/Cruise only pilot position. Expect to b an SO for 6 months to 1 year max - and you don't make the Capt's bed - you fly the RHS for whole sector incl. T/O and Landing.

Re NSF's comments about the guys struggling just needing help in getting more experience. I agree with the principle, however I disagree that flying one of our buses on the line is the correct theatre to be doing this. I believe travelling joe public might have something to say about this if a serious exposé of our experience levels was conducted in a more public domain.

As for CTC, my and others experience of them matches the old geezers topping up pensions description above. I came from a TP background and had themissfortune to do my 737 rating at CTC. Having allready witnessed training in another airline arena, I had something to compare CTC with when I arrived and the place and it's attitudes were shocking, very unprofessional and different SOPs every day depending on what background today's instructor had. It was nothing but a greedy self serving sausage factory then, since infecting our career with its cancerous ways I do not believe it has become any better.

I do have children who are interested in aviation. They will NOT be going near a CTC cadet scheme if I have a breath in my body or with my cash. In the same way as Captain Sully described on the hill, I do not wish my kids to follow me in my career. I would not inflict the indignity of it upon them.

And Norm, dear chap, a clear path for cadets one day becoming a full time 5354 captain with us? Really? In the past perhaps, but now? What radar are you using to see through the clutter to see this clear path? If things like the current Merlin proposal continue and certain ops directors get their way by the time someone joining today as a flexi CTC cadet is ready for command the job will be unrecognisable compared to the t's and c's you and I enjoy now. The race to the bottom continues unchecked IMHO.

Hahaha, oh yes that brings back the memories of good ol' RAF Dibden! What a bunch of self righteous doorknobs!

I have to say though that line training in EZY (at least back when I was there) was excellent and the overall line flying experience really helped me a lot in my next job. So reading here and also hearing from ex-colleagues (!) about the sometimes questionable quality of the present generation of cadets makes me wonder what's happening. Pay peanuts and get monkeys I suppose... :rolleyes:

I completely agree with you Studi! Very vague indeed why they are so actively defending a rotten system... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/cwm13.gif

Vague? I don't think we could have explained in any greater depth or clarity the reasoning behind the comments or the basis of the observations. What is it that you want to hear (that hasn't already been said,) that would make it any less "vague" for you?

I will always report people who's performance is unsatisfactory as I will praise people who's performance is above average.

However it is slightly unnerving when one gets gypsies warnings from trainers to " watch out for so and so as they are persistently of a below easyJet standard".

To observe the variations of flare technique on landing is mildly "hollow stomach inducing"

I have been in the simulator when my RHS colleague ( on first simulator after line training ) failed due to inadequate proficiency during manual flight.

When our SOP's are limited to the following it does imply a lowering of the mean standard

1. Flap 3 landings will not be trained during First/Second Officer line training.
First/Second Officers joining with no previous airline experience (i.e. OAA/CTC) will retain their AIMS 3* restriction until successful completion of their first recurrent simulator check

2. Max. X-Wind including gusts:– 15kts for FO (with 2 stripes)

3. No PLANNED tailwind landings for 3* F/Os, if the conditions change after the
commencement of the final approach the F/O should continue with the landing.
No Flap 3 landing for 3* F/Os unless in emergency requiring F/O & Flap 3
landing

My personal opinion is ; as I said before ; as a generalisation and an observation the latest batches of the product are not as good as they used to be. So either the training provided by CTC is not as good or the raw material is inferior. One Cadet up north allegedly was convinced the Med was the Atlantic when asked. Great situational awareness.

In addition most of those who struggle seem not to have a connection to the aircraft ( seat of the pants flying to old timers ). This must be due to the fact the training is on very benign types such as the twin star and dare I say it the Airbus. PowerAttitudeTrim and Attitude PowerTrim are concepts some would find foreign.

My beliefs about cadets has no reflection on how I react to/with them. Much the same way my thoughts with regard to gender/sexual orientation/colour and religion have no bearing to how I treat people. Each to their own as long as it does not affect me adversely.

Good luck to those about to pay to fly.Get value for your money.

Ah yes, the good old selective quoting...

Perhaps you care to comment on the complete sentence, including the underlined part? :ouch: How do you, as a pilot, gain anything by actively defending the "pay peanut, get monkeys" scheme which is undermining the entire industry? Aren't you afraid it will eventually dilute your salary, your T&C's and the value of your share options as well? Or are you compensating this potential loss somewhere else?

Because, as I have already stated:
Again, as I already stated:And again:
So once again I ask, and perhaps this time you will actually answer.
What is it that you want to hear (that hasn't already been said,) that would make it any less "vague" for you?

P.S I don't regard it as a "pay peanut(s) get monkeys" scheme. I doubt of all the things that do dilute my salary, the experience levels of First officers who are recruited has a great deal of correlation at this point in time. T&C's have been influenced to an unprecedented degree, by the massive expansion in lo-cost operations. That expansion has been fuelled by demand, and survival for existing carriers is largely a matter of adapt or fail. I don't have any share options so as "a potential loss" it is an equally potential moot point as to where compensation might be sought.

Nothing much really, I think you have exposed yourself enough. Both Studi (post nr 137) and ezydriver (post 138) have hit the nail on the head IMO;

The only thing you are doing here is giving more fuel to the race to the bottom, but obviously you don't care much about what it does to future salaries. As long as your salary and contract is safe, right?

Let's face it, there are already way to many pilots out there, so why should anyone be entitled to go from zero to A319 in 200 hours?

What's this sheer madness of training more and more 200 hour FMGC button pushers in an economy where there are thousands of capable and unemployed jet rated pilots? And speaking of which, why doesn't EZY employ experienced drivers? Could it be that airlines like EZY don't hire experienced pilots anymore because flying schools have invested way too much money in cadets schemes and need a constant stream of gullible souls in order to have enough turnover to avoid them going bankrupt? Is that why you are promoting this nonsense here, one hand washes the other? The airlines get cheap 200 hour cadets, the schools get money and you get your training jobs? And to hell with the consequences to T&C's right?

Still, as I said: it's very vague why anyone would be actively defending such a rotten system and be deliberately cutting into their own flesh like this, as clearly nobody is really benefiting from this except for a certain flying school and a certain airline... :suspect:

Bealzebub
 

If you don't think there is a correlation between the low pay for FO's and the deteriorating conditions generally in our industry, then you are deluded.

You really sound more like McCall & Brady's fantasy wet dream material with such compliant talk.

Perhaps you're near enough retirement to not give a sh1t?

I'm at a loss as to your rationale.

I'd wager that BB is involved as a mentor pilot for their MON CTC Wings thing and thus is hopeful of future earnings ... .
Why are you so myopic that you can't/won't see that when this scheme first started (in 1995/6) it was the start of t+c's going down the pan (by employing guys/gals for effectively nothing), and over the years , regardless of the end products /changing market conditions (the 757 fleet manager for one!) , CTC have progressively made it financially worse for the newbie whilst casually lining their own pockets .
You genuinely should be ashamed of yourself BB , they have helped destroy this profession .

They are not defending a rotten system. They have been at pains to point out that they do not agree with the system. They are merely stating THEIR opinion that CTC is the best way to get into the airline business in the current system. What in the world is there not to understand about that.

The last 3 pages have been full of people disagreeing with Beazlebub and ADM, but no one has shown a better way to get into the airline industry than CTC. If there is a better way in lets hear it. If not then let's stop hearing this vested interests bull.

Unfortunately there seems to be very few other ways to get into the industry. In short you could call it a monopoly. The CAA should really assess if this monopoly is resulting in standards falling.

That would be like turkeys voting for christmas.

Very unlikely to happen.

Out

Yes undoubtably. The deteriorating rewards are entirely consistent with the supply outstripping demand in the marketplace. At this point in time that hasn't made much of an inroad into command salaries, but eventually it will.

The question I was asked was:
and the reply I gave was:
Demand for pilots outside of certain middle and far Eastern markets is patchy and weak. T&C's generally have been significantly affected across the board by the wholesale "slash & burn" in the drive to eliminate cost. Airlines in competition with the larger and leaner lo-co newcomers (in relative terms) have had to adapt to these new realities. Cadet salaries reflect the experience level of these pilots. Usually this is the case for the first year or two and then the "low experience" factor becomes less significant in the equation. If cadets disappeared tommorow to be replaced by ATPL holding F/O's would there be any real shortage? I doubt it, so it is unlikely that there would be any real supply pressure on the general T&C's. Command salaries are at this point largely unaffected by F/O salaries, which (other than the cadet savings) remain in proportion to those that have existed previously.

Across the industry generally, there has been an elimination of such things as final salary pension schemes, and many of the lifestyle benefits that never were a feature of the Lo-Co operators. Cost of living pay rises have been pared back to the bone. However this is true right across the broader economic spectrum as well. To suggest that cadets are in any meaningful way to blame for these reductions is ludicrous. Given the experience levels generally required for command consideration, a glut of very low hour cadets actually reduces the suppy side of the command equation moreso than a glut of experienced F/O's would.

So yes, I doubt of all the things that do dilute my salary, the experience levels of First officers who are recruited has a great deal of correlation at this point in time. I hope that explains the rationale and also the context of the answer in relation to the question that was asked.

Ezy with characteristic consistency, you are wrong, wrong and wrong! Although to be fair, I do not know which planet you are on, so I might have to defer on that point.

Exactly Studi! Ironically enough the good old and trusted self improver route into EZY (turbo prop, military) has more of less been closed off by... CTC!

Exactly!
As always, look at who profits and that will explain a lot of what they are posting here on PPrUne! :}

p.s. thankfully for BB and ADM, they have now found some unexpected support all the way from Korea! 안녕하세요 and 환영합니다 :p

You really wont take the fact on board will you? I don't "freelance" or anything else at CTC. You may recall I stated quite clearly that:
I am simply repeating myself. If you choose not to believe it, that is a matter for you, but it doesn't change the fact.

In the top two "Better options" that you listed:
The first is administered by APL, a CTC company.
The second involves other companies that also use CTC for their own cadet programmes.

Perhaps those companies have failed to recognise the "scam" you erroneously claim exists. If so, they clearly lack your insight as in some cases they have been exercising these options for over 15 years!

Death of the Self Improver...
 

Gentlemen,

Here is some of the advice being offered to aspiring pilots in the 'Wannabes' section from some of the posters on here.

I don't like to gang up on anyone... but this might make interesting reading.

http://www.pprune.org/professional-p...ver-route.html

Yes it makes interesting reading, and your point is?

Let me guess, the management, freelance, shareholder conspiracy?

It tells you all you need that this CTC debate is on the T&Cs section rather than the Wannabes.

I think that it’s never been easier or quicker to become a jet, airline FO than in the last few years. All you need is cash and a certain view on risk – but generally the wealthier you/your parents, the less worried you’ll be about paying the £100k training costs and hence the CTC route works.

There is clearly going to be a reason why EZY will employ (and near exclusively in recent years) so many 200 hr FOs, when many experienced pilots are out there – and it’s not because CTC’s product is that good!


If your goal is to become an A320 FO in a short timescale and you have the funds, CTC is perfect. Don’t complain about the T&C’s – that’s why you’re there rather than an ex-flybe chap. It really is that simple.

PS – haven’t read the last 100+ posts so apologies if repeating a previous post

Point me in the direction of opportunities in GA, turbo-props, aerial work anything please!? Working your way up the hypothtical ladder is very very difficult when the lower rungs are missing.

Funny you should mention that!

I've recently been accepted as part of cabin crew at bmibaby. They were extremely good at interview and didn't take the "well this is a cabin crew position, not a pilots" that another airline CC selection that I attended.

From what I gather they seem like a great company. The problem is their future (and ofcourse my eventually transition to the flight deck) is hanging in the balance :confused:

LVL_CHG: well done - at least you are making contacts - that is all this game is about. Better to be seen as a worthwhile investment for pilot training than be taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous schools that do not teach airmanship or anything beyond the minimums to get through an LST.

BZB may not be financially involved with the self licking lollypop that is CTC. It is clear however that he takes a myopic view when it comes to the quality of the output of that this money making machine produces. How anyone can think that a 200h (soon to be 70h MPL plus SIM time) straight into an A319 with severe restrictions on manual flying is a good pilot apprenticeship is beyond most aviators.


As for the EZY Line training being OK - ask those CTC cadets at EZY Swiss who were shafted at Line Check.

A 200h cadet scheme pilot is usually hugely under confident. CTC give extra SIM sessions to their own Wings cadets to meet the LST. But getting someone to a pass level only for a single test then to fail later is expensive for all (even assuming no accident occurs). The whole CAA multi choice ATPL exam system has similar faults in training for test not knowledge.

Why are youngsters hit so hard on car insurance? Are they safer than a 28 or 40 year old with 100,000 miles or so of driving experience? So how is having 60 to 70% cadet recruitment a good thing on a jet airliner? Was Sullenberger a 22 year old cadet?


Even the best Military schemes have several stages before being let loose in a fast or large jet aircraft. Emergency handling is taught from the earliest lessons. Situational awareness and capacity are assessed on every sortie not through naff Compass tests or SIMS (where there is no chance of death unless you fall off the bridge) but in the actual flying environment with additional simulated tasking.

Those that fail go through an air warning/ground warning remedial package and if not up to scratch chopped or assessed as a training risk.

Many cadets do not have good instructional continuity and many of the instructors have no instructional background in teaching qualifications or FI backgrounds outside of a CTC TRI course. Some of the ground school is almost all Power point / CBT without supervision by a trained person. Type Rating exam answers have been known to be given to cadets before test.

I am not against cadets. I am against them being under trained for the benefit of shareholder profits. I am against them being given false expectations and a system that is depriving aviators in other sectors of career progression. I am against the dilution of piloting skills in airliners in the UK through exclusive P2F/Cadet/Flexi recruitment schemes.

I am for the proper training of those with the nouse and hard graft to become seasoned aviators. Would that there were real apprenticeship schemes that give a 5 or 10 year career path for junior pilots. Both Integrated and MPL are failing to do this because of profit over quality.

Those that claim there is no other solution but paying for TRs or Line Flying are (sadly) the deluded ones who believe the lies the Pilot Mills/So called Approved Schools have told them. They complain about not having a job with 200h and a CPL. Not that long ago you couldn't even get a CPL without 700h ! They either wish to borrow huge sums or waste their own or their family's inheritance/hard earned cash on these jump the queue rip off deals that lower entry conditions for all pilots. They have not spent 8 or so years flying anything with wings to gain experience. They ask others to do job searches for them so they don't have to put in the hours making their own contacts.

Yes the system is broken when you get the biggest UK LoCo excluding all but CTC cadets because they have cadets now becoming captains and management pilots and HR who know of no other system and deride GA and Military training without real knowledge.

This system has only worked because of the Pilot Mill propoganda selling the RHS at EZY, the lack of moral fibre to stand against it by existing (well paid) staff and BALPA, the fear of the Flexi crew pilots that if they go sick they will be sacked or not given a more permanent job, a CAA that has turned a blind eye, a reliable A319 aircraft with half decent FBW system and hard working Line and Training Captains that have looked after the cadets or taught them what they should have known before joining the airline.

All it takes is for the holes in the swiss cheese to align. As Flight International reported:

"In the past 20 years, almost all the business, technical and operational ground rules governing commercial aviation have radically altered, forced by market changes, air traffic management, navigation, and aircraft and avionic technology. Logically, these demand a change in training - but that change has not been delivered. What has most affected pilots is the influence of low-cost carriers, bringing radical change to many airline relationships with flightcrew. But what has most changed crew recruiting and management is the decline of the military as a pilot skills provider.
Meanwhile, there has been a loss of pilot exposure to *anything other than pre-packaged flight planning, followed by automated flight on the line. In unusual *circumstances - non-standard or not automated - a lack of pilot resilience has led to fatal loss of control (LOC) accidents, making LOC the biggest killer category this century - taking over from controlled flight into terrain in the last.

This is acknowledged by industry bodies such as IATA and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and their respective training and qualification initiatives. So carriers cannot say they have not been warned, but these efforts have not been translating into action. Just as a reminder, the number of fatalities caused by airline accidents in the 1980s was about 1,100 a year, whereas numbers now are less than 800 a year, despite revenue-passenger kilometres being three times larger. The industry could revert to the bad old days, but for a different reason: the aircraft are better, but the skills to operate them are degrading."

The lower rungs aren't missing they are just full of people who can't get a break either. They can't get a break because the higher rungs are full of idiots who've paid 120K so they can occupy a position that they haven't earned.

LSM bravo.:D

angelorange
 

AO,

A really well written post.

You are kidding aren't you? What a load of crap.

it is no joke - it's a very serious concern.
 

B&B - suggest you read LSM's post - many pilots are stuck in their careers eg: Instructors, TP operators, even the Military - I personally know of 2 Harrier pilots with 6 tours of Afghan and instructional background who have been turned down by major airlines (one even has a training captain relative with that airline) - why? Airmanship? Flying ability? Task management? CRM with ground operatives, formation wingmen?

No, it's because these UK airlines prefer this cadet scheme!

So what can be done?
 

Not just under trained but also this top level sanctioned policy of hiring the cheapest form of labour possible (indebted 21 year olds)...also ageism by proxy. The government might be interested in tackling this loophole exploitation, especially since unemployment is now at a 16 year high.

hit, nail, head

CTCs strangle-hold on pilot recruitment in this country (not just at EZY) has resulted in an anticompetitive price and policy fix that is screwing the lot of us. This would never be tolerated in other industries. I've heard people talk about a free market and that airlines can choose their sources of recruitment as they please. Ignoring the fact that these are very suspect (you scratch mine and I'll scratch yours) type relationships anyway, I think this is a very old capitalist manner of thinking and I can name many examples in recent years where major (mostly technology) firms have been forced to change their market behaviour due to circumstances not very different to ours.

If interested, Competition Act 1998* - The Office of Fair Trading

Ezy that's a crap guess, I'd rather stick my knob in a cessnas spinning propellor than work for ctc. I trained with them and I am happy where they have taken me. To blame ctc cadets for others choices however is mental. It's a free world, each way has its pros and cons. Decide, adapt or accept.

angelorange - a single seat Harrier pilot with 6 tours VFR in Afghanistan (less than 2000hrs TT I imagine) or a current A320 pilot with 5000 hours on type in a European environment - who is the better choice? I am not really sure why the fact he had a relative who was a Training Captain in his chosen airline should improve his chances either - maybe I have misunderstood how the old boy network works in these circles and how he really should have been preferred to everyone else because he is a Harrier pilot. He could, of course, pay for a type rating like his civvie counterparts and he may find his chances are substantially improved. Then again if the world owes him a living, maybe he should just sit back and wait for what is rightfully his to be given to him on a plate.

Like so many discussions on here, there is no shortage of people answering the question that no one is asking. I do not like CTC any more than anyone else, and I completely buy into the view that they have a stranglehold they should not on the industry. They provide pilots with no experience and keep ex-mil and tp guys/gals out - outrageous, but it is it what it is. That is the whole problem of this discussion. Some people are trying to point out the iniquities of the current pilot recruitment world - I am not disagreeing with their views. I am, however, answering the question regarding getting into easyJet. If you are a no-houred pilot starting out you need to go to CTC these days - love it or hate it that is reality. To suggest to someone they should work their way up through air taxi stuff or being an ops clerk is just incredibly bad advice - that is a route to failure.

Incidentally, the only way to be a Harrier pilot (when there were actually some Harriers in service to fly) is to start at IOT and then go through basic training, RAF Valley and finally an OCU. Virtually without exception every first tourist Harrier pilot has less than 300 hours when he arrives on his first squadron (he may have another 160 hours from the UAS or be an ex-Creamy who has done a previous instructional tour, but that is the exception rather than the rule). Fundamentally no one bats an eyelid at that, yet everyone complains at what airlines do. I am at a slight loss to see the difference - someone please enlighten me.

Because the harrier guy has been selected at all stages for his SKILLS rather than how much money is in daddy's wallet. Simple difference. Put a first tour harrier pilot in an A320 TR and I'm sure he will do fairly well - not necessarily as they are different skill sets (CRM etc) but put a CTC cadet into a harrier training scheme and my odds will be a lot higher for him/her to fail.

Just a thought, but why does everyone blame CTC for the way things are?

Since you all must know (because it's common sense) that easyJet was the sole instigator in the birth of Flexi-crew. eJ knew they could get the product for cheaper, so told CTC to make it happen. CTC weren't happy about it because 1) they would earn less money per cadet 2) quite a step backwards in terms of marketing not having their 100% employment record into airlines.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending CTC, I think they take too much money for too long from cadets who are flexi-crew but I do find the notion that if CTC had said "no, we won't do it" eJ would have crossed their arms, sulked and accepted it, a little ridiculous. From what I can gather, CTC were told to make it happen or the contract would go to another provider. When CTC tried to negotiate with eJ on the birth of the flexi-crew contract, there were times that eJ (well, a certain director) effectively told them to put up and shut up.

So I agree with Bealzebub, really, the shifting sands has come from the rise of the LCC and their realisation that they can get the same product at a cheaper price, not from a training provider. If CTC didn't exist, another school would have filled the void.

Like I say, just a thought.

Mr Meerkat, who is the better choice:

A Harrier pilot with 2000 hours or;

A 21 year old, heavily indebted, 200 hour pilot?

I think you'll find that that, in this instance, is a more accurate comparison.

The difference fella is that the Harrier pilot has achieved his position the CTC/Flexi cadet has bought his.

Whilst the Harrier pilot comes from the single pilot world, the skills and atributes of a modern day glass cockpit FBW MCC CRM and TEM can be instilled. However the LCCs regocnise this as a cost to be metered out to the stag do punter. In such a competitive world, that costs an airline business, hence the debacle we all now face. The 'lower end' joe public punter has no idea how pilots are trained, and may in many cases assume all are ex mil. Many don't care, or care very little for their own safety, as long as they got the cheap deal, more cash in the kitty for Prague.

As the CAA has passed more and more of the regulatory 'buck' over to AOC holders for self governance, it is no wonder such a system now exists.

In going back to the cadet vs Harrier, or any military type, FJ or Transport/rotary, the RAF's own personel were very much in charge of the recruiting decision. Is this guy or girl as low a risk as possible, pre training?
EZY not only use CTC, but also OAA. However, what shocks me is the apparent 'casting off' of any responsibility by Ruth S and her peers, by totally outsourcing the recruitment of such cadets to OAA and Parc! No apparent EZY involvement whatsoever in the recruitment decision. I hope I am very wrong, but having two BA chaps interview a nepthew for a scheme they have nothing to do with (other than providing an interviewing service for parc it would seem) is rather diluting the responsibility EZY has for ensuring the right people are in their flight decks. Of course the scheme in question uses lots of orange branding for yet another contracting position, so it is somewhat misleading that the scheme is not advertised as Parc, in association with OAA (i suppose one does own the other). I would love to see the internal risk assesment applied for that decision.

However, as said. It is what it is. It is up to individuals to look at the fine print and do adequate research. For the record, I have nothing against cadets regardless of license held. I'm all for TP and ex mil types getting a shot at civvi jet jobs, but only if the airlines select the right people, not just those whose families own oil fields! This sadly is all but going on in LCC world. I have even heard of license holders, applying to said schemes, doing everything again at double the debt, just for a sniff. Utter madness, but it seems the LCCs love it!

As another aside, there are no doubt many single pilot fast jet pilots who would not be suitable for a modern day cockpit. As previously mentioned, the flight deck is not a training ground. In this case a training ground for MCC. Many other fast jet pilots would no doubt be suitable, post conversion to civvi street. There are many wrong types in all airlines. It is up to recruitment departments, and the training system to ensure they are filtered out. Just becuase you paid for a license, it does not automatically entile anyone to a job!

Without getting into the whole CTC vs self-improver debate, which has and continues to be done ad nauseum here, one question - why is it always assumed that it's 'daddy' who pays?

There are plenty of guys and girls who do CTC/Oxford/other fATPL sausage-factory and put up all the money with all the associated risk themselves.

By all means argue against the route into the industry - I very much do not like what it has become (it has changed substantially since I started at CTC way back in the day) and I absolutely understand the arguments being put forward against it here. Sometimes I look out of the window on a 4hr+ sector with the AP on and wish I'd given myself the chance to experience more 'proper' flying before getting into an Airbus. I wouldn't let my kids follow the same career path that I have so far for a multitude of reasons.

But from first-hand experience, this notion that all integrated fATPLs have been given a £120k present from rich relatives is, in the vast majority of cases, inaccurate. There are a few, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Yes you're right I apologise for that, I myself came through CTC with an unsecured loan - in no way my parents money or putting my parents at risk at all.

However, now the age of unsecured funds are gone, I can only assume that a higher percentage of cadets are putting the security up against their parents house or using them as a guarantor. No?

The directly comparable people are the experienced Harrier pilots and the experienced A320 pilots - compare like with like. In the past a Harrier pilot would walk straight into BA, Cathay, Virgin and would in most cases have turned up his nose at easyJet. The simple fact is that world is not the rosy place it once was for ex-fast jet military guys. There is still a way forward for them, but they have to pay their way like the rest of the world into a type-rating. Changed days, but I am frankly at a loss to know why a Harrier pilot should not have to pay for a type-rating but everyone else should.

Regarding the stuff about CTC, they have a rigorous selection procedure with every bit as much of a dropout from initial applicants to final success as the military system. It is absolutely not the case that the entrance qualification to CTC is the size of your wallet. What is true to say is that since the demise of funded loans from HSBC the CTC route has been limited to those with both talent and independent financial resources. The demise of those loans incidentally has been caused by a small number of unscrupulous cadets who went bankrupt to avoid their liabilities to their loan providers when they in fact had access to paid employment. Not surprisingly, HSBC saw disaster looming and pulled out the market - consequently that has prevented poorer people from coming in.

studi - I am not really sure what your basic argument is. It is clearly a tragedy that someone can attempt to become an airline pilot without the basic talents. There is nothing I have seen that tells me CTC is trying to do that. Do people without the basic talent reach the cockpit of an Airbus? The sad answer is 'yes', but not often. The exact same happens in RAF front line flying - I can remember young lads getting onto the Squadron and then failing at the last hurdle, primarily due to a lack of basic talent. You seem to be suggesting that CTC are in the business of putting untalented pilots in the cockpits of commercial airliners - that is not my experience.

Where I think we have gone wrong at easyJet is not with the individual low-houred pilots but a lack of balanced recruitment. We can no longer say we recruit the best - we recruit the cheapest. We need to return to a range of recruiting options - i.e. ex-instructors, ex-military, ex-North Sea helicopters, ex-turboprop and current commercial pilots from suitable companies. That is the most credible way forward and I am disappointed we have not done that. My own view is that the days of company-sponsored type-ratings are over - you can argue whether that is right or not, but that is the future as I see it. In the meantime we have to recognise that market forces will ultimately decide the future of pilot recruitment.

No, the directly comparable people are the people who are looking for jobs. Here we have two extremes, the guy with flying experience and the guy without, but with lots of money. Why would a 5000 hour, Airbus type rated pilot need to pay CTC for a job with EasyJet? They wouldn't and are, therefore, completely irrelevant to this topic.

The point was not that one person should and one person should not pay for a job. The point is that the very capable pilot with some of the best flying experience you can get is unable to get a job because somebody has given CTC/Easy loads of money.

Absolute BS. Are you really saing that Bloggs made it through Linton, Valley, and the OCU without basic talent?

The very reason that you do not recruit people with the experience that you yearn for is because of the system that you extol the virtues of.

Still the question remains. Who is the better choice? Experience or money?