Despegue

John smith is unfortunately right.

If he was wrong then the coffin imperative would force the employers to work harder finding better candidates. Simple fact is that the jobs is being done successfully and safely by frankly average people. That is all down to exceptional engineer building modern aircraft that go wrong so rarely that average is enough.

JS, a question in a courteous fashion... is there any chance you work for one of the lower echelon operators with huge fleets who employ a huge percentage of new hires directly from one of the "big ftos" highly in debt and immediately on the back foot operating brand spanking new jets to the the nth degree of "uber SOP" flying? Not stating you in any of this but your company direction...

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason, if my guess is anywhere near correct take a minute to try to work out why your workplace ended up as it did. And why the career didnt end up as you had hoped

I could be mistaken but from your post it doesnt seem you enjoy it much. Please accept it isnt like that at all airlines - well not "yet" anyway

the salary is for Air FRance at the end of the career as a captain position, and only rare get it now because new contracts are lower anyway...

so we can not really compare AF with Ryanair or volotea etc...

Airline slant
 

Hi John,

You've already been replaced by automation. Hang up the stripes and shoot the breeze at the bar. Unfortunately I think you've been beaten to the punch by the MPL.

You seem to consider the sum total of your required knowledge as that which is used daily. I disagree and feel the value in having an in-depth foundation of knowledge is immeasurable. Whilst I quite agree that we need to know the limitations of our knowledge and also our sphere of responsibility.

Also, I'd urge you to consider the role of commercial pilot beyond the scope of schedule CAT flying. The operational variables met in other areas of CAT can, and regularly do, require more of the theoretical knowledge hopefully accrued during the theoretical studies. The backup afforded to flight crew is not as structured, and may be supplied by third parties. Purely and simply it isn't possible to write a Ground Ops Manual that would encompass the majority of operational variables encountered and the pilots will be involved in areas whereby the theoretical knowledge covered in the ATPL studies is often required. I'll grant you, Polar Stereographic Charts aren't something I frequently require, although I know guys flying for BAS, and the requirement for them was commercial licence.

Questions - are there too few suitable fatpl holders and wannabe cadets to meet the required airline standards?

Could the average 6th former meet the required standards, excluding upfront cash?

I don't see why rhs salaries should go up to provide further supply.

John Smith is not worth debating with- he turns every thread into an anti-pilot rant. I have doubts that he is a line pilot - he must be a manager, and comes across as embittered cabin crew management to me. To suggest pilots need know nothing more than what is in the SOP and the manuals is dangerous indeed - if airlines and authorities followed his logic and wishes, then MPL cadets would graduate straight into the command seat of heavy jets with no issues. That clearly isn't the case - experience and knowledge beyond the minimum standard to which he aims (and I assume fails to maintain) are far from enough for safe or efficient aviation.

There's an old story about an expert consultant who comes to a factory that is not operating. No one there can sort out why. Consultant gives the place a look and quotes to the factory manager:

"I can fix your problem for $50,000."

"Good Heavens, Man! We're losing that every two hours the factory sits idle! Do what you must!"

Consultant walks to a control panel, throws a switch and the factory comes to life, returns to the factory manager to say:

"That will be $50,000, please."

"My Dear Fellow, you merely threw a switch. Surely that can't be worth more than a dollar or two!"

"You're correct, of course. Allow me to present you with an itemized invoice."

Fee for actuating toggle switch: $1
Knowing which switch to throw: $49,999
Grand Total Services Rendered: $50,000

My employer doesn't pay me to throw switches, and I shudder at any aviation company that does. Any fool with a checklist can do that. My first employer (which was the government) trained me and compensated me to learn how to make decisions. In return, I provided them with a number of years of my professional life and learned to make (and later made) those decisions, returning every aircraft for which I signed in reusable condition.

When I chose to prepare myself for a career in the civil world, the less than $1000 that I spent for licensing up to ATP was not all I had invested (yes, the FAA system has its advantages). I had dozens of flight checks and thousands of hours over many years.

Every good (and bad) decision a pilot makes over a career influences that pilot as a captain. The bean-counters forget that at their peril. So do the flying public, fixated on cheap fares.

Thats great. What if someone suitably qualified will do it for $500?

Someone will come along and be happy to cut you out for $400. Human nature I'm afraid.

Like business, stack'em high and sell'em cheap.

In my 40 plus years in the business the most eager to cut you out were the ones, lets say were with the "financial means" to do so. Whether it be to attempt to buy you out, or could sustain themselves on the peanuts they would be happy to work for. Or just attempt to cut you out, period. In the genes?

There is always someone who will do it cheaper.

Which category would you place the pilots of AF447 in John? What about the pilots on TK1951? More recently, what will you say about the pilots of QZ8501?

How many fatalities would it take to negate your thesis?

Commercial aviation today stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, made mistakes, and not been protected from them by the incredible machines we fly. There is so much latent safety in a modern commercial jet, the mind boggles. Much of which we don't even recognise or appreciate.

Your view of life in the flightdeck is a reductionist one, for sure. Sounds like you're giving yourself heart-burn.

:}

The industry has done it that way, because (and this is where I do agree with you - no need for a huge degree of self-importance here), we're actually pretty good monkeys.

However, my understanding is that, recently, it is Loss Of Control incidents that now form the major proportion of air transport accidents. Whilst many of us at the sharp end of the industry have been talking about the "de-skilling" going on in the flightdeck for a while, it is only now that the issue seems to have gained an appreciable degree of traction.

So why is this?

I'm hopeful that, in the past, knowledge I have tried to acquire outside the "core airline curriculum" as a result of what I'd call "professional pride" will now become more and more mandated. In addition, I believe it will be important for the industry to try and re-design the machines we fly so that they allow us to keep current the skills which become so important when we actually need to "fly" the aircraft.

I hope to goodness that I never have to sit next to john_smith in a cockpit, anywhere, ever.

I left a former career in which I was earning £35,000. I didn't have to pay for £100,000 worth of training and neither did I, at any point, have to work for free or pay to work in my previous job. So this ridiculous idea that working for free is "normal" and acceptable is utterly ridiculous. I worked very hard and had line management responsibility and influence on services affecting thousands of people. But I didn't work silly hours and at no point was I directly responsible for the lives of individuals, unless you count occasionally driving the team to a conference.

As a CAT pilot I am expected to know exactly what's going on with the aircraft I'm flying, the current and potential environmental conditions, to carry out safe and efficient operations and to be able to work with the cockpit, cabin crew and extended team to fix it when things don't go to plan. All the while trying to ensure that the paying customers in the back are as happy as possible. This isn't the job of a monkey and I am proud of the knowledge and experience I have, as well as the much larger amount I am still to gain. If john_smith considers himself to be no better than a monkey, and the job to be at that level, then I would consider him to be a liability and he ought to be outed in all senses of the word.

Smith, if you genuinely feel that way, then donate your "excess" pay to some of the poorer members of society or perhaps the cabin crew, but stop whining about it on here. You clearly have an agenda and a wish to sell out your colleagues. Evidently I hit the nail on the head with my suspicion about you being a cadet with rich parents, or, you'd be needing that salary to repay training debts and a mortgage. Maybe you should consider that most of us have not had the good fortune, so to speak, of being born rich. As for your rapid promotion, perhaps it was your swooning ass kissing and will to work for less rather than your desire to limit your knowledge to the minimum that got you ahead. Regardless, I'd never want to fly with someone of your judgement or personality.

So do those that dislike js, think salaries will go up or down?

John, some do feel the qualification is more than it is. As a graduate in engineering, I know what a reasonably thorough degree entails hence why I find people trying to compare the qualification to something more in depth bemusing. I can empathise with you there, but not to the point of scorn.

Given the reduction in terms and conditions over the last decade it doesn't take a leap of imagination to suggest the scenarios you seem to eagerly await. But mocking people for not embracing this further depression in t&cs is akin to not understanding why the turkeys won't vote for Christmas.

What do you feel would be a fair pay for a new pilot over the course of their career up to the point where they've serviced the inevitable loan. Let's fix the cost at £90,000. Factor in loss of salary during training, loan repayments, a room share for three years, a two bedroom flat rent for the rest. Let's hypothesise that will cover a few years more bachelorhood and then the possibility of a partner.

Disregarding supply and demand, what would do you feel is reasonable recompense? Let's make the loan period fifteen years. Just to make it simpler.

Hi everyone,
for information, for some weird reason, I was censored when I tried to relay the french TV when it show aired.
We were indeed showing our faces in it ;) and shared it via:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsQIqv1PfTM
I was also saying we had the French union's attention on P2F (we did a few unformal meeting with them) and now it's the whole ECA that supports the petition against it:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/p2f_must_stop/

Swiss folks also have their TV report exclusively on P2F:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tAFHdM6W2E

Press articles, wiki definition... it's a great thing Italy is in the boat, and we'll come up with meaningful initiatives as the ECA is set to launch the campaign against P2F after the holidays this month!
(Timeline events available on https://www.facebook.com/cockpitseeker)

The thing is people are still queuing up.

EASA........... Following the part M fiasco Another fine mess.
 

EASA is at the very heart of this problem, when the EU decided on a pan European aviation authority it started talking to the industry and the big flight schools sent representatives to to push for highly regulated pilot training courses all done at ( their) pilot sausage factory's, unfortunately the small schools did not have the recorces to lobby EASA and so as always with the EU this highly regulated system was adopted.

Having tied up the supply chain the big schools then pushed the airlines into recruting only students from the big schools using quality of training as the reason, this was a good way of hiding the money that must be changing hands between the schools and the airlines.

In the old days you could do the fATPL just by having flown 700 hours, passing the ground exams and the flight tests. In practice most people did 150 hours and then an instructor rating to be able to get an instructor job to get the rest of the flying hours.
Once the fATPL was issued airline job hunting would start and when you got a job you got bonded for the cost of the type rating........ The type rating cost you NO money but you had to stay with the airline for about two years.

The result of the system was that the unsuitable people fell by the wayside and those who did not had a very good basic flying skills.

The EASA system seems to be training pilots with a lack of basic skills who have been flying perfectly servisable aircraft into the ground.

Conclusion...... EASA = backward progress in flight safety and greater cost to achive this.

As a bi-product they have also blocked any social mobility by pricing flying training out of the reach of those with talent but modest income.