An example being?

I'd like to ask as well. What experience do you have outside aviation (quantify it please) that gives you the ability to so confidently say you are doing a blue collar job for white collar money? How much skill and actual practice time do you have outside of aviation? Or are you comparing things to non-pilot friends, who because they do another line of work, give the impression they're really clever, skilled and professional?

When I'm not flying, I'm contracting in IT and invoicing an average of £10k per month. I have no degree and even my vocational qualifications are almost 15 years old (I'm in my early 30s). Granted, I'm good at what I do in the IT business but the job can be extremely unchallenging and boring with many months spent simply debating ideas and arguing with idiots in management. In practice I get to exercise very little skill on a daily basis and there's certainly no sense of accomplishment anymore as everything becomes a fudged compromise. What am I to conclude from this, that it's a blue collar job with white collar money? Blue collar workers are by definition unskilled. Piloting definitely requires some skill.

Be careful what you wish for mate, in the "real world" as an employee who is good at his/her field you will find yourself regularly working 60+ hours per week and taking your work home with you (one of the reasons why despite having some views very similar to yours, I'm still interested in flying for a living). Nirvana is putting up with life as it is and realising there is no such thing is perfection. You're a classic case of too much came too soon and now there's :mad: all left to be positive about within aviation.

...and those with a life to manage outside of flight training (not all of us can take 2 straight years out of life/work) to train to fly. Thus, directly shaping the age group and demographics of our pilot community (young, no strings, happy to service 10 years of debt because they know no better)

JS needs to be careful what he wishes for, but its difficult to argue with his downward trajectory predictions.

Bealzebub
 

The evidence is at the bottom of the South Atlantic and with the number of pilots who sit next to me who have never taken an aircraft past 60 degrees of bank.

A and C s post is actually a very good summary of why ctc etc is the better way in , especially given demise of the many regional airlines.

Whether the quality is there or not, I couldn't comment but our very busy skies are safer than the 80s and before for the uk at least.

"Fleas from New York," did they have accents?

A and C

Very well put indeed. Sums up the EU in general.

You believe that the pilots of AF447 (I assume this is what you are alluding to, although technically it was the North Atlantic,) did their basic training under EASA? Each of the Three pilots on board joined Air France prior to EASA's existence. The pilots that "sit next to (you)" are also flying perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground. Really?

A very tortured argument as I am sure you will agree. However, shall we list the very long history of examples of high time, highly experienced, and very "pre-EASA" crews who have indeed flown otherwise serviceable aircraft into the ground. That is much easier, but I guess doesn't add weight to your very light argument.

Pre EASA, post EASA. The eighties or the tensies. Lets not forget that the biggest contributors to safety are modern flightdecks and the dawn of CRM. Also not automatically rewarding ex military pilots with a civilian job has helped.

One man's paradise is another man's hell.

I went to University for 7 years and graduated onto a pay scale making 1/3 of what I do now.

I left it because some professions just aren't respected in this country. Why work my socks off in a far more intellectually challenging job (than flying) for peanuts? Does that make me "clever"?

One wonders when Stockbrokers pay is going to readjust when everyone realises the "unqualified cads" are merely gambling with other peoples money? <shock horror>

Recompense settles at the level it does for all kinds of reasons.

Personally I can't see an adjustment to the levels suggested taking place at EZY soon. Stock price ballistic, oil price bottomed out...the operation is a printing press at the moment isn't it? If the pilots can't resist that imperative at this point in time, though, I suppose we should be worried.

Do us a favour John, and let us know what LHS salaries have done at your mob over the last 10 years, including the inflation adjusted ones. I'm pretty sure VS and BA LHS salaries, although experiencing downward pressure, don't demonstrate a trend heading towards £40K any time soon....

Bealzebub
 

While there is a lot of discussion within the industry about the erosion of basic flying skills you seem to be defending the very system that has has been overseeing the safety during this erosion of skills.

Fortunatly I fly for a company that encourages the practice of manual flying to prevent the erosion of these skills, at the same time I am told of a UK A320 operator that has prohibited the disconnection of the auto throttle system.

I can't see how the prohibition manual flight can be a positive way to maintain basic flying skils.

The social mobility issue is also part of the problem within the UK, as the Govenment refuses to help in any way whatsoever an aspiring pilot ( and tax at 20% flying training !) those with talent but little money can't afford to get into the industry.

The result of this is that you are being flown by some of those who only got into the cockpit because they had the money to do so. The system is starting to look a little like the British Army of the 1700's were rich family's paid for the commission of their sons.

No I can't see how it does either, and I also fly for an operator than doesn't discourage the practice of manual flying skills. However, you were suggesting that EASA were seemingly responsible for training pilots with a history of flying skills, who were in turn flying aircraft into the ground.

I couldn't see the actual correlation and asked for an example. The example you suggested involved pilots who couldn't have basically trained under this regime since it didn't exist at the time.

Perhaps, and indeed life can be unfair in that respect. However given the gross oversupply of potential candidates, it is one natural way of reducing that imbalance. People often find a way around these hurdles as is the case in so many other aspects of life. The training that improves the safety doesn't usually suffer simply because you or your family could afford to pay for it.

Bealzebub
 

EASA has presided over a change in the pilot training system that has gone from allowing those with talent and determination to get into the business to a system that is based entirely on how much money you can afford.

Some of the things seen in the French documentary are shocking, how on earth can the guy who did a full days flying and then had to travel for hours on a bus not going to suffer from long term fatigue ? And that is without the fact he is paying to do so!

How come the EASA operations inspectors are not picking up on the flight safety issues of this practice ?

It is no wonderthe basic flying skills are eroding , very highly reliable automated aircraft, pilots some of who have only a few hours of actual solo flight and those pilots so fatigued that the safest way to fly is with heavy reliance on the automatics.

IMO EASA has been found lacking in its oversight of both flight operations and aircraft maintenance, it is out of touch with reality, burocratic and expensive, all in all it mirrors perfectly its big brother the EU.

A few years back at a House of Commons transport committee meeting the late Glynith Dunwoody MP said EASA was not fit for perpouse and an accident waiting to happen, I have never before or since seen sutch clarity of thought from a Labour MP.

Do you think so? In the 19 years or so that this website has been in existence I have seen the transition taking place under (here in the UK) the CAA, then JAA, and only recently EASA. Those with "talent and determination" always had the hurdle of affordability to contend with. The pinnacle level jobs were always keenly competed for. For many years now I have advised those seeking fasttrack entry into this profession to avail themselves of the integrated cadet programmes. Not because (as have some have erroneously suggested) I have any beneficial connection with that regime, but because for a long time now the writing has been clearly on the wall that this was the direction the industry was inevitably moving in.

Looking back over the last 30 years, the standard of entry level cadets in recent years, is significantly improved on where it was twenty or thirty years ago. There are many reasons for this, but not least amongst them is the consistency in ab-initio training, and the airlines ability to have input into that training as they deem fit. Today the attrition rate of new cadets is a tiny fraction of where it was 30 years ago, and that takes into account the fact that todays candidate arrives with maybe 200 hours, whereas those candidates from bygone eras often arrived with at least 4 times that level of quantitative experience, and usually anything up to ten times that level.

The training via these routes is without doubt expensive. However it is an expense that these days (and nearly always has) falls firmly at the feet of the prospective candidate. Despite this, there is no shortage whatsoever of potential candidates, and their ability (or lack of) to afford that training has no bearing on the standards that the airline sets for its requirements.

I am not sure how the regulatory authority can control how many hours a pilot chooses to travel on a bus (outside of his duty period). In the USA you frequently come across the relatively widespread practice of pilots making transcontinental commutes in order to work at their assigned bases. Most airlines will contractually stipulate the domicile requirements for pre-duty reporting, however in reality neither they nor the regulators can enforce whether a pilot elects to comply with those requirements. Indeed, if they could, it would presumably make the job even more slanted towards those with the ability to afford those costs.

The remuneration for the job is not, and cannot really be a regulated sum. Like everything in a market, it is governed by supply and demand. The supply is plentiful and that sets the benchmark. The affordability issue is undoubtably a significant factor in restricting supply. I can't see how removing that restriction would improve the situation.

The commercial prowess of the big schools sets benchmarks and artificially increases supply by organising extremely large loans for any teenager with desire and intention. Loans, which are simply not available to anyone seeking any other career path. The conditions for an oversupply have to be created, and it would seem it has been done meticulously well within aviation. Within other industries, professionals have managed to keep salary trends positive because they have either directly or indirectly influenced the supply situation. Or maybe it's because the senior members of those professions didn't sell out by helping set up training/recruitment organisations which would end up being run entirely for the benefit of their employers with terrible consequences for their individual careers? :hmm:

SR71_ can you tell me the direction Monarch and TCX salaries have taken in the last couple of years?

B.

I was thinking the same until I sat through the programme. My French isn't the best but as I understood the dialogue the pilot seemed to be claiming he had no choice in the matter. The claim seemed to be that pilots were regularly operating "open jaw" trips, and were being positioned back by bus/taxi to the trip originating point, umpteen kilometers away, at the end of the day...and there was a hint that time spent on such positioning wasn't being factored into the calculations governing the start time for the next duty....

Of course it's a TV programme so who knows the reality......

Bealzebub
 

Correct me if I am wrong but the French documentary seemed to suggest that the unfortunate pilot was dumped at a station four hours away from his base following 12 hours duty and expected to travel back to base by bus.

If this is the case then I think the EASA operations inspectors should be looking into the matter.

On the issue of the level of ecsesabilxty to the profession I feel it has become far harder because of the amount of money required " up front" rather than thirty years ago when things could be done part time while holding down a job. Add to this the availability of unsecured credit that vanished following a well known training provider that put their graduates with an airline that once the graduates had finished their ( paid for ) line training put them on zero hours contracts and did not give them enough flying to pay the rent...... Let alone the training debt.
Some of them had to file for personal bankruptcy, little wonder the banks are now cautious about lending money for flight training.
I doubt if thirty years back I was at today's prices more than £ 12k in debt during the whole fATPL prosess.
I also think that today's glass cockpits are far less demanding to fly than the clockwork cockpit of old so this may account for the higher failure rate at the type rating that you mention.... Or having spent £150K mummy & daddy are likely to cough up for more simulator training when an airline would have given up.

No idea. Has there been a general trend one way or the other or have drastic corrections been made in the light of their respective financial performance?

No one is arguing that a business must adjust their unit costs in the light of trading conditions, just that, I do not think that, in general, LHS salaries in our industry are about to fall off a precipice and hit ~£40K because of whats going on at entrant level.

Arguably, it is the level of subsequent recompense that keeps the Flight Training Schools in business as kids are still queuing up at the door. Potential career earnings still make the gamble worth it...

So you can have one or the other but not both. If salaries adjust to much lower levels, that ought to drive the flight schools out of business as prospective candidates turn away from the industry, it no longer being worth the gamble. Prices for training would have to adjust.

I wholeheartedly agree, though, running Commercial Flight Training Schools as businesses in their own right is industrial stupidity on a colossal scale for which we have only ourselves to blame.

Corupt business model
 

It is not just the aviation business that takes money for traning young hopefuls knowing full well that most of them will be unlikely to find a job, one very large driving school in the UK does exactly the same......... Overpriced training followed by a placement in one of their driving schools that does not have enough work to pay the costs on the car they provide for you under contract !

Just like taking candy from a baby !