Pay to fly,
 

A few months ago, a french broadcast lighted up the pay to fly.
Here the video with english subtitles :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOQYMDDz4k#t=127

a big thank you to all who investigate and did the work.

What a great initiative; If it only serves to warn a couple of young lads to shy away from P2F, or funding overpriced TR without any concessions, then it was worth the effort.

I almost wish these airlines would get caught up in a massive safety scandal, allowing these malpractices to come to light.. One can only hope for a better future...

:ok: from me, I'll share it with my friends!

Root cause?
 

The world of flying has changed considerably over the last 30 years. Except for ticket price, perhaps not much for the better.

As an American who lived in Europe for several years, I enjoy reading here to compare/contrast life on both sides of the pond.

The American model of the route to the cockpit works here because there is a fairly large population interested in flying as a hobby: 0-250 commercial certificate/Flight instructor build time instructing, get a little right seat charter time, left seat charter time, 1000+ hours to FO on a regional. The US Congress has - in my opinion - stupidly increased regional right seat to ATP, and increased ATP to include some very expensive simulator time.

[Brief war story: I once worked with a US Navy lieutenant in the pre-regionals days who had 1800 of flight time. All of it was single- two- or four-engine turbine time (P-3 pilot). He applied for a job with Delta and was told to get 200 more hours, even if Cessna 152 time, so he could meet their 2000-hour minimum. I found it fascinating that 2000 hours of giving flight instruction in a C-172 was not weighted any different than almost 2000 hours of heavy, multi-crew, four-engine time. Back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...]

In this US model, by the time someone is carrying passengers who paid for a ticket on a scheduled flight, the copilot has several hundred hours or more and a few years experience.

The European/British model divides sport flying from the commercial pilot track almost from the beginning (yes, I know about modularity/etc.). There are very expensive courses, and graduates end up with 150,000 GBP debt. That used to be enough to get hired, then the world became more competetive. Someone thought "only one ouf of five of my classmates will get a job, I think I'll go get my own 318/320/etc type rating to be more competetive on my application..."

Next thing you know, the low cost airlines realize they can reduce training costs by only hiring people willing to fund their own type rating. Now the aspirants are even deeper in debt. Some airlines even make a profit on by charging for the training in their own equipment.

Drive wages down to save money. What's cheaper than a low wage? How about some schmuck willing to pay to be there instead of earning a salary?

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm describing how I see the two different models. Ignoring the TR and P2F parts, I do not believe that one model is better/worse than the other. Each is simply how the field has developed in its prespective environment. Military pilots do very complicated things, often with less flight time than required to get on with a major airline in the US. A small number in the log book doesn't mean an unsafe pilot.

How can you change things? If all the future pilots said "we won't pay for our own TR any more" eventually someone would do it anyway to get ahead. If the future pilots all said "we won't work for less than $40/hour" then someone would eventually quietly offer to work for $38.

As long as the fATPL-academy-industry trains many times more people than will ever find a job, there will be supply/demand issues that are not in favor of the pilots. As long as Ryan Air can pay less than BA and still turn away many applicants they will pay as little as they can. Read the Norwegian stuff here on PPRUNE. As long as people are willing to accept that "stuff" there's no hope. Even if P2F is outlawed by the ICAO, determined to be slavery by the UN, or whatever, there will still be people lined up for every job posted.

I would think you could shut down the flight schools and still meet the entry level jobs from existing graduates for several years. You know the schools are not going to say "your job prospects are much weaker than the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy one day..."

All of that to say, "I have no idea what the answers are, but it's a mess - not a lot different on this side of the pond except no type rating required for FO and flying is a lot cheaper."

(Very slow at work today, but I do disagree with the pay-to-fly model of doing business.)

LTCTerry's got a good summary. The 1500 hrs rule, if not bringing about any safety improvement, at least could bring about a shortage which will drive pilot's collective bargaining power up. I hear they've problems filling courses at the regionals. An old friend of mine, working for a regional, got tasked to gather a group of Europeans fulfilling the ATP requirement. The company would provide relevant work visas. I think that's a first.

As to bringing about change, I still believe in a much more regulated flight school market. A few kid's dream may go bust, but we can also avoid dreams turning into nightmares when ppl find themselves in 150-200 000 Euro debt and still no prospects of a job. Would also bring forward suitable candidates, rather than the ones with the biggest wallet.

guys sorry to say, but if the governments wanted to stop pay to fly it would take them half a second..unfortunately the system we created is not based on safety or people's well being, but on another thing called profit..so there you go

Nationalize the Flight Academies like the Maritime Academies , have proper acceptance test round again and create in the long term a shortage.

Only a shortage of crew will save this Profession.

Maybe maybe not.
Maybe, politicians do not have a clue and do not care until some people bring the subject. After all they need experts on their side to take decision...
I remember, I've seen a broadcast about politicians signing some europeans rules brought by lobbies...(lobbies suggest regulations and politicians sign).
One of the politicians signed and simply said to the journalist that he does not have time to read and write the rules....as they received so many every day.

So we can guess that they are not even aware that P2F exist...

after all, if you were an owner of an airline and would practice pay 2 fly, would you tell the politicians ? I don't think so...simply because if you do something not forbidden by the law, then it means you can do it.

Greenlights who do you think really is in charge in this world, lobbies or politicians?

Like I said, it sickens me but the truth is the only thing that counts is cash, period. Or are the politicians not aware of the Bangladeshi clothes factories working people 14 hours a day and paying them 20 dollars a month either?

The truth is, as human beings, we get what we deserve

Well lets just hang on one minute with this P2F thing.

Where does it start and finish?

- In the US you need a degree to get a job flying. Well a decent one anyway.Why? Does a degree make you a better pilot? The time getting a degree is money out of your pocket.

- We pay for licences, medicals, etc., etc., all money out of pockets.

- some are paying for type ratings, with or without the guarantee of employment afterwards.

- Yes some I believe, are even paying to fly online.

Where do we draw the line? So, hands up who AREN'T paying to fly, or HAVEN'T paid to fly???

pay to fly, means to pay for working, while you fly passenger for a commercial purpose. Simple.

It is not the same to pay for a degree and education. After all you do it for yourself. Yes, money is out of your pocket, but it's for you.
You pay for CPL IR, it's normal, that is for a training purpose and you don't fly passenger.
About the Type rating, we could discuss about it...years ago airlines used to pay for it, even for the MCC.
Sorry but flying professionnally and paying for it it's nonsense. You lose money, plus your work for others (not really for yourself in that case).

Ok I admit it, we should call it : P2W for Pay To Work. That would be better.

The irony of all of this is the line experience is probably the most valuable flight time you could "purchase" out of the long shopping list to become a pilot....

Paying for any training for any job is wrong. I accept this is quite an amazing statement as almost no aviator has ever finally made it into the cockpit in their dream job without funding at least some of the road to utopia

Proper selection and screening for any particular job or career stream to help in the process of putting the most capable human beings into the most suitable job, supported by the government and the employer fully serves both safety, help ensure profit whilst also better providing the basic needs of the human being involved in the rigorous path through initial training - obviously training of sorts contuinues upto career end

The current set up in aviation in the UK and Europe is based solely on profit of both the airlines (to differing levels of efficiency) and a number of FTOs who seem to have ringfenced the market astonishingly well

You can class pay to fly as someone who pays for line training, however it could be argued that a sneakier way of doing this blatant pay to fly can be hidden beneath an over-inflated course cost that a percentage can then hypothetically could be passed onto the airline.

Even further arguement could cover that any training cost even down to the initial PPL at a small grass field could also be "pay to fly" as the student is actually funding their own path into the industry

The answer is out there somewhere, but it is very clear to see, even though there is movement at present at BA, Virgin, Thomson, Thomas Cook, Jet 2, Norwegian, Easyjet and RYR that the current model in place although maybe safe in operation and good for profit for airlines and FTOs falls short in so many other areas.

Employment law changes, ever increasing focus on profit to the point of absurdness, a lack of cohesion from all union members across the board and to a minor extent people willing to pay to try to jump the queue are all reasons why the industry continues to degrade the career of the airline pilot.

Lobbying may work, but it all depends upon who has which fingers in which pies.

Three Lions

Agreed.

Sadly I doubt it, the various associations lobbying against the EASA FTL changes seemed to achieve very little....the "industry" has too much fire power...and money :oh:

Raise the bar
 

We bemoan an erosion in skill on the flight deck of automated aircraft. We bemoan an erosion in terms and conditions because of oversupply.

Where is the indignation at the laughably easy theoretical study? The multiple guess exams that aren't even negatively marked? Tens of thousands for type ratings that excessively summarise the requisite knowledge of the aircraft?

The knowledge requirements are clearly laid out and courses focus on passing exams. There's no in depth discussion on operational problems you'll face on a daily basis. There's no real impetus to impart lasting knowledge, just enough to pass the exams. An FTOs reputation is based purely on its ability to get bums on seats in a LoCo.

We cry foul that ATPL theoretical studies aren't treated as an equal to a degree; why should they be? Raise the bar. Inspect FTOs for quality. Ensure the FTOs set appropriate entry requirements to avoid fleecing those who will struggle, just as universities are required to do.

No one is perfect, we're all learning. Let's drive the knowledge base of the industry up and make the barriers to entry skill and knowledge based rather than financial.

John Smith,

Your post is valid for most if not all professions, theory is mostly not related to the actual practical performance.

The lack of understanding of young colleagues is stunning. And this is due to the astonishingly low requirements to pass the Theoretical ATPL nowadays.

we are reponsible for 400million$ aircraft, hundreds of lives and operating in a lethal environment near the speed of sound...for that YOU DO need to have in-depth knowledge of your environment, physics etc.

If you do not accept that, go drive a bus or train please, but stay out of our Profession where at least SOME want to see a better knowledge and professionality.:mad:

"We cry foul that ATPL theoretical studies aren't treated as an equal to a degree"

Wait, this baffles me; There are actually people out there that want to consider ATPL theory as a degree? As in, equal to 4 or 5 years of university level qualification? What a joke; high school graduate requirements are more stringent than the joke that is ATPL studies, and high school is just glorified daycare to keep our teens of the street while they figure out what they want out of life. ****'s sake, I'm still pissed off at having been forced to spend 3400€ and a mininum of 6 months (exl exam fees) on a sodding Distance Learning course, regardless of my background :mad:

@John_Smith

Why shouldn't we artificially raise the bar? Don't we have an oversupply? Is there anything wrong with being overqualified for the job? If anything, an educated pilot is worth more to the operator; They could potentially fulfill other roles in the company as well besides being the monkey in the cockpit. Pilots should be more qualified than the trolley dollies in the back, no offense. I do agree that airline flying is dull as dishwater and a monkey can do it, but that is a different topic.

So, you want to put FO's in the cockpit, unpaid for 4 to 8 years, however long it takes to upgrade, and then only pay them 35-45k€ (after taxes I hope). It is already almost unprofitable to become an airline pilot, considering the massive upfront investment pilots make on training and apparently some dimwits throw in another 30k for an overpriced TR. I agree we have a bit of a dichotomy between the previous generation, who didn't spend a fortune on training and is cashing in pretty well, and the current generation that starts with a debt (or at least out of money) and hopes to make it worthwhile in the end. I can't see anyone becoming a pilot if it becomes like any other job. Even if the airlines would sponsor your entire training, you have to be absolutely mental if you agree to go unpaid for 6 years (training + intern FO) for a pretty poor salary as a captain, and then take all the extra heartache for granted (ie hours, nights, schedules, bases). It simply isn't worth it; There is no future in that.

I flatout disagree that P2F or P2W or P4TR is not a safety issue. If you feel pressured to fly because you can't make ends meet, then that's an issue. If you have 0 authority and can get sacked for any reason, that's an issue. If you feel like can be replaced by literally thousands of other pilots that might be willing to do your job for less, then that is an issue. You need job security, fair remuneration, fair T&C. You will not find those with any employer engaged in any of the above.

@Redbull

Regarding the 150 000 - 200 0000€ debt; Let me give you an example. Back when I was first interested in flying I considered the KLM Flight Academy in Grongingen, the Netherlands. Back than (6 or 7 years ago) the full course fee was 117 500€. This did not include housing, exam fees, license fees, examiner fees, fuel surcharge (up to 9000€ by the time you were done) etc. The course takes approx 20 months on average. So, let's assume you spent about 140 000€ by the time you finished. The KLM FA had an agreement with ABN AMRO bank to provide students with a suitable loan up front, at 9.5% interest rate. If you had to borrow the full amount or close to, you would easily end up with 180 000€ or more in debt. The Netherlands are a pretty expensive country to do flight training in, other schools have similar prices or at least 90k€. It is not uncommon to have qualified 19 or 20 year olds with no prospects and a debt they can barely pay the interest for. It is quite sad and plenty of pilots and groups point the finger at FTO's that just pump out more and more students in a saturated market. In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't pass their selection process - I was a moron back then.

At 3:20 I heard 18 000 Eur/month. Very far away of all these slavery traders, like Volotea ,Ryanair,Wizzair,Enterair, Air Baltic,......etc.......etc.....:mad:

Now you know , why you have so many strikes in France.

I'll tell you where the system is also wrong.

Apart from the military or cadet ships, unless you are from a relatively well off family, you wont get a look in for an EASA licence, simple. So we've "weeded out" probably a lot of very suitable people right there. In my day the pick of the bunch were the "hard sloggers", with the drive and determination to press on in the event of failure for e.g., Who went the extra mile to pass the examinations etc. Who were given a crack at getting into the "big time" via the self improver route or a 150 hour approved course CPL, in some countries. This would allow them to get useful aviation related employment allowing them to upgrade themselves. This now seems to be out the window. What percentage of wannabes can afford an upfront fee of at least £60K for an EASA licence?? This is where the system has gone wrong. This is the reason, a lot of the wrong people are getting in, albeit some areas are worse than others.

At the beginning of the JAA the Germans wanted anyone eligible for a JAA licence to have an appropriate degree at university. What utter tosh! Fortunately the dear old UKCAA put their foot down and said as much.

Test flying of course is another completely different story.

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.